HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN for PIEDMONT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Southeast Region

Home , Lerodea eufala, Oligoria, Papilio palamedes, The Witness Tree

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PIEDMONT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Jones and Jasper Counties, Georgia

Southeast Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapters

1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Environmental Setting and Background 5 3.0 Resources of Concern 17 4.0 Habitat Management Goals and Objectives 27 5.0 Habitat Management Strategies 43 6.0 Literature Cited 65

Appendices

1.0 Species Lists 79 2.0 Process to Determine Resources of Concern 95 3.0 Forest Inventory 111 4.0 Silviculture and Hazardous Fuels 123 5.0 Silvicultural Prescriptions 143 6.0 Timber Sales Administration 145 7.0 Environmental Action Statement 183

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to provide specific direction and long- term management guidance for the refuge. An HMP is a step-down management plan of the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the direction of the refuge. The CCP for Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was finalized in 2010 (USFWS 2010). HMPs comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing the management of National Wildlife Refuge System. The lifespan of an HMP is 15 years and parallels that of the refuge CCP. HMPs are reviewed every 5 years utilizing peer review recommendations, as appropriate, in the HMP revision process or when initiating refuge CCPs.

1.1 Legal Mandates

The purposes shown here are based upon land acquisition documents and authorities. The unit purposes may also include purposes included as deed restrictions, management agreements with primary land managers and congressional established wilderness designations which were not part of the acquisition documents and authorities.

“... as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wildlife: ...” Executive Order 8037, dated Jan. 18, 1939

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

“... conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

From http://www.fws.gov/refuges/databases/

1.2 Relation to Other Plans

A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2005)

Supported by the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program, Georgia's CWCS (also known as the State Wildlife Action Plan) identifies the challenges facing Georgia's diverse wildlife species and devises strategies to conserve those "species with the greatest conservation need," and their habitats. Georgia ranks sixth in the nation in overall species diversity based on numbers of vascular plants, vertebrate animals, and selected invertebrates. The state currently has 223 species that are protected by state or federal laws and hundreds of additional animal and plant species in need of conservation. The CWCS is a guide to conserving the species of fish and wildlife that have immediate conservation needs or are key indicators of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife. The CWCS emphasizes a cooperative, proactive approach to conservation, inviting local governments, businesses, and

conservation-minded organizations and individuals to join in the task of maintaining the fish and wildlife resources

The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003)

The ultimate recovery goal is red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) viability. Once this goal is met, the size, number, and distribution of populations will be sufficient to counteract threats of demographic, environmental, genetic, and catastrophic stochastic events, thereby maintaining long-term viability for the species as defined by current understanding of these processes.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et. al. 2004)

The Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (hereafter Plan) provides a continental synthesis of priorities and objectives that will guide landbird conservation actions at national and international scales. The scope for this Plan is the 448 species of native landbirds that regularly breed in the U.S. and Canada. Fully 100 of these species warrant inclusion on the PIF Watch List, due to a combination of threats to their habitats, declining populations, small population sizes, or limited distributions. Of these, 28 species require immediate action to protect small remaining populations, and 44 more are in need of management to reverse long-term declines. This Plan also highlights the need for stewardship of the species and landscapes characteristic of each portion of the continent, identifying 158 species (including 66 on the Watch List) that are particularly representative of large avifaunal biomes, and whose needs should be considered in conservation planning. Taken together, the pool of Watch List and Stewardship Species represent the landbirds of greatest continental importance for conservation action. Although the recommended actions may vary from region to region, no area in North America is without a conservation need for landbirds.

NBCI – National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (National Bobwhite Technical Committee 2011)

The NBCI charged with meeting the conservation and management needs of the northern bobwhite quail and facilitate integration with other bird management plans. The goal is to restore bobwhites to the density they enjoyed during the baseline year 1980. Forest habitat objectives are to enhance habitats in pinelands and mixed pine-hardwood forests through silvicultural treatments such as thinning and prescribed burning.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee 2004)

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was developed and signed in 1986 in response to declining waterfowl populations. This plan lays out a strategy between the United States, Canadian and Mexican (after 1994) governments to restore wetlands. Recovery of these shared resources is implemented through habitat protection, restoration,

2 and enhancement through regionally-based self-directed partnerships known as joint ventures. The original plan was updated in 1994, 1998 and 2004.

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND

2.1 Location

Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge is 34,949 acres, in Jones (28,552 acres) and Jasper (6,397 acres) Counties, Georgia. Atlanta is approximately 60 miles to the northwest; Macon is approximately 20 miles to the south.

2.2 Management Units

The refuge is divided into 34 compartments of varying sizes. Compartment 1 is the smallest, at 486 acres; compartment 18 is the largest, at 1,975 acres.

2.3 Physical Elements

The refuge's topography is typical of the region, with open low hills interspersed with small streams. Twenty to 50 percent of the area is gently sloping; the majority of the slope is on uplands. Elevations range from 360 to 640 feet above sea level.

Major streams flow in a southwesterly direction. The northern portion of the refuge is drained by Little Falling Creek, Allison Creek, Caney Creek, Stalkinghead Creek, and Rocky Branch. These creeks drain into Falling Creek, which empties into the Ocmulgee River three miles from the refuge boundary. The refuge's southern portion is drained by Hurricane Creek and Butler’s Creek, which also empty into the Ocmulgee River. There are intermittent streams scattered throughout the refuge.

Soils directly influence the kind and amount of vegetation and the amount of water available; in this way they indirectly influence the kind of wildlife that can live in an area. The soils found on the refuge can be classified into three soil orders – ultisols, alfisols and inceptisols (Payne 1976). Within these orders are nine soil series. The series Davidson, Vance, Cecil and Gwinnett are found in the order ultisols. These soils are acidic and are characterized by an argillic or clay deposition horizon. Soils in the Davidson, Vance and Cecil series occupy 78 percent of the refuge. This series, along with soils in the series Vance and Cecil are found on interstream ridgetops and slopes (2 to 25 percent) adjacent to drainages. Most of these soils are classed as eroded; in some areas erosion has removed all or nearly the entire original surface layer. Soils in the Gwinnett series occur on steep slopes (15 to 35 percent) adjacent to drainages.

Two soil series in the order alfisols occur on the refuge – Enon and Wilkes. These soils are similar to the ultisols in that they have an agrillic horizon as the identifying horizon; however, alfisols have a higher pH than ultisols. Enon and Wilkes soils occur on the uplands and on slopes adjacent to drainages. They occupy 12 percent of the refuge.

Inceptisols are young soils with no distinct horizons. Within this order are found the soil series Chewacla, Starr, and Congaree. These soils are found along the stream bottoms. They occupy 10 percent of the refuge.

Various degrees of erosion are found on all these soils. On 20 percent of the area the topsoil is completely gone. An additional 70 percent retains only a thin layer of topsoil. Gullies are numerous throughout the forest.

2.4 Weather

The refuge is located near the geographical center of Georgia so it has a blend of maritime and continental climates. The area experiences all four seasons. Summers typically consist of long spells of warm and humid weather. Average afternoon high temperatures are in the upper 80s to around 90. Readings of 90 or higher can be expected on 30 to 60 days. Overnight lows usually range from the middle 60s to lower 70s. Temperatures during winter months are more variable. Stretches of mild weather alternate with cold spells. Winter high temperatures average in the

50s, while lows average in the 30s. Lows of 32 degrees or below can be expected on 50 to 70 days. Spring and autumn seasons are characterized by daily and annual variability. The average dates of first freeze in the autumn range from late October to mid-November. The average dates of last freeze in the spring range from mid-March to early April.

A measurable amount of rain falls on about 120 days each year, producing amounts averaging between 40 and 50 inches. The average annual total snowfall is one to two inches, usually occuring on just one or two days. The driest month is October and the wettest month is January. Thunderstorms are common in the spring and summer months. On a typical year, thunder will be heard on 50 to 60 days.

Table 2.1 Climatological normals for the years 1971-2000 from the National Weather Service station at the Macon, GA Airport (KMCN).

N O R M A L Month High Low Mean Rainfall Snowfall (°F) (°F) (°F) (inches) (inches) Jan 56.6 34.5 45.5 5.00 T Feb 61.0 37.1 49.0 4.72 T Mar 68.5 43.8 56.2 4.90 T Apr 75.9 49.5 62.7 3.14 0.0 May 83.4 58.6 71.0 2.98 0.0 Jun 89.5 66.6 78.0 3.54 0.0 Jul 91.8 70.5 81.1 4.32 0.0 Aug 90.5 69.5 80.0 3.79 0.0 Sep 85.4 63.7 74.5 3.26 0.0 Oct 76.8 51.1 63.9 2.37 0.0 Nov 67.8 42.5 55.1 3.22 0.0 Dec 59.2 36.3 47.8 3.93 T

Yearly Normals High (°F) Low (°F) Mean (°F) Total Rainfall Total Snowfall 75.5 52.0 63.7 45.17 T

2.5 Historic Condition

The typical impression of North America on the eve of European contact is that of a ‘pristine’ wilderness, unchanged by humans. This viewpoint implies the Native American was, ecologically speaking, invisible. The reality is quite different – the environment encountered by the earliest European explorers to North America was created by Native Americans.

When the 1539-1543 expedition of Hernando de Soto arrived in present-day middle Georgia, the landscape was home to more than a dozen largely distinct chiefdoms (Worth 1993). The members of this expedition were the first Europeans to see the chiefdoms of the Native Americans of the interior southeast in a largely pristine (i.e. unimpacted by Europeans) state (Worth 1994). At the same time, the landscape they witnessed was not pristine (i.e. unimpacted

8 by humans). The de Soto chroniclers described middle Georgia as an area teeming with people (Clayton et. al. 1993).

The large Native American population had a significant impact on the environment. Earthworks, fields and settlements were everywhere (Denevan 1992). Fire was the primary tool at the Native American’s disposal (Cowell 1998). Anthropogenic fire changed the “natural” fire regime, increasing the frequency of fire and varying the seasonality, which in turn modified the intensity, fire size and depth of burn (Buckner 1989, Pyne 2000, Williams 2000). The effect of this human-caused fire regime was to increase the extent of oak and pine, decrease the amount of hardwood midstory, increase the grass component and maintain open areas (Barden 1997, Hamel and Buckner 1998). Savannas, plains and fields were encountered all along de Soto’s route, from Florida to Louisiana (Rostlund 1957). The Native American, through their land use practices, was a keystone species, affecting the survival and abundance of many species.

Within only a few decades of contact, the chiefdoms began to collapse. James Edward Oglethorpe, writing 200 years after the de Soto expedition, described the effect of de Soto’s expedition on the Native Americans: “By the healthiness of this Climate, and some Accounts of Spanish Expeditions hither in early Times, which were vigorously repulsed by great Armies of the Natives, one would expect to find the Country by this Time fully peopled with Indians. It is indeed probable that they were much more numerous in those Days than at present, or else they could not have defended themselves against the Spaniards as they did. But if their numbers were formerly considerable they have since greatly decreased; and that might easily happen in a Century, even tho’ the Country be naturally fertile and healthy, for the Indians … have this Resemblance in common: They are … exceedingly apt to make War upon each other … Add to which … (they) must perish in Heaps if the Fruits of the Woods, or their Hunting should once fail them … Another great Cause of their Destruction was the Small-pox, the Europeans brought this Distemper among them …” (Blaine 1994). While there is much debate as to the exact figures, Native American population levels of the Southeast may have dropped by more than 90% within the first two centuries after contact (Worth 1993).

Due to this massive depopulation, the members of the de Soto expedition were also the last Europeans to witness the chiefdoms in a largely pristine state (Worth 1994). Greatly reducing the Native American population removed their keystone status, resulting in a significant shift in the composition of the ecological community. Since a large Native American population increased fire frequency, depopulation must have decreased fire frequency, beginning a reversal of the trend towards open canopy, fire-tolerant oaks and pines with prairies and savannas. By the time most historical records were being written in the18th century, the Native American-created environment of 1492 had largely vanished. Former fields and fire-maintained uplands were supporting communities that developed for decades or even centuries under completely different disturbance regimes than those of pre-European contact.

While 18th century historical records do not portray conditions prior to substantial human related changes to the landscape, they do represent conditions post European contact but pre European settlement. Accounts by James Edward Oglethorpe, a principle architect in establishing the colony of Georgia, describe the colony. An report written in 1739 describes the area between the mountains and the coast as, “covered mostly with woods; the banks of the rivers are in some

9 places low, and form a kind of natural meadows, where the floods prevent trees from growing. In other places, in hollows, between the hillocks, the brooks and streams being stopt by falls of trees, or other obstructions, the water is penn’d back: these places are often covered with canes and thickets, and are called in the corrupted American dialect, swamps. The sides of the hills are generally covered with oaks and hiccary, or wild walnuts, cedar, sassafras, and the famous laurel tulip, which is esteemed one of the most beautiful trees in the world: the flat tops of the hillocks are all covered with groves of pine trees, with plenty of grass growing under them; and free from underwood, that you may gallop a horse for forty or fifty miles on end. In the low grounds, and islands of the river, there are cypress, bay-trees, poplar, plane, frankincense, or gumtrees, and other aquaticks” (Blaine 1994).

William Bartram was America’s first native born naturalist and the first author in the modern genre of writers who portrayed nature through personal experience as well as scientific observation. In 1773 he described the major physiographic subdivisions of the area, with notes on the vegetation of each. He depicted the Piedmont west of Augusta as an “extensive nearly level plain of pine forests, mixed with various other forest trees … its vegetable productions nearly the same (as the red hills), excepting that the broken ridges by which we ascend to the plain are of a better soil; the vegetative mould is mixed with particles of clay and small gravel, and the soil of a dusky brown color, lying on a stratum of reddish brown tough clay. The trees and shrubs are, Pinus taeda, great black Oak, Quercus tinctoria, Q. rubra, Laurus, Sasafras, Magnolia grandiflora, Cornus Florida, Cercis, Halesia, Juglans acuminate, Juglans-exaltata, Andromeda arborea; and, by the sides of the rivulets (which wind about and between these hills and swamps, in the vales) Styrax latifolia, Ptelea trifoliate, Stewartia, Calycanthus, Chionanthus, Magnolia tripetala, Azalea, and others” (Harper 1998).

Benjamin Hawkins, a United States agent to the Creek Nation, traveled through north Georgia and to the Piedmont region of western Georgia and Eastern Alabama in late 1796 and early 1797. He described the Alabama Piedmont around the Tallapoosa river north of its confluence with the Coosa river (northeast of Montgomery, northwest of Columbus) as “The soil … gravelly, stoney and broken, the bottoms rich, the hills poor, the water abundant and salubrious, and every moist bottom covered with reed. The growth a mixture pine, oak, and some hickory, the trees small, some of them tall.” Old fields (i.e. abandoned farm fields) were common, and Native American mounds abounded. A few months later he described the lower Piedmont of west-central Georgia, in the area of present day Coweta County, using similar language: “the timber pine, oak, hickory, the soil stiff,” the drainages “stored with cane” (Hawkins 1916).

Georgia was settled between 1733 and 1832. Territorial expansion between 1733 and 1784 was without any logical scheme for land apportionment. The land law of 1784 required that plats be surveyed into rectangles and squares. Expansion of the frontier in 1805 was accompanied by a land lottery system. Eight times between 1805 and 1833 Georgia held lotteries to distribute land. Each new territory was subdivided into Districts, according to its own set of characteristics; that is, the size of the smallest unit within a District, a lot, depended on abstract qualities about the territory recognized only by those who knew it best. Surveyors recorded one witness tree at each lot corner, and two intervening line trees. Tree size was not measured. Trees were identified by common name, and certain taxa recognized only to genus, i.e. pine, hickory.

The original Baldwin County consisted of 20 districts. Districts one to five were part of the 1805 drawing; districts 6-20 were part of the 1807 drawing. Cowell (1995) investigated the districts which are in the current Baldwin, Putnam and Morgan Counties, in the Oconee river basin. The overall frequency of occurrence for the recorded trees was as follows:

Table 2.2 Frequency of Genus Species Occurrence Oak 50.1 Post 17.5 Red (several species) 10.5 Black (several species) 10.9 White 7.3 Spanish 2.7 Black Jack 1.1 Water 0.1 other oak 17.5 Pine 26.8 Hickory 10.1 Other 13.0

Subdividing the tree frequencies by topographic variables (slope, aspect and position) indicates a gradient between pine and oak based on moisture:

Table 2.3 Moist Sites ↔ Dry Sites Lower convex S-facing mid- Bottomlands, N facing lower slopes, E and slopes, E and Flat uplands, N facing lower slopes, mid- W facing mid- W facing upper convex slopes, coves slope, coves slopes upper slopes slopes Species Frequency of Occurrence Pine 9.5 22.0 24.9 29.9 33.1 Post Oak 7.4 15.1 17.0 20.4 19.5 Black Oak 6.1 10.3 11.2 11.0 12.2 Red Oak 5.6 8.9 11.0 11.3 11.4 Chestnut 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.2 2.4 Blackjack Oak 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.8 Southern Red Oak 1.8 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.8 Yellow Poplar 2.9 3.6 1.9 1.1 0.5 Hickory 13.2 11.6 10.4 9.6 8.7 White Oak 16.1 12.1 8.9 6.1 2.7 Dogwood 4.4 3.9 3.5 1.9 1.7 Black Gum 3.1 1.4 1.3 0.6 1.2 Sweetgum 2.8 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 Ash 4.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.1 All Others 21.8 4.7 3.5 2.5 1.6

Pine and post oak dominated uplands, upper slopes and south facing mid-slopes. They were more prevalent than other species on north, east and west facing mid-slopes, and east and west facing lower slopes. Pine was always more common than post oak. Red oak frequencies showed

11 a clearly increasing trend from lowland to upland. Black oak frequency was steady on all classes except lower slopes and riparian areas where it decreased. Hickory showed a slightly decreasing trend from lowland to upland. Other species, especially white oak and hickory, were most common in riparian areas and in coves.

2.6 Current Condition

The forest types are described using the following designations for forest type, canopy closure and size class:

P – Pine (≥50% of the stocking is pine) Size Class: 1 – Average DBH < 5.5" 2 – Average DBH ≥5.5 ≤ 9.0" 3 – Average DBH ≥ 10.0" Canopy Closure: A – >70% canopy closure B – ≤70 – 40% canopy closure C – ≤40% canopy closure UH – Upland Hardwoods (≥50% of the stocking is upland hardwoods) BH – Bottomland Hardwoods (≥50% of the stocking is bottomland hardwoods)

Current conditions are as follows:

Total – 34,949 acres Forest – 34,506 (99% of refuge total) Pine – 25,519 (74% of forested total) P3 – 19,507 A – 4 B – 18,647 C – 856 P2 – 3,887 P1 – 2,125 Hardwoods – 8,987 (26% of forested total) UH – 5,504 BH – 3,483 Non-forest – 441 (1% of refuge total) Openings – 323 Ponds – 118

Table 2.4 shows current forest conditions by compartment.

Table 2.4. total total total P1 P2 P3A P3B P3C UH BH Openings Ponds pine hwd acres Compartment ------acres* ------1 3 142 144 289 173 24 197 486 2 107 97 713 917 47 245 292 21 46 1,276 3 167 180 688 1,035 43 98 141 3 1,179 4 24 203 849 1,076 89 27 116 1 1,193 5 639 639 326 194 520 3 1,162 6 121 43 4 522 133 823 138 221 359 32 6 1,220 7 13 37 225 152 427 99 129 228 15 2 672 8 57 32 573 662 141 111 252 4 918 9 33 32 454 253 772 177 256 433 1 5 1,211 10 34 147 646 827 195 175 370 9 1,206 11 153 275 264 692 233 123 356 6 11 1,065 12 33 185 348 566 315 95 410 4 980 13 173 374 547 140 95 235 10 792 14 107 170 488 765 94 195 289 25 27 1,106 15 75 76 820 971 222 127 349 15 1,335 16 41 114 554 709 103 121 224 6 939 17 107 102 689 898 116 102 218 5 1,121 18 110 404 1,081 1,595 193 177 370 10 1,975 19 91 10 625 726 188 39 227 11 3 967 20 132 25 394 551 68 19 87 638 21 263 55 877 1,195 90 93 243 61 8 1,507 22 116 98 550 764 228 15 243 13 4 1,024 23 13 68 631 712 154 49 203 915 24 54 45 684 783 11 86 97 1 881 25 26 181 486 55 748 150 99 249 13 3 1,013 26 47 198 496 741 125 35 160 10 911 27 46 229 493 768 210 63 273 1,041 28 18 336 354 271 45 316 10 680 29 112 204 845 1,161 244 55 299 20 1,480 30 15 64 363 442 59 49 108 1 551 31 13 139 371 523 171 43 214 1 738 32 43 133 674 850 140 108 248 9 1,107 33 74 162 545 781 240 58 298 4 3 1,086 34 47 3 407 457 68 51 119 576 * there may be rounding errors in this acreage summation

2.7 Changes from Historic Condition to Current Condition

Settlement and land conversion dramatically changed the landscape. Within 50 years of European settlement, the southern Piedmont was converted from forests and savannahs to farms. At first the farms were smaller subsistence farms, but within 20 years of settlement, cotton as a cash crop took over. Contour plowing and crop rotation were not practiced, and serious erosion set in. Nearly all the topsoil was lost from the uplands, and fertility was lost (Brender 1974). As a result of deposition from the uplands, the bottomlands were also degraded. This degradation occurred throughout the southern Piedmont physiographic region.

Erosion on the Georgia Piedmont, on what is now Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge

The degraded nature of the landscape significantly influences the management potential of the forest. Erosion has removed all or nearly the entire original surface layer in many areas of the refuge. Numerous shallow and some deep gullies are present. The hazard of further erosion is severe unless the surface is protected. Approximately 67% of the refuges soils are loblolly pine site index 70 (base age 50); white oak equivalent site index is 60, the red oaks 50. Another 21% are loblolly site index 80; white and red oak equivalent site index is between 65 and 70 (Nelson and Beaufait 1956). Red and white oak sites east of the Mississippi river are considered poor if the site index is less than 65, medium if the site index is between 65 and 80 (Francis 1980). Generally speaking refuge soils are better suited to pines than hardwoods.

The narrative about Historic Conditions, Current Conditions, and Changes from Historic Condition to Current Condition indicates several important points useful in guiding future management:

 The notion that some ‘natural’ forest condition existed prior to 1492, in the sense of the broad landscape being composed of climax forest associations that formed independent of human influence, is an illusion.  From supporting the hunters/gatherers family units to organized communities, on through depopulation and European colonization, human influence shaped the pre-Columbian, historical, and current forest conditions. No specific time in the past can be said to represent the true ‘original’ condition of the southern forest; human activity has shaped the forest for millennia.  Attempting to devise desired future conditions and management practices that recapture landscape conditions at some pre-Columbian point in time is both unrealistic and undesirable.  A more rational approach is to determine desired future conditions based on ecological and societal values rather than some ideal past condition that is currently unattainable.  Fire is the most important component of historic conditions to apply to current conditions to achieve desired future conditions.

2.8 Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change

Global climate has always fluctuated; however, it appears that human activity is increasing the rate of change (Malmsheimer et. al. 2008). Managing forests for endangered species, biological diversity, and other goals requires a solid understanding of the relationships between soils, topography, and climate (Skinner 2007). Forest managers commonly use historical conditions – 14 usually those occurring prior to European settlement – to plan for sustainability and integrity (Millar et. al. 2007). Continued attempts to plan and manage using historic climate conditions as guidance, given future climate change, is an ill-advised endeavor. A better approach is to manage for resistance – the ability to maintain equilibrium in the face of disturbance, i.e. resist change – and resilience – the ability to recover from change. Forest management practices likely to increase resistance and resilience include (Noss 2001):

 Representative ecosystem types across environmental gradients – ecological classification (identifying species-site units with well-defined similarity) is one approach to identify representative ecosystems.  Protect climatic refugia at multiple scales – refugia are areas that resist ecological change occurring elsewhere, providing suitable habitat for remnant populations. The refuge may be able to protect species at small scales; for example, those that utilize rock outcrops, mesic north facing slopes, etc.  Protect old growth forests – large patches of old trees can moderate the effects of rapid change. There are no old growth forests on the refuge, but the forest can be managed for long rotations.  Avoid fragmentation and provide connectivity – large blocks of forest and corridors between forest patches should facilitate species migration.  Provide buffer zones – this difficult to implement strategy involves coordinating management between the refuge and surrounding lands.  Practice low intensity forestry and prevent conversion to plantations – plantations are not part of the management practices on the refuge.  Maintain natural fire regimes – climate change discussions often suggest fire suppression to reduce emissions. The threat to biodiversity caused by suppression far outweighs any short term advantages to emissions reduction. Indeed, many of the most endangered ecosystems have declined because of fire suppression.  Maintain diverse gene pools  Identify and Protect Functional Groups and Keystone Species – keystone species are those that play a critical role in ecosystem functioning. Efforts should be made to identify these species and maintain their natural patterns of abundance and distribution.

Ecologically sound forestry during a time of rapid change is not dramatically different than that during a time of stable conditions. More emphasis, however, should be placed on protecting climatic refugia and providing connectivity (Noss 2001).

Implementing these strategies in the face of uncertainty (the only certainty is variability in this scenario) requires flexibility, periodic assessment, and a willingness to change actions as conditions change (Millar et. al. 2007). The lessons learned approach to organizational learning in the wildland fire community is an ideal way to learn from past actions in order to modify future actions based on new knowledge.

3.0 RESOURCES OF CONCERN

3.1 Identification of Resources of Concern

Resources of concern for Piedmont NWR were selected after taking into account the conservation needs identified in refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts of congress. The entire process used to determine refuge resources of concern is detailed in appendix 2.

Wildlife resources of concern and their habitats:

1. Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine a. Red-cockaded woodpecker b. Bachman’s sparrow c. Brown-headed nuthatch d. Northern bobwhite quail e. Prairie warbler f. Red-headed woodpecker 2. Oak/Hickory a. Wood thrush b. Kentucky warbler 3. Oak/Pine a. Wood thrush b. Kentucky warbler

Habitat resources of concern and associated wildlife

4. Oak/Gum/Cypress 5. Unique/Rare Habitats a. Beaver ponds, freshwater marsh i. Four-toed salamander b. Canebrakes i. Swainson’s warbler c. Rock outcrops d. Springs and Spring Runs i. Four-toed salamander e. Streams i. Altamaha shiner ii. Goldstripe darter

3.2 Resources of Concern and Habitat Requirements

The entire refuge is in the southern Appalachian Piedmont section of the southern mixed forest province (McNab and Avers 1994). It consists of irregular plains, plains with high hills, open low hills, and tablelands of moderate relief. Soils are generally deep, with a clayey or loamy subsoil. In many areas soils are severely eroded as a result of past agricultural practices.

Kuchler (1964) mapped the potential natural vegetation of this area as oak-hickory-pine forest – a state high priority habitat that is a combination of the loblolly/shortleaf pine, oak/hickory, and oak/pine ecosystems – with small amounts of southern mixed forest. There are scattered remnants of old growth oak/pine in the region. The disturbance regime in these patches is dominated by gap dynamics (White and Lloyd 1998). The structure and dynamics of these remnants are not historical; they are a product of European settlement. The historical oak/pine ecosystem was driven by fire dynamics (Cowell 1998). While many components of this historical ecosystem exist, functionally it is gone. Some of its characteristics, however, can be recovered (White and Lloyd 1995).

Mature loblolly/shortleaf, upland hardwoods (i.e. post oak-blackjack oak, white oak-black oak- northern red oak, white oak and yellow poplar-white oak-northern red oak) and bottomland hardwoods (i.e. swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak, sweetgum-willow oak and overcup oak- water hickory) were identified by the state as especially important for the support of priority bird species.

Forest ecosystem descriptions are from Garrison et al. (1977) and forest cover type descriptions are from Eyre (1980). Habitat requirements are from DeGraaf et al. (1991), Hamel (1992) and Martin et al. (1951).

3.2.1 Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine

Forests in which 50 percent or more of the stand is loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, or other southern yellow pines, singly or in combination. Common associates include oak, hickory, sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, and winged elm. The main grasses are bluestems, panicums, and longleaf uniola. Dogwood, viburnum, haw, blueberry, American beautyberry, yaupon, and numerous woody vines are common. Typical stand structures at different ages for unmanaged stands shown in table 3.1.

The fauna varies with the age and stocking of the stand, the percentage of deciduous trees, and the proximity to openings, bottom-land forest types, etc. The white-tailed deer is widespread, as is the cottontail. When deciduous trees are present, the fox squirrel is common on uplands. Gray squirrels are found along intersecting drainages. Raccoon and fox are found throughout the ecosystem.

The eastern wild turkey, northern bobwhite, and mourning dove are widespread. In mature forests, the density of breeding birds is about 240 pairs per 100 acres. Of the 20 odd species present, the most common include the pine warbler, cardinal, summer tanager, Carolina wren, ruby throated hummingbird, blue jay, hooded warbler, eastern towhee, and tufted titmouse. The red-cockaded woodpecker is an endangered species.

Forest cover types in this ecosystem include shortleaf pine (SAF 75), loblolly pine (SAF 81) and loblolly-shortleaf pine (SAF 80).

SAF 75 – Shortleaf pine provides the majority of the stocking. The type is seldom pure. Common associates include loblolly and longleaf pines, as well as post, white, black, scarlet, southern red and blackjack oaks; blackgum, sweetgum, winged elm, sourwood, and mockernut and pignut hickories. This type is rare on the Piedmont due to littleleaf disease, a serious shortleaf pine root disease in the Georgia Piedmont (Ward and Mistretta 2002).

Table 3.1 Loblolly Pine Shortleaf Pine BA BA Quadratic Periodic Quadratic Periodic Basal Mean Annual Trees Basal Mean Annual Age Trees Area per Diameter Increment per Area per Diameter Increment (years) per Acre Acre (ft2) (inches) (5 years) Acre Acre (ft2) (inches) (5 years) 15 580 74 4.8 200 15 3.7 20 632 107 5.6 6.6 530 79 5.2 12.8 25 572 128 6.4 4.2 920 121 4.9 8.4 30 518 140 7.0 2.4 955 149 5.3 5.6 35 468 147 7.6 1.4 805 161 6.1 2.4 40 424 151 8.1 0.8 680 163 6.6 0.4 45 384 154 8.6 0.6 575 164 7.2 0.2 50 347 157 9.1 0.6 505 164 7.7 0.0 55 314 159 9.6 0.4 450 165 8.2 0.2 60 284 161 10.2 0.4 410 165 8.6 0.0 65 257 162 10.7 0.2 375 165 9.0 0.0 70 233 163 11.3 0.2 345 165 9.4 0.0 75 210 164 12.0 0.2 320 165 9.7 0.0 80 190 165 12.6 0.2 300 165 10.0 0.0 85 172 165 13.2 0.0 280 166 10.4 0.2 90 156 166 14.0 0.2 265 166 10.7 0.0 95 141 166 14.7 0.0 250 166 11.0 0.0 100 128 167 15.5 0.2 230 166 11.5 0.0 (adapted from USDA Forest Service 1929)

SAF 81 – Loblolly pine occurs in either pure stands or mixtures in which the species makes up the majority of the stocking. On well drained sites shortleaf and longleaf pines, southern red, white, post and blackjack oaks, hickories, sassafras and persimmon are common associates. On moderately to poorly drained sites red maple, blackgum, willow, water and cherrybark oaks, and yellow poplar are common. Sweetgum is a common associate on all sites.

SAF 80 – Loblolly and shortleaf comprise a majority of the stocking. Loblolly is usually dominate expect on drier sites and at higher elevations. Common associates include those for SAF 75 and SAF 81.

3.2.1.1 Red-cockaded Woodpecker

 General Habitat: endemic to southern pine ecosystems; prefers longleaf, but also uses loblolly, shortleaf and slash pines. Prefers mature (>60 years) forests, but will use younger forests with groups of mature trees present.  Key Habitat Requirement: mature, fire-maintained open pinewoods with heart rot for nesting.

 Food: ants, wood-boring beetle larvae, grasshoppers, crickets, termites, roach egg cases. Will eat pine seed in the winter months.

3.2.1.2 Bachman’s Sparrow

 General Habitat: overgrown fields with scattered saplings, open woods with thick grass.  Key Habitat Requirement: dense grassy with scattered shrubs or small trees.  Food: beetles, grasshoppers, spiders, caterpillars in summer; seeds (panic grass, Paspalum) in winter.

3.2.1.3 Brown-headed Nuthatch

 General Habitat: mature, open pine or pine-hardwood woodlands, particularly burn over areas. Not common in dense stands.  Key Habitat Requirement: dead trees or stumps for nests.  Food: ants, caterpillars, scale insects and other invertebrates that occur on tree trunks and twigs. Pine mast makes up a significant portion of the diet, especially in winter.

3.2.1.4 Northern Bobwhite Quail

 General Habitat: open pasture with abundant weedy growth, abandoned agricultural fields with hedgerows, open woods (usually pines).  Key Habitat Requirement: thickets with herbs, shrubs and saplings.  Food: beetles make up nearly ½ of the animal food. Grasshopper, crickets, caterpillars and others are also important. Lespedeza, beggarweed, oak, partridge pea, cow pea and ragweed are key seeds.

3.2.1.5 Prairie Warbler

 General Habitat: abandoned brushy fields, cut-over or burned-over woods, open woods of many types, especially pine woods.  Key Habitat Requirement: saplings and shrubs, tends to favor pines.  Food: insects and other invertebrates gleaned from leaves, branches and the ground.

3.2.1.6 Red-headed Woodpecker

 General Habitat: open woods with low stem density.  Key Habitat Requirement: dead and dying trees for nesting.  Food: feeds extensively on beetles, ants, grasshoppers and caterpillars. Acorns are an important fall and winter food.

3.2.2 Oak/Hickory

The ecosystem varies from open to closed woods with a strong to weak understory of shrubs, vines, and herbaceous plants. By definition, oak and hickory must make up 50 percent of the

20 stand, singly or in combination. Sweetgum and red cedar are close associates. Maple, elm, yellow-poplar, and black walnut often are close associates. The major shrubs are blueberry, viburnum, dogwood, rhododendron, and sumac. The major vines are woodbine, grape, poison ivy, greenbrier, and blackberry. Important herbaceous plants are sedge, panicum, bluestem, lespedeza, tick clover, goldenrod, pussytoes, and aster; many more are abundant locally. Typical stand structures at different ages for unmanaged stands are:

Table 3.2 Upland Oaks BA Quadratic Periodic Basal Mean Annual Age Trees Area per Diameter Increment (years) per Acre Acre (ft2) (inches) (5 years) 15 153 15 4.3 20 330 38 4.6 4.5 25 453 63 5.0 5.1 30 453 78 5.6 2.9 35 416 86 6.2 1.7 40 370 92 6.8 1.2 45 344 97 7.2 1.0 50 322 102 7.6 1.0 55 300 106 8.1 0.9 60 279 111 8.5 0.9 65 258 115 9.0 0.8 70 240 119 9.5 0.8 75 227 123 10.0 0.8 80 218 127 10.3 0.8 85 210 131 10.7 0.8 90 203 136 11.1 0.8 95 196 139 11.4 0.8 100 190 143 11.8 0.8 105 181 146 12.2 0.7 110 175 149 12.5 0.6 115 169 152 12.9 0.6 120 164 155 13.2 0.5 125 159 157 13.5 0.5 130 154 160 13.8 0.5 135 150 162 14.1 0.5 140 146 164 14.4 0.5 145 142 166 14.7 0.4 150 138 169 14.9 0.4 (adapted from Schnur 1937)

The fauna of the oak-hickory ecosystem is similar to that of other eastern hardwood and hardwood-conifer areas and varies somewhat from north to south. Important animals include the white-tailed deer, black bear, bobcat, gray fox, raccoon, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, eastern chipmunk, white-footed mouse, pine vole, short-tailed shrew, and cotton mouse. Bird populations are large. The turkey, bobwhite and mourning dove are game birds in various parts of the ecosystem. Breeding bird populations average about 225 pairs per 100 acres and include some 24 or 25 species. The most abundant breeding birds include the cardinal, tufted titmouse,

21 wood thrush, summer tanager, red-eyed vireo, blue-gray gnatcatcher, hooded warbler, and Carolina wren. The box turtle, common garter snake, and timber rattlesnake are characteristic reptiles.

Forest cover types in ecosystem include post oak-blackjack oak (SAF 40), white oak-black oak- northern red oak (SAF 52), white oak (SAF 53) and yellow poplar-white oak-northern red oak (SAF 59).

SAF 40 – Post and blackjack oaks comprise the majority of the stocking. Associate species include pignut and mockernut hickories and black and scarlet oaks.

SAF 52 – White, black and northern red oak together provide a majority of the stocking. Other oaks include scarlet, southern red, chinkapin, post and blackjack. Bitternut, mockernut, pignut and/or shagbark hickories are almost always present as a minor component.

SAF 53 – White oak is pure. Associates that may comprise up to 20 percent of the stocking include northern red, black and post oaks, mockernut, pignut and bitternut hickories, blackgum, yellow poplar, white ash and maple.

SAF 59 – Yellow poplar, white and northern red oaks comprise a majority of the stocking. This type usually occurs on mesic sites and includes a large number of mesic site species.

3.2.2.1 Wood Thrush

 General Habitat: hardwood or mixed pine/hardwood forests with a well developed understory, particularly where moist.  Key Habitat Requirement: tall overstory trees, understory of deciduous shrubs and saplings.  Food: beetles, ants, caterpillars, spiders and grasshoppers, mostly from the ground, but will forage in shrubs and low trees.

3.2.2.2 Kentucky Warbler

 General Habitat: favors moist or shady hardwood forests.  Key Habitat Requirement: a rich understory of hardwoods is essential.  Food: spiders and insects from the ground, occasionally foraging on low shrubs.

3.2.3 Oak/Pine

Fifty percent or more of the stand is hardwoods, usually upland oaks, but in which southern pines, mainly shortleaf pine, make up 25–49 percent of the stand. Common associates include sweetgum, hickory, and yellow-poplar. Typical stand structures at different ages for unmanaged stands are:

Table 3.3 Oak-Pine BA Quadratic Periodic Basal Mean Annual Age Trees Area per Diameter Increment (years) per Acre Acre (ft2) (inches) (5 years) 15 124 38 7.5 20 154 52 7.9 2.8 25 180 63 8.0 2.1 30 202 71 8.1 1.7 35 219 79 8.1 1.5 40 232 85 8.2 1.3 45 241 91 8.3 1.1 50 246 96 8.4 1.0 55 247 100 8.6 0.9 60 243 105 8.9 0.8 65 236 108 9.2 0.8 70 224 112 9.6 0.7 75 207 115 10.1 0.7 80 187 118 10.8 0.6 85 162 121 11.7 0.6 90 134 124 13.0 0.5 95 101 127 15.2 0.5 100 63 129 19.3 0.5 (adapted from McClure and Knight 1984)

The fauna is similar to that of the adjacent oak-hickory ecosystem. Animals include the white- tailed deer, fox squirrel, and cottontail, and birds include the mourning dove, bobwhite, and turkey. Many small mammals are present, and the avian fauna is quite varied.

Forest cover types in this ecosystem include shortleaf pine-oak (SAF 76) and loblolly pine- hardwood (SAF 82).

SAF 76 – Shortleaf pine and one or more oak species dominate the stocking. The oak species that occur depends more on the soil and topography than on geography. On drier sites the oaks tend to be post, southern red, scarlet and blackjack oaks. On more fertile sites they are white, southern red and black oaks. Blackgum, winged elm, maples and hickories are also associates.

SAF 82 – Loblolly is not dominate but comprises 25 percent of the stocking. Component hardwoods reflect the range of moisture regimes on which the type is found.

3.2.3.1 Wood Thrush

3.2.3.2 Kentucky Warbler

3.2.4 Oak/Gum/Cypress

This ecosystem varies considerably, but the dominants are of tree life form. It is made up of bottomland forests in which 50 percent or more of the stand is tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oak, and bald cypress, singly or in combination. Common associates include willow, maple, sycamore, cottonwood, and beech. Most species are broadleaved deciduous trees. Typical stand structures at different ages for unmanaged stands are:

Table 3.4 Oak-Gum-Cypress BA Quadratic Periodic Basal Mean Annual Age Trees Area per Diameter Increment (years) per Acre Acre (ft2) (inches) (5 years) 15 128 33 6.8 20 165 59 8.1 5.2 25 193 79 8.7 4.1 30 217 96 9.0 3.3 35 236 110 9.2 2.8 40 254 122 9.4 2.4 45 269 133 9.5 2.1 50 282 142 9.6 1.9 55 294 151 9.7 1.7 60 306 159 9.8 1.6 65 316 166 9.8 1.5 70 325 173 9.9 1.3 75 334 179 9.9 1.3 80 342 185 9.9 1.2 85 350 190 10.0 1.1 90 358 196 10.0 1.0 95 364 200 10.0 1.0 100 371 205 10.1 0.9 (adapted from McClure and Knight 1984)

This ecosystem is the most fertile and productive of southern habitats for wildlife. In times past, large animals, such as the deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, and wolf, inhabited the forest. Presently, the white-tailed deer is common in most areas. Other mammals include the gray fox, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, raccoon, opossum, striped skunk, eastern cottontail, swamp rabbit, and many small rodents and shrews. Birds include wild turkeys and, in the flooded areas, cormorants, herons, egrets, and kingfishers.

The term ‘bottomland forests’ refers to forests found on floodplain sites. Different forest cover types have different nutrition and moisture requirements. Small elevation changes (1-3 feet) have a big effect on species composition.

(image from Rousseau 2004)

 Bar – formed when the concave section of a stream bank erodes and the sediment is deposited downstream on an opposite convex area of the stream.  Front – natural levees that form when streams overflow their banks and quickly deposit sediment.  Flat – a broad, smooth area between two ridges or between a ridge and a front. Variations classified as “high flats” and “low flats” are based on drainage patterns.  Slough – shallow depressions formed from old stream channels that have nearly filled with sediment.  Ridge – old fronts. While these areas could vary in elevation from 2 to 15 feet above flats, an elevation of 2 or 3 feet is more common.  Swamp – also old stream channels, but the channel is deeper.

Forest cover types in this ecosystem include swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak (SAF 91), sweetgum-willow oak (SAF 92) and overcup oak-water hickory (SAF 96).

SAF 91 – Swamp chestnut and cherrybark usually constitute a majority of the stocking, but when many species are in mixture they may only form a plurality. Associates include ashes, hickories, white oak and black gum. Minor associates include water oak, American elm, winged elm, water hickory, yellow-poplar, beech and loblolly pine. If the pine stocking is from 25 to 49% this is a cover type under the oak/pine ecosystem, not oak/gum/cypress. This type is usually occurs on ridges, although it may occur on fronts.

SAF 92 – Sweetgum and willow oak comprise a plurality of the stocking, although in the Piedmont, water oak is a strongly represented associate and frequently surpasses willow oak. Sweetgum, green ash, sugarberry and American elm are major associates. Minor associates are overcup oak, water hickory, red maple, honeylocust and persimmon. This type occurs on first bottom ridges and high flats.

SAF 96 – Overcup oak and water hickory make up a majority of the stocking. Water and willow oaks, green ash, red maple and sugarberry are common associates. The type occurs on low flats and sloughs.

Bottomland hardwoods are a threatened forest ecosystem, with a 70-84% decline (Noss et al. 1995).

3.2.4 Unique and Rare Habitats

Unique and rare habitats are, by definition, not common on the refuge. The point in considering these habitats is not that the refuge can contribute large acres of habitat or high numbers of associated wildlife species. Instead, by protecting the few acres that occur, the refuge can provide refugia for isolated species with specific habitat requirements. This is especially important in times of climatic change. Unique and rare habitats include beaver ponds and freshwater marshes, canebrakes (a critically endangered ecosystem with a >98% decline – Noss et al. 1995), rock outcrops, springs and spring runs, and streams. Streams include species such as the Altamaha shiner and goldstripe darter, while marshes and springs include the four-toed salamander.

4.0 HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4.1. CCP Goal 1: Manage, enhance, and restore healthy and viable populations of migratory birds, native wildlife, and fish, including all federal and state threatened and endangered species found on the refuge.

4.1.1. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP manage 18,432* acres (of the 20,798 desired loblolly/shortleaf pine acres) of good quality habitat for the endangered RCW and associated species of concern – see figure 1. Good quality habitat is defined as: 1) 18 or more pines/acre ≥ 14” DBH; minimum 20ft2 basal area/acre, 2) 0-40ft2 basal area/acre pines 10-14” DBH, 3) basal area of pines < 10” DBH below 10ft2 and 20 stems/acre, 3) maintain a basal area of all pines  10” DBH of at least 40ft2/acre, 4) no hardwood midstory exists, or is sparse, and 5) Canopy hardwoods < 30% of the trees per acre.

Acres by compartment are as follows:

Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres 1 0 10 707 19 553 28 283 2 757 11 638 20 180 29 732 3 823 12 644 21 774 30 431 4 682 13 463 22 684 31 385 5 648 14 611 23 413 32 368 6 867 15 674 24 412 33 502 7 407 16 560 25 412 34 244 8 531 17 504 26 398 9 649 18 964 27 532

*This is the amount of desired pine acres currently in prescribed fire management. This number should not decrease. It may increase, however, if the remaining 2,366 pine acres can be brought into fire management.

Supports CCP objectives 1.2 and 2.2.

Resources of Concern: red-cockaded woodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow, brown-headed nuthatch, northern bobwhite quail, prairie warbler, red-headed woodpecker.

Rationale: The ecological potential for 20,798 acres of the refuge is the loblolly/shortleaf ecosystem – see appendix 2. The reason 2,366 acres are not in burn units is operational; i.e. property lines, terrain, creeks, and other such considerations make it extremely difficult to bring the entire desired pine acreage into burn rotation.

The CCP sets an acreage objective of 22,500 acres (CCP objective 2.2, page 64). This, however, is based on current conditions, not desired future conditions. This HMP modifies the acreage objective to be in line with the ecological potential of the refuge.

These density variables are measures of good quality red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat that come from the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan.

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Acres loblolly/shortleaf pine . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Pine and hardwood basal area by size class . Compartment forest inventory . Pine and hardwood trees per acre by size class 1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods . RCW population growth and reproductive . Annual RCW population status and reproductive fitness fitness monitoring . Northern bobwhite quail population trend . Annual quail whistling call count . Bachman’s sparrow population trend . Annual Bachman’s sparrow call count and playback survey

4.1.2. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP increase the number of active red-cockaded woodpecker clusters by an average annual rate of 3 to 5%, working toward a goal of 62 to 70 active clusters.

Supports CCP objective 1.2.

Resources of Concern: red-cockaded woodpecker.

Rationale: The RCW Recovery Plan indicates a desire for populations to increase at a rate of 5% per year (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003), an exponential growth model that assumes unconstrained growth. This may be realistic, at least for a short period of time, when there are sufficient resources and no competition. No population, however, can grow unrestricted indefinitely; instead, growth usually slows down as the population increases and resources become limited. Modeling this type of growth using a logistic equation slows the growth rate as the population approaches carrying capacity (Johnson 1996). The current (2012) number of active clusters is 53; the 30 year average annual growth rate is 2.68%. Assuming the refuge’s recovery goal (96 clusters) is carrying capacity, and using an annual average growth rate of 2.68 to 5% per year, the refuge should have from 62 to 70 active clusters in 2027.

While consistently increasing at a rate of 5% is desirable, Piedmont’s population achieved a five year average annual growth rate of 5% or greater only 5 out of the past 30 years. These five years are associated with management actions – recruitment sites, prescribed fire and timber harvesting. Although these actions do help increase the population growth rate, it must be kept in mind that the refuge is dominated by loblolly/shortleaf, which has higher hardwood stocking than longleaf/slash pine sites, even when managed for the RCW. This higher stocking leads to increased nest parasitism and cavity competition (Lennartz and Heckel 1987). RCWs in Piedmont loblolly/shortleaf invest more energy – 22% more eggs and 9% more chicks per pair – than those in Coastal Plain longleaf/slash to realize similar reproductive output. While reducing hardwood stocking is a way to increase reproductive output, it is unwise to attempt to create a longleaf/slash pine structure on loblolly/shortleaf pine sites. Loblolly pine occurs on a wide assortment of sites, mixed with many different species, in numerous different forest cover types (Baker and Balmer 1983, Burns and Honkala 1990, Schultz 1997, Wahlenberg 1960). This is the ecological potential where loblolly/shortleaf occurs – forests of highly variable structure, including hardwood stocking. Historically the red-cockaded woodpecker occurred on these sites

29 outside the range of longleaf pine (Jackson 1994). It is likely these sites always had a lower carrying capacity as compared to longleaf/slash on the Coastal Plain.

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

4.2. CCP Goal 2: Manage, enhance, and restore suitable habitat for the conservation of migratory birds, native wildlife, fish, and plants, including all federal and state threatened and endangered species endemic to the refuge.

4.2.1. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP regenerate an average of 1 to 2 percent of the desired loblolly/shortleaf pine acreage in burn units annually.

Supports CCP objectives 2.2 and 2.3.

Resources of Concern: red-cockaded woodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow, brown-headed nuthatch, northern bobwhite quail, prairie warbler, red-headed woodpecker.

Rationale: The red-cockaded woodpecker requires large, old pines for nest habitat. These are provided in areas managed using even-aged management by lengthening the rotation – 100 years in the case of loblolly pine (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). There is a drawback to this: lengthening rotations without guidance for regulating the age distribution results in dramatic oscillations in nesting habitat availability (Seagle et al. 1987). Area regulation is an approach to controlling the amount of forest harvested based on stocked area. Stocking is an indication of growing space occupancy relative to a pre-established standard (Helms 1998). In this case the standard is good quality foraging habitat. The goal of regulation is to provide a sustainable, constant amount of the desired forest resource (Roach 1974). Again, that resource is good quality foraging habitat.

Pine stands on the refuge are described using the following designations (section 2.6):

 P1 = DBH < 5.5 inches = 0 – 25 years old = regeneration  P2 = DBH ≥ 5.5 inches ≤ 9.0 inches = 25 – 50 years old = pole size mid-successional  P3 = DBH  10.0 inches = 50 – 100 years old = late successional to mature

The underlying assumption to these designations is that a seedling takes 25 years to grow to a pole-sized tree, and a new pole-sized tree takes 25 years to grow to a mature tree. Loblolly pine is managed on a minimum of a 100 year rotation (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003), so the

30 mature tree is available for RCW use for 50 years*. The process starts over at that time. A forest is ‘balanced’ when the area in each age and/or size class is represented in equal proportion and consistently grown to provide a continual and approximately equal amount of outputs indefinitely. To provide a sustained flow of RCW habitat requires that each age and/or size class, from year one to rotation age, be equally represented in the areas managed for RCWs. To sustainably maintain 18,432 acres of pine forest requires the following distribution:

 25% or 4,608 acres in regeneration  25% or 4,608 acres in pole sized trees  50% or 9,216 acres in mature trees

Eight percent of the current pine acreage is regeneration, fifteen percent pole sized trees, and 77% in mature trees (see section 2.6). The current distribution is unsustainable. There are too many acres in the mature size/age class, and insufficient acreage in the regeneration and pole classes. Furthermore, the majority of the stands in the mature class are 75+ years old. In 2006 the ages of forty dominant and codominant loblolly pines in foraging habitat adjacent to 10 active RCW clusters were determined. The average age was 82 years; the youngest was 60, the oldest 108. In 2012 the age of 160 active, natural RCW cavity trees were determined. The average age was 90 years; the youngest was 55, the oldest 126. As a consequence of the missing regeneration and pole class acreages, sooner or later there will be a shortage of RCW habitat.

* NOTE the 9,216 acres of mature pine are not the only acres available to the RCW. There are two reasons for this: a) Retention shelterwood is the proposed regeneration method. Ten year old loblolly pine on site index 70 – the most common on the refuge – should be about 12 feet tall (adapted from USDA Forest Service 1929). Assuming regeneration harvests occur at age 100, the retained seed trees would be over 90 feet tall when the regeneration is 12 feet tall. This is not tall enough to make the stand unusable to the RCW, so the first 10 of the 25 years for a given P1 stand are still available to the RCW. The total desired P1 acreage is 4,608. Forty percent ({10/25}*100) of 4,608 is 1,843. b) The majority of the TPA and BA in managed stands on medium sites 40 years old are in trees over 10 inches DBH (adapted from Burton 1980). These larger pole timber stands may not be suitable for nesting habitat, and they may not meet the Recovery Plan definition of good quality foraging habitat, but they do provide suitable foraging habitat (Hooper and Harlow 1986, Wigley et al. 1999). Thus the last 10 of the 25 years for a given P2 stand are available to the RCW. The total desired P2 acreage is 4,608. Forty percent ({10/25}*100) of 4,608 is 1,843.

9,216 + 1,843 + 1,843 = 12,902 acres available to the RCW. 12,902/96 = 134 acres per cluster at recovery.

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Acres loblolly/shortleaf pine regenerated . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory 1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods . RCW population growth and reproductive . Annual RCW population status and reproductive fitness fitness monitoring . Northern bobwhite quail population trend . Annual quail whistling call count . Bachman’s sparrow population trend . Annual Bachman’s sparrow call count and playback survey

4.2.2. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP burn 29,274* acres on a 3-5 year burn rotation, with three years preferred – see figure 2.

*This is the acres currently in prescribed fire management. This number should not decrease. It may increase, however, if the remaining acres can be brought into fire management.

Supports CCP objectives 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.

Resources of Concern: red-cockaded woodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow, brown-headed nuthatch, northern bobwhite quail, prairie warbler, red-headed woodpecker.

Rationale: Prescribed fire is a long established practice in loblolly/shortleaf stands managed for wildlife (Chen et al. 1975, Cushwa 1966, 1969, 1970, Czuhai and Cushwa 1968, Landers 1987, Lay 1956, 1957, Wood 1981). While growing season fire controls woody vegetation better than dormant season fire (Brender and Cooper 1968), fire seasonality is less important overall than fire frequency (Knapp et al. 2009). The historic fire frequency for the lower Piedmont region was 4 to 6 years (Frost 1998, Guyette 2010). The historic forest maintained by this fire frequency is different from the current forest – see chapter 2, sections 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7. Burning on this frequency maintains a two-canopy forest, with an understory of hardwood sprouts and an overstory of pine or mixed pine/hardwood (Wade et al. 1989, Waldrop et al. 1987). Shortening the fire return interval, and targeting the shorter end of the acceptable range, should better produce habitat conditions conducive to the wildlife resources of concern.

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Annual acres burned in identified units . Fire report . Refuge-wide fire effects monitoring 1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods . RCW population growth and reproductive . Annual RCW population status and reproductive fitness fitness monitoring . Northern bobwhite quail population trend . Annual quail whistling call count . Bachman’s sparrow population trend . Annual Bachman’s sparrow call count and playback survey

4.2.3. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP burn 4,981 acres on a 2-3 year burn rotation, with two years preferred – see figure 2.

Supports CCP objective 2.3 and 2.8.

Resources of Concern: red-cockaded woodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow, bobwhite quail.

Rationale: The northern bobwhite quail has experienced widespread declines (National Bobwhite Technical Committee 2011). Prescribed fire was identified in the 2011 National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative as one of the most useful habitat management tools. Recommendations for burning for quail habitat target a fine mosaic of burned and unburned areas, maintained on a two year burn rotation (Landers and Mueller 1986, Thackston and Whitney 2001). The 4,981 acre ‘focus area’ is divided up into 22 small burn units. The smallest unit is 128 acres; the largest, 443 acres. The average size is 226 acres. Roads and creeks are used as firelines wherever possible.

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

4.2.4. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP manage 2,366 acres* loblolly/shortleaf using uneven-aged management – see figure 3.

*This is the amount of desired pine acres not currently in prescribed fire management. This number should not increase. It may decrease, however, if it can be brought into fire management. Any acreage brought into fire management will be managed for RCW as outlined in objectives 4.2.1 to 4.2.3.

Supports CCP objective 2.3.

Resources of Concern: brown-headed nuthatch, red-headed woodpecker.

Rationale: Forest structural diversity at a small scale – a stand – is greatest under uneven-aged management, which produces a high degree of within stand diversity by means of trees of different age, size and height on each acre. The diversity between stands, however, is low. Structural diversity at a medium scale – a management compartment – is greatest under even- aged management, which produces a high degree of between stand diversity, again by means of trees of different age, size and height. The diversity within a stand, however, is low. Structural diversity at the scale of an ownership – a larger refuge – is greatest when managed under both management methods (Hunter 1990). Most of the loblolly/shortleaf acres are to be managed using modified even-aged management and prescribed fire in support of the red-cockaded woodpecker. The 2,366 of desired pine acres not in burn units could also be managed with modified even-aged management, using mechanical and chemical treatments as surrogates for fire. Managing them with uneven-aged management, however, increases structural diversity at the scale of the refuge, which should in turn increase species diversity. 34

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Acres uneven-aged loblolly/shortleaf pine . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory

4.2.5. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP evaluate 3,955 acres of oak/hickory forests to determine the need for intermediate or regeneration treatments. Design intermediate treatments to produce: 1) ≥ 25% total canopy cover, 2) ≥ 50% of the total canopy is in hard mast producing species ≥ 12” DBH, 3) ≥ 3 hard mast producing tree species per acre, 4) QMD ≥ 10”, and 5) ≥ 5 snags per acre that are at least 8.5” DBH and 10” tall.

Desired acres by compartment are as follows:

Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres 1 93 10 96 19 95 28 120 2 85 11 110 20 130 29 200 3 58 12 91 21 203 30 18 4 165 13 81 22 109 31 93 5 69 14 124 23 150 32 107 6 17 15 187 24 206 33 98 7 25 16 82 25 169 34 110 8 99 17 125 26 222 9 69 18 194 27 155

Supports CCP objective 2.3.

Resources of Concern: wood thrush, Kentucky warbler.

Rationale: The stands in the oak/hickory ecosystem are comparatively young (oaks and hickories are relatively long-lived species – Burns and Honkala 1990) and depleted. The 1948 and 1968 Refuge Timber Management Plans both prescribed selectively cutting the hardwood stands, a technique that usually leads to high grading (Clatterbuck 2006). NOTE – selective cutting is a partial cutting practice that tends to use a diameter limit to determine which trees to harvest and which to leave (Garver and Miller 1933). This is different than the selection system, which maintains and regenerates a multi-aged stand by harvesting trees in all size classes, either singly or small groups (Helms 1998).

The stand structure variables listed in this objective are from the gray squirrel habitat suitability index model (Allen 1987). Managing oak forests to produce high HSI scores should promote oak forests with large, dominant trees and exposed, sunlight crowns – a condition that scores high. Wakeley (1988) suggested converting HSI model curves from continuous to discrete forms by reducing the index for each variable to three categories: zero (SI = 0), low (0 < SI < 0.5), and high (SI ≥ 0.5). Variables one through four in objective 4.2.5 are values that score 0.5 or higher.

Bats are an emerging species of interest due to white nose syndrome. Variable five in objective 4.2.5 is from the Indiana bat HSI model (Farmer et al. 2002), simplified according to Wakeley’s recommendations (1988).

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Acres oak/hickory . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory 1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods . Eastern wild turkey population trend . Turkey brood Survey . Turkey hunter success

4.2.6. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP manage 7,916 acres of oak/pine forests to benefit wildlife and habitat diversity. Design intermediate treatments to produce: 1) ≥ 25% total canopy cover, 2) ≥ 50% of the total canopy is in hard mast producing species ≥ 12” DBH, 3) ≥ 3 hard mast producing tree species per acre, 4) QMD ≥ 10”, 5) ≥ 5 snags per acre that are at least 8.5” DBH and 10” tall, and 6) maintain at least 25% of the overstory in pine.

Desired acres by compartment are as follows:

Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres 1 260 10 404 19 330 28 259 2 360 11 378 20 273 29 634 3 345 12 300 21 427 30 141 4 529 13 308 22 283 31 283 5 346 14 290 23 366 32 338 6 136 15 514 24 346 33 358 7 208 16 284 25 307 34 272 8 349 17 490 26 384 9 434 18 590 27 347

Supports CCP objective 2.3.

Resources of Concern: wood thrush, Kentucky warbler.

Rationale: Many of these acres are currently in loblolly/shortleaf pine. The refuge’s ecological classification (see appendix 2), however, indicates these sites are better suited to oak/pine than loblolly/shortleaf pine. Decreasing the pine stocking while concurrently increasing the oak stocking should bring this acreage more in line with its ecological potential.

The stand structure variables listed in this objective are from the gray squirrel habitat suitability index model (Allen 1987). Managing oak forests to produce high HSI scores should promote oak forests with large, dominant trees and exposed, sunlight crowns – a condition that scores high. Wakeley (1988) suggested converting HSI model curves from continuous to discrete forms by reducing the index for each variable to three categories: zero (SI = 0), low (0 < SI < 0.5), and high (SI ≥ 0.5). Variables 1 through 4 in objective 4.2.6 are values that score 0.5 or higher.

Bats are an emerging species of interest due to white nose syndrome. Variable 5 in objective 4.2.5 is from the Indiana bat HSI model (Farmer et al. 2002), simplified according to Wakeley’s recommendations (1988).

Variable 6 is necessary to meet the definition of oak/pine (50 percent or more of the stand is hardwoods, usually upland oaks, but in which southern pines make up 25–49 percent of the stand – Garrison et al. 1977).

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Acres oak/pine . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory 1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods . Eastern wild turkey population trend . Turkey brood Survey . Turkey hunter success

4.2.7. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP evaluate 2,158 acres of oak/gum/cypress forests to determine the need for intermediate or regeneration treatments. Design intermediate treatments to produce: 1) 60-70% overstory canopy cover, 2) 25-40% midstory cover, 3) 60-70 ft2/acre basal area, 4) ≥ 5 snags per acre that are at least 8.5” DBH and 10” tall, and 5) 60- 70% tree stocking.

Desired acres by compartment are as follows:

Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres Compartment Acres 1 0 10 128 19 86 28 36 2 129 11 36 20 35 29 51 3 35 12 31 21 140 30 7 4 21 13 40 22 27 31 0 5 90 14 140 23 58 32 0 6 191 15 112 24 32 33 0 7 95 16 107 25 77 34 39 8 53 17 86 26 25 9 115 18 121 27 13

Supports CCP objective 2.3 and 2.4.

Resources of Concern: Oak/gum/cypress ecosystem.

Rationale: The stands in the oak/gum/cypress ecosystem are comparatively young (oaks and hickories are relatively long-lived species – Burns and Honkala 1990) and depleted (the 1948 and 1968 Refuge Timber Management Plans both prescribed selectively cutting the hardwood stands, a technique that usually leads to high grading – see Clatterbuck 2006).

The identified structure variables are from table 2, page 23 of Restoration, Management and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat (Wilson et al. 2007). Achieving values within the identified ranges should promote biological diversity by providing within-stand vertical and horizontal structural diversity.

Bats are an emerging species of interest due to white nose syndrome. Variable 5 in objective 4.2.7 is from the Indiana bat HSI model (Farmer et al. 2002), simplified according to Wakeley’s recommendations (1988).

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Acres oak/gum/cypress . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory 1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods . Eastern wild turkey population trend . Turkey brood Survey . Turkey hunter success

4.2.8. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP identify, map and protect rock outcrops from negative impacts due to management activities.

Supports CCP objectives 2.10.

Resources of Concern: rock outcrops.

Rationale: Rock outcrop flora is significantly different then the surrounding Piedmont in which they occur. They contain many more annuals, which better survive the hot, dry, shallow soil conditions found on outcrops (Phillips 1982).

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Rock Outcrop Presence/Absence . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory

4.2.9. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP identify and where possible protect existing canebrakes from excessive disturbance caused by management activities.

Supports CCP objectives 2.11.

Resources of Concern: canebrakes.

Rationale: This objective is problematic, for two reasons: 1) what constitutes a canebrake is undefined, and 2) the recommended fire return interval for canebrakes may be different than the one for upland pines.

What differentiates a canebrake as an independent vegetation unit from small areas of cane in the understory of a different vegetation unit is not clear (Brantley and Platt 2001). While much of the current cane on the refuge probably falls into the latter category, historically many of the bottoms may have been in the former category (see section 2.5). Without specific criteria to differentiate a canebrake from a patch of cane under a tree overstory the refuge can only subjectively determine whether or not an area qualifies.

The desired fire return interval for most of the refuge is 3-5 years (objective 4.2.2), while it is 2-3 years in the focus area (objective 4.2.3). The recommended fire return interval in canebrakes varies from 5 to 10 years, with an average of 7 (Hughes 1966), to 3 to 8 years (Gagnon et al. 2013). It is important to note that Gagnon et al. (2013) go on to state that this interval may be too frequent for forest grown cane, the probable condition of much of the cane currently on the refuge. This suggests that upland fire management, which will intrude into the bottomlands, may negatively affect cane without other management activities to open the tree canopy overtopping existing cane.

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Canebrake Presence/Absence . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory

4.2.10. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP protect riparian and stream habitats by implementing Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry in accordance with Service policy and refuge goals and objectives.

Supports CCP objectives 2.2 through 2.12.

Resources of Concern: beaver ponds and freshwater marshes, springs and spring runs, streams.

Rationale: Best Management Practices are practices intended to attain a silvicultural goal while protecting the integrity of waters of the U.S. BMPs are designed to “minimize non-point source pollution (soil erosion and stream sedimentation) and thermal pollution” (Georgia Forestry Commission 2009).

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Correct BMP Implementation . BMP Compliance audit . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory

4.2.11. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP locate invasive exotics and prescribe treatments to control spread.

Supports CCP objectives 2.3 and 2.12.

Resources of Concern: All

Rationale: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act mandates the refuge system to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained” (16 USC 668dd.5(4)(B)). Invasive exotics are antithetical to that mandate (National Invasive Species Council 2001).

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Invasive Exotic Presence/Absence . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory

4.2.12. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP identify the desired future condition of all fields; prescribe treatments to promote those conditions.

Supports CCP objective 2.13.

Resources of Concern: Bachman’s sparrow, Northern bobwhite quail, Prairie warbler

Rationale: Georgia is 66% forested. Twenty-seven percent of that forestland is 10 years old or less (11% pine plantations, 16% natural stands). Three percent of the state’s forestland is 81+ years old (Thompson 1998). Young natural stands occupy approximately 3.8 million acres across the state, while mature forests occupy approximately 0.8 million acres across the state. Both young forests (i.e. scrub-shrub) and mature forests (i.e. mature forests of southern pine and upland hardwood) are considered high priority habitats (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2005). Mature forests, however, are currently less prevalent. Every acre of these types of forests the refuge provides increases the diversity of the middle Georgia landscape.

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods . Field Condition . Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory . Compartment forest inventory 1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods . Northern bobwhite quail population trend . Annual quail whistling call count . Bachman’s sparrow population trend . Annual Bachman’s sparrow call count and playback survey

5.0 HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The bulk of the habitat management at a refuge that is 99% forested is forest management. As such forest management strategies dominate this HMP. Timber harvesting is a potential part of forest management. Revenue is a byproduct of timber harvesting for habitat management. It is important to note that, while timber harvesting generates revenue, the purpose for timber harvesting on a wildlife refuge is habitat management, not revenue. Harvesting timber to manage habitat is simply using the fact that timber has a dollar value, and that can be used as a tool to accomplish habitat objectives.

This chapter contains the following sections to discuss strategies designed to provide the necessary habitat for the resources of concern:

1. Potential Management Strategies 2. Management Strategy Constraints and Impacts to Resources of Concern 3. Management Strategy Selection 4. Management Strategy Prescriptions

5.1 Potential Management Strategies

5.1.1 No Active Management: no habitat management activities take place other than resource protection, i.e. southern pine beetle suppression, wildfire suppression, etc.

5.1.2 Fire with Uneven-aged Management: a series of treatments (i.e. timber harvesting and prescribed fire) designed to create and maintain a stand with three or more age classes. Protect rare and unique habitats from negative impacts due to management activities.

5.1.3 Fire with Modified Even-aged Management: a series of treatments (i.e. timber harvesting and prescribed fire) designed to create and maintain a stand with one age class, ± 20% of rotation age. Protect rare and unique habitats from negative impacts due to management activities.

5.2 Management Strategy Constraints and Impacts to Resources of Concern

5.2.1 No Active Management. The primary advantage to this strategy is easy implementation. There are several disadvantages:

1) General a. Best management practices for forestry are a constraint, even when the only management activity is reaction to a natural event such as wildfire or a southern pine beetle outbreak. Firelines from wildfire suppression, skid trails, haul roads and log decks from pine beetle suppression need rehabilitation in accordance with BMP specifications (Georgia Forestry Commission 2009). 2) Loblolly/Shortleaf a. Successional trends in the absence of disturbance (i.e. management) tend to be from pine to hardwoods (Brender 1973, Wahlenberg 1960).

b. Suppressing the southern pine beetle without hardwood competition control afterwards results in unsuccessful pine regeneration (Goelz et al. 2012). c. The RCW is dependent on pine dominated forests (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). d. There is a strong correlation between RCW cluster abandonment and increasing hardwood vegetation resulting from no fire in pine systems (Loeb et al. 1992). e. The heavy hardwood understory and midstory resulting from no fire management is detrimental to Bachman’s sparrow, brown-headed nuthatch, northern bobwhite quail, prairie warbler and red-headed woodpecker (DeGraaf et al. 1991, Hamel 1992), all identified as resources of concern in the loblolly/shortleaf ecosystem. 3) Oak/Hickory and Oak/Pine a. Oak regeneration requires canopy disturbance (i.e. management) to become a canopy dominant or co-dominant (Loftis and McGee 1993, White and Lloyd 1998). b. Fire is an integral disturbance component in most oak forest cover types (Johnson 1993, Brown and Smith 2000). 4) Oak/Gum/Cypress a. While it’s desirable to leave 5-30% of the bottomlands unmanaged, 70-95% of the bottomland forests should be actively managed to achieve desired stand conditions (Wilson et al. 2007).

5.2.2. Fire with Uneven-aged Management. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this strategy:

1) General a. BMP implementation. b. Using timber harvesting as a habitat management tool means timber markets, something the refuge has no control over, can impact the ability to implement habitat management treatments. c. Smoke management. 2) Loblolly/Shortleaf a. Uneven-aged management and its applicable silvicultural systems are capable of producing suitable RCW foraging habitat (Walker 1995). b. Uneven-aged silvicultural systems require recurring inputs of regeneration, meaning there are many different seedling age cohorts in the understory. Young loblolly pine, the dominant pine at Piedmont, is highly susceptible to fire damage (Shultz 1997, Wahlenberg 1960). c. Burning regimes have not been successful in allowing adequate movement of pine seedlings into the pine sapling size class. Burning that controls woody competition kills too many pine seedlings to perpetuate an uneven-aged loblolly/shortleaf stand (Cain 1993, Cain and Shelton 2002), bringing into question its ability to sustainably manage RCW habitat. d. Periodic herbicide application, not fire, has long been recommended to ensure adequate pine regeneration (Reynolds et al. 1984). 3) Oak/Hickory and Oak/Pine

a. While single tree selection has been successfully utilized in some drier site oak forests (for example, the Pioneer Forest in the Missouri Ozarks – Guldin et al. 2008), it isn’t generally compatible with oak management (Johnson 1993, Loftis and McGee 1993, Trimble and Smith 1976). b. Group selection may be compatible with oak management (Loftis and McGee 1993). 4) Oak/Gum/Cypress a. Neither single tree selection nor group selection are recommended silvicultural systems to ensure adequate oak regeneration; instead, patch cutting is advocated (Meadows and Stanturf 1997).

5.2.3 Fire with Modified Even-aged Management. As with uneven-aged management, there are both advantages and disadvantages to this strategy:

1) General a. BMP implementation. b. Using timber harvesting as a habitat management tool means timber markets, something the refuge has no control over, can impact the ability to implement habitat management treatments. c. Smoke management. 2) Loblolly/Shortleaf a. Even-aged management and its applicable silvicultural systems are capable of producing suitable RCW foraging habitat (Seagle et al. 1987, Walker 1995, Wood et al. 1985). b. Even-aged silvicultural systems are compatible with prescribed fire since there is only one input of regeneration per rotation (Brender 1973, Wahlenberg 1960). Once that regeneration reaches a fire resistant stage broadcast fire treatments can be applied. c. Modifying even-aged management with deferment harvesting is a better approach to RCW management than traditional even-aged management since the retained seed trees provide both foraging and nesting habitat in regeneration areas, something missing in traditional even-aged management (Conner et al. 1991, Gresham 1996, Hedrick et al. 1998, McConnell 1999). 3) Oak/Hickory and Oak/Pine a. Even-aged silvicultural systems promote adequate advanced oak regeneration, something necessary for regeneration harvesting to succeed (Roach and Gingrich 1968, Sander and Clark 1971). b. Modifying even-aged management with deferment harvesting increases structural heterogeneity (Sims 1992, Stringer 2006a). Improper amount and pattern of retention can negatively impact regeneration, however (Miller et al. 2004). 4) Oak/Gum/Cypress a. Patch cutting, an even-aged approach, is the recommended method to ensure adequate oak regeneration (Meadows and Stanturf 1997).

5.3 Management Strategy Selection

The No Active Management strategy is incompatible with RCW, the highest priority resource of concern due to its endangered status. RCW populations decline steadily and dramatically in forests that do not use state-of-the-art management practices as compared to those in managed forests (Saenz et. al. 2001). For example, a dense woody midstory, comprised of both pines and hardwoods, develops rapidly in pine stands in the Piedmont that aren’t managed frequently using prescribed fire, timber harvesting and/or herbicides (Jones 1993, Lennartz and Heckel 1987, Wade et al. 1989). Active and abandoned clusters have similar overstory characteristics, but the woody midstory is significantly denser in abandoned clusters (Loeb et. al. 1992).

Both the Fire with Uneven-aged Management and Fire with Modified Even-aged Management are potentially viable management strategies. Even-aged management creates and maintains a stand of one age class in which the range of ages is within 20% of rotation; uneven-aged management creates and maintains a stand with three or more age classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups (Helms 1998). While the even-aged versus uneven-aged and RCW management debate has raged for decades (Engstrom et al. 1996, Hedrick et al. 1998, Rudolph and Conner 1996), the reality is both management methods and their applicable silvicultural systems are, at least theoretically, capable of producing suitable foraging habitat in the loblolly/shortleaf ecosystem (Walker 1995). The point of this discussion is not to debate the merits of each management method; instead, it is to determine which is more capable of sustainably producing RCWs in loblolly/shortleaf pine in the middle Georgia Piedmont.

Prescribed fire is integral to RCW management (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003); thus the selected management method must be compatible with burning in loblolly/shortleaf stands. Young loblolly pine is highly susceptible to fire damage (Shultz 1997, Wahlenberg 1960). Uneven-aged silvicultural systems require periodic pulses of regeneration, meaning there are always numerous pine seedlings in the understory. Burning regimes have not been successful in allowing adequate movement of pine seedlings into the pine sapling size class. In other words, burning that controls hardwood competition kills too many pine seedlings to perpetuate an uneven-aged loblolly/shortleaf stand (Cain 1993, Cain and Shelton 2002). Periodic herbicide application, not fire, has long been the recommended tool to ensure adequate pine regeneration (Reynolds et al. 1984). The current state of knowledge regarding the loblolly/shortleaf ecosystem and RCW management does not support uneven-aged management.

Even-aged silvicultural systems in loblolly pine stands are compatible with prescribed fire since there is only one pulse of regeneration per rotation (Brender 1973, Wahlenberg 1960). Once that regeneration reaches a fire resistant stage broadcast fire treatments can be applied. The refuge integrated even-aged management using area regulation, seed tree and shelterwood silvicultural systems (no clearcutting), and prescribed fire over 50 years ago (Givens 1962). The administrative unit was the compartment, averaging 1,000 acres apiece. The goal was a balanced distribution of 10 to 100 acre even-aged stands, representing all ages from regeneration to rotation age. While individual stands have an even-aged structure, the compartment has an uneven-aged structure (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1970). The refuge successfully used this wildlife management strategy for decades (Carter and Dow 1969, Czuhai 1981, Speake et al. 1975). It was even highlighted in a 1984 National Geographic Society book titled Wild Lands

46 for Wildlife: America’s National Refuges, and is still a suggested management strategy (Masters et al. 2007).

There is, however, a potential problem with this strategy: in traditional even-aged forest management using natural regeneration such as the seed tree and shelterwood systems, the seed trees are removed shortly after establishment of the reproduction, creating a uniform or “regular” stand (Smith 1986). Recent research in ecological forestry and red-cockaded woodpecker management indicates several problems with this:

1) Even-aged management is intended to be an analog for stand replacing disturbances (Smith 1986). However, even intense disturbances rarely create uniform stands by removing most or all of the organic matter. Instead much of this material remains as structures such as living trees, snags and downed woody debris (Franklin et al. 2007). These legacies from the old stand perform important functional roles in the new stand. 2) Removing the seed trees after regeneration is established eliminates the foraging habitat potential of a loblolly/shortleaf stand for as long as 30 years and the nesting habitat potential for as long as 80 years (Hedrick et al. 1998).

One potential alternative is using two aged management. This technique creates a stand with two distinct age classes separated by more than 20% of rotation (Helms 1998). Longer lived species are required for this method (Stringer 2006a). A stand near mid-rotation age is harvested, leaving an appropriate number of seed trees for regeneration. The regeneration along with the un-harvested seed trees are allowed to grow simultaneously, creating two age classes (Sims 1992). This is contrary to loblolly/shortleaf pine and RCW management for two reasons: 1) loblolly pine is a relatively short lived tree; the seed trees will only live for a portion of the rotation, meaning much of the rotation will only have one age class, not two, and 2) mitigating the first reason by conducting regeneration harvesting at mid-rotation is antithetical to the RCWs need for large, old trees. Modifying even-aged management by retaining the seed trees will not create a two age stand, but the retention trees are biological legacies (Franklin et al. 2007), maintaining some nesting and foraging value post regeneration harvest (Conner et al. 1991, Gresham 1996, Lennartz 1988, McConnell 1999). As such, the Fire with Modified Even-aged Management strategy is the preferred alternative.

5.4 Management Strategy Prescriptions

5.4.1 General Principles

Three principles form the core of an ecologically based forestry program (Franklin et al. 2007):

 Biological legacies  Stand development processes  Appropriate recovery periods

5.4.1.1 Biological Legacies

A biological legacy is “an organism, a reproductive portion of an organism, or a biologically derived structure or pattern inherited from a previous ecosystem – note biological legacies often include large trees, snags, and down logs left after harvesting to provide refugia and to structurally enrich the new stand” (Helms 1998). These legacies help perpetuate species on site after a disturbance such as a regeneration harvest.

5.4.1.2 Stand Development Processes

Four stages of stand development occur after a regeneration harvest: stand initiation, stem exclusion, understory re-initiation, and old growth (Oliver and Larsen 1996). At crown closure the stem exclusion stage begins. As competition increases, density dependent mortality takes place. Thinning is an attempt to replicate this type of mortality while directing the future development of the stand towards a desired structure. Traditional thinning homogenizes stand structure by attempting to create a uniform distribution of trees of a few species (Smith 1986). Non-traditional thinning uses a variable density approach, attempting to create a patchwork of gaps and anti-gaps within the larger forested matrix (Franklin et al. 2007).

5.4.1.3 Appropriate Recovery Periods

This is the time between regeneration establishment and the final harvest; in other words, the rotation length (Helms 1998). An economically optimum rotation age is one that maximizes net present value. An extended rotation is increased beyond economic rotation to provide values such as larger trees and wildlife habitat (Curtis 1997). The recommended economic rotation for loblolly pine is 30 years for pulpwood and up to 60 years for sawtimber (Wahlenberg 1960). Determining an appropriate extended rotation length can be difficult. Criteria such as average life expectancy (somewhere between pathological longevity and maximum longevity) or the age at which the periodic annual growth is close to zero are possibilities (Hunter 1990).

5.4.2 Administration

Forest management planning for timber production using traditional forestry practices provides detailed descriptions of proposed management activities. Management planning for non-timber goals using non-traditional practices needs to be similarly comprehensive (Franklin et al. 2007). These activities include rotation age, compartment cycle entry, regulation, growing stock, silvicultural system, intermediate treatments, prescribed fire, unplanned events, and non-forest management.

5.4.2.1 Rotation Age

The periodic annual growth of natural, unmanaged stands of loblolly pine approaches zero at age 65 (see section 3.2.1). The oldest recorded loblolly was 245 years old (Burns and Honkala 1990), for an average life expectancy of 155 years. The RCW recovery plan calls for a minimum loblolly rotation age of 100 years (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). This is 66% longer than the recommended 60 years for sawtimber production (Wahlenberg 1960).

5.4.2.2 Compartment Entry Cycle

Compartments are the standard unit for forest inventory, silvicultural prescriptions, and timber sales administration. Compartments are a tool for scheduling work. The schedule follows a logical progression: inventory in year one, write silvicultural prescriptions and get approvals in year two, mark timber in year three, administer timber sales in year four. Put another way, each year involves all four activities, but they occur on different compartments in any given year.

The refuge is 34,949 acres, divided into 34 compartments. Ideally the entry cycle is based on growth, i.e. the time between entry cycles is that which allows a stand to grow from the lower end of the desirable structure to the upper end. While stand growth is based on basal area, age, and site index – three highly variable parameters across the refuge – the average loblolly pine stand growth is 2.29 ft2 BA/acre/year (Brender 1960). This equates to 23 to 34 ft2 BA/acre in 10 to 15 years.

Dividing the number of compartments (or acres) by the entry cycle gives the work load for each year: Table 5.1 Entry Cycle, years Ave. No. Compartments No. Acres 10 3.4 3,496 11 3.1 3,178 12 2.8 2,913 13 2.6 2,689 14 2.4 2,497 15 2.3 2,330

The ideal entry cycle is every 10 years, but that may not be possible to achieve on any consistent basis. There are always duties that pull staff away from scheduled forestry work – off refuge fire assignments or hurricane details, southern pine beetle epidemics on the refuge, and so on. Achieving a 10 to 15 year entry cycle depends on both available staff and other duties.

The planned entry cycle is to start with compartment 1 and work sequentially. Intermediate compartment entries that are off cycle or early may be needed when unplanned events occur (i.e. RCW clusters become established in areas needing silvicultural treatments to improve foraging habitat). Intermediate entries may vary in scale from a portion of the compartment to the entire compartment. The intensity level of forest inventory will be determined by the type of intermediate treatment needed (i.e. mid-story control, overstory stocking, etc.).

5.4.2.3 Forest Regulation

Forest regulation is “the technical aspects of controlling stocking, harvests, growth, and yields to meet management objectives” (Helms 1998). The 18,432 acres of loblolly/shortleaf pine in burn units managed using modified even-aged management are regulated using area regulation – “an indirect method of controlling the amount of forest produce to be harvested, annually or periodically, on the basis of stocked area” (Helms 1998). Calculating and achieving a sustainable age class distribution is based on the acres in each compartment, not on total refuge

49 acres. Calculations to determine the acreage to be regenerated at each compartment entry cycle use the following formula:

A/R * C = H

Where:

A = total loblolly/shortleaf pine in acres (desired future conditions, not current conditions) R = rotation length in years C = frequency of entering each compartment for silvicultural treatment, in years H = acres regenerated at each entry

Thus a compartment with a desired future condition of 500 acres pine, a 100 year rotation, and a 10 year entry cycle needs 50 acres regenerated at each entry cycle. Changing the entry cycle to 15 years means 75 acres need to be regenerated at each entry cycle. Maintaining a 10 year entry cycle but increasing the rotation to 125 years means 40 acres need to be regenerated at each entry. At the end of one rotation using area regulation each age class will be represented by approximately equal acreage. Assuming the P1 size class (see section 2.6 for size class definitions) lasts 25 years, P2 25 years, and P3 50 years, each size class should cover 25, 25 and 50%, respectively, of the pine acreage. While this acreage varies by compartment, at the refuge level it is 4,609 acres P1, 4,609 acres P2, and 9,218 acres P3.

Although RCW habitat regeneration will ultimately be determined by area regulation, initial regeneration of stands may occur before the minimum rotation age of the stand is achieved. However, no regeneration should occur within that portion of the oldest classes present, unless those age classes are the ones over-represented (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). The age/size class over-represented on the refuge is the mature class (see sections 2.6 and 4.2.1), which also happens to be the preferred RCW habitat. Regenerating the predominant age class within a compartment will help distribute the age classes more evenly over several cutting cycles (Seagle et al. 1987, Walker 1995). While this appears to be a conflict, in reality it is the only way to sustainably manage the RCW on the refuge.

The 2,194 acres of loblolly/shortleaf outside of burn units are regulated using basal area regulation – “a method of controlling and determining the amount of timber to be cut annually or periodically from a forest according to its basal area relative to that of the growing stock and its increment” (Helms 1998). Calculating and achieving a sustainable age class distribution is based on diameter distribution:

BDq

Where:

B = target residual basal area D = maximum diameter to be retained q = a negative exponential constant between diameter classes

Recommended ranges for these variables are B: 45 to 60 ft2/acre, D: 12 to 30+, and q: 1.1 to 1.4 for 1 inch dbh classes or 1.2 to 2.0 for 2 inch dbh classes (Baker et al. 1996).

5.4.2.4 Growing Stock

Stocking is an indication of growing-space occupancy relative to a pre-established standard; Stand density is a quantitative measure of stocking (Helms 1998).

Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine – The 2003 RCW Recovery Plan defines the tree component of good quality foraging habitat as:

 18 or more pines/acre ≥ 14” DBH; minimum 20ft2 basal area/acre.  0-40ft2 basal area/acre pines 10-14” DBH.  Basal area of pines < 10” DBH below 10ft2 and 20 stems/acre.  Maintain a basal area of all pines  10” DBH of at least 40ft2/acre.  No hardwood midstory (undefined in the Recovery Plan, but presumed to be sub-canopy hardwoods) exists, or is sparse.  Canopy hardwoods < 30% of the trees per acre in loblolly/shortleaf pine.

These variables define the minimum stocking for good quality RCW foraging habitat. Basal area (BA) and trees per acre (TPA) are the stand density measures used to evaluate stocking. These are commonly used and thus well understood density measures. When prescribing treatments, some measure of density is necessary to determine whether or not a treatment is warranted. Despite their common usage, neither BA nor TPA are good measures.

Trees per acre is not a useful measure of stand density since it does not account for differences in stem diameter. Basal area is easy to measure, but it has several deficiencies. First, BA varies in equally dense stands (Zeide 2005). Stated another way, stands of equal BA can have differing amounts of competition for resources (light, water, nutrients) since their stem density may vary. Secondly, BA is not independent of site and age. Stands on better quality sites should be thinned when they reach a higher BA than those on poorer sites; older stands should retain a higher post- thinning BA than younger stands (Harrington 2001b). Ultimately BA is not a consistent measure of density when used as a fixed value.

A more useful measure of density in even-aged stands is called Stand Density Index (Reineke 1933). SDI describes the relationship between quadratic mean diameter and trees per acre. Stands at the highest possible density have a SDI equivalent to the maximum number of ten inch diameter trees that an acre can support. This species-specific relationship is independent of stand age. As the QMD increases with age, mortality from self-thinning allows further QMD increases. It is also independent of site quality. Stands growing on better sites do not have a higher maximum SDI. Instead they go through self-thinning earlier (Long 1985, Zeide 2005). SDI allows management objectives to be converted into specified amounts of growing stock. Since it is independent of site and age, these amounts can be used across the region. When expressed as a percentage, SDI values can be compared between species to provide a relative index of competition (Harrington 2001b). Thus relative densities for stands of different site, age and species can be compared across the region with SDI, making it a better measure of density than BA.

An important issue is what measure of density to use as a trigger point to initiate a treatment? The RCW Recovery Plan recommends that total stand basal area in off-site loblolly pine forests be kept below 80ft2 BA/acre (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003, p. 190). The loblolly at Piedmont, however, is site appropriate as it is in the middle of loblolly’s natural range, with soils conducive to its growth (Brender 1973, Burns and Honkala 1990, Schulz 1997, Wahlenberg 1960). As noted above, neither trees per acre nor basal area are good stand density measures; stand density index is better. Twenty-five percent of the maximum stand density index represents the beginning of crown closure; 35% corresponds to the lower limit of full site occupancy (stand growth continues to increase with increasing relative density above this point, but at a decreasing rate); 50-60% represents the onset of density-dependent mortality (Harrington 2001b, Long 1985). Using 35% (loblolly SDI 158) as a trigger point to initiate a treatment and 25% (loblolly SDI 113) as the objective of the treatment gives the following guidance:

Table 5.4 25% MaxSDI 35% MaxSDI QMD Basal Area 6 50 70 8 56 79 10 61 86 12 66 92 14 70 98 16 74 103 18 77 108 20 81 113

The objective of treatments, then, is to maintain the basal area within these ranges, while providing the specific density metrics for good quality foraging habitat.

Oak/Hickory and Oak/Pine – The rationale for using SDI instead of BA to determine growing stock in loblolly/shortleaf pine applies to oak/pine and oak/hickory as well. The primary difference is the %MaxSDI to determine the trigger point to decide when to thin as well as the target residual BA. The maximum SDI for upland oaks is 230 (Schnur 1937). Thirty-five percent MaxSDI represents the lower limit of full site occupancy; 60% represents the onset of density-dependent mortality (Long 1985). This gives the following guidance for thinning in oak/hickory:

Table 5.5 35% MaxSDI 60% MaxSDI QMD Basal Area 6 36 62 8 40 69 10 44 75 12 47 81 14 50 86 16 53 91 18 55 95 20 58 99 22 60 103 24 62 106

26 64 110

An alternative stocking chart is the Gingrich diagram (Gingrich 1967):

(figures from Larsen 2002)

Gingrich stocking is a function of basal area and trees per acre. Desired stocking is between the A-line and B-line. The A-line is considered 100% stocked, or the average maximum density for undisturbed stands. The B-line is the point of crown closure. As an example, 200 TPA and 80 BA is adequatley stocked (i.e. between the A and B-lines) with about 73% of full stocking, and has an average diameter of 8 – 9 inches.

Note that while these two approaches to quantify stocking theoretically measure the same thing, they result in different evaluations of the same stand. For example, a stand with a QMD of 10 and 60 BA is adaqueatly stocked by SDI but understocked by the Gingrich diagram.

Oak/Gum/Cypress – There is no published maximum SDI for bottomland hardwoods. A stocking guide was developed by Goelz (1995). It follows the format developed by Gingrich (1967), using stocking information presented by Putnam et al. (1960).

Additional guidance from the Mississippi alluvial valley includes the following primary forest variables for enhancing wildlife habitat in bottomland hardwood forests (Wilson et al. 2007):

Conditions That May Warrant Variables Desired Stand Structure Management Overstory Canopy Cover 60-70% >80% Midstory Cover 25-40% <20% or >50% Basal Area 60-70 ft2/ac, with ≥ 25% in older age classes >90 ft2/ac or ≥ 60% in older age classes Tree Stocking* 60-70% <50% or >90%  Stocking in terms of the Goelz (1995) stocking guide.

5.4.2.5 Silvicultural Systems

A silvicultural system is a planned series of treatments designed to produce a new stand. An even-aged silvicultural system is designed to create one age class; they can be modified (through retention harvesting) to create two age classes. Uneven-aged silvicultural systems are designed to create three or more age classes. The seed tree and shelterwood silvicultural systems produce even-aged stands, while the single tree and group selection systems produce uneven-aged stands (Helms 1998).

Loblolly/Shortleaf and Oak/Pine – Modified even-aged management is the preferred management strategy in the loblolly/shortleaf pine and oak/pine ecosystems. The primary difference between these two ecosystems’ response to regeneration treatments is the different sites they occur on (Brender and Davis 1959). The same silvicultural system should result in the different ecosystems due to the different site conditions.

The seed tree system removes all trees except for widely spaced trees left for seed production. The regeneration develops in a fully exposed environment (Helms 1998). Leave 10ft2 BA/acre (6-12 TPA, ~14-16” dbh) of cone bearing trees (Georgia Chapter, Society of American Foresters 1979). Seed bed preparation, using prescribed fire, should be timed with good seed crops. Since the harvest stimulates cone production, and it takes about 26 months for loblolly seed to mature, the timing of the harvest can be used to predict the seed crop (Wahlenberg 1960). The first two cone crops following a winter or spring harvest will show no increase in seed production. The second autumn after the harvest, however, should show increased seed production. Meanwhile, the third or fourth year following a summer harvest should show the effect of the release. This information can be used to plan for a prescribed fire ahead of seed fall to prepare a seedbed.

The shelterwood system removes most trees except those needed to provide enough shade for the regeneration to develop in a moderated environment (Helms 1998). This is probably the best approach for loblolly in the Georgia Piedmont (Brender and McNab 1972). Leave 25ft2 BA/acre (20-30 TPA, ~14-16” dbh) of cone bearing trees (Georgia Chapter, Society of American Foresters 1979). Again, prepare seed beds using prescribed fire as described under the seed tree system.

Traditionally the seed trees in either even-aged silvicultural system are removed after the regeneration is well established (Brender 1973, Georgia Chapter, Society of American Foresters 1979). The preferred management strategy, however, is modified even-aged management, where the seed trees are reserved for goals other than regeneration. Those goals include biological legacies (Franklin et al. 2007), structural diversity (the seed trees will cause the regeneration to have irregular height and diameter growth, hence the adjective irregular shelterwood – Smith 1986) and RCW habitat (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). As such the seed trees may be retained indefinitely. There is a risk to this approach: loblolly pine regeneration can stagnate and even die under an overstory (Baker and Balmer 1983, Burns and Honkala 1990). Indefinitely retaining the seed trees in a regeneration area, for goals other than regeneration, may cause excessive regeneration mortality if there is not a phased reduction in the amount of reserved seed trees (Brender and Loftis 1969, Walker 1995).

Where prescribed fire is not an option in the loblolly/shortleaf ecosystem, manage using the single tree selection system. Maintain the merchantable basal area from 45 to 75 ft2 BA/acre. Sixty to 80% of the BA should be in trees 10” dbh or larger (Baker et al. 1996). Plan the residual basal area (somewhere from 45 to 60 ft2 BA/acre) based on the projected cutting cycle and not allowing the BA to exceed 75 ft2/acre. For example, given an average growth rate of 2.29 ft2 BA/acre/year (Brender 1960) and a 10 year cutting cycle, the residual basal area should be 52ft2/acre, i.e. 75–{2.29*10}. Periodic herbicide use will probably be required to control hardwood competition (Farrar 1996, Reynolds et al. 1984). Evolving small diameter timber markets may allow mechanical treatments to reduce, or even eliminate the need for herbicide.

Oak/Hickory and Oak/Gum/Cypress – Many of the stands in these ecosystems are degraded. The key to deciding whether to rehabilitate or to regenerate these stands is an evaluation of adequate growing stock (Clatterbuck 2006). Criteria for this evaluation include:

1. Site Quality – use site index to determine if the site is low, medium or high quality. 2. Tree Manageability – determined by species, stem form, crown class (dominant, codominant, intermediate or suppressed) and crown condition (the fullness or size relative to the expected size and diameter of a tree of that size). As a rule of thumb there should be at least 30ft2 BA/acre of these trees; 50ft2 BA/acre is better. Sound professional judgment is required for this determination. 3. Undesirable species – oaks, hickories and, depending on the site, poplars are more desirable; maples, elm, black cherry, white ash and sweetgum are less desirable. 4. Advanced Regeneration – to determine regeneration potential. 5. Age – young, vigorous trees respond better to release than mature trees.

If there is adequate growing stock, the stand is suitable for rehabilitation – see Intermediate Treatments, section 5.4.2.6. If not, regenerating the stand is prescribed.

Once a stand has been identified for regeneration, it should be assessed for advanced oak regeneration. If there are less than 100 pre-existing seedlings per acre 3-4 feet tall and a regeneration harvest is implemented, oak will probably not be a significant component of the new stand (Clatterbuck 2006, Stringer 2006b). Understory control (mechanical, chemical, prescribed fire) and a series of partial cuts may help establish advanced regeneration. Partial cuts, however, may not be possible in a degraded stand with little economic value. Once advance regeneration is established remove midstory, starting with the smallest size possible and work up to intermediate trees. Do not remove dominant or codominant trees at this time. Monitor the advanced regeneration, and when it is >4 feet tall, harvest using the shelterwood system in oak/hickory, leaving 10 to 15 ft2 BA/acre of high quality oaks to create a two-aged stand (Stringer 2006a). In oak/gum/cypress harvest using patch cutting with irregularly shaped openings of 2 to 5 acres (Meadows and Stanturf 1997). Underplanting may be necessary if adequate natural regeneration cannot be established.

An alternative in oak/hickory is to use the shelterwood system in conjunction with prescribed fire (Brose et al. 1999). Advanced oak regeneration must still be present prior to the harvest. The difference is 3 to 5 years after the harvest a prescribed burn is implemented to topkill the regeneration. While this burn topkills the oak as well as its competition (poplar, maple,

55 sweetgum), the growth strategy of oak gives it a competitive advantage after the burn. While an early growing season burn is best, any season burn is better than no burn.

5.4.2.6 Intermediate Treatments

An intermediate treatment is any action, implemented after regeneration and before the final harvest, designed to improve stand conditions (Helms 1998). The primary operation of concern here is thinning. Thinning is simply the process of removing trees from an area to reduce competition and thus increase survivability and growth of the most desirable trees (Harrington 2001a). The primary thinning techniques used are precommercial thinning and two commercial thinning techniques: thinning from below and free thinning. Another thinning technique useful in hardwoods is crop tree release.

Precommercial Thinning – The removal of unmerchantable trees to reduce stocking and concentrate growth on desirable trees. Mechanical strip thinning is an effective approach to the treatment (Grano 1969, Mann and Lohrey 1974). The cut swaths should be 8 to 12 feet wide, alternating with 1 to 3 feet wide uncut strips. While this treatment can be delayed until the regenerating pines are 7 to 8 years old, it should be applied when the trees are 3 to 4 years old.

Prescribed fire is a less precise but more ecologically based method to thin young stands of loblolly pine. Determine when the ground line diameters (GLD) range from <1 to 3 inches. The range of diameters is important, as a low intensity backing fire will effectively eliminate the pines less than 1.5 inches GLD (Wade 1993). This pattern of thinning is desirable, as it removes the smaller, weaker trees. Extreme caution is mandatory because small increases in fire intensity in young stands may cause a large increase in mortality (Waldrop and Lloyd 1988).

Commercial Thinning – Any type of thinning that harvests merchantable material and generates revenue. In thinning from below trees are removed from the lower crown classes, mostly the suppressed crown class, to favor those in the upper crown classes. In free thinning trees are removed to favor desired trees without regard to crown position (Helms 1998). Either technique simulates density-dependent mortality experienced from severe competition during stand development.

The first commercial thinning in a pine stand should be made when the average diameter reaches about 6 inches DBH. This is usually around 20 or 25 years in a natural stand. Within a few years after thinning branches and roots of remaining trees will grow to fill in the gaps, and the same crowded condition that existed before thinning redevelops. Another thinning should be made before trees get too crowded and the growth rate slows. See table 5.5 for guidance on when and how much to thin.

Crop Tree Release – a “treatment intended to provide increased growing space to selected trees through the removal of crown competition from adjacent trees” (Miller et al. 2007). It differs from the other thinning techniques in that it focuses site resources on a relatively few selected trees instead of all residual trees. Crop trees should be a desirable species, be in the dominant or co-dominant crown class, have a >30% live crown ratio, and have a low risk for biotic and abiotic damage (i.e. disease, insects, forks or cankers on the main stem that may break, etc.).

Crop tree release can be used in either precommercial or commercial hardwood stands, in both uplands and bottomland. It is an ideal technique to improve degraded stands with adequate growing stock. To implement a crop tree release treatment, apply a crown touching release – remove competing trees whose crowns touch the crop tree – to all four sides of up to a maximum of 60 to 70 crop trees per acre. See table 5.4, the 60%MaxSDI column, for guidance on when to apply a crop tree release.

Trees to be cut will be designated by, 1) specification in words, 2) physical marking, or 3) some combination of the two. Cutting instructions specified in words are used when it is either unnecessary or not feasible to physically mark the trees to be removed. Good results can be achieved by specifying definite rules for cutting or by physically marking a small area to demonstrate the type of cutting desired. The logger, or equipment operator, then selects the trees to harvest based on these guidelines. More control can be obtained by physically marking the trees that are to be removed or those to be left. Ordinarily the trees to be cut are marked because they are less numerous than those to be left. If the majority of the trees are to be cut, it is better to mark those that are to be left.

5.4.2.7 Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire is “fire applied in a knowledgeable manner to forest fuels on a specified land area under selected weather conditions to accomplish predetermined, well-defined management objectives” (Wade and Lunsford 1989, Waldrop and Goodrick 2012). A basic premise of fire ecology is that fire is neither innately positive nor negative; it simply causes change. Whether these changes are desirable or not depends on land management objectives. Resource managers can manipulate fire-caused changes in plant and animal communities. To do this, knowledge of the ecological role of fire, both past and present, is essential.

Plants and animals respond differently to fire variables including fire frequency, seasonality, intensity, size and depth of burn. While fire is variable, general patterns occur over long periods. These patterns describe fire regimes. There are four fire regime classifications: 1) Understory, 2) Stand-Replacement, 3) Mixed-Severity, and 4) Nonfire (Brown et al. 2000). Piedmont falls in the first classification. Fires in the understory fire regime are generally non-lethal to the dominant vegetation (i.e. the overstory) and do not substantially change the structure of the dominant vegetation. Approximately 80% of the aboveground dominant vegetation survives fires.

Understory fire regimes can change the overstory in several ways (Smith 2000). First, understory fires may kill or top-kill a few of the most fire-susceptible trees. Secondly, they may selectively kill or top-kill a cohort of tree regeneration according to fire resistance. Furthermore, understory fires reduce woody understory biomass, sometimes in a patchy pattern. At the same time, it increases understory grasses and forbs. The structural changes caused by a single understory fire are not dramatic, but repeated fires create and maintain a forest characterized by large, old trees, park-like conditions, and few understory trees.

The refuge Fire Management Plan develops the fire program on the refuge. It includes chapters such as policy, land management planning, and partnerships; fire management unit characteristics; wildland fire operational guidance; and monitoring and evaluation.

5.4.2.8 Unplanned Events

The primary unplanned events that may warrant action are bark beetle outbreaks and weather events, usually wind (tornados, hurricanes) or ice (glaze).

Bark Beetles – includes black turpentine, Ips, and southern pine beetles (SPB). The SPB is by far the most destructive. There are three parts to bark beetle management: prevention, control, and rehabilitation.

Prevention: Different structural characteristics make a stand more or less prone to SPB attacks. Since silvicultural treatments change stand structure, they can be used to reduce susceptibility to SPB. Vulnerable stands are well-stocked with over-mature, slow growing trees on heavy clay soils (Thatcher et al. 1980). A high percentage of shortleaf pine increases risk (Coulson and Klepzig 2011). This is because shortleaf pine is highly susceptible to littleleaf disease on eroded clay soils (Copeland and McAlpine 1955), and SPB attacks most closely associated with potential littleleaf sites (Belanger et al. 1986). Treatments that maintain growing stock levels as prescribed in table 5.4, keeping shortleaf pine stocking as a minor percentage of the total pine stocking, and retaining a significant hardwood component (preferably oaks) should reduce stand susceptibility to SPB during most outbreak years.

Control: Suppressing SPB spots relies on identifying spots likely to spread and mechanically treating those spots. Use the following table as guidance to setting control priorities:

Table 5.6 Characteristic Condition Points Absent 0 Freshly Attacked Trees Present 30 1-10 0 Number of Trees Containing 11-20 10 SPB brood 21-50 20 >50 40 <80 (low density) 0 Pine Basal Area (ft2/acre) 80-120 (medium density) 10 >120 (high density) 20 ≤9 (pulpwood) 0 Size Class (inches) >9 (sawtimber) 10 Total  If total is 70-100, control priority is high  If total is 40-60, control priority is medium  If total is 0-30, control priority is low Adapted from Coulson and Klepzig 2011

The two mechanical treatment options are cut and remove and cut and leave (Coulson and Klepzig 2011, Thatcher et al. 1980). Cut and remove treatments involve salvaging the beetle- infested trees plus a buffer strip of uninfested trees. Buffer strip width for high priority spots may need to be 100+ feet wide (buffer width of 1½ to 2 times the height of the surrounding trees), while buffer width in medium and low priority spots should be equal to the average tree

58 height in the stand. Buffer trees and freshly attacked trees should be removed first, followed by trees with SPB brood. Vacated trees may or may not be removed, depending on rehabilitation objectives. This is the most recommended control tactic (Coulson and Klepzig 2011).

In cut and leave treatments the buffer trees, freshly attacked trees, and trees with SPB brood are felled toward the center of the infestation. The vacated trees are left standing. While this tactic reduces spot growth, it has questionable effectiveness in reducing brood survival (Coulson and Klepzig 2011). It also greatly increases fuel load which, depending on location, could create a wildfire hazard or smoke management problem. As such it should only be used when cut and remove cannot be employed due to small spot size, difficult access, unmerchantable trees, etc.

Rehabilitation: Conditions created by SPB spots may or may not be in line with the refuge goal of sustainably producing RCW habitat to achieve the recovery objective. SPB spots create gaps by killing overstory pine trees, an essential component of RCW habitat. The question is whether or not to regenerate (either naturally or artificially) these gaps to provide future RCW habitat. Planned regeneration treatments occur at the scale of the stand; most SPB spots, meanwhile, only represent a portion of the stand. Characteristics such as number and type of residual trees in a spot, spot size and shape, number of spots, cumulative area in spots and distribution of spots influence regeneration decisions. Considerations when deciding whether or not to regenerate include (Goelz et al. 2012):

 Hardwood competition is usually common in spots and must be controlled for successful pine regeneration.  Natural regeneration works with smaller spots where seed from mature trees surrounding the spot can adequately disperse throughout the spot. Larger spots may require artificial regeneration unless there are seedlings in place.  Artificial regeneration is easier when spots are larger (≥ 5 acres) or a number of smaller spots can be combined.  Regeneration treatments will be hampered unless buffer trees, freshly attacked trees, trees with SPB brood, and vacated trees are removed. While some vacated trees may be retained to promote natural SPB predator populations or provide snags for wildlife habitat, the majority should be removed if regeneration treatments are planned.

Wind – wind events like tornadoes and hurricanes break the main bole of a tree, cause limb and top breakage, and uproot trees. Generally speaking, if the stocking goes below a certain threshold the stand will not be able to recover, and regeneration treatments are prescribed. If the stocking remains above this threshold alternative treatments may help speed recovery from the incident. Assess and treat wind damaged stands as follows (Dickens et al. 2008):

 Severe Damage (>50% of the good quality trees with significant damage) – Regenerate. Salvage harvest as soon as possible. Retain undamaged oaks ≥ 12” dbh and mature, cone-bearing pines if considering natural regeneration. Pile limbs, tops and debris away from retention trees and burn within one year. A September burn, prior to a good pine seed year, should encourage pine regeneration. Remove pines if planning artificial regeneration.

 Moderate Damage (20-50% of the good quality trees with significant damage) – Carry stand to planned rotation age. Salvage harvest broken and leaning trees. Pile limbs, tops and debris away from retention trees and burn within one year.  Low Damage (<20% of the good quality trees with significant damage) – Carry stand to planned rotation. Salvage harvest not necessary unless used to remove debris that could become a smoke management concern.  Pre-Merchantable Stands – usually trees less than 30 feet tall and less than 45% lean recover. If there are 300+ trees per acre in good condition, wait until the first prescribed thinning to treat.

Ice – glaze storms occur every 3 to 6 years in Georgia (Brender 1973). The damage they cause is similar to wind damage, so assess them using the same criteria. Hail damage, while less frequent, may also fall into this category.

5.4.2.9. Non-Forest Management

Rock Outcrops – the only management activity on identified outcrops is protection. Note that protection does not mean excluding management activities from the area surrounding an outcrop. For example, firelines will not be installed around outcrops to keep fire out while the surrounding area is burned during a prescribed fire. Protection means keeping equipment (bulldozer, skidder, etc.) used for management activities in the surrounding area off the outcrop.

Canebrakes – since there is no guidance as to what differentiates small areas of cane in the understory from canebrakes (Brantley and Platt 2001), refuge staff must use their sound professional judgment whether or not a particular cane patch warrants treatments. Potential treatment types include:

 Selectively applied herbicides to control invasive exotic plants such as Chinese privet and reduce hardwood competition such as sweetgum and maple (Klaus and Klaus 2011).  Reduce forest canopy to increase shoot growth (Cirtain et al. 2009). This can be through either herbicide or mechanical (i.e. timber thinning) means.  Apply prescribed fire to promote vigor (Gagnon et al. 2013). The difficulty here is the surrounding uplands get burned more frequently than recommended for forest grown cane, the probable condition of much of the cane currently on the refuge. Firelines will not be installed around cane patches to exclude fire. Instead, fire seasonality and firing patterns will be used to mitigate excessive fire in cane.

Invasive exotic species – an effective invasive species program includes preventing the introduction of invasive exotic species, early detection and eradication of introductions, controlling the spread of establish populations, and managing healthy communities of native species to compete with exotic species. Specific actions include (USDA Forest Service 2001):

 Avoid or remove sources of weed seed to prevent new weed infestations and the spread of existing weeds. o Preventing spread may require cleaning stations for vehicles and equipment. o Treat weeds on log decks and skid trails before harvesting activities commence.

 Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed germination and establishment. o Appropriate burn unit preparation may reduce disturbances to soil. o Retain native vegetation in and around timber harvesting activities and keep soil disturbance to a minimum consistent with project objectives.  Re-establish vegetation on bare ground caused by project disturbance as soon as possible. Plant native species as necessary to compete with exotic species.

Open Lands/Early Successional Habitat – this means the existing fields, pond dams, road sides, and power line right-of-ways. All require exotic plant control since they all have varying amounts of Bermuda grass, tall fescue, Johnson grass, and other invasive exotics. All openings within burn units will be burned in conjunction with the surrounding unit. Cane is adjacent to some of the openings that fall within the oak-gum-cypress desired future condition. This cane should be allowed to expand into these openings, eventually taking over. Once the exotics are adequately controlled in the other openings, prescribed fire should be the preferred management activity. This allows the plant communities to develop naturally under an appropriate fire regime. However, mechanical and/or chemical treatments, both inside and outside of burn units, may be utilized to maintain their openness.

5.4.3 Unit by Unit Prescriptions

A prescription is a set of treatments designed to change current conditions to one that meets goals and objectives (Helms 1998). The particular treatments prescribed depend on site-specific conditions at the time of prescription. As such it is not possible to write prescriptions for units that may not be treated for 10 to 15 years from now. Instead, tables 5.7 and 5.8 identify the desired future conditions for each management unit, or compartment.

The prescription process includes:

 Compartment assessment or forest inventory – see appendix 3.  A comparison between the current conditions from the inventory and the desired future conditions identified in these tables and addressed in detail in chapter 4, Habitat Management Goals and Objectives.  Prescribing the appropriate practices, identified in this chapter – see section 5.4, Management Strategy Prescriptions, to change from current conditions to desired future conditions.

The written prescription follows the guidance in appendix 5.

Table 5.7 Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine (P) Current Desired Condition Condition total Uneven-aged Even-aged P1 P2 P3 Compartment ------acres ------1 289 221 221 0 0 0 0 2 917 776 19 757 189 189 379 3 1036 856 33 823 206 206 412 4 1076 713 31 682 171 171 341 5 639 772 124 648 162 162 324 6 823 915 48 867 217 217 434 7 427 408 1 407 102 102 204 8 662 533 2 531 133 133 266 9 771 732 83 649 162 162 325 10 827 712 5 707 177 177 354 11 692 655 17 638 160 160 319 12 566 657 13 644 161 161 322 13 548 467 4 463 116 116 232 14 766 622 11 611 153 153 306 15 970 693 19 674 169 169 337 16 710 560 0 560 140 140 280 17 899 584 80 504 126 126 252 18 1348 1268 304 964 241 241 482 19 727 564 11 553 138 138 277 20 551 291 111 180 45 45 90 21 1194 810 36 774 194 194 387 22 764 695 11 684 171 171 342 23 712 464 51 413 103 103 207 24 784 412 0 412 103 103 206 25 748 558 146 412 103 103 206 26 741 407 9 398 100 100 199 27 769 643 111 532 133 133 266 28 353 351 68 283 71 71 142 29 1161 806 74 732 183 183 366 30 441 431 0 431 108 108 216 31 523 456 71 385 96 96 193 32 849 774 406 368 92 92 184 33 780 747 245 502 126 126 251 34 456 245 1 244 61 61 122 Totals 25519 20798 2366 18432 4608 4608 9216

Table 5.8 Oak/Pine & Oak/Hickory* Oak/Gum/Cypress (BH) Current Condition Desired Condition Current Desired Upland Hardwood* Oak/Pine (M) Oak/Hickory (UH) Condition Condition Water total Compartment ------acres ------1 173 173 93 24 0 486 2 47 240 85 245 129 46 1275 3 43 230 58 98 35 1179 4 89 353 165 87 21 1252 5 325 231 69 194 90 1162 6 138 91 17 221 191 6 1219 7 99 139 25 129 95 2 669 8 141 233 99 111 53 918 9 177 290 69 256 115 5 1210 10 195 269 96 175 128 1205 11 233 252 110 123 36 11 1065 12 314 200 91 95 31 980 13 140 205 81 95 40 793 14 94 194 124 195 140 27 1106 15 222 343 187 127 112 1335 16 103 190 82 121 107 939 17 116 327 125 102 86 1122 18 439 393 194 177 121 1976 19 188 220 95 39 86 3 968 20 68 182 130 19 35 638 21 90 284 203 93 140 8 1446 22 228 189 109 16 27 4 1023 23 154 244 150 49 58 915 24 11 231 206 86 32 882 25 150 205 169 99 77 3 1012 26 125 256 222 35 25 910 27 210 232 155 63 13 1043 28 270 173 120 45 36 680 29 244 423 200 55 51 1481 30 59 94 18 49 7 550 31 171 188 93 43 0 738 32 140 226 107 108 0 1107 33 240 239 98 58 0 3 1086 34 68 181 110 51 39 575 Totals 5504 7916 3955 3483 2158 118 34943

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Albrecht, M.H. and K.E. Mattson. 1977. Fuel weights by types for Piedmont and Mountain regions of North Carolina. North Carolina Forest Service Forestry Note No. 30.

Allen, A.W. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: gray squirrel. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(10.135).

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication Number 1391.

Baker, J.B., M.D. Cain, J.M. Guldin, P.A. Murphy, & M.G. Shelton. 1996. Uneven-aged silviculture for the loblolly and shortleaf pine forest cover types. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-118.

Baker, J.B. & W.E. Balmer. 1983. Loblolly pine. Pp. 148-152 in R.M. Burns, compiler. Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States. US Department of Agriculture Handbook 445.

Barden, L.S. 1997. Historic prairies in the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17(2)149-152.

Barnes, B.V., Pregitzer, K.S., Spies, T.A., Spooner, V.H. 1982. Ecological forest site classification. Journal of Forestry 80(8):493-498.

Berlanger, R.P., R.L. Heddon, and F.H. Tainter. 1986. Managing Piedmont forests to reduce losses from the littleleaf disease-southern pine beetle complex. US Department of Agriculture Handbook 649.

Blaine, R.M., ed. 1994. The publications of James Edward Oglethorpe. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.

Brantley, C.G. and S.G. Platt. 2001. Canebrake conservation in the Southeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(4):1175-1181.

Brender, E.V. 1960. Growth predictions for natural stands of loblolly pine in the lower Piedmont. Georgia Forest Research Council, Report No. 6.

Brender, E.V. 1973. Silviculture of loblolly pine in the Georgia Piedmont. Georgia Forest Research Council, Report No. 33.

Brender, E.V. 1974. Impact of past land use on the lower Piedmont Forest. Journal of Forestry 72(1):34-36.

Brender, E.V. and L.S. Davis. 1959. Influence of topography on the future composition of lower Piedmont forests. Journal of Forestry 57(1):33-34.

Brender, E.V. & R.W. Cooper. 1968. Prescribed burning in Georgia’s Piedmont loblolly pine stands. Journal of Forestry 66(1):31-36.

Brender, E.V. & N.S. Loftis, Jr. 1969. Growth of advance loblolly reproduction after removal of overwood. Journal of Forestry 67(11):830-831.

Brender, E.V. & W.H. McNab. 1972. Loblolly pine seed production in the lower Piedmont under various harvesting methods. Journal of Forestry 70(6):345-349.

Brose, P.H., D.H. Van Lear, and P.D. Keyser. 1999. A shelterwood-burn technique for regenerating productive upland oak site in the Piedmont region. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(3):158-163.

Brown, J.K. & J.K Smith, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-42-vol.2.

Bryan, R.R. 2007. Focus species forestry: a guide to integrating timber and biodiversity management in Maine. Maine Audubon.

Buckner, E. 1989. Evolution of forest types in the Southeast. Pp. 27-33 In: Waldrop, T.A., ed. Proceedings of Pine-Hardwood Mixtures: A Symposium of Management and Ecology of the Type. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-58.

Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of North America. Volumes I and II. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 654.

Burton, J.D. 1980. Growth and yield in managed natural stands of loblolly and shortleaf pine in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-159.

Byford, B. 2009. A landowner’s guide to careful logging. The Ontario Woodlot Association.

Byram, G.M. 1959. Combustion of forest fuels. In Forest Fire: Control and Use. K.P. Davis, ed. McGraw-hill Book Co., New York.

Cain, M.D. 1993. A 10-year evelauation of prescribed winter burns in uneven-aged stands of Pinus taeda L. and P. echinata Mill.: woody understorey vegetation response. International Journal of Wildland Fire 3(1):13-20.

Cain, M.D. & M.G. Shelton. 2002. Does prescribed fire have a place in regenerating uneven- aged loblolly-shortleaf pine stands? Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 26(3):117-123.

Carter, V.E. and E.A. Dow. 1969. Effects of timber harvest and regeneration on deer food and cover. Pp. 62-65 In White-Tailed Deer in the Southern Forest Habitat. Proceedings of a Symposium. USDA Forest Service Southern Forest Experiment Station.

Chen, M., E.J. Hodgkins, and W.J. Watson. 1975. Prescribed burning for improving pine production and wildlife habitat in the hilly Coastal Plain of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 473.

Cirtain, M.C., S.B. Franklin, and S.R. Pezeshki. 2009. Effect of light intensity on Arundinaria gigantean growth and physiology. Castanea 74(3):236-246.

Clatterbuck, W.K. 2006. Treatments for improving degraded hardwood stands. Southern Regional Forestry Publication SREF-FM-009.

Clayton, L.A., V.J. Knight Jr., & E.C. Moore, eds. 1993. The de Soto chronicles: the expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543. The University of Alabama Press.

Cleland, D.T., P.E Avers, W.H. McNab, M.E. Jensen, R.G. Bailey, T. King, W.E. Russell, W.E. 1997. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Pp. 181-200 In Boyce, M. S. and A. Haney, ed. Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press.

Conner, R.N., A. Snow, & K.A. O’Halloran. 1991. Red-cockaded woodpecker use of seedtree/shelterwood cuts in eastern Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(1):67-73.

Copeland, O.L., Jr. and R.G. McAlpine. 1955. The interrelations of littleleaf, site index, soil, and ground cover in Piedmont shortleaf pine stands. Ecology 36(4):635-641.

Coulson, R.N. and K.D. Klepzig. 2011. Southern pine beetle II. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-140.

Cowell, C.M. 1995. Presettlement Piedmont forests: patterns of composition and disturbance in central Georgia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85(1):65-83.

Cowell, C.M. 1998. Historical change in vegetation and disturbance on the Georgia Piedmont. American Midland Naturalist 140(1):78-89.

Curtis, R.O. The role of extended rotations. Pp. 165-170 In Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, eds. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: the Science of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Cushwa, C.T., E.V. Brender & R.W. Cooper. 1966. The response of herbaceous vegetation to prescribed burning. USDA Forest Service Research Note SE-53.

Cushwa, C.T., E. Czuhai, R.W. Cooper, & W.H. Julian. 1969. Burning clearcut openings in loblolly pine to improve wildlife habitat. Georgia Forest Research Paper # 61.

Cushwa, C.T. 1970. Response of legumes to prescribed burns in loblolly pine stands of the South Carolina Piedmont. USDA Forest Service Research Note SE-140.

Cutko, A. 2009. Biodiversity inventory of natural lands: a how-to manual for foresters and biologists. NatureServe Technical Report.

Czuhai, E. 1981. Considerations in prescribed fire on National Wildlife Refuges. Pp37-40 In Wood, G.W., ed. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. Proceedings of a Symposium. The Belle W. Baruch Institute of Clemson University.

Czuhai, E. and C.T. Cushwa. 1968. A resume of prescribed burning on the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge. USDA Forest Service Research Note SE-86.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 688.

Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(3):369-385.

Dickens, E.D., J. Johnson, P.M. Crosby, and B. Allen. 2008. Assessing storm damaged forest stands. University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest and Natural Resources. Forest Health Publication Series #FH 2008-01.

Dixon, G.E., comp. 2002. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator, USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Internal Report. (Revised: October 16, 2012).

Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant populations. USDI Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1.

Engstrom, R.T., L.A. Brennan, W.L. Neel, R.M. Farrar, S.T. Lindeman, W.K. Moser, & S.M. Hermann. 1996. Silvicultural practices and red-cockaded woodpecker management: a reply to Rudolph and Conner. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2):334-338.

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters.

Farmer, A.H., B.S. Cade, and D.F. Stauffer. 2002. Evaluation of a habitat suitability index model. Pp. 172-179 In Kurta, A. and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of a species. Bat Conservation International.

Farrar, R.M., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of uneven-aged management in southern pine. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 9.

Franklin, J.F., R.J. Mitchell, & B.J. Palik. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-19.

Francis, J.K. 1980. Soil-site factors affecting southern upland oak management and growth. Pp. 126-133 In Shropshire, F. and D. Sims, co-chairs. Mid-south upland hardwood symposium for the practicing forester and landowner. USDA Forest Service Technical Publication SA-TP 12.

Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: a first approximation. Pp 70-81 In Pruden, T.L. and L.A. Brennan, eds. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Proceedings of the 20th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tall Timbers Research Station.

Gagnon, P.R., H.A. Passmore, and W.J. Platt. 2013. Multi-year salutary effects of windstorm and fire on river cane. Fire Ecology 9(1): 55-65.

Garrison, G.A., A.J. Bjugstad, D.A. Duncan, M.E. Lewis, and D.R. Smith. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 475.

Garver, R.D. and R.H. Miller. 1933. Selective logging in the shortleaf and loblolly pine forests of the Gulf States region. USDA Technical Bulletin No. 375.

Georgia Chapter, Society of American Foresters. 1979. Silvicultural guidelines for forest owners in Georgia. Georgia Forest Research Paper No. 6.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2005. A comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division.

Georgia Forestry Commission. 2009. Georgia’s best management practices for forestry. Georgia Forestry Commission.

Gingrich, S.F. 1967. Measuring and evaluating stocking and stand density in upland hardwood forests in the Central States. Forest Science 13:38-53.

Givens, L.S. 1962. Use of fire on southeastern wildlife refuges. Pp. 121-126 In Komarek, E.V., ed. Proceedings of the 1st Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tall Timbers Research Station.

Goelz, J.C.G. 1995. A stocking guide for southern bottomland hardwoods. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 19(3):103-104.

Goelz, J.C.G., B.L. Strom, J.P. Barnett, and M.A. Sword Sayer. 2012. Guidelines for regenerating southern pine beetle spots. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS- 153.

Grano, C.X. 1969. Precommercial thinning of loblolly pine. Journal of Forestry 67(11):825-827.

Gresham, C.A. 1996. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) irregular shelterwood stand development and red-cockaded woodpecker management – a case study. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 20(2):90-93.

Guyette, R.P., M.C. Stambaugh, and D.C. Dey. 2010. Developing and using fire scar histories in the southern and eastern United States. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program.

Gysel, L.W. and L.J. Lyon. 1980. Habitat analysis and evaluation. Pp. 305-327 In Schemnitz, S.D., ed. Wildlife management techniques manual. 4th edition, revised. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The land manager’s guide to the birds of the south. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC.

Hamel, P.B. and E.R. Buckner. 1998. How far could a squirrel travel in the treetops? A prehistory of the southern forest. Pp. 309-315 In Transactions of the 63rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute.

Harper, F. 1998. The travels of William Bartram: naturalist’s edition. The University of Georgia Press.

Harrington, T.B. 2001a. Silvicultural basis for thinning southern pines: concepts and expected responses. Georgia Forestry Commission, Report # FSP001.

Harrington, T.B. 2001b. Silvicultural approaches for thinning southern pines: method, intensity, and timing. Georgia Forestry Commission Report #FSP002.

Hawkins, B.1916. Letters of Benjamin Hawkins, 1796-1806. Georgia Historical Society.

Hendrick, L.D., R.G. Hooper, D.L. Krusac, & J.M. Dabney. 1998. Silvicultural systems and red- cockaded woodpecker management: another perspective. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(1):138-147.

Helms, J.A. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. The Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.

Hooper, R.G. and R.F. Harlow. 1986. Forest stands selected by foraging red-cockaded woodpeckers. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-259.

Hunter M.L. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hughes, R.H. 1966. Fire ecology of canebrakes. Pp. 149-158 In Komarek, E.V., Sr., chairman. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference.

Husch, B., C.I. Miller, and T.W. Beers. Forest Mensuration. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Jackson, J.A. 1994. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The Birds of North America.

Jones, E.P., Jr. 1993. Silvicultural treatments to maintain red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Pp. 627-632 In Brissette, J.C., ed. Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-93.

Johnson, D.H. 1996. Population analysis. Pp. 419-444 In Bookhout, T.A., ed. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. 5th edition, revised. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Johnson P.S. 1993. Perspectives on the ecology and silviculture of oak-dominated forests in the central and eastern states. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-153.

Klaus, N.A., and J.M. Klaus. 2011. Evaluating tolerance of herbicide and transplantation by cane (a native bamboo) for canebrake restoration. Restoration Ecology 19(3): 344-350.

Knapp, E.E., B.L. Estes, and C.N. Skinner. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: a literature review and synthesis for managers. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-224.

Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographical Society Special Publication No. 36.

Landers, J.L. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in southeastern pine forests. Pp 19- 27 In Dickson, J.G. and O.E. Maughan, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a proceedings. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-65.

Landers, J.L. and B.S. Mueller. 1986. Bobwhite quail management: a habitat approach. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 6.

Larsen, D.R. 2002. Spreadsheet stocking diagrams for the central hardwoods. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 19(2):93-94.

Lay, D.W. 1956. Effects of prescribed burning on forage and mast production in southern pine forests. Journal of Forestry 54(9):582-584.

Lay, D.W. 1957. Browse quality and the effects of prescribed burning in southern pine forests. Journal of Forestry 55(5):342-347.

Lennartz, M.R. The red-cockaded woodpecker: old-growth species in a second growth landscape. Natural Areas Journal 8(3):160-165.

Lennartz, M.R. & D.G. Heckel. 1987. Population dynamics of a red-cockaded woodpecker population in Georgia Piedmont loblolly pine habitat. Pp. 48-55 In Odum, R., K.A. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier, eds. Proceedings of the third southeastern nongame and endangered wildlife symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division.

Loeb, S.C., W.P. Pepper & A.T. Doyle. 1992. Habitat characteristics of active and abandoned red-cockaded woodpecker colonies. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 16(3):120-125.

Loftis, D.L. and C.E. McGee. 1993. Oak regeneration: serious problems, practical recommendations. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-84.

Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. The Forestry Chronicle 61(1):23- 27.

Lutes, D.C., R.E. Keane, J.F. Caratti, C.H. Key, N.C. Benson, S. Sutherland, and L.J. Gangi. 2006. FIREMON: fire effects monitoring and inventory system. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-164-CD.

Lutes, D.C., N.C. Benson, M. Keifer, J.F. Caratti, and S.A. Streetman. 2009. FFI: a software tool for ecological monitoring. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:310-314.

Malmsheimer, R.W., P. Heffernan, S. Brink, D. Crandall, F. Deneke, C. Galik, E. Gee, J.A. Helms, N. McClure, M. Mortimer, S. Ruddell, M. Smith, and J. Stewart. 2008. Forest management solutions for mitigating climate change in the United States. Journal of Forestry 106(3):115-171.

Mann, W.F. & R.E. Lohrey, Jr. 1974. Precommercial thinning of southern pines. Journal of Forestry 72(9):557-560.

Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.L. Nelson. 1951. A guide to wildlife food habits: the use of trees, shrubs, weeds, and herbs by birds and mammals of the United States. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY.

Masters, R.E., K. Robertson, B. Palmer, J. Cox, K. McGorty, L. Green, and C. Ambrose. 2007. Red Hills forest stewardship guide. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 12.

McClure, J.P. and H.A. Knight. 1984. Empirical yields of timber and forest biomass in the southeast. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-245.

McMconnell, W.V. 1999. Red-cockaded woodpecker cavity excavation in seedtree-shelterwood stands in the Wakulla (Apalachicola National Forest, Florida) sub-population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(2):509-513.

McNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-WSA-5.

Meadows, J.S. and J.A. Stanturf. 1997. Silvicultural systems for southern bottomland hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management 90:127-140.

Mitchell, W.A., and G.H. Hughes. 1995. Fixed area plot sampling for forest inventory: section 6.2.4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Technical Report EL-95-27.

Mitchell, W.A., G.H. Hughes, and L.E. Marcy. 1995. Prism sampling: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Technical Report EL-95-24.

Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8):2145-2151.

Miller, G.W., J.N. Kochenderfer, and D. Fekedulegn. 2004. Composition and development of reproduction in two-age Appalachian hardwood stands: 20-year results. Pp. 171-181 In Sheppard, W.D. and L.G. Eskew, comps. Silviculture in special places: proceeding of the national silviculture workshop. USDA Forest Service Proceeding RMRS-P-34.

Miller, G.W., J.W. Stringer, and D.C. Mercker. 2007. Technical guide to crop tree release in hardwood forests. Southern Regional Forestry Publication SREF-FM-011.

National Bobwhite Technical Committee. 2011. Palmer, W.E., T.M. Terhune, and D.F. McKenzie (eds). The national bobwhite conservation initiative: a range-wide plan for re- covering bobwhites. National Bobwhite Technical Committee Technical Publication, ver. 2.0.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2008. Glossary of wildland fire terminology. PMS 205.

Nelson, T.C. and W.R. Beaufait. 1956. Studies in site evaluation for southern hardwoods. Society of American Foresters Proceeding 57:67-70.

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the invasive species challenge: national invasive species management plan.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. USDI National Biological Service Biological Report 28.

Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conservation Biology 15(3):578-590.

Oliver, C.D. & B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. Update Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Payne, H.H. 1976. Soil survey of Baldwin, Jones, and Putnum Counties, Georgia. USDA Soil Conservation Service.

Phillips, D.L. 1982. Life-forms of granite outcrop plants. American Midland Naturalist 107(1):206-208.

Putnam, J.A., G.M. Furnival, and J.S. McKnight. 1960. Management and inventory of southern hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 181.

Pyne, S.J. 2000. Where have all the fires gone? Fire Management Today 60(3):4-6.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46:627-638.

Remsen, J,V., Jr. 1977. On taking field notes. American Birds 31(5):946-953.

Reynolds, R.R., J.B. Baker, & T.T. Ku. 1984. Four decades of selection management on the Crossett farm forestry forties. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 872.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt & T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Roach, B.A. 1974. Scheduling timber cutting for sustained yield of wood products and wildlife. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-14.

Roach, B.A., and S.F. Gingrich. 1968. Even-aged silviculture for upland central hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 355.

Rostlund, E. 1957. The myth of a natural prairie belt in Alabama: an interpretation of historical records. Association of American Geographers 47:392-411.

Rousseau, R.J. 2004. Bottomland hardwood management: species/site relationships. Mississippi State University Extension Service publication POD rev-02-08.

Rudolph, D.C. and R.N. Conner. 1996. Red-cockaded woodpecker and silvicultural practice: is uneven-aged silviculture preferable to even-aged? The Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2):330-333.

Saenz, D., R.N. Conner, D.C. Rudolph, & R.T. Engstrom. 2001. Is a “hands-off” approach appropriate for red-cockaded woodpecker conservation in twenty-first-century landscapes? Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(3):956-966.

Sander, I.L., F.B. Clark. 1971. Reproduction of upland hardwood forests in the central states. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 405.

Seagle, S.W., R.A. Lancia, D.A. Adams, M.R. Lennartz, & H.A. Devine. 1987. Integrating timber and red-cockaded woodpecker habitat management. Pp. 41-52 In Transactions of the 52nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.

Schnur, L.G. 1937. Yield, stand, and volume tables for even-aged upland oak forests. USDA Technical Bulletin No. 560.

Schultz, R.P. 1997. Loblolly pine: the ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). US Department of Agriculture Handbook 713.

Sims, D.H. 1992. The two-aged stand: a management alternative. USDA Forest Service Management Bulletin R8-MB 61.

Skinner, C.N. 2007. Silviculture and forest management under a rapidly changing climate. Pp. 21-32 In Powers, R.F., technical editor. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW- GTR-203.

Smith, D.M. 1986. The practice of silviculture. 8th edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-42-vol.1.

Southern Forest Fire Laboratory. 1976. Southern forestry smoke management guidebook. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-10.

Speake, D.W., E.P Hill, and V.E. Carter. 1975. Aspects of land management with regard to production of wood and wildlife in the southeastern United States. Pp. 333-349 In Bernier, B. and C.H. Winget, eds. Forest Soils and Forest Land Management. Proceedings of the Fourth North American Forest Soils Conference.

Stringer, J. 2006a. Two-age system and deferment harvests. Southern Regional Forestry Publication SREF-FM-008.

Stringer, J. 2006b. Oak shelterwood: a technique to improve oak regeneration. Southern Regional Forestry Publication SREF-FM-005.

Thackston, R. and M. Whitney. 2001. The bobwhite quail in Georgia: history, biology and management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Publication.

Thatcher, R.C., J.L. Searcy, J.E. Coster, and G.D. Hertel, eds. 1980. The southern pine beetle. USDA Forest Service Technical Bulletin 1631.

Thompson, M.T. 1998. Forest statistics for Georgia, 1997. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin SRS-36.

Trimble, G.R., Jr. and H.C. Smith. 1976. Stand structure and stocking control in Appalachian mixed hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-340.

USDA Forest Service. 1929. Volume, yield, and stand tables for second growth southern pines. USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 50. Revised 1976.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Version 1.0.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge: even-aged forest management. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Pamphlet RL-417-R.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 233pp.

Wade, D.D. 1993. Thinning young loblolly pine stands with fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 3(3):169-178.

Wade, D.D. & J.D. Lunsford. 1989. A guide for prescribed fire in southern forests. USDA Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP 11.

Wade, D.D., D.R. Weise, & R. Shell. 1989. Some effect of periodic winter fire on plant communities on the Georgia Piedmont. Pp. 603-611 in Miller, H.M., complier. Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-74.

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1960. Loblolly pine: its use, ecology, regeneration, protection, growth and management. The School of Forestry, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Wakeley, J.S. 1988. A method to create simplified versions of existing habitat suitability index (HSI) models. Environmental Modelling 12(1):79-83.

Waldrop, T.A., D.H. Van Lear, F.T. Llotd, and W.R. Harms. 1987. Long-term studies of prescribed burning in loblolly pine forests of the southeastern Coastal Plain. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-45.

Waldrop, T.A. and F.T. Lloyd. 1988. Precommercial thinning a sapling-sized loblolly pine stand with fire. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 12(3):203-207.

Waldrop, T.A. and S.L. Goodrick. 2012. Introduction to prescribed fire in southern ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Science Update SRS-54.

Walker, J.S. 1995. Potential red-cockaded woodpecker habitat produced on a sustained basis under different silvicultural systems. Pp. 112-130 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G. Hooper, & R Costa,

76 eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX.

Ward, J.D. and P.A. Mistretta. 2002. Impacts of pests on forest health. Pp. 403-428 In Southern forest resource assessment. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-53.

Wigley, T.B., S.W. Sweeney, and J.R. Sweeney. 1999. Habitat attributes and reproduction of red-cockaded woodpeckers in intensively managed forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(3):801- 809.

Williams, G.W. 2000. Introduction to aboriginal use of fire. Fire Management Today 60(3):4-6.

Wilson, R., K. Ribbeck, S. King, and D Twedt. 2007. Restoration, management and monitoring of forest resources in the Mississippi alluvial valley: recommendations for enhancing wildlife habitat. LMVLV Forest Resource Conservation Working Group.

White, D.L. and F.T. Lloyd. 1995. Defining old growth: implications for management. Pp. 51-62 In Boyd, E.M., comp. Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-1.

White, D.L. and F.T. Lloyd. 1998. An old-growth definition for dry and dry-mesic oak-pine forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-23.

Wood, G.W., ed. 1981. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests. Proceedings of a Symposium. The Belle W. Baruch Institute of Clemson University.

Worth, J.E. 1993. Before Creek and Cherokee: Georgia Indians during the early colonial era. Fernbank Quarterly 18(3): 18-27.

Worth, J.E. 1994. Late Spanish military expeditions in the interior southeast, 1597-1628. Pp. 104-122 In Hudson, C. & C.C. Tesser, eds. The forgotten centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American south, 1521-1704. The University of Georgia Press.

Wood, G.W., L.J. Niles, R.M. Hendrick, J.R. Davis, and T.L. Grimes. 1985. Compatibility of even-aged timber management and red-cockaded woodpecker conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(1):5-17.

Zeide. B. 2005. How to measure stand density. Trees 19(1):1-14.

APPENDIX 1 – SPECIES LISTS

BIRDS

Grebes

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Cormorants and Darters

Double crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Anhinga Anhinga anhinga American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Least Bittern Tigrisoma mexicanum Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Great Egret Ardea alba Snowy Egret Egretta thula Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Green Heron Butorides virescens Black crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yellow crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea White Ibis Eudocimus albus

Geese and Ducks

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Canada Goose Branta canadensis Wood Duck Aix sponsa Green winged Teal Anas crecca American Black Duck Anas rubripes Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Northern Pintail Anas acuta Blue winged Teal Anas discors Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Gadwall Anas strepera American Wigeon Anas americana Canvasback Aythya valisineria Redhead Aythya americana Ring necked Duck Aythya collaris Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Common Merganser Mergus merganser Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Red breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Vultures, Hawks and Eagles

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Vultures, Hawks and Eagles

Osprey Pandion Haliaetus Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Leucocephalus Northern Harrier Circus Cyaneus Sharp shinned Hawk Accipiter Striatus Cooper's Hawk Accipiter Cooperii Red shouldered Hawk Buteo Lineatus Broad winged Hawk Buteo Platypterus Red-tailed Hawk Buteo Jamaicensis Golden Eagle Aquila Chrysaetos American Kestrel Falco Sparverius

Turkeys and New World Quail

Wild Turkey Meleagris Gallopavo Northern Bobwhite Colinus Virginianus

Rails, Gallinules, Coots and Cranes

King Rail Rallus Elegans Purple Gallinule Porphyrio Martinica Common Moorhen Gallinula Chloropus American Coot Fulica Americana Sandhill Crane Grus Canadensis

Plovers, Sandpipers and Phalaropes

Killdeer Charadrius Vociferous Spotted Sandpiper Actitis Macularius Solitary Sandpiper Tringa Solitaria Upland Sandpiper Bartramia Longicauda Least Sandpiper Calidris Minutilla Common Snipe Gallinago Gallinago American Woodcock Scolopax Minor Greater Yellowlegs Tringa Melanoleuca Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa Flavipes

Gulls

Ring billed Gull Larus Delawarensis

Pigeons and Doves

Rock Dove Columba Livia Mourning Dove Zenaida Macroura

Cuckoos

Yellow billed Cuckoo Coccyzus Americanus

Owls

Eastern Screech Owl Megascops Asio Great Horned Owl Bubo Virginianus Barred Owl Strix Varia

Nightjars

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles Minor Chuck will's Widow Caprimulgus Carolinensis Whip poor will Caprimulgus Vociferous

Swifts

Chimney Swift Chaetura Pelagica

Hummingbirds

Ruby throated Hummingbird Archilochus Colubris

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle Alcyon

Woodpeckers

Red headed Woodpecker Melanerpes Erythrocephalus Red bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes Carolinus Yellow bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus Varius Downy Woodpecker Picoides Pubescens Hairy Woodpecker Picoides Villosus Northern Flicker Colaptes Auratus Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus Pileatus

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides Borealis

Tyrant Flycatchers

Eastern Wood Pewee Contopus Virens Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax Virescens Eastern Phoebe Sayornis Phoebe Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus Crinitus Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus Tyrannus

Shrikes

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius Ludovicianus

Swallows

Purple Martin Progne Subis Tree Swallow Tachycineta Bicolor Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx Serripennis Barn Swallow Hirundo Rustica

Vireos

White eyed Vireo Vireo Griseus Yellow throated Vireo Vireo Flavifrons Blue headed Vireo Vireo Solitarius Red-eyed Vireo Vireo Olivaceus

Jays and Crows

Blue Jay Cyanocitta Cristata American Crow Corvus Brachyrhynchos Fish Crow Corvus Ossifragus

Chickadees and Titmice

Carolina Chickadee Poecile Carolinensis Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus Bicolor

Nuthatches and Creepers

Red breasted Nuthatch Sitta Canadensis White breasted Nuthatch Sitta Carolinensis Brown headed Nuthatch Sitta Pusilla Brown Creeper Certhia Americana

Wrens

Carolina Wren Thryothorus Ludovicianus Bewick's Wren Thryomanes Bewickii House Wren Troglodytes Aedon Winter Wren Troglodytes Troglodytes Sedge Wren Cistothorus Platensis Marsh Wren Cistothorus Palustris

Gnatcatchers, Kinglets and Thrushes

Golden crowned Kinglet Regulus Satrapa Ruby crowned Kinglet Regulus Calendula Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila Caerulea Eastern Bluebird Sialia Sialis Veery Catharus Fuscescens Gray cheeked Thrush Catharus Minimus Swainson's Thrush Catharus Ustulatus Hermit Thrush Catharus Guttatus Wood Thrush Hylocichla Mustelina American Robin Turdus Migratorius

Mockingbirds and Thrashers

Gray Catbird Dumetella Carolinensis Northern Mockingbird Mimus Polyglottos Brown Thrasher Toxostoma Rufum

Pipits

American Pipit Anthus Rubescens

Waxwings

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla Cedrorum

Starlings

European Starling Sturnus Vulgaris

Wood Warblers

Golden winged Warbler Vermivora Chrysoptera Tennessee Warbler Vermivora Peregrine Northern Parula Parula Americana Yellow Warbler Dendroica Petechia

Wood Warblers

Chestnut sided Warbler Dendroica Pensylvanica Magnolia Warbler Dendroica Magnolia Cape May Warbler Dendroica Tigrina Black throated Blue Warbler Dendroica Caerulescens Yellow rumped Warbler Dendroica Coronata Black throated Green Warbler Dendroica Virens Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica Fusca Yellow throated Warbler Dendroica Dominica Pine Warbler Dendroica Pinus Prairie Warbler Dendroica Discolor Palm Warbler Dendroica Palmarum Bay breasted Warbler Dendroica Castanea Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica Striata Cerulean Warbler Dendroica Cerulean Black and white Warbler Mniotilta Varia American Redstart Setophaga Ruticilla Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria Citrea Worm eating Warbler Helmitheros Vermivorum Ovenbird Seiurus Aurocapilla Northern Waterthrush Seiurus Noveboracensis Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus Motacilla Kentucky Warbler Oporornis Formosus Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis Trichas Hooded Warbler Wilsonia Citrine Swainson’s Warbler Swainsonii Virens Yellow breasted Chat Limnothlypis Icteria

Tanagers

Summer Tanager Piranga Rubra Scarlet Tanager Piranga Olivacea

Grosbeaks, Sparrows and Buntings

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis Cardinalis Rose breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus Ludovicianus Blue Grosbeak Passerina Caerulea Indigo Bunting Passerina Cyanea Eastern Towhee Pipilo Erythrophthalmus Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila Aestivalis Chipping Sparrow Spizella Passerine Field Sparrow Spizella Pusilla Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes Gramineus

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus Sandwichensis Fox Sparrow Passerella Iliaca Song Sparoow Melospiza Melodia

Grosbeaks, Sparrows and Buntings

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza Georgiana White throated Sparrow Zonotrichia Albicollis White crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia Leucophrys Dark eyed Junco Junco Hyemalis

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink Dolichonyx Oryzivorus Red winged Blackbird Agelaius Phoeniceus Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella Magna Rusty Blackbird Euphagus Carolinus Common Grackle Quiscalus Quiscula Brown headed Cowbird Molothrus Ater Orchard Oriole Icterus Spurious

Finches

Purple Finch Carpodacus Purpureus House Finch Carpodacus Mexicanus Pine Siskin Carduelis Pinus American Goldfinch Carduelis Tristis Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes Vespertinus

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow Passer Domesticus

Other - Accidental or casual occurrences

Wood stork Mycteria Americana Merlin Falco Columbarius Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus Lobatus Scissor Tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus Forficatus Tundra Swan Cygnus Columbianus Yellow Rail Coturnicops Noveboracensis Laughing Gull Larus Atricilla Northern Oriole Icterus Galbula

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Turtles

Snapping turtle Chelydra Serpentine Stinkpot Sternotherus Odoratus Loggerhead musk turtle Sternotherus Minor Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon Subrubrum Eastern Box turtle Terrapene Carolina Yellow-bellied turtle Chrysemys Scripta River cooter *Chrysemys Concinna Eastern painted turtle Chrysemys Picta Eastern spiny softshell Trionyx Spiniferus

Lizards

Green anole Anolis Carolinensis Fence lizard Sceloporus undulates Six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus Sexlineatus Ground skink Leiolopisma Laterale Five-lined skink Emeces Fasciatus Broad headed skink Eumeces Laticeps Southeastern five-lined skink Eumeces Inexpectatus Eastern glass lizard Ophisaurus Ventralis Slender glass lizard Ophisaurus Attenuatus

Snakes

Brown water snake *Nerodia (=Natrix) Taxispilota Red-bellied water snake Nerodia (=Natrix) Errythrogaster Midland water snake Nerodia (=Natrix) Sipedon Queen snake Regina (=Natrix) Septemvittata Northern brown snake Storeria Dekayi Eastern garter snake Thamnophis Sirtalis Easter ribbon snake Thamnophis Saurtitus Smooth earth snake Virginia Valeriae Rough earth snake Virginia Striatula Eastern hognose snake Heterodon Playtyrhinos Southern ringneck snake Diadophis Punctatus Eastern worm snake Carphophis Amoenus Black racer Coluber Constrictor Eastern coachwhip Masticophis Flagellum Rough green snake Opheodrys Aestivus Corn snake Elaphe Guttata Black rat snake Elaphe Obsolete Northern pine snake Pituophis Melanoleucas

Eastern kingsnake Lampropeltis Getulus Scarlet king snake Lampropeltis Triangulum Mole snake *Lampropeltis Calligaster Redbelly snake Storeria Occipitomaculate Scarlet snake Cemophora Coccinea Southeastern crowned snake Tantilla Coronata Eastern coral snake *Micrurus Fulvius Northern copperhead Agkistrodon Contortrix Eastern cottonmouth *Agkistrodon Piscivorus Canebrake rattlesnake *Crotalus Horridus

Salamanders

Mole salamanders Ambystomatidae Marbled salamander Ambystoma Opacum Spotted salamander *Ambystoma Maculatum Eastern tiger salamander *Ambystoma Tigrinum Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus Viridescens Spotted dusky salamander Desmognathus Fuscus Southern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus Auriculatus Red-backed salamander *Plethodon Cinereus Slimy salamander Plethodon Glutinosus Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium Scutatum Eastern mud salamander *Pseudotriton Montanus Southern red salamander *Pseudotriton Rubber Southern two-lined salamander Eurycea Bislineata Long-tailed salamander Eurycea Longicauda

Toads and Frogs

Eastern spadefoot *Scaphiopus Holbrooki American toad Bufo Americanus Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei Fowleri Southern cricket frog Acris Gryllus Northern cricket frog Acris Crepitans Spring peeper Hyla Crucifer Green treefrog Hyla Cinerea Barking treefrog Hyla Gratiosa Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor Chrysoscelis Upland chorus frog Pseudacris Triseriata Southern chorus frog *Pseudacris Nigrita Eastern narrow-mouthed toads Gastrophryne Carolinensis Bullfrog Rana Catesbeiana Greenfrog Rana Clamitans Southern leopard frog Rana Utricularia

MAMMALS

Marsupials

Opposum Didelphia marsupialis

Moles and Shrews

Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda Least shrew Cryptotis parva Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus

Bats

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Keen's myotis Myotis keenii Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Red bat Lasiurus borealis Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Eastern yellow bat Lasiurus intermedius Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis Easter eared bat Plecotus refinesquei Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis

Rabbits

E. cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus

Rodents

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Fox squirrel Sciurus niger S. flying squirrel Glaucomys volans Beaver Castor canadensis Rice rat Oryzomys palustris Harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis White-footed mouse/wood mouse Peromyscus leucopus Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus Golden mouse Peromyscus nuttalli Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus

Eastern woodrat *Neotoma floridana Pine vole Microtus (=Pitymys) pinetorum Muskrat Ondatra zibethica

Rodents

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus House mouse Mus musculus Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius

Carnivores

Red fox Vulpes fulva Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Coyote Canis latrans Raccoon Procyon lotor Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Mink Mustela vison Spotted skunk *Spilogale putorius Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis River otter Lutra canadensis Bobcat Lynx rufus

Deer

White tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

LEPIDOPTERA

Swallowtails (Family Papilionidae)

True Swallowtails (Subfamily- Papilioninae) Pipevine Swallowtail Battus Philenor Zebra Swallowtail Eurytides Marcellus Black Swallowtail Papilio Polyxenes Giant Swallowtail Papilio Cresphontes Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio Glaucus Spicebush Swallowtail Papilio Troilus Palamedes Swallowtail Papilio Palamedes

Whites and Shulphurs (Family Pierdae)

Whites (Subfamily-Pierinae) Cabbage White Pieris Rapae Southern Dogface Colias Cesonia Orange Sulphur Colias Eurytheme

Cloudless Sulphur Phoebis Sennae Little Yellow Eurema Lisa Sleepy Orange Eurema Nicippe

Gossamer-Wings (Family- Lycaenidae)

Harvesters (Subfamily-Miletinae) Harvester Feniseca Tarquinius Banded Hairstreak Satyruim Calanus Striped Hairstreak Satyruim Liparops Olive' Juniper Hairstreak Callophrys Gryneus Great Purple Hairstreak Atlides Halesus Gray Haristreak Strymon Melinus Red-banded Hairstreak Calycopis Cecrops

Blues (Subfamily-Polyommatina) Eastern Tailed-Blue Everes Comyntas Summer' Spring Azure Celastrina ladon neglecta

Brushfoots (Family Nymphalidae)

Snouts (Subfamily- Libytheinae) American Snout Libytheana Carinenta

Heliconians and Fritillaries (Subfamily- Heliconiinae) Gulf Fritillary Agraulis Vanillae Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta Claudia

True Brushfoots (Subfamily- Nymphalinae) Sivery Checkerspot Chlosyne Nycteris Pearly Crescent Phycoides Tharos Question Mark Polygonia Interrogationis Eastern Comma Polygonia Comma Mourning Cloak Nymphalis Antiopa American Lady Vanessa Virginiensis Painted Lady Vanessa Cardui Red Admiral Vanessa Atalanta Common Buckeye Juonia Coenia

Admirals and Relatives (Subfamily- Limenitidinae) Red-spotted Purple Limenitis arthemis astyanax Viceroy Limenitis Archippus

Hackberry Butterflies (Subfamily-Apaturinae) Hackberry Emperor Asterocampa Celtis Tawny Emperor Asterocamp Clyton

Satyrs and Wood-Nymphs (Subfamily-Satyrinea) Southern Pearly-eye Enodia Prtlandia Creole Pearly-eye Enodia Creola Applalchian Brown Satyrodes Appalachia Gemmed Satyr Cyllopsis Gemma Carolina Satyr Hermeuptychia Sosybius Little Wood-Satyr Megisto Cymela Common Wood Nymph Cercyonia Pegala

Milkweek Butterflies (Subfamily Danainae) Monarch Danaus Plexippus

Skippers (Family Hesperiidae)

Spread-Winged Skippers (Subfamily-Pyrginae) Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus Clarus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus Proteus Hoary Edge Achalarus Lyciades Southern Cloudywing Thorybes Bathyllus Northern Cloudywing Throybes Pylades Confused Couldywing Thorybes Confuses Hayhurst's Scallopwing Stafphylus hayhurstii Hayhurstii Juvenal's Duskywing Erynnis Juvenalis Horace's Duskywing Erynnis Hoatius Mottled Duskywing Erynnis Martialis Pacuvuius Duskywing Erynnis Pacuvius Zarucco Duskywing Erynnis Zarucco Wild Indigo Duskywing Erynnis Baptisiae Common/White Checkered Skipper Pyrgus sp. Common Sootywing Pholisora Catullus

Grass Skippers (Subfamily Hesperiinae) Swarthy Skipper Nastra Lherminier Clouded Skipper Lerema Accius Least Skipper Ancyloxypha Numitor Southern Skipperling Copaeodes Minimus Fiery Skipper Hylephila Phyleus Crossline Skipper Polites Origenes Tawny-edged Skipper Polites Themistocles Whirlabout Polites Vibex Southern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia Otho Nrothern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia Egeremet Little Glassywing Pompeius Verna Sachem Atalopedes Compestris Delaware Skipper Anatrytone Logan

Dyssus Skipper Problema Byssus Hobomok Skipper Poanes Hobomok Zabulon Skipper Poanes Zabulon Yehl Skipper Poanes Yehl Dion Skipper Euphyes Dion Dun Skipper Euphyes Vestries Lace-winged Roadside Skipper Amblyscirtes Aesculapius Dusky Roadside Skipper Amblyscirtes Atteranata Ocola Skipper Panoquina Ocola Eufala Skiopper Lerodea Eufala Twin-spot Skipper Oligoria Maculate Dusted Skipper Atrytonopsis Hianna

COMMON PLANTS

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Yellow-poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Black willow Salix nigra Black walnut Juglans nigra Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii Water oak Quercus nigra Willow oak Quercus phellos Shumard oak Quercus shumardii Southern red oak Quercus falcata White oak Quercus alba Post oak Quercus stellata Black oak Quercus velutina Shagbark hickory Carya Ovata Pignut hickory Carya glabra Mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa Red maple Acer rubrum Red mulberry Morus rubra Boxelder Acer negundo American hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana Eastern hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana American elm Ulmus americana Georgia hackberry Celtis tenuifolia Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Winged elm Ulmus alata American beech Fagus grandifolia Dogwood Cornus florida Black cherry Prunus serotina Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata Sassafras Sassafras albidum

Redbud Cercis canadensis Rusty blackhaw Viburnum rufidulum Possumhaw Virburnum nudum Hawthorn Crataequs spp. Sumac Rhus spp. Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Southern bayberry Myrica cerifera Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Blueberry Vaccinium spp. American beautyberry Callicarpa americana Greenbrier Smilax supp. Trumpet-creeper Campsis radicans Blackberry Rubus spp. Muscadine Vitis routundifolia Partridge pea Cassia fasciculata Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Beggarweed Desmodium spp. Aster Aster spp. Fern Spp. Switch cane Arundinaria tecta Wild sunflower Helianthus spp. Bluestem grass Andropogon spp. Uniola Uniola spp. Panicum Panicum spp. Plumegrass Erianthus spp. spp. Poison-Ivy Rhus radicans Strawberry Fragaria Virginiana

*Species that should occur on the Refuge but have not been collected to date.

See also:

Edwards, M.B. 1971. Mosses of the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia. The Bryologist 74(2):213-215.

APPENDIX 2 – PROCESS TO DETERMINE RESOURCES OF CONCERN

A2.1 Background

Resources of concern, as defined by the Service, are “plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts” (620 FW 1.4.G). Many sources were consulted to determine a list of potential resources of concern: the refuge’s purpose(s), the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as other documents and plans including a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia, Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern 2008, and Audubon’s 2007 Watchlist.

A2.2 Ecological Classification

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved” (16 USC 1531.2(b)). The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act builds on this ecosystem approach, mandating the refuge system to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained” (16 USC 668dd.5(4)(B)). These terms are defined as follows (601 FW 3.6):

 Integrity – biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities.  Diversity – the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which they occur.  Health – composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.

The definitions of integrity and health refer to historic conditions as the “composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial human related changes to the landscape.”

These two acts indicate the need to utilize a top-down method to identifying resources of concern; i.e. start at a coarse scale and work to finer scales. One approach to this is ecological classification, which expresses the relationships between vegetation, physiography and soils (Barnes et al. 1982). Stratifying ecological units at different scales delineates relatively homogeneous units that respond similarly to ecological processes (i.e. energy flow, nutrient cycling, the water cycle, disturbance) and thus to management practices.

A2.2.1 National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units

The USDA Forest Service’s National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units draws on the strengths of numerous classification systems to create a national system for application throughout the United States (Cleland et al. 1997). The following table summarizes the criteria for the different ecological units:

Scale Ecological Units General Use Map Scale Range Domain 1:30,000,000 or smaller Ecoregion Division Strategic planning and assessment 1:30,000,000 to 1:7,500,000 Province 1:15,000,000 to 1:5,000,000 Section Strategic, statewide, multiagency 1:7,500,000 to 1:3,500,000 Subregion Subsection analysis and assessment 1:3,500,000 to 1:250,000 Landscape Landtype association Area-wide planning 1:250,000 to 1:60,000 Landtype Project and management area planning 1:60,000 to 1:24,000 Land unit Landtype phase and analysis 1:24,000 or larger

The classification system used starts with these ecological units. Domain, Division and Province descriptions are from Bailey (1995), Section description from McNab and Avers (1994), and Sub-section description from attribute data with the GIS shapefiles.

Domain – 200 Humid Temperate. The climate of the Humid Temperate Domain, located in the middle latitudes (30 to 60 degrees N), is governed by both tropical and polar air masses. The middle latitudes are subject to cyclones; much of the precipitation in this belt comes from rising moist air along fronts within these cyclones. Pronounced seasons are the rule, with strong annual cycles of temperature and precipitation. The seasonal fluctuation of energy and temperature is greater than the diurnal. Climates of the middle latitudes have a distinctive winter season, which tropical climates do not.

The Humid Temperate Domain contains forests of broadleaf deciduous and needleleaf evergreen trees. The variable importance of winter frost determines six divisions: warm continental, hot continental, subtropical, marine, prairie, and Mediterranean.

Division – 230 Subtropical. The humid subtropical climate, marked by high humidity (especially in summer) and the absence of really cold winters, prevails in Southern Atlantic and Gulf Coast States.

In the Koppen-Trewartha system, this area lies within the Cf climate, described as temperate and rainy with hot summers. The Cf climate has no dry season; even the driest summer month receives at least 1.2 inches of rain. The average temperature of the warmest summer month is above 72F. Rainfall is ample all year, but is markedly greater during summer. Thunderstorms, whether of thermal, squall-line, or cold-front origin, are especially frequent in summer. Tropical cyclones and hurricanes strike the coastal area occasionally, always bringing very heavy rains. Winter precipitation, some in the form of snow, is of the frontal type. Temperatures are moderately wide in range and comparable to those in tropical deserts, but without the extreme heat of a desert summer.

Soils in the moister, warmer parts of the humid subtropical regions are strongly leached Ultisols related to those of the humid tropical and equatorial climates. Rich in oxides of both iron and aluminum, these soils are poor in many of the plant nutrients essential for successful agricultural production.

Forest provides the typical vegetation throughout most of this division. Much of the sandy coastal region of the Southeastern United States is covered by second-growth forests of longleaf, loblolly, and slash pines. Inland areas have deciduous forest.

Province – 231 Southern Mixed Forest. This province comprises the Piedmont and the irregular Gulf Coastal Plains, where 50 to 80 percent of the area slopes gently toward the sea. Local relief is 100 to 600 ft on the Gulf Coastal Plains, and 300 to 1,000 ft on the Piedmont. The flat coastal plains have gentle slopes and local relief of less than 100 ft. Most of the numerous streams in the region are sluggish; marshes, lakes, and swamps are numerous.

The climate is roughly uniform throughout the region. Mild winters and hot, humid summers are the rule; the average annual temperature is 60 to 70ºF. The growing season is long (200 to 300 days), but frost occurs nearly every winter. Precipitation, which averages from 40 to 60 inches annually, is rather evenly distributed throughout the year, but peaks slightly in midsummer or early spring, when it falls mostly during thunderstorms. Precipitation exceeds evaporation, but summer droughts occur. Snow falls rarely and melts almost immediately.

Climax vegetation is provided by medium-tall to tall forests of broadleaf deciduous and needleleaf evergreen trees. At least 50 percent of the stands are made up of loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and other southern yellow pine species, singly or in combination. Common associates include oak, hickory, sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, and winged elm. The main grasses are bluestem, panicums, and longleaf uniola. Dogwood, viburnum, haw, blueberry, American beautyberry, youpon, and numerous woody vines are common. The West Gulf Coast is bordered along its shores by salt marshes characterized by the marsh grass Spartina.

Ultisols dominate throughout the region, with locally conspicuous Vertisols formed from marls or soft limestones. The Vertisols are clayey soils that form wide, deep cracks when dry. Inceptisols on floodplains of the major streams are among the better soils for crops.

Fauna vary with the age and stocking of timber stands, percent of deciduous trees, proximity to openings, and presence of bottom-land forest types. Whitetail deer and cottontail rabbits are widespread. When deciduous trees are present on uplands, the fox squirrel is common. Gray squirrels live along intersecting drainages. Raccoon and fox inhabit the whole region and are hunted in many areas. Among mammals frequently encountered in the western part of this province is the nine-banded armadillo.

The eastern wild turkey, bobwhite, and mourning dove are widespread. Of the 20-odd bird species present in mature forest, the most common are the pine warbler, cardinal, summer tanager, Carolina wren, ruby-throated hummingbird, blue jay, hooded warbler, eastern towhee, and tufted titmouse. The red-cockaded woodpecker is an endangered species.

Forest snakes include cottonmouth moccasin, copperhead, rough green snake, rat snake, coachwhip, and speckled kingsnake. Fence and glass lizards are also found, as is the slimy salamander.

Section – 231A Southern Appalachian Piedmont. This Section is in the Appalachian Piedmont geomorphic province. It consists of an intensely metamorphosed, moderately dissected plain consisting of thick saprolite, continental sediments, and accreted terranes. Differential erosion has produced some isolated mountains (monadnocks) which rise above the general land surface. Landforms on about 70 percent of the Section are irregular plains. Landforms on the remaining area are about equally divided; plains with high hills; open low hills; and tablelands of moderate relief. Elevation ranges from 330 to 1,300 ft. Local relief ranges from 100 to 300 ft.

Rock units formed during the Precambrian (60 percent), Paleozoic (30 percent), and Mesozoic (10 percent) Eras. Precambrian strata consist of metamorphic complexes with compositions of schist and phylite, and mafic paragneiss. Paleozoic strata consist of about equal amounts of Cambrian eugeosynclinal and volcanic rocks. Mesozoic strata consists of Triassic marine deposits (sandstone, siltstone, and shale).

Udults are the predominant soils. Paleudults and Hapludults are on gently sloping uplands. Steeper slopes are dominated by Hapludults, Rhodudults, Dystrochrepts, and Hapludalfs. Dystrochrepts, Udifluvents, and Fluvaquests are on alluvium. Soils have a thermic temperature regime, and kaolinitic, mixed, or oxidic mineralogy. Soils are generally deep, with a clayey or loamy subsoil. In many areas soils are severely eroded as a result of past intensive agricultural practices, especially for cotton production.

Kuchler (1964) mapped the potential natural vegetation as oak-hickory-pine forest, with small amounts of southern mixed forest in the bottomlands. Predominant vegetation form is evergreen forest with rounded crowns, and about equal areas of cold-deciduous broad-leaved forest with evergreen needle-leaved trees. The oak-hickory ecosystem consists of white, post, and southern red oaks, and hickories of pignut and mockernut. The loblolly-shortleaf pine ecosystem is common on disturbed areas and usually has an understory component of dogwood and sourwood.

Among the fauna in this Section are white-tailed deer, black bear, bobcat, gray fox, raccoon, cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, eastern chipmunk, white-footed mouse, pine vole, short-tailed shrew and cotton mouse. The turkey, bobwhite, and mourning dove are game birds in various parts of this Section. Songbirds include the red-eyed vireo, cardinal, tufted titmouse, wood thrush, summer tanager, blue-gray gnatcatcher, hooded warbler, and Carolina wren. The herpetofauna include the box turtle, common garter snake, and timber rattlesnake.

Average annual precipitation ranges from 45 to 55 in. Temperature averages 58 to 64º F. The growing season lasts about 205 to 235 days.

There is moderate density of small to medium size perennial streams and associated rivers, mostly with low to moderate rates of flow and moderate velocity. A dendritic drainage pattern

98 has developed on moderately dissected surface, with some influence from the underlying bedrock. Many rivers drain this Section, including the Chattahoochee, Ocmulgee, Savannah, Saluda, and Yadkin.

Fire has probably been the principal historical disturbance, previously burning over small to moderate-size areas between natural barriers with low frequency and low intensity. Climatic influences include occasional summer droughts and winter ice storms, and infrequent tornadoes. Insect-related disturbances are often caused by southern pine beetles.

Sub-section – 231Aa Midland Plateau Central Uplands. 20 to 50 percent of the area is gently sloping, local relief is 100 to 300 feet, and 50 to 75 percent of gentle slope is on upland. Ultisols comprise the majority of the soils.

A2.2.2 Ecological Units

Finer classification was required since the 231Aa Midland Plateau Central Uplands sub-section is too large a scale for refuge-wide planning. Research conducted on the Hitchiti Experimental Forest indicates the rate of hardwood invasion in pine stands is strongly influenced by

99 topography (Brender and Davis 1959), suggesting its utility in determining the appropriateness of a site for pine, pine/hardwood, or hardwood forest. Understory was mapped by the following topographic classifications:

Aspect: NE slopes – N, NE, and E aspects; SW slopes – S, SW, W, NW and SE aspects. Slope: Gentle – 0 to 7% slope; Moderate – 7 to 14% slope; Steep – greater than 14% slope. Position: Upper slope – upper 2/3s of the range in elevation, intermittent creeks usually fall entirely within this class; Lower slope – lower 1/3 of the range in elevation adjacent to perennial creeks; Bottoms – creek bottoms and coves.

The distributions of understory types by topographic feature are as follows:

Aspect SW NE Percent Pine 62 36 Pine-hardwood 23 29 Hardwood 15 35

Slope Gentle Moderate Steep Percent Pine 72 51 30 Pine-hardwood 19 32 24 Hardwood 9 17 46

Position Upper Lower Bottom Percent Pine 53 18 0 Pine-hardwood 25 32 13 Hardwood 22 50 87

Combining these topographic features leads to the following conclusions:

1. Pine: all gentle upper slopes and moderate upper slopes on a SW aspect. 2. Pine-hardwood: Steep upper slopes with a SW aspect, moderate upper slopes with a NW aspect, and all moderate lower slopes. 3. Hardwood: Steep upper slopes with a NW aspect, all steep lower slopes, and bottoms.

Note that lower slope is not part of these conclusions. Looking at the tables above it appears that gentle lower slopes on a NE aspect favor pine/hardwood, while those on a SW aspect favor pine.

Hardwoods were further subdivided using soils and topography to delineate upland hardwoods from bottomland hardwoods.

100

The potential natural vegetation, four forest ecosystems and twelve cover types that make up the desired forest conditions of Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge are described as follows (Eyre 1980, Garrison et al. 1977, Kuchler 1964):

Oak-Hickory-Pine (32,669 acres) – medium tall to tall forest of broadleaf deciduous and needleleaf evergreen trees. Canopy dominants include hickory, shortleaf and loblolly pine, white and post oak.

Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine (20,798 acres) – forests in which 50 percent or more of the stand is loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, or other southern yellow pines, singly or in combination.

Forest types in this ecosystem include shortleaf pine (SAF 75), loblolly pine (SAF 81) and loblolly-shortleaf pine (SAF 80).

SAF 75 – Shortleaf pine provides the majority of the stocking.

SAF 81 – Loblolly pine occurs in either pure stands or mixtures in which the species makes up the majority of the stocking.

SAF 80 – Loblolly and shortleaf comprise a majority of the stocking. Loblolly is usually dominate expect on drier sites and at higher elevations.

Oak/Pine (7,916 acres) – 50 percent or more of the stand is hardwoods, usually upland oaks, but in which southern pines, mainly shortleaf pine, make up 25–49 percent of the stand.

Forest types in this ecosystem include shortleaf pine-oak (SAF 76) and loblolly pine- hardwood (SAF 82).

SAF 76 – Shortleaf pine and one or more oak species dominate the stocking. The oak species that occur depends more on the soil and topography than on geography.

SAF 82 – Loblolly is not dominate but comprises 25 percent of the stocking. Component hardwoods reflect the range of moisture regimes on which the type is found.

Oak/Hickory (3,955 acres) – The ecosystem varies from open to closed woods with a strong to weak understory of shrubs, vines, and herbaceous plants. By definition, oak and hickory must make up 50 percent of the stand, singly or in combination.

Forest cover types in this ecosystem include post oak-blackjack oak (SAF 40), white oak- black oak-northern red oak (SAF 52), white oak (SAF 53) and yellow poplar-white oak- northern red oak (SAF 59). These reflect a moisture regime from dry upland sites to mesic upland sites.

SAF 40 – Post and blackjack oaks comprise the majority of the stocking.

101

SAF 52 – White, black and northern red oak together provide a majority of the stocking. Other oaks include scarlet, southern red, chinkapin, post and blackjack.

SAF 53 – White oak is pure.

SAF 59 – Yellow poplar, white and northern red oaks comprise a majority of the stocking. This type usually includes a large number of mesic site species.

Southern Mixed Forest (2,158) – tall forest of broadleaf deciduous and evergreen and needleleaf evergreen trees. Canopy dominants include beech, sweetgum, southern magnolia, loblolly pine, and white oak.

Oak/Gum/Cypress – dominants are of tree life form. It is made up of bottomland forests in which 50 percent or more of the stand is tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oak, and bald cypress, singly or in combination.

Forest cover types in this ecosystem include swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak (SAF 91), sweetgum-willow oak (SAF 92) and overcup oak-water hickory (SAF 96). These reflect a moisture regime from mesic bottomland sites to wet bottomland sites.

SAF 91 – Swamp chestnut and cherrybark usually constitute a majority of the stocking, but when many species are in mixture they may only form a plurality.

SAF 92 – Sweetgum and willow oak comprise a plurality of the stocking, although in the Piedmont water oak is a strongly represented associate and frequently surpasses willow oak.

SAF 96 – Overcup oak and water hickory make up a majority of the stocking.

The following table shows the relationship between the refuge’s potential natural vegetation, forest ecosystems, cover types, as well as the old refuge classification scheme:

Potential Natural Refuge Vegetation Forest Ecosystem Forest Cover Type classification (Kuchler 1964) (Garrison et al. 1977) (Eyre 1980) scheme shortleaf pine Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine Pine loblolly-shortleaf pine 20,798 20,798 loblolly pine Oak/Pine shortleaf pine-oak Oak-Hickory-Pine 7,916 loblolly pine-hardwood 32,669 acres Upland post oak-blackjack oak Hardwood Oak/Hickory white oak-black oak-northern red oak 11,871 3,955 white oak yellow poplar-white oak-northern red oak Southern Mixed swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak Bottomland Oak/Gum/Cypress Forest sweetgum-willow oak Hardwood 2,158 2,158 overcup oak-water hickory 2,158

102

103

A2.3 Potential Wildlife Resources of Concern

The next step was to create a table of wildlife species that 1) either occur on the refuge (birds) or occur in Jones or Jasper Counties (other wildlife), and 2) are documented as a species of conservation concern:

Scientific Name Common Name

Global Global Rank Rank State Federal Status State Status State Wildlife Plan 2008 BCC MBTA PIF Audubon NAWMP AMPHIBIAN Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander* G5 S3 BIRD Bitterns, Herons and Ibises Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern G4 S3 X X Geese and Ducks Anas rubripes American Black Duck G5 S3S4 X X Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup G5 S5 X X Vultures, Hawks and Eagles Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle G5 S2 T X X Turkeys and New World Quail Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite G5 S4 X Rails, Gallinules, Coots and

Cranes Rallus elegans King Rail G4G5 S3 X X X Nightjars Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will G5 S4 X X Woodpeckers Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker G3 S2 E E X X X Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker G5 S4 X Shrikes Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike G4T3Q S? X X Nuthatches and Creepers Sitta pusilla Brown-headed nuthatch G5 S5 X X Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren G5 SH X Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren G5 S3 X X Gnatcatchers, Kinglets and

Thrushes Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush G5 S5 X X X X Wood Warblers Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler G4 S1 X X X X Oporornis formosus Kentucky warbler G5 S5 X X X X Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler G5 S5 X X X X Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler G5 S5 X X Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's warbler G4 S3 X X X X Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating Warbler G5 S5 X X Grosbeaks, Sparrows and

Buntings Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow G3 S3 R X X X X Blackbirds and Orioles Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird G4 S5 X X X X Casual Occurrence Mycteria americana Wood Stork G4 S2 E E FISH Cyprinella xaenura Altamaha shiner G2G3 S2S3 E X Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe darter G4G5 S2S3 R X

* The four-toed salamander is not on any list of conservation concern; however, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources recommended its inclusion.

104

State Wildlife Plan – Georgia’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, chapter 11, table 5 BCC 2008 – Birds of Conservation Concern 2008, table 27 MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act PIF – Partner’s in Flight American Landbird Conservation Plan, table 8, Watch List species Audubon – 2007 Watchlist, red and yellow categories NAWMP – North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Implementation Framework, table B-2, waterfowl conservation region 29, high continental priority species

The following species – least bittern, bald eagle, king rail, loggerhead shrike, Bewick’s wren, sedge wren, cerulean warbler, prothonothary warbler, and wood stork – where removed from the list due to their rare or only occasional use of the refuge. The table was rearranged as a species/habitat matrix. A species/habitat matrix is simply a way to depict relationships between wildlife species and vegetation associations (DeGraaf et al. 1991):

Species

Loblolly/ Shortleaf Oak/Pine Oak/ Hickory Oak/Gum/ Cypress Elm/Ash/ Cottonwood Field MeadowWet Marsh, Pond Lake, Stream, River Red-cockaded X woodpecker Brown-headed X X nuthatch Red-headed X X Woodpecker Bachman's X X X X sparrow Northern X X X X bobwhite Wood Thrush X X X X Worm-eating X X X X Warbler Prairie Warbler X X X X X Whip-poor-will X X X X X Kentucky X X X X warbler Rusty X X Blackbird Swainson's X warbler Four-toed X X Salamander American X X X X Black Duck Lesser Scaup X X Altamaha X shiner Goldstripe X darter

The highlighted area covers 99% of the refuge.

The vegetation types used in this matrix are described as follows (DeGraaf et al. 1991):

105

 Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine – loblolly and shortleaf pines together comprise a majority of the stocking.  Oak-Pine – upland oaks and pines, usually loblolly or shortleaf pine, each comprise 25% of the stocking.  Oak-Hickory – oak and hickory compose most of the stocking, while pines constitute less than 25% of the stocking.  Oak-gum-cypress – tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oak, and bald-cypress, singly or in combination, comprise most of the stocking; pines contribute less than 25% of the stocking.  Elm-Ash-Cottonwood – elm, ash, cottonwood or red maple comprise most of the stocking.  Field – primarily grass, hayfields and abandoned agricultural land.  Wet Meadow – meadows dominated by grasses or sedges with soils that are saturated or seasonally flooded.  Marsh, Pond – palustrine and lacustrine wetlands, permanently flooded, containing emergents such as cattails, bulrushes, rushes, and floating-leaved plants.  Lake, Stream, River – stratified lacustrine wetlands, permanently flowing watercourses of any width.

A2.4 Potential Habitat Resources of Concern

The third step was to identify habitat(s) of concern. Georgia's Department of Natural Resources, in their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, listed sixteen high priority habitats for the Piedmont physiographic province (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2005). Eleven of these may occur on the refuge:

1. Beaver Ponds; Freshwater Marsh – Beaver ponds are temporary impoundments created by beaver on small to medium sized streams. Freshwater marshes develop in shallow beaver ponds and along the edges of larger lakes and ponds. Dominants include a variety of sedges, rushes, grasses, and forbs, with scattered buttonbush, red maple, swamp dogwood, and tag alder. Few Georgia examples exist that are not invaded by the exotic weed, Murdannia. These wetlands provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. 2. Bottomland Hardwood Forests – Forested wetlands of alluvial river floodplains, characterized by a diverse association of deciduous hardwood trees. Canopy dominants vary, but may include water oak, willow oak, overcup oak, cherrybark oak, swamp chestnut oak, green ash, sweetgum, bitternut hickory, and pignut hickory. Shrub layer may be dense or relatively sparse, containing a variety of mesophytic or hydrrophytic woody plants and often a significant woody vine component. Many of these habitats have been impacted by invasive exotic species such as Chinese privet and Nepalese browntop. Bottomland hardwoods are a threatened forest ecosystem, with a 70-84% decline (Noss et al. 1995). 3. Canebrakes – Thickets of native river cane found along rivers and creeks under sparse to full tree cover. Canebrakes represent important wildlife habitat for a variety of neotropical birds and insects. These habitats require fire or other form of periodic

106

disturbance for maintenance. Most canebrakes in this region are relatively small and fire- suppressed, often occurring along the edges of fields and other clearings. 4. Granite Outcrops – Diverse mosaics of exposed granitic rock, herb and shrub dominated patches, and wetland microhabitats. Most have shallow solution pits that collect soil and support various stages of plant succession. These environments support rare or endemic species of plants and animals. The most important of these habitats contain a variety of solution pits, seepage zones, and bare rock exposures. Some outcrops are monadnocks (rise above the ground) while others are flat rock exposures. The Georgia Piedmont is the center of granite outcrop species diversity. 5. Mesic Hardwood Forests – Non-wetland forests of floodplains, ravines, and north-facing slopes in the Piedmont. These may include species such as American beech, white oak, northern red oak, bitternut hickory, pignut hickory, shagbark hickory, bigleaf magnolia, yellow poplar, blackgum, dogwood, black cherry, and loblolly pine. Typical shrubs include spicebush, sweetshrub, pawpaw, Oconee azalea, rusty viburnum, and pinxter- flower. 6. Oak Woodlands and Savannas – Rare upland hardwood habitats found in scattered locations in the Piedmont. These xeric or subxeric oak-dominated woodlands are influenced by edaphic conditions (i.e. thin soils, mafic rocks) and periodic fire. Dominants may include southern red oak, scarlet oak, post oak, and blackjack oak, sometimes with shortleaf pine. Sparkleberry and hawbushes are common shrub components. A particularly rare type, the post oak-blackjack oak savanna, was apparently much more common in pre-settlement times; only small, fire-suppressed remnants of these habitats exist today. 7. Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest – Considered the climax forest of the Piedmont, this forest type formerly covered 50% to 75% of the region; most examples on fertile soils were eliminated by conversion to agricultural uses. Remaining examples are often found in rocky areas that were difficult to convert to agricultural fields. Typically include a variety of hardwood species such as white oak, black oak, southern red oak, pignut hickory, shagbark hickory, mockernut hickory, red maple, blackgum, shortleaf pine, and loblolly pine, with dogwood, rusty viburnum, hog plum, dwarf pawpaw, and various hawbushes in the understory. American chestnut was formerly a major component of the canopy in the upper Piedmont. Examples over circumneutral soils influenced by mafic or ultramafic bedrock are often floristically richer, and may contain species such as Oglethorpe oak, basswood, red mulberry, redbud, and fringetree. 8. Springs and Spring Runs – Springs are highly localized groundwater expressions. The waters of springs and associated habitats can be highly variable, depending on hydrology (hydroperiod and volume) and edaphic factors. Springs of the Piedmont have varying mineral content, chemical properties, and temperatures. Includes spring pools and first order streams immediately below springs where rare fish and invertebrates may occur. 9. Streams – In the upper Piedmont, streams are low to moderate gradient and typically contain well defined riffles and pools. Substrate consists of gravel, pebble, sand, and silt; some bedrock may also be present. Lower Piedmont streams are lower gradient, have fewer riffles and pools, and their substrates have a higher proportion of silt, clay, and detritus than upper Piedmont streams. Turbidity is highly variable, but most of these streams become highly turbid after rain.

107

10. Upland Depression Swamp – A non-alluvial open swamp with water oak, southern shagbark hickory, Oglethorpe oak, and loblolly and shortleaf pine. Coastal plain elements in the understory include swamp palmetto and parsley haw. Usually found on Iredell or Enon soils in the lower Piedmont. These sticky, plastic soils pond water in the spring, resulting in swampy conditions for a portion of the year. 11. Xeric Pine Woodlands – Pine-dominated habitats of dry, rocky ridgetops and granitic outcrops. Dominants are loblolly, shortleaf, and Virginia pine. These woodland habitats are maintained by a combination of edaphic factors and periodic fire.

Two of these, Bottomland Hardwood Forests and Oak-Hickory-Pine Forests, were identified as especially important for the support of priority bird species:

1. Bottomland Hardwood Forests – Closed canopy riparian forests that lack a diverse understory (and which may be impacted by altered hydrology, sedimentation, and chemical run-off due to intensive pine management) can negatively influence species such as Swainson's warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, and the Prothonotary warbler. A threatened forest ecosystem, with a 70-84% decline (Noss et al. 1995). 2. Mature Forests of Southern Pine and Upland Hardwood (i.e. Oak-Hickory-Pine Forests) – Priority species dependent on Southern Pine forests include the Red-cockaded Woodpecker, the Brown-headed Nuthatch, and Bachman's Sparrow. Upland Hardwood forests are needed to support the Wood Thrush and the Kentucky Warbler.

A2.5 Final Resources of Concern

The three steps outlined above lead to the following resources of concern for the refuge:

Wildlife resources of concern and their habitats:

6. Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine a. Red-cockaded woodpecker b. Bachman’s sparrow c. Brown-headed nuthatch d. Northern bobwhite quail e. Prairie warbler f. Red-headed woodpecker 7. Oak/Hickory a. Wood thrush b. Kentucky warbler 8. Oak/Pine a. Wood thrush b. Kentucky warbler

Habitat resources of concern and associated wildlife

9. Oak/Gum/Cypress 10. Unique/Rare Habitats

108

a. Beaver ponds, freshwater marsh i. Four-toed salamander b. Canebrakes i. Swainson’s warbler c. Rock outcrops d. Springs and Spring Runs i. Four-toed salamander e. Streams i. Altamaha shiner ii. Goldstripe darter

A2.6 Final Thoughts

This process to determine the resources of concern should be thought of as always in development. For example, the classification used to determine the desired future conditions was based on research conducted on the Hitichi Experimental Forest in the 1950s. An iterative process of data collection and analysis may validate and refine the current DCFs, or it may repudiate them. The continuous forest inventory program (see appendix 3) is part of this process, but it may require geology and agronomy specialists since geomorphology, topography and soil characteristics are important criteria is describing the ecological potential of a site (existing vegetation shouldn’t be a primary ecological site criterion because it is highly variable and easily modified by management actions). Also, the wildlife resources of concern may change depending on their status. Periodically reviewing the resources of concern is a necessary part of this process.

109

110

APPENDIX 3 – FOREST INVENTORY

Inventory is a single point-in-time measurement to determine the presence, relative abundance, and/or distribution of a resource of interest. Monitoring is the measurement and analysis of repeated observations to assess change and progress towards a management objective. Cause and effect normally cannot be statistically inferred since control and replication are usually not part of either inventory or monitoring (Elzinga et al. 1998). The refuge forest inventory program consists of two parts: 1) compartment inventory, used as part of the silvicultural prescription process, and 2) continuous forest inventory, part of the overall refuge monitoring program.

Changing resources (i.e. funding, personnel) indicate the need to be flexible regarding the intensity of inventory effort. There are three possible levels of effort (Cutko 2009):

 Level 1 – Remotely sensed measurement.  Level 2 – Rapid or extensive evaluation (often qualitative).  Level 3 – Intensive measurement and evaluation (quantitative).

Remotely sensed data – whether traditional data such as aerial photographs, soil maps or topographical maps, or modern data such as LandSat or LiDAR – can be used to delineate stands, calculate area and determine connectivity. This data can address the following goals and objectives:

 4.1. CCP Goal 1: Manage, enhance, and restore healthy and viable populations of migratory birds, native wildlife, and fish, including all federal and state threatened and endangered species found on the refuge. o 4.1.1. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP manage 18,432 acres (of the 20,798 desired loblolly/shortleaf pine acres) of good quality habitat for the endangered RCW and associated species of concern …  4.2. CCP Goal 2: Manage, enhance, and restore suitable habitat for the conservation of migratory birds, native wildlife, fish, and plants, including all federal and state threatened and endangered species endemic to the refuge. o 4.2.1. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP regenerate an average of 1 to 2 percent of the desired loblolly/shortleaf pine acreage in burn units annually. o 4.2.4. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP manage 2,366 acres loblolly/shortleaf using uneven-aged management. o 4.2.6. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP manage 7,916 acres of oak/pine forests to benefit wildlife and habitat diversity … o 4.2.8. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP identify, map and protect rock outcrops from negative impacts due to management activities. o 4.2.9. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP identify and where possible protect existing canebrakes from excessive disturbance caused by management activities.

Objectives 4.1.1, 4.2.4 and 4.2.6 can only be partially addressed with remote sensing since this data is insufficient to do a full RCW foraging habitat analysis, apply the BDq method of forest regulation, or design intermediate treatments.

111

Rapid or extensive evaluation involves a combination of remotely sensed data and field measurements. The field measurements may be descriptive (i.e. assigning stands to the forest types defined in section 2.6 based on professional judgment) or plot based. Measurements using plots may produce numbers, but the data may not be suitable for statistical analysis. These data can address, in addition to those under remote sensing, the following goals and objectives:

 4.2. CCP Goal 2: Manage, enhance, and restore suitable habitat for the conservation of migratory birds, native wildlife, fish, and plants, including all federal and state threatened and endangered species endemic to the refuge. o 4.2.5. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP evaluate 3,955 acres of oak/hickory forests to determine the need for intermediate or regeneration treatments. Design intermediate treatments to produce: 1) ≥ 25% total canopy cover, 2) ≥ 50% of the total canopy is in hard mast producing species ≥ 12” DBH, 3) ≥ 3 hard mast producing tree species per acre, 4) QMD ≥ 10”, and 5) ≥ 5 snags per acre that are at least 8.5” DBH and 10” tall. o 4.2.6. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP manage 7,916 acres of oak/pine forests to benefit wildlife and habitat diversity. Design intermediate treatments to produce: 1) ≥ 25% total canopy cover, 2) ≥ 50% of the total canopy is in hard mast producing species ≥ 12” DBH, 3) ≥ 3 hard mast producing tree species per acre, 4) QMD ≥ 10”, 5) ≥ 5 snags per acre that are at least 8.5” DBH and 10” tall, and 6) maintain at least 25% of the overstory in pine. o 4.2.7. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP evaluate 2,158 acres of oak/gum/cypress forests to determine the need for intermediate or regeneration treatments. Design intermediate treatments to produce: 1) 60-70% overstory canopy cover, 2) 25-40% midstory cover, 3) 60-70 ft2/acre basal area, 4) ≥ 5 snags per acre that are at least 8.5” DBH and 10” tall, and 5) 60-70% tree stocking.

Intensive measurement and evaluation requires more rigorous field sampling and may involve considerable work. Detailed vegetation sampling and analysis, due to practical considerations, are not appropriate for habitat evaluation on large areas (Gysel and Lyon 1980). Level 2 inventory is the desired level of sampling effort on the refuge.

A3.1 Compartment Inventory

The primary purpose of a compartment inventory is to systematically gather information for a silvicultural prescription. The prescription uses the inventory as part of a rational decision making process to evaluate current forest conditions and determine if a treatment is necessary to move towards the desired future conditions.

Use the following steps as guidance to planning and conducting a compartment inventory:

1. Determine the number of compartments to inventory in a given year following the guidance in chapter 5, section 5.4.2.2.

112

2. Delineate stands using aerial photographs, topographical maps, soil survey maps, or other remotely sensed data. Don’t identify stands less than five acres. 3. Visit all delineated stands and, using sound professional judgment, assign each stand one of the following condition classes:

P – Pine (≥50% of the stocking is pine) Size Class: 1 – Average DBH < 5.5" 2 – Average DBH ≥5.5 ≤ 9.0" 3 – Average DBH ≥ 10.0" Canopy Closure: A – >70% canopy closure B – ≤70 – 40% canopy closure C – ≤40% canopy closure M – Mixed Pine/Hardwood (≥50% of the stocking is hardwoods, 25-49% is pines) UH – Upland Hardwoods (≥75% of the stocking is upland hardwoods, pine stocking is <25%) BH – Bottomland Hardwoods (≥75% of the stocking is bottomland hardwoods, pine stocking is <25%)

Determine, again using sound professional judgment, stands needing treatment to achieve the desired future conditions. NOTE – this determination should be considered preliminary. Further analysis may change it. 4. For stands requiring treatment design a 1% inventory, using either fixed area plots or prism sampling (also called horizontal point or variable radius). This equates to a 10 by 10 chain grid with 0.10 acre plots or 10 basal area factor prism points, or one plot/point per 10 acres. Use a minimum of three plots per stand, even if the stand is less than 30 acres. 5. Conduct inventory using the following references as guidance: fixed area plots – Mitchell and Hughes (1995), prism sampling Mitchell et al. (1995). 6. Take field notes while conducting the inventory. Use the format described by Remsen (1977). Document natural (granite outcrops, large diameter or otherwise unique trees, new RCW clusters, etc.) and cultural (wells, bottle dumps, chimneys, etc.) resources found while inventorying. Document impressions of stand conditions with respect to desired future conditions. Despite its descriptive nature this may be the most useful part of the inventory. 7. Analyze and summarize stand data to address the metrics in objectives 4.1.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.2.7. Use the following references as guidance: fixed area plots – Mitchell and Hughes (1995); prism sampling – Mitchell et al. (1995). Alternatively, use a growth model such as the Forest Vegetation Simulator to compute the desired variables. See Dixon (2002). 8. Summarize compartment data as in tables A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, and A3.4. Use Bryan (2007) as guidance. Address objectives 4.2.1 and 4.2.4, as appropriate.

113

Table A3.1

Compartment: Date:

Forest Ecosystem (acres) Non-forest Forest Type: Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Stand H, M, P, Number: NF Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Acres Type

Total Adapted from Bryan 2007

114

Table A3.2 Forest Development Stage Summary - Acres

Forest Type Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Total Hardwood H Mixed M Pine P

Total

Table A3.3 Forest Development Stage Summary - Percent

Forest Type Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Total Hardwood Mixed Pine

Total

Table A3.4 Ecosystem Summary - Acres Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber % of Total - acres - Compartment Loblolly- Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum- Cypress Non-Forest

Total Acres

% of Forest Adapted from Bryan 2007

A3.2 Continuous Forest Inventory

CFI is forest monitoring designed to determine significant changes in forest characteristics such as composition, stocking and growth over time. CFI comprises a series of small, permanent, systematically located plots (Helms 1998). Due to the low sampling intensity usually employed with CFI this inventory type is not appropriate for developing silvicultural prescriptions. The objectives of this program are:

 Analyze the different forest strata in terms of the objectives from chapter 4 116

 Validate and refine the desired future condition derived in appendix 2. Note – this may require modifications to the CFI program to incorporate abiotic data collection for ecological site description.

There are 237 plots located on a grid throughout the refuge – see figure 1 and table A3.5 Plot locations are unstratified since natural events like weather, insects and disease, and management activities like prescribed fire and harvesting continually alter strata. Plots are 0.10 acres for a 0.07 percent sampling intensity, well within the recommended 0.03 to 0.1 percent intensity (Husch et al. 1982). Ten percent of the plots are sampled every year, during the summer months. Sampling protocol follows the FIREMON: Fire Effects Monitoring and Inventory System, plot description and tree data sampling methods (Lutes et al. 2006), with the following modifications:

 Starting Point – starting points mark the beginning of the traverse to the plot. They are usually trees (but not always) that are easy to find and likely to remain unchanged prior to the next inventory. Mark the SP with two parallel diagonal bark scribe marks. NOTE – ensure the scribe marks are only in the outer bark layer, not the cambium. Document species and diameter, and GPS location.  Course to Plot – this is the distance and azimuth (not corrected for declination) to plot center. Plot centers are already documented and the crew should be able to navigate to PC with a GPS unit. The course to plot allows the crew to find the plot in case of GPS failure.  Plot Center – monument PC with a metal stake. Attach a metal tag with the plot number stamped on it to the stake. Select two PC witness trees that are: o Relatively close to the stake and at right angles. o Stand out from others in the area. o At least 3” dbh, larger if possible. o Not expected to die or be harvested in the next 10 years. Mark the witness trees with scribe marks in the same manner as the starting point. For each witness tree record: o The horizontal distance from the stake to the center of the witness tree. o The azimuth from the stake to the witness tree. o Tree species and diameter. o Anything distinctive about the tree, i.e. forks at 4 feet, clump of 3, etc. Use trees tallied on the plot as witness trees if possible.  Decide if a plot is forested or non-forested based on the plot center location. If plot center falls on a gravel or paved road, or in a field or pond, the plot is non-forested, even if some portion of the plot has trees. If the plot center is in a forested area, the plot is forested.  Plot Diagram – show witness tree locations and anything unique that may be helpful in relocating the plot at the next inventory.  Sketch Map – shows the general direction of how to get to the plot. The sketch map should show enough information for someone to find the starting point without any other information. They can be done using GIS.  The nested seedling subplot is 0.01 acres, 11.77 feet radius.

116

117

 The breakpoint diameter at or above which overstory trees are measured on the 0.10 acre plot and below which saplings are tallied to species/diameter classes on the 0.10 acre plot and seedlings are tallied to species/height classes on the 0.01 acre plot is six (6) inches.

 Trees at or above the breakpoint diameter are not marked with metal tags. Instead, trees are monumented using the horizontal distance from plot center to the center of the tree, the azimuth from PC to the center of the tree, and a bark scribe. With the scribe, make a horizontal mark about two inches long, one inch below where dbh is taken, on the side of

117

118

the tree facing the plot center. Do not measure dbh until the scribe is made. Scribe marks should not penetrate the cambium.  Use the FFI (FEAT/FIREMON Integrated – Lutes et al. 2009) disturbance history protocol to record planned treatments (prescribed fire, timber harvest) and unplanned events (southern pine beetle, wind, etc.).

Data are entered into FFI, an ecological monitoring software tool (Lutes et al. 2009). While FFI can do some reports and analysis, it is limited. Also, it cannot do growth simulations. Plots measured at different times in the past need to be grown to the current time, so a forest growth model such as the Forest Vegetation Simulator (Dixon 2002) should be employed for complete analysis. FFI can export data into FVS.

Stratify plots by the following strata:

P – Pine (≥50% of the stocking is pine) Size Class: 1 – Average DBH < 5.5" 2 – Average DBH ≥5.5 ≤ 9.0" 3 – Average DBH ≥ 10.0" Canopy Closure: A – >70% canopy closure B – ≤70 – 40% canopy closure C – ≤40% canopy closure M – Mixed Pine/Hardwood (≥50% of the stocking is hardwoods, 25-49% is pines) UH – Upland Hardwoods (≥75% of the stocking is upland hardwoods, pine stocking is <25%) BH – Bottomland Hardwoods (≥75% of the stocking is bottomland hardwoods, pine stocking is <25%)

Further summarize the data by the following:

 For P2 and P3 (all canopy closure classes), calculate the measures of RCW good quality foraging habitat (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) as structural attributes.  For M and UH calculate the variables used in the gray squirrel habitat suitability index (Allen 1987) and the snag component of the Indiana bat HSI model (Farmer et al. 2002) as structural variables.  For BH, calculate the primary management factors for desired stand conditions for bottomland forests (Wilson et al. 2007) and the snag component of the Indiana bat HSI model (Farmer et al. 2002) as structural variables.

A “cookbook” detailing specific protocols should be developed and kept on file at the refuge. This cookbook is reviewed annually as part of the HMP annual review. Changes or additions to the protocol (for example, changing the snag plot diameter in the tree sampling protocol, adding quadrats to sample non-tree woody density, etc.) warrant re-writing the cookbook.

118

119

Table A3.5 – Plot Centers Plot # X Y Plot # X Y 0 249625.5 3653327.7 39 248857.1 3661780.1 1 249625.5 3654096.1 40 245015.1 3662548.5 2 250393.9 3654096.1 41 245783.5 3662548.5 3 249625.5 3654864.5 42 246551.9 3662548.5 4 250365.6 3654909.3 43 247320.3 3662548.5 5 251162.3 3654864.5 44 248088.7 3662548.5 6 248088.7 3655632.9 45 249625.5 3662548.5 7 248857.1 3655632.9 46 250393.9 3662548.5 8 249625.5 3655632.9 47 248857.1 3662548.5 9 250393.9 3655632.9 48 246551.9 3663316.9 10 251162.3 3655632.9 49 244246.7 3663316.9 11 248088.7 3656401.3 50 245015.1 3663316.9 12 248857.1 3656401.3 51 245783.5 3663316.9 13 249625.5 3656401.3 52 247320.3 3663316.9 14 250393.9 3656401.3 53 248088.7 3663316.9 15 251162.3 3656401.3 54 248857.1 3663316.9 16 248857.1 3657169.7 55 249625.5 3663316.9 17 249625.5 3657169.7 56 250393.9 3663316.9 18 250393.9 3657169.7 57 251162.3 3663316.9 19 251162.3 3657169.7 58 245015.1 3664085.3 20 251930.7 3657169.7 59 246551.9 3664085.3 21 249625.5 3657938.1 60 247320.3 3664085.3 22 250393.9 3657938.1 61 248088.7 3664085.3 23 251162.3 3657938.1 62 249625.5 3664085.3 24 251930.7 3657938.1 63 250393.9 3664085.3 25 249625.5 3658706.5 64 253467.5 3664085.3 26 250393.9 3658706.5 65 245783.5 3664085.3 27 251930.7 3658706.5 66 248857.1 3664085.3 28 252699.1 3658706.5 67 251162.3 3664085.3 29 249625.5 3659474.9 68 244246.7 3664853.7 30 251930.7 3659474.9 69 245015.1 3664853.7 31 252699.1 3659474.9 70 245783.5 3664853.7 32 251930.7 3660243.3 71 246551.9 3664853.7 33 252699.1 3660243.3 72 247320.3 3664853.7 34 246551.9 3661011.7 73 248088.7 3664853.7 35 248088.7 3661011.7 74 248857.1 3664853.7 36 252699.1 3661011.7 75 249625.5 3664853.7 37 247320.3 3661780.1 76 250393.9 3664853.7 38 248088.7 3661780.1 77 251162.3 3664853.7

119

120

78 251930.7 3664853.7 118 251162.3 3667158.9 79 252699.1 3664853.7 119 253467.5 3667158.9 80 253467.5 3664853.7 120 254235.9 3667158.9 81 254235.9 3664853.7 121 255004.3 3667158.9 82 244246.7 3665622.1 122 242709.9 3667927.3 83 245015.1 3665622.1 123 243478.3 3667927.3 84 245783.5 3665622.1 124 244246.7 3667927.3 85 247320.3 3665622.1 125 245015.1 3667927.3 86 248088.7 3665622.1 126 245783.5 3667927.3 87 248857.1 3665622.1 127 246551.9 3667927.3 88 249625.5 3665622.1 128 247320.3 3667927.3 89 251162.3 3665622.1 129 248088.7 3667927.3 90 251930.7 3665622.1 130 248857.1 3667927.3 91 252699.1 3665622.1 131 249625.5 3667927.3 92 253467.5 3665622.1 132 250393.9 3667927.3 93 254235.9 3665622.1 133 251930.7 3667927.3 94 255004.3 3665622.1 134 252699.1 3667927.3 95 243478.3 3666390.5 135 253467.5 3667927.3 96 244246.7 3666390.5 136 254235.9 3667927.3 97 245015.1 3666390.5 137 241941.5 3668695.7 98 245783.5 3666390.5 138 242709.9 3668695.7 99 246551.9 3666390.5 139 243478.3 3668695.7 100 247320.3 3666390.5 140 244246.7 3668695.7 101 248088.7 3666390.5 141 245015.1 3668695.7 102 248857.1 3666390.5 142 245783.5 3668695.7 103 250393.9 3666390.5 143 246551.9 3668695.7 104 251162.3 3666390.5 144 247320.3 3668695.7 105 251930.7 3666390.5 145 248088.7 3668695.7 106 252699.1 3666390.5 146 248857.1 3668695.7 107 253467.5 3666390.5 147 249625.5 3668695.7 108 254235.9 3666390.5 148 250393.9 3668695.7 109 246551.9 3667158.9 149 251162.3 3668695.7 110 243478.3 3667158.9 150 251930.7 3668695.7 111 244246.7 3667158.9 151 252699.1 3668695.7 112 245015.1 3667158.9 152 253467.5 3668695.7 113 245783.5 3667158.9 153 254235.9 3668695.7 114 247320.3 3667158.9 154 241173.1 3669464.1 115 248088.7 3667158.9 155 241941.5 3669464.1 116 249625.5 3667158.9 156 242709.9 3669464.1 117 250393.9 3667158.9 157 243478.3 3669464.1

120

121

158 244246.7 3669464.1 198 245015.1 3671000.9 159 245015.1 3669464.1 199 245783.5 3671000.9 160 245783.5 3669464.1 200 246551.9 3671000.9 161 246551.9 3669464.1 201 247320.3 3671000.9 162 247320.3 3669464.1 202 248088.7 3671000.9 163 248088.7 3669464.1 203 248857.1 3671000.9 164 248857.1 3669464.1 204 249625.5 3671000.9 165 249625.5 3669464.1 205 250393.9 3671000.9 166 250393.9 3669464.1 206 251162.3 3671000.9 167 251162.3 3669464.1 207 251930.7 3671000.9 168 251930.7 3669464.1 208 252699.1 3671000.9 169 252699.1 3669464.1 209 248857.1 3671769.3 170 253467.5 3669464.1 210 251162.3 3671769.3 171 254235.9 3669464.1 211 238867.9 3671769.3 172 238867.9 3670232.5 212 240404.7 3671769.3 173 241173.1 3670232.5 213 241173.1 3671769.3 174 241941.5 3670232.5 214 241941.5 3671769.3 175 242709.9 3670232.5 215 242709.9 3671769.3 176 243478.3 3670232.5 216 243478.3 3671769.3 177 244246.7 3670232.5 217 244246.7 3671769.3 178 245015.1 3670232.5 218 245015.1 3671769.3 179 245783.5 3670232.5 219 245783.5 3671769.3 180 246551.9 3670232.5 220 246551.9 3671769.3 181 247320.3 3670232.5 221 247320.3 3671769.3 182 248088.7 3670232.5 222 248088.7 3671769.3 183 248857.1 3670232.5 223 249625.5 3671769.3 184 249625.5 3670232.5 224 250393.9 3671769.3 185 250393.9 3670232.5 225 251930.7 3671769.3 186 251162.3 3670232.5 226 252699.1 3671769.3 187 251930.7 3670232.5 227 243478.3 3672537.7 188 252699.1 3670232.5 228 244246.7 3672537.7 189 238099.5 3671000.9 229 245015.1 3672537.7 190 238867.9 3671000.9 230 245783.5 3672537.7 191 239636.3 3671000.9 231 246551.9 3672537.7 192 240404.7 3671000.9 232 248088.7 3672537.7 193 241173.1 3671000.9 233 248857.1 3672537.7 194 241941.5 3671000.9 234 251930.7 3672537.7 195 242709.9 3671000.9 235 252699.1 3672537.7 196 243478.3 3671000.9 236 253467.5 3672537.7 197 244246.7 3671000.9

121

122

APPENDIX 4 – SILVICULTURE AND HAZARDOUS FUELS

124

125

US Fish & Wildlife Service Southeastern Region

TAKING CREDIT

Guidance on identifying forest management activities that meet National Fire Plan objectives

May 20, 2003

JEREMY KELLER WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE COORDINATOR

Revised March 08, 2010

CARL SCHMIDT FORESTER

RICK STRUHAR FIRE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST

US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTHEASTERN REGION

125

126

127

SUMMARY

This “how-to” paper offers guidance to field stations to use in determining whether or not standard forest management practices meet the objectives for hazard fuel management laid out in the National Fire Plan. When such practices meet National Fire Plan objectives, they may be eligible for fire funding and should be tracked using the National Fire Plan Operations Reporting System (NFPORS) and the Fire Management Information System (FMIS).

TARGET AUDIENCE

The primary audience of this paper includes those field unit staff involved in writing and approving forest management plans and silvicultural prescriptions as well as District and Refuge Fire Management Staff

INTRODUCTION

With the implementation of the National Fire Plan in 2001, there has been an increased emphasis on funding Federal land management agencies’ efforts to manage hazard fuel on their lands. Along with this increased funding comes increased responsibility for Federal agencies to demonstrate accountability to Congress for how these efforts are progressing.

Progress reporting is accomplished through NFPORS and FMIS. Because future funding decisions are in part based upon the data that agencies enter into NFPORS, accurate accomplishment reporting is critical.

Many silvicultural practices commonly used in forest management activities on National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in the Southeastern Region meet Hazard Fuel (HF) and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) objectives of the National Fire Plan.

DEFINITIONS

The following terms will be used throughout this paper. Definitions are provided to establish a common understanding.

Forest Management *

The practical application of biological, physical, quantitative, managerial, economic, social and policy principles to the regeneration, management, utilization and conservation of forests to meet specific goals and objectives

Fuel **

Any combustible material, especially petroleum-based products and wildland fuels.

Fuel Characteristics **

Factors that make up fuels such as compactness, loading, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, chemical content, size and shape, and moisture content.

Fuel Management **

127

128

The act or practice of controlling flammability and reducing resistance to control of wildland fuels through mechanical, chemical, biological or manual means, or by fire in support of land management objectives.

Hazard Fuel **

A fuel complex defined by kind, arrangement, volume, condition and location that presents a threat of ignition and resistance to control.

Mitigation **

Those activities implemented prior to, during or after an incident which are designed to reduce or eliminate risks to persons or property that lessen the actual or potential effects or consequence of an incident.

Prescription *

A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to one that meets management goals.

Silviculture *

The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health and quality of forests and woodlands to meet diverse needs and values on a sustainable basis. Some examples of silvicultural activities include precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, regeneration cutting, invasive exotic plant control and prescribed fire.

Stand *

A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age class distribution, composition and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit.

* Definitions from the Society of American Forester’s 1998 Dictionary of Forestry ** Definitions from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s 2008 Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology

HOW TO PROCEED

A silvicultural prescription can be written for a single stand or a management compartment which may have numerous stands. In either case, the effects of the proposed silvicultural treatment on hazardous fuels must be considered for each stand individually. The question that you are trying to answer is: This procedure Will the planned activities result in stand conditions that, in the event of an should be unwanted ignition, would reduce the possibility of a wildfire that is large, intense applied to or difficult to control? every stand in a project If the answer is “yes,” then you should be thinking of it as an HF project, as well area. as a forest management activity. A related question is whether or not the treatment would have any impacts on a WUI community. This question must be answered separately, and guidance is provided in a companion document to this one issued by the Regional Office entitled What is WUI?: Guidance on Determining Whether or Not your Project Involves the Wildland-Urban Interface June 27, 2003.

128

129

All silvicultural projects with WUI benefits by definition also have HF benefits, but not all HF projects have a WUI benefit.

The following step-by-step procedure will help you to determine whether or not a particular project meets National Fire Plan HF and WUI objectives.

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL WILDFIRE HAZARD OF EACH STAND IN THE PROJECT AREA?

The potential wildfire hazard of any given site depends on three components: weather, topography and fuel. These affect the probability of a fire start, the speed and direction of spread, its intensity, and the ability to control and extinguish a fire. The primary impact that forest management activities have on a site’s hazard potential is through their influence on fuels.

Which fuels are hazardous fuels?

While every piece of vegetation has some potential value as a fuel under the Most right conditions, we must observe some reasonable limitations in what we are upland site calling “hazardous”. The following question must be answered: cover types

have the Could the fuels in this stand, if unmanaged, result in conditions potential to that would support large, intense or difficult to control accumulate wildfires under typical “bad” fire year conditions? hazardous

fuels. Some stands will not normally have much potential wildfire hazard, regardless of management activities. Examples include cypress domes or bottomland hardwood stands. Activities in cases such as these would not normally be included. Some cover types are well known to produce hazardous fuels if not treated. Examples include pine-dominated stands, ti-ti swamps and stands with extensive palmetto or gallberry understories. Between these two obvious extremes you must use your local knowledge to make a decision.

STEP 2: DO THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES MITIGATE WILDFIRE HAZARDS?

This is an obvious question to ask, and it must be answered at the local level. The following questions may help you decide:

 Does the project modify fuel characteristics in a manner that limits potential wildfire ignition, size, spread, intensity or difficulty of control?

 Does the project create or maintain stand conditions that are less prone to high-intensity fires?

A tree planting would probably not qualify, but a pre-commercial thinning or a commercial timber thinning might. Keep in mind that while logging tends to increase woody fuels because of logging debris scattered throughout the treatment area, harvesting operations usually disrupt the horizontal continuity and reduce vertical arrangement of the fuels. The immediate result tends to be stand conditions that are less prone to high intensity fires. The increased fuel load, along with subsequent vegetative growth and leaf fall, may actually increase the fire hazard in the long term without follow-up treatments. Ultimately, each project must be judged on a case-by-case basis by the responsible FMO or his/her designee, in collaboration with the unit resource management specialist(s).

129

130

STEP 3: MAKE YOUR DECISION

After analyzing the project on a stand-by-stand basis using the above criteria concerning the potential of your project to meet HF objectives, you need to make the following decision:

After consideration of the above criteria, is it reasonable to conclude that this activity helps mitigate the effects of a potential wildfire on (or moving through) the site that is large, intense or difficult to control?

If the answer is “yes,” then you should consider the project to be in keeping with the HF objectives of the National Fire Plan.

FINAL STEP: PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION

It is important to provide adequate documentation of cases where silvicultural activities meet HF and WUI objectives. In addition to entering these projects into NFPORS and FMIS, the following items should be completed or incorporated into the Silvicultural Prescription.

HF and WUI Worksheets

A HF worksheet should be completed – see attached copy. While each stand needs to be considered individually, stands in similar condition that are proposed for the same type of treatment may be lumped as one activity. Different stand types, different stand conditions and different silvicultural treatments are different Projects activities, and should be recorded as such on the worksheet. A single stand need to be designated for multiple types of treatments should get its own worksheet. entered in both The process for determining whether or not the project provides mitigation NFPORS benefits to a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) community (detailed in What is and FMIS. WUI?: Guidance on Determining Whether or Not your Project Involves the Wildland-Urban Interface, June 27,2003) should also be conducted for each stand, and the worksheet for that process completed.

These worksheets should be maintained as documentation of the decision- making process.

General Statement:

The following statement should appear in the introductory section of the prescription:

“Some common silvicultural techniques employed in the management of forest resources incidentally or by design meet the Hazardous Fuels (HF) and/or Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) mitigation objectives of the 2001 National Fire Plan. The activities planned for each stand in this project have been analyzed to determine whether or not they may contribute to the fulfillment of these objectives.”

Specific Statements:

130

131

Where planned silvicultural activities have been determined to be meeting HF objectives, the following statement should be included in the prescription:

“Silvicultural activities planned for this compartment/stand have been determined to contribute to the accomplishment of National Fire Plan Hazardous Fuels (HF) objectives. The following activities will help to mitigate the effects of a wildfire that is large, intense or difficult to control: ... “ (list planned activities)

The effects of the proposed silvicultural treatment on hazardous fuels must be considered for each stand; however, as noted above, a silvicultural prescription can be written for a single stand or a management compartment which may have numerous stands. While the analysis must consider each stand independently, the documentation may combine similar stands receiving similar treatments. Where the activities planned for a stand have also been found to be meeting National Fire Plan objectives concerning the mitigation of wildland fire danger to communities in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), include the following statement:

“These activities have also been determined to contribute to the mitigation of wildland fire hazards for the following Wildland- Urban Interface (WUI) community (or communities): ...” (list communities benefiting from mitigation effects)

Summary Matrix:

A matrix summarizing the HF and WUI determinations should be included as an appendix to the plan or prescription. A suggested format is attached to this document.

HOW CAN I GET FIRE FUNDING FOR THESE PROJECTS?

Projects that demonstrate significant HF or WUI benefit may receive fire funding. This will be on a cost-share basis with other, non-fire funding sources.

When requesting fire funding for silvicultural projects, use normal NFPORS procedures and timeframes. You should submit these projects along with all other HF projects going into NFPORS for future years.

Appropriate items for fire funding include any project costs incurred. Examples include reasonable shares of the costs of expendable supplies (e.g. marking paint, etc.) and personnel costs for both planning and implementation, excluding base salaries, which are ineligible.

Projects that have a demonstrated HF benefit, but not necessarily a WUI benefit, may be eligible for funding from the HF Operations sub-activity (-9263).

Projects that a field unit would like to have funded from Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) funds (-9264) must be submitted as a WUI project and will enter competition for these funds along with other WUI projects in the region.

Projects that demonstrate both a HF and WUI benefit may be eligible for funding from both subactivties.

131

132

US Fish & Wildlife Service Southeastern Region

WORKSHEET FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS POTENTIAL OF FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECTS

Refuge Forester or Project Leader Fire Management Officer or Designee

Will the activity help What silvicultural activities are planned? mitigate hazardous fuels?

Activity 1:

□ YES □ NO

Activity 2:

□ YES □ NO

Activity 3:

□ YES □ NO

Activity 4:

□ YES □ NO

Activity 5:

□ YES □ NO

Activity 6:

□ YES □ NO

attach copies of this worksheet for continuation as necessary

132

133

US Fish & Wildlife Service Southeastern Region

SUMMARY MATRIX:

Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HF) and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Mitigation Potential of Forest Management Projects

Append this matrix to the Silvicultural Prescription

Refuge Compartment Name(s) or Identifier(s) Forester or Project Leader Fire Management Officer or Designee National Fire Plan Stands and planned activities: objectives met (check all that apply): Activity Planned Direct Costs Acres Management Activity HF WUI None # Subactivity Amount

attach copies of this form for continuation as necessary

133

134

HAZARDOUS FUELS WORKSHEET EXAMPLE

WORKSHEET FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS POTENTIAL OF FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECTS

Refuge Your NWR Forester or Project Leader Jane Forester Fire Management Officer or Designee Joe Firefighter

Will the activity help What silvicultural activities are planned? mitigate hazardous fuels?

Activity 1: Commercially thinning one mature pine stand from above will break up crown fuel continuity by harvesting overstory trees and reduce YES NO vertical fuel height by the movement of heavy logging equipment throughout the stand on 34 acres. Activity 2: Commercially thinning two mature pine stands from below will disrupt the horizontal fuel continuity by skidding cut trees to the log decks and reduce vertical fuel height by the YES NO movement of heavy logging equipment throughout the stands on 125 acres. This is near a community at risk. Activity 3: Controlling the invasive exotic plant Lespedeza bicolor with herbicide in two mature pine stands will reduce flashy fuels by killing YES NO flammable vegetation on 125 acres. This is near a community at risk. Activity 4: Commercially thinning one upland hardwood stand from below will disrupt the horizontal fuel continuity by skidding cut trees to the log YES NO decks and reduce vertical fuel height by the movement of heavy logging equipment throughout the stands on 55 acres. Activity 5: Commercially thinning two bottomland hardwood stands using crop tree release on 85 acres. Since the fire danger is minimal due to the YES NO fuel type, even without treatment, there is no hazardous fuel benefit. Activity 6: Tree planting old field to restore BH. Since the fire danger is minimal due to the fuel type, even without treatment, there is no YES NO hazardous fuel benefit.

Attach copies of this worksheet for continuation as necessary.

134

135

SUMMARY MATRIX EXAMPLE

SUMMARY MATRIX:

Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HF) and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Mitigation Potential of Forest Management Projects

Append this matrix to the Forest Management Plan or Prescription

Refuge Your NWR Compartment Name(s) or Identifier(s) Compartment X Forester or Project Leader Jane Forester Fire Management Officer or Designee Joe Firefighter National Fire Plan Stands and planned activities: objectives met (check all that apply): Activity Planned Direct Costs Acres Management Activity HF WUI None # Subactivity Amount Thinning one 1 34 9263 $500 mature pine stand X from above Thinning two 2 125 9264 $2500 mature pine X X stands from below Control invasive 3 125 9264 $4500 exotics with X X herbicide Thinning one UH 4 55 9263 $600 stand from below X

Thinning two BH 5 85 stands using crop X tree release Tree planting old 6 75 field to restore X BH

Attach copies of this form for continuation as necessary.

135

136

US Fish & Wildlife Service Southeastern Region

WHAT IS WUI?

Guidance on determining whether or not your project involves the Wildland-Urban Interface

June 27, 2003

JEREMY KELLER WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE COORDINATOR US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTHEASTERN REGION FIRE STAFF

136

137

SUMMARY

The term “Wildland-Urban Interface” or its’ acronym, “WUI,” has gained increased importance with the coming of the National Fire Plan. Confusion has abounded over this term, since it is nowhere defined yet everywhere emphasized. This “how-to” paper represents guidance from the Regional Fire Office as to deciding whether or not a particular project involves the Wildland- Urban Interface. This guidance is strongly influenced by the article “The Wildland/Urban Interface: What’s Really at Risk?” by Paul Summerfelt, Flagstaff (AZ) Fire Department, appearing in Fire Management Today 63:1.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This “how-to” paper is intended primarily for District and Refuge Fire Management Officers and District Wildland-Urban Interface Specialists. Refuge managers and staff with responsibility for land management activities should also have an understanding of the concepts covered in order to improve coordination with fire management staff.

INTRODUCTION

With the implementation of the National Fire Plan in 2001, there has been an increased emphasis on funding Federal land management agencies efforts to reduce hazardous fuels accumulations on their properties. Along with this increased funding has come increased responsibility for Federal agencies to show accountability to the Congress for how these efforts are progressing.

Progress reporting is accomplished through the National Fire Plan Operations Reporting System (NFPORS) internet application. Because future funding decisions are in part based upon the data that agencies are entering into NFPORS, accurate reporting of accomplishments is critical.

Knowing whether or not to check the WUI block for a project is important, but often difficult to determine. These guidelines offer some criteria that you can use in the field to help decide whether a particular project should be called “WUI.”

DEFINITIONS

The following terms will be used throughout this paper. Definitions are provided here to establish a common understanding.

Mitigate To cause to become less harsh or hostile; to make less severe or painful

Hazard A source of danger

Vulnerability Open to attack or damage

Risk Possibility of loss or injury

Source: State and Local Mitigation Planning – Understanding Your Risks (FEMA Pub. 386-2, 2001)

137

138

HOW TO PROCEED

The ultimate question that you will be trying to answer is:

Will this project mitigate the risks to a vulnerable WUI area caused by the hazard of fuels accumulation in the project area?

If the answer is “yes,” then you should be calling it a WUI project. The following step-by-step procedure will help you to determine whether or not a particular project accomplishes a WUI mitigation objective.

CRITERIA 1: DECIDE – IS THERE A WUI COMMUNITY IN PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT

If you are reducing fuel loads by prescribed burning or plowing firebreaks, and you can see buildings from where you are working, it is probably safe to say that it is a WUI project. For other projects, the answer is not always obvious.

What Qualifies as Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)?

In keeping with National Fire Plan concepts, it is the policy of the Southeastern Region to not dictate a strict definition for the Wildland-Urban Interface. Instead, local FMOs are responsible for deciding what areas are a part of the WUI based on their knowledge of local conditions. The following broad guidelines are intended to assist local FMOs in making their determinations.

What Qualifies as a Community?

This is a tough question. An incorporated town is an easy call, but many of the areas where our lands are located are dotted with unincorporated settlements. What about that single-wide mobile home tucked in the woods by itself? What about that hunting camp? What about uninhabited industrial structures that are still a part of the local economy?

For ambiguous cases like these, remember that the question is not really whether or not someone lives there, it is whether or not a fire would have an impact on a community. The third set of criteria contains some questions on impact to communities that may be helpful in deciding.

What Qualifies as “In Proximity”?

There is no set distance figure for deciding which WUI areas may be protected by the mitigating effects of your project. Whether or not a WUI area is in proximity to your project area depends upon the specific potential impacts, as determined in the next step.

CRITERIA 2: DECIDE – DOES THE PROJECT REDUCE HAZARDS?

This is an obvious question to ask, and it must be answered at the local level. The following questions may help you decide:

 Does the project reduce the potential for an unwanted ignition (an emergency)?

 If an unwanted ignition occurs, does the project limit the potential of the ignition to grow into a large fire (a disaster)?

138

139

 Would the project create a barrier to, or slow the spread of, a large fire coming from somewhere else?

 Does it make the community better able to withstand the impacts of a large fire that is not prevented or suppressed?

A tree planting would probably not qualify, but a pre-commercial thinning or timber stand improvement (TSI) project that removes ladder fuels might. Each project must be judged on a case-by-case basis by the responsible FMO or his/her designee.

CRITERIA 3: DECIDE – IS THERE A POTENTIAL HAZARD TO A WUI COMMUNITY?

Is there a hazard to a WUI area as the project area exists today, or as it will probably exist in the future?

Consider the potential impacts in terms of values-at-risk that could occur if you did not carry out your project.

The specter of homes going up in flames is the most obvious danger of fires in the interface. While this may be the most dramatic impact, it is certainly not the only one. A large WUI incident will result in a cascade of events, all having an impact on the community. A community may be vulnerable to many “downstream” impacts after the fire has been suppressed – and many of these secondary impacts are not given consideration in pre-incident planning.

Not every type of impact listed here will apply to each WUI area, but you should take all of the appropriate factors into consideration when making your determination. The list of criteria with each type of impact is not intended to be exhaustive, as many other potential impacts exist. The lists are meant to be an example of the types of questions you should be asking.

Life Safety Impacts

Could a large fire in, or moving through, the project area potentially:

 Threaten residential or other occupied structures within the WUI area?

 Result in increased danger to firefighters and other response personnel?

 Result in public panic?

 Result in local 911 or other emergency reporting systems being overwhelmed with calls?

 Require the evacuation of a community?

 Put smoke on a road and cause a wreck?

 Result in potential hazardous materials (HAZ MAT) releases?

139

140

Economic Impacts

Could a large fire in, or moving through, the project area potentially:

 Destroy critical community infrastructure such as powerlines, bridges or communications sites?

 Disrupt livestock operations by destroying grazing areas, fences or by directly killing animals?

 Require the evacuation of large numbers of livestock?

 Reduce tourism or outdoor recreation use and the revenues associated with such activities?

 Cause major economic losses through closed roads, airports or evacuations?

 Have negative impacts on businesses that are unable to recover?

 Cost jobs through impacts to forest or other resources (e.g. loggers, guides, etc.)?

 Critically overextend the response capabilities of local governments?

 Critically overextend the permitting and zoning functions of local communities during the rebuilding phase?

 Reduce income and tax revenues by destroying significant amounts of private timber, crops or improved hunting areas?

 Is the local economy so weak that loss of homes or jobs could lead to a decrease in population following the incident?

Community Health Impacts

Could a large fire in, or moving through, the project area potentially:

 Impact the health of residents with respiratory ailments because of heavy or persistent smoke?

 Result in emotional distress or trauma among those evacuated or who lose their homes or jobs? Remember, what are small incidents to responders are big events to the victims.

 Require the evacuation of special needs populations (e.g. disabled residents, nursing homes, special care facilities, etc.)?

 Impact the ability of local emergency services to respond to emergency medical calls while occupied fighting the fire?

140

141

Resource Impacts

Could a large fire in, or moving through, the project area potentially:

 Result in the loss of economically or socially important timber or wildlife habitat resources, either on the refuge or on other lands nearby?

 Result in significant damage to a community’s watershed?

 Lead to erosion resulting in degradation of sport or commercial fishing resources?

 Result in significant negative impacts to aesthetic values (e.g. viewsheds)?

Social Impacts

Could a large fire in, or moving through, the project area potentially:

 Damage relations between the impacted community and the Refuge?

 Will the social infrastructure for handling evacuees and victims of disaster be overwhelmed (e.g. shelters, mass feeding, temporary housing)?

 Cause large changes to the social structure of communities where jobs or population are lost?

 Cause an erosion of local residents’ trust in Federal wildland fire and land management policies?

 Result in bad press, damaging the public image of the Fish and Wildlife Service, local government or the emergency response community?

 Result in a change in the character of a community through the loss of traditional activities or occupations?

FINAL STEP: IS YOUR PROJECT MITIGATING A RISK TO A WUI COMMUNITY?

Now that you have weighed all of the criteria concerning the potential for your project to mitigate risks to a vulnerable WUI community, you need to make the decision:

After consideration of each of the above criteria, is it reasonable to conclude that this activity helps to mitigate the risks posed by wildland fire to a community or communities?

If the answer is “yes,” then you should be calling it a WUI project.

The final page of this document is a worksheet to assist you in documenting your decision process as to whether or not to call a particular activity a WUI project.

141

142

US Fish & Wildlife Service Southeastern Region

WORKSHEET FOR WUI MITIGATION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

Refuge Project Name or Identifier Forester or Project Leader Fire Management Officer

Potentially Impacted WUI Community (ies): These do not have to come from the Federal Register list

What potential community impacts would result if a large Will the project help to fire occurred on or moved through the project area (check mitigate these impacts? Any “Yes” answer indicates that you all that apply): have a potential WUI project

□ Life Safety Impacts List any potential impacts identified: □ YES □ NO

□ Economic Impacts List any potential impacts identified: □ YES □ NO

□ Community Health Impacts List any potential impacts identified: □ YES □ NO

□ Resource Impacts List any potential impacts identified: □ YES □ NO

□ Social Impacts List any potential impacts identified: □ YES □ NO

□ Other Impacts List any potential impacts identified: □ YES □ NO

142

APPENDIX 5 – SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS

A silvicultural prescription is “a planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to one that meets management goals” (Helms 1998). It is an implementation document, not a strategic one. Planning and treatment implementation are at the compartment level. The refuge has been writing silvicultural prescriptions as part of the habitat management planning process since timber harvesting began in 1945. To maintain continuity with previous prescriptions, use the following outline when writing prescriptions:

1. General Description – compartment location, general lay of the land, soils, past treatments (both timber harvesting and prescribed fire). Summarize inventory data as in tables A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, and A3.4. 2. Wildlife and Habitat Interrelationships – reference RCW cluster site data, foraging habitat analysis (use section 5.4.2.4. Growing Stock, as guidance), any appropriate habitat suitability index modeling (see objectives 4.1.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.6 and 4.2.7), and other applicable wildlife information. 3. Habitat Management Recommendations (i.e. proposed silvicultural treatments) – make recommendations by the following categories: a. P – Pine (≥50% of the stocking is pine) i. Size Class: 1. 1 – Average DBH < 5.5" 2. 2 – Average DBH ≥5.5 – 9.0" 3. 3 – Average DBH > 9.0" ii. Canopy Closure: 1. A – >70% canopy closure 2. B – ≤70 – 40% canopy closure 3. C – ≤40% canopy closure b. M – Pine/Hardwood (≥50% of the stocking is hardwood, 25-49% is pine) c. UH – Upland Hardwoods (>75% of the stocking is upland hardwoods) d. BH – Bottomland Hardwoods (≥50% of the stocking is bottomland hardwoods) Proposed treatments should include both intermediate and regeneration treatments by the appropriate silvicultural system – see sections 5.4.2.3. Forest Regulation, 5.4.2.5. Silvicultural Systems, and 5.4.2.6. Intermediate Treatments. 4. Other Items – this section covers details that don’t easily fit into the habitat management recommendations: a. Prescribed fire considerations. b. BMP implementation. c. Silviculture and hazardous fuels. d. Invasive exotics. e. Etc.

144

APPENDIX 6 – TIMBER SALES ADMINISTRATION

The following documents are either business practices documents or examples of appropriate timber sales administration records. It is important to note that timber sale administration documents may need modification for the particulars of individual sales. While using timber sales as a habitat management tool is an attempt to take advantage of the economic value of timber to accomplish refuge goals and objectives, it must be kept in mind that neither the refuge, nor the region, nor the Service has control over timber markets. They can only operate within the boundaries of the market, and these boundaries evolve. Sales administration must evolve with the markets to remain a viable habitat management tool.

Included documents:

 Forest Management Payment Processing and Exchanges on National Wildlife Refuges

 Delegation of Authority

 Special Conditions Applicable to Timber Harvesting Permits – Marked Timber Sale  Special Conditions Applicable to Timber Harvesting Permits – Operator Select Sale

 Formal Timber Bid Invitation – Lump Sum  Formal Timber Bid Invitation – Per Ton

 Formal Bid – Lump Sum  Formal Bid – Per Ton

 Per Ton Revenue and Expense Report

 Timber Harvesting Checklist Unit Log

 Best Management Practices Evaluation

 Post Harvest Evaluation

145

146

Memorandum

To: Area Supervisors, Southeast Region

From: Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System

Date: October 2, 2012

Subject: Forest Management Business Guidance Document

Please disseminate the attached guidance concerning Forest Management Payment Processing and Exchanges on the National Wildlife Refuge System in the Southeast Region. This guidance is in response to uncertainty expressed by staff concerning how to the Region processes timber sales and determines appropriate expenses associated with timber sales. We recognize that Refuges within the Region have adopted different methodologies to process payments generated from forest management practices and have identified different expenses (goods and services) associated with timber sales. Additional clarity was needed in determining what expenses associated with a timber sale are appropriate.

This document establishes appropriate standards for permit payment processing, determining appropriate expenses, and documentation procedures. It is not intended to be a step by step guide to conducting a timber sale nor is it intended to address silvicultural practices or other broad forestry issues. The document references appropriate laws, regulations and policy where more detail can be found.

I appreciate the efforts of Jeff Denman, Carl Schmidt, John Simpson, Greg Corace and Steve Seibert preparing this document along with the Regional Forestry Program, Refuges and the Solicitors Office for providing critical review.

We recognize that the forest industry is dynamic and other methods of selling timber may be valid. As we move forward with forest habitat management, it is imperative that Refuges remain compliant with relevant laws, regulations and policy governing our forest management activities. When uncertain, it is expected that Refuges operate within the bounds of this guidance to help ensure compliance with governing regulations. If you have questions or need assistance related to this guidance, please advise the regional forestry program (Henry Sansing or Haven Barnhill)

147

148

Southeast Region Guidance

Forest Management Payment Processing and Exchanges on National Wildlife Refuges

Prepared by:

Jeff Denman Supervisory Forester White River NWR Carl Schmidt Supervisory Forester Piedmont NWR John Simpson Administrative Forester Bayou Cocodrie NWR Greg Corace Forester (Ecologist) Seney NWR Steve Seibert Supervisory Wildlife Refuge Specialist Southeast Regional Office

Executive Summary

The purpose of this document is to provide regional guidance concerning business practices related to processing payments and to identify the appropriate types of goods and services associated with forest management on refuges. This document is not intended to address silvicultural practices or other broad forestry issues.

Issue: Over the years, refuges within the Southeast Region have adopted different methodologies to process payments generated from forest management practices and have included a wide range of expenses, goods and services that are related to the sale. Additional clarity is needed to process payments correctly and consistently and to determine what expenses associated with a timber sale are appropriate.

Scope: The guidance applies to FWS lands (fee-title) and may not necessarily apply to overlays (leased lands).

Objective: To provide guidance and clarification, and establish appropriate standards for:

1) Processing payments; 2) Defining appropriate expenses; 3) Documentation procedures.

Background: Many Refuges in the Southeast Region have forests requiring active management to restore, conserve or enhance ecosystem functions and habitat conditions for trust resources. After conducting a forest habitat evaluation to determine what type of habitat management, if any, is needed to meet refuge objectives, a timber harvest may be prescribed by the refuge because it often provides the most suitable and cost-efficient means to mimic natural disturbances and/or promote ecological succession for restoration and conservation purposes. Once a timber harvest is prescribed, the forest products to be harvested are marked or designated, and then sold into the local timber market. The value is most commonly determined by competitive bids or appraisal. A Special Use Permit (Permit) (5 RM 17.B and 603 FW 1-2) is then issued to the selected timber buyer (usually the highest bidder although operator skills and abilities and past performance may also be considered along with the bid amount). Terms of the Permit state the conditions of the sale, including access or site modifications to support the

149

management action. Compliance inspections are conducted by Refuge staff to assure adherence to the terms. Once a bid is accepted, local logging companies harvest the designated trees, thus providing the desired ecological disturbance while also benefitting local economies through the employment of forest and logging companies and the sale of merchantable forest products.

This type of economic use may be authorized when it contributes to the achievement of the Refuge purpose(s) (50 CFR 29.1). The value of the Permit is to be commensurate with fees for similar products made by private land owners in the vicinity and can be a monetary exchange or a share in kind of the resources (50 CFR 29.5).

Field stations can authorize Special-Use permits and collect fees for timber sales provided they have a current approved Timber Sales Authorization (details are available from the Regional Forester). An approved Timber Sales Authorization is the delegation of authority to the refuge manager that allows for timber sales up to $500,000. Timber Sales Approval Authorizations require renewal every 5 years. A Special-use permit governing sales exceeding $500,000 requires approval from the Regional Chief of Refuges.

Net receipts are revenue from sales remaining after deduction of appropriate expenses incurred in producing the income (50 CFR 34.3(e)), and are deposited in the Revenue Sharing Fund (50 CFR 34.3(d)) through Denver Finance Center using collection transmittal #5 (refuge revenue sharing). Performance bonds to ensure compliance with Permit terms use collection transmittal #4 (suspense). Also, products of public land may be exchanged to acquire lands (16 USC dd (b) (3) (B)).

Expenses incurred in producing the income include staff time and operating expenses for planning timber sales, designating trees to be sold, and inspecting operations for compliance with terms of the Permit. Salaries, benefits, travel expenses, fuel, etc. are considered expenses of the sale. Other expenses include tools, specialized equipment, and supplies used primarily for sales, such as paint sprayers and paint, safety boots, etc. Obtaining and maintaining access to the sale has also been recognized as an expense of the sale. The intent is to limit expenses to those incurred in producing the income. A number of Refuges receive an Expense for Sales (6860 funding) allocation that has been used for these items. Some refuges have no allocation or insufficient amounts for those sale expenses. The remedy has been for those expenses to be deducted from the sale income prior to deposit into the Revenue Sharing Fund. Additionally, a refuge may receive an in-kind share of the resource or product which could be a portion of the timber harvested or lumber sawn from the timber. Exchanges of Timber for Land have been coordinated through the Division of Realty to acquire parcels within approved acquisition boundaries. Some exchanges have added acres to one Refuge with timber from another Refuge.

FWS regulation (50 CFR 25.12) and policy (603 FW 2(N)) indicate the exchange of timber for goods or services is possible but the legislative foundation for this is unclear. Therefore, the region limits the exchange of timber for goods and services to expenses clearly related to the approved silvicultural prescription and timber sale. Examples may include the planting of specific trees, control of designated plants, and/or expertise and labor to assist with the timber harvest and sale within the specified prescription area.

150

Processing Payments: Methods of payment for timber vary depending on how the sale is structured. Below is a list of payment methods being utilized, all of which meet the terms and spirit of the regulations. The economic viability of each sale in each locality will influence which method is thought to best meet the refuge purposes. As markets fluctuate, flexibility is needed to adapt additional methods to meet the terms and spirit of the regulations. A performance bond or guarantee is often a standard component of timber sale administration. This bond is to assure payments are made for the timber, and all tasks are completed in accordance with the terms of the Permit.

1) Lump Sum as Performance Bond with Refunding for Designated Expenses – The total value of the Permit to harvest trees is received from the Permittee and deposited into the Suspense Account of the Denver Finance Center as a Performance Bond to complete all the terms in the Permit. Permit terms include specific goods and services required to implement the prescribed treatment. When goods or services in the Permit are provided, the documented actual expense of those goods and services are refunded to the Permittee from the performance bond. When all required goods and services have been provided and expenses refunded, the balance of the performance bond becomes net receipts and is transferred from the Suspense Account to the Revenue Sharing Account. When both parties sign the Permit, the timber becomes the property of the permittee, who would then bear the burden of unforeseen loss; e.g. insects, fire, wind damage, etc. One example of appropriate language in the bid and Permit is:

“The Permittee will provide, conduct, or pay a contractor for goods or services needed to meet the stated goals and objectives, as determined by the Refuge Manager. These may include … … … …. As designated goods or services are provided, the actual, documented costs of same will be refunded to the permittee.”

2) Per Unit Sale (also called pay as cut, pay by scale, scale sale, or per ton sale) with Deductions from Partial Payments – The value of the timber is based upon volume or weight and product class (sawlogs, pulpwood, etc.) as removed. In some cases (particularly in low value timber stands), it may be appropriate to accept a blended price for multiple products (e.g. pine chip-n-saw and pine pulpwood) to reduce merchandizing concerns. Weekly or bi-weekly payments are made by Permittee to the refuge based upon the scale and product of the timber removed, then deposited into the Revenue Sharing Account of the Denver Finance Center. When goods or services in the Permit are provided, the documented actual expense of those goods and services is deducted by the Permittee from the following payment(s) until satisfied. When all required goods and services have been provided and expenses deducted, all subsequent payments are net receipts and deposited at the Denver Finance Center into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. Timber remains the property of the refuge which retains the burden of unforeseen loss; e.g. flood, tornado damage, etc. until cut by the Permittee. One example of appropriate language in the bid and Permit is:

“The Permittee will provide, conduct, or pay a contractor for goods or services needed to meet the stated goals and objectives, as determined by the Refuge Manager. These may include … … … … As designated goods and services are provided, the actual, documented costs of same will be deducted from following payment(s) for the timber until balanced.”

151

3) Deducted from Lump Sum Bids – Bid and permit terms include a set amount for specific goods and services required to implement the prescribed treatment. The net value of the Permit to harvest trees (total value less set amount for goods and services) is received from the Permittee and deposited into the Revenue Sharing Account of Denver Finance Center. For example, it is determined that $15,000 of road work would be required to complete a timber sale. If the gross value of the permit is $100,000, the net value would then be $85,000. One example of appropriate language in the bid and Permit is:

“To prepare and maintain Refuge roads for logging operations, the Permittee will either conduct or pay a contractor to … … … … in locations specified by the Refuge Manager. This is expected to cost … … … … for … … … …. This value is to be deducted from the gross value, resulting in the net value of this Permit with Permittee being required to furnish or pay the expected cost out of pocket.”

A variation of this method includes stating a quantity of resources (e.g. gravel) in the bid and Permit that will be needed to complete the timber operation, such as:

“Prior to logging, the successful bidder must purchase and put on account with a vendor 1,000 tons of GD-8 crushed limestone rock for maintenance of a graveled portion of the logging access route; please bid accordingly.”

4) Potential Costs Bids – A variation of Example 3 is to not specify the amount of the required goods and services, but simply have the bidder take into account the potential costs of the requirements explicitly in the request for bids and have the permittee adjust their bid accordingly. Examples of appropriate phrases in the conditions of the permit would be:

“The Permittee will either conduct or pay a contractor at the Permittee’s expense to … … … … in locations specified by the Refuge Manager.”

“Roads within the Sale Area: The location of loading decks and logging roads will be mutually agreed to by the Permittee (or his representative) and the Refuge Forester prior to their placement. All primary haul roads used by the Permittee will be left in good condition or blocked after operations are completed by placing logging slash and/or dirt mounds across all entrance points as directed by the Refuge Forester. Those roads to be left open will be maintained and repaired so that the road will not hold standing water any more than the adjacent area. This will require the use of equipment such as a bulldozer and/or grader. Refuge roads will be maintained in pre-entry condition or better by the Permittee. Deteriorating roadbeds will be supplemented with B-stone, or SB-2, as directed by the Refuge Manager; “borrowing” dirt will not be allowed”

“Existing refuge roads used as haul roads will be maintained and repaired by the Permittee from wear caused by logging traffic; this requires a grader. Although the refuge roads are well graveled and dry, the Permittee will be responsible for supplementing with SB2 gravel if the road deteriorates due to logging traffic from this sale.”

152

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of each Permit Payment Process are identified in the following table: Permit Payment Processing: Method Advantages Disadvantages Lump Sum as  Actual expenses of sale are  Requires documentation of cost Performance covered by sale. of goods and services for Bond with  Eliminates risk of refuge having refunding. Refunding for to bear large expenses for sales.  Requires requesting Denver Designated  Eliminates risk of Permittee Finance Center to transfer funds. Expenses having to bear unknown costs for goods and services.  Transfers risk for damage from insects, fire, wind, etc. to Permittee Per Unit Sale  Actual expenses of sale are  Requires documentation of goods with Deductions covered by sale. and services for deductions. from Partial  Eliminates risk of refuge having  The potential for timber theft and Payments to bear large expenses for sales. fraud by not reporting all loads of  Eliminates risk of permittee timber is greater than lump sum having to bear unknown costs sales. for goods and services.  Refuge retains risk for damage  Reduces transfer of funds at from insects, fire, wind, etc. Denver Finance Center. Deducted from  Fixed amount provides security  Necessitates detailed and long- Lump Sum Bids for bidders, limits their costs. range planning of goods and  Minimizes transfer of funds services that will be required with Denver Finance Center. prior to conducting the sale.  Eliminates risk of potential  Inability to accurately predict buyers having to bear unknown costs based on future weather costs for goods and services. conditions, material prices, and  Transfers risk for damage from energy costs may result in high insects, fire, wind, etc. to or low expense predictions. Permittee  If too low, refuge has to make road repairs from their budget.  If too high, excess materials wasted or misapplied. Potential Costs  Requires less planning by  Potential for high unknown costs Bids Refuge staff. to be shouldered by Permittee,  Minimizes transfer of funds and results in low bids to offest for associated documentation with high risks, and may also result in Denver Finance Center. fewer bidders (i.e. less  Eliminates risk of refuge having competition due to risks and to bear large expenses for sales. complexities).

153

Defining Appropriate Expenses: There are expenses for various tasks that are essential to many forest management operations. To determine whether a particular task and expense is appropriate, a “but for” check can be performed. But for the sale of timber this expense would not have been incurred and but for the expense, the sale would not be consistent with the refuge’s habitat or forest management plan. When both conditions are met, the expense is appropriate. If either condition is not met, the expense should not be deducted or refunded from the sale. Though not possible to list all potentially appropriate expenses, the examples below include expenses, goods and services that generally meet the “but for” check and could be appropriate to include as a condition of the sale:

1) Providing access to sale areas – Road Management: Road management is typically the largest expense related to a timber sale. It is essential in most cases to create and maintain or improve haul roads to support truck traffic associated with commercial timber harvest. This is a costly effort which is directly linked to conducting the harvest. These roads may be extraneous to the needs of the refuge after completion of the sale, in which case they must be rehabilitated to return to original condition. In cases in which the refuge chooses to keep the roads for future use, gating or replanting roads may be an acceptable option and would similarly be a requirement of the sale. State Best Management Practices (BMPs) are to be implemented in all these activities.

Examples of Appropriate Expenses: a. Road Materials (gravel, aggregate base, culverts, stone, mats, bridges, etc. for crossing drainages/ditches) b. Road Construction (bulldozing, road grading, installation of erosion control structures, etc.) c. Road Maintenance (smoothing, seeding road sides, gates or other closure structures such as dirt mounds to prevent access, leveling to restore to previous conditions, etc.)

2) Supplies used for the sale: Supplies are commonly required to conduct a timber sale. These supplies are direct costs of conducting the sale and it is appropriate to deduct expenses from the income.

Examples of Appropriate Expenses: a. Tree marking paint b. Flagging c. Paint guns d. Fuel associated with planning, implementing and monitoring the sale e. Safety Equipment (ex. snake leggings)

3) Integrated forest management actions: Actions on the project sale area that include the management of plants, treat impacts of the management action, and serve to meet the habitat objective for which the management action was taken. Care should be used to assure the actions meet the above mentioned “but for” check.

Examples of Appropriate Expenses:

154

a. Control of designated plants by cutting, girdling, and/or spraying invasive or other undesirable plants. b. Plant seedlings of native species for site restoration after cutting, control of designated plants. c. Control of insect outbreak and rehabilitation on areas to be designated as the outbreak expands, such as for Southern Pine Beetle control.

There are as many types of acceptable forest management actions as there are wildlife objectives across the Southeast Region. It is impossible to enumerate all acceptable actions; such a list would by omission improperly designate an acceptable practice as disallowed. Instead, the refuge planning process that leads to a silvicultural prescription should address the management actions needed for a specific project.

4) Providing supplemental expertise: Many refuges lack sufficient expertise and/or personnel to get started or fully implement approved plans. By obtaining assistance from forestry contractors, local experts and/or Service experts from other refuges, these refuge forests could be managed in accordance with Comprehensive Conservation Plans and Habitat Management Plans with the benefit of additional net receipts deposited into the Revenue Sharing Account.

Examples of Appropriate Expenses: a. Preparing implementation plans for the Refuge Manager using approved management plans for guidance, that detail tree marking, logging operations, monitoring, etc. b. Marking trees in accordance with approved prescriptions and plans, using independent tree markers to designate the trees to be cut. c. Preparing and distributing bid invitations to potential buyers, d. Conducting bid openings and providing recommendations, e. Inspecting logging for compliance with BMPs and/or Permit terms, etc. f. Assessing and/or monitoring of vegetation or wildlife affected by the timber sale.

In all these tasks, as with all contractors, due care should be taken for independence of the contractor, quality assurance during the task, and completion of the task prior to payment for the expense. Tasks and material provided by the permittee as a condition of the Permit are not a federal acquisition, thus Federal Acquisition Regulations do not apply. There are numerous acceptable procedures and a few examples include:

1. Permittee will provide specialists to assist with tree marking. A list of approved, independent markers will be provided by the Refuge. These markers will supplement the marking crew and work alongside Refuge tree markers, who will provide guidance, oversight, and accounting of the independent markers.

2. Permittee will provide an independent inspector while logging proceeds. A list of approved inspectors will be provided by the Refuge. The inspector is to note various items and issues concerning the logging and report only to the Refuge. The Refuge will assess reports from the inspector, conduct follow-up examinations when deemed prudent, and administer the terms of the Permit, including any appropriate penalty judgment.

155

Documentation Procedures: The first part of documentation is the planning process. Comprehensive Conservation Plans, Habitat Management Plans, Forest Prescriptions, and Annual Work Plans should address more than harvesting trees. All aspects of habitat management should be covered through the planning process, including exotic plant control, hazardous fuel reduction, wildlife habitat issues other than those related to merchantable trees, access needs, etc. – all applicable topics should be addressed in the prescription that lays out the implementation plans for a project area. The approval process for the silvicultural prescription accepts or rejects proposed actions that may be conducted as part of the sale of merchantable timber.

The second part of documentation comes during project implementation. Files must include detailed documentation of all the tasks related to the sale, track all refunds or value exchanges, and assurance that expenses are commensurate with those of similar tasks for local private landowners.

Just as refuges have flexibility in determining the appropriate method of timber sale, they also have some flexibility in determining the desired methods to track harvest revenue and expense. Some areas use a load logging report, others a load ticket tracking system while others add electronic monitoring (trail cameras) for monitoring and documentation purposes. Two examples of local-use forms are shown below. The first form (Refund Request) is intended for use with the Permit Payment Processing method 1) Lump Sum with Contractor Refunding for Qualifying Expenses. The second form (Per Unit Revenue and Expense Report) is for use with method 2) Per Unit Sale with Deductions from Partial Payments. The third sample form is a Logging Load Report and could be useful for Per Unit Sales. This report can assist in accounting for each load that leaves a logging deck before scale tickets are turned in a few weeks later, thus reducing the risk of timber theft and fraud from non-reported loads. Regardless of the methods chosen, it is incumbent upon the refuge to account for revenue and expenses and maintain appropriate documentation for each timber harvest.

Summary

Forest management continues to be a critical tool for meeting wildlife habitat objectives on FWS lands. This guidance is provided to help insure refuges remain within the intent of laws, policy and regulations associated with the sale of timber from FWS lands. For further information, please contact the regional forest management program.

156

Refund Request

Date: Submitted By: Amount of Permittee: Reimbursement: Special Use Worksite: Permit #:

Description of Expense: Attach or sketch map

Signature of Requestor:

Amount Approved:

Approved By: Date:

Concurrence Signature: Date:

Request Submitted: Date:

Additional Comments:

WHR NWR 2009, CW 157

Per Unit Revenue and Expense Report

PERMITEE:______PERMIT:______

DATE:______PRODUCT:______

COMPARTMENT:______PDT. PRICE:______

PDM WHR 2009, CS

DATE CONTROL # VOLUME TOTAL VALUE TOTAL VALUE VOL.

TOTALS

TIMBERSALE SERVICES DATE SERVICES VALUE TOTAL VALUE

TOTALS

158

Logging Load Report

Tract: Permit #: Exp. Date Permittee: Logger: Date Load # (start Time Load Truck name Destination Species Product √ Scale Ticket Scale Initials over each day) Left Landing or # Pine S/T Poles CNS # mbf or tons Hdwd P/W am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm am pm Note: Must fill out Report within 10 minutes of a loaded truck pulling away from the landing. Keep Report on loading site at all times WHR NWR so that it can be reviewed during routine logging inspections. Turn report in with scale tickets weekly. 2010, JBD 159

160

SPECIAL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO TIMBER HARVESTING PERMITS – Marked Timber Sale

All refuge regulations are in effect unless otherwise authorized in writing

1. Taking, collecting or disturbing any artifact, property, plant, wildlife or part thereof; other than that specifically permitted by refuge regulation.

2. Littering in any manner on the refuge is a violation of Federal Regulations. The entire work area shall be kept free of all forms of litter at all times.

3. The possession and/or use of firearms and alcohol on the refuge are prohibited.

4. Vehicles and other equipment will be operated in accordance with refuge regulations unless otherwise authorized in the Special Use Permit.

5. All logging will be within the boundaries specified and coordinated with refuge staff. The Refuge Manager or his agent must be contacted before any equipment is moved on the refuge and before cutting starts. Log decks, haul roads and skid trails must be approved prior to use.

6. The buyer is responsible for any road work, gravel, etc. required to get equipment into the job site, haul harvested timber out, and rehabilitation. All roads must be rehabilitated in accordance with Georgia’s Best Management Practices.

7. Logging operations will not be allowed in a stand containing a Red-cockaded Woodpecker cluster site during breed season, usually April to July.

8. Trees to be cut are marked with a spot of blue paint on the stump at ground level and a spot at DBH. Only marked trees shall be cut, and all marked trees are to be cut. All merchantable portions of timber harvested must be removed from the refuge in a timely manner.

9. Care shall be exercised to protect all other trees and vegetation from damage. Any and all timber damaged unnecessarily as determined by the Refuge Manager or his agent shall be paid for at three (3) times the stumpage paid for the harvested merchantable timber.

10. Trees shall be cut so as to leave a stump not more than 12 inches high for sawtimber and 6 inches high for pulpwood, on the side adjacent to the highest ground. Ground level paint spot must be visible after the tree has been cut.

11. All logging operations shall be conducted during daylight hours.

12. Trees and tops cut shall not be left hanging or supported by any other living or dead tree or brush and shall be pulled down immediately after falling.

13. Tops and logging debris shall be kept pulled back 50 feet from highways, county roads and refuge roads. All openings and fields must be kept clear of tops and debris. The permittee and

161

his employees will do all in their power to prevent and suppress forest fires; shall pay the United States for any unnecessary damage to roads, fields, openings, and ditches resulting from operations conducted hereunder.

14. All of Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry will be followed as mandatory practices. Failure to follow BMPs is grounds to terminate the Special Use Permit. Pay special attention to the following:

 Logging slash will be spread out in the woods while a log deck is in operation.  Each log deck will be permanently closed when it is no longer used.  The logger will minimize soil exposure by spreading logging slash on skid trails and using it to drive over. Skid trails will be spread out on several paths and not concentrated.  Skid trails will be retired when it is no longer used with properly installed water bars and turnouts, or covering with logging slash.  Refuge staff will clearly designate Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) before the logging operation starts. SMZs are marked with a painted vertical blue line.  The logger will avoid the following practices in SMZs: cutting stream bank trees, unnecessary main skid trails, significant soil compaction and rutting, felling trees into the streambed, or leaving logging debris in the stream.  Under no circumstances will temporary stream crossings made of logs and brush piles in the stream and covered with dirt be permitted.

15. Logging will not be permitted when the ground is wet and subject to rutting or severe soil compaction. The permittee and his employees will do all in their power to prevent rutting and erosion.

16. The Refuge Manager shall have authority to temporarily close down all or any part of the operation during a period of high fire danger, inclement weather, refuge hunts, safety reasons or any other reason deemed necessary.

17. Extensions to the Special Use Permit time period equal to the closed period will be granted to the permittee. Extensions will not be granted due to inactivity during favorable harvesting conditions.

18. All logging equipment will be removed from refuge property within 72 hours after completion of operations.

19. Harvest operations will be monitored by refuge staff to ensure compliance with the Special Use Permit conditions and Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry.

Violation of Any of These Conditions May Result in Forfeiture of Some or the Entire Performance Bond

162

SPECIAL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO TIMBER HARVESTING PERMITS – Operator Select Sale

All refuge regulations are in effect unless otherwise authorized in writing

1. Taking, collecting or disturbing any artifact, property, plant, wildlife or part thereof; other than that specifically permitted by refuge regulation.

2. Littering in any manner on the refuge is a violation of Federal Regulations. The entire work area shall be kept free of all forms of litter at all times.

3. The possession and/or use of firearms and alcohol on the refuge are prohibited.

4. Vehicles and other equipment will be operated in accordance with refuge regulations unless otherwise authorized in the Special Use Permit.

7. Logging operations will not be allowed in a stand containing a Red-cockaded Woodpecker cluster site during breed season, usually April to July.

8. This unit will be harvested using operator select. Leave trees shall be those of the tallest height, biggest crown or largest diameter unless they have poor form (i.e. twists, crook, sweep, forks, etc.). A tree of poor form shall be left if no other tree is acceptable. Leave trees shall be free from obvious risks (i.e. insect or disease infestation, small or sparse crowns, fusiform rust, basal or other injury, etc.) unless no other tree is acceptable. The order of preference for leave trees is pine, then oak, then other hardwoods. The target residual basal area is 60 to 70 square feet per acre.

11. All logging operations shall be conducted during daylight hours.

12. Trees and tops cut shall not be left hanging or supported by any other living or dead tree or brush and shall be pulled down immediately after falling.

13. Tops and logging debris shall be kept pulled back 50 feet from highways, county roads and refuge roads. All openings and fields must be kept clear of tops and debris. The permittee and his 163

employees will do all in their power to prevent and suppress forest fires; shall pay the United States for any unnecessary damage to roads, fields, openings, and ditches resulting from operations conducted hereunder.

15. Logging will not be permitted when the ground is wet and subject to rutting or severe soil compaction. The permittee and his employees will do all in their power to prevent rutting and erosion.

18. All logging equipment will be removed from refuge property within 72 hours after completion of operations.

19. Harvest operations will be monitored by refuge staff to ensure compliance with the Special Use Permit conditions and Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry.

Violation of Any of These Conditions May Result in Forfeiture of Some or the Entire Performance Bond

164

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PIEDMONT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 718 Juliette Road Round Oak, Georgia 31038

FORMAL TIMBER BID INVITATION – Lump Sum

Date: ______

Sealed bids for a timber sale of approximately ____ acres in Compartment ___ will be received in the office of Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge, Round Oak, GA 31038, until 1:00 pm on ______and opened at that time. When returning this bid invitation mark the lower left-hand envelope corner “timber bid”. The timber and sale area will be shown to prospective bidders who call for an appointment. For further information or to set up an appointment, contact the refuge at 478 986-5441.

Volumes are estimates only and are not guaranteed. Bidders are urged to inspect the timber area and make their own estimate of volume and logging conditions (see attached map).

Pine Sawtimber Tons Hardwood Sawtimber Tons

Chip-n-Saw Tons

Pine Pulpwood Tons Hardwood Pulpwood Tons

Trees to be cut are marked with spots of blue paint at DBH and the base. Bids and timber harvest operations must be in accordance with the Special Conditions Applicable to Timber Harvesting Permits (attached).

The stumpage offered in this invitation will be sold on a lump sum basis. The sale area is divided into two (2) units of approximately equal area and volume. A Special Use Permit will be prepared and submitted to the successful bidder for his acceptance and signature.

The permittee (successful bidder) will be issued a Special Use Permit after, 1) meeting with the refuge manager or his designee to go over the Special Conditions Applicable to Timber Harvesting Permits, 2) payment of a performance bond deposit of $______, and 3) an advance deposit of ______. The performance bond must be in the form of a bank draft or certified check payable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Special Use Permit period will begin no later than ______. The Special Use Permit period will be twelve (12) months. Further payments will be made on a weekly basis after a timber value equal to the advance deposit has been harvested. These payments may be either monetary or goods and services, equal to the timber value, needed to meet stated goals and objectives, as determined by the Refuge Manager. These may include gravel, culverts, gates, fuel, seed, herbicide, and equipment costs. As designated goods and services are provided, the actual, documented costs of same will be deducted from following payment(s) for the timber until balanced.

The performance bond will be retained by the Government as a guarantee to cover any damages or claims the Government may have against the permittee as a result of his operations under the terms and conditions of the permit-agreement. The balance, if any, will be returned to the permittee upon satisfactory completion of the operation.

165

166

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PIEDMONT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 718 Juliette Road Round Oak, Georgia 31038

FORMAL TIMBER BID INVITATION – Per Ton

Date: ______

Volumes are estimates only and are not guaranteed. Bidders are urged to inspect the timber area and make their own estimate of volume and logging conditions (see attached map).

Pine Sawtimber Tons Hardwood Sawtimber Tons

Chip-n-Saw Tons

Pine Pulpwood Tons Hardwood Pulpwood Tons

The stumpage offered in this invitation will be sold on a per ton basis. A Special Use Permit will be prepared and submitted to the successful bidder for his acceptance and signature.

The permittee (successful bidder) will be issued a Special Use Permit after, 1) meeting with the refuge manager or his designee to go over the Special Conditions Applicable to Timber Harvesting Permits, 2) payment of a performance bond deposit of $______, and 3) payment of the total bid price. The performance bond must be in the form of a bank draft or certified check payable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Special Use Permit period will begin no later than ______. The Special Use Permit period will be twelve (12) months. Further payments will be made on a weekly basis after a timber value equal to the advance deposit has been harvested. These payments may be either monetary or goods and services, equal to the timber value, needed to meet stated goals and objectives, as determined by the Refuge Manager. These may include gravel, culverts, gates, fuel, seed, herbicide, and equipment costs. As designated goods and services are provided, the actual, documented costs of same will be deducted from following payment(s) for the timber until balanced.

167

168

FORMAL BID – Lump Sum

The right to reject any and all bids is reserved by the Government.

If awarded the advertised timber sale you, the undersigned, agree to make the required payments before receipt of the Special Use Permit.

PRODUCT (tons) VOLUME

Pine Sawtimber (tons) ______

Pine Chip & Saw (tons) ______

Pine Pulpwood (tons) ______

Hardwood Pulpwood (tons) ______

Total Bid $______

Date: ______

Name of Firm: ______

Contact Person: ______

Address: ______

Telephone No. ______Zip Code: ______

Signature of Bidder: ______

169

170

FORMAL BID – Per Ton

The right to reject any and all bids is reserved by the Government.

If awarded the advertised timber sale you, the undersigned, agree to make the required payments before receipt of the Special Use Permit.

PRODUCT VOLUME PER TON BID

Pine Sawtimber (tons) ______$______

Pine Chip & Saw (tons) ______$______

Pine Pulpwood (tons) ______$______

Hardwood Sawtimber (tons) ______$______

Hardwood Pulpwood (tons) ______$______

Total Bid $______

Date: ______

Name of Firm: ______

Contact Person: ______

Address: ______

Telephone No. ______Zip Code: ______

Signature of Bidder: ______

171

172

PER TON REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT

Permitee SUP Permit No.

Date Product

Compartment Product Price

Date Control # Volume Total Vol. Value Total Value

173

174

UNIT LOG 1. COMPARTMENT 2. SUP NUMBER

4. TIMBER BUYER 5. DATE STARTED 6. DATE COMPLETED

POINTS TO CHECK Unmarked trees cut Skid trails (rutting) Barked trees Stream crossings cleaned out Tops pulled back from county roads Litter picked up Loading docks pushed off Cultural & historical resources Compliance with other regulations

ACTIVITY LOG (CONTINUE ON ADDITIONAL PAPER)

DATE MAJOR EVENTS

175

176

Best Management Practices Evaluation

Best Management Practices are “the most appropriate or applicable practices to attain a silvicultural goal while protecting the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the state’s waters” (Georgia Forestry Commission 2009). BMPs include:

1. Streamside management zones – buffer strips adjacent to perennial or intermittent creeks, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc., that are managed with special considerations to protect water quality. 2. Access road location, construction, maintenance and retirement. 3. Stream crossings for roads. 4. Timber harvesting activities such as log decks and skid trails. 5. Chemical applications. 6. Prescribed fire

Part of timber sales administration is to ensure logger compliance with BMPs. Use the following checklist (or something comparable) to document compliance or non-compliance.

177

178

BMP Assurance Examination

Date: Compartment: Timber Buyer/Logger: Examiner:

Roads 6. New access roads located outside of SMZs? 1. Number, length and width minimized? 7. Pre-existing or new roads within SMZs adequately 2. Points of egress onto county roads maintained? stabilized? 3. Roads well drained with adequately spaced and installed 8. Soil disturbance within SMZs by harvesting equipment water diversions? minimized? 4. Outfalls of turnouts stabilized? 9. Equipment serviced outside SMZs? 5. Permanent or temporary roads are adequately reshaped, stabilized or retired at completion? Comments:

Comments:

Timber Harvesting 1. Number of decks minimized? Stream Crossings 2. Log decks adequately retired and stabilized where needed? 1. All crossings comply with the 15 federal mandates? If no, 3. Skid trails adequately retired and stabilized where needed? list specific #’s note complied with. 4. On wetland sites, excessive rutting avoided? 2. Approaches at ≤3% grade? 3. Culverts properly located? Comments: 4. Culverts properly installed? 5. Skidder fords avoided? 6. Dirt and debris crossings avoided? 7. Road ditches avoid intersecting streams?

Comments:

Equipment Servicing 1. Fuel/oil changes properly conducted? 2. Garbage at deck cleaned up?

Comments:

Streamside Management Zones 1. Appropriate widths established along all streams within harvest area?

2. Recommended BA maintained within SMZs? 3. Streambank trees left unharvested? 4. Logging debris kept out of channels or properly removed? 5. Log decks located outside of SMZs? 179

180

POST HARVEST EVALUATION

A minimum of 85% of the good quality residual trees should be damage-free post harvest. If a preliminary walk through of the harvest area indicates there is no or only minor damage, then a formal damage assessment is not needed.

If a formal assessment is needed, use a strip cruise technique. Ensure sampling covers all areas harvested. Walk a straight line counting all trees (≥6” dbh) for 15 feet on either side of the line. Sample where the strip transect crosses skid trails, but do not sample along skid trails, in log decks, on roads, or outside the harvest area. Note the number trees that are damaged, using table 1 as guidance. Calculate the percent damage.

Table 1 – Residual Tree Damage Criteria Type of Injury Wound or Injury is Considered Major When:  Any tree 6-12” dbh with a wound greater than the square of its dbh is considered major. If the wound is in contact with the ground, the allowance is reduced 60%.

For example, a wound on an 11” tree measuring greater than 121 in2 is major. If the Bark Scraped Off same wound is in contact with the ground the allowance is 60% of 121 in2 or 73 in2.  Any tree 12” dbh or larger with a wound greater than 155 in2 is considered major.

For example, a wound on 15” tree is considered major. If the same wound is in contact with the ground the allowance is 60% of 155 in2 or 93 in2. Broken Branches  More than 33% of the crown is destroyed. Root Damage  More than 25% of the root area exposed or severed. Tree Broken Off  Any tree. Bent Over  Any tree noticeably tipped. After harvesting a minimum of 85% of the residual trees measuring 6” dbh or greater must be free of major damage. Adapted from Byford 2009

181

182

APPENDIX 7 – ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and determined that the following proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4, 43 CFR 46.205, 43 CFR 46.210, 43 CFR 46.215, and 516 DM 8.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The preferred alternative is the approval and implementation of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). This plan is a step-down management plan providing the refuge manager with specific guidance for implementing goals, objectives, and strategies identified in the Piedmont NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP 2010).

The Environmental Assessment of the CCP (Draft CCP and EA (2010) considered four alternatives and selected B for the preferred alternative (Final CCP (2010)). In the CCP, the proposed action was to “increase all management programs. Management of federal and state listed species, migratory birds, and other wildlife would be increased through monitoring efforts. The refuge would expand forest management. Exotic plant control efforts would be increased and prevention methods for additional non-native species would be implemented. Potential impacts of climate change would be accessed through partnerships. Environmental education and interpretation, wildlife viewing and photography opportunities, and hunting and fishing opportunities would be enhanced. New partnerships would be sought and intergovernmental coordination would be expanded.” (Piedmont NWR CCP (2010)).

The CCP has defined goals, objectives and strategies to achieve the stated action. The actions further detailed in the HMP have been identified, addressed, and authorized by the Piedmont NWR CCP and accompanying Environmental Assessment (2010). These include:

 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management Strategy: Apply appropriate management practices to achieve the desired RCW population objective stated in CCP objective 1.2 (CCP pages 59-60).  Forest Management: Treat upland and bottomland forests to achieve desired future conditions stated in CCP objectives 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 (CCP pages 64-66).  Fire Management: Implement prescribed burning in a way that mimics historic and natural fire regime to achieve desired future conditions stated in CCP objectives 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 (CCP pages 66-67).  Unique and Rare Habitat Management: Identify, protect and strategically enhance rare and unique habitats as identified in CCP objectives 2.10 and 2.11 (CCP page 68).  Chemical Management Strategy: Use approved chemicals according to label specifications and Pesticide Use Proposals to control invasive plant species as stated in CCP objective 2.12 (CCP page 69).

183

 Early Successional Habitat Management: Identify the desired future condition of all fields and prescribe treatments to promote those conditions as stated in CCP objective 2.13 (CCP page 69).

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

Categorical Exclusion Department Manual 516 DM 6, Appendix 1 Section 1.4 B (10), which states “the issuance of new or revised site, unit, or activity-specific management plans for public use, land use, or other management activities when only minor changes are planned. Examples could include an amended public use plan or fire management plan.”, is applicable to implementation to the proposed action.

Consistent with Categorical Exclusion (516 DM 6, Appendix 1 Section 1.4 B (10)) the HMP is a step-down management plan which provides guidance for implementation of the general goals, objectives, and strategies established in the CCP, serving to further refine those components of the CPP specific to habitat management. This HMP does not trigger an Exception to the Categorical Exclusions listed in 516 DM 2 Appendix 2.

Minor changes or refinements to the CCP in this activity-specific management plan include:

 Habitat management objectives are further refined by providing numerical parameter values that more clearly define the originating objective statement.  Habitat management objectives are restated so as to combine appropriate objectives or split complicated objectives to provide improved clarity in the context of the HMP.  Specific habitat management guidance, strategies, and implementation schedules to meet the CCP goals and objectives are included (e.g. location, timing, frequency, and intensity of application).  All details are consistent with the CCP and serve to provide the further detail necessary to guide the refuge in application of the intended strategies for the purpose of meeting the habitat objectives.

PERMITS/APPROVALS

Endangered Species Act, Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted and signed 2010 during the CCP process. The determination was a concurrence that the CCP may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

The proposed HMP is a step-down of the approved CCP for Piedmont NWR. The development and approval of the CCP included appropriate NEPA documentation and public involvement. An Environmental Assessment was developed (Draft CCP and EA (2010)) which proposed and addressed management alternatives and environmental consequences. As part of the intergovernmental scoping, invitations were sent to federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, and a meeting was held at the refuge headquarters on May 13, 2008. Representatives from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Forestry Commission, and USDA Forest Service

184

185