HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PIEDMONT NATIONAL ...

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR

PIEDMONT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Jones and Jasper Counties, Georgia

Southeast Region

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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

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

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

2

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,

3

and enhancement through regionally-based self-directed partnerships known as joint

ventures. The original plan was updated in 1994, 1998 and 2004.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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

8

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).

Month

N O R M A L

High

(°F)

Low

(°F)

Mean

(°F)

Rainfall

(inches)

Snowfall

(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

9

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

10

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.

11

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

Genus

Species

Frequency of

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

Bottomlands,

N facing lower

slopes, coves

N facing lower

slopes, mid-

slope, coves

Lower convex

slopes, E and

W facing mid-

slopes

S-facing mid-

slopes, E and

W facing

upper slopes

Flat uplands,

upper convex

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

12

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.

13

Table 2.4.

Compartment

P1 P2 P3A P3B P3C total

pine UH BH

total

hwd Openings Ponds

total

acres

-------------------- 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.

14

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 –

15

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.

17

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


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.

18

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).

19

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

Age

(years)

Loblolly Pine Shortleaf Pine

Trees

per Acre

Basal

Area per

Acre (ft2)

Quadratic

Mean

Diameter

(inches)

BA

Periodic

Annual

Increment

(5 years)

Trees

per

Acre

Basal

Area per

Acre (ft2)

Quadratic

Mean

Diameter

(inches)

BA

Periodic

Annual

Increment

(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.

20

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

21

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

Age

(years)

Upland Oaks

Trees

per Acre

Basal

Area per

Acre (ft2)

Quadratic

Mean

Diameter

(inches)

BA

Periodic

Annual

Increment

(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,

22

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:

23

Table 3.3

Age

(years)

Oak-Pine

Trees

per Acre

Basal

Area per

Acre (ft2)

Quadratic

Mean

Diameter

(inches)

BA

Periodic

Annual

Increment

(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

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.

24

3.2.3.2 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.

3.2.4 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

Age

(years)

Oak-Gum-Cypress

Trees

per Acre

Basal

Area per

Acre (ft2)

Quadratic

Mean

Diameter

(inches)

BA

Periodic

Annual

Increment

(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.

25

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.

26

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.

27

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.

29

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements:

1o Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods

Acres loblolly/shortleaf pine

Pine and hardwood basal area by size class

Pine and hardwood trees per acre by size

class

Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory

Compartment forest inventory

1o Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods

RCW population growth and reproductive

fitness

Northern bobwhite quail population trend

Bachman’s sparrow population trend

Annual RCW population status and reproductive fitness

monitoring

Annual quail whistling call count

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

30

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.



Acres loblolly/shortleaf pine

Pine and hardwood basal area by size class

Pine and hardwood trees per acre by size

class





fitness




monitoring



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.




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

31

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.

33



Acres loblolly/shortleaf pine regenerated Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory




fitness




monitoring



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.



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.



Annual acres burned in identified units Fire report

Refuge-wide fire effects monitoring



fitness




monitoring



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.

34

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.



Annual acres burned in identified units Fire report

Refuge-wide fire effects monitoring



fitness




monitoring



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.


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.

36



Acres uneven-aged loblolly/shortleaf pine Refuge-wide continuous 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:


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


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).

37



Acres oak/hickory Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory



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.



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


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



38

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).



Acres oak/pine Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory





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.



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.

39

Bats are an emerging species of interest due to white nose syndrome. Variable 5 in objective





Acres oak/gum/cypress Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory





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).



Rock Outcrop Presence/Absence Refuge-wide continuous 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.

40

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.



Canebrake Presence/Absence Refuge-wide continuous 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).



Correct BMP Implementation BMP Compliance audit



4.2.11. During the 15 year time frame of the HMP locate invasive exotics and prescribe

treatments to control spread.


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).

41



Invasive Exotic Presence/Absence Refuge-wide continuous 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.


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.



Field Condition Refuge-wide continuous forest inventory







43

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).

44

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.


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).


45

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.


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).


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).

46

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

47

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

48

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).

49

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

50

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).

51

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.

52

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

QMD

25% MaxSDI 35% MaxSDI

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

QMD

35% MaxSDI 60% MaxSDI

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

53

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):

Variables Desired Stand Structure

Conditions That May Warrant

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.

54

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).

55

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, co-

dominant, 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,

56

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.).

57

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.

58

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

Freshly Attacked Trees Absent 0

Present 30

Number of Trees Containing

SPB brood

1-10 0

11-20 10

21-50 20

>50 40

Pine Basal Area (ft2/acre)

<80 (low density) 0

80-120 (medium density) 10

>120 (high density) 20

Size Class (inches) ≤9 (pulpwood) 0

>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

59

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.

60

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.

61

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.

62

Table 5.7 Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine (P)

Current

Condition

Desired 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

63

Table 5.8 Oak/Pine & Oak/Hickory* Oak/Gum/Cypress (BH)

Current Condition Desired Condition Current

Condition

Desired

Condition

Upland Hardwood* Oak/Pine (M) Oak/Hickory (UH) 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

65

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.

66

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.

67

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 seed-

tree/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.

68

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.

69

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.

70

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.

71

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.

72

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.

73

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.

74

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.

75

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.

76

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,

77

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.

79

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

80

Red breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Vultures, Hawks and Eagles

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura


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

81

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

82

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

83

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

84

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

85

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus Sandwichensis

Fox Sparrow Passerella Iliaca

Song Sparoow Melospiza Melodia


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

86

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

87

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

88

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

89

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

90

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

91

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

92

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

93

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.

95

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.

96

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

Ecoregion

Domain

Strategic planning and assessment

1:30,000,000 or smaller

Division 1:30,000,000 to 1:7,500,000

Province 1:15,000,000 to 1:5,000,000

Subregion Section Strategic, statewide, multiagency

analysis and assessment

1:7,500,000 to 1:3,500,000

Subsection 1:3,500,000 to 1:250,000

Landscape Landtype association Area-wide planning 1:250,000 to 1:60,000

Land unit Landtype Project and management area planning

and analysis

1:60,000 to 1:24,000

Landtype phase 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.

97

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.

98

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

99

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

100

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.

101

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.

102

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

Vegetation

(Kuchler 1964)

Forest Ecosystem

(Garrison et al. 1977)

Forest Cover Type

(Eyre 1980)

Refuge

classification

scheme

Oak-Hickory-Pine

32,669 acres

Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine

20,798

shortleaf pine Pine

20,798 loblolly-shortleaf pine

loblolly pine

Oak/Pine

7,916

shortleaf pine-oak

Upland

Hardwood

11,871

loblolly pine-hardwood

Oak/Hickory

3,955

post oak-blackjack oak

white oak-black oak-northern red oak

white oak

yellow poplar-white oak-northern red oak

Southern Mixed

Forest

2,158

Oak/Gum/Cypress

2,158

swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak Bottomland

Hardwood

2,158

sweetgum-willow oak

overcup oak-water hickory

104

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

Glo

bal

Ran

k

Sta

te R

an

k

Fe

dera

l S

tatu

s

Sta

te

Sta

tus

Sta

te

Wil

dli

fe

Pla

n

BC

C 2

008

MB

TA

PIF

Au

du

bo

n

NA

WM

P

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


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


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.

105

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

Lo

blo

lly

/

Sh

ort

leaf

Oak

/Pin

e

Oak

/ H

ick

ory

Oak

/Gu

m/

Cy

pre

ss

Elm

/Ash

/

Co

tto

nw

oo

d

Fie

ld

Wet

Mea

do

w

Mar

sh,

Po

nd

Lak

e, S

trea

m,

Riv

er

Red-cockaded woodpecker

X

Brown-headed nuthatch

X X

Red-headed Woodpecker

X X

Bachman's sparrow

X X X X

Northern bobwhite

X X X X

Wood Thrush X X X X

Worm-eating Warbler

X X X X

Prairie Warbler X X X X X

Whip-poor-will X X X X X

Kentucky warbler

X X X X

Rusty Blackbird

X X

Swainson's warbler

X

Four-toed Salamander

X X

American Black Duck

X X X X

Lesser Scaup X X

Altamaha shiner

X

Goldstripe darter

X

The highlighted area covers 99% of the refuge.

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

106

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

107

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.

108

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

109

a. Beaver ponds, freshwater marsh


b. Canebrakes

i. Swainson’s warbler

c. Rock outcrops

d. Springs and Spring Runs


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.

111

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.

112

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.

113

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:


Size Class:


2 – Average DBH ≥5.5 ≤ 9.0"


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.

114

Table A3.1

Compartment: Date:

Forest Ecosystem (acres)

Non-forest

Forest Type:

H, M, P, NF

Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress

Stand Number: Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Regeneration Pulpwood Sawtimber Acres Type

Total

Adapted from Bryan 2007

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 Total

% of Compartment - acres -

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

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.

117

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

118

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:


Size Class:


2 – Average DBH ≥5.5 ≤ 9.0"


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.

119

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

120

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

121

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

122

122

APPENDIX 4 – SILVICULTURE AND HAZARDOUS FUELS

124

124

125

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

126

126

127

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 **

128

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:

Will the planned activities result in stand conditions that, in the event of an unwanted ignition, would reduce the possibility of a wildfire that is large, intense

or difficult to control? If the answer is “yes,” then you should be thinking of it as an HF project, as well 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.

This procedure should be applied to

every stand in a project

area.

129

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 right conditions, we must observe some reasonable limitations in what we are calling “hazardous”. The following question must be answered:

Could the fuels in this stand, if unmanaged, result in conditions that would support large, intense or difficult to control

wildfires under typical “bad” fire year conditions? 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).

Most upland site cover types

have the potential to accumulate hazardous

fuels.

130

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 activities, and should be recorded as such on the worksheet. A single stand designated for multiple types of treatments should get its own worksheet. The process for determining whether or not the project provides mitigation benefits to a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) community (detailed in What is 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:

Projects need to be entered in

both NFPORS

and FMIS.

131

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.

132

132


Southeastern Region

WORKSHEET FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS POTENTIAL OF FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECTS

Refuge

Forester or Project Leader

Fire Management Officer or Designee

What silvicultural activities are planned? Will the activity help

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

133

133


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)


Fire Management Officer or Designee

Stands and planned activities: National Fire Plan

objectives met (check all that apply):

Activity#

Acres Planned Direct Costs

Management Activity HF WUI None Subactivity Amount

attach copies of this form for continuation as necessary

134

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

What silvicultural activities are planned? Will the activity help

mitigate hazardous fuels?

Activity 1:

YES NO

Commercially thinning one mature pine stand

from above will break up crown fuel continuity

by harvesting overstory trees and reduce

vertical fuel height by the movement of heavy

logging equipment throughout the stand on 34

acres.

Activity 2:

YES NO

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

movement of heavy logging equipment throughout

the stands on 125 acres. This is near a

community at risk.

Activity 3:

YES NO

Controlling the invasive exotic plant Lespedeza

bicolor with herbicide in two mature pine

stands will reduce flashy fuels by killing

flammable vegetation on 125 acres. This is

near a community at risk.

Activity 4:

YES NO

Commercially thinning one upland hardwood stand

from below will disrupt the horizontal fuel

continuity by skidding cut trees to the log

decks and reduce vertical fuel height by the

movement of heavy logging equipment throughout

the stands on 55 acres.

Activity 5:

YES NO

Commercially thinning two bottomland hardwood

stands using crop tree release on 85 acres.

Since the fire danger is minimal due to the

fuel type, even without treatment, there is no

hazardous fuel benefit.

Activity 6:

YES NO

Tree planting old field to restore BH. Since

the fire danger is minimal due to the fuel

type, even without treatment, there is no

hazardous fuel benefit.

Attach copies of this worksheet for continuation as necessary.

135

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

Stands and planned activities: National Fire Plan

objectives met (check all that apply):

Activity#

Acres Planned Direct Costs

Management Activity HF WUI None Subactivity Amount

1

34

9263

$500

Thinning one

mature pine stand

from above

X

2

125

9264

$2500

Thinning two

mature pine

stands from below

X

X

3

125

9264

$4500

Control invasive

exotics with

herbicide

X

X

4

55

9263

$600

Thinning one UH

stand from below

X

5

85

Thinning two BH

stands using crop

tree release

X

6

75

Tree planting old

field to restore

BH

X

Attach copies of this form for continuation as necessary.

136

136


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

137

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)

138

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)?

139

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?

140

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?

141

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.

142

142


Southeastern Region

WORKSHEET FOR WUI MITIGATION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

Refuge

Project Name or Identifier


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 fire occurred on or moved through the project area (check

all that apply):

Will the project help to mitigate these impacts?

Any “Yes” answer indicates that you have a potential WUI project

□ Life Safety Impacts

□ YES □ NO

List any potential impacts identified:

□ Economic Impacts

□ YES □ NO


□ Community Health Impacts

□ YES □ NO


□ Resource Impacts

□ YES □ NO


□ Social Impacts

□ YES □ NO List any potential impacts identified:

□ Other Impacts

□ YES □ NO


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.

145

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

147

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)

149

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

150

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.

151

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.”

152

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.”

153

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

Performance

Bond with

Refunding for

Designated

Expenses

Actual expenses of sale are

covered by sale.

Eliminates risk of refuge having

to bear large expenses for sales.

Eliminates risk of Permittee

having to bear unknown costs

for goods and services.

Transfers risk for damage from

insects, fire, wind, etc. to

Permittee

Requires documentation of cost

of goods and services for

refunding.

Requires requesting Denver

Finance Center to transfer funds.

Per Unit Sale

with Deductions

from Partial

Payments

Actual expenses of sale are

covered by sale.



Eliminates risk of permittee

having to bear unknown costs

for goods and services.

Reduces transfer of funds at

Denver Finance Center.

Requires documentation of goods

and services for deductions.

The potential for timber theft and

fraud by not reporting all loads of

timber is greater than lump sum

sales.

Refuge retains risk for damage

from insects, fire, wind, etc.

Deducted from

Lump Sum Bids Fixed amount provides security

for bidders, limits their costs.

Minimizes transfer of funds

with Denver Finance Center.

Eliminates risk of potential

buyers having to bear unknown

costs for goods and services.

Transfers risk for damage from

insects, fire, wind, etc. to

Permittee

Necessitates detailed and long-

range planning of goods and

services that will be required

prior to conducting the sale.

Inability to accurately predict

costs based on future weather

conditions, material prices, and

energy costs may result in high

or low expense predictions.

If too low, refuge has to make

road repairs from their budget.

If too high, excess materials

wasted or misapplied.

Potential Costs

Bids Requires less planning by

Refuge staff.

Minimizes transfer of funds and

associated documentation with

Denver Finance Center.



Potential for high unknown costs

to be shouldered by Permittee,

results in low bids to offest for

high risks, and may also result in

fewer bidders (i.e. less

competition due to risks and

complexities).

154

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.


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.


155

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.


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.

156

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.

157

Date: Submitted By:

Amount of Reimbursement:

Permittee:

Special Use Permit #:

Worksite:

Description of Expense:

Attach or sketch map

Signature of Requestor:

Amount Approved:

Approved By: Date:

Concurrence Signature: Date:

Request Submitted: Date:

Additional Comments:

Refund Request

WHR NWR 2009, CW

158

Per Unit Revenue and Expense Report

PERMITEE:___________________________ PERMIT:____________________________

DATE:_______________________________ PRODUCT:_________________________

COMPARTMENT:______________________ PDT. PRICE:________________________

PDM WHR 2009, CS

DATE CONTROL # VOLUME TOTAL VOL.

VALUE TOTAL VALUE

TOTALS

TIMBERSALE SERVICES

DATE SERVICES VALUE TOTAL VALUE

TOTALS

159

Logging Load Report Tract: Permit #: Exp. Date Permittee: Logger:

Date Load # (start

over each day) Time Load Left Landing

Truck name or #

Destination Species

Pine Hdwd

Product √ S/T Poles CNS P/W

Scale Ticket #

Scale mbf or tons

Initials

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

so that it can be reviewed during routine logging inspections. Turn report in with scale tickets weekly. WHR NWR 2010, JBD

161

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

162

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

163

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.

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. 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.

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 his

164

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

165

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE


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.

167

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE


718 Juliette Road

Round Oak, Georgia 31038

FORMAL TIMBER BID INVITATION – Per Ton

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 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.

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.

169

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: ____________________________________________________________

171

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: ____________________________________________________________

173

PER TON REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT

Permitee SUP Permit No.

Date Product

Compartment Product Price

Date Control # Volume Total Vol. Value Total Value

175

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

177

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.

179

BMP Assurance Examination

Date:

Compartment:

Timber Buyer/Logger:

Examiner:

Roads 1. Number, length and width minimized?

2. Points of egress onto county roads maintained?

3. Roads well drained with adequately spaced and installed

water diversions?

4. Outfalls of turnouts stabilized?

5. Permanent or temporary roads are adequately reshaped,

stabilized or retired at completion?

Comments:

Stream Crossings

1. All crossings comply with the 15 federal mandates? If no,

list specific #’s note complied with.

2. Approaches at ≤3% grade?

3. Culverts properly located?

4. Culverts properly installed?

5. Skidder fords avoided?

6. Dirt and debris crossings avoided?

7. Road ditches avoid intersecting streams?

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?

6. New access roads located outside of SMZs?

7. Pre-existing or new roads within SMZs adequately

stabilized?

8. Soil disturbance within SMZs by harvesting equipment

minimized?

9. Equipment serviced outside SMZs?

Comments:

Timber Harvesting 1. Number of decks minimized?

2. Log decks adequately retired and stabilized where needed?

3. Skid trails adequately retired and stabilized where needed?

4. On wetland sites, excessive rutting avoided?

Comments:

Equipment Servicing 1. Fuel/oil changes properly conducted?

2. Garbage at deck cleaned up?

Comments:

181

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:

Bark Scraped Off

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

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

183

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).

184

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

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PIEDMONT NATIONAL ...

Documents

Transcript of HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PIEDMONT NATIONAL ...