Trends in Forest Composition and Size Class Distribution: Implications for Wildlife Habitat

Transcription

1 Trends in Forest Composition and Size Class Distribution: Implications for Wildlife Habitat George Hess Forestry Department, North Carolina State University Stacy Sherling Biomathematics Program, North Carolina State University Robert Abt Forestry Department, North Carolina State University Rex Schaberg Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University Southern Center for Sustainable Forests Working Paper No 6. Part I Final Report Prepared for the Study on: Economic and Ecological Impacts Associated with Wood Chip Production in North Carolina 2000 August 2 Updated 2000 August 21

2 2 1. Introduction We examined possible shifts in the amount and size class distribution of five forest management types on 16.7 million acres of private and 2.0 million acres of public forest land in North Carolina between 1990 and Using existing wildlife-habitat models and consulting with wildlife biologists, we identified birds, reptiles, and amphibians of conservation concern that might be affected by these changes. We report the expected direction of these impacts for each species identified. 2. Methods 2.1. Forest Composition and Size Class Distribution Our starting point was the forest composition data produced by the SubRegional Timber Supply (SRTS) model (Abt et al. 2000). Abt et al. (2000) examined a number of scenarios, varying harvest levels, changes in the rate of conversion to planted pine, rates of increase in pine productivity, and net loss of forest land to other land uses. We present the results of one scenario here (Scenario 20). The SRTS model categorizes forests into ten-year age classes of five management types: planted pine, naturally regenerated pine, mixed pine-hardwood, upland hardwood, and lowland hardwood (Table 1; Abt et al. 2000). The model also tracks changes in forest composition by region within North Carolina. Four regions are defined, consistent with those used in the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data: Northern Coastal Plain, Southern Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountains. We used data from the 1990 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) to convert ten-year age classes to three size classes for each management type seedling / sapling, poletimber, sawtimber (Table 2; Hansen et al. 1992). These size classes were selected because they correspond closely to those presented in existing wildlife-habitat models for birds (Hamel 1992) and reptiles and amphibians (Wilson 1995). The 1990 FIA data includes both the age and size class for each inventory plot. Using these data, we were able to determine what proportion of the privately owned forests in each age class belonged to each of the three size classes (Table 3). Forests in a given age class of the same management type can belong to different size classes. Because of differences in growing conditions at each site, trees of the same species grow at different rates among sites. Consequently, these

3 3 proportions differ among regions and were calculated separately for each region. We assumed that these proportions would remain constant throughout the projection period and used them to convert from ten-year age classes to stand size classes. We calculated these proportions separately for publicly owned forest lands Privately Owned Forest Lands The scenario presented here corresponds to "Scenario 20" in Abt et al. (2000). This scenario was developed in response to comments from the Advisory Committee about scenarios developed earlier in the study. Of all the scenarios examined, the paramters used for Scenario 20 most closely match trends in rates of harvest, planted pine conversion, and net forest loss; and industry consensus on changes in pine productivity during the projection period. These genesis of these assumptions are documented in detail by Abt et al. (2000). 1. Harvest rate increases for both hardwoods and softwoods at the rate of 1% per year. 2. The area of planted pine forests increases at a rate consistent with trends seen in the Resource Policy Act appraisals. 3. Forests converted to planted pine are primarily naturally regenerated pine and mixed pine-hardwood forests; upland and lowland hardwoods are converted at lower rates. On industry land this trend was discontinued when 75 percent of industry forests were in planted pine. 4. By the end of the projection period, planted pine yields are 40% higher for industry lands and 20% higher for non-industrial lands than rates documented in the 1990 Forest Inventory and Analysis data. 5. The total area of private forest land (both industrial and non-industrial) in each of the four regions of North Carolina decrease at a rate consistent with nonfederal forest land losses documented in the National Resources Inventory. The rate of decline in each region was calculated independently.

4 4 Region Annual Change in Forest Area Southern Coastal Plain -0.45% Northern Coastal Plain -0.18% Piedmont -0.38% Mountains -0.30% Statewide -0.35% Publicly Owned Forest Land We did not include North Carolina's approximately two million acres of federal and other public lands in the SRTS simulations. Harvests on federal and public lands cannot be projected using an economic model, because their management is more a matter of policy than economics. Instead, we examined the impact of two possible scenarios for publicly owned land. These scenarios bracket a range of possibilities. 1. No change in public lands policy and existing age and size class structure on publicly owned land will remain the same. 2. Policy on public lands will increasingly favor mature forests, starting in We used data from the 1990 FIA data to estimate forest composition by region, management type, and size class. For publicly owned lands, we combined data for the Northern and Southern Coastal Plains into a single Coastal Plain region. Under the assumption of no change in policy, we calculated the size class structure of the forest using FIA data. Under the assumption of policy favoring mature forests, we estimated forest age in 2020 by assuming the forest age class structure in 2000 was the same as it was in 1990 and adding 20 years to the age of each FIA sample. We generated age-class to size class conversion factors for each region using the 1990 FIA data, and used the factors to estimate the size class structure in The publicly owned forest land analyzed here excludes "reserved timber lands," a category for which the FIA contains insufficient data to perform an analysis of age to size class relationships. "Reserved timber lands" are defined as productive timberlands that cannot be

5 5 harvested because of statutory or administrative designation. They include National and State Parks and Wilderness Areas. There are a total of 524,359 acres of "reserved timber land" in North Carolina, distributed as follows. Region Reserved Timber Land (acres) Northern Coastal Plain 56,278 Southern Coastal Plain 17,200 Piedmont 33,547 Mountains 417,334 State Total 524, Sensitivity Analysis We conducted a sensitivity analysis on three parameters to determine how model output was affected by small changes in the parameter values. In essence, sensitivity describes how small errors in a parameter affect the model outcome. Sensitivity is defined as the proportion by which the model output value changes relative to the proportion by which the parameter being tested is changed (Haefner 1996). High values of sensitivity indicate that small changes in the parameter result in relatively large changes in the model result. We calculated sensitivity for three parameters of the SRTS model: 1. the rate of increase in planted pine yield; 2. the rate of increase in the area of planted pine; and 3. harvest level. The sensitivity analysis was performed using data from Scenario 12 (Abt et al. 2000), in which the total amount of private forest land was held constant. Each parameter was adjusted by + 10% of the value used in Scenario 12 while all other parameters were held at their original levels. Sensitivity to the change in each parameter was calculated as:

6 6 Sensitivity= Proportional Change in Output Proportional Change in Parameter (Output 10%increase Output 10% decrease ) = Output original value 1.1 Parameter 0.9 Parameter Parameter = (Output 10%increase Output 10% decrease ) 0.2 Output original value where 1. Output(10% increase) is the model output with a 10% increase in the parameter value; 2. Output(10% decrease) is the model output with a 10% decrease in the parameter value; 3. Output(original value) is the model output with the parameter at its original value; and 4. Parameter is the original parameter value. Sensitivity was calculated for the number of acres of forest in each size class within each management type, by region Implications for Wildlife Birds We used Partners in Flight data to develop lists of breeding bird species of concern for each forest management type. Partners in Flight is a coalition of federal, state, and local government agencies, philanthropic foundations and industry formed in 1990 in response to concerns about declining migrant landbird populations (Beissinger et al. 2000; Carter et al. 2000). The organization has published prioritized lists of bird species of conservation concern, organized by physiographic region and habitat type (Partners in Flight 1995,

7 7 1999a, 1999b). The physiographic regions used by Partners in Flight are the Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountains. The Partners in Flight Coastal Plain region corresponds to the Northern and Southern Coastal Plains used in our simulations. Partners in Flight uses a number of criteria to assign species conservation priority ratings (Carter et al. 2000). Each species is given a rating from one (low priority) to five (high priority) for each of seven parameters: breeding distribution, nonbreeding distribution, relative abundancen, threats to breeding habitat, threads to non-breeding habitat, population trends, importance in area. The ratings for these seven parameters are added together, resulting in a total score that ranges from seven to 35; higher numbers indicate a higher level of concern. Final values of extremely high priority, high priority, moderate priority, and local or regional interest are assigned by considering the total score as well as the factors that contributed to a high score (Beissinger et al. 2000; Carter et al. 2000). Rating Criteria Extremely High Priority» Total score High Priority» Total score Moderate Priority» Total score 19-21» High score for importance in area» Unknown or declining trend in population Local or Regional Interest» Total score 20» Otherwise of interest as State protected species, WatchList, Species of Management Concern, or restricted range species within the United States. The bird lists included in this report were constructed using information from the North Carolina Priority list (Partners in Flight 1999a), South Atlantic Coastal Plain Bird-Habitat Associations (Partners in Flight 1999b), and consultation with Mark Johns, the NC Partners in Flight Coordinator. The lists we compiled include birds that are found widely in the broad forest management types we modeled; we have not included species that are highly localized in their distribution, highly specialized, or so rare that they cannot be tracked reliably. Forest management type, landscape type, and region were used to organize the data. Two

8 8 landscape types appropriate to the resolution of our data and the life history needs of forest birds were considered: 1. Late successional landscapes, in which most of the forest is mature and there are few disturbance gaps. Bird species associated with this landscape type are likely to be impacted by a change in the amount of sawtimber size class habitat. 2. Forested landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests. Bird species associated with this landscape type are likely to benefit from an increase in early successional habitat, so long as it occurs within an otherwise forested landscape. Forests in the seedling / sapling size class are early successional forests. Clearcuts, hurricane damage, fire, and other disturbances create early successional forests. To estimate the impact on each species of concern, we used changes in the amount of sawtimber size class forest land to represent changes in the area of late successional forest landscapes. We used changes in the amount of seedling / sapling size class forest land to represent potential changes in the area of landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional habitat. We addressed potential impacts on bird species of concern regionally, combining the Northern and Southern Coastal Plains into a single Coastal Plain Region (bird species data were not available to distinguish Northern and Southern Coastal Plains). Within region, we calculated a net change in available potential habitat for each species by adding together all of the sawtimber and seedling / sapling habitat that the species can utilize. We did this for private and public land separately, and then combined those for an overall net change. We did not assess the impact on species that are distributed patchily or restricted to certain ranges of elevations (Tables 12-16); there were insufficient data to assess changes in habitat for such species. Because of the magnitude of the increase in planted pine, the manner in which planted pine forests are managed will have implications for wildlife. Birds respond to the presence or absence of vegetation in the canopy, midstory, and understory layers of forests. Pine plantations managed with wildlife habitat as an objective can provide habitat that is similar to that of naturally regenerated pine stands (Johnson and Landers 1982; Allen et al. 1996). We have included a list of birds that can be found in planted pine stands undergoing three levels of management intensity: low, medium, or high. Sawtimber class planted pine forests managed at a low intensity have a well developed understory and midstory; those

9 9 managed at medium intensity have a well developed understory and a sparse midstory; those managed at a high intensity have a sparse understory and midstory. The potential effect of planted pine on wildlife was evaluated for the Coastal Plain only, because data on the use of planted pine by birds in the Piedmont and Mountains are scarce Reptiles and Amphibians There are relatively few studies of the effects of forest harvest on herpetofauna. Most studies have been conducted at high elevation sites or in the Northeastern and Northwestern US. We identified forest reptile and amphibian species of concern through consultations with Alvin Braswell and David Davenport, herpetologists at the NC State Museum of Natural Sciences. Forest management type, landscape type, and region were used to organize the data. Two landscape types appropriate to the resolution of our data and the life history needs of forest reptiles and amphibians were considered: 1. Late successional landscapes, in which most of the forest is mature and there are few disturbance gaps. Reptile and amphibian species associated with this landscape type are likely to be impacted by a change in the amount of sawtimber size class habitat. 2. Forested landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests. Reptile species associated with this landscape type are likely to be impacted positively by an increase in the amount of early successional habitat, so long as it occurs within an otherwise forested landscape. Forests in the seedling / sapling size class are early successional forests. Clearcuts, hurricane damage, fire, and other disturbances create early successional forests. To estimate the impact on each species of concern, we used changes in sawtimber size class forest land to represent late successional forest landscapes. We used changes in seedling / sapling size class forest land to represent potential changes in landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional habitat. We addressed potential impacts on bird species of concern regionally, combining the Northern and Southern Coastal Plains into a single Coastal Plain Region. Within region, we calculated a net change in available potential habitat for each species by adding together

10 10 all of the sawtimber and seedling / sapling habitat that the species can utilize. We did this for private and public land separately, and then combined those for an overall net change. We did not assess the impact on species that are distributed patchily or restricted to certain forest types (Tables 17-18); there were insufficient data to assess changes in habitat for such species. We did not include planted pine in our evaluation, because data on the suitability of planted pine for species of concern are lacking.

11 11 3. Results 3.1. Forest Composition and Size Class Distribution Privately Owned Forest Land Changes in the area of forest in each size class are reported for each management type statewide and for each of the four regions (Tables 4-5, Figures 1-3). Net change in forested acres is shown for each forest management type by region and for the state (Table 6-7). Statewide, we project that almost 1.43 million acres (8.6%) of private forest land will be converted to other land uses. The largest declines, by both acreage and percent, occur in the nautral pine and mixed pine-hardwood (Table 6-7). Upland and lowland hardwood also decline statewide; the area of planted pine is projected to increase by slightly more than one million acres (46%). We used shifts in the amount of sawtimber and seedling sapling to represent changes in the potential habitat for the species of conservation concern (Figure 3A). Qualitative shifts / trends in acreage of sawtimber size class private forest land. The first sign indicates the direction of change between 1990 and 2020 (i.e., subtract 1990 acres from 2020 acres). The second sign indicates the direction of the trend in Region Planted Pine Natural Pine Mixed Pine- Hardwood Upland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood Coastal Plain + / + / / / / Piedmont + / + / / + / + / Mountains + / + / + / + / + N/A Statewide + / + / / / /

12 12 Qualitative shifts ( ) / trends (2020) in acreage of seedling / sapling size class private forest land. The first sign indicates the direction of change between 1990 and 2020 (i.e., subtract 1990 acres from 2020 acres). The second sign indicates the direction of the trend in Region Planted Pine Natural Pine Mixed Pine- Hardwood Upland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood Coastal Plain / + / + / + / + + / + Piedmont / + / + / / + + / + Mountains + / / / / N/A Statewide / + / / + / + + / + Poletimber size class forests are projected to increase in area throughout the state for planted pine. For the other management types, poletimber sized forests are projected to decrease, except for lowland hardwood in the Coastal Plain Publicly Owned Forest Land More than half of North Carolina's publicly owned forest land is in the Mountain Region, largely in sawtimber size class forests (Table 8-10). Implementation of a policy favoring mature forests on public lands in 2000 would result in a projected increase in the amount of sawtimber size class forest land for all management types in all regions. The amount of seedling/sapling size class forests is projected to decrease for all management types in all regions (Tables 9-10). The amount of poletimber size class forest is projected to decrease for some regions and management types, and increase for others (Table 10) Sensitivity Analysis Of the three parameters subjected to sensitivity analysis harvest level, rate of conversion to planted pine, and amount of increase in planted pine productivity the final area of forest land in almost every combinations of management type and size class was most sensitive to harvest levels (Table 11, Figures 4-5). This means that errors in our estimates of future harvest levels will have a greater effect on our projections than errors in the other two parameters. The only exception was planted pine in the Piedmont and Mountain regions, which showed greatest sensitivity to conversion rates.

13 13 At the state scale the final area in each forest management type was sensitive only to changes in the rate of conversion to planted pine; it was insensitive to changes in harvest level and pine productivity (Figure 4a). Because total forest area was held constant in Scenario 12 and sensitivity was calculated one parameter at a time, only conversion to planted pine changed a forest's management type. Thus, the model is insensitive to changes in harvest rate and planted pine productivity at this scale. However, within management type, size class distribution is most sensitive to harvest levels. An increase in harvest levels would lead to a relatively large increase in the amount of forest in the seedling / sapling size class, and a relatively large decrease in the amount of forest in the sawtimber size class (Figure 4b) Implications for Wildlife Generalized expected impact on privately owned forest lands, excluding planted pine, Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Late successional species + + Early successional species + Generally, birds, reptiles, and amphibians of conservation concern that utilize late successional forest habitat (excluding planted pine) are likely to be impacted negatively on private forest lands in the Coastal Plain and positively in the Mountains during the projection period. In the Piedmont, the direction of impact depends on the specific forest management types utilized. Species that use upland or lowland hardwood are likely to be impacted positively; those that use naturally regenerated pine or mixed pine-hardwood are likely to be impacted negatively. Institution of policy favoring mature forests on public lands would mitigate, but not reverse, the negative impacts in the Coastal Plain; enhance the positive impacts for species in the Piedmont; mitigate and reverse for some species the negative impacts in the Piedmont; and enhance the positive impact in the Mountains. Although upland and lowland hardwood sawtimber habitat increase on private land in the Piedmont between 1990 and 2020, the trends reverse by 2020 and these habitats are projected to decline (Figure 3A). Similarly, mixed pine-hardwood and upland hardwood sawtimber habitats increase in the Mountains between 1990 and By 2020 mixedpine hardwood sawtimber will be declining; upland hardwood sawtimber will be increasing in area at a slower rate as volume harvested exceeds growth volume (Abt et al. 2000).

14 14 Generally, birds and reptiles that utilize early successional forest habitat (excluding planted pine) are likely to be impacted positively on private forest lands in the Coastal Plain and negatively in the Piedmont and Mountains. No amphibians of conservation concern, and only two reptiles of conservation concern, utilize early successional habitat. Institution of policy favoring mature forests on public lands would reduce the positive impacts on these species in the Coastal Plain; and exacerbate the negative impacts in the Piedmont and Mountains. Although mixed pine-hardwood and upland hardwood seedling / sapling habitat decrease in in the Costal Plain between 1990 and 2020, the trends reverse by 2020 and these habitats are projected to increase (Figure 3A). Similarly, upland hardwood seedling / sapling habitat is projected to decrease in the Piedmont between 1990 and 2020; by 2020, this habitat type is expected to be increasing. Managed for late successional species, projected increases in planted pine in the Coastal Plain have the potential to mitigate losses of other late successional forests. We were unable to assess the magnitude of this impact, because we lack data on the amount of planted pine subject to high, medium, and low intensity management. We were unable to assess the effects of planted pine in the Piedmont and Mountains, because we lack data on use of planted pine by birds, reptiles, and amphibians in these regions Birds Bird species of conservation concern are listed for each management type (Tables 12-16). For naturally regenerated pine, mixed pine-hardwood, upland hardwood, and lowland hardwood, the lists are separated according to two landscape types: 1. late successional landscapes, in which most of the forest is mature and there are few disturbance gaps (Tables 12a-15a); and 2. forested landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests (Tables 12b-15b). Planted pine is addressed for the Coastal Plain only, and organized by management intensity (Table 16). Expected impact on bird species of conservation concern is presented for private lands and overall. The overall impact presented accounts for changes in forest size class distribution on private lands and assumes immediate institution of policy favoring mature forests on

15 15 publicly owned forests. The impact analysis is presented in a separate table for each region: Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountains (Tables 19-21). The contribution of planted pine to overall impact is evaluated only for the Coastal Plain (Table 19), because of data limitations Coastal Plain In the Coastal Plain, projected decreases in sawtimber size class forests on private land suggest a negative impact on bird species of conservation concern requiring late successional habitat (Table 21). Projected increases in sawtimber size class forests on publicly owned land are insufficient to reverse trends on private land. Conversely, projected increases in seedling / sapling size class forests on private land suggest a positive impact on all but one species of conservation concern requiring a mixture of late and early successional habitat. Projected decreases in this habitat type on public lands are small compared to increases on private lands. The Prairie Warbler, because it also utilizes mature natural pine forests, will likely suffer an overall negative impact Piedmont On private forest land in the Piedmont, bird species of conservation concern that utilize only late successional upland and lowland hardwood should benefit from an increase in sawtimber size class forests of those types (Table 20). Policy favoring mature forests on public land would further increase habitat for these species. Bird species of conservation concern that use late successional mixed pine-hardwood and naturally regenerated pine, either exclusively or in addition to upland and lowland hardwood, are likely to be impacted negatively on private forest land. Policy favoring mature forests on public land has the potential to reverse this trend for some species of conservation concern, for an overall positive impact. On private forest land in the Piedmont, projected declines in seedling / sapling size class forests suggest a negative impact on most bird species of conservation concern requiring a mixture of late and early successional habitat (Table 20). Policy favoring mature forests on publicly owned lands would aggravate this negative impact, because it would lead to a decline in seedling / sapling size class habitat on public lands.

16 16 Planted pine on private land in the Piedmont is projected to increase from 444,298 to 702,890 acres. To the extent that it is managed for wildlife, this increase may mitigate habitat loss in other management types for some species that use naturally regenerated pine and mixed pine-hardwood forests Mountains In the Mountains, projected increases in sawtimber size class forests on private land suggest a positive or unknown impact on bird species of conservation concern requiring late successional habitat (Table 21). Implementation of policy favoring mature forests on public lands would enhance this positive impact. The impact on several species requiring late successional habitat could not be assessed, because they are restricted to certain elevations or distributed patchily; there were insufficient data to assess habitat changes for these species. Conversely, projected declines in seedling / sapling size class forests on private land suggest a negative impact on bird species of conservation concern requiring a mixture of late and early successional habitat. With one exception natural pine sawtimber projected changes in public and private land were of the same direction. Implementation of policy favoring mature forests on public lands would exacerbate the negative impact on early successional bird species. Planted pine on private land in the Mountains is projected to increase from 48,424 to 78,694 acres. To the extent that it is managed for wildlife, this increase may mitigate habitat loss in other management types for some species that use naturally regenerated pine and mixed pine-hardwood forests Reptiles and Amphibians Almost all reptile species of conservation concern are native species of mature forest habitat (Table 17). All amphibian species of concern inhabit mature forests (Table 18). These species are likely to be impacted negatively by a decrease in the amount of sawtimber class habitat. Reptiles and amphibians that inhabit early successional habitat are not of conservation concern, because most are generalists found throughout the state in many different habitats.

17 17 Some snakes, including two species of concern, might benefit from an increase in the amount of early successional forests within a forested landscape (Table 17). The abundance of prey increases near the edges of early and late successional forests. However, the snakes would also be subject to an increased chance of predation, especially by birds. Human disturbance is a particularly important issue for reptiles, especially for snakes. Large blocks of habitat relatively free of people help minimize encounters between people and snakes. These species tend to disappear as habitat blocks decrease in size Coastal Plain All reptile and amphibian species of conservation concern that utilize late successional habitat are likely to be impacted negatively by projected changes in available habitat in the Coastal Plain, because of large losses of sawtimber size class forest land (Table 22). Increases in sawtimber size class forest on public lands are much smaller than losses on private land and do not approach making up for private losses. The Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, which utilizes early successional habitat, is likely to be impacted positively by projected changes in habitat on both public and private land (Table 25) Piedmont On private land in the Piedmont, reptiles and amphibians that utilize a combination of upland and lowland late successional forests should benefit from projected increases in hardwood sawtimber. However, reptiles and amphibians that utilize naturally regenerated pine and mixed pine-hardwood, either exclusively or in addition to hardwood forests, are likely to be impacted negatively by large losses of that habitat type on private land (Table 23). Implementation of policy favoring mature forests on public lands has the potential to reverse the negative impact for species that utilize mixed pine-hardwood (Table 23). There are no reptile or amphibian species of conservation concern that utilize early successional habitat in the Piedmont.

18 Mountains All but one (Northern Ringneck Snake) reptile and amphibian species that utilize late successional habitat in the Mountains are likely to be impacted positively by projected changes in habitat on privately owned forests (Table 24). Implementation of policy favoring mature forests on public lands has the potential to reverse the negative impact on the Northern Ringneck Snake (Table 23). The Eastern Milksnake, which utilizes early successional habitat, is likely to impacted negatively on both public and private forest land (Table 25) Summary of Projected Impacts (added 2000 August 17) Using the information presented in Tables 19-25, we tallied the potential impact on bird, reptile, and amphibian species of conservation concern to show the number of species for which projected habitat changes would have a positive, negative, or unknown impact (Table 26). Comparing projected changes on private land to overall changes, which include public land, we find that consideration of public lands does not change the direction of expected impacts in the Coastal Plan and Mountains. Public lands mitigate negative impacts on birds and reptiles in the Piedmont; the impact on amphibians is not changed qualitatively.

19 19 4. Discussion We made many assumptions in order to model the potential impacts on wildlife of changes in forest composition. In this section, we discuss our assumptions and problems that may result from possible errors in the assumptions Forest Composition and Size Class Distribution We used data from the 1990 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) to convert ten-year age classes to three size classes for each management type seedling / sapling, poletimber, sawtimber (Table 2-3). Lacking data to project changes in these conversion factors, we assumed that they are constant throughout the simulation period. A number of possible changes in forestry technology could invalidate this assumption and change our assessment of the likely impact on wildlife. They include: 1. Changes in growth rates. This is most likely to occur in intensively managed pine plantations, where trees could reach larger size classes sooner. 2. (2) Changes in species composition. Because different trees grow at different rates, changes in relative tree species abundance within management groups could change the age class to size class conversion factors. 3. Changes in soil productivity. A decline in soil productivity could decrease growth rates; improved soil productivity could increase growth rates. These changes would be reflected in changing age class to size class conversion factors. The harvest, pine conversion, and pine yields use were based on a combination of data and expert opinion. Although errors in the parameters we selected could alter results, our sensitivity analysis shows that errors in harvest rate would have the most significant impact. We did not test sensitivity to forest loss rates, but suspect our results would also be very sensitive to these parameters; forest loss is a lot like harvest, but without regrowth. The implication of our sensitivity analyses is that understanding harvest rates (and probably forest loss rates) is most critical to refining projected impacts on wildlife. Public lands have the potential to serve as refugia for late successional species, depending on how they and the lands surrounding them are managed in the future. However, changes in private forests have the potential to affect the wildlife habitat value of adjacent public lands through edge effects and fragmentation. The information included about public lands serves to bracket a range of likely possibilities (increasing harvest rates seems unlikely in

20 20 the present political climate). By comparing the "Private" to the "Overall" impact, one can assess the potential impact of changes in public land policy on the wildlife species considered here. In projecting the size class distribution of public forests assuming policy favoring mature forests, we did not consider the creation of early successional habitat by natural disturbances. Thus, we have likely overestimated the area of sawtimber forests and underestimated the area of seedling / sapling forests on public land. The 524,359 acres of "reserved timber land" that was excluded from these analyses is likely to be mature forest in State and National Parks; most of this land (80%) is in the Mountain Region. Presently, these lands cannot be harvested and may further mitigate any negative effects of other land use changes on mature forest species, especially in the Mountains. One can begin to consider the potential value of planted pine on the Coastal Plain if it is managed with wildlife objectives in mitigating losses of other forest types. To do this, one would have to make assumptions about what portion of planted pine is managed at various levels of intensity Implications for Wildlife The resolution of the data used in this modeling effort allows only a limited assessment of the potential impacts of changes in forest composition and size class on birds, reptiles, and amphibians of conservation concern. Individual species have specific habitat requirements that are beyond the resolution of our data (e.g., presence of water nearby, large snags, well-developed midstory). The presence of a particular combination of forest management type and landscape type in a region does not guarantee that a species utilizing that combination will be present. For example, the local distribution of most amphibian species depends upon the availability of standing or running water for breeding. Some species breed only in ephemeral ponds and cannot tolerate the presence of fish (the fish eat the eggs and young). Other species breed in permanent ponds, and still others require clean, moving water. This level of detail is not included in our data or models. Our original intent was to use the more detailed wildlife-habitat models compiled by Hamel (1992) for birds and Wilson (1995) for reptiles and amphibians to link changes in forest

21 21 composition and size class distribution to each species. After a number of discussions with wildlife biologists, we ultimately rejected this approach as going beyond the resolution of our modeling data. Successful use of the Hamel (1992) and Wilson (1995) wildlife-habitat models requires site-specific information about habitat requirements and proximity among habitat components. These requirements include characteristics of the understory and midstory; the presence, quality, and proximity of water; and the presence of caves, seeps, snags, downed woody debris, leaf litter, and bare soil. There are also mismatches between the forest types and size classes in the Foresty Inventory Analysis data and those used in the wildlife-habitat models that would require further aggregation and loss of detail. The management classes used in our model are extremely broad, each including a number of different forest types (Table 1). For example, many of the reptile and amphibian species of concern are part of the longleaf pine community, which is included in the natural pine management type. Although sawtimber class naturally regenerated pine forests are projected to decrease in area in the Coastal Plain, one cannot conclude that these reptile and amphibian species will decline, because the model does not specify which particular forest types are being lost. Many of the bird species of concern live in mature forest communities. However, one should not conclude that these species will increase in the Mountains simply because the amount of sawtimber class upland hardwood forest is projected to increase in the Mountains. These species may have specific habitat requirements that are not present in those forests; they may also respond to the size of the forest or the level of fragmentation, neither of which are modeled here. In interpreting our results, it is important to note that forests of sawtimber size class are not necessarily equivalent to the ecological concept of a late successional forest. Late successional forests have several characteristics important to wildlife, including a diversity of species and age classes, complex vertical structure, canopy gaps caused by dead trees, a well-developed layer of litter, and downed woody debris of various sizes and decay states. The degree to which sawtimber size class forests have characteristics of late successional forests is a function of how they are managed. This distinction is particularly important for species that depend on particular microhabitat characteristics associated with late successional forests. For examples, amphibians that depend on downed woody debris are likely to be impacted negatively by shorter rotation schedules and increased utilization (demaynadier and Hunter 1995; Hess 2000). Although forests managed in this way will attain sawtimber size class, these trends have the potential to significantly reduce the amount of woody debris available.

22 22 Management is also important for maintaining the quality of early successional habitat. Clearcuts that are not soon followed by tillage, prescribed burning, or herbicing usually result in a quick dominance of dense saplings from root sprouting. This reduces quickly habitat quality for many disturbance-dependent bird species (Confer 1992; Chuck Hunter, personal communication). We did not use poletimber size class forests in our estimation of wildlife impact, because it's value in the landscape is unclear. However, poletimber increases only for planted pine (except in the Mountains) and lowland hardwood in the Northern Coastal Plain. By not considering poletimber, we have underestimated the negative impact on any species that utilize poletimber size class forests as habitat in most regions and forest management types. Positive impacts would have been underestimated in planted pine state wide and lowland hardwood in the Northern Coastal Plain Birds Several bird species of conservation concern are distributed patchily or restricted to certain ranges of elevation. These species are identified by footnotes in the species lists (Tables 12-15) and by asterisks in the expected impact tables (Tables 19-25). We did not provide an expected impact for these species. In order to do so, we must know where forest changes occur in relation to where these species are found. For example, in order to assess the potential impact on the Golden-winged Warbler in the Mountains, we would have to understand forest composition at elevations greater than 3,000-3,500 feet. Available data do not allow us to separate forests by elevation. Many of the bird species of conservation concern are Neotropical migrants that breed in North Carolina and winter in the Tropics. The long-term survival of these birds depends on the presence of high quality habitat in both their breeding and wintering territories. The condition of their wintering territories was not considered in our assessment of expected impact Reptiles and Amphibians Several amphibian species of concern the Hellbender (Mountains), Mudpuppy (Mountains), and Neuse River Waterdog (Coastal Plain and Piedmont) are stream

23 23 dwellers that require intact riparian corridors. They are also very sensitive to water quality and do best in the high quality streams usually associated with watersheds dominated by mature forests. The effect of projected changes in forest composition on these species could not be assessed, because our data were too coarse. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, current evidence suggests that local amphibian populations are impacted negatively when forests are harvested (e.g., Pough et al. 1987; Ash 1988; Petranka et al. 1993; Petranka et al. 1994; demaynadier and Hunter 1995; Harlow et al. 1997). From two to ten times as many amphibians have been documented in uncut forest plots than harvested plots. There is some evidence that impacts are less dramatic in lowland forests and along stream banks, where moisture and woody debris are abundant (e.g., Petranka et al. 1994; Phelps and Lancia 1995). Of all the reptiles and amphibians, salamanders are the most likely to be impacted negatively if sawtimber size class forests decrease as projected by our model. Salamanders inhabit cool, moist forest habitat and require the well-developed layer of leaf litter and woody debris associated with late successional forests. The large group of lungless salamanders, Plethodontidae, exchange respiratory gases through their skin. This process requires skin moisture that can be maintained only in the soil, leaf litter, and rotting logs of mature forests. This group of salamanders declines more than any other amphibian species after forest harvest (demaynadier and Hunter 1995). The cause of lowered abundance of salamanders in recently harvested sites has not been determined (Ash and Bruce 1994; demaynadier and Hunter 1995). Possibilities include perishing during or shortly after harvest, dispersing horizontally from the site to adjacent forested lands, or moving vertically to underground retreats until surface conditions become hospitable (demaynadier and Hunter 1995). Ash and Bruce (1994: 301) note that "The fate of salamanders on clearcuts is unclear at present. We know they disappear from clearcuts, but that is all we know." Chazal and Newiarowski (1998) compared abundance, body mass, length, and other characteristics of mole salamanders in clearcut and uncut areas. Recently metamorphosed salamanders were placed in enclosures and observed for approximately six months. They found no significant differences in any of the parameters between clearcut and uncut sites, including abundance, body mass, body length, and clutch size. However, their experimental animals were not exposed to the mechanical disturbances of harvest and site

24 24 preparation. They suggest that direct mortality during harvest and site preparation may cause the declines in mole salamanders noted after harvest. Recovery periods for salamander populations after forest harvest have not been documented directly. Based on their comparisons of salamander abundance in forests of a number of ages, Petranka et al. (1993, 1994) estimate that years are required for populations to return to pre-harvest levels. This estimate has been criticized as unsupported by data (Ash and Bruce 1994). Because of the relatively limited range of movement and high site fidelity of salamanders, the arrangement of early and late successional forests on the landscape is likely to be important to the recovery of populations and the regional maintenance of salamander populations. We have found no studies of this issue. 4.3 Spatial Analysis and Fragmentation Our model does not include a spatial component finer than the regional scale. The finest level of detail is the number of acres of a given management type and size class in a region. Finer spatial details, such as size of forests, how fragmented the forests are, or the proximity of forests to other types of land cover (e.g., agricultural, urban) are not modeled. Forest size and fragmentation are important considerations for a number of bird, reptile, amphibian, and other species. Fragmentation accompanies habitat loss and is recognized as a serious threat to biological diversity (e.g., Saunders et al. 1991; Fielder and Kareiva 1997). Fragmentation is the process by which large blocks of a particular land cover are reduced to smaller, non-contiguous blocks. During discussions among Advisory Group members, two types of fragmentation were recognized: forest fragmentation and habitat fragmentation (Thompson & Dessecker 1997). Forest fragmentation is the breaking up of contiguous forest (of any seral stage) by non-forest land uses. Examples include the breaking up of forest habitat by conversion of forest land to agricultural or suburban use. Habitat fragmentation is a process that results in increased habitat discontinuity by breaking up blocks of habitat. A habitat is an area with the appropriate combination of resources (food, cover, water) and environmental conditions for the survival and reproduction of a species. This area may contain a number of different types of land cover in a variety of seral stages. Potential agents of forest habitat

25 25 fragmentation are fire, harvest, recreational use, and thinning. A number of the species of conservation concern identified in this report are considered to be sensitive to fragmentation. These are identified as "Area Sensitive" for birds (Tables 12-16) and requiring "Large Blocks" for reptiles and amphibians (Tables 17-18). Because we did not account for the effects of fragmentation, the magnitude of any positive impacts for fragmentation-sensitive species are likely overestimated in the impact assessment (Tables 19-25). The degree to which positive impacts are overestimated for a species will depend on how fragmented the potential habitat for that species is fragmented. Geographic information system (GIS) land cover data are available for North Carolina. These data can be used to produce maps of fragmentation at any scale (Figures 6-7). The two maps shown here maps were produced using Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) data simplified to forest and non-forest cover (Riitters et al. 2000a, 2000b). Mapping and quantifying fragmentation is a complex endeavor, and these maps are presented as an example of one way of examining fragmentation. Generally speaking, these fragmentation maps address the issue of forest fragmentation as defined above. However, recently harvested sites and sites in the earliest stages of forest regeneration may be classified as non-forest, because of the way they are classified in the underlying MRLC data. We did not include a detailed spatial analysis in our modeling efforts for a number of reasons. The GIS data are no more detailed in terms of forest type than the data we used, with typical classifications being deciduous, mixed, evergreen, and forested wetland. The data are less detailed in terms of age and size class and do not include any of the information required to model changes in size class distribution. Additional assumptions would have been required about harvests, including their exact size and location on the landscape. Most importantly, there are few data available to link measures of forest size and fragmentation to the ability of particular species or groups of species to utilize the habitat; and the obstacles to collecting these data are great (Fielder and Kareiva 1997). There is published information about minimum forest patch sizes for a number of birds, which we used to denote area sensitive species in Tables (e.g., Robbins et al. 1989; Temple 1986; Hamel 1992). However, many of these data were collected in forested patches in largely agricultural and suburban landscapes. Further research (e.g., Thompson et al.

26 ) has called into question the use of these data in forested landscapes, because of significant differences in the landscape context (i.e., the difference between forest fragmentation and habitat fragmentation). Because different species use the landscape in different ways, the scale of analysis is extremely important. For example, Robbins et al. (1989) document forest patch sizes at which there is at least a 50% probability of finding different bird species. The minimum forest patch size they documented was 15 acres for the Ovenbird and 1,750 acres for the Cerulean Warbler. The 18-acre scale fragmentation map (Figure 6) is appropriate for estimating available potential habitat for the Ovenbird and other species with similar requirements. For the Cerulean Warbler, the 1,460-acre scale map (Figure 7) is more appropriate. However, these maps alone cannot be used to determine where these birds occur. Species occurrence depends on a host of other habitat characteristics that are not included in the fragmentation maps. One difficulty lies in identifying the species that can live in forests at varying levels of fragmentation and adjusting the fragmentation categories accordingly. For example, the criterion for interior forest in the maps presented here was very strict, requiring every pixel to be forested. Even a single pixel (0.22 acre) of non-forest cover in a 1,460 acre block is enough to result in a classification of "perforated." This is probably overly restrictive for wildlife habitat analysis, but data are currently lacking to make such quantitative associations. Research linking measures of landscape characteristics to the occurrence of particular species or groups of species is beginning to appear in the literature (e.g., O'Connor et al. 1996, Penhollow and Stauffer 2000). Birds are the species studied most in these efforts, because of the availability of nation-wide data for long periods of time (Breeding Bird Survey, Christmas Bird Count). Future studies of the impact of forest harvest patterns on wildlife may be able to take advantage of this emerging work. Despite these limitations, regional assessments of forest fragmentation can be useful, because some inferences can be drawn about its consequences without detailed knowledge of all the wildlife species that might be affected (e.g., Flather et al. 1992; Flather 1997; O'Neill et al. 1997). For example, the two maps presented here show clearly that there are more large blocks of forest interior habitat (as defined for this mapping) in the Coastal Plain and Mountains than in the Piedmont. One can infer that species requiring this type of

27 27 habitat are more likely to be found in the Coastal Plain and Mountains. One can also identify areas that are becoming more or less fragmented by examining a time series of fragmentation maps. Unfortunately, the MRLC data used to produce the two maps presented here are the only statewide data available for North Carolina. There is discussion of producing comparable data for 2000 (Kurt Riitters, personal communication). These data would allow researchers to examine trends in fragmentation and correlate those trends with trends in biological diversity Data Needs for Further Analysis Location, Location, Location Our ability to assess the impact of forestry operations and land use change on wildlife was limited in part by our inability to identify congruence in the location of forests, harvests, and wildlife. A complete assessment of the impact of changes in forest composition requires knowledge of where the particular forests are, which of those forests are inhabited by the species, and which of those forests are being harvested. For example, some of the wildlife species we attempted to evaluate inhabit specific forest types (e.g., longleaf pine). We did not assess the impact on these species, because we were unable to assign projected harvests to particular forest types and locations. The on-going North Carolina GAP analysis will eventually provide detailed information about the location of specific vegetative communities, including forests, throughout the state (NC-GAP 2000). Vegetation will be classified to the Alliance level of the National Vegetation Classification System (Weakly et al. 1996), providing more detailed information about the types and location of forests in North Carolina. GIS data layers are currently in review for the Coastal Plain, but have not been created for the Piedmont and Mountains. The GAP effort will also provide more information about the range of vertebrate species on the landscape, but it will still be relatively coarse. The Natural Heritage Program tracks the location of rare and endangered species and forest communities and compiles the information in a GIS database (e.g., LeGrand and Hall 1997). The sites can be monitored for activity that would have a negative impact. However, our inability to project the location of future forest harvests limits our ability to assess future impacts on these sites.

28 28 In general, more knowledge about the spatial distribution of wildlife would enhance our ability to assess potential impacts. Knowing the location for forests and wildlife does not solve all of our problems. There remains the issue of predicting the location of harvests. Doing so requires spatially explicit models that incorporate the know locations of forests and wildlife, as well as information about the socioeconomic factors influence harvest and land use change decisions Planted Pine as Wildlife Habitat Because the projected increases in the amount of planted pine are large, more information about the value of planted pine as habitat would improve our ability to assess potential impacts on wildlife. More information on the species that can and cannot utilize planted pine at various management intensities is needed. Some information is available for the Coastal Plain (Table 16), but further research is needed to relate wildlife use to measurable attributes of management intensity, such as the amount of understory and midstory vegetation. Information about the area of planted pine by management intensity is also required, so that we can quantify available habitat Effects of Fragmentation If we are to assess the effects of fragmentation on wildlife, further research is needed on the response of a variety of species to habitat fragmentation (as defined above) in a forested landscape and forest fragmentation (as defined above) in different landscape contexts (e.g., agriculture, suburban). Lack of locational information also prevents more detailed spatial analysis of potential wildlife impacts. Assessing the fragmentation impacts of future forest harvests and land use change requires the ability to predict where forest harvest and land use change will occur in the landscape

29 29 Acknowledgments Thanks to Mark Johns for working with us to assemble the lists of bird species of concern, and to Harry LeGrand for comments that helped improved the presentation of that information. Alvin Braswell and Dave Davenport worked with us to create the lists of reptiles and amphibians; Alvin also reviewed and improved the narrative on reptiles and amphibians. Thanks to Kurt Riitters for providing the fragmentation maps. We appreciated the comments and questions along the way from the members of the Advisory Committee and participants at the public forums. Comments received during the public review period helped improve the quality of the final report. Bob Slocum pushed us to consider the potential for publicly owned forests to serve as a refuge for wildlife; we're glad he did, because doing so increased the value of this report. Also valuable were ideas for completing the analysis of the impact of forest changes on birds from Chris Canfield, Derb Carter, Steve Hall, and Harry LeGrand.

30 30 Citations Abt, R..R. Schaberg, and G. Hess Forest resource trends and projections for North Carolina. Section 4 in Economic and Ecologic Impacts Associated with Wood Chip Production in North Carolina. The Southern Center for Sustainable Forests, Raleigh, NC. Allen, A.W., Y.K. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. Pine plantations and wildlife in the Southeastern United States: An assessment of impacts and opportunities. US Department of Interior, National Biological Services, Information and Technology Report 3, Washington, DC. Ash, A.N Disappearance of salamanders from clearcut plots. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Science Society 104: Ash, A.N. and R.C. Bruce Impacts of timber harvesting on salamanders. Conservation Biology 8: Beissinger, S.R., J.M. Reed, J.M. Wunderle, Jr., S.K. Robinson, and D.M. Finch Report of the AOU Conservation Committee on the Partners in Flight species prioritization plan. The Auk 117: Braswell, Alvin NC State Museum of Natural Sciences, Curator for Herpetology April 13, personal communication. Carter, M.F., W.C. Hunber, D.N. Pashley, and K.W. Rosenberg Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight approach. The Auk 117: Chazal, A.C. and P.H. Newiarowski Responses of mole salamanders to celarcutting using field experiments in forest management. Ecological Applications 8: Confer, J. L Golden-winged warbler, Vermivora chrysoptera. Pages In Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast (K. L. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

31 31 Davenport, David NC State Museum of Natural Sciences, Herpetologist April 13, personal communication. DeMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: A review of the North American literature. Environmental Reviews 3: Fielder, P.G. and P.M. Kareiva Conservation Biology for the Coming Decade. Chapman and Hall, New York. Flather, C.H Fitting species-accumulation functions and assessing regional land use impacts on avian diversity. Journal of Biogeography 23: Flather, C.H., S.J. Brady, and D.B. Inkley Regional habitat appraisals of wildlife communities: a landscape-level evaluation of a resource planning model using avian distribution data. Landscape Ecology 7: Haefner, J.W Modeling Biological Systems: Principles and Applications. Chapman and Hall, New York. Hamel, P.B The Land Manager s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. Hansen, M. H., T. Freiswyk, J.F. Glover, J.F. Kelly The Eastwide Forest Inventory Data Base: User s Manual. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-151. St Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Harlow, R.F., R.L. Downing, and D.H. VanLear Responses of wildlife to clearcutting and associated treatments in the Eastern United States. Clemson University Department of Forest Resources, Technical Paper No. 19, Clemson, SC. Hess, G.R The effect of satellite chip mills on post-harvest woody debris. Section 6-II in Economic and Ecologic Impacts Associated with Wood Chip Production in North Carolina. The Southern Center for Sustainable Forests, Raleigh, NC. Hutner, Chuck U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Partners in Flight July 19-

32 32 20, personal communication. Johns, Mark NC Wildlife Resources Commission; Coordinator, NC Partners in Flight March 17, personal communication. Johnson, A.S. and J.L. Landers Habitat relationships of summer resident birds in slash pine flatwoods. Journal of Wildlife Management 46(2): LeGrand H.E. jr. and S.P. Hall (editors) Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh NC. LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animals of North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC. NC-GAP North Carolina GAP Analysis Project. URL= Mar 30, visited 2000 July 24. O'Connor, R.J., M.T. Jones, D. White, C. Hunsaker, T. Loveland, B. Jones, and E. Preston Spatial partitioning of environmental correlates of avian biodiversity in the conterminous United States. Biodiversity Letters 3: O'Neill, R.V., C.T. Hunsaker, K.B. Jones, K.H. Riitters, J.D. Wickham, P.M Schwartz, I.A. Goodman, B.L. Jackson, and W.S. Baillargeon Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. BioScience 47: Partners in Flight A Management Plan for Neotropical Migrant Birds: NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Morganton, NC. Partners in Flight. 1999a. North Carolina WatchList (Priority Bird Species) DRAFT (October 31, 1999). Partners in Flight. 1999b. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Bird-Habitat Associations (October 31, 1999). Penhollow, M.E., and D.F. Stauffer Large-scale habitat relationships of neotropical

33 33 migratory birds in Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: Petranka, J.W., M.E. Eldridge, and K.E. Haley Effects of timber harvesting on Southern Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology 7: Petranka, J.W., M.P. Brannon, M.E. Hopey, and C.K. Smith Effects of timber harvesting on low elevation populations of Southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management 67: Phelps, J.P. and R.A. Lancia Effects of a clearcut on the herpetofauna of South Carolina bottomland swamp. Brimleyana 22: Pough, F.H., E.M. Smith, D.H. Rhodes, and A. Collazo The abundance of salamaders in forest stands with different histories of disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management 20: 1-9. Riitters, K.R., J.D. Wickham, J.E. Vogelmann, and K.B. Jones. 2000a. National land cover pattern data. Ecology 81: 604. Riitters, K., J. Wickham, R. O'Neill, B. Jones, and B. Smith Global scale patterns of forest fragmentation. Conservation Ecology, in press. Robbins, C.R., D.K. Dawson, and B.A. Dowell Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103: Saunders, D.A., R.J.Hobbs, and C.R. Margules Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5: Temple, S.A Predicting impacts of habitat fragmentation on forest birds: A comparison of two models. Pages in Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Thompson, F.R. III, W.D. Dijak, T.G. Kulowiec, and D.A. Hamilton Breeding bird populations in Missouri Ozark forests with and without clearcutting. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:

34 34 Thompson, F.R. III and D.R. Dessecker Management of Early-Successional Communities in Central Hardwood Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-195. Weakley, A. S., K. D. Patterson, S. Landaal, M. Gallyoun, and others (compilers) International classification of communities: Terrestrial vegetation of thesoutheastern United States. Working draft of April The Nature Conservancy - Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Dept., Community Ecology Group. Chapel Hill, NC. Williams, Steve Natural Heritage Program Species List of North Carolina Species. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh NC. Wilson, L.A The Land Manager s Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC.

35 Table 1. Forest types included in each management type. Management Type Planted pine Naturally regenerated pine Mixed pine-hardwood Forest Types White pine - hemlock; Longleaf pine; Slash pine; Loblolly pine; Shortleaf pine; Virginia pine; Eastern redcedar; Pond pine; Oak - pine White pine - hemlock; Spruce-fir; Longleaf pine; Slash pine; Loblolly pine; Shortleaf pine; Virginia pine; Eastern redcedar; Pond pine; Pitch pine; Table-mountain pine Oak - pine Upland hardwood Oak - Hickory; Chestnut oak; Southern scrub oak; Maple - Beech - Birch Lowland hardwood Oak - Gum - Cypress; Elm - Ash - Cottonwood

36 Table 2. The Forest Inventory and Analysis database contains a size class for each sample plot. The size class for the plot depends upon the distribution of the size of individual trees within the plot. Each tree is assigned a size class based on its diameter. The stand is assigned a size class based on the proportion of trees in each tree size class. Note that the definition of sawtimber differs between hardwood and pine (Hansen et al. 1992). Tree Size Class Pine Diamter Hardwood Diameter Seedling / Sapling <5" <5" Poletimber >5" and <9" >5" and <11" Sawtimber 9" 11" Stand Size Class Seedling / Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Criteria Less than 50% of trees poletimber or larger More than 50% of trees poletimber More than 50% of trees poltimber or larger, and at least half the larger trees sawtimber

37 Table 3. Proportion of forest in each age class found in each size class on privately owned forest lands, by management type and region. For example, 11.26% of Natural Pine in the 0-10 year age class is in the poletimber size class; 88.74% is in the sapling size class. Note that all rows sum to one. Planted Pine Northern Coastal Plain Southern Coastal Plain Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over Piedmont Mountains Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over Naturally Regenerated Pine Northern Coastal Plain Southern Coastal Plain Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over Piedmont Mountains Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over

38 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Northern Coastal PlainSouthern Coastal Plain Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over Piedmont Mountains Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over Upland Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Southern Coastal Plain Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over Piedmont Mountains Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over

39 Lowland Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Southern Coastal Plain Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over Piedmont Mountains (1) Age Class Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling Over (1) Changes for lowland hardwood in the mountains could not be estimated, because the FIA sample size for that category was too small. For modeling purposes, we held it all in the sawtimber size class so that total acreage (for the region and state) remained constant. We do not report changes for this category.

40 Table 4. Changes in area of forest management types between 1990 and 2020, by size class and region. Change is shown in acres and as a percent of the initial area. Change in lowland hardwoods in the mountains could not be estimated, because of insufficient data. Management Type Size Class Change in State Southern Coastal Plain Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Planted Pine Sapling Acres -48,625 1,526-28,456-25,978 4,283 Percent -5% 0% -10% -11% 21% Poletimber Acres 419, , , , Percent 52% 53% 40% 80% -2% Sawtimber Acres 631, , , ,493 26,058 Percent 168% 140%2 168% 249% 109% Total Acres 1,002, , , ,592 30,270 Percent 46% 45% 41% 58% 63% Natural Pine Sapling Acres 215,811 82, ,015 41,895-15,546 Percent 32% 30% 79% 17% -53% Poletimber Acres -477, ,485-49, ,407-56,141 Percent -44% % -51% -57% Sawtimber Acres -851, , , ,517-44,232 Percent -45% % -29% -18% Total Acres -1,113, , , , ,920 Percent -30% -32% -30% -29% -31% Mixed Pinehardwood Sapling Acres -196,132-18,606-42,456-95,560-39,509 Percent -29% -9% -20% -47% -75% Poletimber Acres -143,745-43,150-4,899-62,349-33,346 Percent -27% -32% -6% -30% -30% Sawtimber Acres -225, ,500-67,390-43,004 7,882 Percent -24% -44% -45% -14% 4% Total Acres -564, , , ,914-64,974 Percent -26% -30% -26% -28% -18% Upland Sapling Acres -307,510-68,804 38, ,813-93,052 Hardwood Percent -23% -18% 17% -31% -59% Poletimber Acres -210,860-1,523-1,850-95, ,119 Percent -14% -1% -1% -13% -22% Sawtimber Acres -9,291-36, ,334 33, ,228 Percent 0% -14% -44% 2% 7% Total Acres -527, ,955-70, , ,943 Percent -8% -13% -12% -9% -5% Lowland Sapling Acres 250,843 48, ,484 9,020 N/A Hardwood Percent 42% 14% 94% 20% N/A Poletimber Acres -34,260-16,076 18,620-36,804 N/A Percent -7% -7% 12% -40% N/A Sawtimber Acres -441, , ,035 4,842 N/A Percent -32% -25% -51% 3% N/A Total Acres -224, ,104-78,931-22,941 N/A Percent -9% -10% -8% -7% N/A

41 Table 5. Area of forest (acres) in each management type, by size class and region. Area is shown at the beginning (1990) and end (2020) of the simulation period, by size class and region. Management Type Size Class Year State Southern Coastal Plain Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Planted Pine Sapling , , , ,466 20, , , , ,487 24,638 Poletimber , , , ,695 4, ,229, , , ,773 4,040 Sawtimber , , ,114 72,136 23, ,007, , , ,629 50,015 Total ,160, , , ,298 48, ,162,799 1,352,769 1,028, ,890 78,694 Natural Pine Sapling , , , ,289 29, , , , ,184 13,878 Poletimber ,076, , , ,966 97, , , , ,559 41,681 Sawtimber ,905, , , , , ,053, , , , ,377 Total ,665,772 1,164, ,518 1,394, , ,552, , , , ,937 Mixed Pinehardwood Sapling , , , ,403 52, , , , ,842 12,854 Poletimber , ,042 77, , , ,788 89,892 72, ,603 78,558 Sawtimber , , , , , , ,678 82, , ,480 Total ,150, , , , , ,585, , , , ,894 Upland Sapling ,354, , , , ,649 Hardwood ,047, , , ,463 63,597 Poletimber ,555, , , , , ,344, , , , ,226 Sawtimber ,364, , ,733 1,395,139 1,465, ,355, , ,398 1,428,580 1,566,212 Total ,274, , ,201 2,706,945 2,126, ,747, , ,176 2,461,205 2,022,037 Lowland Sapling , , ,651 46,257 N/A Hardwood , , ,135 55,278 N/A Poletimber , , ,921 92,045 N/A , , ,541 55,241 N/A Sawtimber ,365, , , ,445 N/A , , , ,288 N/A Total ,455,804 1,194, , ,749 N/A ,230,828 1,071, , ,808 N/A

42 Table 6. Net change in area (acres) of forest management types between 1990 and 2020 by region. The net change in forest land was assumed to decline at a rate consistent with net forest land changes documented by the National Resources Inventory between 1982 and The rate of decline in each region was calculated independently. Management Type State Southern Coastal Plain Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Planted Pine 1,002, , , ,592 30,270 Natural Pine -1,113, , , , ,920 Mixed Pine-Hardwood -564, , , ,914-64,974 Upland Hardwood -527, ,955-70, , ,943 Lowland Hardwood -224, ,104-78,931-22,941 N/A Total -1,428, , , , ,567 Table 7. Statewide changes in area (%) between 1990 and 2020 by management type and size class. Management Type Size Class Change Planted Pine Sapling -5% Poletimber 52% Sawtimber 168% Total 46% Natural Pine Sapling 32% Poletimber -44% Sawtimber -45% Total -30% Mixed Pine-hardwood Sapling -29% Poletimber -27% Sawtimber -24% Total -26% Upland Hardwood Sapling -23% Poletimber -14% Sawtimber 0% Total -8% Lowland Hardwood Sapling 42 Poletimber -7% Sawtimber -32% Total -9%

43 Table 8. Area of public forest land (acres) in each management type, by size class and region, The Northern and Southern Coastal Plains have been combined. There were not enough data for lowland hardwoods in the mountains to make an assessment. Management Size Class State Coastal Piedmont Mountains Type Plain Planted Pine Sapling 26,002 21,289 1,035 3,678 Poletimber 42,345 36,250 6,095 0 Sawtimber 27,955 12,075 4,669 11,211 Total 96,302 69,614 11,799 14,889 Natural Pine Sapling 57,596 46,166 3,292 8,138 Poletimber 145, ,292 9,932 31,871 Sawtimber 288, ,555 23,216 47,902 Total 491, ,013 36,440 87,911 Mixed Pinehardwood Sapling 85,390 64,101 9,634 11,655 Poletimber 30,459 9,732 9,167 11,560 Sawtimber 155,128 57,482 13,206 84,440 Total 270, ,315 32, ,655 Upland Sapling 112,027 14,277 3,822 93,928 hardwood Poletimber 211,426 3,980 25, ,828 Sawtimber 604,207 15,327 36, ,654 Total 927,660 33,584 65, ,410 Lowland Sapling 41,594 41,594 0 N/A hardwood Poletimber 56,588 56,588 0 N/A Sawtimber 110,557 96,435 14,122 N/A Total 208, ,617 14,122 N/A STATE TOTAL 1,995, , ,034 1,038,865 Table 9. Area of public forest land (acres) in each management type, by size class and region, 2020 assuming that a "no-cut" policy is put into place in The Northern and Southern Coastal Plains have been combined. There were not enough data for lowland hardwoods in the mountains to make an assessment. Management Size Class State Coastal Piedmont Mountains Type Plain Planted Pine Sapling 2,409 2, Poletimber 45,035 44, Sawtimber 48,858 22,907 11,062 14,889 Total 96,302 69,614 11,799 14,889 Natural Pine Sapling 23,931 15,597 1,613 6,721 Poletimber 111,174 80,269 3,792 27,113 Sawtimber 356, ,147 31,035 54,077 Total 491, ,013 36,440 87,911 Mixed Pinehardwood Sapling 53,277 49, ,956 Poletimber 45,562 17,608 13,536 14,418 Sawtimber 172,138 64,386 18,471 89,281 Total 270, ,315 32, ,655 Upland Sapling 40,972 7, ,672 hardwood Poletimber 211,072 6,497 14, ,385 Sawtimber 675,616 19,787 51, ,353 Total 927,660 33,584 65, ,410 Lowland Sapling 24,372 24,372 0 N/A hardwood Poletimber 51,542 51,542 0 N/A Sawtimber 132, ,703 14,122 N/A Total 208, ,617 14,122 N/A STATE TOTAL 1,995, , ,034 1,038,865

44 Table 10. Change in area of publicly owned forest land in each management type, by size class and region, 2020 assuming that a "no-cut" policy is put into place in Change is shown in acres (top number) and percent (bottom number); losses are shown in parentheses. The Northern and Southern Coastal Plains have been combined. There were not enough data for lowland hardwoods in the mountains to make an assessment. Management Type Size Class State Coastal Plain Planted Pine Sapling (23,593) (18,880) (91%) (89%) Poletimber 2,690 8,048 6% 22% Sawtimber 20,903 10,832 75% 90% Piedmont (1,035) (100%) (5,358) (88%) 6, % Mountains (3,678) (100%) 0 0% 3,678 33% Natural Pine Sapling (33,665) (58%) Poletimber (33,921) (23%) Sawtimber 67,586 23% (30,569) (66%) (23,023) (22%) 53,592 25% (1,679) (51%) (6,140) (62%) 7,819 34% (1,417) (17%) (4,758) (15%) 6,175 13% Mixed Pinehardwood Sapling (32,113) (38%) Poletimber 15,103 50% Sawtimber 17,010 11% (14,780) (23%) 7,876 81% 6,904 12% (9,634) (100%) 4,369 48% 5,265 40% (7,699) (66%) 2,858 25% 4,841 6% Upland hardwood Sapling (71,055) (63%) Poletimber (354) 0% Sawtimber 71,409 12% (6,977) (49%) (3,822) (100%) 2,517 63% (45%) 4,460 15,250 29% 42% (60,256) (64%) 8,557 5% 51,699 9% Lowland hardwood Sapling 9,948 24% Poletimber 76, % Sawtimber 98,182 89% (17,222) (41%) (5,046) (9%) 22,268 23% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% N/A N/A N/A

45 Table 11. Sensitivity of the Scenario 12 model output (acres in 2020) to three parameters: rate of increase in planted pine productivity, rate of increase in planted pine acres, and harvest level. Each parameter was changed ±10%. Small (positive or negative) values of sensitivity indicate that the model outcome would not be very different even if the estimate for the parameter being tested were incorrect by ± 10%. A large sensitivity indicates that the parameter being tested has a relatively large effect on model outcome. The sign of the sensitivity indicates the direction of change in model outcome, relative to the direction of change in the parameter. A positive sensitivity indicates that the model outcome changes in the same direction as the parameter value (e.g., an increase in the parameter value results in an increase in the model output value). A negative sensitivity indicates that the model outcome changes in the opposite direction of the parameter value. ** Table on next page.

46 Management Type Region Size Class Planted Pine Product Planted Pine Conversion Harvest Level Planted Pine Southern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Northern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Piedmont Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Mountains Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Natural Pine Southern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Northern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Piedmont Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Mountains Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Mixed Pine-Hardwood Southern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Northern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Piedmont Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Mountains Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Upland Hardwood Southern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Northern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Piedmont Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Mountains Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Lowland Hardwood Southern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Northern Coastal Plain Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Piedmont Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber

47 Table 12a. Lowland Hardwood: Breeding bird species of concern found in late successional forest landscapes. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Extremely High Priority Black-throated Green Warbler (AS) Coastal Plain (2) Piedmont Mountains Cerulean Warbler (AS) (3) Swainson s Warbler (AS) High Priority Acadian Flycatcher (AS) Bald Eagle Eastern Wood-Pewee Hooded Warbler Kentucky Warbler (AS) Louisiana Waterthrush (AS) Northern Parula (AS) Prothonotary Warbler (AS) Wood Thrush (AS) Worm-eating Warbler (AS) Yellow-throated Vireo (AS) Moderate Priority Black-and-white Warbler (AS) Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Ovenbird (AS) Scarlet Tanager (AS) Summer Tanager Yellow-throated Warbler (AS) Local or Regional Interest Notes: Great Crested Flycatcher Mississippi Kite Pileated Woodpecker (AS) Red-eyed Vireo Yellow-billed Cuckoo (AS) AS: Area sensitive requires extensive forest / forest interior habitat (Hamel 1992). (1) Lowland hardwood forests are very rare in the mountains. This column refers to hardwood forests adjacent to rivers or creeks. These forests are generally not wetlands. (2) Patchily distributed populations. (3) Found only along the Roanoke River in Coastal Plain. (1)

48 Table 12b. Lowland Hardwood: Breeding bird species of concern found in forested landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains High Priority American Woodcock Prairie Warbler Whip-poor-will Moderate Priority Gray Catbird Eastern Towhee Local or Regional Interest Common Yellowthroat White-eyed Vireo Willow Flycatcher Yellow-breasted Chat

49 Table 13a. Upland Hardwood: Breeding bird species of concern found in late successional forest landscapes. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Extremely High Priority Cerulean Warbler (AS) Northern Saw-Whet Owl High Priority Acadian Flycatcher (AS)(1) Eastern Wood-Pewee Hooded Warbler Wood Thrush (AS) Veery (AS) (2) Worm-eating Warbler (AS) Yellow-throated Vireo (AS) Medium Priority Black-and-white Warbler (AS) Black-billed Cuckoo (AS) (2) Ovenbird (AS) Scarlet Tanager (AS) Summer Tanager Local or Regional Interest Blue-headed Vireo (2) Broad-winged Hawk (AS) Great Crested Flycatcher Pileated Woodpecker (AS) Red-eyed Vireo Rose-breasted Grosbeak (2) Yellow-billed Cuckoo (AS) Notes: AS: Area sensitive requires extensive forest / forest interior habitat (Hamel 1992). (1) Found in mesic forests in transitional zone between lowland and upland. (2) Usually found at elevations greater than 3,000-3,500 feet.

50 Table 13b. Upland Hardwood: Breeding bird species of concern found in forested landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Extremely High Priority Golden-Winged Warbler (1) Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (1) High Priority Blue-winged Warbler (2) Chestnut-sided Warbler (1) Chuck-will s-widow Prairie Warbler (2) Ruffed Grouse Moderate Priority Eastern Towhee Gray Catbird Orchard Oriole (2) Whip-poor-will Local or Regional Interest Common Yellowthroat Least Flycatcher White-eyed Vireo Yellow-breasted Chat Notes: (1) Usually found at elevations greater than 3,000-3,500 feet. (2) Patchily distributed populations found at elevations less than 3,000-3,500 feet.

51 Table 14a. Mixed Pine-Hardwood: Breeding bird species of concern found in forest landscapes with large trees. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Extremely High Priority Black-throated Green Warbler (AS) (1) Northern Saw-Whet Owl (1) High Priority Acadian Flycatcher (AS) Blackburnian Warbler (AS) (1) Black-throated Blue Warbler (AS) Canada Warbler (1) Eastern Wood-Pewee Hooded Warbler Northern Parula (AS) Wood Thrush (AS) Worm-eating Warbler (AS) Yellow-throated Vireo (AS) Veery (AS) (1) Moderate Priority Black-billed Cuckoo (AS) (1) Ovenbird (AS) Scarlet Tanager (AS) Summer Tanager Local or Regional Interest Blue-headed Vireo Great Crested Flycatcher Pileated Woodpecker (AS) Red-eyed Vireo Yellow-billed Cuckoo (AS) Notes: AS: Area sensitive requires extensive forest / forest interior habitat (Hamel 1992). (1) Usually found at elevations greater than 3,000-3,500 feet.

52 Table 14b. Mixed Pine-Hardwood: Breeding bird species of concern found in forested landscapes with a mixture of large trees and early successional forests. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Extremely High Priority Golden-winged Warbler (2) High Priority Chestnut-sided Warbler (2) Chuck-will s-widow Prairie Warbler (1) Ruffed Grouse Moderate Priority Eastern Towhee Gray Catbird Least Flycatcher Orchard Oriole (3) Whip-poor-will Local or Regional Interest Common Yellowthroat Yellow-breasted Chat (1) White-eyed Vireo Notes: (1) Often found at elevations less than 3,000-3,500 feet. (2) Often found at elevations greater than 3,000-3,500 feet. (3) Patchily distributed populations found at elevations less than 3,000-3,500 feet.

53 Table 15a. Naturally Regenerated Pine (1): Breeding bird species of concern found in forest landscapes with large pines. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Extremely High Priority Bachman s Sparrow (2) Red-cockaded Woodpecker (2) (3) High Priority Brown-headed Nuthatch (2) (3) Eastern Wood-Pewee Prairie Warbler (4) Moderate Priority Summer Tanager Local or Regional Interest Great Crested Flycatcher (5) Notes: AS: Area sensitive requires extensive forest / forest interior habitat (Hamel 1992). (1) Excludes Spruce-Fir. (2) Open canopy, with mature trees and well-developed understory. (3) Rare and patchily distributed in region. (4) Often found at elevations less than 3,000-3,500 feet. (5) Open canopy, with dense understory and large snags.

54 Table 15b. Naturally Regenerated Pine (1): Breeding bird species of concern found in forested landscapes with a mixture of large trees and early successional forests. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in the corresponding region. Species Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Extremely High Priority Golden-Winged Warbler (2) High Priority Chestnut-sided Warbler (2) Northern Bobwhite Prairie Warbler (3) Ruffed Grouse Whip-poor-will Moderate Priority Eastern Towhee Gray Catbird Orchard Oriole (4) Local or Regional Interest Chuck-will s-widow Common Yellow Throat White-eyed Vireo Yellow-breasted Chat (3) Notes: (1) Excludes Spruce-Fir. (2) Often found at elevations greater than 3,000-3,500 feet. (3) Often found at elevations less than 3,000-3,500 feet. (4) Patchily distributed populations found at elevations less than 3,000-3,500 feet.

55 Table 16: Breeding bird species of concern found in Coastal Plain planted pine stands at three management intensities. A check mark indicates that the species can be found in planted pine of the corresponding management intensity. Species Low Intensity Understory developed Midstory developed Medium Intensity Understory developed Midstory sparse High Intensity Understory sparse Midstory sparse Extremely High Priority Bachman s Sparrow High Priority Acadian Flycatcher (AS) Brown-headed Nuthatch Eastern Wood-Pewee Hooded Warbler Northern Bobwhite Prairie Warbler Wood Thrush (AS) Worm-eating Warbler Moderate Priority Summer Tanager Yellow-throated Warbler (AS) Local or Regional Interest Great Crested Flycatcher Red-eyed Vireo Yellow-billed Cuckoo (AS) Notes: AS: Area sensitive requires extensive forest / forest interior habitat (Hamel 1992).

56 Table 17. Forest reptile species of concern, listed in two categories. Species in the late successional forest category require sawtimber size class forests and are likely to be impacted negatively by declines in available habitat of that size class. Species in the mosaic landscape category require a mixture of sawtimber size class forests and disturbed, early successional areas; they are likely to be impacted positively by an increase in seedling / sapling size class forests, so long as they occur within a forested landscape. Forest types are: NP = Naturally Regenerated Pine; MPH = Mixed Pine-Hardwood; LH = Lowland Hardwood; UH = Upland Hardwood. Regions are C = Coastal Plain; P = Piedmont; M = Mountains. Species that are normally found only in relatively large blocks of habitat are denoted by a Yes in the Large Blocks column. (Alvin Braswell, personal communication) Species Forest Type Region Large Blocks Notes Late Successional Forest Striped Mud Turtle LH C,P No Needs intact riparian corridor Spotted Turtle LH C,P No Eastern Box Turtle MPH, LH, UH C,P,M Yes Northern Fence Lizard MPH C,P,M Yes <4,000 feet elevation in mountains Broadhead Skink MPH, LH, UH C,P Yes Mimic Glass Lizard NP C Yes Longleaf pine community Northern Scarlet Snake NP C Yes Longleaf pine community Southern Ringneck Snake MPH, LH, UH C,P No Also uses poletimber size class Northern Ringneck Snake MPH, LH, UH P,M No Also uses poletimber size class Corn Snake MPH, LH, UH C,P No Southern Hognose Snake NP C Yes Longleaf pine community Scarlet Kingsnake MPH, LH, UH C,P Yes Eastern Coachwhip NP C Yes Longleaf pine community Northern Pine Snake NP C Yes Longleaf pine community Pine Woods Snake NP C Yes Near edge of pocosins Southeastern Crowned Snake NP C Yes Longleaf pine community Eastern Earth Snake UH C,P No Eastern Coral Snake NP, MPH, LH C Yes Longleaf pine community, especially at edge with lowland hardwoods Timber Rattlesnake MPH, LH, UH C,P,M Yes Carolina Pigmy Rattlesnake NP, MPH, LH C Yes Near water Mosaic Landscape Eastern Milk Snake Any M No Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake NP C Yes

57 Table 18. Forest amphibian species of concern require sawtimber size class forests. Forest types are: NP = Naturally Regenerated Pine; MPH = Mixed Pine-Hardwood; LH = Lowland Hardwood; UH = Upland Hardwood. Regions are C = Coastal Plain; P = Piedmont; M = Mountains. (Alvin Braswell, personal communication) Species Forest Region Notes Type Mabee s Salamander NP C Longleaf pine community; ephemeral pond breeder Eastern Tiger Salamander NP C Longleaf pine community; ephemeral pond breeder Spotted Salamander LH, UH P,M Ephemeral pond breeder; present in upland hardwood if leaf litter and soil moisture levels are adequate Marbled Salamander LH, UH C,P,M Ephemeral pond breeder; present in upland hardwood if leaf litter and soil moisture levels are adequate Mole Salamander LH, UH P,M Ephemeral pond breeder; present in upland hardwood if leaf litter and soil moisture levels are adequate Plethodontidae (47 species and subspecies) Lungless salamanders Various Various Require moist, cool forest habitat with well-developed layer of leaf litter and debris. Do not tolerate loss of canopy. Low mobility. Oak Toad NP C Longleaf pine community; requires large areas of suitable habitat Pine Barrens Treefrog NP C Longleaf pine community Cope s Gray Treefrog LH, UH C,P,M Gray Treefrog LH, UH P Ornate Chorus Frog NP, MPH C Longleaf pine community; requires large areas of suitable habitat; ephemeral pond breeder Carolina Gopher Frog NP C Longleaf pine community; requires large areas of suitable habitat; ephemeral pond breeder Wood Frog MPH, UH M Ephemeral pond breeder

58 Table 19. Expected impact of changes in forest habitat for birds of conservation concern ( ) in the Coastal Plain Region. Species are organized by forest landsacpe and "Partners in Flight" status. The forest landscapes are "Mature Forest," for bird species found in late successional forest landscapes; and "Mosaic Landscape," for birds found in landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests. The "Expected Impact" columns show expected impact for two situations. The "Private" column shows the direction of expected impact if publicly owned land is assumed not to change size class structure. The "Overall" column shows the direction of expected impact if a policy favoring mature forests is instituted on public lands in The expected impact is "+" if potential habitat for the species is projected to increase; " " if it is projected to decrease; "?" if an assessment could not be made. The "Net Change" columns can be used to gauge the likelihood of the expected impact. "Overall" shows the overall projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests; losses are shown in parenthases. The "Private" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for privately owned forests. The "Public" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for publicly owned forests, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. The "PP" column shows the net change in area (acres) of planted pine that may be habitat for the species, if managed appropriately; this acreage was not included in the "Overall Net Change," because there are insufficent data to classify planted pine by management intensity. Projected changes in area of potential habitat are not to be taken literally, but rather as an indicator of the magnitude of the expected impact. The remaining columns provide information about the habitat used by each species. LH=Lowland Hardwood; UH=Upland hardwood; MPH=Mixed pine-hardwood; NP=Naturally regenerated pine; PP=Planted pine; L=late successional landscape; M=landscape with a mixture of late and early successional forests. An entry in a forest type column indicates that the species uses that forest type. The first entry is for the direction of change in private lands, the second for direction of change in public lands. A "+" indicates that the amount of potential habitat increases; a " " indicates that the amount of potential habitat decreases; a zero indicates no change; and "X" indicates that an assessment could not be made. The Planted Pine column carries an indication of the intensity of management appropriate for the species: A=All; H=high; L=low; M=medium. Patchily distributed species (Tables 12-16) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. They are shown in the table with an asterisk (*) after the species name, a "?" in the expected impact, and an "X" in the appropriate habitat.

59 Table 19 (continued). Coastal Plain Region bird species of conservation concern. Partners in Flight Status / Species Expected Impact Priv ate Over all Net Change (acres) Overall Private Public PP MATURE FOREST Extremely High Priority Black-throated Green Warbler*????? X Bachman's Sparrow (565,063) (618,655) 53, ,605 + H Cerulean Warbler (*)????? X Red-cockaded Woodpecker (565,063) (618,655) 53,592 + Swainson's Warbler (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + LH- L LH- M UH- L UH- M MP H-L MP H-M NP -L NP -M PP- L PP- M High Priority Acadian Flycatcher (745,623) (779,255) 33, , L Bald Eagle (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + Brown-headed Nuthatch (565,063) (618,655) 53, ,605 + All Eastern Wood-Pewee (1,310,686) (1,397,910) 87, , All Hooded Warbler (745,623) (779,255) 33, , L Kentucky Warbler (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + Lousiana Waterthrush (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + Northern Parula (607,121) (636,293) 29, Prothonatary Warbler (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + Wood Thrush (745,623) (779,255) 33, , L Worm-eating Warbler (745,623) (779,255) 33, , L Yellow-throated Vireo (321,490) (332,854) 11, Moderate Priority Black-and White Warbler (562,635) (589,363) 26,

60 Partners in Flight Status / Species Expected Impact Priv ate Over all Net Change (acres) Overall Private Public PP Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + Ovenbird (745,623) (779,255) 33, Summer Tanger (1,310,686) (1,397,910) 87, , All Yellow-throated Warbler (424,133) (446,401) 22, ,605 + All LH- L LH- M UH- L UH- M MP H-L MP H-M NP -L NP -M PP- L PP- M Local or Regional Interest Great Crested Flycatcher (1,310,686) (1,397,910) 87, , All Mississippi Kite (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + Pileated Woodpecker (745,623) (779,255) 33, Red-eyed Vireo (745,623) (779,255) 33, , L Yellow-billed Cuckoo (745,623) (779,255) 33, , L MOSAIC FOREST High Priority American Woodcock , ,822 (17,222) + Northern Bobwhite , ,462 (30,569) (45,810) + All Prairie Warbler (295,034) (279,078) (15,956) (45,810) M Moderate Priority Eastern Towhee , ,577 (69,548) + + Gray Catbird , ,577 (69,548) + + Orchard Oriole , ,399 (45,349) + Whip-poor-will , ,577 (69,548) + + Local or Regional Interest Chuck-will's-widow ,429 97,755 (52,326) + Common Yellowthroat , ,577 (69,548) + +

61 Partners in Flight Status / Species Expected Impact Net Change (acres) LH- L LH- M UH- L UH- M MP H-L MP H-M NP -L NP -M PP- L PP- M Priv ate Over all Overall Private Public PP White-eyed Vireo , ,577 (69,548) + Willow Flycatcher , ,822 (17,222) + Yellow-breasted Chat , ,577 (69,548) +

62 Table 20. Expected impact of changes in forest habitat for birds of conservation concern ( ) in the Piedmont Region. Species are organized by forest landsacpe and "Partners in Flight" status. The forest landscapes are "Mature Forest," for bird species found in late successional forest landscapes; and "Mosaic Landscape," for birds found in landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests. The "Expected Impact" columns show expected impact for two situations. The "Private" column shows the direction of expected impact if publicly owned land is assumed not to change size class structure. The "Overall" column shows the direction of expected impact if a policy favoring mature forests is instituted on public lands in The expected impact is "+" if potential habitat for the species is projected to increase; " " if it is projected to decrease; "?" if an assessment could not be made. The "Net Change" columns can be used to gauge the likelihood of the expected impact. "Overall" shows the overall projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat, assuming a policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests; losses are shown in parenthases. The "Private" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for privately owned forests. The "Public" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for publicly owned forests, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. Projected changes in area of potential habitat are not to be taken literally, but rather as an indicator of the magnitude of the expected impact. The remaining columns provide information about the habitat used by each species. LH=Lowland Hardwood; UH=Upland hardwood; MPH=Mixed pine-hardwood; NP=Naturally regenerated pine; L=late successional landscape; M=landscape with a mixture of late and early successional forests. An entry in a forest type column indicates that the species uses that forest type. The first entry is for the direction of change in private lands, the second for direction of change in public lands. A "+" indicates that the amount of potential habitat increases; a " " indicates that the amount of potential habitat decreases; a zero indicates no change; and "X" indicates that an assessment could not be made. Patchily distributed species (Tables 12-16) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. They are shown in the table with an asterisk (*) after the species name, a "?" in the expected impact, and an "X" in the appropriate habitat. Insufficient data were available to assess the value of planted pine as habitat. Planted pine acreage is projected to increase from 444,298 acres to 702,890 acres on private land and may mitigate some of the negative impacts, depending upon how it is managed.

63 Table 20 (continued). Piedmont Region bird species of conservation concern. Partners in Flight Status / Species Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Private Overall Overall Private Public MATURE FOREST Extremely High Priority Red-cocaked Woodpecker (*)????? X LH-L LH- M UH-L UH- M MPH- L MPH- M NP- L NP- M High Priority Acadian Flycatcher + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Bald Eagle + + 4,843 4, Brown-headed Nuthatch (180,698) (188,517) 7,819 + Eastern Wood-Pewee (164,903) (193,237) 28, Hooded Warbler + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Kentucky Warbler + + 4,843 4, Lousiana Waterthrush + + 4,843 4, Northern Parula (32,896) (38,161) 5, Prothonatary Warbler + + 4,843 4, Wood Thrush + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Worm-eating Warbler + 10,952 (9,563) 20, Yellow-throated Vireo + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Moderate Priority Black-and White Warbler ,534 38,284 15, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher + + 4,843 4, Ovenbird + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Scarlet Tanager + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Summer Tanger (164,903) (193,237) 28, Yellow-throated Warbler + + 4,843 4,

64 Partners in Flight Status / Species Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Private Overall Overall Private Public Local or Regional Interest Blue-headed Vireo + 10,952 (9,563) 20, Broad-winged Hawk ,691 33,441 15, Great Crested Flycatcher + + (164,903) (193,237) 28, Pileated Woodpecker + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Red-eyed Vireo + 15,795 (4,720) 20, Yellow-billed Cuckoo + 15,795 (4,720) 20, LH-L LH- M UH-L UH- M MPH- L MPH- M NP- L NP- M MOSAIC LANDSCAPE High Priority American Woodcock + + 9,021 9, Northern Bobwhite ,216 41,895 (1,679) + Prairie Warbler (514,292) (506,976) (7,316) Moderate Priority Eastern Towhee (333,594) (318,459) (15,135) +0 + Gray Catbird (333,594) (318,459) (15,135) +0 + Orchard Oriole (342,615) (327,480) (15,135) + Whip-poor-will (333,594) (318,459) (15,135) +0 + Local or Regional Interest Chuck-will's-widow (342,615) (327,480) (15,135) + Common Yellowthroat (333,594) (318,459) (15,135) +0 + White-eyed Vireo (333,594) (318,459) (15,135) +0 + Yellow-breasted Chat (333,594) (318,459) (15,135) +0 +

65 Table 21. Expected impact of changes in forest habitat for birds of conservation concern ( ) in the Mountain Region. Species are organized by forest landsacpe and "Partners in Flight" status. The forest landscapes are "Mature Forest," for bird species found in late successional forest landscapes; and "Mosaic Landscape," for birds found in landscapes with a mixture of late and early successional forests. The "Expected Impact" columns show expected impact for two situations. The "Private" column shows the direction of expected impact if publicly owned land is assumed not to change size class structure. The "Overall" column shows the direction of expected impact if policy favoring mature forests is instituted on public lands in The expected impact is "+" if potential habitat for the species is projected to increase; " " if it is projected to decrease; "?" if an assessment could not be made. The "Net Change" columns can be used to gauge the likelihood of the expected impact. "Overall" shows the overall projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests; losses are shown in parenthases. The "Private" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for privately owned forests. The "Public" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for publicly owned forests, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. Projected changes in area of potential habitat are not to be taken literally, but rather as an indicator of the magnitude of the expected impact. The remaining columns provide information about the habitat used by each species. UH=Upland hardwood; MPH=Mixed pine-hardwood; NP=Naturally regenerated pine; L=late successional landscape; M=landscape with a mixture of late and early successional forests. An entry in a forest type column indicates that the species uses that forest type. The first entry is for the direction of change in private lands, the second for direction of change in public lands. A "+" indicates that the amount of potential habitat increases; a " " indicates that the amount of potential habitat decreases; a zero indicates no change; and "X" indicates that an assessment could not be made. Patchily distributed species (Tables 12-16) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. They are shown in the table with an asterisk (*) after the species name, a "?" in the expected impact, and an "X" in the appropriate habitat. There were insufficient data to assess the contribution of lowland hardwood as habitat. Insufficient data were available to assess the value of planted pine as habitat. Planted pine acreage is projected to increase from 48,424 acres to 78,694 acres on private land and may mitigate some of the negative impacts, depending upon how it is managed.

66 Table 21 (continued). Mountain Region bird species of conservation concern. Partners in Flight Status / Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Species Private Overall Overall Private Public UH-L UH-M MPH-L MPH- M NP-L NP-M MATURE FORESTS Extremely High Priority Black-throated Green Warbler (*)????? X Cerulean Warbler , ,228 51, Northern Saw-Whet Owl (*)????? X Swainson's Warbler , ,228 51, High Priority Acadian Flycatcher , ,110 56, Blackburnian Warbler (*)????? X Black-throated Blue Warbler ,723 7,882 4, Brown-headed Nuthatch (*)????? X Canada Warbler (*)????? X Eastern Wood-Pewee ,592 63,877 62, Hooded Warbler , ,110 56, Northern Parula ,723 7,882 4, Veery (*)????? X Wood Thrush , ,110 56, Worm-Eating Warbler , ,110 56, Yellow-throated Vireo ,723 7,882 4, Moderate Priority Black-and-White Warbler , ,228 51, Black-billed Cuckoo (*)????? X Ovenbird , ,110 56, Scarlet Tanager , ,110 56,

67 Partners in Flight Status / Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Species Private Overall Overall Private Public UH-L UH-M MPH-L MPH- M NP-L NP-M Summer Tanager ,592 63,877 62, Local or Regional Interest Blue-headed Vireo????? X Broad-winged Hawk , ,228 51, Great Crested Flycatcher ,592 63,877 62, Pileated Woodpecker , ,110 56, Red-eyed Vireo , ,110 56, Rose-breasted Grosbeak????? X Yellow-billed Cuckoo , ,110 56, MOSAIC LANDSCAPE Extremely High Priority Golden-winged Warbler (*)????? X X X Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (*)????? X High Priority Blue-winged Wabler (*)????? X Chestnut-sided Warbler (*)????? X X X Northern Bobwhite (16,963) (15,546) (1,417) Prairie Warbler (*)????? X X X X Ruffed Grouse (64,172) (55,056) (9,116) Moderate Priority Eastern Towhee (217,480) (148,108) (69,372) Gray Catbird (217,480) (148,108) (69,372) Orchard Oriole (*)????? X Whip-poor-will (217,480) (148,108) (69,372)

68 Partners in Flight Status / Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Species Private Overall Overall Private Public UH-L UH-M MPH-L MPH- M NP-L NP-M Local or Regional Interest Common Yellowthroat (217,480) (148,108) (69,372) Least Flycatcher (200,517) (132,562) (67,955) White-eyed Vireo (217,480) (148,108) (69,372) Yellow-breasted Chat (*)????? X X X

69 Table 22. Expected impact of changes in forest habitat for reptiles and amphibians of conservation concern that utilize late successional habitat ( ), excluding planted pine, in the Coastal Plain Region. Species associated with a specific forest type (e.g., longleaf pine) and requiring proximity to permanent water (e.g., streams, pocosins) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. The "Expected Impact" columns show expected impact for two situations. The "Private" column shows the direction of expected impact if publicly owned land is assumed not to change size class structure. The "Overall" column shows the direction of expected impact if policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. The expected impact is "+" if potential habitat for the species is projected to increase; " " if it is projected to decrease=. The "Net Change" columns can be used to gauge the likelihood of the expected impact. "Overall" shows the overall projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests; losses are shown in parenthases. The "Private" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for privately owned forests. The "Public" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for publicly owned forests, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. Projected changes in area are not to be taken literally, but rather as an indicator of the magnitude of the expected impact. The remaining columns provide information about the habitat used by each species. LH=Lowland Hardwood; UH=Upland hardwood; MPH=Mixed pine-hardwood; NP=Naturally regenerated pine. (There were insufficient data for the mountain region to project changes in lowland hardwood forests.) L=late successional landscape (sawtimber); P=poletimber. An entry in a forest type column indicates that the species uses that forest type. The first entry is for the direction of change in private lands, the second for direction of change in public lands. A "+" indicates that the amount of potential habitat increases; a " " indicates that the amount of potential habitat decreases; a zero indicates no change; and "X" indicates that an assessment could not be made. Patchily distributed species (Tables 17-18) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. They are shown in the table with an asterisk (*) after the species name, a "?" in the expected impact, and an "X" in the appropriate habitat. Planted pine sawtimber acreage is projected to increase by 425,702 acres and may mitigate some of the negative impacts, depending upon how it is managed.

70 Table 22 (continued). Coastal Plain Region, late successional reptile and amphibian species of conservation concern. Species Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Private Overall Overall Private Public LH-L UH-L MPH- L NP-L LH-P UH-P MPH- P Reptiles Striped Mud Turtle (*)????? X Spotted Turtle (424,133) (446,401) 22,268 + Eastern Box Turtle (745,623) (779,255) 33, Northern Fence Lizard (182,988) (189,892) 6,904 + Broadhead Skink (745,623) (779,255) 33, Mimic Glass Lizard (*)????? X Northern Scarlet Snake (*)????? X Southern Ringneck Snake (1,070,587) (1,109,566) 38, Corn Snake (745,623) (779,255) 33, Southern Hognose Snake (*)????? X Scarlet Kingsnake (745,623) (779,255) 33, Eastern Coachwhip (*)????? X Northern Pine Snake (*)????? X Pine Woods Snake (*)????? X Southeastern Crowned Snake (*)????? X Eastern Earth Snake (138,502) (142,962) 4,460 + Eastern Coral Snake (*)????? X Timber Rattlesnake (745,623) (779,255) 33, Amphibians Mabee's Salamander (*)????? X Eastern Tiger Salamander (*)????? X Marbled Salamander (562,635) (589,363) 26, Plethodontidae spp. (14 spp.) (1,310,686) (1,397,910) 87,

71 Species Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Private Overall Overall Private Public LH-L UH-L MPH- L NP-L LH-P UH-P MPH- P Oak Toad (*)????? X Pine Barrens Treefrog (*)????? X Cope's Gray Treefrog (562,635) (589,363) 26, Ornate Chorus Frog (*)????? X Carolina Gopher Frog (*)????? X

72 Table 23. Expected impact of changes in forest habitat for reptiles and amphibians of conservation concern that utilize late successional habitat ( ), excluding planted pine, in the Piedmont Region. Species associated with a specific forest type (e.g., longleaf pine) and requiring proximity to permanent water (e.g., streams, pocosins) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. The "Expected Impact" columns show expected impact for two situations. The "Private" column shows the direction of expected impact if publicly owned land is assumed not to change size class structure. The "Overall" column shows the direction of expected impact assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. The expected impact is "+" if potential habitat for the species is projected to increase; " " if it is projected to decrease; "?" if an assessment could not be made. The "Net Change" columns can be used to gauge the likelihood of the expected impact. "Overall" shows the overall projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests; losses are shown in parenthases. The "Private" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for privately owned forests. The "Public" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for publicly owned forests, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. Projected changes in area are not to be taken literally, but rather as an indicator of the magnitude of the expected impact. The remaining columns provide information about the habitat used by each species. LH=Lowland Hardwood; UH=Upland hardwood; MPH=Mixed pine-hardwood; NP=Naturally regenerated pine. (There were insufficient data for the mountain region to project changes in lowland hardwood forests.) L=late successional landscape (sawtimber); P=poletimber. An entry in a forest type column indicates that the species uses that forest type. The first entry is for the direction of change in private lands, the second for direction of change in public lands. A "+" indicates that the amount of potential habitat increases; a " " indicates that the amount of potential habitat decreases; a zero indicates no change; and "X" indicates that an assessment could not be made. Patchily distributed species (Tables 17-18) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. They are shown in the table with an asterisk (*) after the species name, a "?" in the expected impact, and an "X" in the appropriate habitat. Planted pine sawtimber acreage is projected to increase by 179,493 acres on private land and may mitigate some of the negative impacts, depending upon how it is managed.

73 Table 23 (continued). Piedmont, late successional reptile and amphibian species of conservation concern. Species Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Private Overall Overall Private Public LH-L UH-L MPH-L NP-L LH-P UH-P MPH- P Reptiles Striped Mud Turtle????? X Spotted Turtle + + 4,843 4, Eastern Box Turtle + 15,825 (4,690) 20, Northern Fence Lizard (37,709) (42,974) 5,265 + Broadhead Skink + 15,825 (4,690) 20, Northern Ringneck Snake (152,754) (166,210) 13, Southern Ringneck Snake (152,754) (166,210) 13, Corn Snake + 15,825 (4,690) 20, Scarlet Kingsnake + 15,825 (4,690) 20, Eastern Earth Snake ,691 33,441 15, Timber Rattlesnake + 15,825 (4,690) 20, Amphibians Marbled Salamander ,534 38,284 15, Mole Salamander ,534 38,284 15, Spotted Salamander ,534 38,284 15, Plethodontidae spp. (16 spp.) (164,873) (193,207) 28, Cope's Gray Treefrog ,534 38,284 15, Gray Treefrog ,534 38,284 15,

74 Table 24. Expected impact of changes in forest habitat for reptiles and amphibians of conservation concern that utilize late successional habitat ( ), excluding planted pine, in the Mountain Region. Species associated with a specific forest type (e.g., longleaf pine) and requiring proximity to permanent water (e.g., streams, pocosins) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. The "Expected Impact" columns show expected impact for two situations. The "Private" column shows the direction of expected impact if publicly owned land is assumed not to change size class structure. The "Overall" column shows the direction of expected impact assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. The expected impact is "+" if potential habitat for the species is projected to increase; " " if it is projected to decrease. The "Net Change" columns can be used to gauge the likelihood of the expected impact. "Overall" shows the overall projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests; losses are shown in parenthases. The "Private" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for privately owned forests. The "Public" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for publicly owned forests, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. Projected changes in area are not to be taken literally, but rather as an indicator of the magnitude of the expected impact. The remaining columns provide information about the habitat used by each species. UH=Upland hardwood; MPH=Mixed pine-hardwood; NP=Naturally regenerated pine. (There were insufficient data for the mountain region to project changes in lowland hardwood forests.) L=late successional landscape (sawtimber); P=poletimber. An entry in a forest type column indicates that the species uses that forest type. The first entry is for the direction of change in private lands, the second for direction of change in public lands. A "+" indicates that the amount of potential habitat increases; a " " indicates that the amount of potential habitat decreases; a zero indicates no change. Planted pine sawtimber acreage is projected to increase by 26,058 acres on private lands and may mitigate some of the negative impacts, depending upon how it is managed.

75 Table 24 (continued). Mountain Region, late successional reptile and amphibian species of conservation concern. Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Species Private Overall Overall Private Public UH-L MPH- L NP-L UH-P MPH- P Reptiles Eastern Box Turtle , ,110 56, Northern Ringneck Snake + 30,599 (37,356) 67, Timber Rattlesnake , ,110 56, Amphibians Marbled Salamander , ,228 51, Mole Salamander , ,228 51, Spotted Salamander , ,228 51, Plethodontidae spp. (41 spp.) ,592 63,877 62, Cope's Gray Treefrog , ,228 51, Wood Frog , ,110 56,

76 Table 25. Expected impact of changes in forest habitat for reptiles of conservation concern that utilize early successional habitat in a forested landscape ( ), excluding planted pine, for Scenario 20 (decreasing total area of private forest land). Species are organized by region. Species associated with a specific forest type (e.g., longleaf pine) and requiring proximity to permanent water (e.g., streams, pocosins) were excluded from this analysis, because the data lack sufficient detail. The "Expected Impact" columns show expected impact for two situations. The "Private" column shows the direction of expected impact if publicly owned land is assumed not to change size class structure. The "Overall" column shows the direction of expected impact assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. The expected impact is "+" if potential habitat for the species is projected to increase; " " if it is projected to decrease. The "Net Change" columns can be used to gauge the likelihood of the expected impact. "Overall" shows the overall projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests; losses are shown in parenthases. The "Private" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for privately owned forests. The "Public" column shows the net projected change in area (acres) of potential habitat for publicly owned forests, assuming policy favoring mature forests is instituted on publicly owned forests. Projected changes in area are not to be taken literally, but rather as an indicator of the magnitude of the expected impact. The remaining columns provide information about the habitat used by each species. UH=Upland hardwood; MPH=Mixed pine-hardwood; NP=Naturally regenerated pine. (There were insufficient data for the mountain region to project changes in lowland hardwood forests.) L=late successional landscape (sawtimber); P=poletimber. An entry in a forest type column indicates that the species uses that forest type. The first entry is for the direction of change in private lands, the second for direction of change in public lands. A "+" indicates that the amount of potential habitat increases; a " " indicates that the amount of potential habitat decreases; a zero indicates no change. Planted pine seedling / sapling acreage is projected to decline by 26,930 acres on private lands. Planted pine seedling / sapling acreage is projected to increase by 4,283 acres on private lands and may mitigate some of the negative impacts, depending upon how it is managed.

77 Table 25 (continued). Overall impact on reptile species of conservation concern utilizing early successional habitat in forested landscapes. Expected Impact Net Change (acres) Species Private Overall Overall Private Public LH-M UH-M MPH- M NP-M Coastal Plain Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake , ,462 (30,569) + Mountains Eastern Milksnake (149,525) (148,108) (69,370) N/A

78 Table 26. Summary of potential impacts on bird, reptile, and amphibian species of conservation concern, Approximately 200 breeding bird species, 80 reptile species, and 90 amphibian species are known to occur in North Carolina. This table summarizes the private land and overall impacts (including public lands) detailed in Tables The number of species evaluated for each region is shown, along with the number of species for which projected habitat changes would have a positive, negative, or unknown impact. "Positive impact" means that habitat for the species is projected to increase during the projection period; "negative impact" means that habitat is projected to decline; "unknown impact" means we were unable to assess the direction of change. Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Private Overall Private Overall Private Overall Birds Species considered (1) Species evaluated (2) Positive impact Negative impact Unknown impact Reptiles Species evaluated Positive impact Negative impact Unknown impact Amphibians Species evaluated (3) Positive impact * 46* Negative impact 16* 16* 16* 16* 0 0 Unknown impact (1) We considered breeding species that could be impacted by changes in forest composition and size class distribution. We did not consider waterbirds (e.g., terns, gulls, herons), ocean birds, or birds that flourish in urban and suburban areas. (2) We did not evaluate species that are extremely rare, distributed patchily, or restricted to certain ranges of elevations, because our data were too coarse to assess changes in their habitat. (3) All 47 species and subspecies of Plethodontidae (lungless salamanders) were examined; 14 occur in the Coastal Plain, 16 in the Piedmont, and 41 in the Mountains. * Includes all Plethodontid species that occur in the region.

79 Figure Captions Figure 1. (a) Statewide area (acres) of each forest management type by size class. (b) Statewide percent change in area of each forest management type by size class. Figure 2. Percent change in area of forest in each size class, by management type, region, and statewide. Lowland hardwood is not reported for the Mountains, because of insufficient sample size. Figure 3. Initial (1990) and final (2020) area of forest in each size class, by management type, region, and statewide. Lowland hardwood is not reported for the Mountains, because of insufficient sample size. Figure 3A. Projected area (acres) of seedling / sapling and sawtimber size class privately owned forests, by management type, for the simulation period ( ). A separate graph is shown for the Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountain regions. Figure 4. Sensitivity of the model to three parameters: the rate of increase in planted pine productivity, the rate of increase in planted pine acres, and harvest level. Each parameter was changed + 10%. Sensitivities are shown by management type for (a) total area in each management type, and (b) area by size class for each management type. Figure 5. Sensitivity of the model to three parameters: the rate of increase in planted pine productivity, the rate of increase in planted pine acres, and harvest level. Each parameter was changed + 10%. Sensitivities are shown by management type for each region and size class. Figures 6-7. Forest fragmentation at two scales: 18 acres (Figure 6) and 1,460 acres (Figure 7). These maps were produced using Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium data. The MRLC data are based on Thematic Mapper satellite data from the early 1990's with a pixel resolution of 0.22 acres (30 meters x 30 meters). The data were simplified to forest and non-forest cover. Forest cover includes all woody vegetation mapped in the MRLC data: deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest; deciduous, evergreen, and mixed shrubland; and woody wetland. The maps answer the following question: "If I am standing in a forested pixel, what is the characteristic of the landscape in

80 the surrounding 18 acre square (Figure 6) and the surrounding 1,460 acre square (Figure 8)?" The answer depends on the proportion of forest in the square and the spatial configuration of the non-forest cover. Proportion of Forest Spatial Configuration of Non-Forest Forest Fragmentation Category 100% Interior 60% and <100% Scattered Perforated Clumped Edge 40% and <60% Transitional <40% Patchy Maps courtesy of Kurt Riitters, US Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division, Raleigh, NC.

81 Figure 1. (a) Statewide area (acres) of each forest management type by size class. (b) Statewide percent change in area of each forest management type by size class. State Totals Acres 1990 Acres Planted Pine Natural Pine Mixed Pine Hardwood Upland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood State Totals Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Planted Pine Natural Pine Mixed Pine- Hardwood Upland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood

82 Figure 2. Percent change in area of forest in each size class, by management type, region, and statewide. Lowland hardwood is not reported for the mountains, because of insufficient sample size Planted Pine Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber -50 Southern Coastal Plain Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains 100 Natural Pine Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Southern Coastal Plain Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains

83 Southern Coastal Plain Mixed Pine-Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber 30 Upland Hardwood Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Southern Coastal Plain Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains

84 Southern Coastal Plain Lowland Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber

85 Figure 3. Initial (1990) and final (2020) area of forest in each size class, by management type, and region. Lowland hardwood is not reported for the mountains, because of insufficient sample size Southern Coastal Plain Planted Pine Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains 1990 Acres 2020 Acres Southern Coastal Plain Natural Pine Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains 1990 Acres 2020 Acres

86 Southern Coastal Plain Mixed Pine-Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains 1990 Acres 2020 Acres Upland Hardwood 1990 Acres 2020 Acres Southern Coastal Plain Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains

87 Southern Coastal Plain Lowland Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont 1990 Acres 2020 Acres

88 Figure 3A(1). Coastal Plain Region. Projected area (acres) of seedling / sapling and sawtimber size class privately owned forests, by management type, for the simulation period ( ). 1,200 Seedling / Sapling Acres x 1,000 1, Lowland Hardwood Upland Hardwood Mixed Pine-Hardwood Natural Pine Planted Pine Year Acres x 1,000 Sawtimber 1,400 1,200 1, Year Lowland Hardwood Upland Hardwood Mixed Pine-Hardwood Natural Pine Planted Pine

89 Figure 3A(2). Piedmont Region. Projected area (acres) of seedling / sapling and sawtimber size class privately owned forests, by management type, for the simulation period ( ) Seedling / Sapling Acres x 1, Year Lowland Hardwood Upland Hardwood Mixed Pine-Hardwood Natural Pine Planted Pine Sawtimber Acres x 1,000 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Year Lowland Hardwood Upland Hardwood Mixed Pine-Hardwood Natural Pine Planted Pine

90 Figure 3A(3). Mountain Region. Projected area (acres) of seedling / sapling and sawtimber size class privately owned forests, by management type, for the simulation period ( ). Seedling / Sapling Acres x 1, Year Upland Hardwood Mixed Pine-Hardwood Natural Pine Planted Pine Sawtimber Acres x 1,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Year Upland Hardwood Mixed Pine-Hardwood Natural Pine Planted Pine

91 Figure 4. Sensitivity of the model to three parameters: the rate of increase in planted pine productivity, the rate of increase in planted pine acres, and harvest level. Each parameter was changed + 10%. Sensitivities are shown by management type for (a) total area in each management type, and (b) area by size class for each management type. 0.6 Statewide Planted Pine Natural Pine Mixed Pine- Hardwood Upland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood Pine Productivity Pine Conversion Harvest Level Planted Pine Natural Pine Statewide Mixed Pine- Hardwood Upland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood Pine Productivity Pine Conversion Harvest Level

92 Figure 5. Sensitivity of the model to three parameters: the rate of increase in planted pine productivity, the rate of increase in planted pine acres, and harvest level. Each parameter was changed + 10%. Sensitivities are shown by management type for each region and size class Southern Coastal Plain Planted Pine Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Pine Productivity Pine Conversion Harvest Level Southern Coastal Plain Natural Pine Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Pine Productivity Pine Conversion Harvest Level

93 Southern Coastal Plain Mixed Pine-Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Pine Productivity Pine Conversion Harvest Level Southern Coastal Plain Upland Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountains Pine Productivity Pine Conversion Harvest Level

94 Southern Coastal Plain Lowland Hardwood Northern Coastal Plain Piedmont Pine Productivity Pine Conversion Harvest Level

95 Figure 6. Forest fragmentation at the 18 acre scale Forest Fragmentation Category Interior Edge Perforation Transition Patchy Non forest

96 Figure 7. Forest fragmentation at the 1,460 acre scale Forest Fragmentation Category Interior Edge Perforation Transition Patchy Non forest