Third Montane Longleaf ConferenceProceedings

March 11-12, 2008

School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn University, Alabama

Longleaf Alliance Report No. 13

Proceedings of the Third Montane Longleaf

Conference

March 11-12, 2008

School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Auburn University, AL

Kush, J.S. and S.M. Hermann, (comps.). 2008. Proceedings of the Third Montane Longleaf Conference; March 11-12, 2008, Auburn University, AL. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 13.

ii

iii

3RD MONTANE LONGEAF CONFERENCE AGENDA March 11-12, 2008

March 11th - Room 1101 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Building, Auburn, AL 7:45 a.m. - Registration and Breakfast Moderator Morning Session: Dr. John Kush, Conference Co-Organizer 8:30 a.m. - Dr. Richard Brinker, Dean School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Welcome 8:40 a.m. - Dr. Dean Gjerstad, Auburn University Announcements and Introduction 9:00 a.m. - Mr. John McGuire, Westervelt Ecological Services Further Segregation of Montane Longleaf Pine Communities 9:40 a.m. - Dr. Sharon Hermann, Auburn University

Overview of Fire in Longleaf Pine Forests North of the Fall Line: What We Know About Past Occurrences and Future Challenges

10:00 a.m. - Mr. Tony Wilder, US Fish and Wildlife Service Burning for Longleaf from the Mountains to the Sea 10:20 a.m. - Break 10:40 a.m. - Ms. Julie Moore, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Is Montane Longleaf = Piedmont Longleaf? Does it matter what we call it? 11:00 a.m. - Mr. Robert Carter, Jacksonville State University Plant Communities of the Pine Mountain Region 11:20 a.m. - Ms. Joyce Klaus, University of Central Florida

Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles Inhabiting the Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: A Dire Need for Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management

11:40 a.m. - Dr. Marty Cipollini, Berry College The Berry College Longleaf Pine Project: Progress over the First Five Years 12:00 p.m. to 1:20 p.m. - Lunch in the Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Building

iv

Moderator Afternoon Session: Dr. Sharon Hermann, Conference Co-Organizer 1:20 p.m. - Mr. Nathan Klaus, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Effects of Hardwood Control Using Hexazinone on Mountain Longleaf

Groundcover and an Evaluation of Underplanting to Restore Longleaf Pine on Sprewell Bluff State Park and Natural Area

1:40 p.m. - Dr. Nancy Loewenstein, Auburn University

Non-native Invasive Plants in Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystems 2:00 p.m. - Mr. Bill Garland, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (retired) Longleaf Restoration in the Mountain Region-Biodiversity Challenges 2:20 p.m. - Mr. Greg Lein, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

State Lands Division Alabama’s Land Acquisition Program: Forever Wild 2:40 p.m. - Mr. James Johnson, Georgia Forestry Commission Preserving and Promoting Montane Longleaf in Georgia’s Forests 3:00 p.m. - Break 3:20 p.m. - Mr. Harry Labhart, The Westervelt Company Longleaf Pine: An Industry Perspective 3:40 p.m. - Mr. Amadou Diop, National Wildlife Federation NWF’s Southern Forest Restoration Initiative 4:00 p.m. - Mr. Todd Gartner, American Forest Foundation Market-Based Conservation Incentives for Family Forest Owners 4:20 p.m. - Ms. Katherine Eddins, Georgia Land Trust

Longleaf Restoration (mountain and coastal plain) on Conservation Easement Protected Land

4:40 p.m. - Adjourn 5:30-7:00 p.m. - Poster Session and Social at Tiger Suites (Donahue & W. Glenn)

v

March 12th - Field Tour (times are approximate) Sites at Callaway Garden Preserve and FDR State Park, near Pine Mountain, GA

7:15 a.m. CDT - Breakfast in 1101 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Building, Auburn, AL 7:45 a.m.CDT – Depart Auburn School Forestry and Wildlife Sciences 9:45 a.m. EDT – Arrive at the Barn on Callaway Garden Preserve Welcome and site overview by Ms. LuAnn Craighton and Mr. Rob Kindrick 10:00 a.m. EDT – Depart Barn for field tour on Callaway Garden Preserve

12:15 a.m. EDT – Box Lunch at Barn on Callaway Garden Preserve 1:15 p.m. EDT – Depart Barn for drive to FDR State Park 1:45 p.m. EDT – Arrive at Recent Prescribed Burn on FDR State Park Welcome and site overview by Mr. Nathan Klaus 3:30 p.m. EDT – Depart FDR State Park

vi

vii

The Preserve at Callaway Gardens

The Preserve at Callaway Gardens encompasses over 10,000 acres of forested property with 2507acres under conservation easement through Georgia’s Forest Legacy Program. Pine Mountain Ridge, one of the southern-most mountains in Georgia, is the backbone of these conservation lands. Longleaf pine grows in a variety of locations across The Preserve and one of the primary stewardship goals for this tract is to restore more Longleaf forest to the landscape. The field trip portion of the meeting included visits to three actively managed stands of different age classes on this property.

viii

ix

Table of Contents Further Segregation of Montane Longleaf Pine Communities ........................................... 1 Fire in Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Forests: an Overview ................................................ 2 Burning for Longleaf from the Mountains to the Sea ......................................................... 9 Is Montane Longleaf = Piedmont Longleaf? Does it matter what we call it? .................. 16 Plant Communities of the Pine Mountain Region ............................................................ 22 Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles Inhabiting the Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Considerations for Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management ....... 25 The Berry College Longleaf Pine Project: Progress over the First Five Years ................ 31 Effects of Hardwood Control Using Hexazinone on Mountain Longleaf Groundcover and an Evaluation of Underplanting to Restore Longleaf Pine on Sprewell Bluff State Park and Natural Area ............................................................................................................... 32 Non-native Invasive Plants in Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystems ................................ 33 Biodiversity Challenges in the Mountain Region ............................................................. 37 Alabama’s Land Acquisition Program: Forever Wild ..................................................... 44 Preserving and Promoting Montane Longleaf in Georgia’s Forests ................................. 45 Longleaf Pine: An Industry Perspective ........................................................................... 47 NWF’s Southern Forest Restoration Initiative ................................................................. 49 Market-Based Conservation Incentives for Family Forest Owners .................................. 52 Longleaf Restoration (mountain and coastal plain) on Conservation Easement Protected Land .................................................................................................................................. 53  Poster Abstracts Fire Regime of a Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystem, Alabama ...................................... 54 Effects of Restoration Prescribed Burning on Post-Fire Mortality in Relict Montane Longleaf Pine (Pinus Palustris) in Northwestern Georgia ............................................... 60 Short-Term Effects of Restoration Burning and Herbicide Treatment on Aboveground Biomass and Tree Community Structure in a Relict Mountain Longleaf Pine Ecosystem........................................................................................................................................... 61 Fire on the Mountain: Ten Years of Upland Fire and its Effects on Songbirds in the Southern Appalachian Mountains ..................................................................................... 62 Effect of Two Native Invasive Tree Species on Upland Pine Breeding Bird Communities in Georgia.......................................................................................................................... 63 Re-introduction of Fire for Longleaf Pine Forest Restoration at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park ..................................................................................................................... 64 Linking State Prescribed Fire Councils as a Coalition: A Proposal to Promote Media and Public Understanding of Rx Fire, and to Nationally Address Key Management, Policy, and Regulatory Issues ....................................................................................................... 65 Forest Structure and Plant Biodiversity of Longleaf Pine Communities in the Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 66 Influence of Forest Structure on Soil Respiration in Longleaf Pine ................................. 71 Ecological Restoration in Alabama: Montane Longleaf Pine Woodlands of the USFS Shoal Creek Ranger District ............................................................................................. 77

x

1

Further Segregation of Montane Longleaf Pine Communities John P. McGuire (Senior Project Manager; The Westervelt Ecological Services) Abstract: For the past several years, a growing interest has emerged to distinguish the restoration and management issues of mountain longleaf pine from other longleaf pine community types. In 2006, a quasi-working group informally came to the consensus that montane longleaf pine communities as those areas that are differentiated from other longleaf pine communities primarily by those elements that impact fire management, i.e., slope, weather patterns topography, etc. Unofficially, that landscape still dotted with longleaf pine and found north of fall-line in Georgia and Alabama was defined as the area encompassing mountain longleaf pine forests. However, historical evidence of this region suggests that longleaf pine covered a wide range of edaphic and topographic conditions; from steep rocky outcrops, to well-drained plateaus. This discussion will focus on historical evidence that will attempt to further segregate mountain longleaf pine in various community types. In addition, brief mention will be made of longleaf pine still found in these areas and the leading threats to its persistence.

2

Fire in Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Forests: an Overview Sharon M. Hermann1, John S. Kush1, and Johnny P. Stowe Jr.2 1 Auburn University and 2 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Abstract: This presentation considers past and future fire regimes in longleaf pine forests north of the fall line. Methods used to explore details of fire regimes in the Coastal Plain will be explored and contrasted with those applied north of the fall line. Documentation of past burns will be examined and potential outcomes of building a modern fire management program on that information explored. Included is a consideration of differences inherent in fire above and below the fall line and modifications suggested to compensate for changes related to fire exclusion. Finally factors that challenge use of fire in the modern landscape of longleaf pine forests north of the fall line will be reviewed. Introduction: Prior to extensive efforts to exclude wildland fire from the modern landscape, a few ecologists were privileged to observe the forested landscape of the Southeast under relatively natural conditions. The influential botanist and forest ecologist Roland Harper wrote: “ It can be safely asserted that there is not and never has been a longleaf pine forest … which does not show evidence of fire… and further more if it were possible to prevent forest fires absolutely the longleaf pine … would soon become extinct.” (Harper 1913). He added that, “It is almost impossible to find a longleaf forest which does not show the marks of recent fires. Some people are inclined to regard such fires as mere accidents, which are much more frequent now than they were in prehistoric times; but the multiplications of fields, roads, etc. cuts the forest into small patches, and thus restricts the area over which a fire started by lightning or any other natural cause can spread; the frequency of fire at any point in the pine woods may be no greater now than it was a thousand years ago.” (Harper 1928). Such observations are increasingly important in understanding longleaf forests in the modern landscape because almost no old-growth stands remaining, especially in the in the Montane/Piedmont part of the range (Varner and Kush 2004) and fire rarely moves over the landscape, following its own course but rather today it is applied under prescribed conditions Frequent application of prescribed fire is necessary to maintain healthy longleaf pine forests. However, details of the most appropriate burn regime in the modern landscape remain under debate and we need to learn more about this issue. Also increasing attention has been paid to the challenge of re-introducing burns to fire-excluded sites that support remnant adult longleaf (cf. Kush et al. 2004, Varner et al. 2005, 2007). To date most of the efforts to learn more about fire effects in longleaf habitats have been focused on the Coastal Plain. There are few studies on fire effects in the Montane/Piedmont region of this important forest ecosystem although some observations from the early 1900s suggest that fire was common and important in its effects (Andrews 1917). There are likely some basic truths about fire effects throughout the range of longleaf, including the Coastal Plain, Fall Line and Montane/Piedmont Regions. There also are

3

probably regional differences, but fire-effects monitoring projects are only now beginning to look for them. Before considering the often overlooked Montane/Piedmont longleaf forests, let’s review what we know about general effects of fire on the longleaf biome, keeping in mind that much of the information originates from observations and studies in the Coastal Plain. General Effects of Fire in Longleaf Forests: Prescribed fire may be applied simply as a method to reduce hazardous fuels. But many burn programs target additional benefits and these reasons are often based on the natural history of longleaf trees and longleaf associates, e.g. maintaining or creating a seed bed and open forest structure, components needed by both animal and plant species. In stands that have been frequently burned, fire: 1) rarely kills established longleaf trees, 2) consumes leaf litter, exfoliated bark and other biomass, 3) minimizes formation of duff, 4) exposes bare soil that is vital for seed germination and seedling establishment of longleaf and many other native forest plants, 5) prunes back and/or top kills small hardwood stems, 6) kills juveniles of plant species not adapted to fire; this includes off-site pines, especially loblolly, and many hardwoods such as sweetgum, tulip poplar, water oak, red maple and other species, 7) relegates some tree species to small areas (microsites) that are burned less often, 8) maintains an open canopy of longleaf over the landscape, an important feature for allowing future natural regeneration and for sustaining many native species, including bobwhite quail, red-cockaded woodpeckers, and other important vertebrate species, as well as a diverse assemblage of insects and other invertebrates. In short, frequent fire protects the integrity of longleaf pine forests by maintaining an open, park-like stand structure which in turn ensures proper species composition, and facilitates key processes – including fire itself! Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Forest Structure, Composition, and Fire: There are only scattered historical descriptions of Montane/Piedmont longleaf forests. But some of the ones we have are quite informative: 1) In 1814, General Coffee wrote a letter describing establishment of battle lines “in an open hilly woodland” prior to the Creek Wars’ battle of Horseshoe Bend in what is now Tallapoosa County Alabama. Today the site retains some residual longleaf but they are embedded in a forest dominated by hardwoods plus loblolly and shortleaf pines (Hermann and Kush 2006). 2) From the late 1800’s there are descriptions of large coveys of bobwhite quail in northwest Georgia flushing and landing more than a hundred yards away (Stowe 2004), a sight associated with open canopy forests. 3) In 1905, a forester with the newly formed US Forest Service described and photographed longleaf forests in Bibb and Coosa Counties Alabama (Reed 1905); he commented on frequent fire and forest openness, scattered non-longleaf pines (especially shortleaf) on north and east facing slopes, and also scattered hardwoods, although they were not included in the timber data, likely because they were not numerous and because pines were of primary economic interest. 4) In the early 1900s, Harper photographed representative longleaf stands throughout Alabama, including sites in the Montane/Piedmont region. His images illustrate a range of longleaf forest structure (Harper 1913, 1928). 5) In 1917, fire effects on Lavender Mountain

4

longleaf pine in Floyd County Georgia were described and photographed (Andrews 1917). Reed (1905) and Harper (1913, 1928) both indicated that non-longleaf trees sometimes shared the canopy with longleaf pines. In the modern landscape, scattered hardwoods of 150+ years old in second-growth Montane/Piedmont Longleaf stands also indicate the presence of a few canopy hardwoods prior to disruption of landscape-level burns and suggest that at least a few of these trees are not the result of modern fire exclusion (Hermann and Kush 2006). These trees include oaks (post, southern red, and chestnut) plus black gum (Hermann and Kush 2006, Varner et al. 2003a), species that are known to survive many fires as saplings and adults. This may differ from Coastal Plain Longleaf forests where these same hardwood species are present but appear to have rarely if ever reached canopy status in that part of the range of longleaf. In contrast to conventional lore, Greenberg and Simons (1999) suggested that scattered oak “domes’ many be a natural part of the Coastal Plains landscape, however the Coastal Plain sand post and turkey oaks are not likely to reach canopy status. Not only are there almost no examples of old-growth Montane/Piedmont Longleaf in the modern landscape, there is even fewer areas that have not experienced fire exclusion (Varner and Kush 2004). The Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge protects some of the rare stands that were burned throughout much of the twentieth century as a result of incendiary military activities, as well as lightning ignitions. These areas are open-canopied old-growth stands (Varner et al. 2003b) and there is documentation of scattered canopy hardwoods (Varner et al. 2003a). These observations coupled with those documenting old-growth hardwoods associated with fire-excluded second-growth (Hermann and Kush 2006) and old-growth (Kush unpublished) longleaf suggest that fire frequency and/or fire behavior in Montane/Piedmont stands may have differed from that in the Coastal Plain. Fire-Excluded Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Forests: Unfortunately most remaining stands of Montane/Piedmont Longleaf have experienced fire exclusion for up to 60-80 years. Lack of fire is often due to active fire suppression under the mistaken belief that all fire harms all forests. However, at times, fire has been lost to a stand because it has been isolated from other forested areas due to habitat fragmentation or because prescribed fire has been stopped out of concerns for smoke management and/or legal liability. The beneficial fire effects listed above apply only to stands that have frequently been burned. This is because fire exclusion results in changes to the vegetation that comprises the fuel for burning. During fire exclusion or during periods with insufficient fire frequency, Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Forest is altered by encroachment of hardwoods and non-longleaf pines, and increases in stem density that adds to canopy closure (Hermann and Kush 2006). In addition, longleaf populations decline because even though adult trees persist with no fire, there will be no recruitment and existing juveniles are likely to be out-competed without frequent burns. This is similar to the effects in open canopy forests in the Coastal Plain when fire is excluded or frequency is decreased. In the Coastal Plain there are long-term plots that illustrate the effects of burn frequency

5

and fire exclusion (cf. Hermann 1995, Waldrop et al. 1992) and that demonstrate that slight differences of just 1-2 years over many decades can result in loss of open canopy and/or hardwood persistence. To date there have been no studies on the effects of fire frequency in Montane/Piedmont Longleaf forests. However there have been observations on the some effects of fire exclusion and of re-introduction of fire in Montane/Piedmont stands. Fire Re-Introduction in Fire Excluded Stands: Re-introducing fire to stands where it has been excluded does not immediately restore the forest. Fire doesn’t work right away because of the ecosystem degradation related to fire exclusion. When the vital process of fire is taken out of a longleaf forest, species composition changes, as does the physical structure of the stand. And fire, species composition and structure all interact. Changes associated with alteration of fire regime include: 1) different plant species that create differences in fuel; hardwood leaves and/or fewer pine needles and grasses decrease fire intensity, 2) a more closed canopy that alters weather parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, and wind and thus changes fire behavior, and 3) encroaching hardwoods and non-longleaf pines that may have grown large enough to escape injury by fire. It is common for fire to kill small individuals of a certain species but not larger ones. And often stems are only “top-killed,” and re-sprout prolifically. One of the most significant changes resulting from fire exclusion is the formation of duff. Duff is an organic layer above mineral soil that is created when needles and other leaves and exfoliated bark partially decompose. Duff is not a wide-spread natural part of upland longleaf forests. However even when a stands is frequently burned duff may accumulate in small, moist pockets that only rarely carry fire, or develop at the base of large trees, especially when the fires limited to winter months. In most frequently burned longleaf stands, patches of duff are rare or non-existent. But during fire exclusion, duff forms and tree roots grow into the duff layer. As duff accumulates around trees 1) longleaf roots grow into the organic material and 2) longleaf seedlings will not have their root collars protected by mineral soil. Although duff holds moisture longer than litter, it can ignite and smolder when it dries due to drought, high ambient air temperature and/or heat produced by fire. Duff can smolder for days, consume roots, girdle trees and eventually kill even large adult longleaf. Initially smoldering duff may not be visible and is best assessed by testing for underground heat using a temperature gun or passing a bare hand just above the surface. Kush (2006) and Varner et al. (2005, 2007) reviewed the often-catastrophic results of re-introducing fire into such forests. Currently recommended burn prescriptions to minimize smoldering duff include: 1) winter fires (December-February), 2) cool air temperatures, 3) moist to saturated duff, 4) light winds, 5) a fast moving head or flanking fire, 6) a burn objective of consuming litter but not necessarily duff, and 7) as noted by Kush (2006) lots of patience. Unfortunately, we know less about site-specific success of re-introduction of fire than about almost any other topic in longleaf management. Kush (2006) and Varner et al. (2005, 2007) provide a more complete overview of the challenges associated with duff and re-introduction of fire.

6

Additional Challenges to Burning in Montane/Piedmont Longleaf: Steeper slopes and over-all more rugged terrain are obstacles not paralleled in the Coastal Plain. 1) The terrain may require using aerial ignition. 2) Smoke management may be more difficult than in the Coastal Plain due to steeper slopes, more challenging wind patterns, and/or a more dissected landscape. 3) Air quality may be a more frequent problem in the inland northern parts of the longleaf range, in part, due to fragmented terrain that may concentrate smoke that can be exasperated by excessive fuel if the site has been fire excluded. Challenges associated with smoke and air quality are amplified if site is near an urban area. Stowe (2004) described the impact that Atlanta has on prescribed fire in northeast Alabama and northwest Georgia. In the last five years, many counties surrounding Atlanta ban prescribed fires during the growing season, largely in an effort to compensate for Atlanta’s coal and vehicle-induced air quality problems, which incongruously, have nothing to do with prescribed fire. Wilder (2008) expanded on many of these topics. So Why Attempt to Re-Introduce Fire? Although re-introducing fire requires substantial commitment of time and resources, it may be worth the effort when there are residual adult longleaf on site. Adult longleaf trees take decades to grow and create habitat for wildlife. Residual trees: 1) can serve as a seed source for natural regeneration, and 2) may be even more valuable on Montane/Piedmonts sites because it may be more of a challenge to successfully plant on these sites compared to the Coastal Plain. An adult longleaf takes decades to grow from a planted seedling; that is a long time to wait for natural regeneration when there may be mature trees (and local seed sources) residing on site. Is Mimicking a Natural Fire Regime the Best Approach to Maintain Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Forests? Should we attempt to mimic a natural fire regime as we restore and maintain Montane/Piedmont longleaf forests? Sadly, we cannot …. not in the modern landscape. In the past, burns were large-scale, and moreover, they often burned during droughts and/or high winds and/or when the humidity was low. Today is not legally possible to burn under these conditions today. Burn ban conditions occur at the most likely times for much of the landscape to have burned prior to the 1900s. So it is unlikely that we will be able to replicate all components of natural fires. Even if we could replicate pre-European settlement burns in modern Montane/Piedmont Longleaf forests, we lack the information. Until recently there were few specifics on pre-European settlement fire regimes. However there are on-going efforts to learn about this topic in Montane/Piedmont sites (Bale et al. 2008, Klaus 2006). Additional information on natural fire regimes will undoubtedly be interesting and useful. However the goal of modern fire management is not to recreate the natural fire regime, but rather to recreate and maintain desired forest structure and composition. If the stand is healthy, burning alone may be sufficient to maintain forest structure and composition. Burning is the preferred forest management treatment but if fire is not adequate alone, other treatments may be required to meet the goal of restoring and/or maintaining healthy Montane/Piedmont longleaf forests. Auxiliary treatments include

7

mechanical biomass cutting and/or removal, chemical treatment of encroaching woody species, and/or logging of off-site trees. Ideally, in most stands burning eventually will be the primary management tool and auxiliary treatments will be reserved as an aid in re-introduction of fire and/or sporadically to enhance desired fire effects. It must be noted that specific parameters for guidelines on prescribed fire regimes are works-in-progress for both maintenance and restoration of Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Pine Forests (but see Wilder 2008). Take Home Messages: There are some general take home messages related to fire in Montane/Piedmont longleaf forests. 1) Unlike the Coastal Plain, Montane/Piedmont regions of longleaf pine have few stands that have not been fire excluded; the exceptions are primarily on the Mt Longleaf NWR. 2) If the goal is to maintain open forest structure and if a stand has not been fire excluded and has only minimal duff, then fire should be applied frequently enough to meet management goals; this frequency may vary by site and burn conditions. 3) If duff has accumulated, re-introduce fire slowly and carefully. 4) Not all hardwood trees and non-longleaf pines are necessarily out of place in the midstory and canopy of Montane/Piedmonts longleaf forests and some scattered trees of specific species may be “natural;” before removing any large tree, consider checking its age by extracting a core. 5) After years of fire exclusion, re-introduction of fire will not reverse ecological changes in a short amount of time. 6) Management goals are rarely, if ever, to mimic natural fire regimes but rather are to recreate and/or maintain healthy longleaf stands. 7) To meet the goal of a healthy forest, objectives related to desired forest conditions should be established, monitored to assure that fire management is meeting the objectives, and adaptive management applied. 8) It may be beneficial to use auxiliary treatments in the restoration of fire-excluded stands as well as enhancing desired fire effects for maintaining Montane/Piedmont Longleaf Pine forest. Successful re-introduction of fire and restoration of healthy longleaf stands may require many years, many burns, and perhaps additional other forest management treatments to jump-start or enhance fires. Ecosystems that were degraded over many decades can often not be restored in a few years. BE PATIENT. Literature Cited Andrews, E. F. 1917. Agency of Fire in Propagation of Longleaf Pines. Botanical

Gazette 64(6): 497-508. Bale, A.M., R.P. Guyette, and M.C. Stambaugh. 2008. Fire regime of a montane

longleaf pine ecosystem, Alabama. This proceeding (Kush, J.S., compiler) Proceedings of the Third Montane Longleaf Pine Conference, Auburn University, AL.

Greenberg, C.H. and R.W. Simons. 1999. Age, composition, and stand structure of old-growth oak sites in the Florida high pine landscape: implications for ecosystem management and restoration. Natural Areas Journal 19(1):30-40

Harper, R.M. 1913. Economic Botany of Alabama (Part 1). Geological Survey of Alabama Monograph 8. Montgomery, Alabama. 228 pages.

Harper, R.M. 1928. Economic Botany of Alabama (Part 2). Geological Survey of Alabama Monograph 9. Montgomery, Alabama. 357 pages.

8

Hermann, S.M. 1995. Stoddard fire plots: lessons for land management thirty-five years later. 1995 Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Game Bird Seminar pp. 13-20.

Hermann, S.M. and J.S. Kush. 2006. Assessment of restoration potential of residual stands of mountain (piedmont) longleaf pine at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. Pages 39-42 in (Cipollini, M.L., compiler) Proceedings of the Second Montane Longleaf Pine Conference, Berry College, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 9.

Klaus 2006. Historic fire regimes and species composition of two Georgia mountain longleaf communities. Pages 13-14 in (Cipollini, M.L., compiler) Proceedings of the Second Montane Longleaf Pine Conference, Berry College, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 9.

Kush, J.S. 2006. Burn slowly and carry a water bag: Lessons learned from 10 years of restoration burning. Pages 15-18 in (Cipollini, M.L., compiler) Proceedings of the Second Montane Longleaf Pine Conference, Berry College, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 9.

Kush, J.S., R. S. Meldahl, and C. Avery. 2004. A restoration success: longleaf pine seedlings established in a fire-suppressed, old-growth stand. Ecological Restoration 22(1):6-10.

Reed, F.W. 1905. A working plan for the forest lands in the central Alabama. USDA Forest Service, Bulletin 68, Washington, D.C.

Stowe, J. 2004. Wildlife and other Aspects of the Mountain Longleaf Pine Forests and other Ecosystems of Northeast Alabama and Northwest Georgia. Pages 1-27 in (Kush, J.S., compiler) Proceedings of the First Montane Longleaf Pine Conference. Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 7.

Varner, J.M, D.R. Gordon, F.E. Putz, and J.K. Hiers. 2005. Restoring fire to long-unburned Pinus palustris ecosystems: novel fire effects and consequences for long-unburned ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 13(3):536-544.

Varner, J.M., J.K. Hiers, R.D. Ottmar, D.R. Gordon, F.E. Putz, and D.D. Wade. 2007. Overstory tree mortality resulting from reintroducing fire to long-unburned longleaf pine forests: the importance of duff moisture. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37:1349-1358.

Varner, J.M. and J.S. Kush. 2004. Old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savannas and forests of the Southeastern USA: status and threats. Natural Areas Journal 24(2):141-149.

Varner, J.M., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2003a Vegetation of frequently burned old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savannas on Choccolocco Mountain, Alabama, USA. Natural Areas Journal 32(1):43-52.

Varner, J.M., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2003b. Structural characteristics of frequently-burned old-growth longleaf pine stands in the mountains of Alabama. Castanea 68(3):211-221.

Waldrop, T.A., D.L. White, and S.M. Jones. 1992. Fire regimes for pine-grassland communities in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 47:195-210.

Wilder, T. 2008. Burning for Longleaf from the Mountains to the Sea. This proceeding (Kush, J.S., compiler) Proceedings of the Third Montane Longleaf Pine Conference, Auburn University, AL.

9

Burning for Longleaf from the Mountains to the Sea

Tony Wilder (Fire Management Officer, USFWS, MS Sandhill Crane NWR, Gautier, MS)

I. Introduction The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service manages longleaf pine at several refuges throughout the southeast. Prescribed fire is the major tool used for restoration and maintenance of longleaf sites. Approximately 38,000 acres of longleaf habitat is burned on a regular basis throughout the region. This is an attempt to present planning and operational considerations such as prescription elements, constraints, challenges and opportunities faced by refuge fire management personnel at all refuge units but in particular the Mountain Longleaf NWR and the MS Sandhill Crane NWR. It is hoped that other fire practioners can learn from the Service’s experiences in developing fire behavior, weather, and operational parameters in planning and implementing their own burns. II. Challenges A. Write a Prescription That Reflects Management Direction Presently all major federal fire management agencies use the same Interagency Prescribed Fire Template for all prescribed burns. This template is over 25 pages in length and addresses a multitude of elements. These elements have found their way into the plan over the last 30 years as government response to mishaps and tragedies occurring on prescribed fires from the Mack Lake Fire to the Cerro Grande Fire. For state and local agencies and organizations the plan should address specific policy items and direction that the agency is legally responsible to support or endorse. For all prescribed fire practioners including the small private landowner the burn plan must support the direction given by an overall land management plan. Lands managed primarily for timber production and economic values will have a different direction from lands managed primarily for more intrinsic values such as watershed protection, ecological stewardship and endangered species or wildlife management. This direction will affect certain prescription elements such as seasonality of burning, intensity of the fire and certain pre-fire treatments to protect values within the burn unit. Every unit of managed land should have a general land management plan that the prescribed fire plan should be tiered from. Fire is a tool to be used to accomplish pre determined objectives. Don’t burn unless there are clear objectives to achieve. Don’t make prescription windows so tight that you can never get the weather or resources required to implement the burn.

B. Have precise objectives which are measurable

Always have simple, easy to define objectives that can measured. Examples of measurable objectives would include the following:

10

• Percent per acre of un-wanted pine, hardwood stems or brush component that would be top-killed by the fire

• Measureable amount of litter to be removed from the forest floor. • Presence of herbaceous plants and grasses along a transect as opposed to presence

of woody plants • Estimates of acceptable crown scorch or bole scorch per tree (burn severity) • Estimates per acre of longleaf seedlings which exhibit height growth following

the burn. • If the objective is to prepare a seed bed for longleaf regeneration then set an

objective of X amount of bare soil over a certain percentage of the unit. Follow Best Management Practices for your state or county to protect against excessive erosion if burning on steeper slopes. Use accepted soil conservation guidelines to help determine an acceptable amount of bare soil by slope class.

Not every objective can be measured immediately following the burn and it will be necessary to visit the burn unit one or more times in the year following the burn to determine the success of the effects. Remember that not all objectives can be achieved by one burn and multiple burns will need to be implemented and monitored to determine the effectiveness of the overall prescribed fire program for the land being managed. III. Constraints Thirty years ago prescribed burning was a much simpler task to accomplish than it is today. It was not uncommon to light fire until all exterior lines were secure and then go home for the night while the fire backed and flanked until it burned itself out sometime in the early morning hours or the next day. There were few four lane roads through our lands and even less urban interface. However, in this day and time there are many tracts of land now have developments nearby or endangered species concerns which have added much complexity to the very simple task of dropping a match on the ground.

A. Smoke management No matter what the size of the burn being planned always go through the smoke screening process approved for whatever state the where the burn is being conducted. While virtually all of the smoke produced during the ignition phase of the burn moves off with the surface and transport wind virtually all of the smoke produced during the smoldering phase of the fire stays on or near the burn unit overnight. This smoke is then subject to movement by local winds which are generally light but have to ability to move the smoke off the burn unit and onto adjacent roads and neighborhoods. Even if the burn is conducted in remote areas with few houses there is a possibility that a local resident could suffer from a respiratory ailment and be particularly susceptible to smoky conditions.

B. Urban Interface While smoke is a major impact on the urban interface another is the risk of a prescribed fire escaping the control line and impacting developed areas. When preparing a prescription the planner should not only be aware of fuel conditions within the burn unit

11

but also the amount and type of burnable vegetation on adjacent lands and potential locations to stop any escapes from the prescribed burn.

C. Wildlife and Endangered Species Coordination Several key endangered species in the South are endangered due to a lack of fire rather than to an over abundance of fire. Some examples are red-cockaded woodpecker, MS sandhill crane, gopher tortoise, indigo snake and gopher frog. However, since these animals have been forced to the edge of extinction fire must be applied judiciously to their ranges so that their nesting and rearing activities are not disturbed. Likewise, nesting game animals and neo-tropical migrant birds can be adversely affected by burning during the wrong season or with a fire of to high of intensity. Nesting and brooding areas of key wildlife species should be documented on a map and in the body of the plan with coordination measures listed and discussed in the body of the prescription. It may be necessary to treat a nesting area separately or to take extra precautions to protect nest trees or snags.

D. Old Age Trees Many times the old standard longleaf trees themselves become a constraint in the prescription process. Old growth trees which have not been burned in several years may have a large accumulation of duff around the base of the tree. This organic matter will tend to ignite and burn hot enough and long enough to girdle the tree. Also fire of sufficient intensity may cause crown scorch and needle loss. If a majority of the crown is discolored or lost then there is a good chance the tree will die. Burning with moderate to high fire intensity when trees are candling will also increase the chance of tree mortality. IV. Determine Prescription Elements Writing fire prescriptions is both a science and an art. The science comes from the understanding of the various elements of meteorology, woody plant physiology, fire physics, sociology and management to name just a few. The art of prescribing fire as a treatment comes from determining what value ranges of these elements will accomplish the predetermined objectives of the burn. The ranges of the prescribed elements must be wide enough to allow for a sufficient number of calendar days to accomplish the burn objectives but narrow enough that an acceptable day will not allow over achievement of the objectives. A necessary tool for preparing prescriptions is Behave Plus which is public domain software that can be downloaded at www.fire.org. This program accepts inputs such as described below and predicts the basic fire descriptors of flame length and rate of spread. These descriptors can then be related to fire effects and used to determine if the objectives of the burn were accomplished.

12

A. Fuel Model Fuel models describe the general nature of the vegetation of typical fuel complexes to be burned in any given area. This is expressed in terms of fuel loading of both dead and live fuels in tons per acre, fuel bed depth in feet and moisture of extinction (the fuel moisture content at which a fire will burn but not spread.) There are 13 basic fuel models of which the first three are the grass group, models 4-7 are the shrub group; eight through 10 are the timber group and 11-13 represent the logging slash group. Most understory burning in pine and hardwood stands are represented by fuel model 9. Mountain longleaf stands generally fall in this model. Coastal plain longleaf with a palmetto or gallberry understory will be in fuel model 7. (Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech Rep. INT-122, 22p. For. And Range Exp. Stn. Ogden UT 84401 B. Wind speed and direction Remember that weather forecasts describe 20 foot winds. These are winds measured twenty feet above the average height of the vegetation. The winds of most interest to prescribed burn practioners are mid-flame or eye level winds. An appropriate reduction factor based on the thickness of the stand must be applied to adjust the twenty foot wind speeds to mid-flame wind speeds. For most stands of southern timber fuels a factor of 0.4 will approximate the mid-flame winds. (NWCG Firelines Handbook, Appendix B: Fire Behavior, April 2006, PMS410-2, NFES 2165) To be safe always prescribe surface (20ft) winds that blow away from the boundary with other landowners and toward your ownership. If this is not possible plan for additional resources to patrol the control line during the ignition phase and plan for mopping up further into the stand after the burn is completed. Another wind important to prescribed burners is the transport wind. This wind impacts smoke management and determines where the smoke will go once it leaves the burn unit. Again, always complete a smoke screening plan calling for the smoke column to be transported away from urban areas or improvements which are sensitive to smoke. These can include nursing homes, chicken houses, horse farms and bee hives. A rule of thumb is that any surface wind greater than 10miles an hour will shear the smoke column before it can reach mixing height and be transported away. This will cause the smoke to stay close to the surface for a longer period and impact smoke sensitive areas further down wind than a lower wind speed. C. Fuel Moisture/Relative humidity Fuel moisture is the result of past and present weather events. One hour time lag or fine dead fuels (>1/4 “diameter) are most affected by the diurnal changes in relative humidity. These fuels can change moisture within one hour of a drop or rise in relative humidity. Ten hour time lag fuels (1/4” to 1.0” diameter) can respond to changes in atmospheric moisture and approximate atmospheric conditions within 10 hours of changes in relative humidity. Both of these fuels drive the energy of the fire. They control rate of spread and flame length. One hundred hour time lag fuels (1.0-3.0 “diameter) respond to changes in atmospheric moisture slower than the finer fuels and can reach equilibrium

13

with the environment within 100 hours of changes in relative humidity. They are less important to the prescribed fire planner since they respond slower to changes in atmospheric moisture and generally will not ignite and burn at 15% moisture content or higher. It will take three nights of humidly failing to recover above 90% to cause 100 hour fuels to drop from 15% to 13%. Most broadcast understory burning is conducted with fine dead fuel moisture range of from 6-10%. Days with low relative humidities ranging from 35-50% will place the fuel in this range. For planning purposes ten hour fuels can be estimated at 1% higher than one hour fuels since their lag times are confined to less than one operational period (12 hrs). One hundred hour time lag fuel values are generally prescribed between 15 and 20% since at the lower range they are just beginning to ignite and at the higher level will not ignite and burn.

D. Flame Lengths and rates of spread

Flame length and rate of spread are the two visible fire descriptors. By observing and documenting these descriptors the prescribed fire planner can relate the success or lack of success of the planned burn. Flame length can be estimated by simply banding some trees or metal rods at one foot increments in one or more portions of the stand. The flame length which is measured from the base of the flame to the tip of the flame following the angel of the flame and not the vertical height can then be estimated to the nearest foot. Rate of spread can be estimated by marking two trees or rods a known distance apart within the stand and measuring the rate of time that the flaming front takes to travel from point A to point B. Rate of spread is estimated in chains per hour and by observing rate of spread through a representative fuel bed in feet per minute can then be easily converted to chains per hour. By recording these values the practioner can check the estimated values from the Behave run and determine if the prescribed parameters are producing the desired results. V. Implement the prescription safely. Fire management activities whether suppression or prescribed fire are inherently dangerous activities. Any burn in which all people return home alive and with all lateral appendages is a successful burn. Never cut corners on safety. Use all appropriate personal protection equipment. This includes hard hats, leather gloves, eye protection, and eight inch leather boots with vibram soles. If you are not required to use Nomex clothes then wear only 100% cotton jeans and long sleeve shirts with sleeves rolled completely down. Wool is also fire resistant. Never wear polyester garments while burning. Follow all listed safety recommendations listed for mechanized equipment. Communications between burn boss and crew and individual crew members is critical to a safe and effective burn. Burn bosses need to give clear and precise direction. A good

14

technique is to issue a command and have the recipient repeat it back. If the listener can repeat the order correctly then you know it has been received and understood. If no hand held radios are available be sure crew members are never outside of shouting distance from each other. When two or more crew members are firing interior lines they should always be in sight of each other and if that is not possible then they must be within shouting distance while firing. VI. Needed Virtues for a Prescribed Fire Manager In order to successfully manage a long term prescribed fire program on any tract of land the burn boss/land manager must possess the following virtues: A. Patience: The first day of burning season that conditions fall into prescription may not be the best day to burn. Don’t rush a critical burn unit to burn it on the cool side of the prescription. Look at the three and seven day forecast to determine if indices will rise to the point where the most objectives will be accomplished. If the objective is to convert a landscape back to a fire dependant ecosystem then a lot of fire is better than a little fire but a little fire is better than no fire at all. Likewise don’t take an unnecessary risk to burn a critical unit on the hot side of the prescription and risk ecological damage, escaped fire or smoke incident. If you have several units to burn in a season most likely all will not be burnt under optimum conditions, by necessity some will be burnt under cooler conditions because a little fire is better than no fire at all. B. Dedication When the best day arrives make burning the highest priority. Cancel meetings, social events and other tasks that need your attention. Put burning first and foremost to take advantage of the best conditions you can get. Putting fire on the landscape must dominate your life each day during burning season. Take advantage of every burn day that appears on the calendar. C. Professional Curiosity When conducting the burn never just put your head down and drag a torch. Try different firing patterns such as spots, strips, fish-hook lines etc to see how the fires behave and to what extent you can control behavior, scorch and vegetation consumption. Imagine yourself an artist and the drip torch is the paint brush and the landscape your canvas. Be sure to monitor fire behavior and immediate post-fire effects. Return to the burn unit weeks later and monitor changes is vegetation. Vary environmental parameters, firing techniques and seasonality of burns to achieve objectives. Never just burn and walk away until next year.

15

D. Persistence The worst thing about burning is that once you start you cannot stop. Prescribed fire demands a lifetime commitment. One fire will not bring about desired ecological changes. An unofficial rule of thumb is that for every year without fire on a landscape an equal number of years of fire must be applied to return the landscape to pristine conditions. While this may be an exaggeration it is true that fire is a long term fix and positive results are not always obvious until multiple burns have been accomplished.

E. Understanding that fire is not always the answer Some landscapes are so far removed from natural conditions that fire of itself will not fix the problem. Mechanical, chemical or grazing activities must be applied in order to prepare the landscape to accept fire. Also, decisions on long term land use objectives will determine whether fire is an acceptable tool to use or not. It is possible that a landscape was originally fire maintained but fire has been removed from it for so long that other plants and animals that are not fire dependent have populated the area and now are the desired component to have in place to achieve land management objectives. Fire is not a panacea but simply a tool to use to accomplish objectives that support the overall strategy for managing our landscapes. It is up to the burn boss to use it creatively and wisely.

16

Is Montane Longleaf = Piedmont Longleaf? Does it matter what we call it? Julie Moore (Region 9, US Fish and Wildlife Service) Laura Fogo (Region 4, US Fish and Wildlife Service) Abstract: Although found at lower elevations than the better known Montane longleaf forests of the Ridge and Valley region of Georgia and Alabama, the few remaining examples in the Piedmont of North Carolina are similar in composition, past land use and restoration need. This association formerly considered to be a Montane Longleaf is now recognized as the Piedmont Longleaf Forest Natural Community by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Occurring on both public and private lands, sites supporting this distinctive and uncommon longleaf community, and the imbedded seepages, boggy stream heads and upland pools, are priority conservation targets for protection, management and restoration. As these sites are effectively managed specifically for longleaf and the associated vegetation, distinguishing characteristics of the Piedmont longleaf forest community may become more apparent. Introduction Why is someone who works in Washington DC giving this illustrated talk on Piedmont longleaf? I have had a long standing interest in all longleaf communities since the 1980s and early 1990s when worked for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP) as a botanist/plant ecologist and later as a landowner contact specialist. I have been particularly intrigued with the more limited and lesser known longleaf communities. I recollect the first time I saw a longleaf stand in the Uwharries Mountains. Although over 20 years ago, I remember distinctly the trail up the steep, south facing slopes above Gold Mine Branch. Numerous scattered, head-sized, white quartz boulders contrasted with the blackened surface from a recent wildfire under a closed canopy stand of 10 to 14 inch diameter longleaf. Co-author Laura Fogo lives and works in the lower Piedmont region where this association occurs. She is working with private landowners in the area to help them maintain and rehabilitate their existing longleaf and establish new stands. She describes the area as “It’s a special place like nowhere else in the south, a transitional area where mountain species meet coastal plain species. The mighty Pee Dee and Uwharrie Rivers traverse through 500-1000 foot elevations of the ancient Uwharrie monadnock mountains. Special habitat classifications of hillside seepage bogs, upland depression swamps, xeric hardpan forests and others that host nationally significant aquatic endemics that are still present in rocky Piedmont streams, and the Piedmont longleaf forest that ties it all together.”

17

Map 1

18

Map 2

Discussion Today the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP) recognizes the natural community what was initially called Montane longleaf as Piedmont longleaf pine forest. The two maps that follow indicate the area of the Piedmont region of the state where this distinctive association is found. In Map 1, which is based on historic records and accounts, including observations by Ashe and Pinchot in 1897, transitional longleaf forests are indicated to the west of the Sandhills region. The longleaf forests are described as ‘transitional’ to distinguish them from the more expansive longleaf pine dominated forests of the inner and outer Coastal Plain. The four counties in which all currently known examples of Piedmont longleaf forest community occur are shown on Map 2. Our understanding of these ‘transitional forests’ is limited by the very few examples extant, and where they do exist, by the changes in composition of associated vegetation due to fire suppression and timber harvest. The NC NHP currently considers 16 sites to contain representative examples of the Piedmont longleaf forest natural community. The largest is less than 400 acres in extant. Of these 16, 8 are located on the Uwharrie National Forest.

19

The majority of the sites supporting this distinctive community are located in Montgomery County. In 2001, the “Montgomery County Natural Heritage Inventory” by Moni C. Bates was published describing natural areas, rare plant and animal species and natural communities including descriptions, ownership and management recommendations for numerous site including 9 with Piedmont longleaf. This single report provides the greatest amount of information to be found in a single report on the distribution, condition and composition of these few remaining Piedmont longleaf forests. In 1882, Hale recorded 80,000 acres of longleaf in Montgomery County and described the forests as follows: “The timbers of our forests are: Pine, long and short leaf, oak, hickory, dogwood, maple ash and walnut. Long-leaf pine, oak, hickory and dogwood prevail. The wooded acreage is 250,000, of which the long-leaf pine occupies about 80,000, the rest being made up by oak, hickory, and dogwood, with the other minor kinds mentioned.” John McGuire (pers. comm.) based on maps and county censuses that an estimated 49,000 acres were in Montane/piedmont longleaf. This part of North Carolina remained in native timer until the 1890 when railroads were built into the area facilitating intensive timber harvest. The frequency of ‘light wood’ stumps with “boxes” and “cat faces” attests to a density of longleaf sufficient to support a turpentine industry until about 1910. What are the characteristics that distinguish the landscape supporting Piedmont longleaf forests from those of the Sandhills and Coastal plain to the south and east? The ancient Uwharrie Mountains define the area. These 400 – 500 million year old mountains formed from ancient volcanic islands. Over geologic time erosion has exposed erosion resistant granitic rocks known as “monadnocks” which in the Uwharries range from 800 to 1000 feet in elevation. To the east of the Uwharries, the topography is less extreme with rolling to steep hills and valleys with generally flat topped ridges between major streams and the two rivers that drain the area. Though the Uwharries do not reach the elevations of western Georgia and Alabama where Montane longleaf forests are found, Piedmont longleaf stands are more similarities to Montane longleaf stands topographically, edaphically and in regard to species composition that they are to longleaf forest communities elsewhere in North Carolina. They are found at elevations ranging from 225 to 835 feet MSL. Soils are acidic and usually rocky, dry to mesic, or uncommonly, intermittently to seasonally flooded. One unusual feature of the Piedmont longleaf community is that within the pine dominated forests are imbedded wetlands associations that support plant species more typical of the Coastal Plain such as yellow trumpets (Sarracenia flava) and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) along with more widely distributed wetland species such as cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and cane (Arundinaria gigantea). A general description of Piedmont longleaf forest community based on my ‘historic’ and recent field notes and observations as well as informatin from NatureServe and the NC NHP follows. Vegetation structure in the known examples is variable and depends on frequency and recency of fire, which with few exceptions has been in frequent at best. The pine canopy, in addition to longleaf (Pinus palustris), often includes short leaf pine

20

(Pinus echinata), and sometimes includes (presumably due to reduction of historical fire regimes) Pinus loblolly (P. taeda). The canopy is open to closed and may be dominated solely by longleaf or by longleaf with a mixture of pines and hardwoods. Oaks occur as canopy or subcanopy components and may include various combinations of blsck-jack oak (Quercus marilandica),post oak (Quercus stellata), Quercus prinus, Quercus coccinea, Quercus velutina, Quercus alba, and Quercus falcata. Steep slopes and rocky conditions may have allowed patchy regeneration of longleaf even with infrequent fire events. Other characteristic subcanopy trees are black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sour wood (Oxydendrum arboreum), red maple (Acer rubrum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and mockernut and pignut hickory (Carya tomentosa and C. glabra), and sometimes flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). Following fire exclusion, the oaks and the less fire-tolerant pines increase their importance. The shrub stratum is of variable density; characteristic species include numerous blueberries and huckleberries (Vaccinium pallidum, V. arboreum, V. tenwllum V. stamenium, Gaylussacia frondosa), and horse sugar or sweet leaf (Symplocos tinctoria). Woody vines include cat brier (Smilax spp.)and grapes (Vitis rotundifolia). The herb layer may be highly suppressed following fire exclusion and canopy closure, but can be dense and grassy after fire. Characteristic species are little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), paint bursh bluestem (Andropogon ternarius), and big bluestem (A. gerardii) as well other grasses such asoat grass (Danthonia sericea, D. spicata), dwarf (Iris verna), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), fragarent goldenrod (Solidago odora var. odora), goats rue (Tephrosia virginiana) and numerous other legumes, (Clitoria mariana, Lespedeza spp., Desmodium spp.) and numerous composites (Pityopsis graminifolia var. latifolia, Coreopsis major, Silphium compositum, Parthenium integrifolium var. integrifolium, Liatris sp., and Solidago sp.) As yet only a few unusual or rare species are known to be associated with Piedmont longleaf forests. Abandoend red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees show that open pine stands were once expansive enough and frequently burned to support a population. AA federally listed plant Schweintiz’s sunflower (Heliatntus schweinitzii) has recently been found with in open areas with in one of the Piedmont longleaf sites. Today is is usually found along rail road right-of-ways or mowed road margins. With more burning it may be found at more longleraf domingated sites. Species of state interest include Piedmont indigo-bush (Amortha schwerinii) and smooth sunflower (Helianthus laevigatus) found in several at several Piedmont longleaf sites. With more frequent and all season burning, it is likely that other species of particular interest will be evident. One question I have puzzled over is whether these North Carolina examples were disjunct from the numerous longleaf communities of the Sandhills region to the east or relicts of what was once a continuous pine forest extending westward with composition of associated pines and hardwoods increasing with the change in geology and associated soils. The original vegetation undoubtedly contained several distinct types of longleaf pine-dominated communities in the Piedmont. Based on the handful of few Piedmont longleaf examples at lower elevations in Harnett and Moore Counties, some associations may have been essentially more similar to Coastal Plain communities, while others are more distinctly associated with the lower Piedmont.

21

Conservation Efforts The Uwharrie National Forest is the manager of half the sites supporting Piedmont longleaf forests which total about 2,200 acres. The largest site is about 500 acres but includes other imbedded natural communities. Restoration activities include burning and hardwood and pine removal. Prescribed fire is being applied to 350 – 500 acres annually. Over the next 15 years, 500 acres are projected to be thinned, and longleaf will be planted on about 100 acres annually. If all goes as planned, when combined with existing longleaf, 3,700 acres will support longleaf stands on this forest within 15 years. Several conservation efforts for privately owned properties are under way. The Nature Conservancy owns one site, one falls with in a state park and a power company and the Corps of Engineers manage two others. Laura Fogo, with the US Fish and Wildlife Services Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, is working with a variety of private landowners to both restore existing Piedmont longleaf sites and to plant seedlings from local seed sources. She has helped over a dozen landowners by providing technical and cost share assistance from a variety of Federal and State programs such as NRCS’s Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) and FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife grants. Through technical and financial assistance, as well as her longleaf expertise, enthusiasm and hands on experience, she helps landowners with burning, hardwood removal and planting. Private landowners have a role to play in bringing longleaf back to prominence in the lower Piedmont. Conclusion How the Piedmont longleaf forest community fits into the landscape of the lower Piedmont of North Carolina is unclear. Pine dominated forests with varying densities of longleaf may have once covered a large portion of the uplands of this region, or they may have always occurred as smaller patches on specialized sites. Based on extant sites, we do know that this community occurred on south and west slopes of rocky monadnocks, on rolling hills and also on flats underlain by wet soils. Given this diversity of conditions that support the community, in my mind’s eye, I can see a forest of longleaf in pure and mixed pine-hardwood stands covering a significant proportion of the lower Piedmont. Only as fire is reintroduced and its effects observed can the natural frequency of burning be estimated and will the diversity of associated species be revealed. In time, with regular and frequent burning, it may be possible to distinguish distinct community types within what is now called the Piedmont longleaf forest. And there is discussion of a third name has been suggested for this natural community: Interior longleaf forests. Regardless of the name with which it is identified, protection on public and private lands is crucial if we are to ever understand this now quite rare forest type. Current efforts are proving the Piedmont longleaf forest is not simply a curiosity, but a viable dynamic forest community and not simple a relict of times past. I would like to particularly thank Mike Schafale, ecologist with the NC Natural Heritage Program and Milo Pyne, Regional Vegetation Ecologist with NatureServe, for their assistance and their interest in North Carolina’s Piedmont longleaf forests.

22

Plant Communities of the Pine Mountain Region Robert Carter and Robert Floyd (Department of Biology, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL) Abstract: The Pine Mountain Range in the Piedmont of West Central Georgia, USA has remnant longleaf pine ecosystems that occupy steep slopes with shallow soils. The montane longleaf ecosystems contain an unusual species composition of coastal plain (Quercus margaretta) and Appalachian (Vaccinium pallidum) species. Within the Pine Mountain Range four landscape scale ecosystems were identified. The communities included a longleaf pine-turkey oak-goat’s rue type on steep rocky upper slopes, a longleaf pine-post oak-blackseed needle grass type on mountain tops and side slopes, a mockernut hickory-post oak-yellow passion flower type on mountaintops and moist slopes, and chestnut oak-sand hickory-Christmas fern type on steep slopes bordering ephemeral streams. The diagnostic environmental variables included elevation, landform index, percent A-horizon sand, and B-horizon Ca. Additional research seems indicate other communities including longleaf pine-heath, mixed oak-heath, and yellow-poplar-switchcane. Introduction Montane P. palustris ecosystems are found in portions of northern Georgia and Alabama. Vegetation surveys have been conducted in areas such as Forest McClellan, AL (Maceina et al. 2000) and Rome, GA (Lipps and Deselm 1969), but there have been no attempts to intensively study the interrelationship between forest communities, soils, and landform variables. The objective of the study is to identify ecological land units in the Pine Mountain Region of West Central Georgia based on the discriminating vegetation, soils, and landform features of mature forest communities. Methods The study area was Thunder Scout Reservation and Georgia Department of Natural Resources properties in Talbot, Meriwether, and Upson County, GA. The initial phase of data collection was conducted on Thunder Scout Reservation in 2003. The 2,200 acre area is owned by the Flint River Council, Boy Scouts of America and managed for outdoor recreation. The second phase of data collection was conducted on properties owned or managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The area is characterized by steep rocky slopes. In the summer of 2003, 15 plots were established in suitable forested sites. The sites were free of recent disturbance with the exception of fire. Tree, sapling, seedling, and herbaceous strata were sampled in a 20 X 50 meter plot following the Carolina Vegetation Survey protocol (Peet et al. 1998). Soils samples were collected by horizon from four locations within the plot to determine soil horizon depth and chemical and textural properties. Landform variables sampled included slope gradient, aspect, and landform index (LFI).

23

Ecological land units were delineated through ordination and cluster analysis of presence/absence data. The ordination programs employed were detrended correspondence analysis and nonmetric multidimensional scaling (McCune and Grace 2002). The hierarchical cluster analysis was through PC-ORD using Jaccard, Euclidean, and Sorenson (Bray-Curtis) distance measures (McCune and Grace 2002). Environmental variables related to the ecological units were determined through stepwise discriminant analysis and discriminant functions tested through resubstitution (SPSS 1996). An additional 30 plots were installed in the summer of 2007 following the above field protocol. Analysis of the data is in progress. Results Four landscape scale ecosystems were identified with a unique species assemblage and soil and landform characteristics (Table 1). A Longleaf pine-turkey oak (Quercus laevis)-goat’s rue (Tephrosia virginiana) type was found on steep rocky upper slopes with low Ca. Species indicative of this site include Carya pallida, Cnidoscolus stimulosus, Quercus margaretta, Q. marilandica, Prunus umbellata, Hypoxis hirsuta, Pteridium aquilinum, Hypericum hypericoides, Vaccinium pallidum and Solidago odora. A Longleaf pine-post oak (Quercus stellata)-blackseed needle grass (Stipa avenacea) type was found on mountain tops and side slopes with low Ca. Species diagnostic for this site include Carya pallida, C. tomentosa, Quercus marilandica, Baptisia tinctoria, Clitoria mariana, Euphorbia pubentissima, Hypericum hypericoides, Hypoxis hirsuta, Ipomoea pandurata, Pteridium aquilinum, Prunus umbellata, Vaccinium pallidum, Smilax glauca, and Solidago odora. Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa)-post oak- yellow passion flower (Passiflora lutea) type was found on mountain tops and moist slopes with high Ca. Species common on this site were Quercus prinus, Q. stellata,, Galium circaezans, Ipomoea pandurata, Aesculus pavia, and Lespedeza repens. Chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) - sand hickory (Carya pallida)-Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides) type was found on steep slopes bordering ephemeral streams. Species indicative of this site include Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Quercus rubra, Q. nigra, Acer rubrum, Hexastylis shuttleworthii, and Baptisia tinctoria

24

Table 1. Mean of diagnostic environmental variables for the Pine Mountain Region of West Central Georgia. Longleaf pine- Longleaf pine- Mockernut Chestnut oak- turkey oak- post oak- hickory-post sand hickory- goat’s rue blackseed oak-yellow Christmas fern needlegrass passion flower Landform 20.58 11.68 6.44 31.5 Index A Horizon 76.67 73.04 55.00 70.00 Sand (%) B Horizon P 23.59 18.69 10.90 35.43 (kg/ha) B Horizon Ca 163.43 389.13 2,505.95 599.25 (kg/ha) Elevation (m) 317.00 297.00 329.50 259.00 Based on observations during data collection in 2007, there likely are three additional communities. An oak-heath community on steep slopes above streams. Common species include Kalmia latifolia, Rhododendron minus, Quercus prinus, Acer rubrum, Oxydendrum arboreum, Magnolia pyramidata, and Hamamelis virgininana. On steep rocky slopes above the Flint River is a Longleaf pine-Heath community. Common species include R. minus, K. latifolia, Tephrosia virginian, Vaccinium pallidum, V. corymbosum, O. arboreum, Pinus taeda, and Andropogon virginicus. Along stream borders and mountain valleys was a Sweetgum-Switchcane Community. Common species included Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus alba, Arundinaria gigantea, Smilax laurifolia, Persea borbonia, Magnolia virginiana, and P. taeda. Literature Cited Lipps, E.L. and H.R. Deselm. 1969. The vascular flora of the Marshall Forest, Rome,

Georgia. Castanea 34:414-432. Maceina, E.C., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2000. Vegetational survey of a montane

longleaf pine community at Fort McClellan, Alabama. Castanea 65: 147-154. McCune, B. and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software

Design. Gleneden Beach, OR. 300 pp. Peet, R. K., T.R. Wentworth, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible multipurpose method for

recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63: 262-274. SPSS. 1996. SYSTAT 6.0 for Windows. Chicago IL. Acknowledgements This research was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from Jacksonville State University, Thunder Scout Reservation, Flint River Council, Boy Scouts of America, and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

25

Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles Inhabiting the Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Considerations for Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management

Joyce Marie Klaus (University of Central Florida)

The Montane Longleaf Pine ecosystem is a rare and understudied ecosystem, and amphibians and reptiles, collectively herpetofauna, are often overlooked taxa. To date only one study of Montane Longleaf herpetofauna has been published (Cline & Adams 1997; U.S.F.W.S. 2005). That study describes the amphibians and reptiles of Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (formerly Ft. McClellan) in northeastern Alabama and includes general descriptions of habitat for each species. Published documents are lacking for herpetofauna throughout the rest of the Montane Longleaf range and specific habitat requirements for species or suites of species are not understood, although some assumptions can be made by studying the habitat requirements for Montane Longleaf herps in other parts of their ranges. The list of documented and potential amphibian and reptile species occurring in the Montane Longleaf Pine ecosystem include species typically thought of as being fire-sensitive, Appalachian, or mesic hardwood associated species; fire-adapted, coastal plain, or xeric pinewoods associated species; as well as some widespread, generalist species. A similar pattern has been documented for plants (Carter & Londo 2006) The ability of the Montane Longleaf ecosystem to provide habitat for such a wide variety of species is one if the unique attributes of this system that makes it a worthy focus of conservation efforts. However, this same attribute makes establishing restoration and conservation goals and protocols enigmatic. Although no threatened or endangered amphibians or reptiles have been documented in Montane Longleaf habitats, there are some species of special interest. For example terrestrial salamanders of the genus Plethodon require moist microhabitats and a high density of invertebrate detritivorous prey, especially gastropods (Harper & Guynn 1999). By feeding on detritivores, salamanders maintain invertebrate diversity on the forest floor and facilitate decomposition and general ecological function of forest soils (Davic & Welsh 2004). Another example is the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) which is at the southernmost edge of its range in the Montane Longleaf of northeastern Alabama, northwestern Georgia and the Pine Mountain area of the Georgia Piedmont (John Jensen, personal communication). Such peripheral populations are important for conservation as they are often the most active sites of speciation and harbor the most genetic variation among populations; these facts may be crucial to the persistence of the species in the face of environmental stochasticity, e.g. global warming (Lesica & Allendorf 1995). Likewise, the Montane Longleaf region of northeastern Alabama is the only place where the distribution of the oak toad (Bufo quercicus) rises up out of the coastal plain (Conant & Collins 1998). One last species to take note of is the northern pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus ) which was documented adjacent to the Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (Cline & Adams 1997) and prefers dry, sandy soils throughout much of its range, but in the Montane Longleaf region occurs on xeric mountain ridges (Conant & Collins 1998). This species requires open, xeric, pine or mixed pine habitat

26

(>50% pine) with forest gaps and low shrub density (NatureServe 2008). Such habitat is maintained by regular fire and the occurrence of pine snakes may be a good indicator of successful restoration programs that include the use of prescribed burning. Fire regime and topography create a unique mosaic of habitat types within the Montane Longleaf system that can support disparate suites of species. Aspect affects moisture and temperature; north facing slopes tend to be relatively cool and moist, fuels receive less sunlight, remaining damp for longer periods and fire can be variable, ranging from complete high intensity burns to low-intensity patchy burns. Because south aspects face the sun in the northern hemisphere, they tend to be warmer and drier, fuels have more sunlight to cure and fire tends to be of higher intensity and more homogenous. In addition to aspect, slope position, landform (exposure, i.e. convexity or concavity), and proximity to spring or seep will all have influences on the communities inhabiting a given area (Carter & Londo 2006). For example fire-sensitive, Appalachian, mesic hardwood associated salamander species are more commonly found on north aspects (Harper & Guynn 1999), and salamanders of the genus Desmognathus are more abundant on wet sites while salamanders of the genus Plethodon can tolerate relatively drier conditions (Petranka et al. 1993). Fire is the key to maintaining habitat heterogeneity in the Montane Longleaf system. Regular fire maintains a pine-dominated canopy with an open understory and diverse herbaceous cover where slope, aspect and landform create pyric habitat conditions. When fire is suppressed, fire-dependent communities converge with other communities; often bottomland plants move upslope and organisms that are not fire-tolerant invade, compete with the native fire-dependent species, and change moisture, light and fuel conditions (Cowell 1998; N.A. Klaus, unpublished data). This change sets the system on an alternate successional trajectory that can be difficult to restore (Suding et al. 2004) and although remnant fire-adapted wildlife may persist for some time, these organisms may actually be in an extinction debt (time delayed but deterministic extinction) in such marginal habitat. I theorize that disparate suites of herpetofauna can coexist in the Montane Longleaf system by occupying different habitat types. If this is true, in an intact, fire-maintained system xeric, pine associated species would be found more commonly on south aspects, more exposed landforms, and higher on slopes. Streamside/spring/seep associated species would be restricted to the vicinity of water, while other species with relatively high moisture requirements that can not compete with streamside species would be found on mesic slopes with north aspects and landforms with low exposure (Fig. 1). However with fire suppression and subsequent changes in habitat, species associated with mesic sites would be able to expand their range and xeric, fire-adapted species will decline or even be lost entirely from the system (Fig. 2).

27

Generalists

N S

Streamside, ravine associates

Mes

ic, h

ardw

ood,

mix

ed p

ine-

hard

wood

ass

ocia

tes Xeric pine associates

Herps Before Fire Suppression

Figure 1. Theoretical distribution of herpetofauna in Montane Longleaf

Generalists

N S

Streamside, ravine associates

Mesic, hardwood,mixed pine-hardwood

associates

Xeric pine associates

Herps After Fire Suppression

?

Figure 2. Theoretical distribution of herpetofauna in fire suppressed Montane Longleaf Because fire-adapted species are most threatened by the current climate of fire suppression in Montane Longleaf, those species should receive priority status for conservation. There is a need for further research and monitoring so that truly adaptive management can be put into place. This means the consideration of an experimental

28

design in management plans, and carefully planned and executed surveys before and after restoration efforts are initiated. In addition a better understanding of the habitat preferences of herp species, or the establishment of a relationship between habitat types and suites of species will help with restoration efforts. That being said, we should also not neglect the other species that round out the unique variety of herpetofauna found in Montane Longleaf. Currently the three most urgent management concerns for herpetofauna in Montane Longleaf are harvesting techniques, streamside management zones (SMZ) and fire. There are two main types of timber harvesting, even-aged management and uneven-aged management that have different impacts to the landscape and to herpetofauna. Even-aged management (clearcutting) is high impact but affects a relatively small area per unit volume harvested. Clearcuts often require intensive site preparation including ripping the soil and the application of herbicide for replanting. There is a long recovery time for leaf litter and other fuels, the fire regime is greatly altered, and there tends to be a decrease in invertebrate density. These factors are detrimental to amphibians and reptiles through loss of course woody debris, soil disturbance, change in soil and leaf litter moisture and temperature and loss of prey; some examples of taxa with documented negative responses to clearcuts include Plethodon spp., Desmognathus spp., anurans, fossorial species and moisture-sensitive species (Petranka et al. 1993; Ash 1997; Harper & Guynn 1999). However many species seem to recover given enough time and some, mostly species that like open, xeric habitats like the racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) and the mole skink (Eumeces egregious) benefit from clearcuts that may mimic stand-replacing fires (Greenberg et al. 1994). The alternative to even-aged timber management is uneven-aged management, including group selection (cutting gaps) and single tree selection. The recovery time for group selection is less than that of clearcuts because recolonization distances are shorter and leaf litter accumulates more quickly. Single tree selection best maintains structural complexity, moisture and thermal conditions and leaf litter cover, but because uneven-aged management requires that logging operations infiltrate a larger area to harvest a given amount of timber, and also requires more roads and skid trails, it ultimately may be no better than clearcuts in terms of impacts to the herpetofauna. Although most people would agree that single tree selection is preferable aesthetically, which harvest method is least detrimental ecologically is a topic that needs more research. When harvesting timber most logging operations recognize streamside management zones (SMZ) as part of their best management practices (BMP). SMZ’s were established to protect water quality and prescribe a 10 m buffer zone around wetlands where habitat is left more or less intact. However SMZ’s neglect the needs of organisms that use wetlands and wetland ecotones. Biological buffer zones (BBZ’s) are extremely important for herpetofauna like turtles, snakes, lizards and amphibians that stream corridors for foraging, breeding, nesting and overwintering. Biological buffer zones should be a 140-340 m buffer, measured from the core of the wetland or center of the stream (Semlitsch 2002; Semlitsch & Bodie 2003), a drastic departure from the traditional 10 m recommended by SMZ’s. Not only does intense silviculture on wet soils destroy critical habitat for many amphibians and reptiles, the effect is long lasting due to the high level of

29

soil and hydrological disturbance. Using SMZs and BBZs, careful logging may have minimal lasting impacts to herp species, and may be critical to restore the habitat of some species. The most important factor for conservation of Montane Longleaf herpetofaunal diversity is the restoration and maintenance of habitat heterogeneity and the best tool for that job is prescribed fire. Fire restricts wetland organisms to wetlands and benefits a suite of uniquely adapted species. The enigma is how to conduct prescribed burns to preserve both the Appalachian, mesic hardwood associated species, and xeric pinewoods associated species. An additional challenge is eradicating off-site, native invasive plants, especially hardwoods that alter fire behavior. My recommendations are first to set clear ecological objectives, consider burning under a variety of conditions and use different ignition techniques to achieve the desired ecological effects. Consider topography and historical community composition when setting ecological objectives; north aspects will and probably should burn, but the fire will generally be less intense and more heterogeneous than on south aspects. Patchy burns may leave important refugia for some amphibian and reptile species. Although it seems a contradiction, under the right conditions some wetlands will burn and fire can be beneficial in wetland areas. When trying to eradicate off-site hardwoods mechanical removal or herbicide treatments may be necessary in addition to the reintroduction of fire. Although these methods can be controversial, with conservative and precise use any short-term costs to herpetofauna will be outweighed by the long-term benefits of habitat restoration. Lastly, when burning in fire suppressed pine ecosystems special consideration and care must be give to duff trees, or trees that have accumulated a deep duff layer that will burn, smolder and kill trees. It is my hope that in the future more attention will be given to Montane Longleaf amphibians and reptiles, and to the system as a whole. Not only is it a unique and rare ecosystem, but because of the steep topography and rocky soil much of it has never been farmed. The legacy of farming can add significant challenges to restoration in other longleaf systems, but the soil of much of the Montane Longleaf is still intact. This is an important factor for many amphibian and reptile species that are sensitive to soil disturbance and compaction. Montane Longleaf herpetofauna are of interest in an evolutionary sense as many species may be under selection pressure atypical to that of the rest of their range. Several populations that occur in Montane Longleaf are peripheral populations that may harbor high among-population diversity and may be cites of active speciation. In light of global climate change we should be paying special attention to Montane Longleaf as potential refugia and as source of genetic material that may be advantageous in such a stochastic environment. Literature Cited Ash, A. N. 1997. Disappearance and Return of Plethodontid Salamanders to Clearcut

Plots in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Conservation Biology 11:983-989. Carter, R., and A. J. Londo. 2006. Remnant fire distrubed montane longleaf pine forest in

west central Georgia in K. F. Connor, editor. Proceedings of the 13th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

30

Cline, G. R., and J. R. Adams. 1997. Amphibian and Reptiles of Fort McClellan, Calhoun County, Alabama. JSU Environmental Biology Program Contribution, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL 97:33.

Conant, R., and J. T. Collins 1998. Reptiles and amphibians: eastern/central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

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

Davic, R. D., and H. H. Welsh. 2004. On the ecological roles of salamander. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:405-434.

Greenberg, C. H., D. G. Neary, and L. D. Harris. 1994. Effect of high-intensity wildfire and silvicultural treatments on reptile communities in sand-pine scrub. Conservation Biology 8:1047-1057.

Harper, C. A., and D. C. Guynn. 1999. Factors affecting salamander density and distribution within four forest types in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 114:245-252.

Lesica, P., and F. W. Allendorf. 1995. When Are Peripheral Populations Valuable for Conservation? Conservation Biology 9:753-760.

NatureServe. 2008. Petranka, J. W., M. E. Eldridge, and K. E. Haley. 1993. Effects of Timber Harvesting on

Southern Appalachian Salamanders. Conservation Biology 7:363-370. Semlitsch, R. D. 2002. Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic-

breeding amphibians. Conservation Biology 16:619-629. Semlitsch, R. D., and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biological Criteria for Buffer Zones around

Wetlands and Riparian Habitats for Amphibians and Reptiles. Conservation Biology 17:1219.

Suding, K. N., K. L. Gross, and G. R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19.

U.S.F.W.S. 2005. Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Regufe Habitat Management Plan.

31

The Berry College Longleaf Pine Project: Progress over the First Five Years Martin L. Cipollini (Department of Biology, Berry College) Abstract: Since the fall of 2002, Berry College has been undertaking a combined restoration, research, and education project called the Berry College Longleaf Pine Project. This project has several key components: 1) planting containerized longleaf pine seedlings into Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) clear cuts and establishing a normal burning regime in those sites, 2) conducting hardwood control and slowly restoring a normal burning regime in relict, fire-suppressed stands containing longleaf pines up to 240 years of age, 3) establishing a local seed source via seed orchards, and 4) conducting research and public education projects commensurate with the overall goals of the management plan. So far, 160 acres of relict longleaf stands and 70 acres of SPB cuts are under management. In the last two years we have: 1) prepared and planted about 70 acres of clear cuts at about 300 trees/acre, 2) controlled hardwoods on about 170 acres, 3) conducted three prescribed burns including the second restoration burn in our old growth stands, 4) evaluated effects of fire reintroduction on adult tree post-fire mortality, fuel loading, and carbon dynamics, 5) collected seed accessions from about 50 different trees and grew about 3,500 of our own seedlings, 6) produced several dozen grafted trees in our grafted seed orchard and planted 530 of our own seedlings in a new seedling-based seed orchard, 7) updated and replaced all of our Longleaf Trail signs and produced a self-guided audio tour for this trail, and 8) worked on a public education campaign involving a video production, video and audio PSAs, an updated website (www.berrylongleaf.com), an informational brochure, and K-6 online educational materials. Summaries of the progress and future plans for each of the key management components will highlight the roles of students within Berry’s student work program, numerous volunteers, Berry’s Educational Land Management Committee, Berry’s Forestry and Land Resources Department, the Berry Longleaf Network, Southern Seed Company, and Temple-Inland. Recent external support includes grants from the National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates program (research), the Southern Company/National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Longleaf Legacy program (management), and the Georgia Forestry Commission/U.S. Forest Service Healthy Forests program (public education). Plant communities of the Pine Mountain Region

32

Effects of Hardwood Control Using Hexazinone on Mountain Longleaf Groundcover and an Evaluation of Underplanting to Restore Longleaf Pine on Sprewell Bluff State Park and Natural Area Nathan Klaus1, Lisa Kruse1 and Joyce Klaus2 (1Nongame Conservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources; 2University of Central Florida) Abstract: Hardwood invasion of mountain longleaf pine ecosystems has seriously degraded this ecosystem, causing local extinctions of keystone species, altering fire regimes, and shading longleaf pine regeneration. We evaluated two restoration tools to restore longleaf pine forests: the effects of hexazinone (Velpar-L) herbicide to control hardwood competition and underplanting longleaf pine seedlings under existing pine/hardwood canopy to restore pine diversity. Eight, one-acre plots were established using hexazinone (Velpar-L) on a spot grid at two concentrations (3.1 and 5.0 ml/spot on a 2x2 meter grid) in the spring of 2005. In Febuary of 2006 half of the treatment plots were burned. Hardwood mortality was immediate and nearly total (average 92% mortality across plots) and did not differ between herbicide concentrations or burn treatments. No herbicide drift was detected. Vegetation surveys were conducted in the fall of 2005 and fall 2006 to evaluate the impact of treatments on groundcover. Both herbicide concentrations adequately controlled hardwoods and resulted in a rapid recovery of groundcover and release of longleaf pine seedlings. Two herbaceous species, black-seeded needlegrass (Piptochaetium avenaceum) and bracken fern (Ptridium aquilinum) were reduced but not eliminated by herbicide treatments. Grass and forb species increased across all treatments. Overall groundcover typical of climax mountain longleaf pine ecosystems recovered very rapidly following herbicide treatments. Velpar-L treatments are a viable restoration tool, especially where fire suppression has resulted in severe hardwood invasion and have strong positive effect on groundcover diversity. Restoration of longleaf pine to severely fire degraded longleaf systems can be challenging where seed sources have been severely reduced. While some advocate clearcutting and planting, the aesthetic and ecological impacts of this approach are decidedly negative. We investigated the survival of containerized longleaf pine seedlings planted under an existing old-field loblolly/hardwood stand. Longleaf were ‘interplanted’ in the winter of 2004, vegetation surrounding the seedlings was sampled in the spring of 2005, the sites burned in 2007 and survival was measured in 2008. In 2008 we found 69% of seedlings surviving. All underplanted seedlings remained in the grass stage while approximately 65% of surviving seedlings in adjacent ‘clearcut and plant’ treatments had entered the ‘rocket’ stage. Longleaf condition was significantly related to surrounding competition. We tentatively conclude that underplanting may be a legitimate restoration technique where competition is below thresholds and where wood production is not the primary goal.

33

Non-native Invasive Plants in Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystems Nancy J. Loewenstein (Extension Specialist, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University) In-depth surveys of invasive plants in remnant montane longleaf pine ecosystems are lacking. Given that invasive plant infestations are often a function of the propagule pressure and disturbance experienced in an area, an estimate of the potential non-native invasive threat in this ecosystem was obtained by looking at invasive plants reported in the region and those that respond to the primary disturbance of longleaf ecosystems, fire. Data in the Southeast Exotic Pest Council’s Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS) database indicates the presence of 167 non-native species in the counties within the region of the montane longleaf ecosystem of Alabama and Georgia. Many of these species, which are weeds of agronomic crops and do not typically invade natural areas, are probably of little concern. However, 40 of the species do occur on the Alabama Invasive Plant Council’s list of invasive plants and could be problematic. Of greatest concern to montane longleaf are those species that are fire adapted, are not controlled by fire, create a fire hazard and/or are promoted by fire (and/or the bare soil, released nutrients and open canopy resulting from fire). Cogongrass, Japanese climbing fern, tree-of heaven, princess tree, callery (‘Bradford’) pear, bicolor lespedeza, Japanese stiltgrass and weeping lovegrass fall into this category. An additional thirty non-native grasses reported in the region could also become more problematic as these systems are restored and fire is reintroduced. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica)

o Already a threat to coastal longleaf ecosystems, cogongrass is spreading northward. New infestations were recently reported in Cullman and Calhoun counties in Alabama, Paulding and Carroll counties in Georgia and as far north as central Tennessee.

o Perennial grass (1-5’ tall) often growing in circular infestations. o Very dense infestations can exclude most other understory vegetation o Grows best in full sun or partial shade but can survive in fairly deep shade o Yellowish green leaves with scabrous edges; the midrib is often off-center,

especially near the base of the leaf o No apparent stem o Flowers and seeds in fluffy white cylindrical panicle (2-8” long) o Rhizomes plentiful (> 50% of the biomass is underground), sharp-tipped,

light-colored and covered with papery scales, about the diameter of a pencil (or less)

o Highly flammable and promoted by fire o Spread by rhizomes (often moved by mowers, logging equipment, and

other machinery) and by wind-blown seeds o Invades right of ways (ROWs,) pastures, plantations, open forests, old

fields, urban …

34

o A Federal Noxious Weed

Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) o A growing threat in coastal longleaf and is spreading north. o Perennial fern vine, climbing to 90 feet o Finely divided fronds on wiry stems o Can create dense mats of foliage on the forest floor , over shrubs and small

trees o Foliage growing into trees can create hazardous fire ladders o Rapid re-growth after fire o Typically dies back each winter (not particularly cold tolerant) but

underground rhizome survives and re-sprout in the spring o Spread by rhizome growth, wind-dispersed spores and by transport of

spores on machinery and in pine straw o Infests ROWs, stream margins, forest edges, new plantations, open forests,

urban … o Class B noxious weed in Alabama

Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) o Ornamental , deciduous tree with opposite, heart-shaped leaves and large

purple flowers o Fast-growing but relatively short-lived , not very tolerant of competition o Prolific seed production … up to 20 million per tree o Spread by wind and water-dispersed seed and recolonization via prolific

root and stump sprouts o Colonizes quickly after fire, harvesting or other disturbances o Invades, forest edges, ROWs, open forests, rocky out-croppings, riparian

areas, urban …

Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) o Ornamental, rapidly growing deciduous tree forming dense cloanal

thickets o Large compound leaves with circular gland on underside of lobes at base

of leaflets o Tolerant of poor soils, drought and flooding but not tolerant of shade o Allelopathic o Spread by abundant wind and water-dispersed seeds, and recolonizes via

root and stump sprouts o Readily re-sprouts after fire o Invades ROWs, fence rows, forest edges, open forests, savannas, old

fields, disturbed areas, urban …

35

Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) o Commonly known by the name of the most popular cultivar, ‘Bradford’

pear o Ornamental, deciduous tree o Out-crossing between cultivars has resulted in fertile seed production o Best in full sun, but tolerates partial shade and a wide range of soil types

and conditions o Invading forest edges, open forests, riparian forests, disturbed areas, urban  

Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) o Also called Nepalese browntop o Annual, sprawling, shade-tolerant grass, 0.5-3’ tall o Forms dense monocultural stands that displace native understory

vegetation and inhibit establishment of forest seedlings o Typically on moist soils in the forest understory but can also invade drier

sites o Prolific seed production in the later summer/early fall with seed bank

lasting 3-5 years o Promoted by disturbance o Late season fires may help control, but bare soil conditions after fires may

promote establishment o Invades riparian and mesic forests, forest edges, fields, trails and

roadsides, urban … o Class C noxious weed in Alabama

Bicolor or shrubby lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor) o Perennial in the legume family, 3-5’ tall with many branched stems; three

elliptical-ovate leaflets per leaf and rosy-purple flowers o Can form dense, monocultural thickets that displace native o Nitrogen fixer and allelopathic o Prefers sun, but can persist and spread under medium to dense overstory o Seed bank can last for decades o Spread is encouraged by burning o Planted for wildlife habitat, soil stabilization and mine reclamation o Invades ROWs, forest edges, open forests, savannas, old fields, open

areas, …

Weeping lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) o Perennial clump grass, 2-6’ tall, with very narrow, arching foliage o Aggressive and early growth can crowd out other plants o Flower is an open panicle, lavender-grey in color o Fibrous root system

36

o Spread and easily propagated by seed (300-1000 seed per panicle) o Prefers open, well-drained conditions o Drought and fire tolerant (burns very hot) o Used for highway plantings, soil stabilization, forage and as an ornamental o No particular wildlife value o Invades disturbed areas, ROWs, pastures, forest edges, open woods …

References: Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS) - Developed by the

University of Georgia, Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. http://www.se-eppc.org/eddMapS/

Evans, C.W., D.J. Moorhead, C. T. Bargeron and G.K. Douce. 2006. Invasive Plant Responses to Silvicultural Practices in the South. The University of Georgia Bugwood Network, Tifton, GA, BW-2006-03. 52 p. http://www.invasive.org/silvicsforinvasives.pdf

Miller, James H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control. Revised Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93 p. http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/

Weed of the Week. Weeping Lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula), USDA Forest Service http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/weeping‐lovegrass.pdf

 

37

Biodiversity Challenges in the Mountain Region Bill Garland (Retired, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Introduction Biodiversity is a commonly described benefit of many forest and ecosystem restoration programs. In many situations, this term, however, is applied to restoration efforts without actually formulating biodiversity objectives. Often, we simply view restoration as a positive biodiversity step. The problem lies in the complexity of biodiversity and the difficulty of actually measuring changes on the landscape. Today, most biologists have come to rely on species as the primary tool for measuring biodiversity (Wilson 1999). Biological diversity or what we commonly term “biodiversity”, however, is far more complex and includes the variability among all living organisms, ranging from genes to species to communities and ecosystems (Primack 2000). We typically view the longleaf pine ecosystem as a homogeneous forest with an established set of management objectives. Measurement of restoration or management success is usually judged through changes in species richness or diversity over time, or following treatment applications. Measuring only one component of diversity, however, often fails to recognize and identify important aspects of biodiversity. It is, therefore, important for biologists and foresters to consider a range of techniques in designing and accomplishing longleaf or any ecosystem based restoration program. In many situations, these variations are subtle or specific to one location and can best be considered under an adaptive management approach. Biodiversity The former, or what is often termed “pre-settlement” forest cover, contained a greater diversity of communities and transition areas than we see on today’s landscape. This former landscape can be viewed as a forest where longleaf pine formed the matrix of a much broader vegetational cover. Within this broader forest ecosystem, a wide range of differing environmental settings (e.g. elevation, aspect, moisture, geology, soils, etc.) greatly enhanced regional biodiversity. What we often fail to recognize is that most of these communities also evolved over millennia through some degree of fire. With the disappearance of fire from the landscape, particularly during the 20th Century, many of these communities disappeared or were degraded along with longleaf pine. Adding to the disappearance of fire from the landscape is man’s use of the land, which has disturbed soils, introduced exotics and placed much of the region in an early successional stage. We are now burdened with not only a fire-excluded ecosystem, but an early sucessional highly disturbed landscape. Within today’s longleaf landscape, research has demonstrated that regional diversity can best be captured by preserving and restoring a broad range of environmental sites (Kirkman et al 2001). The challenge for today’s biologists and foresters is to restore the landscape in its entirety with as much of the former diversity, to include communities, as is humanly possible. Because we have such a poor understanding of community ecology across the landscape during the pre-settlement period, restoring and managing the regional forest cover for

38

these values represents a significant challenge. There are indicators and evidence on today’s landscape that can aid biologists and foresters in encouraging the reestablishment or formation of these degraded or missing communities during the restoration and management process. Challenges in the Mountain Region While the longleaf pine region extends from Virginia to Texas, today’s discussion focuses on issues associated with the mountain region. Only in this corner of northeast Alabama and northwest Georgia do we find longleaf extending deep into the Appalachian provinces. Here we see extremes in the physical setting, with elevations reaching above 2000 feet, exposed rock faces, along with aspects that range from entirely shaded to full sunlight. Species composition within these forests also reflects proximity to the interior mountains, with complex associations that include Appalachian species along with plants and animals more closely associated with the Coastal Plain. As with the longleaf pine region in general, the mountains have suffered from fire exclusion and man’s alteration of the landscape. Within today’s altered landscape, we have difficulty characterizing the complexity of this former forest cover, much less restoring the landscape to a condition resembling the pre-settlement period. We typically view longleaf restoration and management as an established process with the single purpose of growing a forest cover of open longleaf pine. The reality is that longleaf pine restoration occurs along a continuum where the individual initiative is based on the landowner’s objectives. At one end of the continuum is commercial forestry where the owner’s primary and overriding management purpose is to maximize economic returns from fiber production. At the other end of the continuum are federal land stewards (e.g. National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, etc.) that are mandated to manage for ecological benefits. In the case of National Wildlife Refuges, Biological Integrity Policy created under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs refuges to manage for the presettlement forest cover (Meretsky et al 2006). Most remaining landowners fall in between these management continuum extremes. Some landowners may sacrifice fiber production to gain wildlife values. It, however, is important to recognize that biodiversity or ecological benefits are not necessarily the realm of federal or state managers. Understanding environmental conditions and ecological opportunities on a forest tract are important in considering possible biodiversity benefits. Many times sacrifices in fiber production are not necessary to accrue biodiversity benefits. In many cases, it only requires that these opportunities are recognized early in the restoration process and incorporated into management programs. Today, I would like to provide an additional technique for characterizing the historic forest cover that existed within the longleaf pine region. This evaluative option views rare or relict species as indicators of degraded or missing communities that existed on this former landscape. While clearly some species were rare in historic times, many declining species on today’s landscape have only recently suffered from habitat loss or changes in natural processes. Walker (1993) has identified 389 rare plant taxa associated with longleaf pine ecosystems. While we can use both animal and plant species, a first cut and preliminary evaluation is often easier using plant species. Wildlife tends to be more

39

difficult to locate and often are dependent on multiple community types. A particularly useful tool in conducting this evaluation is the NatureServe (2008) web database. This nationwide ecological database allows biologists and foresters to access specific plant and animal information at a state level. State Natural Heritage Programs contribute information on the current status of species in each state. Of particularly importance is state rarity status and ecological condition of these species. A comprehensive review of biodiversity challenges in managing and restoring longleaf pine forest is complex and far beyond this presentation. Today’s discussion will focus on three issues commonly encountered by land managers; wetland fire regimes, fire variability and longleaf pine ecosystem replacement. The first two involve the effects of fire on the landscape. The third relates to restoring longleaf to a landscape where little or no remnant of the original forest cover exists today. The examples provided are taken from two National Wildlife Refuges located within the mountain region. Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) is located in what Roland Harper (1913) described as the Blue Ridge Region of Alabama. On this refuge we find elevations above 2000 feet, steep rock outcrops and shallow rocky soils. The second refuge, Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge (CRNWR), is located on the rolling hills of Bibb County about ten miles north of the Fall Line. This refuge contains a more gentle landscape transitioning from the Coastal Plain into the Ridge and Valley. Wetlands Fire Regimes Wetlands occur along streams, depressions and as seepages imbedded in the longleaf pine forest landscape. These communities, particularly upland seeps, also require periodic fire to maintain health and structure (Outcalt 2000). Today’s prescribed burn prescriptions, however, are usually written to address conditions only within the upland component of the burn unit. These prescriptions are usually designed for moderate weather conditions and fail to burn through wetland communities. The ecological reality is that many wetlands at least occasionally burned during the presettlement period. While fire frequency is poorly understood, observations within MLNWR seepages over the last 25 years provide indications of floristic changes that can be expected within the longleaf pine landscape. Before 1998 MLNWR was part of the active military training installation of Fort McClellan. During this period of time, military training related wildfires were common within most upland forests on what is now the refuge. Wetlands and other moist soils rarely burned during these wildfire events. An exception to this recurring scenario, however, was documented during a 1985 wildfire that burned across the refuge during late summer drought conditions (USFWS 2005). Observations from nearby roads described a glow emanating all night from the seven-acre wetland seepage within the wildfire area. What nearby observers most likely recorded was wildfire consumption of the deep Sphagnum layer within the dried seep. Subsequent observations within the seepage during the 1990s recorded a resurgence of the herbaceous layer. A wide number of orchid species and other rare plants dominated the ground layer. Research has demonstrated that many herbaceous plants, particularly orchids, within the longleaf pine ecosystem require fire (Frost et al 1986). Of particular significance within the MLNWR

40

seep was the presence of white-fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia), which was undergoing review for Candidate status on the federal endangered species list. During the 1990s annual flowering counts recorded from 200-700 individuals within the wetland seepage (ANHP 1994, USFWS 2005). By 2005 fire had not reentered this wetland and the shrub and sapling layer continued to redevelop. Annual counts during 2005 and 2006 documented only one or two flowering individuals within this successionally evolving wetland. Without the reintroduction of fire, this wetland can be expected to continue through succession to form a community dominated by woody shrubs and trees. While the frequency of fire during the historic period is unclear, observations indicate a rapid deterioration of ecological conditions 20 years following the fire event. Future management should consider designing prescribed burn prescriptions for wetland seeps on at least a twenty-year frequency. Because of difficulty authorizing and conducting burns during drought conditions, consideration should be given to burning isolated seepages during late summer after the burn unit has been treated with a dormant season or early growing season prescribed burn. This should significantly reduce fuels in forests surrounding the embedded seep, and allow for a more secure and safe prescribed burn. Variation in Fire Intensity Fire variability is often discussed in terms of frequency and seasonality of burning (Frost et al 1986). While recognizing these variables, I would like to discuss the benefits of varying fire intensity within individual burns. For safety, property protection and to avoid commercial timber damage, prescribed burn prescriptions are typically designed to avoid extreme fire behavior. The reality, however, is that consistency and moderation are more artifacts of man than nature. Many areas burned at differing fire intensities, depending on fuel moisture, weather conditions, physical setting, wind, and ignition point. If we look at this issue more closely, we can conclude that variability of fire intensity within individual prescribed burns can also contribute to biodiversity. We can view examples of this event from two different approaches; rare species and extreme treatments. The first example investigates the future of a rare plant, ground juniper (Juniperus communis), along high elevation rock outcrops on MLNWR. This plant is considered critically imperiled in Alabama (NatureServe, 2008) and reaches its’ southern range distribution on the refuge. Historically, ground juniper was viewed as fire sensitive on the refuge and raised more concern involving negative fire effects than possible benefits. A review of this community, however, reveals that the shrub occurs at elevations above longleaf pine, but within an open chestnut oak-hickory forest cover. Fire has historically occurred throughout this forest type and in all probably is responsible for the dominance and composition of current forest overstory species. Evaluating the rock-outcrop community where the shrub occurs also reveals that this aspect receives full sunlight throughout the day and is one of the driest environments on the refuge. Historical wildfires likely burned at high intensities along these ridges.

41

After a 2006 dormant season prescribed burn, effects from fire on this shrub were evaluated to better understand ecological requirements for maintaining this rare plant community. Ground juniper within rock faces remained protected and virtually unaffected by the fire. Where fire crossed over the ridge the shrub burned to the ground, but recovered within a few months. The most significant observation, however, was the inability of a low to moderate intensity fire to burn and eliminate encroaching trees and shrubs on the rock faces. In all probability, this community requires occasional high intensity fire to maintain open rock faces that are exposed to sunlight. While historically this community may have been viewed as fire sensitive, it more likely falls within the category of a fire dependant community. Prescriptions should consider introducing variability into prescribed fire, particularly the occasional ignition of fire beneath ridges containing populations of ground juniper. The second example occurs at CRNWR and demonstrates the effects of extreme processes (wildfire) on community structure and composition. A several acre tract along the Cahaba River experienced an intense wildlife about 10 years before the land was acquired for the refuge. Fire intensity was sufficient to remove the entire forest overstory. Today, saplings and shrubs are returning, but herbaceous plants continue to dominate the slopes. A close investigation of this herbaceous community reveals a hotspot of rare and uncommon plant species. Two species, Clematis glaucophylla and Lathyrus venosus, are considered critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008) in the region and are found within herbaceous cover along midslopes. A rare central Alabama endemic shrub, Croton alabamensis var. alabamensis, also occurs on upper slopes. This concentration of rare plants exceeds that recorded at any other single location on the refuge. The presence of such a concentration of rare plants at one location suggests that extreme fire intensity may create suitable habitat for plant species rare to the region. The lesson to learn from this example is to accept occasional burnouts and “so called” mistakes during prescribed burns, and recognize that variability on individual burns also contributes to regional biodiversity. Longleaf Ecosystem Replacement The final biodiversity challenge involves the restoration of longleaf pine forests on lands where the historic forest cover has been removed or severely altered. CRNWR provides an example for addressing concerns related to a major restoration program. Today’s forest cover reveals a severely altered landscape. Commercial loblolly pine plantations have been planted on most upland hills and ridge-tops. Areas not in loblolly pine consist of early successsional disturbed hardwoods. Much of this landscape was also highly altered and disturbed through coal mining during the early 20th Century. We are fortunate, however, to have early photographs of the refuge taken by Roland Harper near the turn of the century. These photographs and descriptions (University of Alabama 2005) indicate that at least upland ridges on the refuge were historically covered by longleaf pine. Other than this historical snapshot and description, we have little understanding of where and what constituted natural communities across the refuge. One approach for developing a better understanding of historical communities on the refuge involves reviewing rare plants that currently exists on refuge uplands. Many of

42

these species are potential indicators of communities degraded and missing from today’s landscape, and some may have been much more common during the presettlement period. Research has revealed that viable and persistent seed banks remain on disturbed sites, even after some plants have disappeared from present-day vegetation cover (Cohen et al 2004). Many of these plants are considered rare on today’s landscape. A review of plants on CRNWR uplands reveals few rare plant species currently exists on the refuge, with the exception of Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) and Alabama phlox (Phlox pulchra). Georgia aster is a Candidate for the federal endangered species list with 35 documented populations in Alabama (Schotz, personal communication, January 2008). While not federally listed as an endangered species, Alabama phlox is rare central Alabama endemic plant with only eight viable populations documented in Alabama. Four of these populations are found on CRNWR. Both plants are rare on the refuge, but occur sparingly across the entire refuge. A comparison of habitat requirements for the two plants reveals differences, but surprisingly several commonalities between the two. Both historically were not associated with longleaf pine, but are believed to have occurred in hardwood or pine-hardwood communities with an open understory and, in some situations, partial sunlight. Fire is considered a disturbance mechanism required by both species. The distribution of these plants across the refuge and their habitat requirements suggest that historically there may have been additional community types on refuge uplands. Between xeric longleaf pine uplands ridges and lower stream and river valleys, a transition community ranging from hardwood to pine-hardwood forest may have historically existed on the refuge. Within this less frequently burned mature open forest there existed a different suite of plants that have since disappeared from much of the region. Today both Georgia aster and Alabama phlox exist on the refuge as relict species. Georgia aster is more frequently encountered along firebreaks and dirt roadways through second-growth hardwoods and pine-hardwood forests. Some degree of sunlight usually exists along these pathways, which may simulate conditions that formally existed under more open savanna conditions. Alabama phlox typically occurs on more mesic sites with an open understory and some degree of shade. Within todays‘s open clearcuts, we find Alabama phlox returning on mesic sites experiencing hardwood encroachment. Management objectives should be designed to restore a diverse upland forest that ranges from xeric longleaf pine across upland ridges to transitioning hardwoods and pine-hardwoods along streams, rivers and embedded wetlands. Recognizing that variation in forest cover historically existed on the landscape is critical to maximizing biodiversity during the restoration process. Techniques useful in fulfilling these objectives include burning across plantation boundaries, allowing mesic uplands to retain a hardwood component, and selectively applying herbicides or relying entirely on fire. Conclusion Biodiversity is a broad, complex ecological term that is often simply defined as the variety of life. During restoration and management programs we must look beyond the boundaries of planted or relict longleaf pine stands, and consider the ecological requirements of a broad range of interconnected communities, all in need of varying

43

frequencies of fire. Recognizing regionally rare species as indicators of degraded and missing community types should be considered another tool for restoring historic landscapes. By assuring these often overlooked communities and ecotones are returned to the landscape should also be viewed as an effective means to recover federally endangered and threatened species, and prevent other rare species from being added to federally protected lists. References Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP). 1994. Natural Heritage Inventory of Fort

McClellan Main Post: Federal Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and State-Listed Species. Submitted to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and Fort McClellan by Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Montgomery, AL. 76 p.

Cohen, S., R. Braham and F. Sanchez. 2004. Seed Bank Viability in Disturbed Longleaf Pine Sites. Restoration Ecology. 12(4):503-515.

Frost, C.C., J. Walker, and R.K. Peet. 1986. Fire-dependent Savannas and Prairies of the Southeastern Coastal Plain: Original Extent, Preservation Status and Management Problems. IN: Kulhavy, D.L. and R.N. Conner (eds.). Wilderness and Natural Areas in the Eastern United States. School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State Univ., Nacogdoches, TX. p. 348-357.

Harper, R.M. 1913. Economic Botany of Alabama – Part 1: Geographic Report on Forests. Monograph 8. Geological Survey of Alabama. Tuscaloosa. 357 p.

Kirkman, L.K., R.J. Mitchell, R.C. Helton and M.B. Drew. 2001. Productivity and Species Richness Across an Environmental Gradient in a Fire-dependent Ecosystem. American Journal of Botany 88:2119-2128.

Meretsky, V.J., R.L. Fischman, J.R. Karr, D.M. Ashe, J.M. Scott, R.F. Noss and R.L. Schroeder. 2006. New Directions in Conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Bioscience 56(2):135-143.

NatureServe. 2008. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Outcalt, K.W. 2000. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem of the South. Native Plants Journal.

1(1):43-53. Primack, R.B. 2000. A Primer of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates:

Sunderland, Massachusetts. 319 p. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife

Refuge Habitat Management Plan. USFWS, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 94 p.

University of Alabama. 2005. The Roland Harper Photographs. W.S. Hoole Special Collections Library. Tuscaloosa, AL.

Walker, J.L. 1993. Rare Vascular Plant Taxa Associated with the Longleaf Ecosystem: Patterns in Taxonomy and Ecology. In: The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management. Proceedings 18th Tall timbers Research Station: 105-125.

Wilson, E.O. 1999. The Diversity of Life. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. 424 p.

44

Alabama’s Land Acquisition Program: Forever Wild Gregory M. Lein (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands Division) Abstract: Alabama’s official land acquisition program began operation in 1992. Since that time, the program has secured 60 individual tracts of land in 18 counties, totaling over 135,000 acres. The tracts of land acquired range in size from 17 acres, to 35,795 acres. 85% of the tracts acquired had close proximity to existing conservation lands at the time of purchase. 80% of the tracts are larger than 2,000 acres, or adjoin existing conservation lands whereby they create a unit larger than 2,000 acres. While Forever Wild lands serve as an important base for public recreation activities such as hunting, many of the acquisitions have an important context to unique natural communities. The majority of the Forever Wild Tracts’ acreage falls within geographic areas recognized by various organizations or publications as having conservation significance. A review of Forever Wild acquisitions reflects acquisitions supporting coastal plain wetlands, native pine forest habitat, Cumberland Plateau hardwood forests, as well as high quality springs, stream and river corridors, and areas supporting karst topography. To learn more about Forever Wild tracts, visit ww.alabamaforeverwild.com

45

Preserving and Promoting Montane Longleaf in Georgia’s Forests James Johnson (Georgia Forestry Commission) Longleaf pine once occupied a considerable acreage in the Georgia piedmont, but its distribution has diminished significantly over the past two centuries. The Georgia Forestry Commission (and others) has been promoting this species on the appropriate sites for several years with an emphasis on its positive characteristics such as southern pine beetle resistance, longevity, resistance to many tree diseases, adaptability to many types of wildlife management, etc. Landowners with suitable sites in the Georgia piedmont are encouraged to plant the Montane variety, but seedling availability is very limited with the only seed source from the Talladega, AL area. There are remnant native Longleaf stands within Georgia’s piedmont region, but many of these are in mixed stands (with hardwood and other pine species), and many of these stands are in danger of being lost due to development, age (all stands were in excess of 75 years) or conversion to other species. The GFC utilized part of a southern pine beetle prevention and restoration grant from the USDA Forest Service to select sites, and harvest cones in October 2006. Based upon local forester knowledge of available sites, 11 tracts in 7 counties were utilized to harvest ripe (but unopened) cones from over 100 separate trees (Figure 1). Trees were chosen based upon stem form, branch angle, and dominance within the stand and cones were removed using rifles. An emphasis on collecting cones from the greatest number of phenotypically desirable mother trees was implemented with the hope of utilizing the greatest genetic diversity possible with the project. The seed has been extracted and will be grown in the GFC (commercial) nursery for 1 season (2008). These 1-0 seedlings will then be out planted in our commercial seed orchard, and seedlings that enter the “rocket stage” first will be favored over those that remain in grass stage. The end result should be about 5 acres of commercial seed orchard production dedicated to Montane Longleaf. We anticipate having 500,000 to 750,000 seedlings annually available from this source once full cone production occurs (15 to 20 years). The goal of this project is for local seed sources to reforest the suitable sites in Georgia with Montane Longleaf. Perhaps if the project is successful enough to encourage the planting of significant portions of some of these counties in Longleaf, the periodic southern pine beetle outbreaks could be disrupted at the landscape scale (to some extent). It should be noted that some native Longleaf stands are in excess of 150 years in this area and have survived these periodic beetle outbreaks so there is evidence the species is truly resistant to some level of insect pressure. The GFC, under the same southern pine beetle grant from the USDA Forest Service, has promoted the planting of Longleaf (on appropriate sites) in the piedmont region annually since 2004. Many landowners have suffered drastic losses from the southern pine beetle in recent years and look favorably upon an alternative (“resistant”) species. Furthermore, a limited amount of funding has also been allocated during this same period for “experimental” longleaf planting in counties north of the natural range (Figure 2). Sites are carefully chosen by our foresters and the implications of planting a species out of its

46

known natural range are fully explained to the landowners before funds are allowed. The key criteria are lower elevations (less than 1,500 ft above sea level); predominant south facing aspect; and appropriate soil types to support the species.

Figure 1: Map showing natural longleaf pine cone collection sites

Figure 2. Natural range of longleaf in Georgia shaded in gray, and the piedmont zone (Montane) is north of the “fall line”. A limited amount of longleaf planting has occurred in the non-range counties (white) on carefully chosen sites.

47

Longleaf Pine: An Industry Perspective

Harry Labhart (Silviculture Coordinator, The Westervelt Company, P.O. Box 48999, Tuscaloosa, AL 35404-8999) Abstract: The Westervelt Company is a 124 year old, privately owned corporation headquartered in Tuscaloosa, AL. The company was founded by Herbert Westervelt as Prairie States Paper Corporation in 1884. Over more than a century we have been known as The E-Z Opener Bag Company and Gulf States Paper Corporation. And while our past has seen us make grocery bags, paper, and paperboard packaging, today we are a land resources organization, taking an environmentally responsible, socially aware Highest and Best Use approach to our nearly 500,000 acres of timberland and natural resources. From a global network of sporting lodges, to a comprehensive wildlife management division, to a state-of-the-art Southern yellow pine lumber facility, to commercial and residential real estate, to ecological services including mitigation, conservation and species banking, we remain committed to our founder’s belief that “quality counts.” The corporation owns or leases approximately 400,000 acres of timberland in west central Alabama that is vertically integrated with it’s sawmill and pole mill in Moundville, AL. These lands are managed for loblolly and longleaf pine as well as bottomland hardwood. An additional 100,000 acres of fee timberland in southeast Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia are managed for local timber markets. Our longleaf reforestation program began in the early 1970s, with bareroot seedlings, on cutover piedmont sites. Successes were marginal due to poor survival, difficulty in getting the seedlings out of the grass stage and competition from natural Loblolly and Virginia pine. After more failures than successes, we came close to abandoning our longleaf program. After attending a conference on containerized seedlings in the early 1980s, the decision was made to build a small container seedling nursery and produce containerized longleaf seedlings in the hope of improving survival. The nursery was built in 1984 and we began to grow containerized longleaf seedlings. In addition to using container grown seedlings, we initiated an aggressive weed control program. This combination, together with improved hardwood brush control proved to be very successful. Our rationale for planting and managing longleaf goes beyond producing high quality timber for our sawmill and pole mill. The Westervelt Company has a longstanding commitment to land stewardship. Bio-diversity was a part of our timber management program long before it was the “environmentally proper” thing to do. The Westervelt Company is SFI certified and is the only industrial forest landowner in Alabama recognized as a TREASURE Forest by the Alabama Treasure Forest Association.

48

The company has approximately 23,500 acres of timberland in the Piedmont area designated for longleaf management. Of that total, 21,000 acres is currently in longleaf plantations. Stand establishment typically consists of an aerial herbicide application, site prep burning, reforestation with container seedlings and an aerial weed control treatment. Seedlings are typically out of the grass stage and producing height growth during the second growing season. Stands are assessed for burning needs following the second growing season. Controlled burning is the preferred method for controlling natural Loblolly and Virginia pine in longleaf plantations; however urban interface and liability issues have significantly reduced our controlled burning program. Pre-commercial thinning at age 4 or 5 is used to eliminate natural pine competition, but does not replace the effects of fire in maintaining the true longleaf ecosystem. First thinning is prescribed beginning about age 19 to 20. We have yet to conduct any second thinning. Rotation length is set at 35 years. Operational challenges associated with managing longleaf include finding an adequate piedmont seed source, the liability associated with controlled burning, and the control of natural pine competition. Strategic challenges include the lack of growth and yield models that accurately predict the effects of intensive silviculture, and considering the higher management costs and longer rotation length, the economic justification for growing longleaf vs. loblolly.

49

NWF’s Southern Forest Restoration Initiative Amadou Diop (Forest Restoration Manager, National Wildlife Federation, Southeast Natural Resource Center, Atlanta, GA) Abstract: Forest conservation is a critical component of maintaining wildlife habitat and sequestering carbon. However forests in the U.S. are being simplified, lost, fragmented, and converted at an alarming rate. The National Wildlife Federation which mission is to conserve wildlife for our children future has recently initiated the Forest for Wildlife program to fulfill its core strategic objectives to protect forest habitats for their contribution to wildlife biodiversity and to mitigate global warming pollution. NWF’s Southern Forest Restoration Initiative fits under the Forest for Wildlife program. Through this initiative NWF is attempting to address wildlife habitat loss and to help wildlife survive the impacts of global warming. In this presentation we will discuss NWF’s conservation priorities and forest restoration objectives in the Southeast as related to longleaf pine, as well as the partnership that NWF is stimulating on the ground to restore longleaf pine in its historic range.

National Wildlife Federation (NWF) was founded in 1936 by individuals, organizations and agencies interested in the restoration and conservation of wildlife resources with the mission to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future. NWF is one of the largest membership based conservation organizations in the U.S. and represents the power and commitment of over four million members and supporters joined by affiliated wildlife organizations in 47 states and territories.

More recently NWF has recognized that wildlife’s ability to survive the challenges of the 21st century and the future is being outpaced by the events that are transforming our world. Global warming, the loss of habitat and the fact that people are more disconnected from nature than the past generations are converging to put as much as one-third of the world plants and animal species on the path of extinction. NWF has developed a compelling vision for action centered on confronting global warming, protecting wildlife and connecting people with nature. Forest conservation is a critical component of maintaining wildlife habitat and sequestering carbon. However forests in the U.S. are being simplified, lost, fragmented, and converted at an alarming rate. Recently NWF has initiated the Forest for Wildlife program to “harvest” ongoing work that had started earlier as well as to fulfill its core strategic objectives to protect forest habitats for their contribution to wildlife biodiversity and to mitigate global warming pollution. The Forest for Wildlife top five objectives are: (1) Ensure that forests are dealt with responsibly in national climate legislation (2) Support regional forest restoration and wildlife adaptation goals (3) Develop market campaigns to boost consumer awareness and actions that reduce our global forest footprint (4) Support regional forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy development and (5) promote voluntary actions to reduce GHG emissions and its impacts to forests. NWF’s Southern Forest Restoration Initiative fits under the Forest for Wildlife

50

program and this initiative views longleaf pine restoration as a conservation opportunity for the southeast region not only because of the type of habitats and biodiversity that the longleaf forest can provide at a landscape level but also because of its social and cultural values in the South.

Originally, longleaf pine extended throughout most of the southeast region, from southern Virginia to Florida and west to Texas (90 million acres). At the time of European settlement (about 200 years ago), its estimated coverage was over 60% of the upland forest area in the coastal plains. Healthy longleaf forests are some of the most ecologically diverse in North America, hosting some 900 different plant species, 74 amphibians, 96 reptiles, 86 species of birds and 36 species of mammals south-wide. Of these, 26 plant species and 7 wildlife species native to longleaf forests are nowadays considered to be federally threatened or endangered because of the lost of their habitat. Today, less than 3% of its historic coverage remains (less than 3 million acres). Many factors have lead to its decline and some of them are still on-going. Massive logging in the 18th and 19th centuries, land clearing and introduction of livestock, conversion of forest for development, conversion to short rotation pine plantations, and periods of active fire suppression are just some of those factors. In the longleaf pine historic range, more than three-quarters of the land is held in private ownership. Therefore, successful restoration at the landscape level will have to take into account the diverse private non-industrial landowner objectives. Fortunately, longleaf pine is suitable for multiple management objectives which can make it attractive to private landowners. Moreover, the renewed interest in longleaf pine is also primarily due to its resistance to disease, insects, and wind, and lack of vulnerability to market volatility. Declines in the pulp market have also spurred landowners to look for alternative models of forest management.

With all of this in mind, this initiative seeks to (1) Promote range wide longleaf pine ecosystem restoration as a necessary wildlife and global warming adaptation priority in the southeast (2) Support income streams (private carbon payments, public cost-share assistance) to landowners that “help forests stay in forests” relative to competing uses (3) Create stronger market demand for wood and paper products from responsibly managed (certified) forests both domestic and international because of U.S. consumer impact on the world’s forest resources (4) Secure federal investment and appropriations for new and existing private forest land conservation programs which have been proven to be effective. NWF and its partner groups in the South have established a technical service provider model to private landowners for educating and assisting in the planting and re-establishment of longleaf pine. For example, our state partner in Alabama, the Alabama Wildlife Federation has a landowner assistance program that has worked with hundreds of small forest landowners across Alabama to get them involved in and practicing basic forest stewardship. Under this project, from which initial seed funding as been obtained from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, we are building on this model to promote and assist in the planting of longleaf pines. The project’s basic methodology is

51

to identify focal restoration areas and deliver targeted technical, place-based assistance to forest landowners in the state of Alabama. This project’s goal is to establish 10,000 new acres of longleaf pine over three years. However, our longer-term organizational goal is to stimulate the restoration of longleaf pine in 10% of its historic range in the next 20 years and encourage the conservation of private forest lands in longleaf ecosystems as well as reward this conservation with new income streams from the emerging carbon market (which value the sequestration benefits of forests) in the short run, and from sustainable harvesting in the long run.

52

Market-Based Conservation Incentives for Family Forest Owners Todd Gartner (Conservation Incentives Manager for the American Forest Foundation's Center for Conservation Solutions, Washington, DC) Abstract: Fire-maintained longleaf pine stands once covered 90 million acres in the Southeast but today have declined to roughly 3 million acres as a result of development, habitat conversion, and fire suppression. Higher elevation montane longleaf stands are especially threatened. Federal and state natural resource agencies have limited, and declining budgets, with which to address the management and restoration of this unique ecosystem. Furthermore, with over 80% of land in private ownership in the Southeast the greatest potential for restoration and management of montane longleaf systems lies outside of government lands, in the hands of family forest owners. With slumping timber markets and increasing development pressure, identifying and promoting opportunities that can provide economic and ecological benefits for active management on private forestlands will be critical to ensuring long-term conservation of this ecosystem. Market-based conservation initiatives provide the proper incentives in the form of financial and technical assistance to encourage family forest owners to sustainably manage their forests. They monetize the many services that active forest management provides to the marketplace, in addition to wood products. These include important ecosystem services such as species habitat, water quantity and quality, clean air, flood control, aesthetics, and carbon sequestration. Until recently these ecosystem services were not properly valued, creating a system that benefited the public, but cost the providers -- family forest owners. Well-designed conservation markets provide payments to family forest owners who provide these services. These market-based tools have proven to be effective, enabling landowners to become better stewards of their lands while realizing new income opportunities. Innovative conservation incentives will turn private forests into an even greater asset, encouraging sustainable forestry, and combating fragmentation and land use change. These opportunities have received national attention and are worth exploring for applicability to the threatened montane longleaf system. Water quantity and quality as well as carbon sequestration markets may have the most potential for this ecosystem.

53

Longleaf Restoration (mountain and coastal plain) on Conservation Easement Protected Land Katherine Eddins (Georgia Land Trust) Abstract: A longleaf pine ecosystem typically takes years to restore, and long term restoration efforts stand a much better chance of success if carried out on land protected with a conservation easement. This is so because the conservation easement provides a stable and protected land base that will not be subdivided, developed or converted to agriculture. In this presentation, I will show a variety of types and stages of mountain and coastal plain longleaf pine restoration on conservation easement protected property.

54

POSTER ABSTRACTS Fire Regime of a Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystem, Alabama Adam M. Bale1, Richard P. Guyette2, and Michael C. Stambaugh3

1 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Forestry, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO; amb7r5@mizzou.edu 2 Research Associate Professor, Department of Forestry, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 3 Senior Research Specialist, Department of Forestry, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO Abstract: A common obstacle for public land managers developing fire management plans in the eastern and southern United States is the lack of quantitative information on historic fire regimes. Historic fire information helps to justify and set targets for wildland fire practices and fuels management. In this poster we describe four centuries of past fire regime on Choccolocco Mountain in northeastern Alabama. We reconstructed seasonally distinguishable (e.g., dormant, early, and late season) fire events from 122 tree-ring dated fire scars on 19 longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) remnants and live trees. Prior to the 18th century, fire events were relatively infrequent with a mean fire interval (MFI) of 11.5 years. Most sampled fire events occurred between the late 18th century and early 20th century, with a MFI of 3.2 years. During this time period most fires were small, low severity burns often scarring only 1-2 trees in the sampled area; however, some fires appeared to be severe, scarring multiple trees throughout the landscape. The number of fires decreased during the 20th century due to changes in land use, anthropogenic influences, and climate-fire relationships. Introduction The use of prescribed fire for the restoration of remnant longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) stands is widely accepted by land managers in the southeastern United States. Prescribed burning goals for longleaf stands can vary from restoring to pre-EuroAmerican settlement conditions to managing for wildlife species dependent on longleaf habitat, such as the Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Fire can react to a variety of different conditions (e.g., localized climate, wind speed, aspect and slope, and litter (fuel) loading) and it is up to managers to determine when the best period is to burn. Prescribed fire objectives in southern montane systems are often based on fire history data (e.g., historical documents, charcoal sediments, and modern tree-rings) from the Coastal, Piedmont, or upper Appalachian regions. The natural conditions under which longleaf stands develop are very narrow (within montane systems), which can make choosing the correct system of management even more difficult (Brockway et al 2005). The use of fire history data from an ecosystem influenced by a different climate (Lafon et al. 2005) can negatively affect the re-establishment, future management, and site productivity of a longleaf stand. While pre-settlement fire information is relatively

55

abundant in the western U.S. (Contributors of the International Tree-Ring Data Bank 2005), this information is underrepresented in the eastern U.S. and even more so in the Southeast. Fire history information contained in old stumps and snags is rapidly being lost due to recent prescribed burning activities, rapid decay, and use as “lighter wood”. In conjunction with the loss of information within stumps, fire scar records in living trees are rapidly being lost due to decay and mortality. The lack of quantitative fire history information specific to the montane longleaf ecosystem and the imminent loss of fire scar records are the primary impetus for this study. We developed this research to describe and model pre-settlement mean fire intervals (MFI) for a montane longleaf pine system. Study Area and Site Selection Visual inspection of trees and stumps determined the feasibility of locations (e.g. resinous and long lived trees, remote areas, and target species) in which to sample multiple fire scarred trees within the Blue Ridge region near Choccolocco Mountain, Talladega National Forest, Alabama. Vegetation and stand characteristics were consistent with definitions of old-growth longleaf pine stands described by earlier research (Varner et al. 2003a; Varner et al. 2003b; Varner and Kush 2004; Pederson et al. 2008). Fire scarred remnants and living trees were collected within a 1 km² area on southwest and southeast aspects, on spur ridges with slopes ranging between 12 and 35 degrees. The site had been previously used by a cluster of Red-cockaded woodpeckers, another indication of the old growth characteristics of the stand. Intermediate regeneration within the stand was minimal, and advanced regeneration was virtually non-existent, indicating the possible need for a shorter fire interval. Methods Living trees and remnant stumps were sampled opportunistically to obtain the most fire scars and longest time series possible. Opportunistic sampling was used to reduce the possibility of missing low intensity and low severity fires. Cross-sections were collected from thirty stumps, natural remnants, and living trees that showed evidence of recording multiple fire scarring events. Cores were taken from eight living trees to aid in the development of a master tree-ring chronology used for crossdating of samples and fire events. In the laboratory, surfaces of cross-sections and cores were prepared through standard techniques (Orvis and Grissino-Mayer 2002), including planing and sanding with progressively finer grit sandpaper (80 to 600 grit) to reveal cellular detail of annual rings and fire scars. Annual growth rings from at least two radii of each cross-section were measured to an accuracy of 0.01 mm using a binocular microscope and a moving stage fixed to an electronic transducer. Ring-width plots of these measurements were used for visual crossdating (Stokes and Smiley 1968). COFECHA computer software (Grissino-Mayer 2001a) was used to verify the accuracy of dating. Fire scars were dated to the first year of growth response in relation to the fire injury (e.g., callus tissue, cambial death, and liquefaction of resin), and to the season of injury where possible. We used FHX2 software (Grissino-Mayer 2001b) to construct a fire chronology with summary statistics, with analysis beginning with the first year of tree-ring record (A.D. 1559). Mean fire intervals (MFI) were calculated and refer to the mean number of years between each fire scarring event (Dieterich 1980).

56

Results Tree-Ring Series— a ring-width chronology (Fig.1) was constructed spanning 447 years from cross-sections (naturals, remnant stumps, and live trees) and live tree cores using ARSTAN software (Cook 2006). Each sample was interactively detrended using a negative exponential growth curve and then standardized to mean values to detect growth and climate signals and patterns. The record spans the period 1559-2006 A.D. The oldest sample recorded reached back to 1559 A.D. and was also the longest tree-ring record (334 annual rings) within this chronology. Figure 1. Standardized ring-width chronology comprised of 27 cross-sections and 6 living tree cores. Samples were fit to a negative exponential curve or straight line through the series mean using interactive detrending. Fire History— a composite fire chronology (Fig.2) was developed from 122 individual fire scars that were seasonally distinguishable (e.g., dormant, early, and late season). The 122 fire scars represented a total of 85 fire years. The period of record ranged from 1559 to 2006 A.D. (447 yrs.), but is poorly replicated (n=2) before 1600. Fire scar dates ranged from 1589 to 2001, and the percentage of trees scarred during fire years ranged from 7 to 50. The majority of scarring events occurred at the beginning of a growth ring, indicating that these fires occurred most often during the dormant season (approximately September to April). Fire intervals were longest for the period 1575 to 1700 (MFI 11.5 yrs.). The frequency of fire increased beginning in 1725 and remained more frequent until the early 1900s (MFI 3.2 yrs.). During this period, some fire years had high percentages of trees scarred, perhaps indicating a more severe fire regime than pre-1750 and post-1900.

C h o c c o l o c c o M o u n t i a n S t a n d a r d C h r o n o l o g y

C a l e n d a r Y e a r

1 6 0 0 1 6 5 0 1 7 0 0 1 7 5 0 1 8 0 0 1 8 5 0 1 9 0 0 1 9 5 0 2 0 0 0

Rin

g W

idth

0 . 00 . 51 . 01 . 52 . 02 . 53 . 0

57

Figure 2. Composite fire scar chronology and fire scar dates of individual trees at Choccolocco Mountain, Talladega N.F. Calendar years are shown on the x-axis. Horizontal lines represent the period of record for each sample tree; bold vertical bars represent the year of a fire scar. Pith dates (year of tree regeneration) are represented by short, thin vertical lines at the left end of the horizontal line, while inside ring dates (first tree ring, pith absent) are represented by diagonal lines (Grissino-Mayer 2001). Percentage of trees scarred is shown below the composite fire chronology and represents actual calendar years. Future Implications The addition of more fire history sites would strengthen these initial findings and provide a better understanding of temporal and spatial fire regime dynamics specific to the montane longleaf system. More information on the historic roles of humans, topography, and climate in this fire-dominated landscape would provide more insight into the ignition sources and conditions under which historic fire intervals occurred. Human population density and topography are important variables (Guyette et al. 2006) in understanding the changes associated with anthropogenic fire regimes. Climate change and drought has been shown to affect the periodicity and spatial extent of wildfire at short and long temporal scales in the western United States (Brown and Sieg 1996; Caprio and Swetnam 1995; Donnegan et al. 2001) but few such studies exist for the midwestern or eastern United States. Periods of longer fire intervals can become a major concern as forest fuels build up to levels higher than historically existed (Stambaugh et al. 2006), creating the possibility for higher intensity fires than the landscape historically experienced. The role that forest litter and fine fuels play in a fire-dominated landscape is a critical piece of information that may help in setting objectives for restoring and maintaining montane longleaf ecosystems. Literature Cited Brockway, Dale G., Kenneth W. Outcalt, and Donald J.Tomczak. 2005. Restoring

longleaf pine forest ecosystems in the southern U.S. In: Restoration of Boreal and

C a l e n d a r Y e a r

1 5 5 0 1 6 0 0 1 6 5 0 1 7 0 0 1 7 5 0 1 8 0 0 1 8 5 0 1 9 0 0 1 9 5 0 2 0 0 0

Per

cent

Tre

es S

carr

ed

01 02 03 04 05 06 0

58

Temperate Forests, Stanturf, John A.; Madsen, Palle; eds., Chapter thirty-two, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2005, p. 501-519.

Brown, P., C.H. Seig. 1996. Fire history in interior ponderosa pine communities of the Black Hills, South Dakota, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 6 (3), 97-105.

Caprio, A.C., T.W. Swetnam. 1995. Historic fire regimes along an elevational gradient on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, California. In: Brown, J., R. Mutch, C. Spoon, R. Wakimoto. (Tech Coord.), Proceedings: Symposium on Fire in Wilderness and Park Management: Past Lessons and Future, Missoula M.T. INT_GTR_320. Ogden UT.

Contributors of the International Tree-Ring Data Bank, 2005. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Dieterich, J.H. 1980. The composite fire interval—a tool for more accurate interpretation of fire history. In: Stokes, M.A., Dieterich, J.H. (Tech. Coord.), Proceedings of the Fire History Workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-81, pp.8-14.

Donnegan, J.A., T.T. Veblen, J.S. Sibold. 2001. Climatic and human influences on fire history in Pike National Forest, Central Colorado. Can. J. For. Res. 31, 1526-1539.

Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2001a. Evaluating crossdating accuracy: A manual and tutorial for the computer program COFECHA. Tree-Ring Research 57(1):205-221.

Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2001b. FHX2- software for analyzing temporal and spatial patterns in fire regimes from tree-rings. Tree-Ring Research 57(1): 115-124.

Guyette, R.P., M.A. Spetich, and M.C. Stambaugh. 2006. Historic fire regime dynamics and forcing factors in the Boston Mountains, Arkansas, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 234:293-304.

Lafon, C.W., Jennifer A. Hoss, and Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, 2005. The contemporary fire regime of the central Appalachian Mountains and its relation to climate. Physical Geography 26: 126-146.

Orvis, K.H. and H.D. Grissino-Mayer. 2002. Standardizing the reporting of abrasive papers used to surface tree-ring samples. Tree-Ring Research 58: 47-50.

Pederson, N., J.M. Varner and B.J. Palik. 2008. Canopy disturbance and tree recruitment over two centuries in a managed longleaf pine landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 85-95.

Stambaugh, M.C., R.P. Guyette, K. Grabner, and J. Kolaks. 2006. Understanding Ozark forest litter variability through a synthesis of accumulation rates and fire events. Pages 321-332 In (Butler, B.W and Andrews, P.L., comps) Fuels Management- How To Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 2006, 28-30 March; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Stokes, M.A. and T.L. Smiley. 1968. Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Varner, J. M., J. S. Kush, and R. S. Meldahl. 2003a. Vegetation of frequently burned old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savannas on Choccolocco Mountain, Alabama, USA . Natural Areas Journal 23: 43-52; cover photograph.

59

Varner, J. M., J. S. Kush, and R. S. Meldahl. 2003b. Structure of old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) forests in the mountains of Alabama. Castanea 68: 211-221.

Varner, J.M. and J.S. Kush. 2004. Old-growth longleaf pine forests and savannas of the southeastern USA: Status and trends. Natural Areas Journal 24:141-149.

60

Effects of Restoration Prescribed Burning on Post-Fire Mortality in Relict Montane Longleaf Pine (Pinus Palustris) in Northwestern Georgia Martin Cipollini, Connie Francia, Carolyn Kujala, Angela Lottes, Nicole Malloy, Margaret Mann, Eric Swanson and Nathanial Wigington (Berry College) Abstract: Fire suppression has contributed to the loss of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) habitats in the southeastern United States. Reintroduction of fire into fire-suppressed relict longleaf pine stands is a necessary step in restoring such habitats, but delayed mortality of adult trees has been commonly observed following such efforts. This delayed mortality has been hypothesized to be related to the smoldering of duff (consolidated organic matter) into which feeder roots have extended following periods of fire suppression. This study examines possible sources of delayed morality and other effects on adult longleaf pines following a 2004 prescribed burn in the Berry College Mountain Longleaf Pine Management area in northwestern Georgia. A census of adult trees was made following the fire to determine immediate post-fire effects (duff damage, crown scorch, and bark damage) and then again two and three years later to determine effects on mortality, growth, and indicators of post-fire stress (e.g., beetle attack, sap seepage). Multiple logistic regression suggested that duff damage was the primary determinant of mortality. Multiple linear regression, on the other hand, suggested that trees that did survive were positively influenced by duff reduction, possibly as a result of the release of nutrients as organic matter was mineralized or as a result of the reduction in competition from surrounding vegetation.

61

Short-Term Effects of Restoration Burning and Herbicide Treatment on Aboveground Biomass and Tree Community Structure in a Relict Mountain Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Martin Cipollini, Martin, Jennifer Blalock, Peter Browing, Glenn Cassell, Evan Lane, Nicole Malloy And Eric Swanson (Berry College) Abstract: The Berry College Longleaf Pine Management Area consists of relict fire-suppressed montane longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) stands embedded within encroaching matrix of mixed hardwood forest. As of 2001, longleaf pine-dominated stands occurred predominantly on S- and SW-facing slopes whereas mixed hardwood forest occupied other slope aspects. Since then, portions of the management area have been subjected to restoration efforts involving prescribed burning and hardwood control using herbicide. Effects on tree community structure and aboveground biomass as of summer 2007 were evaluated by comparing treated stands with reference untreated stands. Biomass data were collected for downed woody debris, litter, duff, herbs, shrubs, and “small trees” (< 3.05 m tall) using a planar transect method. Data for “large trees” (> 3.05 m tall) were collected using the point-centered-quarter method and biomass was calculated using allometric equations based upon radius-at-breast-height. From 70-85% of total biomass was in large trees, ranging from 2.8 x 105 kg ha-1 in treated longleaf pine stands to 4.8 x 105 kg ha-1 in untreated longleaf pine stands. Burned and unburned hardwood stands were similar to one another in total biomass, averaging 3.2 x 105 kg ha-1. While decreasing total aboveground biomass substantially, restoration treatments have increased the relative biomass of P. palustris in longleaf pine stands. As longleaf pine regeneration ensues in treated stands, future biomass accruement is expected.

62

Fire on the Mountain: Ten Years of Upland Fire and its Effects on Songbirds in the Southern Appalachian Mountains Nathan Klaus, GA DNR; Scott Rush UGA; Tim Keyes, GA DNR; Robert Cooper, UGA; Jim Wentworth, Chattahoochee-Oconee NF; and John Petrick, Chattahoochee-Oconee NF Abstract: Where fire regimes are well understood in the Southeastern United States fire has been demonstrated to play a vital role in sustaining community diversity and in providing habitat for wildlife. However, within upland hardwood ecosystems the effects of fire are poorly understood; the restoration of fire regimes is /controversial and the effects on wildlife largely unknown. As a result questions such as appropriate fire intensity, season, and return interval remain. Our research addresses how fire intensity and fire frequency affects songbirds in the Southern Appalachians. Through point count surveys and vegetation measurements we identified changes in species abundance and habitat use in relation to fire intensity and time since fire. Our results suggest that early succession songbirds, a group currently showing declines (e.g. Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) and Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera)) benefit from intense fire while among those species requiring mature forest to breed (e.g. Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros verivora) and Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)) effects varied by species.

63

Effect of Two Native Invasive Tree Species on Upland Pine Breeding Bird Communities in Georgia Nathan Klaus and Tim Keyes (Nongame Conservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources) Abstract: Georgia land lottery maps from the 1820s reveal two tree species, water oak (Quercus nigra) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), were formerly limited to major floodplains in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. These species are now common in upland sites as a result of past land use and disruption of fire regimes. We investigated the effect this invasion had on breeding bird diversity in upland mixed pine (Pinus spp.) stands based on 90 point counts conducted in spring 2005. Half of these stands had no water oak or sweetgum (open stands) and half had a minimum of 25% of their basal area as water oak and/or sweetgum (invaded stands). Bird species richness and abundance were 42 and 41% lower, respectively, in invaded stands. Thirty-five bird species had more than 20 records and were tested for an association with invaded stands. No species were positively associated with invaded stands while 10 were negatively associated with invaded stands, mostly grassland pine savanna and shrubland bird species of high conservation value. Invasion of upland pine forest by these native tree species is similar to invasion by exotic species, and appears to disrupt ecosystem function causing declines in bird diversity.

64

Re-introduction of Fire for Longleaf Pine Forest Restoration at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Lisa McInnis1, Sharon Hermann2, John Kush2, John Gilbert2, and Caroline Noble1. 1 National Park Service 2 Auburn University Abstract: Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE) is in initial stages of longleaf forest restoration. Due to lack of burning, HOBE currently supports excessive hardwoods; litter depths reach 10 cm and duff sometimes exceeds 6 cm. Bases of residual adult longleaf are surrounded by large mounds of fuel. At other sites with prolonged fire exclusion, burning often results in smoldering duff and eventually dead longleaf. HOBE hopes to avoid that result by careful use, and at times even micro-management, of prescribed fire. Re-introduction of fire began in 2006. Pre-burn, bases of many longleaf were soaked with approximately 200 L of water. Prescriptions targeted litter but not duff consumption, using low-severity fire with short residence time. Initial results appear successful and burns removed much of the litter but little duff around treated trees. Scattered untreated trees were damaged by smoldering. Although effective for protecting trees, soaking was time consuming. Raking, a treatment that does not require participation of the crew, will be tested in a future fire. Current thought is that duff at the base of many adult trees may need to remain for the near future and that areas within seed dispersal distance and suitable for longleaf regeneration may be the most important sites to target for duff consumption.

65

Linking State Prescribed Fire Councils as a Coalition: A Proposal to Promote Media and Public Understanding of Rx Fire, and to Nationally Address Key Management, Policy, and Regulatory Issues Mark A. Melvin1, Johnny Stowe2, Frank Cole3, Lane Green4, Scott Wallinger5, and Lindsay Boring1 1Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia 2South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina 3For Land’s Sake, Thomasville, Georgia 4Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida 5Advisor, Forest Sustainability, Seabrook Island, South Carolina Abstract: The rural southern United States is experiencing rapid changes in land use and demographics, with increased challenges for landowners and managers of public and private lands to conduct prescribed burning of pine woodlands and other pyric ecosystems. Across the country there are common issues including public safety, ecological stewardship, liability, public education, and air quality related regulations. Networking the organizations and efforts together within the South, West, and other regions that utilize prescribed fire will increase communication, effectiveness of public education, and especially participation in fire policy decisions and regulatory outcomes. While Florida pioneered the establishment of regional fire councils, active or startup organizations are now emerging in most Southern states and several Midwestern and Western states. A diverse group of private, public and non-governmental leaders has reviewed the opportunities for establishing a coalition of fire councils, as well as for the need to initially examine the science and management context for the new EPA particulate matter emission standards (PM2.5), which may place considerable new constraints upon land managers to achieve their prescribed burning goals.

66

Forest Structure and Plant Biodiversity of Longleaf Pine Communities in the Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge Lisa Samuelson, Tom Stokes, John Kush, John Gilbert, and Marianne Farris, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Alabama 36849 Abstract: Mountain longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) forests are a critically endangered component of the once vast longleaf pine forests of the Southeast maintained by fire. The Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (MLNWR) holds significant stands maintained by fire or fire suppressed. Because of the lack of historical information on MLNWR, complex fuel conditions, differing community types and variable topography, information on forest structure and fuel loads in MLNWR longleaf communities is needed by the Refuge in its mission of restoration and protection of longleaf pine. Introduction Urbanization is occurring at unprecedented rates in the US with the South converting the greatest total acreage to urban uses. As urban areas encroach upon forests, biodiversity and ecosystems may be threatened. Mountain longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) forests are a critically endangered component of the once vast longleaf pine forests of the Southeast maintained by fire. From what was perhaps once the largest temperate forest type dominated by a single species of tree in the U.S. to occupying about 3% of its former range, mature longleaf pine forest pine forest are now considered rare. Within these remnant longleaf pine forests, a few dozen species that wholly depend on the structure of these mature stands are now imperiled with global extinction. Furthermore, many scientists have begun to discover that high species richness (found mainly in the groundcover) accounts for longleaf pine forests being considered as regional hotspots of biodiversity. Several small pockets of this once vast forest remain in the Coastal Plain, but in the mountain region only a small area in northeastern Alabama contains a forest that approaches the landscape witnessed by European settlers, the Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (MLNWR). On what was once Fort McClellan, the new MLNWR holds a significant acreage of mountain longleaf pine forest, at least 10 old-growth tracts and lush herbaceous communities on areas which experienced significant fire. Areas around the refuge are now viewed by the public as preferred neighborhoods for housing development. The current land use plan for what once was Fort McClellan shows an extensive urban interface with a western boundary of residential areas made up of existing and potential new development sites for single and multi-family units. The potential for non-native plant species invasions in the MLNWR is significant, because of the introduction of non-native species by adjacent homes and businesses, the ability of fast growing and stress tolerant invasive species to fill native plant niches, and lack of fire. This work is examining forest structure and biodiversity in longleaf pine stands in the MLNWR. Permanent plots are being established so that changes in plant biodiversity can be monitored as urban development increases and ecosystem restoration success can be evaluated.

67

Prescribed burning is a necessary element of any effort in longleaf pine ecosystems and history of burning should be considered when evaluating biodiversity in these systems. Because of lack of historical information on MLNWR, a complex fuel conditions, differing community types, and variable topography, it is critical to acquire adequate information on fuel loads (litter and duff layers). Preliminary data indicate that plant diversity on the MLNWR has been negatively impacted in areas where burning has not occurred. We hypothesize that lack of fire will result in greater susceptibility of longleaf pine ecosystems to non-native species invasion. Results will provide important knowledge for the refuge and its mission in the restoration and protection of longleaf pine. Specific objectives of this research are to: (1) document native and non-native herbaceous and woody vegetation in a variety of longleaf stands located throughout the MLNWR, (2) measure biodiversity, forest structure, and fuel loads in longleaf communities with varying fire and management histories and (3) provide effective and timely transfer of information to public and professional stake holders. Methods This study is being conducted at the Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (MLNWR) near Anniston, AL. The MLNWR is located in the Southern Appalachian Mountain Range and is comprised of 9016 acres. Within the MLNWR is believed to be the only remaining stands of old growth mountain longleaf pine forest. We relocated 35 previously established plots scattered throughout the refuge and added an additional 13 plots from various longleaf pine stands located within the refuge (Figure 1). All plots are 0.25 acres with a circular 0.10 acre measurement plot in the center. Within the measurement plot, diameter at breast height (dbh) is measured on all woody vegetation greater than 1 inch dbh and recorded by species. Ground cover vegetation is sampled on 5 subplots (100 cm x 30 cm) per measurement plot. Subplot locations are generated from random azimuths and distances from plot center. Within each subplot, % cover is recorded by grasses, herbaceous, vines, and woody categories excluding first year germinates. Woody ground cover is identified by species and number of stems counted within the subplot. From these data we will calculate biodiversity indices such as importance values, richness, evenness, the Shannon Weiner index and Simpson index. Because the amount of fuel also directly impacts forest structure and biodiversity, fuel loads defined by litter and duff mass are being measured in a 30 cm x 30 cm square adjacent to 4 of the 5 subplots. Within these fuel load sampling points, litter layer, decomposing layer and duff layer samples are collected then dried and weighed. Relationships among forest structure, biodiversity indices, abundance of non-native species, fuel loads and stand classification will be explored. Results to Date We have sampled 35 plots and thus far have not recorded any non-native invasive species. However, with the current level of development around the refuge growing, the potential for non-native invasive species to move in is still a possibility. By establishing these permanent GPS plots, forest structure can be monitored in the future. In the plots

68

sampled, standing longleaf pine basal areas range from 1.0 to 101 ft2/ac and a sample of the native species that have been found are presented in Table 1. Acknowledgements This work is supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Auburn University Longleaf Alliance.

69

Figure 1. Map of the Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge indicating permanent sampling plot locations.

70

Table 1. List of woody species recorded to date. blackjack oak Quercus marilandica vaccinium Vaccinium spp. red maple Acer rubrum sassafras Sassafras albidum persimmon Diospyros virginiana pawpaw Asimina triloba sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua sparkleberry Vaccinium arboretum sand hickory Carya pallida mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa pignut hickory Carya glabra blackgum Nyssa sylvatica downy serviceberry Amelanchier arborea crabapple Malus angustifolia northern red oak Quercus rubra chestnut oak Quercus prinus viburnum Viburnum spp. sourwood Oxydendrum arboretum black oak Quercus velutina post oak Quercus stellata winged sumac Rhus copallina loblolly pine Pinus taeda shortleaf pine Pinus echinata longleaf pine Pinus palustris

71

Influence of Forest Structure on Soil Respiration in Longleaf Pine Ben Whitaker, Lisa Samuelson, Tom Stokes, and John Kush (School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University) Abstract: Global climate change and the accumulation of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere can be mitigated by the proper management of soils and forests through carbon sequestration. Particularly, longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) forests and soils are able to sequester large quantities of carbon through long rotations of timber and temperate climatic conditions. Soils compose the largest carbon sinks on earth and thus have potential to be the largest contributors of CO2 to total ecosystem respiration. The objective of this study is to examine how different densities and forest structures influence the rate of soil respiration rates to contribute knowledge of forest management effects on carbon pools. If management objectives are formulated so that soils act as a sink for carbon instead of a source, the results may be coupled with the long term carbon storage of solid wood products to benefit landowners if credibility becomes profitable. However, more knowledge on the effects of stand structure relative to soil respiration rates is needed to understand how soils affect the carbon cycle. When the economics of carbon credits and high value products are combined through management of longleaf forests, landowners will be able to gain multiple sources of revenue. Soil respiration will be examined in response to basal area, aboveground and belowground biomass in woody and herbaceous plants, and environmental conditions. Various basal areas will be tested so as to cover the range of management plans and silvicultural operations for natural longleaf stands. Introduction Longleaf pine historically dominated the upper and lower coastal plain in the southeastern states of east Texas to southeast Virginia and into the Piedmont of Alabama and Georgia. Extensive logging practices and improper regeneration techniques, reforestation with various species of southern yellow pines (P. taeda L., P. elliottii Engelm., P. echinata Mill.), the naval stores industry which utilized pine oleoresin, and suppression of natural wildfires all played an important role in the decline of the natural range of the longleaf pine. The original longleaf range has been reduced to less than 3 million acres. However, as interest in this species grows, lands are being reforested with longleaf pine through private landowner interests, governmental conservation reserve programs (CRP), and ecologists seeking to restore native habitat which supports many diverse forms of flora and fauna. In a forested ecosystem there are many pathways through which carbon is sequestered. Forests are a large component of the carbon cycle in both sources and sinks for CO2. Because forests can be large carbon banks which are able to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their value has increased. The cycle of carbon in a forested ecosystem also has many components, including above ground and below ground biomass production, decomposition, and respiration. Carbon is sequestered into the soil through photosynthesis and by organic matter decomposition. Sources of carbon

72

dioxide from forests include forest fires, decomposition of leaf matter and woody debris, and respiration (Kimmins, 2004). Total ecosystem respiration within forests is determined by autotrophic and heterotrophic belowground respiration. Soils are the largest storage bank of carbon, exceeding aboveground and belowground biomass or atmospheric CO2 amounts by two to three times (Johnson et al., 2003). Soil respiration was found to be between 58% and 76%, with a mean of 67%, of the total ecosystem respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood and conifer forest in Belgium (Yuste et al., 2005). Forest and soil carbon storage would act as a long term storage bank for carbon as the forests mature and grow through CO2 sequestration. Chen et al. (2007) describe soil organic carbon in relation to a carbon sink as equal in importance, if not even more significant, than the live biomass which grows in the soil. Because of the importance of soil carbon relative to a forest as a carbon sink, many soil factors should be considered, including the parent material, texture, depth, forest cover, and past and present management practices (Yu et al., 2007). Soil carbon is difficult to determine because of the non-uniform spatial distribution of carbon in the soil and limited methods for measurements of the soil carbon (Ebinger et al., 2003). In fact, there is only a partial understanding of the process of carbon allocation in forests, because there is a large range of unknown knowledge for certain factors in the carbon cycle such as belowground carbon fluxes and allocation of carbon through different forested ecosystems (Litton et al., 2007). Soil carbon has been noted by Birdsey (2006) to change in very small increments that are difficult to assess, confirming soil carbon’s complexity. Soil carbon can be released through disturbances such as fire, pest outbreaks, logging, or through land use changes. Valentini et al. (2000) found that as the use of land changes, there is a large change in the soil organic matter, which can be sequestered and accumulate within soil stores, or decompose and be recycled through the carbon cycle and increase soil respiration rates. Land carbon storage is composed of plant and soil carbon sinks. When the carbon sink is not maintained in the same manner in which carbon was sequestered, then the sink may transform into a carbon source (Scholes et al., 2001). For example, land use change from a forest to agricultural land results in different cycling patterns of carbon. The forest had previously taken CO2 from the atmosphere and through carbon allocation the distribution of the sequestered carbon became part of the tree and part of the soil. A land use change resulting in the transformation of a forest into cropland will loose long term storage ability as woody materials are excluded from the landscape. Land use may alter microclimate which changes the variable residence time of soil organic carbon. Factors which effect the mean residence time of soil carbon are the ability of a carbon source to resist decay and the amount of protection carbon sources have against decomposition (Paul et al., 2003). Both variables influence the storage and respiration of carbon in soil. Scholes and others (2001) state that carbon in plant biomass or soil organic carbon will be released back into the atmosphere with improper management. The transformation from a carbon sink to a carbon source can be a very rapid change as a result of disturbances altering the structure of the land. However, the transformation can also be gradual through the process of respiration. Falkowski et al. (2000) state three possible pathways by which carbon is reintroduced

73

into the atmosphere. These are autotrophic respiration, heterotrophic respiration, and land disturbances such as fire, pests, land use change, deforestation, and aforestation. The objectives of this study are to examine soil respiration rates in relation to forest structure to determine what environmental factors and management practices maximize total ecosystem carbon sequestration in longleaf pine stands. If land managers are able to utilize a land management plan to produce timber and sequester carbon simultaneously, economic and intrinsic values increase for the land owner. Therefore, the optimal stand density for the highest soil CO2 sequestration will be investigated. Another objective is to attempt to reveal some of the complexities in the process of soil respiration. Different vegetation and forest types exhibit various rates of respiration (Raich et al., 2000). The data gathered from this study will aid in the understanding of soil respiration in a temperate climate with a native, long lived, and fire dependent species. Because soil respiration composes a large percentage of ecosystem respiration, factors affecting soil respiration influence whether a stand is a source or sink for CO2. Factors in this study which are being investigated include stand structure, basal area, soil temperature, soil moisture, cover, litter, and aboveground and belowground biomass. Methods The study site is located at the Escambia Experimental Forest (EEF) located seven miles south of Brewton, Alabama. This is in the Middle Coastal Plain which is composed of well drained, nutrient poor, sandy loam soils. Lindsey Creek and some of its small tributaries flow through the forest into the Conecuh River. The USDA-Forest Service maintains this 1,200 ha (3,000 acre) forest as an experimental study site primarily for natural longleaf pine management. It was established as an experimental forest on April 1, 1947 when the T.R. Miller Mill Company leased it without charge for 99 years to the USDA-Forest Service. Site index is approximately 21 m (70 ft) at base age 50. The study site, Compartment 135, was naturally regenerated in 1957-1958 by the shelterwood method. The seedlings were released from the parent overstory in 1961. Since regeneration, the stand has been managed with prescribed fire every three years and the last prescribed burn for Compartment 135 was conducted on January 9, 2007. The average stand basal area is 18 m2/ha (80 ft2/acre) except in 15 plots which were separately managed for different densities throughout the 16 ha (40 acre) block. The 15 study plots cover a range in basal areas from 7-34 m2/ha (30-150 ft2/acre). The 15 0.04 ha (approximately 0.10 ac) plots will be divided into a grid of 400 separate m2 subplots. The subplots will be sampled during the span of 1 year. Different basal areas and the frequency of plots within basal areas will be sampled to provide a varying range density and forest structure. The treatments are the variable basal areas within the different plots. During each monthly field trip, 5 subplots from a plot will be sampled. The five subplots will be intensively sampled without replacement by estimating cover, measuring soil respiration, measuring and collecting litter material, and extracting soil and roots. The total area of the subplots to be sampled without replacement every month is 75 m2 (n=75). Over the 12 month sampling period, 900 m2 out of the potential 6000 m2

74

subplots (15%) will be sampled. The samples will be used to estimate soil respiration based on different variables for the plot level, and then for the stand level. Soil respiration rates will be measured using an infrared gas analyzer (IRGA) (LICOR 6400, Li-Cor, Inc.; Lincoln, Nebraska USA) connected with a soil chamber head attachment (LICOR 6400-09 Soil CO2 Flux Chamber). Soil collars will be installed the day prior to measuring to limit the effects of the flux of carbon dioxide on the measurements (Maier et al., 2000). Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) collars, 10 cm in diameter will be inserted into the ground. Vegetation and debris which compromise the airtight seal of the soil chamber head will be clipped. The collars will be located within the 0.04 ha sampling grid, with only 1 measurement per m2 subplot. Soil respiration rates will be measured monthly so that over the course of 12 months seasonal variations can be observed (Maier et al., 2000). Measurements will be taken before the peak of the diurnal cycle is reached. In order to estimate the CO2 efflux between measurement dates, soil respiration will be modeled from soil temperature following Samuelson et al. (2004). Results Figure 1 shows an example of the monthly variation in soil respiration in the Escambia Experimental Forest. Mean monthly soil respiration rates ranged from 1.5±0.08 to 1.9±0.41 in January, 1.4±0.20to 1.7±0.30 in February, 1.7±0.19 to 2.0±0.13 in March, 2.2±0.17 to 2.2±0.27 in April, 2.9±0.19 to 3.5±0.08 in May, and 5.4±0.20 to 6.4±0.43 in June. These preliminary results indicate no significant difference between basal area treatments. However, as the temperature warmed from January to June, soil respiration rates increased confirming the direct relationship between temperature and soil respiration. Regression analyses will be used to examine relationships between soil respiration and soil temperature, soil moisture, soil organic carbon and the forest structure including basal area, fine root biomass, understory cover, and litter depth.

75

January February March April May June

Soi

l Res

pira

tion

(um

ol C

O2 m

-2 s

-1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low Basal AreaMedium Basal AreaHigh Basal Area

Figure 1. Example of soil respiration from January through June (2008) in stands with different basal areas.

Acknowledgements Funding for the project was provided by the United States Geological Survey. Research was made possible with the help of Tom Stokes, Marianne Farris, Lacey Avery, Wes Brown, and Ron Tucker. Guidance for the project was given by Dr. Lisa Samuelson, Dr. John Kush, and Dr. Dean Gjerstad. References Birdsey, R.A. 2006. Carbon accounting rules and guidelines for the United States Forest

Sector. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 158-1524. Chen, J.M., S.C. Thomas, Y. Yin, and V. Maclaren, J. Liu, J. Pa, G. Liu, Q. Tian, Q. Zhu,

J.-J. Pan, X. Shi, J. Xue, and E. Kang. 2007. Enhancing forest carbon sequestration in China: toward an integration of scientific and socio-economic perspectives. Journal of Environmental Management 85: 515-523.

Ebinger M.H., M.L. Norfleet, D.D. Breshears, D.A. Cremers, M.J. Ferris, P.J. Unkefer, M.S. Lamb, K.L. Goddard, and C.W. Meyer. 2003. Extending the applicability

76

of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for total soil carbon measurement. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 1616-1619.

Falkowski, P., R. J. Scholes, E. Boyle, J. Canadell, D. Canfield, J. Elser, N Gruber, K. Hibbard, P. Hogberg, S. Linder, F.T. Mackenzie, B. Moore III, T. Pederson, Y. Rosenthal, S. Seitzinger, V. Smetacek, and W. Steffen. 2000. The global carbon cycle: a test of our knowledge of earth as a system. Science 290: 291-296.

Johnson, D.W., D.E. Todd, Jr., and V.R. Tolbert. 2003. Changes in ecosystem carbon and nitrogen in a loblolly pine plantation over the first 18 years. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 1594-1601.

Kimmins, J.P. 2004. Forest Ecology. p 60. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Litton, C.M., J.W. Raich, and M.G. Ryan. 2007. Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology 13:2089-2109.

Maier C.A. and L.W. Kress. 2000. Soil CO2 evolution and root respiration in 11 year-old loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations as affected by moisture and nutrient availability. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 347-359.

Paul, E.A., S.J. Morris, J. Stix, K. Paustian, and E.G. Gregorich. 2003. Interpretation of soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in agricultural and afforested soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 1620-1628.

Raich, J.W. and A. Tufekcioglu. 2000. Vegetation and soil respiration: correlations and controls. Biogeochemistry 48: 71-90.

Samuelson L.J., K. Johnson, and T. Stokes. 2004. Production, allocation, and stemwood growth efficiency of Pinus taeda L. stands in response to 6years of intensive management. Forest Ecology and Management 192: 59-70.

Scholes R.J. and I.R. Noble. 2001. Climate change: storing carbon on land. Science 294: 1012-1013.

Valentini, R., G. Matteucci, A.J. Dolman, E.D. Schulze, C. Rebmann, E.J. Moors, A. Granier, P. Gross, N.O. Jensen, K. Pilegaard, A. Lindroth, A. Grelle, C. Bernhofer, T. Grunwald, M. Aubinet, R. Ceulemns, A.S. Kowalske, T. Vesala, U. Rannik, P. Berbigier, D. Loustau, J. Guomundsson, H. Thorgeirsson, A. Ibrom, K. Morgenstern, R. Clement, J. Moncrieff, L. Martin, D., J. Beringer, L.B. Hutley, and I. McHugh. 2000. Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature 20:861-865.

Yu, D., X. Shi, H. Wang, W. Sun, J.M. Chen, Q. Liu, and Y. Zhao. 2007. Regional patterns of soil organic carbon storages in China. Journal of Environmental Management 85: 680–689.

Yuste, J.C., M. Nagy, I.A. Janssens, A. Carrara, and R. Ceulemans. 2005. Soil respiration in a mixed temperate forest and its contribution to total ecosystem respiration. Tree Physiology 25: 609-619.

77

Ecological Restoration in Alabama: Montane Longleaf Pine Woodlands of the USFS Shoal Creek Ranger District

D.W. Borland (Naturalist, 5 Dante Court, Quincy, FL 32351) Abstract: Open, park-like forests dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Miller) once covered two-thirds of the southeastern United States. Since European settlement, this coverage has plummeted to less than 3% of its former range making longleaf forests among the most endangered ecosystems in the United States (Noss, 1989). Further, most remnant communities lack ecological integrity and less than 0.01% remains as old-growth. Importantly, much biodiversity associated within these ecosystems has been reduced and remain at risk from expansive development, landscape mechanization, inappropriate silviculture practice, fire exclusion and other contemporary threats. The Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Longleaf pine forests in the southeastern mountain landscape are imperiled. These conditions give concern to the US Forest Service. It manages much of the remaining critical habitat and the integrated ecosystems that support much recognized biodiversity, natural services and socially important conservation benefits; including large populations of the federally endangered, red-cockaded woodpecker, which is a keystone indicator species of this habitat type. Longleaf pine is typically thought of as a coastal plain species; mostly encountered in the lower coastal plain areas of the South but, also extending into the northern coastal plain of Alabama and Mississippi and southern Piedmont. Many are somehow surprised to learn that Alabama is unique from other states where longleaf pine is found, yet longleaf pine woodlands remain in the mountainous (or montane) areas of northern Alabama and northwest Georgia Within the Ridge and Valley physiographic landscape, longleaf pine was historically the dominant forest cover on south and southwest facing slopes up to about 2,000 feet in elevation across this broad montane and Appalachian foothill region. The original ecosystem was maintained with frequent natural and man-caused fires. Natural fires, along with the influence of fuels, climate, soils and moisture conditions, maintained this ecosystem, its species composition and its high diversity through time. As a fire dependant (or pyrogenic) ecosystem, montane longleaf pine developed as uneven-aged, open-canopy woodlands on steep to rolling slopes of generally infertile, xeric to mesic soils having a conspicuous herbaceous and grass-dominated understory and lacking a shrubby midstory. The open-canopy nature of these woodlands allows increased light exposure to the forest groundcover and occasions the proliferation of grasses and herbs, which in turn benefit increased wildlife diversity and fine fire fuel characteristics. Shortleaf pine, blackjack oak and sand hickory was documented as co-dominate with longleaf pine in the canopy and sub-canopy layer. Importantly, other fire tolerant and fire influenced hardwood

78

species also occur as scattered patches and sparse midstory groupings throughout these woodlands and within the transitional ecotones between the uplands and bottoms. Although still a common tree, longleaf pines (and its associated pyrogenic ground cover) often diminish in importance toward damp bottomland valleys and lower, north facing slopes where fire frequency and intensity was greatly reduced and allowed for the establishment of non-fire tolerant vegetation. However, countless micro-site differences in elevation, slope, moisture regimes, etc. allowed fire to either move into or to be generally excluded from some areas, therefore influencing the spatial prominence of longleaf pine. The characteristic vegetation of these woodland systems depend on frequent ground layer fires to create the essential conditions for reproduction and population sustainability. Many species are dependent on periodic fire to produce viable seed to utilize the exposed soil conditions created by low-intensity ground fires for their regeneration. Upwards to 20 species of vascular plants per square meter growing underneath a fire-maintained montane longleaf pine woodland canopy in Calhoun County, Alabama has been documented (Varner, 2003). Montane longleaf pine woodlands are vital to a large array of avifauna, reptiles and mammals. Indicators of high quality montane longleaf pine woodlands often include red-cockaded woodpecker, redheaded woodpecker, brown headed nuthatch, prairie warbler, Bachman’s sparrow, eastern towhee, bobwhite quail, broad-head skink, timber rattlesnake and fox squirrel. These ecosystems also supported complementary organisms represented by various fungi and lichens, soil micro-organisms and specifically, ants, beetles, flies, bees and other invertebrates; which serve well in important food webs, pollination services and nutrient cycles. It has been documented that 50 percent of all Threatened and Endangered Species occur on National Forests. 45 percent of the Threatened and Endangered Species tracked by the Alabama Natural Heritage Program occur on or near the National Forests in Alabama. The National Forests in Alabama are obvious bioreserves in public ownership, serving as refugia for multiple species, ecosystems and conservation target-elements, and containing some of the largest, intact landscapes in the State. The federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, a keystone species of the montane longleaf pine habitat type, has experienced considerable population declines from historic levels due to a loss of suitable habitat. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require older pines (usually longleaf pines in Alabama) to excavate cavities for nesting and roosting. Good habitat consists of large well-spaced pines of advanced age (80 years +), very few hardwoods in the midstory or canopy, and abundant herbaceous vegetation on the ground. This type of stand structure is created and maintained by periodic fire.

The northern bobwhite quail is another species that is typically associated with fire-maintained montane longleaf pine habitats. Its regional population decline as a result of habitat loss during recent decades is well documented and alarming. While quail do not

79

directly rely on longleaf pine trees, the early-successional vegetation structure, the diverse seed production and the abundant insect foods associated with herbaceous groundcover conditions and the resulting openness of longleaf forests creates ideal quail habitat. A healthy montane longleaf pine ecosystem fulfils all the seasonal requirements of bobwhite quail, including fall and winter cover, abundant seed production, quality nesting habitat, and critical brood-rearing habitat. Again, periodic fire is the key to maintaining these early-successional habitats in the longleaf ecosystem. Restoration Need Pre-European settlement forests in the montane regions of Alabama’s ridge and valley areas, prior to 1830, were pre-dominantly fire adapted upland oak and hickory and longleaf pine woodlands. Bottomlands were dominated by mixed mesophytic hardwoods. A mixture of hardwoods, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine and other species occurred in transitions ecotones between the bottomlands and uplands. Natural fires and man-caused fires of indigenous First Nations, maintained this ecosystem and species composition through time. Wildlife species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, depended on these conditions and were widespread. Gradually the mischief of man is unleashed. Forests of the Talladega Mountains were cleared of its virgin forests for farming, forest commodities and charcoal production to furnish the economies of local iron industries. From 1908-1929 there was broad-scale removal of longleaf pine for lumber and to fuel industry. Natural fire occurrence was disturbed and biodiversity suffered. Federal acquisition, relocation of farm families and the establishment of the National Forests took place from 1935-1940. During this time and necessitated by improper land stewardship, government sponsored, soil stabilization programs were initiated and often completed through reforestation. The primary species planted was loblolly pine due to its seed availability and early successes in establishing densely-spaced stands in the mountainous regions, regardless of its adaptability to various soils or landscape conditions. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) is a southern native species that naturally occurs in mixed bottomland forests and extends into adjacent moist, lower slopes. Its spread into the uplands was historically limited by naturally occurring, frequent fire episodes. With active introductory plantings, disturbed fire frequency patterns and eventual fire exclusion, loblolly pine intruded and became established in large areas once dominated by the longleaf pine. Natural stands of montane longleaf pine and its mixtures decline and biodiversity suffers. From 1940 - 1960 there was an extensive Federal fire suppression policy and aggressive fire exclusion resulted, even within fire dependent ecosystems like the montane longleaf pine woodlands. More biodiversity was lost. Also, initial signs of declining health and mortality of loblolly (and shortleaf pine) were documented, particularly at unsuitable upland locations, for this now “off-site” species. The period from 1960 – 1980 witnessed an expanded management focus on single species silviculture and landscape mechanization emphasizing clear-cut harvesting, intensive site preparation, loblolly pine

80

planting and fire exclusion. Occurrence of natural stands of montane longleaf pine plummeted. From 1980-2000, Public dissension combined with an increased scientific understanding of this threatened ecosystem, advances in longleaf pine seedling reintroduction, gains in the conservation biology of individual species and professional developments in restoration practice, Federal emphasis again began to focus on the recovery of montane longleaf pine woodlands and its ecosystem needs. During the past decade, the Talladega Forest has experienced southern pine beetle infestations at epidemic levels which target the loblolly pine plantations, dense mixed pine stands and rampantly spreading to virginia and shortleaf pine. These epidemics are indications of compromised forest health. The epidemic peaked in summer 2000 and continued at excessive levels through 2001. These epidemics, red-cockaded woodpecker decline, a management priority toward ecosystem management and developments in the conservation sciences have contributed to the strategies now employed in the current ecological restoration initiatives. USFS Forest Health and RCW Initiative Although vestiges of the pre-European forest occur in pockets of today’s Ridge and Valley landscape of northern Alabama, the structure of the forest bears little resemblance to that which occurred prior to significant Euro-American disturbances. A few remaining remote ridges and managed areas in northern Alabama contain remnant montane longleaf pine woodlands and may now provide examples of the characteristic vegetation structure, species composition and ecological function of the native, montane longleaf pine ecotypes. Public lands in Alabama contain the majority of the remaining ecosystem and now serve as catalysts for current research inquiry and federal management programs developed to restore a broader ecological health and integrity through employing systematic ecological restoration for these endangered montane ecosystems. The Shoal Creek Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest near Heflin, in northeast Alabama, contains significant acreages in active restoration and management to protect some of the best remaining montane longleaf pine woodlands. However, most have suffered significant historical mischief and exhibit the symptoms of compromised ecosystem health. The USFS in Alabama now realizes that the threat of loss to regional biological diversity supported by these montane longleaf pine woodlands is imminent unless restoration is aggressively pursued and public education measures are put in place. The threat often highlights the single conservation issue that a fire-maintained montane longleaf pine system has been absent from the mountains of northern Alabama for enough generations that few know it existed. Time has erased many of the signs of the original forest to all but the most observant eye. Yet, some now have the luxury to hike through the inaccessible ranges of Talladega National Forest to experience good examples of montane woodlands, observe active restoration in practice or awe at the remnant groves of ancient montane longleaf pine sheltered therein. The restoration

81

initiative should expand this public interest and establish socially critical benefits emanating from these natural areas. To address the montane longleaf pine ecosystem restoration, the current Forest Health and RCW Initiative completed the Environmental Impact Statement process and finalized a Record of Decision in 2003 (USFS Management Bulletin R8-MB-118B, March 2004). The purpose of this Initiative is to address declining forest health, restore the montane longleaf pine communities, improve red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and provide Public input to the decision process. The goals are to create and restore natural understory conditions typical of fire maintained, montane longleaf pine ecosystems and improve conditions to managed areas that historically experienced southern pine beetle infestation and to those exhibiting symptoms of declining health and productivity. Importantly, this Initiative will enhance habitat for viable red-cockaded woodpecker recovery and facilitate its population expansion. The projects outlined in the Decision intend to restore longleaf pine stands to areas where they originally occurred, re-establish appropriate vegetation structure and species composition and improve ecological function to impoverished woodlands. The current planning builds upon and integrates past management improvements and augments projects in place. It begins a broader landscape-scale restoration that will expand and compliment future projects on Talladega National Forest. The Alabama National Forest Partnership In 2004, a formal collaboration was established to support the restoration initiatives of the USFS in Alabama. The establishment of the Alabama National Forests Partnership represents a unique collaboration between the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Alabama. This partnership expands the relationship of The Nature Conservancy in public land policy and management practice, as well as allows the continuation of an important history of public collaboration on projects within Alabama that champions public land acquisition, rare species and ecosystem protection and appropriate ecological restoration to support multiple long-term conservation goals. Through this partnership, TNC brings current ecological science and practice to the service of the Shoal Creek Ranger District, along with three other USFS Districts, and facilitates evaluations to determine how to best monitor and manage these exceptional places and to protect their biological richness. In this way, TNC compliments it mission to protect and restore landscapes and waters necessary to support and preserve the natural communities, plants and animals that represent significant biodiversity in Alabama. The Alabama National Forests Partnership provides direct expertise to the Shoal Creek Ranger District through an established TNC partnership ecologist. The ecologist’s services are intended to help formally define and quantify appropriate ecological and natural community goals, develop ecological restoration strategies and provide advice regarding implementation techniques employed by the Forest Health and RCW Initiative,

82

such as attribute monitoring and fire ecology. The partnership ecologist develops and facilitates the establishment of goals and measures of success used to evaluate the effects of restoration treatments and serves in an advisory capacity regarding restoration and conservation management. Additional collaborations made through the partnership ecologist with research interests from area universities focus the restoration monitoring and objective analysis of the restoration operations and expands the expertise available to the District in its adaptive management. At Shoal Creek, this currently involves ecologists from Auburn University and TNC. Of direct application and importance to the ecological restoration, the TNC Partnership Ecologist has developed a formal natural community description for desired montane longleaf pine woodland conditions specific to the Shoal Creek Ranger District landscape. This document serves as guidance criteria for performance monitoring. The description contains specific, quantifiable metrics of forest structure, composition and function intended to serve as targets by which effective restoration practice may be evaluated and adapted. These serve as The basic reference targets for comparative analysis by USFS managers and practitioners in determining success or failure in meeting restoration objectives and provide the basis for adaptive management. The Restoration Treatments In order to meet the goals and measurable objectives of the Forest Health and RCW Initiative, several restoration treatments have been prioritized for implementation. Forest Health Thinning – these actions will reduce stem densities within loblolly pine plantations and mixed pine stands as a first step toward achieving, open-canopy conditions associated with montane longleaf pine and upland oak/hickory woodlands and to reduce short-term risk of southern pine beetle proliferation and other risks associated with disease or declining forest productivity regardless of species. To improve existing longleaf pine stands, non-commercial treatments, such as manual and mechanical mid-story vegetation removal followed with prescribed fire, will be implemented. Restoration Harvests with Reserves – these actions favor residual longleaf pine and similarly reduce or eliminate the undesirable tree species and excessive densities that occur within mixed stands of loblolly pine, mixed pine/hardwood or virginia pine. Stands that exhibit declining health, contain off-site species or exhibit high, insect/ disease risk characteristics will be the target of these restoration treatments. Reintroduction of montane longleaf pine to some of these sites may subsequently be accomplished by direct seedling planting or if residual longleaf pine densities allow, utilize natural recruitment by seed. The potential for seed banking of native flora is important and may thus facilitate the recovery of native groundcover and enhance overall biodiversity from this treatment. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Thinning – these actions will focus on habitat improvements in older longleaf pine stands and expand the corridor areas adjacent to managed

83

populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers existing on the District. Common restoration treatments utilized separately or in combination with other implementations include: Strategic timber thinning to accomplish lower stem densities of advanced-aged, residual longleaf pine individuals, Removal of off-site tree species, Woody midstory vegetation removal in mature pine stands, and Aggressive prescribed burning featuring spring and early summer season application. Restoration Monitoring Monitoring of the treatments of this Initiative is conducted in several ways. USFS timber sales administrators, biologists, silviculturalists and technicians evaluate all mandated compliance requirements of timber harvest operations, riparian protections, erosion control standards, residual snag retention targets, wildlife guidelines, site preparation impacts and plantings. District biologists monitor terrestrial wildlife and plant response in project specific surveys and assess stream habitat conditions to ensure viability and protection of aquatic species. Monitoring the effects of restoration treatments is a necessary element of the longleaf pine woodland restoration process. Vegetation monitoring plots, breeding bird point counts, fire fuel composition assays, red-cockaded woodpecker nest surveys and fall quail covey counts are each employed to measure the effectiveness of restoration. One important factor used to determine how close current conditions are to being restored is an evaluation of the composition and structure of plant species documented in the understory and compare those to pre-established reference targets for the project and as detailed in the conceptual natural community description. Healthy montane longleaf pine woodlands typically include a variety of native bluestem grasses and native legumes. Significantly higher species richness is initially being observed in stands on the District subject to those restoration treatments emphasizing increased light penetration after thinning treatments, woody midstory vegetation removal and frequent prescribed fire applications (Shurette, 2006). For example, 29 species of plants per square meter area were recorded by District biologists for one particular vegetation monitoring plot in an open longleaf pine stand, compared to only 6 species for the same type plot located in a dense, untreated stand. These numbers indicate vegetation response to treatment events and are compared to the targeted, desired future conditions established. Wildlife targets also provide a monitoring guidance. Early successional bird species such as prairie warbler, Bachman’s sparrow, bobwhite quail, eastern towhee and yellow - breasted chat have been detected much more often during point counts in open stands versus those in dense untreated longleaf stands. Red-cockaded woodpecker nesting success on the District has also increased; with two successful nests in 2003, five in 2004, and six in 2005. Some stands are beginning to exhibit the characteristic vegetation structure targeted for desired future conditions.

84

Progress toward successful completion of the restoration phase will be continually monitored over time (years) until performance targets are fully met. At that point, managers will institute the long-term maintenance management plans to sustain the desired woodland conditions, post-restoration and in perpetuity. The Science of Restoration To provide additional expertise, data management and Public promotion for the Forest Health and RCW Initiative, a collaboration with leading ecologists from Auburn University was developed in order to gather baseline, pre-treatment data of the vegetative understory from permanent sample plots that are established within the restoration sites and to provide long-term database management for an operational comparison to the restoration targets and performance criteria established. This collaboration, facilitated by the Alabama National Forests Partnership, creates a unique opportunity as the vegetation of montane longleaf pine woodlands of the Shoal Creek Ranger District have not been precisely inventoried, evaluated or studied. Information gathered through the baseline inventory of the proposed sites and the biological monitoring of the plants and the ecological community will be used to provide the best available scientific information on the biological diversity and establish a quantified basis used to monitor the response of the vegetative understory to restoration treatments. The resulting data provides District managers and practitioners guidance for reflective analysis and the objective principles for adaptive process. Expected results of this collaborative project include: A compilation of baseline vegetation data with which to evaluate restoration procedures, collected from permanent sample plots and established in accord with a recognized and accepted monitoring protocol , which provides an identification and documentation of species composition, diversity, plant life-form, cover, an inventory of potential plants endemic to these communities, exhibits and maps, reports of any locally rare species found during the survey and comments on potential management progress and options. Periodic sampling events began in autumn 2005 and continued during the spring and summer 2006. These events have established twenty-three (23) monitoring plots that assess each of the three priority restoration treatments and importantly, include four (4) control plots that serve as references for treatment comparison. The monitoring of the Forest Health and RCW Initiative currently represents 1,454 total acres. Seasonal sampling will continue through winter 2007 with report development expected by early spring 2007. The USFS and its Partners have established this agreement to help one another accomplish mutually beneficial objectives related to survey and inventory of the proposed restoration project areas on the Shoal Creek District. The skills utilized and the opportunity to establish baseline data on vegetative understory, begin monitoring the response to management actions, evaluate frequency, distribution, structure and function of the ecosystem and identifying unique or discreet natural communities will provide the National Forests in Alabama and Auburn University with valuable ecological

85

information and will serve to guide sound management practices and risk assessment based on quantitative as well as qualitative ecological data. The cooperation will also serve to provide monitoring and recovery information on PETS (Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive) plant habitats, in conjunction with the Forest Health and RCW Initiative and current Forest Plan directives. Restoration Progress To compliment the current Forest Health and RCW Initiative and beginning in 2003, the Shoal Creek Ranger District created the Choccolocco Upland Initiative, a cooperative program focused on restoring red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and longleaf pine ecosystems in the Talladega Mountains. With the support of partnering interest from the Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Alabama Power/Southern Company, Quail Unlimited, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Shoal Creek Ranger District is restoring the natural structure of montane longleaf pine stands to benefit red-cockaded woodpecker and bobwhite, as well as the many other wildlife species associated with montane longleaf pine woodlands. To accomplish this goal, the District is using a variety of management techniques as previously mentioned. Since 2003, the Shoal Creek District has completed more than 2330 acres of pre-merchantable, midstory vegetation removal in older pine stands. This treatment (generally conducted by contracted forest workers skilled in chainsaw operation) reduces the undesirable density of certain midstory tree species, such as red maple, sweetgum, sourwood, blackgum, and loblolly pine, and allows increased sunlight to reach the forest floor. Midstory removal, when followed by frequent controlled fire, reduced woody undergrowth, encourages the growth of lush herbaceous groundcover vegetation and reduces pestilent insect populations. This herbaceous vegetation is the critical component of wildlife habitat that is neglected by many land managers.

In addition to midstory removal, the District has conducted prescribed burning on more than 34,000 acres since the Choccolocco Upland Initiative began in 2003, with approximately 12,000 acres of this total occurring in the “growing season” (April thru August). Frequent fires expedite the restoration phase activities and are directly correlated to increase in species richness and diversity. Intrusive hardwood saplings and woody shrubs are more vulnerable to fire during the growing season and fires occurring during this period expedite the restoration responses. Burning in the spring and early summer also more closely mimics historic fire regimes. Many native, fire dependent plant species associated with montane longleaf ecosystems are often abundant only in stands that are burned during specific times of the year. While there may be limited and temporary losses to some bird species during growing season (i.e. ground or near-ground nesters), contemporary research in conservation biology and restoration ecology supports the ecological tradeoff of short-term population declines when compared to the ecological advances achieved during habitat restoration, which soon exhibits improved quality of available foods, increased diversity of habitat structure and enhanced function for the future wildlife population increase. Too, most of the species associated with montane woodland habitat have developed many adaptations to

86

cope with fire. For example, most bird species, including wild turkey and quail, also have the ability to re-nest if it is early enough in the year. Careful planning by USFS Prescribe Fire Specialists for each restoration burn’s timing, location, conditions and impact size ensures that plenty of undisturbed nesting habitats are retained at each season. After the restoration phase has been realized and undesirable vegetation in the stand is under control, the frequency of prescribed fire applications can emphasize variation in seasonal schedules and to increase plant and animal diversity; periodic dormant season fire shall then be integrated into the burning program and compliment long-term stewardship goals. Another area on the Shoal Creek Ranger District that has focused restoration methods of timber thinning, midstory removal, and growing season burning is the District’s Quail Emphasis Area. This 2,900 acre area has been delineated into management units ranging in size from 10 to 250 acres. These units are burned on a two-year rotation so that adjacent units are burned one year apart. This rotation, allowing a relatively small burn size, creates a mosaic of different seasonal habitats. Having all of the required elements close to one another is critical in quail management. Also, since quail are weak foragers, periodic fire also ensures that they will have access to the ground to find insect and seed foods. A fall covey count in 2004 suggested approximately one covey of birds per 38 acres within the Quail Emphasis Area and on-going monitoring of restoration response will likely highlight further improvements. The stand structure of longleaf pine forests has been well-studied across the coastal plain of the southeastern US. Age composition has been well-studied on the Coastal Plain and stand structure has been studied even more extensively. The understanding of montane longleaf pine woodland structure and dynamics should too be derived from inquiries into natural disturbance, the even-aged patches they create and their legacy at the stand and landscape level. Applying this understanding of structure, forest managers can better manipulate the size, shape and timing of harvested openings to closely resemble gaps in natural woodlands, encourage future forest establishment and/or create patchy forests. CONCLUSION Longleaf pine forests in the southeastern mountain landscape are imperiled. Before they are extinct, we need a better understanding of their dynamics, including disturbance factors and replacement processes. With this understanding, managers, scientists and restoration practitioners can more comprehensively restore and manage these southern longleaf pinelands and their unique and diverse montane habitats. There is essential biodiversity associated with and dependent on open-canopy montane longleaf pine woodlands. Through an ecosystem approach in management and landscape-scale restoration practice, versus a single species emphasis, aspects of the montane habitat materialize simultaneously, by a passive restoration of process. Utilizing what we know about the role fire in montane longleaf pine woodlands in historic times, we can implement principles of restoration ecology to provide benefits for future forests

87

and future generations. However, the trajectory to ecosystem restoration is a long one but systematic planning, implementation and careful attribute monitoring as being conducted by the USFS will assure successful results. Through the Forest Health and RCW Initiative, the Shoal Creek Ranger District is progressively affecting increasingly broader areas and linking habitat corridors through its systematic ecological restoration. As ecological restoration is the initiation and acceleration of ecological process, the early results observed to date are most encouraging and indicate an appropriate process is begun, on trajectory and encourages similar treatments. The continued implementation through the next 5 years should establish promising benefits to the long-term sustainability of these montane ecosystems. Further Inquiry Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and

Degradation, R.F. Noss, E.T. LaRoe and J.M. Scott; USDI, National Biological Service; Washington DC; Biological Reoprt 28; Pp59; 1995

Structural Characteristics of Frequently-Burned Old-Growth Longleaf Pine Stands in the Mountains of Alabama, J. Morgan Varner III, J.S. Kush & R.S. Meldahl; Castanea 68(3):211-221; 2003.

Vegetation of Frequently Burned Old-Growth Longleaf Pine ( Pinus palustris Mill.) Savannas on Choccolocco Mountain, Alabama, USA, Morgan Varner III, J.S. Kush & R.S. Meldahl; Natural Areas Journal Volume 23(1), 43-52, 2003

Fire on the Mountain: Restoring the Montane Longleaf Pine Ecosystem in Alabama,, G.R. Shurette and J. Gardner; Southern Restorationist Vol.8(1), Pg13-15; 2006.

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Southeast Region; Atlanta, GA, Second Revision-January 27, 2003; Pp296

Indian Use of Fire and Landscape Clearance in the Southern Appalachians, M.S. DeVivo; In: Fire and the Environment: Ecological and Cultural Perspectives: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Pp 306-310; March 1990; Ed. S.C. Nodvin & T.A. Waldrop; USDA-FS Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Ashville, N.C. General Technical Report SE-69; August 1991

The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Silviculture and Restoration, eds. S. Jose, E.J. Jokela & D. L. Miller; Springer Science; Pp 438; 2006

Restoration of Longleaf Pine Ecosystems, D.G. Brockway, K.W. Outcalt, D.J. Tomczak & E.E. Johnson; USDA Forest service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-83; Pp. 34; 2005.

Final Environmental Impact Statement – Forest Health and RCW Initiative; National Forests in Alabama, Talladega National Forest, Talladega Division, Calhoun, Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne and Talladega Counties, Alabama; USDS – USFS; Management Bulletin R8-MB 118A, March 2004.

Economic Botany of Alabama, Monograph 9,Part 2; R.M. Harper, Geological Survey of Alabama; Birmingham Printing Company; Pp 357; 1928

88

Contributions from the US National Herbarium, Flora of Alabama, Volume IV; C. Mohr; July 31,1901

A Working Plan for the Forest Lands of Central Alabama, F.W. Reed; US Forest Service Bulletin 68, Washington D.C.; 1905.

The Longleaf Pine In Virgin Forest : A Silvical Study, G. F. Schwarz; John Wiley & Sons, NY; 1907.

Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America; E. Lucy Braun, Chapter 8: The Oak-Pine Region; Pg 259-278; The Blakiston Company; October 1950

CONFERENCE ATTENDEES

Charles Bailey 3005 Atlanta Hwy Gainesville, GA 30507 Tel: 770-531-6043 E-mail: cbailey@gfc.state.ga.us Adam Bale 2030 ARNR Bldg. Columbia, MO 65211 Tel: 573-884-6302 E-mail: amb7r5@mizzou.edu Chris Barnes 119 Hwy 49 Milledgeville, GA 31061 Tel: 478-445-5440 E-mail: cbarnes@gfc.state.ga.us Wayne Bell 1265 Ga. Hwy. 133 N. Moultrie, GA 31768 Tel: 229-985-0321 E-mail: wbell@interforestry.com Kimberly Bittle 45 Hwy 281 Heflin, AL 36264 Tel: 256-463-2272 E-mail: kbittle@fs.fed.us Jennifer Blalock Berry College, P.O. Box 491020 Mt. Berry, GA 30149 Tel: 706-766-5122 E-mail: jblalock@students.berry.edu William Boyer 520 Devall St Auburn, AL 36849 Tel: 334-821-3932 E-mail: bboyer@fs.fed.us

Eugene Brooks 2909 Chestnut St. Montgomery, AL 36107 Tel: 334-241-8149 E-mail: ebrooks01@fs.fed.us Roger Bryant 222 Piedmont Lake Rd. Pine Mountain, GA 31822 Tel: 706-392-3531 E-mail: rfb4@meadwestvaco.com Sam Burke 6018 Christmas Drive Midland, GA 31820 Tel: 706-289-2055 E-mail: samuelburke@mchsi.com Josh Burnette 3086 Martha Berry Hwy NE Rome, GA 30165 Tel: 706-295-6021 E-mail: jburnette@gfc.state.ga.us Robert Carter JSU, Biology Dept., 700 Pelham Rd. N. Jacksonville, AL 36265 Tel: 256-782-5144 E-mail: rcarter@jsu.edu Walter Cartwright 513 Madison Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Tel: 334-240-9331 E-mail: walter.cartwright@forestry.alabama.gov Glenn Cassell Berry College, P.O. Box 491419 Mt. Berry, GA 30149 Tel: 770-868-6854 E-mail: gcassell@berry.edu

Jack Chappell 220 Forest Creek Dr. Swainsboro, GA 30401 Tel: 478-237-6863 E-mail: Martin Cipollini 430 Berry College Mount Berry, GA 30149 Tel: 706-290-2149 E-mail: mcipollini@berry.edu LuAnn Craighton P.O. Box 2000 Pine Mountain, GA 31822 Tel: 706-663-5192 E-mail: lcraighton@callawaygardens.com Cory Croft P.O. Box 2000 Pine Mountain, GA 31822 Tel: 706-663-5192 E-mail: Amadou Diop 730 Peachtree St. NE Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Tel: 404-876-8733 E-mail: diop@nwf.org Katherine Eddins 226 Old Piedmont, AL 36272 Tel: 256-447-1006 E-mail: katherine@galandtrust.org Larry Ford P.O. Box C Brent, AL 35034 Tel: 205-562-5236 E-mail: lford@westervelt.com Connie Francia P.O. Box 491725 Mount Berry, GA 30149 Tel: 770-561-4214 E-mail: cfrancia@students.berry.edu

Jeff Gardner 45 Hwy 281 Heflin, AL 36264 Tel: 256-463-2272 E-mail: jeffgardner@fs.fed.us Bill Garland 990 Avalon Ln Anniston, AL 36207 Tel: 256-238-9646 E-mail: garlandb@cableone.net Todd Gartner 1111 19th St. NW, STE 780 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-463-5181 E-mail: tgartner@forestfoundation.org Hilliard Gibbs Tel: E-mail: John Gilbert 3301 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn, AL 36849-5418 Tel: 334-844-8060 E-mail: gilbejo@auburn.edu Dean Gjerstad 3301 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn, AL 36849-5418 Tel: 334-844-1020 E-mail: gjersdh@auburn.edu Scott Griffin 3005 Atlanta Hwy Gainesville, GA 30507 Tel: 770-530-3929 E-mail: sgriffin@gfc.state.ga.us Mark Hainds 12130 Dixon Center Rd. Andalusia, AL 36420 Tel: 334-427-1029 E-mail: hainds@alaweb.com

Sharon Herman Auburn University Tel: 334-844-3933 E-mail: hermasm@auburn.edu Gary Hill 394 Wentworth Way Griffin, GA 30224 Tel: 770-550-5423 E-mail: hillforestmgt@yahoo.com Arthur Hitt 513 Madison Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Tel: 334-240-9323 E-mail: arthur.hitt@forestry.alabama.gov Jolyon Hodgson 110-2995 Princess Cresent Coquitlam, BC V3B 7N1 Tel: 604-552-1547 E-mail: tjhodgson@shaw.ca Sharon Holbrooks 116 Rum Creek Dr. Forsyth, GA 30222 Tel: 478-994-1438 E-mail: sharon.holbrooks@gadnr.org Richard Howell 1926 Main Street Brent, AL 35034 Tel: 205-361-0483 E-mail: rhowell@westervelt.com James Johnson 1055 East Whitehall Rd Athens, GA 30650 Tel: E-mail: jjohnson@gfc.state.ga.us Rhett Johnson 12130 Dixon Center Rd. Andalusia, AL 36420 Tel: 334-427-1029 E-mail: johnsee@auburn.edu

Timothy Keyes 116 Rum Creek Dr. Forsyth, GA 30222 Tel: 478-994-1438 E-mail: tim.keyes@gadnr.org Robert Kindrick P.O. Box 2000 Pine Mountain, GA 31822 Tel: 706-663-5192 E-mail: Joyce Marie Klaus 4000 Central Florida Blvd. Orlando, FL 32816 Tel: 407-488-5590 E-mail: JoyceMarie4ecology@gmail.com Nathan Klaus Senior Wildlife Biologist, Nongame Conservation Section, GA Department of Natural Resources Tel: 478-994-1438 E-mail: nathanklaus@bellsouth.net John Kush 3301 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn, AL 36849-5418 Tel: 334-844-1065 E-mail: kushjoh@auburn.edu Harry Labhart P.O. Box 48999 Tuscaloosa, AL 35404 Tel: 205-562-5322 E-mail: hlabhart@westervelt.com Robert Larimore IMSE-BEN-PWE-L, Bldg. 5889 Fort Benning, GA 31905 Tel: 706-544-7076 E-mail: robert.larimore@us.army.mil Nicholas Larson 9901 Hwy 5 Brent, AL 35034 Tel: 205-926-9765 E-mail: nicholaslarson@fs.fed.us

Greg Lein Assistant State Lands Director, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tel: 334-242-3484 E-mail: greg.lein@dcnr.alabama.gov Tom Leslie 542 St Charles Ave Atlanta, GA 30308 Tel: 404-521-2324 E-mail: ctleslie@comcast.net Nancy Loewenstein 3301 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn, AL 36849-5418 Tel: 334-844-1061 E-mail: loewenj@auburn.edu Angie Lottes 2277 Martha Berry Blvd. Mt. Berry, GA 30149 Tel: 314-610-2237 E-mail: alottes@berry.edu Stephanie Love P.O. Box 278 Double Springs, AL 35553 Tel: 205-489-5111 E-mail: rgilbreath@fs.fed.us Jeff Matthews 45 Hwy 281 Heflin, AL 36264 Tel: 256-463-2272 E-mail: jmmatthews@fs.fed.us Mark McClure 336 Ga. Hwy 32 East Leesburg, GA 31763 Tel: 229-759-3011 E-mail: mmcclure@gfc.state.ga.us Jeremy McDonald P.O. Box 278 Double Springs, AL 35553 Tel: 205-489-5111 E-mail: rgilbreath@fs.fed.us

Gary McGinnis 3086 Martha Berry Hwy NE Rome, GA 30165 Tel: 706-295-6021 E-mail: gmcginni@gfc.state.ga.us John McGuire 2128 Moores Mill Rd. Auburn, AL 36830 Tel: 334-821-1999 E-mail: jmcguire@westerveltecologicalservices.com Lisa McInnis 2680 Natchez Trace Pkwy. Tupelo, MS 38804 Tel: 662-840-7572 E-mail: lisa.mcinnis@nps.gov Lee Milby 2035 Etheridge Mill Rd. Griffin, GA 30224 Tel: 770-412-4753 E-mail: lmilby@gfc.state.ga.us Julie Moore 4401 N. Fairfax Dr. Rm 420 Arlington, VA 22203 Tel: 703-358-2096 E-mail: julie_h_moore@fws.gov Ericha Nix 1820 Glynwood Dr., C Prattville, AL 36066 Tel: 334-358-0035 E-mail: ericha.shelton-nix@dcnr.alabama.gov Clint Ozier 187 Corinth Rd Newnan, GA 30263 Tel: 770-254-7370 E-mail: cozier@gfc.state.ga.us Charles Price Tel: 334-241-8166 E-mail: csprice@fs.fed.us

Richard Ramey P.O. Box 12004 Columbus, GA 31917 Tel: 706-565-9624 E-mail: valleywood@mindspring.com Lisa Samuelson 3301 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn, AL 36849-5418 Tel: 334-844-1040 E-mail: samuelj@auburn.edu Jeff Sibley 187 Corinth Rd Newnan, GA 30263 Tel: 770-254-7370 E-mail: jsibley@gfc.state.ga.us Riley Singleton 1599 Hwy 42 South McDonough, GA 30252 Tel: 770-954-2034 E-mail: rsingleton@gfc.state.ga.us Dorie Stinnette 9901 Hwy 5 Brent, AL 35034 Tel: 205-926-9765 E-mail: dstinnette@fs.fed.us Tom Stokes 3301 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn, AL 36849-5418 Tel: 334-844-1073 E-mail: stoketa@auburn.edu Ruth Stokes 3941 Hwy 76 Chatsworth, GA 30705 Tel: 706-695-6736 E-mail: rbstokes@fs.fed.us Terrell Stoves 1138 Hwy. 20 Spur Cartersville, GA 30121 Tel: 678-721-6735 E-mail: terrell.s.stoves@usace.army.mil

Dagmar Thurmond 2946 Chestnut St. Montgomery, AL 36107 Tel: 334-832-4470 E-mail: dthurmond@fs.fed.us Ronald Tucker Box 35 Red Bush Rd Brewton, AL 36426 Tel: 251-867-3942 E-mail: rtucker@fs.fed.us Ben Whitaker 3301 Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn, AL 36849-5418 Tel: 334-844-1063 E-mail: whitawb@auburn.edu Tony Wilder Fire Management Officer, Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS Tel: 228-497-5780, ext. 22 E-mail: tony_wilder@fws.gov