This document provides a 2013 forest management prescription for Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge. It recommends harvesting 585 acres of slash pine stands across 10 compartments and restoring them to longleaf pine. This will help meet goals of restoring the longleaf pine ecosystem and enhancing habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The prescription details the stands to be harvested, considerations for protecting archaeological sites and RCW clusters, post-harvest habitat conditions, and the multi-year process for site preparation, planting longleaf seedlings, and monitoring the restoration work.
The Handbook of Best Management Practices for Private Forest Land in British ...
CSNWR 2013 Forestry Rx and Consultation
1. 1
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
2013 Forest Management Prescription:
Longleaf Restoration on 585 Acres
2013 Forestry Interns
Pictured left to right: Keith VanGorden, Austin Foley and Chris Hansen. Not pictured: Nathan
Ingebretsen and Chris Murphy. Primary duties included use of GIS and GPS to accomplish 1)
ecological inventory, 2) timber cruising, 3) harvest planning, and 4) timber marking.
5. 5
Table of Contents
I. Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge Overview......................................................7
II. Forest Habitat Types.........................................................................................................7
III. Forest Management and Restoration Techniques .............................................................8
Timber Harvesting.............................................................................................................8
Prescribed Burning ............................................................................................................9
Mechanical Hardwood Midstory Removal .........................................................................9
Chemical Hardwood Control .............................................................................................9
Risk Management Harvesting and other Timber Salvage Operations ................................10
IV. 2013 Forest Prescription Recommendations ..................................................................10
A. Harvest Objectives......................................................................................................11
B. Methods......................................................................................................................11
C. Harvest Planning and Preparations ..............................................................................12
D. Protection of Archaeological Resources......................................................................12
Figure 1. Compartment and slash pine stand overview................................................13
Table 1. Forest Stand Metrics: Twenty five slash stands proposed for harvest totaling
585 acres .....................................................................................................................14
Figure 2. Slash pine stands in Compartments 1, 2, 3 and 5. .........................................15
Figure 3. Slash pine stands in Compartments 10, 17 and 21. .......................................16
Figure 4. Slash pine stands in Compartments 12, 19, and 20. ......................................17
Figure 5. Bethune Quadrangle showing two archaeological sites in Compartment 20;
38CT13 in Stand 20096 and 38CT15 in Stand 20022...................................................18
V. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM........................19
Overview.........................................................................................................................19
Objectives .......................................................................................................................20
Harvest Area Descriptions ...............................................................................................20
Figure 6. Red-cockaded woodpecker clusters affected by longleaf restoration project.21
Figure 7. Red-cockaded woodpecker cluster status during 2012..................................23
Figure 8. Red-cockaded woodpecker active clusters and potential breeding groups from
1995 to 2013................................................................................................................24
A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats........................25
Table 2: Clusters with 120 acres or more of foraging habitat post treatment or where
partition size is not affected by treatment (i.e., 21-05)..................................................25
Figure 9. Cluster 01-02: After treatment, this cluster will have 296 acres of foraging
habitat..........................................................................................................................26
6. 6
Figure 10. Five clusters in Compartments 1, 3, and 5 that will have between 205 and
310 acres of foraging habitat per cluster post treatment................................................26
Figure 11. Cluster 12-05: After treatment, this cluster will have 161 acres of foraging
habitat .........................................................................................................................27
Figure 12. Three clusters in Compartment 20 will have between 145 and 174 acres of
foraging habitat per cluster post treatment ...................................................................27
Figure 13. Two clusters in Compartments 19 and 20 that will have 189 and 197 acres of
foraging habitat, respectively, post treatment...............................................................28
Figure 14. Three clusters in Compartment 21 that will have 122, 125, and 231 acres of
foraging habitat post treatment ....................................................................................29
Table 3. RCW Recovery Guidelines: stand-by-stand pine foraging habitat characteristics
for RCW clusters having less than 120 acres post-harvest............................................30
Figure 15. Cluster 14-05: After treatment, this cluster will have 112 acres of foraging
habitat. ........................................................................................................................32
Figure 16. Cluster 17-02: After treatment, this cluster will have 73 acres of foraging
habitat. ........................................................................................................................33
Figure 17. Cluster 20-02 contains a stand that is 49 acres and is less than one mile from
cluster center...............................................................................................................34
Figure 18. Cluster 20-03: After treatment, this cluster will have 106 acres of foraging
habitat. ........................................................................................................................35
Figure 19. Cluster 20-06: After treatment, this cluster will have 121 acres of foraging
habitat .........................................................................................................................36
Figure 20. Cluster 21-03: After treatment, this cluster will have 107 acres of foraging
habitat. ........................................................................................................................37
Table 4. .Foraging habitat summary for all RCW clusters affected by the proposed
harvest actions.............................................................................................................38
B. Explanation of action to be implemented to reduce adverse effects........................39
Works Cited......................................................................................................................40
Effect Determination and Response Requested................................................................41
7. 7
I. Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge Overview
The federal government purchased land from 1936 to 1939 under the authority of the
National Industrial Recovery Act and the Emergency Appropriation Act of 1935. Land
acquired under this project became known as the Sandhills Project (LA-SC-4). A lease and a
cooperative agreement (A-SC-454) between the Bureau of Biological Survey and the South
Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) were signed on April 29, 1939. Conditions of this
agreement divided the Sandhills Project (92,000 acres) into two areas. One-half of the area
was designated as the Sand Hills State Forest (SHSF) while the other half of the area was
designated as the Carolina Sandhills NWR. Title to the entire project was retained by the
United States Department of the Interior. In 1986, the Cooperative Agreement was officially
terminated and in December 1990, Congress passed legislation authorizing the FWS to
transfer ownership of the SHSF to the SCFC. Terms of this transfer were outlined in a
Memorandum of Understanding between the DOI USFWS and SCFC executed in July 1991.
Terms of the agreement included:
a) Basic fire protection for 50 years;
b) Designated prescribed burning services for five years; and
c) Designated reforestation services for a period of 25 years.
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge (CSNWR) comprises 45,779 acres of forested
longleaf pine woodlands and associated habitats including freshwater impoundments, open
fields and stream-pocosins. These habitats support nearly 200 species of birds, 42 species
of mammals, 41 species of reptiles, 25 species of amphibians, and more than 750 plant
species. Refuge habitats support the National Wildlife Refuge System’s largest population
of endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW). Along with the neighboring Sand Hills
State Forest, the refuge is designated as a secondary core recovery population for this species.
CSNWR forest management activities focus on conserving and restoring the longleaf pine
ecosystem while enhancing habitat for the RCW. Forest treatments are designed to meet
guidelines for achieving recovery as designated in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003).
II. Forest Habitat Types
Approximately 35,000 acres of pine uplands occur at CSNWR including approximately
15,000 acres of natural longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), 13,000 acres of pine plantations and
6,000 acres of pine scrub-oak habitat (see chart). Plantation stands are primarily longleaf
pine; however, slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and a lesser component of loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) are present. Slash pine is non-native and was established at CSNWR in the 1960’s
when the refuge’s forest management was conducted by the SCFC. Loblolly pine is
occasionally mixed with longleaf on CSNWR uplands; however, its seedlings are intolerant
of fire prior to reaching diameters of approximately two inches. Therefore, mesic areas
having longer fire return intervals, and which promote more rapid seedling growth, favor
their recruitment. Harvest planning includes the consideration of ecosystem appropriate
removal, or reduction, of both slash pine and loblolly pine.
8. 8
Cover Type Acreage
Bottomland Hardwood 1,855
Field 1,214
Pine 15,031
Pine Bottomland 4,975
Pine Hardwood 1,329
Pine Plantation 14,038
Pine Scrub oak 6,288
Scrub oak 314
Upland Hardwood 448
Water 287
Total 45,779
In contrast, shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) is sparse across the CSNWR landscape, yet wide
ranging. All shortleaf are retained and surrounding pine density reduced to favor shortleaf
regeneration and recruitment. Established shortleaf seedlings resprout following fire, and its
adaptability to grow on a wide range of sites place it within the upland longleaf pine matrix,
as well as a component of upland pine-hardwoods mix. Pond pine (Pinus serotina) is native
and requires fire to melt the waxy coating to release seeds. Its seedlings, like shortleaf pine,
resprout following fire. Despite the common name, pond pine is found throughout CSNWR,
from the pocosins, where it may reach diameters of two to three feet, to the driest ridges
where it exhibits poor form and growth.
III. Forest Management and Restoration Techniques
In accordance with the Forest Management Plan for the Carolina Sandhills NWR (1995),
forestry staff review forest health and habitat needs annually and prepare a corresponding
management prescription. The 2013 prescription addresses the remaining reforestation
activities outlined in the 1991 agreement with the SCFC. The subject agreement has been
modified to extend the timeframe for accomplishing these reforestation activities by one
year.
Timber Harvesting
All harvest operations herein proposed are designed to advance forest stands toward the
recovery standard for foraging habitat as set forth in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003, p.188). Long-range perspectives of longleaf ecosystem
restoration are necessary to consider within the context of this prescription.
Originally, there was 2,300 acres of non-native slash pine on the refuge. Prior restoration
activities to native longleaf pine occurred as RCW foraging guidelines allowed. To date,
approximately 1,700 acres has been converted. However, due to habitat requirements
needed for RCW, the Service delayed the conversion process to allow additional
surrounding habitat to reach suitability (age and size) for foraging so that the remaining
slash could be converted without negatively affecting existing woodpecker groups.
9. 9
The refuge completed its Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in 2010 and a draft
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in September, 2013. These plans call for the immediate
conversion of remaining slash pine to longleaf pine due to the RCW population’s size (more
than 100 groups) and stability (growing). During the above planning processes, the refuge
consulted with the Charleston Ecological Services Field Office and with the RCW Recovery
Coordinator who support this approach.
This prescription addresses longleaf restoration needs across the refuge, occurring in ten
compartments where slash pine stands exist. All slash pine stands are proposed for harvest,
chemical site preparation (to control both hardwood competition and volunteer pine
competition), and restoration to longleaf pine.
Prescribed Burning
Frequent fire is the single most important factor for restoring and maintaining the longleaf
pine ecosystem. Prescribed fire is applied to as much as one third of the refuge per year.
Both dormant and growing season prescribed burns are used on two to five year rotations to
improve wildlife habitat and promote open stand conditions that are representative of the
longleaf pine ecosystem. Prescribed fire and silvicultural activities are closely coordinated
to ensure all actions are compatible.
Mechanical Hardwood Midstory Removal
Roller chopping and hydro-axing (large-scale mulching) are used to remove scrub oak
encroachment within and around RCW cluster sites. This activity assists in maintaining
open stand conditions beneficial to the RCW and other open pine/grassland species. A
combination of mechanical removal followed by prescribed fire application is used to
control hardwood midstory. With repeated prescribed fire applications, the herbaceous
ground cover becomes better established.
Chemical Hardwood Control
Scrub oak hardwood midstories have become well established in many areas of CSNWR due
to management practices in the 1950s and 1960s, including the absence of fire. Even though
fire has been reintroduced in recent decades, some areas have poor fuel continuity and the
associated inability to effectively carry fire. Herbicide (hexazinone) can be very effective in
restoring herbaceous conditions within such areas. The herbicide is applied in April or May at
a target rate of two pounds per acre. Although aerial application is preferred and can result in
excellent control of the target hardwoods, ground application can also be effective.
Because hexazinone was developed for application in young stands, its effectiveness can be
limited where mature root systems of non-target pine species uptake a greater percentage of
the application with no ill effect. However, this then results in less uptake by the target
species, and thereby leads to ineffective outcomes unless significant rainfall occurs
immediately post treatment. Additional research is needed to address these shortcomings as
hexazinone can be safely applied on mature forests atop course soils at rates adequate to
promote effective oak control absent adverse effects to non-target species. The average cost
associated with aerial treatment has been approximately $50/acre and $90/acre for ground
application. At present time, the company that manufactures the ultra-lightweight (ULW)
granules has ceased production thereby requiring the use of ground application until an aerial
10. 10
product becomes available. All chemical applications will be used in accordance with label
specifications with plans submitted through the USFWS Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP)
process.
Risk Management Harvesting and other Timber Salvage Operations
Tree harvesting operations may be associated with forest health risks such as pine beetle
infestations or public use risks where safety is compromised. These harvesting operations are
normally small in scale and conducted as needed to mitigate risks while providing a cost-
effective method for timber removals that generate revenue rather than costs. Timber salvage
may find application in other situations; for example, where tornado damage has occurred, or
where the installation of roads, buildings or fire breaks may be required. Wherever timber is
limited in volume or value to the extent that its removal could generate costs to the Service,
timber salvage operations provide a useful option.
Due to the longleaf pine’s vigor, outbreaks of pine beetle infestations are typically localized
and generally occur following lightning strikes, which often kill/weaken multiple stems in a
single strike. Those dead or weakened trees provide the opportunity for small endemic pine
beetle populations to multiply, and where the populations reach adequate size, the outbreak
may spread to adjacent healthy timber, but typically runs its course within a season. These
conditions may also result from other climatic or disease stressors; e.g., root fungus
(Leptographium sp.) that may become more common with high fire intensity. Insect and/or
disease controls occur whenever major outbreaks threaten to destroy valuable wildlife
habitat or when there is a high potential to spread to adjacent forestlands, or RCW clusters.
When necessary, dead and/or dying timber will be removed. However, in areas where
disease or insect outbreaks appear to be localized or affecting few trees, dead or dying trees
will be left to provide snags for cavity nesting species; thereby reducing nest cavity
parasitism and enhancing RCW management.
IV. 2013 Forest Prescription Recommendations
Twenty five slash-pine stands located in 10 management compartments (1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 17,
20 and 21) are addressed under this proposal as target areas for longleaf pine restoration
(Figure 1-4). Collectively these stands total 585 acres. Refuge staff will conduct and monitor
all timber sales. The SCFC will plant longleaf in all restoration areas. The intended
management sequence and responsible party:
• Prepare management prescription and receive approvals (January-March 2014;
Refuge);
• Conduct any remaining field work in preparation for sales (April-July 2014; Refuge);
• Bid harvests operations as four sales (August-September 2014; Refuge);
• Complete harvest operations (December 2014-March 2015, Refuge);
• Allow harvest areas one year to green up and apply silvicultural herbicide (May-June
2016; Refuge)
• Plant containerized longleaf seedlings beginning in December 2016-February 2017,
SCFC.
11. 11
A. Harvest Objectives
This prescription is prepared within the context of long-range refuge objectives for restoring
the longleaf ecosystem to historic conditions. In the 1960s, slash pine was widely established
across the refuge; however, it stagnated and performed poorly in sandhills soils and growing
conditions. Of particular concern is its tendency to hybridize with longleaf, which
compromises the vigor of longleaf and could affect forest health in the future.
Objectives include:
• Removal of non-native slash pine;
• Restoration of native longleaf pine;
• Reduction of midstory hardwood re-establishment via post-harvest herbicide;
• Targeted elimination of slash pine reseeding via herbicide application;
• Release of native ground flora.
B. Methods
The average basal area (BA) for all treatment areas is 61ft2
/acre and collectively represents
35,000 standing tons of timber (Table 1). Harvest volume estimates are provided on a stand-
by-stand basis along with additional stand metrics.
Herbicide treatments will target elimination of slash pine seedlings, effectively suppress
scrub oak midstory and promote development and release of the herbaceous groundcover
seed bank, thereby increasing ecological diversity and improving stand structure. The
increased ecosystem health and function that follows herbaceous release provides increased
invertebrate and vertebrate diversity. Further, the enhanced herbaceous layer provides fine-
fuel continuity that then broadens the window for applying prescribed fire and increases the
effectiveness of fire applications in achieving desired habitat structure for a variety of open
pine/grassland species. The harvest actions and subsequent herbicide treatments serve to
move areas restored to longleaf towards more natural ecological function.
Longleaf pine is highly dependent on prescribed fire to maintain many aspects of overall
forest health. Prescribed fire prevents disease and controls competition for resources by
other species, especially fire-intolerant hardwood trees and shrubs. Without periodic fire
longleaf may not emerge from the grass stage after planting and seedling mortality may be
unacceptably high. Fine fuels, such as pine needles and dead grass, are necessary to carry the
kind of low intensity fires that need to be applied to longleaf plantations at a 1-3 year
interval; shorter intervals on more fertile sites and longer on deep sands. Stocking levels
(trees per acre) and spatial distribution of longleaf trees must be adequate to provide fine
fuels for prescribed fire in the form of pine needles.
Seedling survival has improved greatly in longleaf pine plantations with recent developments
in container seedling production and planting methods. But even with the best seedlings, site
preparation and follow-up management container seedling survival averages about 85%.
Bare root longleaf seedling plantations average about 50% survival. In accordance with the
agreement with the SCFC, containerized seedlings will be planted in the restoration areas.
Planting densities of 400- 600 seedlings per acre (SPA; e.g. 10x10, 8x12, 8x10, 6x12
12. 12
spacings) will allow the refuge to meet wildlife management objectives and ensure adequate
forest resources into the future for the RCW.
C. Harvest Planning and Preparations
Field work conducted in support of this prescription included data collection by the forester
and forest-interns. Those data were analyzed using T-Cruise software to provide the stand
metrics summarized in Table 1. Harvest stand boundaries will be marked in yellow just
beyond the limits of the slash stand boundaries to ensure all non-native slash pine are
removed.
Log decks and logging routes will be established on a stand by stand basis and existing roads
and log decks will be used wherever possible. South Carolina’s Best Management Practices
for Forestry will be followed to protect water quality and site productivity and to improve the
composition and quality of the future forest. Harvest operations are not permitted during
RCW nesting season; i.e., April 1 through July 31and will be coordinated with biological
staff to ensure the protection of RCW nesting areas. No mechanical activity will occur
within 60 feet of active trees; and thus may require hand-felling of slash pine in a few areas;
or otherwise those trees may be herbicided on a tree by tree basis using a hatchet or lance
injector.
D. Protection of Archaeological Resources
To ensure that no historic properties will be adversely impacted by the pending prescription
and longleaf restoration, the refuge forester contacted the Regional Archaeologist. A review
of the Regional Site File Database revealed that the majority of the targeted stands had no
recorded historic properties. Two archaeological sites have been recorded in Compartment
20; 38CT13 in Stand 20096 and 38CT15 in Stand 20022 (Figure 5). The Regional
Archaeologist recommended the following measures to protect these archaeological sites:
logging decks and temporary access roads will not be placed on or within 20 meters of either
site; re-planting of longleaf pine seedlings on the site or within the 20 meter buffer zone
should be done using a dibble bar.
The Regional Archaeologist shall be contacted if issues/concerns arise. All loggers will be
required to follow South Carolina’s Best Management Practices for Forestry and shall limit
site disturbance by using existing roads and log decks wherever possible. As a condition of
harvest, the following clauses shall be included in the sale, or as a condition of the Special
Use Permit:
1. Should previously unrecorded cultural resources or human remains be found on Service
land, thinning activities will be halted and the Regional Archaeologist and Refuge Manager
contacted immediately.
2. Should human remains be encountered in an unmarked grave, Refuge Law Enforcement
will be contacted immediately. The Regional Archaeologist, Refuge Manager, County’s
Sherriff Office, and the Department of Archives and History shall also be contacted. Should
human remains be identified as Native American, consultation with the Catawba Indian
Nation will be initiated per the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act.
13. 13
3. If, during the course of the thinning operation, the permittee notes illegal excavation or
archaeological resource removal, this information shall be immediately provided to the
Refuge Manager.
4. If, during the course of the thinning, the permittee deliberately damages a recorded site,
the permittee is responsible for the resultant site damage assessment and mitigation. The
mitigation may include, but is not limited to, site restoration and data recovery.
Figure 1. Compartment and slash pine stand overview
18. 18
Figure 5. Bethune Quadrangle showing two archaeological sites in Compartment
20; 38CT13 in Stand 20096 and 38CT15 in Stand 20022.
19. 19
V. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM
[Note: This form provides the outline of information needed for intra-Service consultation.
If additional space is needed, attach additional sheets, or set up this form to accommodate your responses.]
Originating Person: Allyne H. Askins
Telephone Number: 843-335-6023 E-Mail: allyne_askins@fws.gov
Date: December 23, 2013
PROJECT NAME (Grant Title/Number):
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, 2013 Forest Management Prescription:
Longleaf Restoration on 585 Acres (Compartments 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 20 and 21)
I Service Program:
___ Ecological Service
___ Federal Aid
___ Clean Vessel Act
___ Coastal Wetlands
___ Endangered Species Section 6
___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife
___ Sport fish Restoration
___ Wildlife Restoration
___ Fisheries
X_ Refuges/Wildlife
II. State/Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
III. Station Name: Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed):
Overview
All proposed harvest operations are designed to advance forest stands toward the recovery
standard for foraging habitat as set forth in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2003, p.188). Long-range perspectives of longleaf ecosystem restoration are
necessary to consider within the context of this prescription. Originally, there was 2,300
acres of non-native slash pine on the refuge. Prior restoration activities to native longleaf
pine occurred as RCW foraging guidelines allowed. To date, approximately 1,700 acres
has been converted. However, due to habitat requirements needed for red-cockaded
woodpeckers (RCW), the FWS slowed down the conversion process to allow additional
surrounding habitat to reach suitability (age and size) for foraging so that the remaining
slash could be converted without negatively affecting existing woodpecker groups.
The refuge completed its Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in 2010 and a draft
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in September, 2013 (in review). These plans call for the
immediate conversion of remaining slash pine to longleaf pine due to the RCW population’s
size (more than 100 groups) and stability (growing). During the above planning processes,
the refuge consulted with the Charleston Ecological Services Field Office and with the RCW
Recovery Coordinator who support this approach.
20. 20
The 2013 Forest Management Prescription addresses longleaf restoration needs across the
refuge, occurring in ten compartments where slash pine stands exist. All slash pine stands are
proposed for harvest, chemical site preparation (to control both hardwood competition and
volunteer non-native pine reseeding), and restoration to longleaf pine.
Objectives
Twenty five slash-pine stands located in 10 management compartments (1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 17,
20 and 21) are addressed under the prescription as target areas for longleaf pine restoration
(Section 1, Figure 1-4). Collectively these stands total 585 acres. The average basal area
(BA) for treatment areas is 61ft2
/ac resulting in an estimated 35,000 tons of standing timber.
Refuge staff will conduct and monitor all timber sales. The SCFC will plant longleaf in all
restoration areas.
The intended management sequence and responsible party:
• Prepare management prescription and receive approvals (January-March 2014;
Refuge);
• Conduct any remaining field work in preparation for sales (April-July 2014; Refuge);
• Bid harvests operations as four sales (August-September 2014; Refuge);
• Complete harvest operations December 2014-March 2015, Refuge;
• Allow harvest areas one year to green up and apply silvicultural herbicide (May-June
2016; Refuge)
• Plant containerized longleaf beginning in December 2016-February 2017, SCFC.
Harvest Area Descriptions
By compartment, the following number of slash pine plantation stands and their acreage are
proposed for restoration to longleaf pine (Figure 6):
Compartment 1, one stand with 40 acres
Compartment 2, two stands with 10 and 4 acres
Compartment 3, two stands with 11 and 27 acres
Compartment 5, three stands with 19, 48 and 10 acres
Compartment 10, one stand with 2 acres
Compartment 12, one stand with 8 acres
Compartment 17, two stands with 30 and 25 acres
Compartment 20, ten stands with 40, 28, 49, 11, 21, 73, 15, 14, 11, and 19 acres
Compartment 21, two stands with 40 and 19 acres
This prescription is prepared within the context of long-range refuge objectives for restoring
the longleaf ecosystem to historic conditions. In the 1960s, slash pine was widely established
across the refuge; however, it stagnated and performed poorly in sandhills soils and growing
conditions. Of particular concern is its tendency to hybridize with longleaf, which
compromises the vigor of longleaf and could affect forest health in the future.
22. 22
Harvest Objectives include:
• Removal of non-native slash pine;
• Restoration of native longleaf pine;
• Reduction of midstory hardwood re-establishment via post-harvest herbicide;
• Targeted elimination of slash pine reseeding via herbicide application;
• Promote herbaceous release of native ground flora.
Clearcutting off-site pines and subsequent restoration to native pines is permitted under the
RCW Recovery Plan guidelines and is generally encouraged because native pine species are
more resilient within their appropriate ecosystem. A more resilient forest increases RCW
population stability in the long term.
V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:
A. Include species/habitat occurrence map:
Complete the following table:
SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS¹
Red-cockaded Woodpecker/Upland pine E
¹STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed
threatened, CH=critical habitat, PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species
The refuge is part of the Sandhills (SC) Recovery Unit, a secondary core population (RCW
Recovery Plan 2003). The population goal for recovery is 250 Potential Breeding Groups
(PBG) of which the refuge will provide habitat to support 157 PBG and the adjacent Sand
Hills State Forest will support 93 PBG. The refuge currently manages 166 clusters (Figure
7), of which 151 are active. In 2013, there were 146 PBG and 134 nest initiations (Figure 8).
VI. Location (attach map):
A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee Ecosystem, Area
II
B. County and State: Chesterfield, South Carolina
C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude):
Lat 34° 31’, 32’, 33’, 34’ & 35’
Long. 80° 12’, 13’, 14’, 15’, 16’, 17’ & 18’
D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 4 miles East of McBee,
SC
E. Species/habitat occurrence:
Red-cockaded Woodpecker / 40,000 acres upland pine habitat
24. 24
Figure 8. Red-cockaded woodpecker active clusters and potential breeding groups from 1995 to 2013. The population
is stable to growing in terms of reproductive fitness.
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number
Year
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Population Trends
1995-2013
Active Clusters Potential Breeding Groups
25. 25
VII. Determination of Effects
A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats:
Management actions are designed to restore the longleaf pine ecosystem and facilitate
recovery of the RCW. Converting off-site slash pine to native longleaf is necessary to restore
the forest and provide long term foraging and nesting habitat for the RCW. For this
analysis, foraging habitat is defined as longleaf pine stands with trees at least 30 years old.
The RCW has responded favorably to past silvicultural treatments. The refuge’s population
is increasing and the growth rate is limited only by the presence of 14,000 acres of planted
pines that are two to 58 years old. This population growth will continue as the relatively
young refuge forest matures and plantations are thinned and managed to become more
suitable RCW habitat. The proposed treatments facilitate the refuge’s long range goal of
providing habitat for this species as it expands across the landscape.
In accordance with Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, size of restoration areas are
recommended to be no larger than 40 acres, although an 80 acre clearcut is acceptable if it is
at least 1 mile from active or recruitment clusters. Furthermore, the recovery standard for the
amount of foraging habitat allocated to each RCW group is 120 acres versus the 75 acres
allocated under the managed stability standard. The following table lists cluster partitions
that will have more than 120 acres of foraging habitat acres after treatment (Table 2).
Table 2: Clusters with 120 acres or more of foraging habitat post treatment or
where partition size is not affected by treatment (i.e., 21-05).
CLUSTER ACREAGE POST
TREATMENT
FIGURE COMMENTS
01-02 296 9 Inactive
01-06 238 10 Inactive
03-02 233 10
03-04 224 10
05-03 310 10
05-04 205 10
12-05 161 11
19-02 189 13
20-04 197 13
20-02 157 12
20-05 145 12
20-07 174 12
21-01 231 14
21-05 122 14 Partition size was 123 acres pre-
treatment
21-12 125 14
26. 26
Figure 9. Cluster 01-02: After treatment, this cluster will have 296 acres of
foraging habitat.
Figure 10. Five clusters in Compartments 1, 3, and 5 that will have between 205
and 310 acres of foraging habitat per cluster post treatment.
27. 27
Figure 11. Cluster 12-05: After treatment, this cluster will have 161 acres of
foraging habitat.
Figure 12. Three clusters in Compartment 20 will have between 145 and 174
acres of foraging habitat per cluster post treatment.
28. 28
Figure 13. Two clusters in Compartments 19 and 20 that will have 189 and 197
acres of foraging habitat, respectively, post treatment.
29. 29
Figure 14. Three clusters in Compartment 21 that will have 122, 125, and 231
acres of foraging habitat post treatment.
30. 30
The foraging habitat stand metrics for the stands within partitions that will fall below 120
acres post treatment are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. RCW Recovery Guidelines: stand-by-stand pine foraging habitat
characteristics for RCW clusters having less than 120 acres post-harvest.
Stand
Number
Trees per Acre by DBH Category
Basal Area per Acre by DBH
Category
< 10 inch 10-14 in. > 14 in. < 10 inch 10-14 in. > 14 in
< 50 TPA Min 18/ac < 10 ft² < 40 ft² Min 20ft²/ac
RCW Foraging Partition 14-05
17046 22 18 13 7 13 17
17043 6 2 18 2 2 28
14072 24 19 22 5 15 31
17038 162 58 1 48 36 1
RCW Foraging Partition 17-02
17046 22 18 13 7 13 17
17048 14 67 3 6 45 4
17056 82 65 1 29 41 1
RCW Foraging Partition 20-03
20026 15 7 14 4 5 23
20029 30 23 15 7 16 20
20063 21 19 20 6 14 28
20065 41 14 25 12 10 37
20038 66 62 4 22 42 5
RCW Foraging Partition 20-06
20046 104 15 10 22 11 14
20040 32 18 14 7 13 19
20034 39 121 9 15 81 10
20038 66 62 4 22 42 5
20026 15 7 14 4 5 23
20029 30 23 15 7 16 20
RCW Foraging Partition 21-03
10011 45 29 2 16 18 2
10013 7 15 10 3 10 15
21027 26 11 7 5 8 10
21032 37 41 4 15 26 5
21066 19 10 10 4 8 15
31. 31
While the proposed treatments will decrease the amount of foraging habitat in 20 RCW
clusters, a reduction in the amount of a group’s foraging habitat does not necessarily result in
a decrease in group size or reproductive fitness. Habitat quality is a more important
influence on these parameters (Conner et al. 1999, James et al. 2001, Walters et al. 2002,)
and is directly related to territory size, i.e. territory size decreases as habitat quality increases
(DeLotelle et al. 1987, Engstrom and Sanders 1997, Hooper et al. 1982, Porter and Labiskey
1986, Walters 1991, USFWS 1985, USFWS 2003). Furthermore, preliminary results of an
ongoing home range study conducted at Carolina Sandhills NWR and on Savannah River
Site indicate RCW’s home ranges contract and expand according to available habitat and
group foraging areas often overlap (Garabedian, unpublished data).
The upland pine landscape on Carolina Sandhills NWR is saturated with RCW foraging
partitions (Figure 7) and the population has increased incrementally over the past twenty
years (Figure 8). Since 2010, five new RCW groups have either budded or pioneered
indicating a healthy population and adequate available foraging habitat. Slash pine stands on
the refuge have shown a decreased growth rate compared to longleaf, have hybridized with
longleaf in some areas, and are not as resilient to wind and ice events. Additionally, scrub
oaks have thrived because of stagnant growth and sparse canopy conditions. Slash pines are
also subject to Annosus root rot (Jeterobasidion annosum) and exhibit earlier “natural”
mortality than longleaf. Therefore, the proposed project of removing the remaining slash
pine and restoring these areas to longleaf will have long-term beneficial effects to the health
of the longleaf pine ecosystem and thus, the stability of the RCW population.
The following are cluster partitions that will fall below the 120 acre recovery standard and/or
contain a stand above 40 acres that will be clearcut.
32. 32
Figure 15. Cluster 14-05: After treatment, this cluster will have 112 acres of foraging habitat.
33. 33
Figure 16. Cluster 17-02: After treatment, this cluster will have 73 acres of foraging habitat. This is below the managed
stability standard; however, the cluster is adjacent to private property that is protected by Safe Harbor and Conservation Easement
agreements (NRCS 2013). The listed agreements provide a measure of protection to maintain the adjacent habitats while nonforaging
stands planted in 1994 mature into suitable foraging in ten years.
34. 34
Figure 17. Cluster 20-02 contains a stand that is 49 acres and is less than one mile from cluster center. Only 40 acres of
the stands falls within the partition. The partition will contain 157 acres of foraging habitat post treatment.
35. 35
Figure 18. Cluster 20-03: After treatment, this cluster will have 106 acres of foraging
habitat.
36. 36
Figure 19. Cluster 20-06: After treatment, this cluster will have 121 acres of foraging habitat, one acre above the
recovery standard. One of the treatment stands, 20045, will remove 55 acres and is located less than one mile from the cluster center.
37. 37
Figure 20. Cluster 21-03: After treatment, this cluster will have 107 acres of
foraging habitat.
38. 38
As the RCW population on the refuge is stable to increasing and many longleaf pine
plantations have reached 40 years of growth to provide needed foraging habitat,
removing the remaining slash needs to be a priority for a variety of reasons. First, the
slash has stagnated and in some sites is hybridizing with longleaf pine, potentially
affecting the integrity and long-term quality of these sites. Secondly, slash pine is a
prolific seeder and is dominating sites, precluding successful longleaf pine recruitment
and development of desired groundcover conditions. Thirdly, as conversions are
delayed, reaching desired future conditions are also delayed. Table 4 details nesting
season results for the twenty clusters affected by these proposed treatments.
Table 4. .Foraging habitat summary for all RCW clusters affected by the proposed
harvest actions.
RCW
Foraging
Cluster
Number
2013 RCW
Nesting
Status
Total Acres
in RCW
Foraging
Partition
Foraging
Partition Acres
Protected by
Conservation
Easement*
Refuge
Acres in
Non-
Foraging
Stands
Refuge
Foraging
Acres Pre-
Harvest
Slash
Pine
Acres In
Cluster
Refuge
Foraging
Acres Post
Harvest
0102 Inactive
0106 Inactive
0302 Nested 350 75 254 21 233
0304 Nested 317 81 233 9 224
0503 Nested 335 14 313 3 310
0504 Nested 314 54 260 55 205
1205 Nested 178 10 169 8 161
1405 Nested 240 29* 70 140 28 112
1702 Nested 253 111* 44 98 25 73
1902 Single Bird 347 61 200 11 189
2002 Nested 197 0 197 40 157
2003 Nested 240 68 172 64 108
2004 PBG, no nest 474 12 216 19 197
2005 Nested 400 114 146 1 145
2006 Nested 294 30 193 72 121
2007 Nested 274 44 221 47 174
2101 Nested 296 64 232 1 231
2103 Nested 133 7 126 19 107
2105 Nested 161 47 114 1 113
2112 Nested 202 41 164 39 125
*Adjacent private lands are typically not used to meet foraging guidelines. However, the referenced lands are not only managed under a Safe Harbor
Agreement with the SC Department of Natural Resources but governed by a Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) conservation easement held by
the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The management objectives for this private property (as described below) provide
suitable longleaf pine foraging habitat (40-70 sq.ft./ac. of basal area) at least 30 years old. Considering the adjacent property along with Service lands,
the affected cluster will have 184 acres of foraging habitat.
39. 39
The overall management objectives for this HFRP easement will be to:
1. Encourage longleaf pine through natural re-generation, the application of prescribed burning, and thinning (if necessary);
2. Reduce scrub oak and hardwood competition in specific stands with herbicides and/or prescribe fire;
3. Encourage native warm grasses and forbs particularly wire grass;
4. Prescribe burn on a 2-3 year rotation, or as fuels allow;
5. Maintain upland timber stands at or near 40 basal areas (BA) with regularly scheduled thinning.
The specific resource objects for this HFRP easement will be to:
1. Maintain and create wildlife habitat: This management plan is designed to maintain, create, and provide habitat for the Red cockaded
woodpecker. This habitat is generally defined as an open park-like condition, or pine savanna, where native grasses and forbs dominate the
ground cover. This habitat can be created and/or maintained by removing excess midstory scrub oaks followed by maintaining longleaf pine
density to a 40 basal area followed by a 2-3 year prescribe burn rotation.
2. Wood and fiber production: All forestry operations and activities on the property will be conducted in a manner that will conserve, enhance,
and promote the recovery of species of conservation concern, improve biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration. Therefore, wood and
fiber production is not a priority, but is a byproduct of correct and proper forestry and wildlife habitat management. The pine stands will not
be placed on a harvest rotation and a final harvest or clearcut will occur only as a result of stand mortality due to disease or insect
infestations, but regularly scheduled pine thinnings are required to maintain pine stands at or near 40 basal area (NRCS, HFRP Ivester
Management Plan 2013).
SPECIES/CRITICAL
HABITAT
IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
The longleaf restoration project will result in re-establishment of the native
longleaf ecosystem. The project will improve RCW foraging habitat and move it
toward the conditions identified in the Red-cockaded Recovery Plan (USFWS
2003). Objectives include:
• Removal of non-native slash pine;
• Restoration of native longleaf pine;
• Reduction of midstory hardwood;
• Elimination of slash pine reseeding;
• Promotion of native ground flora.
• Long-term stability of RCW population
The results of these harvest treatments will restore 585 acres to the native
longleaf pine and associated flora and fauna.
B. Explanation of action to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:
SPECIES/CRITICAL
HABITAT
ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Operations will be timed and conducted to minimize disturbance to
RCW clusters. Logging will not occur during the RCW nesting
season (April 1- July 31). Existing snags will be left in place to
provide RCW foraging and potential nesting sites for competing
cavity dwellers. All RCW cavity trees, including slash pine, will be
retained. Wherever slash pine trees occur within 60 feet of an
RCW cavity tree, those trees will be hand-felled or otherwise
injected by hatchet or lance with herbicide. All clusters will be
annually monitored for reproductive fitness and will be augmented
with artificial cavities if suitable cavities fall below four.
40. 40
Works Cited
Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, R. R. Schaefer, D. Saenz, and C. E.
Shackelford. 1999. Relationships among red-cockaded woodpecker group density, nestling
provisioning rates, and habitat. Wilson Bulletin 111: 494-498.
DeLotelle, R. S., R. J. Epting, and J. R. Newman. 1987. Habitat use and territory
characteristics of red-cockaded woodpeckers in central Florida. Wilson Bull. 99(2): 202-
217.
Engstrom, R. T., and F. J. Sanders. 1997. Red-cockaded foraging ecology in an old growth
longleaf pine forest. Wilson Bulletin 109: 203-217.
James, F. C., C. A. Hess, and B. C. Kicklighter. 2001. Ecosystem management and the
niche gestalt of the red-cockaded woodpecker in longleaf pine forests. Ecological
Applications 11: 854-370.
Hooper, R. G., L. J. Niles, R. F. Harlow, and G. W. Wood. 1982. Home ranges of red-
cockaded woodpeckers in coastal South Carolina. Auk 99: 675-682.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Healthy Forest Reserve Program
Management Plan (John Ivester). NRCS, Chesterfield County, SC.
Porter, M. L., and R. F. Labiskey. 1986. Home range and foraging habitat of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in northern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:239-247.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis). Second Revision. Atlanta, GA. 316
pp. http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/recovery_plan.html.
Walters, J. R. 1991. Application of ecological principles to the management of endangered
species: the case of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 22: 505-523.
Walters, J. R., S. J. Daniels, J. H. Carter III, and P. D. Doerr. 2002. Defining quality of red-
cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat based on habitat use and fitness. Journal of Wildlife
Management. Vol. 66(4), pp. 1064-1082.
