|
|
|
|
| Home > Draft Report > Comments |
An important area of bird conservation neglected by the draft SFRA is an assessment of how the specific habitat needs of high conservation priority species will be addressed, or not addressed, in light of predicted forest trends. The final SFRA should take the predicted forest trends and assess the likelihood of achieving these specific bird conservation objectives in each of the physiographic regions. -- Draft Report
Good suggestion, perhaps best undertaken in "Small Area Assessments" sponsored by EPA. One major warning is needed however. Simple predictions on the increase or decrease of acreage in various age classes do not likely correspond with equivalent responses by priority bird species. Condition and management intensity on these acres is also important. As the number of younger age forests increase, a corresponding prediction on increasing intensity of management may preclude conservation value to the most specialized early successional species. The increasing acreage of mature (mid and late successional) forest does not necessarily correspond with an increase to the most vulnerable mature forest associated species that do not do well in such forests when closed canopy and sparse understory conditions are widespread (which they are today). -- Final Report
Terra-5 addresses maintaining species in the south with a significant emphasis on birds. Conservation plans all identify conversion of natural forests to pine plantations as a primary conservation concern. Even if a greater proportion of future plantations resulted from planting agricultural lands, this forecloses natural forest regeneration on these lands that could benefit declining bird species. It is critical that the SFRA clearly frame the issues related to intensive plantation silviculture on bird conservation in the south and long term implications of predicted trends of vastly increased plantation acreage and more intensive management of these plantations. -- Draft Report
We agree, that conversion of "natural" forests to pine plantations is a serious concern, but also a serious concern is the state of most of these so-called natural forests that are in poor condition for many forest dependent birds. This may explain some increasing trends for many forest species where there has been increased management, and decreasing trends for many forest species where there has been decreased level of management. This is not a statement in support of more pine plantations, but a statement that should stress that there needs to be more attention to the management and restoration of so-called "natural" stands too. With respect to the comment on future plantations on retired ag lands precluding natural forest regeneration, the assumption here is that farmland not converted to pine plantation in fact would be regenerated to "natural" forest. Even if that were true, without some conservation incentives to do otherwise, future management of these stands would be productive for early successional species for a few years and then move into mid-successional conditions that may be little better than pine plantations on private lands, before economic pressures are overwhelming to harvest either through high-grading or clearcutting. -- Final Report
We were surprised to read the report's statement that forested wetland bird species "are making the transition to using bedded pine plantations." (Terra-4 at p. 18). Without a much more detailed explanation and in-depth analysis, such conclusions should not be reached in the study. The Summary Report and relevant technical papers leave many questions unresolved regarding plantation management and wildlife, especially bird species. Terra-4 should more thoroughly examine contentions that bird species dependent on natural forests are "making the transition" to pine plantations. -- Draft Report
We were surpised too by this revelation over the last ten years, and we reiterate that many of the claims here may represent special cases and may not represent migratory bird use of pine plantations in general. Although it is still the authors' contention that pine plantaions are generally poor wildlife habitat, it would be inaccurate to claim that pine planations are always poor habitats for forest bird species. With respect to specific findings within the South Atlantic Coastal Plain, first we noted through National Wetlands Inventory data a tremendous loss to palustrine forested wetland from the 1970's through the 1980's in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, mostly due to land clearing and forestry practices. Second, during roughly the same time period in the same three-state area into the 1990's, a corresponding increase through Breeding Bird Survey data was documented for many species associated with forested wetlands. Either the NWI or BBS were incorrect, or many species of mature forest birds were in fact increasing with the reduction of mature forested wetlands. As cited in the chapter, seperate studies on Weyerhaeuser lands in the northeast North Carolina, International Paper lands along the Pee Dee River in South Carolina, and Westvaco lands in the ACE Basin also in South Carolina all document substantial use of and good reproductive success in younger managed forested wetlands and pine plantations on converted wetlands; the latter two as long as some forested wetlands are retained in the greater landscape and hardwoods are allowed under the pine canopy. We suggest the commentators here contact directly the principal investigators associated with these studies and pursue their inquiries: Dr. Bryan Watts with the Center for Conservation Biology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA; Dr. Richard Lancia with North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, and Mr. John Gerwin with the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC. In essence, we agree that there need to be additional studies into these seemingly counterintuitive findings and we suggest that environmental groups work cooperatively with industry interests towards mutual goals of better understanding the conservation value of these industry lands for forested wetland associated birds. -- Final Report
The long-term bird population trends in a region affected substantially by establishment of pine plantations seem to support the conclusion that we must question claims that early successional species are helped by increases in intensively managed pine plantations (p. 17). -- Draft Report
We agree, but this also means that where intensively managed pine plantations are dominating the landscape, as well as where mid-successional age classes dominate, that the most vulnerable disturbance dependent species may require greater levels of attention on public lands where their specialized needs are not being met on private lands (many species associated with grassy/herbaceous ground cover of older open pine forests, as well as very specialized species such as golden-winged warbler, etc.). -- Final Report
Notes that herbicides may decrease plant diversity (page 25) but fails to note that these decreases are temporary and that plant communities often recover from herbicide applications within several growing seasons. Makes several unsubstantiated claims regarding streamside management zones. Asserts that SMZs are used by wildlife as travel corridors (page 29) although data documenting travel in SMZs are very limited. -- Draft Report
Granted, decreases in plant diversity from herbicide use are often temporary, but are also long enough for densely stocked pine to reach crown closure. Therefore the combination of greater use of herbicides and higher stocking rates provide a narrower window of appropriate habitat conditions for many early successional species than if the stand was stocked at lower stocking rates and not subjected to heavy heribicide treatments. With respect to SMZ's, not sure what the other unsubstantiated claims are, but our statement with respect to travel corridors is primarily based on recommendations from the National Wildlife Turkey Federation. -- Final Report
Several citations should be updated. The authors could replace Lancia and Gerwin (in progress, a and b) with Mitchell et al (2001) which described both studies. Barber and others (in review, a and b) could be replaced with Barber et al (2001). -- Draft Report
So noted. -- Final Report
Expresses concern about potential impacts of pine plantations in pocosins (page 12). Concludes that populations for most species potentially affected are stable or increasing, but fails to cite results of Karriker (1993, 1996) on page 12 - even though the chapter does mention Karriker (1993) later. Karriker (1993) found that bird communities in plantations could be similar to those in pocosins where structure is similar. -- Draft Report
We believe that we can both support the conservation of pocosin habitats and express concern over their continued conversion to bedded loblolly pine, while also pointing out that for now many species of birds using pocosin habitats apparently have adapted well to these pine plantations. Pocosins are unique plant and animal communities that have been greatly reduced in acreage due to land clearing, peat mining, and conversion to pine plantation. The present facts that show many species of birds appear to be doing well within pine plantations does not take away from the fact that a relatively rare set of community types are continuing to become rarer. If given a choice between supporting these bird species in pocosin communities or in converted pine plantations, all other things being equal, we would choose pocosins. However, claims by those who criticize industry for causing declines in important bird habitat where pocosins have been converted to pine are not supported by the available data. -- Final Report
The report should acknowledge that many wildlife species associated with longleaf pine ecosystems also use ecosystems dominated by other pine species such as loblolly or shortleaf (page 13). Fails to note that approximately half of the RCW populations reside in loblolly pine forests. Papers such as Hedman et al (2000) have indicated that many similarities can exist among forested ecosystems dominated by different pine species. -- Draft Report
We agree and believe the issues raised are adequately addressed when we refer to stands of mature southern pines, sparsely stocked pine savnna and open pine stands, etc., that are not specific to longleaf. The point that about half of all RCW populations reside in loblolly is not considered to be an optimal situation, so was not emphasized in this chapter. Aggresive restoration of longleaf pine represents the best hope for RCW and many other southern pine associated species across the majority of the coastal plain, while popualtions using loblolly are important for holding populations until that time arrives. The types of management needed to support many vulnerable species in pine stands other than longleaf require many special considerations and unless incentives or requirements are in effect these special considerations are rarely witnessed on private lands. Again not a criticism, only a reflection of reality. -- Final Report
Cites continuing downward trends in BBS data for selected early successional species as evidence that intensively-managed pine plantations do not provide suitable habitat (page 17). This is an inappropriate use of BBS data and it ignores other factors that likely are affecting population trends of some species such as northern bobwhites. -- Draft Report
We do not understand the objection here. Increasing acreage in pine plantations is occurring in the same areas experiencing steep declines in early successional species that represent resident species (e.g., Northen Bobwhite), short-distance migrants (e.g., Field Sparrow), and long-distance (neotropical migrants; e.g., Prairie Warbler). We believe this is a perfectly appropriate use of BBS data, for if increasing pine plantation acreage was beneficial to these species, we should be seeing a stall to decreasing trends and perhaps a reversal since the 1970's. The additional fact that the declines include species representing differing residential status, indicates that local land use changes are strongly associated with the declines. Certainly, there are other factors associated with declines in any of these species, including Northern Bobwhite. However, is the commentator seriously suggesting that there is more habitat for this and other species in intensively managed pine platations than would have been available in native longleaf forests, abundant old-field habitats on retired farmland 3 decades ago, and less intensively managed pine plantations where stocking was lower and fire was used to provide grassy to shrubby ground cover? In sum, what ever benefits clearcutting used to have 20-30 years ago are being lost today with increasingly intense management, and to return some of these benefits would require compromises to the economics that are driving denser stocking and faster growing pine in the first place. -- Final Report
The assertion that "roads of any width and use likely provide some barrier to dispersal" of amphibians (page 9) is contradicted within the same paragraph by the results of Gibbs (1998) and deMaynadier and Hunter (2000). -- Draft Report
We disagree with this interpretation. That roads of any width likely provide some barrier to amphibian dispersal should not be news to anyone. However, the two studies cited demonstrate that some species do better than others and that some species under some circumstances do better than others. There is still some barrier to some species caused by roads of any width. -- Final Report
Because of the frequent reference in Terra-4 to reduced use of fire and increased use of forest herbicides, and a likely continuation of such trends, this chapter should include more discussion of fire-herbicide-wildlife relationships. The recent NCASI-sponsored review of herbicide-wildlife literature by Dave DeCalesta might be helpful. -- Draft Report
So noted. -- Final Report
The reference to Mitchell et al (1999) regarding the Parker Tract in NC is not correct (last paragraph, page 18). Mitchell et al (1999) should be for the Woodbury Tract-Pee Dee River in SC. -- Draft Report
We agree, citations were mixed up during the editorial process and corrections were not offered in time. The corrected paragraph should read (page 33 in our copy): "The hypothesis that forested wetland species are making the transition to using “bedded” pine plantations is supported by studies in North and South Carolina: (1) in the Parker Tract, Weyerhaeuser Company, NC (Kerriker 1993, Wilson and Watts 1999a), (2) in the Woodbury Tract-Pee Dee River, International Paper Company, SC (Mitchell and others 1999, Lancia and Gerwin in progress a), and (3) in the ACE Basin, Westvaco Corporation, SC (Lancia and Gerwin in progress b). The latter two study areas are also the subject of a landscape-level analysis in Mitchell and others (2001)." -- Final Report
Comment that buffers and corridors around salamander breeding ponds are required to ensure population stability or dispersal (p. 8) is largely conjecture and not supported by good scientific studies. There are very few empirical data to support this assertion, and some recent data to the contrary (Baughman 2000, Russell 2000). Means et al (1996) referenced on page 9 was not a well-replicated and controlled experiment (only anecdotal information). -- Draft Report
Our statement was that "pond-breeding salamanders require access from terrestrial habitats to vernal ponds or Carolina bays." That should not be news to anyone, but what type of habitat is necessary to allow that access is subject to debate of course. We provided literature available to us that described what buffers and corridors were for some species. That other authors have found contrary information is not a surprise and we would be willing to include these references if the commentor could provide a full citation for these (Baughman 2000, Russell 2000). Means et al. (1996) represents the best information available on a federally listed species and until better work is conducted, we believe it important to err on the side of the best available information; anecdoctal or not the findings in this paper largely conform to the experiences of those herpetologists familiar with the most consistently used habitats for the flatwoods salamander and what has happened to historical locations where conversions have occurred. -- Final Report
That "Pine plantations are generally poor wildlife habitat" (p. 20) is not supported and is contradicted elsewhere in the chapter, as on page 24: "Many wildlife species thrive in early successional communities created by clearcutting. We stand by our statement that pine plantations provide generally poor wildlife habitat. Only when compromises with economic considerations are made, which in our experience are increasingly rare, can pine plantations support healthy populations of any priority species, with some notable exceptions as in some coastal plain forests. That many species thrive in early successional communities created by clearcutting is a more general statement and not intended to apply only to pine plantation management. Specifically with respect to pine plantation management, the benefits that formerly occurred with clearcutting for wildlife are no longer the norm today given the increasing intensity of management that emphasizes more destructive mechanical site prep over burning, higher herbicide use that retards growth of grasses and hardwoods, ever higher stocking rates, increasing use of fertilizers to increase pine growth rates, etc. The continuing decline of many early successional bird species in light of increasing pine plantation management is strong evidence that pine plantation management is in fact poor for many wildlife species, including early successional species. In contrast, clearcutting to regenerate hardwoods often does provide longer term benefits for early successional species (especially those species that may benefit most from a prescribed burn following the clearcutting). There is no contradiction between these two statements. -- Draft Report
Our statement was that "pond-breeding salamanders require access from terrestrial habitats to vernal ponds or Carolina bays." That should not be news to anyone, but what type of habitat is necessary to allow that access is subject to debate of course. We provided literature available to us that described what buffers and corridors were for some species. That other authors have found contrary information is not a surprise and we would be willing to include these references if the commentor could provide a full citation for these (Baughman 2000, Russell 2000). Means et al. (1996) represents the best information available on a federally listed species and until better work is conducted, we believe it important to err on the side of the best available information; anecdoctal or not the findings in this paper largely conform to the experiences of those herpetologists familiar with the most consistently used habitats for the flatwoods salamander and what has happened to historical locations where conversions have occurred. -- Final Report
Presumes that most plantations are densely stocked and have closed canopies. This is not necessarily the case. Adaptive management strategies that prescribe moderate stocking levels and judicious forest chemical use can maintain good early successional and other associated habitat values. -- Draft Report
We agree that adaptive management strategies that compromise maximum economic output may provide for better habitat values. However, the vast majority of pine plantations are not managed this way in our experience unless specific agreements with companies or private landowners are reached emphasizing incentives or public relations. This is not a criticism, only a reflection of reality as we respect the decisions and economic pressures underway in the forest industry today in the South. -- Final Report
Some of the Statements in this chapter regarding herbicide impacts should be qualified and directly related to available research. A seemingly negative bias toward plantations comes across without documented evidence. Only 14% of the South's forests are currently in plantations. This chapter would benefit from more thorough technical editing and review. -- Draft Report
With respect to most species of vulnerable terrestrial wildlife, the increase of pine plantations and overall increase use of herbicides over prescribed fire is a negative impact, though we would agree that the relative spread of pine plantations has been somewhat overblown when compared to urban sprawl in the loss of forest land in the Southeast. Although there are notable exceptions, pine plantations generally provide poor wildlife habitat unless specific measures,including more judicial use of herbicides, are provided that usually compromise the economic justification for more intensive pine production. -- Final Report
Section 5.6: This section inadequately addresses the role played by professional foresters in formulating silvicultural treatments and in ensuring regulatory compliance to meet such objectives. -- Draft Report
So noted. -- Final Report
You state "little is known about effects of plantations on biodiversity". This is nonsense. Numerous observations indicate that species richness of virtually all native vegetation types is decreased in plantations. It is true that there is a short-lived pulse of herbaceous diversity when plantations are harvested, but this usually consists of weedy species rather than the original old growth ground layer plants. -- Draft Report
This is not what we said in Needs for Additional Research. What we did say is that "very little information exists comparing young plantations with different land use histories." -- Final Report
This section fails to acknowledge the devastating effects of intensive mechanical silviculture on old growth groundlayer vegetation. In longleaf pine habitats slash/bed type silviculture essentially drastically reduces "climax" bunchgrasses and reduces rare plant diversity. Post treatement communities are dominated by weeds such as dogfennels, Croptilon, Gnapthaliums, etc. The more severe the treatment, the greater the shift in composition. -- Draft Report
We agree with these comments and cite work on salamanders in support of these comments. We would generally favor use of fire over mechanical site prep, but also recognize that use of mechanical equipment alone may not equate to the loss of native ground cover in longleaf pine or other forests. The more intense the treatment the more likely there will be severe impacts, though. -- Final Report
Address the borderline acidic soils of the Cumberland Plateau and how many rotations of pine farms can occur before growth rates are decimated by nutrient depletions. How many rotations can all soils of the south sustain? How much time will it take to rebuild lost soils? -- Draft Report
No disagreement from us on this point, however the likely answer to this question from commercial foresters is that fertilizers will be used as nutrients become depleted. -- Final Report
Water quality issues were listed as potential problems for many species; but no mention was made of the rise in Best Management Practices compliance across the south. The increasing use of BMPs in virtually every state in the south is having a tremendous impact on improving water quality and enhancing habitat conditions and biodiversity. The significant efforts most states are devoting to BMP education programs are not discussed in much detail. -- Draft Report
This is the subject of other chapters, particularly AQUA 1, 3, and 4. We agree there has been a rise in compliance with BMPs across the Southeast, but there is a need for greater levels of compliance for there to be truly an improvement to water quality and aquatic biological diversity in some areas. Granted that most water quality problems in the South are due to increasing development or existing mining and agricultural runoff, but there still can be severe problems where there is intensive forestry activity in topographically diverse landscapes, especially where large numbers of threatened and endangered aquatic species are concentrated. Hopefully, increasing availablity of incentives and enforcement of existing state and local ordinances will encourage compliance trends to continue upwards. -- Final Report
Concerning references about longleaf pine habitats I would consult: Bridges and Orzell (1989) Natural Areas Journal. Peet and Allard (1993) Tall Timbers Proceedings; Taggart UNC PhD thesis, Walker and Peet 1982 Vegetation, recent papers in Restoration Ecology by Louis Provencher et al; Glitzenstein et al (1995) Ecological Monograph; Streng et al 1993 Tall Timbers Proceedings; and several recent publications by Jones Ecological Center. -- Draft Report
So noted. -- Final Report
In many communities it is useful to decouple groundlayer dynamics from canopy dynamics. The high stability of "old growth" groundlayer communities is in stark contrast to true early successional vegetation which develops after severe disturbances to the groundlayer. -- Draft Report
We agree and have covered this adequately in the text. There are also many species of early successional species that will not be supported in the ground layer of old-growth, but would be in early succesional habitats and vice versa. -- Final Report
The report should note that intensively-managed stands could and often do contribute significantly to biological diversity. This chapter lists numerous forest management practices that negatively impact wildlife, although little or no data are presented to substantiate claims. In the same token, there should be specific mention of the value of managed forests for wildlife and biodiversity. -- Draft Report
We disagree in general with this statement. The rarity and extirpation of many wildlife species from many areas in the South in recent decades that are dependent upon forests (both mature and early successional) is evidence enough with respect to present forestry practices (including benign neglect in passively managed forests)largely being negative for wildlife. This comment may reflect different ways on how to define biological diversity. The fact that pine plantations may support some species does not constitute a contribution to biological diversity when very few of those species are threatened or endangered or otherwise considered high priority for conservation attention. We request that the commentator demonstrate how intensively managed stands in general actually contribute to the conservation of highly vulnerable species (i.e., real contributions to biological diversity) without special management considerations. Such considerations would include retention of large patches of older trees, regular retention of snags and den trees, management to maintain some open canopied stands allowing for either dense hardwood understories or if burned a grassy/herbaceous dominated ground cover, or stands influenced by a legacy as seems to be the case over converted wetlands (especially pocosin). Some argument can be made that in the very earliest stages of succession that a number of vulnerable species may be supported; this was historically correct to some degree, but with increasing stocking rates, heavy use of herbicides, highly mechanical (destructive) site-prep practices, and rapid growth rates leading to quicker canopy closure, any past benefits to early successional species is rapidly being lost. The main contribution that intensively managed forests provide to biological diversity is in providing better buffers to other less intensively managed forests than found in landscapes dominated by agriculture or development. In summary, any contribution to biological diversity coming from intensively managed stands more often than not come from factors that have little to do with the maximum potential to produce fiber; that is, benefits are due mostly to compromises made to reduce production output in favor of providing habitat specifically for vulnerable wildlife or plant species, or due to the nature of the site (e.g., pocosins) and surrounding land use patterns. -- Final Report
This chapter is based on a simplified "model" of plant community dynamics wherein communities are assumed to be divided into a mosiac of different aged patches in various stages of succession. It is then stated that all stages of succession should be represented. While it is true that virtually all communities are patchy at some level, the idea that early successional patches are common is essentially nonsense for some habitats. Furthermore, disturbances that re-initiate tree regeneration may not have the same effect on the groundlayer. For example, in longleaf pine habitats, frequent low intensity fires do not re-initiate succession, but instead maintain an old growth condition. -- Draft Report
We do not agree that we only have presented the "succssional" view of forests, but recognize that is the way most forests are managed today. However, if there is a specific place in the text that the commentor identified that may have caused confusion, we'd be happy to claify the text. In essence, forest types that are not likely subject to frequent disturbances such as cove hardwoods, northern hardwoods, some bottomland hardwoods not subject to frequent flooding, etc. would rarely have large patches of early succession, while some types of pines, bottomland hardwoods subject to frequent severe flooding, and upland hardwoods (especially oaks) would be subject to large disturbances would have early successional stages. As noted by the commentor, longleaf and some other pines and some upland oaks would be frequently disturbed (such as with low intensity fire) but essentially still be "old-growth." This is the more complex model the commentor refers to and we believe this is adequately covered in the text. -- Final Report
Clearcutting, even-aged logging, overuse of prescribed burning, abuse of mid-story removal provisions in RCW guidelines, decreased rotations, and increasing use of chemicals are reducing the natural forests of the South and replacing them with pines-only monocultures that support less wildlife and lead to increased erosion and loss of soil nutrients. These management activities so alter the structure of the forest, species composition, microclimate, shrub and herb composition, and other forest attributes that birds and animals are being crowded into smaller and smaller areas, even where urban sprawl is not a factor. -- Draft Report
We agree that reduced rotations and general increase use of chemicals as a replacement for prescribed burning, or to increase growth of pine and retard hardwood and grasses, is overall detrimental to most species of vulnerable wildlife in the South. We believe that it is also detrimental to wildlife to reduce prescribed fire and midstory removal in pine habitats most likely to support RCW and other southern pine associated species and therefore disagree with the assertions here. There is a more serious problem with lack of appropriate management than there is with so-called overuse or abuse of RCW guidelines in our experience, though some modifications may be needed in some areas to best manage for other pine associated species where RCW's persist (but these modifications would still involve aggressive use of prescribed fire and removal ofhardwoods). Where there are not attempts to restore open and mature pine and oak communities with thinning and fire, and attempts to increase through management the structure of forests not subject to frequent disturbances, clearcutting and other even-aged means to regenerate forests become increasingly important for many species. Passive management is not a good answer for most vulnerable wildlife species today if that is what the commentor is suggesting here. -- Final Report
Besides the trees we are losing to sprawling development and urban expansion, we seem to be replacing the rich, varied native forests with pine plantations. The species diversity in pine plantations is pitiful, and there's no telling what the long-term prospects are for this type of culture. -- Draft Report
Generally, the hardwood forests being replaced by pine plantations have been repeatedly high-graded and therefore not that good for many species of vulnerable wildlife in the first place. Longleaf pine stands have been reduced mostly by clearing but also by fire suppression, as well as with conversion to pine plantations. Many acres projected to become pine plantation will be from retired agriculture. Most "rich, varied native forests," have long been lost from the Southeast and have been replaced by second-growth that through appropriate forest and fire management may be restored for better supporting healthy populations of many vulnerable species. The loss of so-called native forests and the increase in pine planations represent many complex patterns, not easily summarized into simple statements. -- Final Report
|
|
webmaster: John M. Pye |
created: 4-OCT-2002 |