> ![](media/image1.png){width="3.21875in" height="0.15625in"}

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.05625in"
height="7.291666666666667e-2in"}

![](media/image3.png){width="0.75in"
height="0.6041666666666666in"}![](media/image4.png){width="3.21875in"
height="0.6041666666666666in"}

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.1819444444444445in" height="0.15625in"}

![](media/image6.png){width="6.266666666666667in"
height="0.14583333333333334in"}

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="2.5243055555555554in"
height="1.6958333333333333in"}

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="3.1354166666666665in"
height="4.698611111111111in"}

**HEALTHY FOREST**

**RESERVE PROGRAM**![](media/image9.png){width="1.8388888888888888in"
height="4.124305555555556in"}

Healthy Forest Reserve Program

> Interim Final Rule

Environmental Assessment

April 2006![](media/image6.png){width="6.4in"
height="0.16666666666666666in"}

**Table of Contents**

BACKGROUND

Introduction...............................................................................................1

Healthy Forestry Reserve Program Statutory
Requirements......................................1

NEED FOR
ACTION.......................................................................................3

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1, No
Action..............................................................................4

Alternative 2, Proposed
Action......................................................................4

IMPACTS

Introduction..............................................................................................10

Alternative 1, No
Action...............................................................................17

Alternative 2, Proposed
Action........................................................................18

LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES
CONSULTED...............................................30

REFERENCES...............................................................................................31

APPENDICES

Appendix A -- Table: US Forest
Ownership........................................\....A1-A2

Appendix B -- Percent of Non-Federal Area in Forest Land, 1997. B-1

Appendix C-- Healthy Forest Reserve Program Practice Effects

Network Diagrams............. ........................C1-C-23

## BACKGROUND

## I. Introduction

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is promulgating an
interim final rule to implement the Healthy Forest Reserve Program
(HFRP), authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (2003
Healthy Forest Act) (Pub. L. 108-148, 117 Stat. 1877 (December 3,
2003)). The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
that Federal agencies prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's)
for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) require
Federal agencies to prepare Environmental Assessments (EA's) to assist
them in determining whether they need to prepare an EIS for actions that
have not been categorically excluded from NEPA. The CEQ has defined
\"major federal action\" to include activities over which Federal
agencies have control, including promulgation of regulations in which
they exercise discretion.

NRCS regulations implementing the provisions of NEPA state that an EIS
is normally required for \"broad Federal assistance programs
administered by NRCS when the environmental evaluation indicates there
may be significant cumulative impacts on the human environment.\"

(7 CFR 650.7 (a)(3).) The environmental evaluation indicates that, when
focusing on the significant adverse impacts that NEPA is intended to
help decision makers avoid, minimize and mitigate, it is unlikely there
will be significant cumulative impacts on the quality of the human
environment because of implementing the HFRP. However, NRCS has
developed this EA to review the effects of the proposed program and to
assist in determining whether implementing the HFRP will significantly
affect the quality of the human environment such that NRCS must prepare
an EIS.

The proposed action under consideration here involves rulemaking, and no
site-specific or ground-disturbing actions will occur as an immediate
result of implementing the proposal. Additional environmental review at
subsequent stages of program implementation will be undertaken
consistent with NEPA requirements and NRCS regulations.

#### HFRP Statutory Requirements

The HFRP is a voluntary program which the Secretary of Agriculture is to
carry out in coordination with the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce,
the purpose of which is to restore and enhance private forest ecosystems
to

-   promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species;

-   improve biodiversity; and

-   enhance carbon sequestration.

The only private forest land eligible for enrollment in the HFRP is that
which will restore, enhance or otherwise measurably

-   increase the likelihood of recovery of a species listed as
    endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Endangered Species
    Act of 1973 (ESA); or

-   improve the well-being of species that are not listed as endangered
    or threatened under section 4 of the ESA but are

    -   candidates for listing under section 4 of the ESA,

    -   State-listed species, or

    -   special concern species.

Moreover, the legislation establishes specific priorities for
enrollment. The highest priority is to enroll land that provides the
greatest conservation benefit to species listed as endangered or
threatened under section 4 of the ESA, and the next priority is to
enroll land that provides the greatest conservation benefit to species
that are candidates for listing under section 4 of the ESA, State-listed
species, or special concern species. However, the Secretary is also
required to consider the cost-effectiveness of each agreement or
easement, and associated restoration plans, so as to maximize the
environmental benefits per dollar expended. In addition, if the land
meets the basic eligibility criteria, the Secretary of Agriculture is
also directed to give additional consideration to land which will
improve biological diversity; and increase carbon sequestration.

There are three enrollment options available, and land will be enrolled
in each according to the approximate proportion of landowner interest
shown in each enrollment method. Land may be enrolled in HFRP through
10-year cost-share agreements; 30-year easements; or 99-year easements.
A maximum of 2 million acres may be enrolled in the program nationwide,
regardless of the length of enrollment.

A habitat restoration plan is required for all land enrolled in the
HFRP. The plan is developed jointly by the landowner and the Secretary
of Agriculture or its designee, in coordination with the Secretaries of
Interior and Commerce. The restoration plan must include any restoration
practices or measures necessary to protect, restore and enhance habitat
for species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the
ESA and animal or plant species that are candidate, State-listed
species, and special concern species.

Landowners who enroll their private forest land in a HFRP easement of
not more than 99 years will receive two types of payments---one for the
easement itself, and another for a share of the cost to implement
conservation practices. The payment for the easement will be for a
minimum of 75 percent, and no more than 100 percent of: the fair market
value of the enrolled land during the period the land is subject to the
easement, less the fair market value of the land encumbered by the
easement. The cost-share payment will be for a minimum of 75 percent,
and no more than 100 percent, of the actual costs of the approved
conservation practices and measures, or the average cost of approved
practices/measures carried out on the land during the period in which
the land is subject to the easement.

Landowners who enroll their private forest land in HFRP under a 30-year
easement will also receive these two types of payments. However, the
payment for the easement may not exceed 75 percent of: the fair market
value of the land, less the fair market value of the land encumbered by
the easement. The cost-share payment for implementing conservation
practices and measures under a 30-year easement may not exceed 75
percent of the actual costs of the approved conservation
practices/measures or 75 percent of the average cost of approved
practices/measures, as determined by NRCS.

Landowners who enroll private forest land in a HFRP ten-year agreement
will receive cost-share payments only, and the cost-share may not exceed
50 percent of the actual costs of the approved conservation practices or
measures, or 50 percent of the average cost of approved
practices/measures, as determined by NRCS.

The provisions of the HFRP also allow the Secretary of Agriculture to
accept and use contributions of non-Federal funds to make HFRP payments.

Landowners enrolled in the HFRP are also entitled to receive technical
assistance to assist them in complying with the terms of the plans that
are incorporated in their HFRP agreements or easements. In addition, the
Secretary of Agriculture may use the services of certified technical
service providers to develop and implement the HFRP.

When conservation activities on land enrolled in the HFRP result in a
net conservation benefit for listed, candidate, or other species, the
legislation provides that the landowner will receive safe harbor or
similar assurances and protection under ESA section 7 or section
10(a)(1). If additional necessary measures are identified after the HFRP
restoration plan has been agreed to, the landowner may also receive HFRP
cost-share assistance to implement those practices.

In carrying out HFRP, the legislation states that the Secretary of
Agriculture may consult with

-   non-industrial private forest landowners;

-   other Federal agencies;

-   State fish and wildlife agencies;

-   State forestry agencies;

-   State environmental quality agencies;

-   other State conservation agencies; and

-   non-profit conservation organizations.

#### 

#### NEED FOR ACTION

The need for which NRCS is responding by proposing action is the need to
implement the HFRP as authorized and in a manner that efficiently and
effectively achieves the purposes for which Congress established the
program, including:

-   restoring and enhancing forest ecosystems to promote the recovery of
    threatened and endangered species;

-   improving biodiversity; and

-   enhancing carbon sequestration.

All fish and wildlife species do not use forest ecosystems in the same
way, for the same purpose, or at the same time. They may have different
space or home range requirements, and may use forest ecosystems at
different life stages or to meet different life requisites. In addition,
the U.S. has a wide variety of forest ecosystem types, and the
environmental and social concerns associated with those systems vary.
There are also many different types of State, Tribal and local
conservation programs available that may be used to further the
efficient and effective implementation of the HFRP. Thus, NRCS State
Conservationists must have flexibility to determine how best to
implement HFRP within each State so the program achieves its purposes.

## Alternatives

**Alternative 1, "No Action"**

Under the No Action alternative, the HFRP would not be implemented. This
alternative is analyzed, in part, to provide a baseline against which
the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives can be
compared.

#### Alternative 2, "Proposed Action"

Under the proposed action, NRCS proposes to purchase conservation
easements from, or enter into restoration cost-share agreements with,
eligible landowners who voluntarily cooperate in the restoration and
protection of forestlands and associated lands. To participate in HFRP,
a landowner must agree to implement a Healthy Forests Restoration Plan,
the effect of which is to restore, protect, enhance, maintain, and
manage the habitat conditions necessary to increase the likelihood of
recovery of listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or
measurably improve the well-being of species that are not listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA but are candidates for such
listing, or are State-listed species, or special concern species. NRCS
may provide cost-share assistance for the activities that promote the
restoration, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and management of
forestland functions and values.

The NRCS states in its interim final rule that it will coordinate with
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service
in implementing the HFRP and in establishing program policies. In
addition, the rule states that the State Conservationist will consult
with the State Technical Committee and other partners on the development
of the rates of compensation for an easement, a priority ranking
process, and related policy matters, and that NRCS may consult with the
Forest Service, other Federal and State agencies, conservation districts
or other organizations in program administration. Because the terms
"consultation" and "coordination" have different meanings depending on
the context in which they are used, NRCS has defined these terms in its
interim final rule so their meaning will be clear when used in the
context of the HFRP.

-   "Consultation" or "consult with" means to talk things over for the
    purpose of providing information; to offer an opinion for
    consideration; to meet for discussion or to confer; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coordination means to obtain input and involvement from others while
    reserving final decision-making authority with NRCS.

NRCS makes it clear in the rule that no determination by the FWS, the
NMFS, the Forest Service, a Federal or State agency, conservation
district, or other organization will compel the NRCS to take any action
which the NRCS determines will not serve HFRP purposes.

The Chief, NRCS, may implement HFRP in any of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific
Islands, depending on the availability of funds and the program
priorities. The Chief may also modify or waive provisions of the program
that are not required by law if the Chief deems the application of that
provision to a limited situation to be inappropriate and inconsistent
with the environmental and cost-efficiency goals of the HFRP. This
authority will not be further delegated.

The NRCS may enter into cooperative agreements with Federal or State
agencies, conservation districts, and private conservation organizations
to assist the NRCS with educational efforts, easement management and
monitoring, outreach efforts, and program implementation assistance.

**[Application Process]{.underline}**

To implement the HFRP, NRCS will announce certain periods during which
applications may be submitted. During those times, forestland owners may
submit an Application for Participation in the HFRP. By filing an
Application for Participation, the landowner is agreeing to provide
information NRCS requests in order to make eligibility determinations
and otherwise implement the program. The landowner is also giving their
consent to allow an NRCS representative to enter upon their land to
determine land eligibility, and conduct other activities related to NRCS
making offers of enrollment. The landowner is entitled to accompany an
NRCS representative on any site visits.

**[Eligibility Review]{.underline}**

NRCS will determine whether the land is eligible for enrollment and
whether the lands may be included in the program based on the likelihood
of successful restoration and protection of forest ecosystem functions
and values when considering the cost of acquiring the easement and
restoration, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and management costs.
The land will only be considered eligible for enrollment in the HFRP if
NRCS determines, in coordination with FWS and NMFS, that the private
land will restore, enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the
likelihood of recovery of a species listed species under Section 4 of
the ESA, or it will restore, enhance, or otherwise measurably improve
the well-being of species that are candidates for listing under Section
4 of the ESA, or which are State-listed species, or special concern
species. Eligible land may include the following:

-   Riparian areas along streams or other waterways;

-   Wetlands, including former and degraded wetland area that will be
    substantially restored; and

-   Land adjacent to the restored forestland which would contribute
    significantly to the practical administration of the easement area,
    but not more than the State Conservationist, in consultation with
    the State Technical Committee, determines is necessary for such
    contribution;

The following land is not eligible for enrollment in the HFRP:

-   Lands owned by a governmental entity;

-   Land already subject to an easement or deed restriction that already
    provides for the protection of wildlife habitat and,

-   Lands where implementation of restoration practices would be
    impracticable due to on-site or off-site conditions.

**[Ranking Process]{.underline}**

After reviewing the applications to ensure basic eligibility
requirements are met, NRCS or its designee in coordination with FWS and
NMFS, and with input from the State Technical Committee, will rank
applications to enroll eligible land based on:

-   Estimated conservation benefit to listed species under Section 4 of
    the ESA;

-   Estimated conservation benefit to species not listed as endangered
    or threatened under Section 4 of the ESA but are candidates for such
    listing, State-listed species, or special concern species as
    identified by NRCS;

-   Estimated improvement of biological diversity, if enrolled;

-   Potential for increased capability of carbon sequestration, if
    enrolled;

-   Availability of contribution of non-Federal funds;

-   Significance of forest ecosystem functions and values; and

-   Cost-effectiveness of the agreement or easement, and associated
    restoration plan.

However, the Chief may also choose to allocate HFRP funds for purposes
related to cooperative agreements with other Federal or State agencies
for program implementation; coordination of easement enrollment across
State boundaries; coordination of the development of HFRP restoration
plans; or, for other goals of the HFRP. In addition, NRCS may designate
areas as priority forest ecosystem areas where environmental concerns
are especially pronounced and to assist landowners in meeting species
recovery goals and other conservation needs. NRCS may also place
enrollment priority on certain regional forest ecosystems where
restoration of forestland may better achieve NRCS State and regional
goals and objectives.

If, to achieve program objectives, it is necessary to encompass total
areas of land that are owned by multiple parties, or it is otherwise
necessary to include particular tracts of private forestland, the State
Conservationist may enroll eligible lands at any time. Similarly, the
State Conservationist may exclude otherwise eligible lands if the
participation of the adjacent landowners is essential to the successful
restoration of the forest ecosystem and those adjacent landowners are
unwilling to participate.

If available funds are insufficient to accept the highest ranked
application, and the applicant is not interested in reducing the acres
offered to match available funding, USDA may select a lower ranked
application that can be fully funded. Applicants may choose to change
the duration of the easement or agreement or reduce acreage amount
offered if the application ranking score is not reduced below that of
the score of the next available application on the ranking list.

**[Enrollment Process]{.underline}**

Based on the priority ranking, NRCS or its designee will notify the
landowners that were tentatively accepted into the program. This offer
of tentative acceptance does not bind NRCS or the United States to
acquire an easement, nor does it bind the landowner to convey an
easement or agree to HFRP restoration plan activities. The landowner
will have 15 calendar days to sign a letter of intent to continue. When
NRCS receives this executed letter of intent to continue, NRCS will
present to the landowner an option agreement to purchase. This option
agreement will describe the easement area, the easement terms and
conditions, and other requirements for participation. After the option
agreement to purchase is executed by NRCS and the landowner, NRCS will
proceed with the remaining activities necessary for NRCS to purchase an
easement, if applicable, and to implement the HFRP restoration plan.

Until the time an easement is executed by NRCS and the landowner and
recorded, NRCS may withdraw its offer anytime due to unavailability of
funds, inability to clear title, or for other reasons. In addition, the
offer to the landowner will be void if it has not been executed by the
landowner within the time specified.

By executing the easement, the landowner will be agreeing that

-   The landowner will cooperate in the restoration, protection,
    enhancement, maintenance, and management of the land in accordance
    with the easement and with the terms of the HFRP restoration plan;

-   NRCS will have:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A right of access to the easement area;

-   The right to permit compatible uses of the easement area, including
    such activities as hunting and fishing, managed timber harvest, or
    periodic haying or grazing, if such use is consistent with the
    long-term protection and enhancement of the purposes for which the
    easement was established;

-   The right to specify the amount, method, timing, intensity and
    duration of the compatible use;

-   The rights, title and interest to the easement area as specified in
    the conservation easement deed; and

-   The right to perform restoration, protection, enhancement,
    maintenance, and management activities on the easement area.

The landowner will have the option to enter into an agreement with
governmental or private organizations to assist in carrying out any
landowner responsibilities on the easement area.

**[Payments]{.underline}**

The actual easement payment that NRCS offers may or may not equal the
fair market value of the interests and rights to be conveyed by the
landowner under the easement. However, NRCS will not acquire any
easement unless the landowner accepts the amount of the easement payment
which is offered by NRCS, and by voluntarily participating in the
program, a landowner waives any claim to additional compensation based
on fair market value. In addition to payment for the easement itself,
after conveyance of the easement is completed, NRCS will reimburse
landowners for fair and reasonable expenses they incur for surveying and
related costs, if any, though the State Conservationist, with advice of
the State Technical Committee, may establish maximum reimbursement
payments. Annual easement payments may be made in no more than 10 annual
payments of equal or unequal size, as agreed to between NRCS and the
landowner.

In addition to payments for the easements themselves, NRCS may share the
cost with landowners of restoring the enrolled land as provided in the
HFRP restoration plan. The HFRP restoration plan may include periodic
manipulation to maximize wildlife habitat and preserve forest ecosystem
functions and values over time and measures that are needed to provide
the landowner safe harbor or similar assurances and protections under
Section 7(b)(4) or Section 10(a)(1) of the ESA, including the cost of
any permit. This cost-share assistance will be based on a percentage of
the actual cost of approved conservation practices or the average cost
of approved practices. For land that is enrolled subject to:

-   an easement of not more than 99 years, NRCS will offer to pay from
    75 to 100 percent of the costs;

-   a 30-year easement, NRCS will offer to pay not more than 75 percent
    of the costs; and

-   a restoration cost-share agreement without an associated easement,
    NRCS will offer to pay not more than 50 percent of such costs.

The only payment, for which landowners are eligible when they enroll
land in the HFRP under a 10-year restoration cost-share agreement, is
the cost-share payment. Any enrolled landowner may seek additional
cost-share assistance from other public or private organizations as long
as the landowner does not receive an amount which exceeds 100 percent of
the total actual cost of the restoration.

Cost-share payments may be made only when NRCS has determined that an
eligible practice has been established in compliance with appropriate
standards and specifications. Cost-share payments may be made for
additional eligible practices, or the maintenance or replacement of an
eligible practice, if NRCS determines they are needed to meet the
objectives of the HFRP, and the failure of the original practices was
due to reasons beyond the control of the landowner.

NRCS may accept and use contributions of non-Federal funds to make HFRP
easement or cost-share payments.

**[HFRP Restoration Plan]{.underline}**

In its interim final rule, NRCS has defined "restoration" to mean
"implementing any conservation practice (vegetative, management, or
structural) that improves the values and functions of forestland (native
and natural plant communities)." The "restoration cost-share agreement"
is defined as an "agreement between the program participant and NRCS to
restore, enhance, and protect the functions and values of forestland."

The foundation of the restoration cost-share agreement is the HFRP
restoration plan. It will be developed through an NRCS representative,
in consultation with the program participant with coordination of input
from the FWS and NMFS, where applicable. The plan will specify the
manner in which the enrolled land is to be restored, protected,
enhanced, maintained, and managed to accomplish the goals of the
program. Eligible restoration practices include land management,
vegetative, and structural practices and measures that will improve
habitat conditions for listed species, candidate, State-listed, and
other species of concern. The NRCS State Conservationist, in
coordination with FWS and NMFS, will determine the conservation
practices, measures, payment rates, and cost-share percentages (within
statutory limits) that will be available for restoration activities. A
list of eligible practices will be available to the public. The specific
restoration, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and management
activities may be undertaken by the landowner or other NRCS designee.

Safe Harbor Assurances may be made available to landowners enrolled in
the HFRP who agree, for a specified period, to restore or improve their
land for listed species. These assurances operate with lands enrolled in
the HFRP and are valid for as long as the landowner is in compliance
with the terms and conditions of such assurances, and any associated
permit, the easement, and the restoration cost-share agreement. If the
Safe Harbor Assurances, or any associated permit, require the adoption
of a practice or measure in addition to the practices and measures
identified in the applicable HFRP restoration plan, NRCS and the
landowner may incorporate the practice or measure into the HFRP
restoration plan as an item eligible for cost-share assistance. These
additional measures shall be designed to ensure biodiversity and
wildlife benefits, while ensuring protection of the soil and water
resources.

The State Conservationist, with input from the landowner and
coordination with FWS and NMFS, may approve additional subsequent
modifications to the HFRP restoration plan if the modifications are
consistent with the easement and applicable law, and do not modify or
void provisions of the easement or Safe Harbor Assurances. Any HFRP
restoration plan modification must meet HFRP program objectives, and
must result in equal or greater wildlife benefits and ecological and
economic values to the United States. Modifications to the HFRP
restoration plan which are substantial and affect provisions of the
easement or Safe Harbor Assurances will require agreement from the
landowner, FWS, NFMS, and may require execution of an amended easement
and modification to the protections afforded by the Safe Harbor
Assurances.

Failure to perform planned management activities can result in violation
of the easement, restoration agreement, or the agreement under which
safe harbor assurances have been provided. NRCS will work with HFRP
participants to plan appropriate management activities.

# IMPACTS

**Introduction**

Forests provide a multitude of ecological benefits. A majority of fresh
water in the United States originates in forested areas. Forests slow
floodwaters and other water runoff. At the same time, forests filter
surface water and allow it to percolate and refill underground aquifers.
Forests produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse
gas. Forest soil is rich in the microbes, insects, and fungi that are
essential to recycling organic matter. Many animals and birds make the
forest their home or use it to meet one or more life requisites.[^1]

In the past, fire was a normal part of the forest ecosystem. Some
forests evolved with fire and require fire to keep the ecosystem in its
successional stage, or to allow the spread of seeds, as is the case for
some trees, such as Jack pines or lodgepole pines. In addition, when
trees become too crowded, as can occur when fires are suppressed, there
may be an increase in pests and disease, and the quality of wildlife
habitat used by forest species may be reduced. This is particularly true
for species that require a mosaic of landscape patches that include some
limited open areas, some aged trees and some early successional habitat.
The existence of such mosaics within a large contiguous forest tends to
increase the biodiversity and health of a forest.

Now, fire is often suppressed in order to protect development that is in
close proximity, or even within, forests. However, because fire is a
normal part of a healthy forest ecosystem, more hazardous fire
conditions may be created without fire. "An effective fire-suppression
program can allow accumulation of vast amounts of detritus (dead organic
material such as leaves, branches, and stems). If this material is not
consumed periodically by small fires burning along the forest floor, it
will accumulate to the point of providing raw materials for an
exceptionally intense fire that can burn tree crowns and destroy the
existing forest."[^2] However, both increases and decreases in fire
frequency can alter an existing ecosystem. Fewer fires "can lead to
invasion by fire-intolerant species and eventual loss of the original
ecosystem.... In other systems, an increase in fire frequency can also
lead to changes in ecosystem structure and function." [^3]

There are 747 million acres of forestland in the U.S., representing
approximately 32 percent of all U.S. land. Private forestland makes up
almost 400 million acres of all the forested land in the United States,
Puerto Rico, and the Pacific Basin. Federal, State, Tribal and other
governmental entities own the balance of the U.S. forestland. Appendix A
shows the number of acres of private forestland in each State, as well
as the number of owners, in 1976 and 1994. Appendix B shows the percent
of non-federal area in forest land.

As the information in Appendix A shows, the total number of private
forestland acres increased from 1976 to 1994. However, the large
contiguous areas of forest that existed before settlement are becoming
increasingly fragmented by roads, development, intensive forest
harvesting, and agriculture. Studies also show that there are increasing
numbers of private forestland owners and that the parcels they own are
becoming smaller as large and medium size forest tracts are being
subdivided into smaller parcels. Nationwide in 1976, nearly 7.8 million
private individuals and entities owned an average of 43 acres each; in
1994, nearly 10 million individuals and entities owned an average of 40
acres each. This pattern makes it more difficult to maintain the
continuity of forest ecosystems and can be a factor contributing to
fragmentation of forest habitat.

Table 1 shows the ownership units in 1993, by size class and form of
ownership, and Table 2 shows the number of acres of forestland at that
time, by size class and form of ownership. This information indicates
that about 58 percent of all private forestland owners in 1993 owned
tracts of one to nine acres. Tracts of this size, however, represented
only 4 percent of all the privately-owned forest land. Thirty one
percent of all the privately owned tracts of forest land had 5000 or
more acres in 1993; that acreage was owned by .06 percent of all private
forest land owners. Thus, a very small number of individuals,
corporations, and other private entities owned nearly a third of all the
private forestland in the U.S. Presumably, the trend toward ownership of
increasingly smaller tracts has continued since 1993. Moreover, the
problem may be greater in the East. Private forest acreage "in the
heavily populated East is four times that of public forest, but in the
less crowded West there are three times more acres of public (mostly
Federal) forest than private. This means that private forests are more
likely than forests in other ownerships to be located closer to human
population centers, making them more threatened by development."[^4]

**Table 1. Estimated number of ownership units, by size class and form
of ownership, national total, 1993**[^5]

  ------------------------ ---------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------
  **Size class (acres)**   **Ownership                                                                              
                           Class**                                                                                  

                           **Individual**   **Percent**   **Corporation**   **Percent**   **Other**   **Percent**   **Total**

  **[(In                                                                                                            
  owners]{.underline})**                                                                                            

  1-9                      5,583,100        60            39,600            25            172,600     41            5,795,300

  10-19                    1,169,500        13            23,300            15            57,700      13            1,250,500

  20-49                    1,396,200        15            32,000            20            83,400      20            1,511,600

  50-99                    646,800          7             21,100            13            49,300      11            717,200

  100-199                  325,600          3             16,200            10            29,300      7             371,100

  200-499                  153,700          2             13,200            8             20,900      5             187,800

  500-999                  28,900           w             5,600             3             6,800       1             41,300

  1000-4999                12,300           w             3,900             2             4,400       1             20,600

  5000+                    3,300            w             2,200             1             800         w             6,300

  Subtotal over 10         3,736,300        40            117,500           75            252,600     59            4,106,500

  **Total**                9,319,400        100           157,100           100           425,200     100           9,901,700

                                                                                                                    
  ------------------------ ---------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------

**Table 2. Estimated number of acres of forestland, by size class and
form of ownership, national total, 1993**[^6]

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------
  **Size class (acres)**  **Ownership                                                                              
                          Class**                                                                                  

                          **Individual**   **Percent**   **Corporation**   **Percent**   **Other**   **Percent**   **Total**

  **[(In thousands of                                                                                              
  acres)]{.underline}**                                                                                            

  1-9                     15,847           7             214               w             568         1             16,629

  10-19                   14,812           6             340               w             671         1             15,823

  20-49                   41,368           18            776               1             2,467       5             44,611

  50-99                   42,521           18            1,330             1             3,341       6             47,193

  100-199                 39,952           17            2,104             2             3,757       7             45,813

  200-499                 37,185           16            3,741             3             4,894       9             45,821

  500-999                 17,015           7             3,523             3             3,949       7             24,488

  1000-4999               17,051           7             7,699             7             6,567       12            31,337

  5000+                   6,596            3             87,401            81            27,677      51            121,673

  Subtotal over 10        216,502          93            106,915           100           63,343      99            376,760

  **Total**               232,348          100           107,129           100           53,911      100           393,389
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------

The reason forestland owners hold their land is important in predicting
the future use of that land. This is important for purposes of the HFRP
because the future use of the forest can affect wildlife and ecosystem
processes. Based on the information in Table 3, 2.7 percent of all
private forestland owners are holding approximately 29 percent of the
acres primarily for timber production. About 2.6 percent of private
forestland owners, who own approximately 9 percent of the private
forestland, are holding their land for timber production as a secondary
purpose. Approximately 9 percent of owners are holding 10 percent of the
forestland primarily as an investment; 5 percent of private forestland
owners, who own nearly 9.5 percent of private forestland, state that
they are holding the land secondarily as an investment. An additional 84
percent of private forestland owners, who have about 60 percent of the
private forestland, indicate they are holding the land primarily for
other reasons, such as aesthetic enjoyment, or as part of a farm,
residence or estate. However, only 14 percent of those holding private
forestland are doing so primarily for aesthetic enjoyment, and they own
only 7 percent of private forestland. Those who own forestland either
for timber production or for investment are quite likely to allow their
timber to be cut in the future, and for economic reasons are likely to
harvest many of their trees. Those in other categories may do so, as
well, but it is not as likely. It is only those who claim they are
holding the land for aesthetic reasons that are clearly not likely to
harvest their trees for economic reasons.

Cutting swaths of trees, particularly large swaths, increases the amount
of "edge" [^7] habitat. Some wildlife species thrive when there is an
increase in the amount of edge habitat, but other species, in order to
thrive, require the forest interior. Too much exposure to edge habitat
can leave these species more susceptible to predators, and the
microclimates associated with edge habitat can also be warmer, windier
and drier than in a forest interior, and therefore not as suitable for
them. Other species just have large ranges, and when the forest becomes
too fragmented, they are forced into smaller and smaller areas and
quickly become overcrowded. That is why, as forests become more
fragmented and edge habitat increases, the composition of associated
wildlife changes.

In most cases, careful forest management is preferred over allowing
natural ecosystem processes to occur, because natural processes include
fires which can damage neighboring communities if allowed to burn out of
control. In part because of the increase in fragmentation and the
changes in the role of fire within the forest ecosystem, forests are now
home to a multitude of declining species, including many listed under
the ESA as threatened or endangered. A report of the National Academy of
Sciences states that:

> "Nonfederal forests provide habitat for important threatened and
> endangered species. Of 712 listed species, 609 (86 percent) have their
> habitat on private individual or corporate property, much of which is
> forested. Public nonfederal lands provide habitat to 516 species (72
> percent), while nonprofit-owned land and tribal land provide habitat
> to 181 and 61 species (25 and 9 percent), respectively. Fifty-two
> species are found on other nonfederal lands (GAO 1994a). Considering
> all ownerships, forests provide approximately half the habitat for the
> nation\'s threatened and endangered species (USDA Forest Service
> 1994d). More than 90 percent of these listed species have some or all
> of their habitat on nonfederal lands, although not necessarily on
> forested lands (GAO 1994a). Nearly three-quarters have at least 60
> percent of their habitat on nonfederal lands; 37 percent are
> completely dependent on nonfederal lands."[^8]

**Table 3. Estimated number of ownership units and acres of forest
land,**

> **by primary and secondary reason for owning forest land, national
> total, 1993**[^9]

  ------------- -------- -------- ------------------------ ------------- --------------- -------------
  **Reason**                      **Primary reason**                     **Secondary     
                                                                         reason**        

                                  **Number**               **Percent**   **Number**      **Percent**

                                  **[(In                                                 
                                  owners)]{.underline}**                                 

  Land                            920,000                  9             496,000         5
  investment                                                                             

  Recreation                      874,500                  9             667,900         7

  Timber                          272,200                  3             258,700         3
  production                                                                             

  Farm and                        816,400                  8             749,200         8
  domestic use                                                                           

  Esthetic                        1,392,400                14            1,467,500       15
  enjoyment                                                                              

  Part of farm                    1,189,600                12            464,800         5

  Part of                         2,641,500                27            1,060,500       11
  residence                                                                              

  Estate                          992,000                  10            1,143,800       12

  Other                           448,900                  5             106,800         1

  No secondary                                                           3,132,500       32
  reason given                                                                           

  No answer                       354,100                  3             354,100         4

  **Total**     ** **    ** **    **9,901,700**            **100**       **9,901,700**   **100**

                                                                                         

  **Reason**                      **Primary reason**                     **Secondary     
                                                                         reason**        

                                  **Number**               **Percent**   **Number**      **Percent**

                                  **[(In thousands of                                    
                                  acres)]{.underline}**                                  

  Land                            39,253                   10            37,193          9
  investment                                                                             

  Recreation                      37,868                   10            40,949          10

  Timber                          113,220                  29            34,764          9
  production                                                                             

  Farm and                        35,778                   9             27,565          7
  domestic use                                                                           

  Esthetic                        28,699                   7             31,685          8
  enjoyment                                                                              

  Part of farm                    38,637                   10            15,359          4

  Part of                         32,620                   8             19,387          5
  residence                                                                              

  Estate                          26,407                   7             35,066          9

  Other                           34,572                   9             11,932          3

  No secondary                                                           132,975         34
  reason given                                                                           

  No answer                       6,334                    2             6,334           2

  **Total**     ** **    ** **    **393,389**              **100**       **393,389**     **100**
  ------------- -------- -------- ------------------------ ------------- --------------- -------------

Throughout time, some species have declined and even gone extinct, while
others have increased or even developed into new species. Sometimes,
there have been changes "in the overall character of the ecosystem. A
key feature to stand out in the 5,000-year chronology is that current
rates of change are about 10 times higher than pre-settlement rates.
Human intervention in one form or another is now the principal agent of
change."[^10] The map (Exhibit 1) identifies the range in the number of
species listed under the ESA in each county, and overlays information on
the number of acres of private forestland in that county. While many
species are listed in counties that have little or no privately-owned
forestland, where there is a correlation between heavily forested areas
and listed species, it is likely that some of those species are
dependent on forested areas for their some of their life requisites.

Moreover, unless the owner is following a management plan that takes a
multitude of wildlife into account, timber harvest is likely to prevent
the formation of snags[^11] and reduce the presence of dead, rotting
logs, on which endangered species such as the Red-cockaded woodpecker
depend.

Forest management plans generally prescribe practices that allow the
harvest of some trees while maintaining ecosystem health and providing
for the needs of important species. However, as shown in Table 4, in
1994, nearly 67 percent of the owners of private forestland did not have
management plans. Three-fifths of all privately-owned forestland was not
covered by a management plan. While some of these landowners no doubt
have obtained plans in the ten years that have since elapsed, it is
likely that a large majority of those acres are still not covered by a
management plan. These forests may be more susceptible to ecosystem
degradation, and may be contributing to species decline.

**Table 4. Estimated number of private ownership units and acres of
forest land owned, by whether a written management plan had been
prepared, United States, 1994**

  --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------- ------------------------- -------------
                              **[Owners]{.underline}**                 **[Acres]{.underline}**   

  **Management plan           **Thousands**              **Percent**   **Millions**              **Percent**
  preparation**                                                                                  

  Owners with written plans:  531.2                      5.3           153.6                     39.0

  *Forest Industry*           *2.4*                      *0.5*         *65.5*                    *42.6*

  *NIPF owners*               *526.6*                    *99.5*        *66.1*                    *57.4*

  Owners with no written plan 8,594.1                    66.6          226.2                     57.5

  No answer                   764.9                      7.9           13.6                      3.5

  **Total**                   9,901.7                    100           393.4                     100
  --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------- ------------------------- -------------

EXHIBIT 1

**Alternative 1, No Action**

Under the "No Action" alternative, NRCS would expect current trends of
forestland fragmentation and ecosystem degradation to continue. This
alternative would result in no additional short or long-term protection
for forest habitats, or financial or technical assistance for private
forest landowners. While this alternative is not viable if Congress
appropriates funds for HFRP, it is included as a baseline against which
to compare the effects of the proposed action alternative.

The HFRP legislation requires development of a forest restoration plan
that takes into account ecosystem health and the needs of declining
species on up to two million acres of private forestland. Two million
acres out of the nearly 400 million acres of private forestland
nationwide is a very small number of acres. However, if the HFRP were
not implemented, there would be two million fewer acres of forestland
that would likely not be optimally managed, or would be converted to
development or used for timber without regard to forest ecosystem
health. This could increase soil erosion, runoff, and stream
sedimentation, and reduce wildlife habitat even further.

The FWS TESS database at this time shows 32 species of wildlife listed
in the State of Mississippi as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
There were 4 additional plants listed. Of these, seven species of
wildlife and all the plants are directly affected by forest management,
and at least another four are indirectly affected. A majority of the
others were declining as a result of water quality issues, including
stream sedimentation from development and timber harvest. Sixty-one
percent of Mississippi's land is forested and nearly 90 percent of that
land is privately-owned.[^12] The situation is similar throughout much
of the forested portions of the U.S. This example suggests that if
forest resources are not protected, the recovery of all species
protected under the ESA will not be as successful as if those resources
are managed with the recovery of species in mind.

**Alternative 2, Proposed Action**

The HFRP legislation currently authorizes enrollment of 2 million acres,
so it has the potential to affect about one-half of one percent of
privately-owned forestland. HFRP easements and restoration agreements in
themselves do not alter the physical environment. However, landowners
shall be required by their HFRP easement and restoration agreements to
apply conservation practices to restore and enhance forest ecosystems to
promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species, to improve
biodiversity, and in certain situations, to enhance carbon
sequestration. In such cases, the conservation practices that are
applied will affect the environment. Thus, this EA focuses on the
effects of the conservation practices NRCS is most likely to require
landowners to apply, either as a condition of the easement or
restoration agreement.

While nearly 40 percent of all private forestland is managed under some
type of plan developed by a forester or resource professional, the
majority of privately owned forestland is not. The harvesting of timber
products from NIPF is often a once-in-a-lifetime experience for the
landowner and often is done without professional services that would
better protect both the landowner's economic interest and the natural
resources. Only a small number of private forestland owners -- estimates
range from about 5 to 10 % -- have management plans. This means that
most harvesting on private lands occurs to meet a landowner's immediate
financial need rather than harvesting being a planned silvicultural
practice that will improve the health of the forest stand as well as
provide financial return. It is estimated that nearly 15 million acres
of the NIPF will be subject to a timber harvest within the next ten
years and may be eligible for cost-share assistance to assist the
landowners to carry out proper forest management techniques.[^13]

Agro-forestry technology has become much more advanced in recent years.
Practices are now available to address many resource concerns. This
greatly increases the opportunity for these practices to both address
conservation needs and income diversification for landowners. The new
agro-forestry practices and systems such as Silvo-pasture, and Riparian
Forest Buffer are important elements of the HFRP.

Forested buffers in riparian areas serve as important forested systems
in themselves, but also contribute to the connectivity of fragmented
upland forest systems important to many species. Special applications of
silvo-pasture systems offer open stands in shorter time frames that
mimic mature stands important in the recovery of some species such as
red-cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise in the longleaf pine forest
type.

Landowners will employ silvicultural and agro-forestry practices, such
as tree planting or forest stand improvement, to modify a site to
achieve their management objectives and the objectives of HFRP. These
silvicultural and agro-forestry practices are broad, allowing for local
adaptation and more site-specific development of standards. These
practices can be used singularly or in combination as a system to
achieve the deserved objectives along with wildlife habitat conservation
practice standards. As a result, it is anticipated that up to 15 of
NRCS's established conservation practices will most frequently be used
in program implementation. When used in combination, it is expected that
those practices for HFRP (as adapted to address unique local conditions)
will provide the flexibility to meet both the purposes of this program
and the objectives of the landowners.

[Habitat Improvement through HFRP]{.underline}

Some species may satisfy certain phases of its life requisites within a
forest habitat and other requisites from areas outside a forest habitat.
For example, a species may rely on forest habitat for its cover and
reproduction needs, but may seek its food from open areas. In such
cases, HFRP may not provide for restoration of all of a species life
requisites. However, there are certain forestry practices that are most
likely to be used to restore forest health while meeting habitat needs
of targeted species.

The following table identifies the conservation practices used most
frequently across the U.S. to improve the quality of the NIPF.

**Table 5**: Most Frequently Used Forestry Practices

  ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
  **Practice Name**                           **Practice Number**[^14]

  Firebreak                                   394

  Forest Harvest Trails and Landings          655

  Forest Site Preparation                     490

  Forest Stand Improvement                    666

  Prescribed Burning                          338

  Forestry System (Prescribed Forestry)       409

  Riparian Forest Buffer                      391

  Silvo-pasture                               381

  Tree/Shrub Establishment                    612

  Tree/Shrub Pruning                          660

  Upland Wildlife Habitat Management          645

  Use Exclusion                               472

  Wetland Enhancement                         659

  Wetland Development or Restoration          657

  Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management         644
  ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------

Forestry systems under SFM (sustainable forest management) include
practices used: 1) on forest land to primarily generate forest products
and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and 2) on agricultural land to
control or trap excess pollutants (e.g., sediment, nitrates), improve
aesthetics and wildlife habitat, and diversify products.

**Effects of Forestry Activity**

On forestland, the primary practices that are employed, include: *Forest
Site Preparation*, *Tree/Shrub Establishment*, *Forest Stand Improvement
(thinning), Forest Trails and Landings* (with NRCS's *Access Road*
practice as a supporting element), *Prescribed Burning* and *Forest
Stand Improvement (harvest)*. *Riparian Forest Buffer*s are utilized on
land adjoining water bodies, water courses and wetlands. Silvo-pasture
can be established in currently forested land or on grazing land capable
of growing trees.

Direct effects of forestry systems on forest land include the
establishment and growth of woody vegetation that quickly alters the
characteristics of habitat on a spatial and vertical basis, accumulates
marketable wood fiber in the boles of trees, and sequesters large
amounts of carbon in biomass and the soil profile.

If and when a forest stand is harvested, roads, trails, landings and
cutover areas are created which can permanently or temporarily alter
local hydrology, affect wildlife movement, favor different types of
wildlife, change forage growth and accessibility, and alter risk of
wildfire. Various practices are employed to mitigate any direct and
indirect effects from harvesting considered to be adverse, e.g.,
*Firebreak, Critical Area Planting, Sediment Basin,* and *Structure for
Water Control*. Other effects such as forage growth and accessibility
may stimulate the use of livestock and trigger the use *Prescribed
Grazing* and related practices. Wildlife effects can include fewer
\"closed canopy\" species and more \"open habitat\" species with species
richness being augmented by the increase of \"edge effect\" from a
mosaic of harvested, regenerated and older forested areas being in close
proximity.

**Effects of Agro-forestry Activity**

Effects of agro-forestry practices on agricultural land are similar to
forestry/forestland effects but are more pronounced for increasing
wildlife habitat (\"oasis\" effect) and less so for generating
wood-fiber products (tree/shrub areas are proportionally of small extent
in the overall agricultural landscape). In addition, mitigation of wind,
water, and farm-related pollutants are a primary focus of agro-forestry
systems.

**General Effects Associated with both Forestry and Agro-forestry
Activities**

Effects from both forestry and agro-forestry systems lead to cumulative
effects such as income stability for farmers and communities, water
quality, habitat suitability and environmental health. These effects
occur when the systems and practices are applied within the same region
on many forests, farms or fields, as might be expected when the SFM
program is implemented over a period of years. Without the proper
application and organization of forestry and agro-forestry practices,
cumulative effects would weigh strongly toward environmental
degradation.

NRCS has developed network diagrams depicting the chain of effects
resulting from the application of potentially key practices. Each of the
diagrams first identifies the typical setting to which the practice is
applied. This includes identification of the predominating land use and
the concerns that trigger use of the practice. The diagrams then
identify the practice used to mitigate the resource concerns that
trigger use of an identified practice. Immediately following the
practice, there is a description of the immediate on-the-ground actions
that occur to implement the practice. From there, the diagrams depict
the occurrence of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the
practice. Effects are qualified with a \"+\" or a \"-\" which denotes
and increase (\"+\") or decrease (\"-\") in the effect. Pluses and
minuses do not equate to good and bad or positive and negative. Only the
general effects that are considered to be the most important ones from a
national perspective are illustrated. A photo and information about each
of these practices is found in Appendix C, including identification of
the resource concern the practice is intended to mitigate.

The method of allocating HFRP will result in different, site-specific
groupings of practices into management systems in and among
participating states. Therefore, the number of acres receiving treatment
under each alternative may vary, depending on the decisions made at the
state level for work within the Program. The effects of the practices
may vary somewhat, as well, depending on the types of species in the
area. However, nationwide, it is anticipated the HFRP could be used on
about 1 million acres a year, based on costs of practices under other
conservation programs. While effects on these resources may be described
in general terms at the national level, most must be addressed at the
state or local level. This is particularly true for endangered and
threatened species, historic preservation, essential fish habitat and
other resources that are protected by special requirements that involve
consultation. NRCS will consult on a state or site-specific level as
needed and appropriate to ensure actions do not adversely affect
essential fish habitat, cultural resources, or any other protected
resource.

For example, to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act,
representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as applicable, shall be
invited to be members of the State Coordinating Committee and invited to
be involved in the development of state level program criteria. NRCS
will also conduct additional programmatic consultations with FWS and
NMFS as needed to ensure implementation of the HFRP is not likely to
adversely affect species listed as endangered or threatened or species
proposed for listing as endangered or threatened or designated critical
habitat.

Such consultation will also be used to identify ways the HFRP might
further the recovery of protected species and identify situations in
which no site-specific consultation would be needed.[^15] In addition,
site-specific consultation will also be conducted as needed to avoid
adversely affecting any protected species or habitat.

It is NRCS policy to avoid, minimize or mitigate to the extent feasible,
any adverse effects to protected resources and this policy will apply to
actions carried out under HFRP to the extent feasible.

**Effects on Endangered Species in Implementation Areas**

Initial implementation of the HFRP will focus on restoration and
enhancement of forested ecosystems that also provide habitat to species
that are of Federal interest. These species include, but are not limited
to, the Red-cockaded Woodpecker ([Picoides borealis]{.underline}), the
Gopher Tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus) and the Canadian Lynx ([Felinae
canadensis]{.underline}).

For example, the Red-cockaded Woodpecker is a species listed as
endangered under Section 4 of the ESA in AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, OK,
SC, TX, and VA. "Highly fragmented woodland areas diminish the
proportion of interior to edge habitat and alter the balance of species.
Greater exposure of once-sheltered trees to \"edges\" may cause them to
dry out and become prey to invaders." (Dept of State) "As these natural
patches become smaller and more isolated, their ability to maintain
healthy populations of many plant and animal species is reduced (Harris
1984). As individual species are lost from each fragment, the community
changes and both species and ecosystem diversity are reduced. Thus,
large numbers of natural ecosystems are now in danger."[^16] Habitat
fragmentation results in loss of both nesting and foraging habitat
stressing individuals of the species and leading to population
reductions.

HFRP will allow owners of private forestland to develop forest
management plans and these forested lands are the primary objectives of
this program. Agro-forestry and wildlife practices also used in this
program will enhance forest health and the objectives of the program.

By improving the extent, quality, and connectedness of forest lands,
birds and mammals alike will have greater range of movement, as well as
horizontal and vertical complexity within the forest that promotes
habitat diversity and increased biodiversity."[^17]

NRCS expects that forest management plans established under HFRP will
promote improvement in those elements of habitat critical to survival of
the bird and mammal species of interest including those endangered
species above. Consultation with FWS and establishment of appropriate
instruments under Safe Harbor regulations are expected to provide
program participants with assurances associated with incidental take or
other potential effects that might be associated with easement
expiration.

##  LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

USDA-NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Andrée A. DuVarney, National Environmental Specialist, Ecological
Sciences Division, Washington, D.C.

Douglas E. Williams, National Forester, Ecological Sciences Division,
Washington, D.C.

##  References

American Forests. Climate Change Information: How Trees Fight Climate
Change. Washington, D.C. Available September 24, 2004 at
<http://www.americanforests.org/resources/climatechange/>.

Birch, T.W. and C.M. Stelter. 1993. Trends in owner attitudes. In
Finely, J.C. and S.B. Jones (eds). *Penns Woods - Change and Challenge.*
State College: The Pennsylvania State University.

Birch, Thomas W. 1996. Private Forest-land Owners of the United States,
1994. Res. Bull. NE-134, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station. Available September 23, 2004 at
<http://www.fs.fed.us/woodlandowners/publications/rb_ne_134.pdf>.

Margalos, Mark A. North Carolina Division of Forestry. "Promoting Forest
Sustainability with Incentives -- How Landowners Rate Options", paper
presented at the National Conference on Forest Fragmentation, September
17-20, 2000.

Mississippi Forestry Association. Mississippi Forestry Facts. 2000.
Available at <http://www.msforestry.net/forestryfacts.html>

National Association of State Foresters. 1998 State Forestry Statistics
Resource Base. (http://www.stateforesters.org)

Sampson, R. Neil and Lester A. DeCoster. 1997. Public Programs for
Private Forestry, a Reader on Programs and Options. American Forests,
P.O. box 2000, Washington, D.C. 20013-2000.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded
woodpecker

(*Picoides borealis*): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta,

GA. 296 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Threatened and Endangered Species
System (TESS). Available September 24, 2004 at
<http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpage>.

USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, Forest Legacy Program.
Protecting Private Forest Lands From Being Converted to Non-Forest Uses.
(http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/flp.htm)

USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, Forestry Incentives Program.
Helping Private Landowners Develop and Maintain Their Forests.
(http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/fip.htm)

USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, Stewardship Incentives
Program. Providing Financial Assistance to Private Landowners to Carry
Out Their Stewardship Plan. (http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/sip.htm)

USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, Forest Stewardship Program.
Helping Private Forest Landowners Develop Plans for the Sustainable
Management of Their Forests.

(http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/fsp.htm)

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Wildland Waters. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Forest Service, Forest Stewardship Program, Washington, D.C.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997 Natural Resources
Inventory, Resource Assessment Division, Washington, D.C. 20013

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Species of Concern.
Available September 24, 2004 at
<http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm>.

**List of Appendices**

Appendix A -- Table: US Forest
Ownership....................................................\...A1-A2

Appendix B -- Percent of Non-Federal Area in Forest Land, 1997. B1

Appendix C -- Healthy Forest Reserve Program Practice Effects Network

Diagrams C1-C-23

Appendix A. Estimated number of private ownership units and acres of
forest land owned, by state, sub-region, and region, United States, 1976
and 1994[^18]

  ---------------- -------- -------------- ------------- ----- -------------- -------------
  Region,                   1976                               1994           
  subregion, and                                                              
  states                                                                      

                            Owners         Acres               Owners         Acres

                            *Thousands*    *Millions*          *Thousands*    *Millions*

                                                                              

  Connecticut               95.6           1.329               102            1.553

  Maine                     241.4          15.696              255.6          17.06

  Massachusetts             143.6          2.635               212.6          2.529

  New Hampshire             122.3          4.307               63.7           4.144

  Rhode Island              12.9           0.123               26.7           0.338

  Vermont                   53.3           3.926               60.5           3.993

  New England               669.1          26.216              761.3          29.617

  Delaware                  9.5            0.318               17.3           0.346

  Maryland                  42.2           1.666               130.6          2.272

  New Jersey                106            1.283               66.7           1.401

  New York                  824.6          10.406              475.4          14.367

  Pennsylvania              492.6          10.677              513.9          12.506

  West Virginia             246.4          9.779               260.4          10.745

  Middle Atlantic           1,725.70       34.349              1,486.30       41.64

  Northeast                 2,394.80       62.567              2,256.40       71.326

  Illinois                  61             2.66                114.5          3.641

  Indiana                   46.1           3.74                151.3          3.771

  Iowa                      11.6           1.724               55.4           1.607

  Missouri                  60.7           10.63               307.2          11.63

  Ohio                      133.6          5.42                329.2          7.191

  Central                   335            24.373              957.7          26.04

  Michigan                  301.7          11.477              332.7          12.039

  Minnesota                 62.6           6.51                147.4          7.317

  Wisconsin                 195.4          9.127               245.6          10.696

  Lake                      559.7          27.114              725.9          30.254

  North Central             694.7          51.466              1,683.60       57.002

  North Total               3,289.50       114.054             3,931.20       129.551

  Alabama                   429            19.76               452.4          20.77

  Kentucky                  372.3          10.325              306.9          11.424

  Mississippi               165            14.101              341.2          15.126

  Tennessee                 224            13.79               475.9          11.763

  Central Gulf              1,210.30       57.665              1,576.40       56.676

  Arkansas                  306            14.65               296.1          14.51

  Louisiana                 215            11.67               146.9          12.544

  Oklahoma                  43             5.37                156            6.926

  Texas                     165            9.19                319.6          16.269

  West Gulf                 751            41.06               922.6          52.249

  Southern                  1,961.30       96.965              2,499.20       111.332

  Florida                   232.1          11.896              320.8          13.112

  Georgia                   278            21.48               610.7          21.985

  East Gulf                 510            33.378              931.5          35.097

  North Carolina            693            16.42               704.9          16.774

  South Carolina            244            10.61               335.9          11.006

  Virginia                  442            13.76               4,613.8        13.442

  South Atlantic            1,379.00       40.79               1,509.60       41.222

  Southeast                 1,889.10       74.168              2,441.10       76.319

  South Total               3,850.40       173.133             4.940.2        167.651

  Kansas                    31.6           0.751               39.3           1.291

  Nebraska                  2.3            0.18                34.2           0.626

  North Dakota              1.9            0.33                11.3           0.411

  South Dakota              13.8           0.03                28.7           0.609

  Great Plains              49.8           1.291               113.5          2.937

  Alaska                    0              0                   16.6           9.881

  California                139.1          10.444              345.6          14.476

  Hawaii                    2.2            0.697               24.8           1.155

  Oregon                    165            10.13               166.2          10.65

  Washington                180            8.5                 91.4           9.67

  Pacific                   486.3          29.771              644.6          45.833

  Arizona                   0.01           0.004               23.9           6.757

  Colorado                  53.3           2.407               55.6           3.286

  Idaho                     21.7           3.11                47.4           3.245

  Montana                   4.8            5.91                82.7           5.957

  Nevada                    0.1            0.074               14.8           0.53

  New Mexico                0.1            1.489               24.5           4.129

  Utah                      1.7            1.179               14.6           1.537

  Wyoming                   0.2            0.671               8.5            1.997

  Rocky Mountain            81.9           14.844              272.2          27.416

  West Total                618            45.908              1,030.30       76.187

  **Nation Total**          **7,757.90**   **333,094**         **9,901.70**   **393,389**
  ---------------- -------- -------------- ------------- ----- -------------- -------------

#### 

#### Appendix B -- Percent of Non-Federal Area in Forest Land, 1997

![](media/image12.png){width="6.683333333333334in"
height="5.479861111111111in"}

####  

#### Appendix C

**HEALTHY FOREST RESERVE PROGRAM**

**PRACTICE EFFECTS NETWORK DIAGRAMS**

  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  **Practice Name**                       **Page Number**

  Firebreak                               

  Forest Site Preparation & Tree          
  Establishment                           

  Forest Stand Improvement                

  Forest Harvest Trails and Landings      

  Prescribed Burning                      

  Riparian Forest Buffer                  

  Silvo-pasture                           

  Tree/Shrub Pruning                      

  Tree/Shrub Establishment                

  Use Exclusion                           

  Upland Wildlife Habitat Management      

  Wetland Development or Restoration      

  Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management     
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------

[^1]: Life requisites include food, water, cover (shelter), and
    reproductive habitat.

[^2]: Keeland.

[^3]: [Ibid]{.underline}.

[^4]: U.S. Forest Service. Wildland Waters. Summer 2004. U.S. Dept. of
    Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Stewardship Program, Washington,
    D.C., at p. 5.

[^5]: Birch, 1996, at 30.

[^6]: [Ibid]{.underline}.

[^7]: "Edge" is the area where the forest abuts to fields, development,
    or other open areas.

[^8]: National Academy of Science, at p. 40.

[^9]: Birch, 1996, p. 11.

[^10]: Keeland.

[^11]: Snags are dead trees that are still standing and which provide
    shelter and contain insects that provide food for certain species.

[^12]: Mississippi Forestry Association. Mississippi Forestry Facts.
    2000. Available at <http://www.msforestry.net/forestryfacts.html>.

[^13]: Birch, 1996

[^14]: Practice numbers are assigned by NRCS for ease of reference and
    are found in the NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices.

[^15]: In addition to situations in which NRCS has determined there
    would be no adverse effect on protected species or habitat,
    site-specific consultation should not be needed when NRCS and FWS or
    NMFS agree a category of proposed actions is not likely to adversely
    affect a protected species or its habitat.

[^16]: Keeland, B.D. (National Biological Service, Lafayette, LA).
    Terrestrial Ecosystems. Raymond J. Boyd, Science Editor (Bureau of
    Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO), available September 24,
    2004 at <http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/m1291.htm>.

[^17]: [Ibid]{.underline}.

[^18]: Birch, Table 2 on pp. 12, 13.