Assessment of Need

The Forest Legacy Program authorizes the USDA Forest Service or state governments to purchase permanent conservation easements on private forest lands. The program acquires certain land-use rights that both promote effective forest land management and protect the land from conversion to non-forest uses. Forest lands that contain important scenic, cultural, and recreation resources, fish and wildlife habitats, water resources, other ecological values, and that will support continuation of traditonal forest uses receive priority. Enrolled landowners must follow a management plan designed for their forest. Activities consistent with the management plan--including timber harvesting and recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and hiking--may be permitted.

A number of states, mainly in the northeastern United States, have already qualified and been enrolled in the Forest Legacy Program. A number of properties have been acquired in those states since the programís inception. Modifications in the program to broaden its appeal have prompted interest on the part of conservation groups and state agencies in North Carolina to participate.

In order for the State of North Carolina to participate in the Forest Legacy Program, the state was required to produce a document assessing need for the program. This document lays a factual and procedural foundation for program implementation. It describes the forest resources of North Carolina, the efforts and programs available for effective conservation in the state, and the process used in identifying where in the state priorities for action exist. In places it builds upon preceding studies, such as the Sustainability Task Force report (Task Force 1996). Throughout, it focuses attention on links between North Carolinaís forests and its citizenís quality of life.

The document identifies eight Forest Legacy Areas (FLAs) where the protection efforts, hence funds, provided under the Forest Legacy Program should be applied if North Carolina is accepted into the program. For each of the eight FLAs, the document (1) identifies the FLAís general characteristics and environmental values at risk (2) describes kinds of threats to those values in the FLA, (3) identifies entities that will work together for conservation within the region defined by the particular FLA, and (4) specifies the FLAís geographic boundaries within which properties may be considered for the program. The document presents evaluation criteria and scoring that will be used to rate potential parcels on which acquisition of property development rights will be pursued.

Definitions of key terms instrumentally important to understanding North Carolinaís approach to implementing the Forest Legacy Program are provided in section M, where procedures used to identify FLAs are presented. Evaluation criteria and ranking procedures for assessing the tracts whose owners apply for Forest Legacy status are included in Appendix A. Descriptions of the eight Forest Legacy Areas are contained in Appendix B. Public comments and responses are summarized in Appendix C.

North Carolina's Forest Resources

A. Historical Perspective

Prior to European settlement, North Carolina was mostly forested, and Amerindian tribes were dispersed throughout this forested landscape. Accounts by early European explorers traveling through North Carolina suggest that the natives used fire to modify the forest's condition and that they relied upon subsistence agriculture for significant portions of their diet. However, disturbance from such Amerindian activities created localized or mostly temporary impacts. The primary forests of North Carolina were extensive and varied.

Longleaf pine forests dominated most upland soils in the southeastern part of the state, while floodplains and riverine swamps supported hardwood species. Mixed pine-hardwood forests covered most of northeast North Carolina. Hardwood forests dominated by oak, hickory, and pine covered most of the piedmont landscape. Oak and chestnut dominated mountain slopes up to about 4,500 feet elevation with spruce and Fraser fir covering the highest elevations. Rich coves supported hemlock and yellow poplar. Dogwood, cedar, magnolia, and many other species added to the diversity.

Earliest settlements along North Carolina's coast initiated clearing for agriculture and development of a plantation culture and economy. Later, poor overland transportation routes funneled migration up rivers like the Cape Fear, and from the valleys settlers moved out across the interstream divides. Eventually yeoman farmers rather than plantation owners dominated North Carolina's agriculture-based economy, and forests were subjected to a variety of assaults.

In the 1700s the naval stores industry began to affect longleaf forests so that by mid-century North Carolina was the leading producer of tar and turpentine. North Carolina's market dominance continued for more than a century until depletion of longleaf stands caused production to shift south by 1890. Further west, as settlers moved into the North Carolina piedmont beginning in the mid 1700s, lumbering and clearance for agriculture and pasturage increased rapidly. By the close of the Civil War in 1865, the state was perhaps only one-third forested, and most of the primary forest remaining was in the mountainous western portion of the state. Most of this mountain timber was cut in later decades of the 19th century and early decades of the 20th.

Amid growing national concern over the condition of forest lands in the United States, scientific forest management was first introduced on the Biltmore Estate and Pisgah Forest in 1892. George Vanderbilt's acceptance of scientific management led him to hire Gifford Pinchot

and then Carl Schenck to manage his forest lands. Schenck's perceived need for trained foresters to carry out scientific management led to his creation of the Biltmore Forest School and a tradition that has had continuing impact on forests of North Carolina and the nation.

Regeneration of forests, through natural succession on abandoned agricultural land, with loblolly, short-leaf, and Virginia pines and various oaks, resulted in a slow recovery of the state's eastern forest cover. Acquisition of cutover lands in the mountains led to formation of national forests, which have provided the basis for the high percentage of land remaining in forest in that section of North Carolina.

By the mid-twentieth century, North Carolina had over 20 million acres of forest. That acreage has declined to about 19.3 million acres today. Even with that decline, 58 percent of North Carolina remains forested with some of the most diverse forest types and the widest range of species occurring in North America.

B. Extent and Ownership Patterns ofNorth Carolina Forests

Of the 33.6 million acres in North Carolina, 19.3 million acres (58%) are forested. The majority of the forestland (18.7 million acres) is classified as timberland, while the remainder is classified as reserved timberland or woodland (i.e., forested parks, wilderness areas, scenic areas, and historic sites).

Nearly half of North Carolina's timberland and 62 percent of all softwood timberland are found in the Coastal Plain. The Mountain region is the most heavily forested of the three regions because of its rugged terrain and large public holdings. Hardwood species dominate the Mountains. The Piedmont contains the remaining 30 percent of the forestland in the state, with 55% of the land area in that classification. Urbanization, agriculture, and small public holdings make it the least forested region.

Almost 76 percent (14.3 million acres) of North Carolina's timberland is owned by individuals, corporations, and farmers--collectively known as nonindustrial private forestland (NIPF) owners. Forest industry owns about 13 percent (2.4 million acres); the remainder is in public (stae and Federal) holdings (Figures 1 and 2).

Federal Land Ownership

Figure 1. Federal Land Ownership in North Carolna: includes all agencies

Ownerships of less than 20 acres account for 16 percent of our forests, while 42 percent of forest acres occur in ownerships between 20 and 100 acres. The remaining 42 percent of forest acres occur in tracts greater than 100 acres.

Figure 2. Division of Forest Resources and University Owned Forests in North Carolina

C. Forest Composition

Even after centuries of manipulation, intensive extraction of timber and other resources, and widespread cultural developments, North Carolina's forests remain extensive and productive overall. Their economic value, as will be discussed, arises as much from their diversity as from their general abundance. Composition of the state's forests can be explained from several perspectives.

Geography, Geology and Soils

North Carolina's extraordinary variety of natural resources is related to the diversity of its landscapes, which can be divided into three distinct geographical regions-- the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, and the Mountains. The relatively flat Coastal Plain extends inland from the Atlantic Ocean an average of 125 miles and includes almost two-fifths of the area of the state. This region has only moderate hills, and the land slopes very gently upward from the coast at an average of about 1 foot per mile. The Piedmont, or central portion of the state, is separated from the Coastal Plain by a distinct landscape change called the "fall line," which may have been the location of the shoreline thousands of years ago. The Piedmont is a plateau of rolling hills with a range in elevation of 150 to 1,000 feet. This region includes about two-fifths of the state's area. The Mountain area contains two principal mountain ranges, the Blue Ridge and the Great Smoky Mountains. This section, which makes up about one-fifth of the area of the state, is marked by numerous peaks, valleys, and cross chains of mountains. Forty-three of the peaks have elevations of 6,000 feet or more, and 80 peaks have elevations of at least 5,000 feet.

The coastal plain is a geologically young area which once lay at the bottom of a shallow sea. From the acid, peaty and poorly drained soils common to the ocean front, it gently rises in a series of low terraces westward through sandy loams of low fertility to the fall line. The piedmont is an ancient upland lying between the coastal plain and the mountains. A rolling plateau in the east, it rises to the foothills in the west. Its soils are primarily red and yellow clay loams created from the weathering of parent rock. The mountains are ancient landforms rising from about 1,300 feet at the piedmont's western edge to some of the highest peaks in the eastern U.S. Here, aspect and elevation combine with a wide range of soils to create a forest of very great diversity.

Forests have played a major role in developing the characteristics of our soils, which make them, when properly treated, very productive. Virtually all of North Carolina's soils were formed under forest cover. Before clearing of land for agriculture began, forests contributed to development of deep, fertile layers of topsoil through recycling of nutrients and decomposition of organic matter. In many old fields, topsoil has mostly been destroyed during three centuries of agricultural land clearing. Even after decades of regenerated forest growth, many sites still show the ill effects of past use and abuse.

Forest Diversity

North Carolina forests consist of more than 180 tree species. These forests are divided into five general management types: upland hardwood, lowland hardwood, pine-hardwood, natural pine, and plantation. However, within these management types many different natural plant communities occur. At last approximation, Schafale and Weakley (1990) had identified 44 forest community types and subtypes across the state. Differences in plant communities result from complex interactions of site factors including altitude, aspect, hydrology, geology and soils. As noted above, historical circumstances have played major roles in creating the stateís current forests. Managing the future of these forests depends on understanding their diversity and distribution.

Upland hardwoods consisting primarily of various oak and associated species dominate the Mountain region. The lowland hardwood type is most commonly found in the Coastal Plain. Pine-hardwood forests consist of a mixture of pines and oaks found most often in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont. The natural pine management type also is found in the Coastal Plain. Plantation, the final management type, consists primarily of loblolly and longleaf pine plus a few other softwood types. They are found mostly in the Coastal Plain and account for 11 percent of forested areas in our state.

The Upland Hardwood Management Type amounts to about 38.6 percent of the state's forest cover. It is found in all of the forest regions but is the dominant type in the mountains. Various oaks are the most frequently occurring species and are usually associated with yellow poplar, red maple, hickories, sugar maple, ash, birch and shortleaf and Virginia pines.

The Lowland Hardwood Type comprises 14.2 percent of all forest land, and is found along major creeks, rivers, swamps and other low-lying areas. This type is most common in the coastal plain. Lowland hardwood sites are often subject to annual flooding. Typical species include sycamore, tupelo gum, elm, sweetgum, cypress, ash, birch, and oaks. Productive sites dominate large river floodplains while deep organic soils of pocosins contain some of our poorest lowland hardwoods sites.

The Pine-Hardwood Management Type, also known as the oak-pine type, includes those forests where a softwood species shares dominance with hardwood species. Nearly 14 percent of the state's forest land supports this type, more than half of which is found in the coastal plain.

The Natural Pine Management Type is found in all regions but is most common in the coastal plain. Natural pine, developing on abandoned agricultural lands, was for a while the state's most common forest type. Today this type comprises about 22 percent of North Carolina's forest. Natural pine type is increasingly being converted to pine hardwood type by natural regeneration, pine plantations following harvest, or to a non-forest condition via development.

The Plantation Management Type is established by planting or direct seeding. Loblolly pine, longleaf pine, and eastern white pine account for most plantations. The extent of this forest type has been increasing steadily since 1950 and now comprises 11 percent of the state's forests. Plantations provide a means to achieve maximum rate of volume production on minimum acres. Investment in hardwood plantations has increased slowly in the last few years. It is expected that hardwood plantation establishment on lowland sites will increase in the future.

The current physical status of North Carolina's forest lands is best determined by surveys conducted periodically by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) section of the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station of the United States Forest Service. These data relate exclusively to standing tree volumes and, provide little information about related resource parameters which describe other ecosystem values (e.g. plant and animal habitat, diversity, recreation, and amenities).

Minerals, Oil and Gas Resources

Historically, a number of minerals were extracted in commercial quantities from North Carolina. The earliest gold rush in North America occurred in the southern Piedmont, and a federal mint was established at Charlotte. The productive gold region included about 9,000 square miles chiefly in the middle and western counties in six defined belts: Eastern, Slate, Igneous, Kings Mountain, South Mountain, and Mines West of the Blue Ridge (State Board of Agriculture 1896). Associated with the gold were deposits of silver, copper, lead, and zinc that were worked to varying extent. Iron deposits were found in scattered locations across the Piedmont and in the Mountains, and most of these were worked, but none of the lodes were extensive. Mineral coal deposits were confined to two limited areas: the Dan River belt and the Deep River sandstone belt. The latter extended from Granville County to Chatham County, but the only colleries operating at the turn of the century were the ones in Cumnock in Chatham County. Graphite was mined from extensive beds in Wake County and corundum was extracted from numerous locations throughout the mountains. Phosphate deposits occurred in Duplin, Sampson, Pender, Onslow, and Brunswick counties.

Today phosphate mining of deposits on the Coastal Plain is the most intensive activity, but gravel and clay mining for construction uses occurs extensively throughout the state. In the mountains gem mining continues to be a locally important activity, especially associated with tourist traffic. Altogether, however, mining activity today has little effect on North Carolina's forests.

Agriculture: Poultry, Swine, and Cattle; Tobacco and Cotton, Grains and Vegetables

Historically tobacco and cotton production were major factors leading to deforestation in much of North Carolina. Additionally, pasture for mules, horses, and cattle required extensive forest clearing. Swine production also affected forests extensively, especially where free ranging livestock grazed in the woodlands, a practice continued until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The longleaf pine forests were particularly affected by hogs foraging on seedlings and thus eliminating or reducing potential regeneration of cutover and turpentined stands.

Today North Carolina's agricultural produce is highly diversified, but the state remains among national leaders in poultry and swine production. Feed grains have assumed a much larger role than traditional crops of tobacco and cotton. Farming of assorted vegetables and fruits is regionally important, and processing of food crops is locally significant. Abandonment of worn out agricultural land led to reforestation of much of North Carolina in the last century through natural and plantation means, and as lands are retired from agriculture today they still are reverted to forest.

D. Economic Value of North Carolina's Forests

Standing timber in North Carolina is worth an estimated $19 billion. . In 1997, the forest products industry paid an estimated $787 million dollars to North Carolina landowners for wood to make products ranging from lumber to paper to furniture. The value added by the harvesting and transport of these trees to points of first processing was twice this figure. The value of wood products represents a considerable cash flow, especially to the rural economy--stimulating purchases, payrolls, investment, other manufacturing and services.

Because the forest industry and other economic segments are interdependent, input-output models have been developed to quantify this interdependency. Multipliers from such models are used to estimate the effect of a one unit change in output, wages, or employment of an industry upon the other sectors of the economy with which it directly interacts. A wages and salary multiplier of 1.90 means that a $1 change (increase or decrease) in wages within the industry would trigger a change of $1.90 in wages among the sectors of the economy with which it is directly related. Since the forest industry harvests a natural renewable raw material to which value is added in many steps, the ripple effect upon the state's economy from the purchase of a tree to the ultimate sale of a paper tablet is unusually large.

According to 1996 statistics, the forestry industry employed 144,000 workers statewide and paid out $3.47 billion in wages. The manufacturing process added another $7.9 billion, and the value of finished forest products totaled $17.3 billion. Wood products represent the state's largest export commodity in terms of tonnage. In terms of employment figures and the wealth added to the state, the forest industry ranks second among major industries. Additional forest products include a Christmas tree industry worth an annual wholesale value of $90 million to $100 million and a pinestraw industry worth an annual $50 million to $60 million. North Carolina resident hunters spent $58 million in-state on hunting trip-related expenses during the 1991 season, and the majority of these expeditions sought forest dwelling game species. Meanwhile, many people also participate in non-consumptive wildlife activities such as bird watching and wildlife photography. During 1991, state residents spent a total of $262 million on such activities for trip-related expenses, equipment, and other items such as magazines.

In addition to the directly measurable value that forests give to the state, many additional benefits cannot be easily quantified. Forests provide habitat for game and nongame species of wildlife, recycle nutrients, contribute to the development of fertile soils through the decomposition of organic matter, and minimize soil erosion. Forests provide clean air and water by filtering pollutants and other impurities from the environment. Moreover, in North Carolina, forests provide the scenic backdrop and many of the primary destinations for an immense recreation and tourism industry.

E. Forest Based Recreation and Tourism

North Carolina's forests have great value for recreation and visual amenity. Hiking, bird watching, wild flower identification, horseback and mountain bike riding, bus or automobile touring, and the simple search for solitude typically depend on forests. Scenic beauty provided by the forested mountains is an expected characteristic of areas proximal to Great Smoky Mountain National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway. These major attractions bring millions of visitors to and through the state. Moreover, these visitors usually patronize a wide range of other facilities, such as the privately owned and operated Grandfather Mountain.

The four national forests in North Carolina--Nantahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, and Croatan--span the state, with two located in the mountain region, one lying in the Piedmont, and one situated on the Coastal Plain. All four national forests provide abundant campgrounds usable as many as eight months of the year. Furthermore, these national forests include eleven designated wilderness areas, the largest being over 18,000 acres and the smallest being 1,685 acres (Table 1).

Table 1. Designated Wilderness Areas in North Carolina.

National Wilderness Area, Unit Name Acreage

Birkhead Mountains, Uwharrie NF
5,160

Catfish Lake South, Croatan NF
8,530

Ellicott Rock, Nantahala NF
3,394

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock, Nantahala NF
13,562

Linville Gorge, Pisgah NF
12,002

Middle Prong, Pisgah NF
7,460

Pocosin, Croatan NF
11,709

Pond Pine, Croatan NF
1,685

Sheep Ridge, Croatan NF
9,297

Shining Rock, Pisgah NF
18,483

Southern Nantahala, Nantahala NF
11,944

State total
103,226

The State of North Carolina operates a number of state forests (Fig. 2) and a great variety of state parks--such as Umstead, South Mountain, and Cliffs of the Neuse (Fig. 3). In addition, local municipalities and counties operate parks that in many cases are forested, such as three in Wake County: Lake Crabtree, Harris Lake, and Blue Jay Point.

State Parks in North Carolina

Figure 3. State Parks in North Carolina

Even the two national seashores, Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout, include remnants of the Maritime forest which provide a visual quality unique to this ecosystem. Reservoirs--such as Lake Gaston, Falls Lake, Jordan Lake, Kerr Lake--built by the US Army Corps of Engineers are surrounded by forests that help preserve water quality and buffer boaters from views of developed lands proximal to these lakes. Similarly, numerous hydroelectric and cooling-tower supply reservoirs operated by public utilities, TVA, and other entities are surrounded by forests. Baden, Fontana, Harris, Hiwassee, Hyco, James, and Norman are just a few examples. In the mountains, the Qualla Boundary, home of the eastern band of the Cherokee and an important tourist and cultural resource, is almost entirely forested.

Besides public lands already mentioned, countless opportunities for recreation exist on privately held lands. North Carolina landowners were surveyed in 1996 about reasons for owning forest land (Megalos 1998); 13 percent of them indicated recreation (hunting, camping, fishing, and birding), which ranked third behind land investment (29%) and as a residence (18%).

F. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

North Carolina is home to 120 species of mammals, 200 species of resident and migrating breeding birds, 70 species of reptiles, 80 species of amphibians, 245 species of freshwater fish, and a large number of saltwater fish and invertebrate species. Among these animals, white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, ducks, geese, doves, quail, and ruffed grouse are especially prized as game species. With adequate wildlife and fish stocks available, hunting and fishing continue to be popular sports in the state. According to the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in North Carolina, 376,000 residents 16 years or older hunted in North Carolina in 1991. Also in 1991, 2.2 million North Carolinians 16 years or older took part in non-consumptive activities.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) manages about 2 million acres of gameland in the state (Fig. 4). This property is either owned by the NCWRC or leased to the NCWRC by government, corporate, or private entities for public use by hunters and anglers. The state also operates six fish hatcheries and stocks both trout and warm-water fishes to maintain recreational fish stocks in heavily fished lakes and streams. The big-game harvest in North Carolina has steadily increased for most species as management practices improved. The NCWRC estimates 1995 populations of deer at more than 850,000, wild turkey at 85,000, and black bear at 6,500 to 7,000. During the 1997-1998 hunting season the NCWRC reported that 119,656 deer, 1,463 bears, 60 wild boars, and 2,890 wild turkeys were harvested (Brooks 1998). Trapping for beavers, raccoon, muskrat, and other furbearers continues in North Carolina, although low fur prices have caused a decline in trapping in recent years. Beaver populations have actually risen to a point where dams and the resultant ponds are frequently viewed as detrimental to timber values, and eradication or relocation methods are used against colonies.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands

Figure 4. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands

Two state agencies cooperate to monitor the wildlife of North Carolina. The Non-game Program of the NCWRC has the legislative authority to list species in North Carolina that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) supplements the NCWRC's list with species that are significantly rare. Table 2. lists the numbers of animals in North Carolina that are endangered, threatened, of special concern, or significantly rare.

Table 2. Status of Animal Taxa on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's Rare Animal List as of March, 1995.

Group Endangered Threatened Special Concern Significantly Rare

Mammals
7

2

12

7

Birds
9

2

14

28

Reptiles
3

4

9

6

Amphibians
1

2

14

4

Fishes
9

11

29

12

Mollusks
14

22

34

10

Crustaceans
0

0

0

19

Dragonflies
0

0

0

39

Moths
0

0

0

65

Butterflies
0

0

0

42

Other Invertebrate
0

0

0

52

Total
43

43

110

284

Source: Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina

The NCWRC considers a native or once-native species endangered if its continued existence as a viable component of the state's fauna is in jeopardy or is determined to be endangered according to the Endangered Species Act. The NCWRC considers any native or once-native species to be threatened if it is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range or it is designated as threatened according to the Endangered Species Act. A species of special concern requires monitoring. Significantly rare species are ones that do not fall into the above categories but are determined by the Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring due to their reduced numbers.

Among the federally listed endangered and threatened species occurring in North Carolina, a minority depend wholly upon forest habitats. The Carolina northern flying squirrel and red-cockaded woodpecker are two such species. On the other hand, red wolves and bald eagles need certain types of forest conditions proximal to open ground and large water bodies, respectively. The condition of North Carolina forests may indirectly affect conditions in Critical Habitat areas that have been designated for certain species. For example, riverine and stream habitats where endangered fish and mollusk species (e.g., Cape Fear shiner, spotfin chub, Appalachian elktoe, and dwarf-wedge mussel) reside may be negatively affected by sedimentation and other pollution. Forest cover in adjacent riparian zones tends to lessen insults from such sources.

Increasingly, the importance of ecosystem integrity is being recognized as the key to maintaining regional biodiversity and sustainability. A number of listed species exist in a unique area of our state known as the Sandhills, an area in the south-central portion of North Carolina occupying part or all of Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Moore, Richmond, and Scotland counties. The Sandhills is recognized as one of the last large remaining pockets of longleaf pine. The red-cockaded woodpecker, the St. Francis' satyr butterfly and three plant species (American chaffseed, rough-leaved loosestrife, and Michaux's sumac) are federally listed species that inhabit this area. About a dozen more species are candidates for future federal listing. Clearly land use and forestry trends in this area can have important effects on the status of listed and protected species. It is important to note that all of the species just named require some degree of forest disturbance or manipulation for suitable habitat to be maintained.

Major commitments of land for wildlife have been made in North Carolina by both the federal and state governments. National refuges include Alligator River, Lake Mattamuskeet, Pocosin Lakes, Roanoke River, while a number of state gamelands exist: e.g., Batchelor Bay, Holly Shelter, and Caswell State Gamelands (Figures 1 and 4).

G. Natural Heritage Areas

North Carolina's forests provide habitat for a large number of the most interesting and important plant and animal species occurring in North Carolina. Many of these organisms occur only in particular locations or sections of the state. North Carolina's Natural Heritage Program (NHP) compiles information about the most significant natural areas of the state, conducts inventories of biological communities and species in individual counties across the state, and assists in resource planning processes where knowledge of natural communities is needed. NHP especially tracks the status of rare species and high quality natural community occurrances. NHP also works with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service to identify in which of North Carolina's counties listed as species occur. Figure 5 shows the general locations of Significant Natural Heritage Areas identified in North Carolina.

Significant North Carolina Natural Heritage Areas

Figure 5. Significant North Carolina Natural Heritage Areas.

H. Water Resources and the Link to Forests

North Carolina's forests play a vital role in maintaining water quantity and quality by minimizing erosion and stabilizing the flow of water into streams and rivers. Much federal forest land in western North Carolina was originally purchased under Weeks Act authority to protect watersheds. The fact that forests tend to render good water can be seen when the areas of high quality and outstanding resources waters (Fig. 6) are compared with the locations of national forest lands (Fig. 1).

High Quality and Outstanding Resources Water Management Zones

Figure 6. High Quality and Outstanding Resource Water Management Zones.

Control over watersheds around major reservoirs has long been exercised by various federal agencies and public utilities authorized to create man-made lakes. Today municipalities like Asheville and Andrews exercise strict control over their watersheds and carefully manage the forests that protect the quality of their primary water supplies. The water supply watersheds in North Carolina are extensive (Fig. 7).

Water Supply Watersheds

Figure 7. Water Supply Watersheds

Following recent large fish kills and pollution discharge incidents, special attention has focused on water quality concerns in the Neuse River Basin and other eastern North Carolina rivers. Regulations referred to as "The Neuse River Rules" are being developed, and observers expect that the same or similar rules will be imposed in other river basins identified as having nutrient sensitive waters. In relation to forests, the rules chiefly address the characteristics and treatment of stream buffers. More generally, a number of federal and state programs have arisen to address the relationship between forest cover and water quality. Reforestation of previously cleared and cultivated lands, especially highly erodable lands, receive high priority attention in these programs (see §J below).

High Priority Watersheds identified by the State Unified Watershed Assessment as most in need of restoration include the following: Bogue/Core Sounds, Contentnea Creek, Haw River, Upper French Broad, Upper Little Tennessee. The extent to which reforestation or better management of forests surrounding these water courses is needed has not been determined.

I. Critical Issues Impacting North Carolina's Forest

In North Carolina, the perspectives observers have shape their perceptions of which issues are most critically impacting forests. For example, maintaining the timber supply for industrial uses and providing sufficient amounts of forestland for recreation are related but quite different concerns. Debate arises about whether or to what extent public or private lands should meet these needs. Opinions differ about how public lands are managed and how intensively private lands should be managed. Because 84 percent of North Carolina forest lands belong to private owners, a great many individual decisions and actions affect these forests. However, preserving North Carolina's forest legacy will require proponents to keep a number of critical issues in mind, no matter what their perspective.

Development

Conversion of land via development poses the most significant threat to North Carolina's forest legacy. In 1995, the Office of State Planning estimated that 7.1 million people resided in the state, a sharp increase (500,000) from the 6.6 million counted in the 1990 census and two-thirds of the entire previous decade's growth. Projections suggest that North Carolina's population will exceed 7.5 million by the end of this current year. Such growth in North Carolina is causing two kinds of development pressure.

Urbanized Development: North Carolina is changing from a predominantly rural state to a state with large urban interests. Although a majority of North Carolina's 33 million acres is still classified as rural, more than half the population, estimated at 7.1 million people in 1995, lives in the 10 percent of the state that is urbanized. However, North Carolina is characterized by fewer large cities and relatively more mid-sized cities and small towns than most other states. While five cities (Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem) have populations over 100,000, 67 percent of North Carolina's municipalities have fewer than 2,500 residents. But many of these smaller entities are proximal to larger urban centers, resulting in population concentrations in large and sprawling metropolitan areas. The urban areas of the Piedmont are expected to witness the fastest growth, whereas the Mountains and the Coastal Plain will experience most of their growth in non-metropolitan areas. Urban sprawl is already an issue around the Research Triangle, Charlotte, and Piedmont Triad urban complexes.

Retirement and Resort Community Development: Within the last two decades, growth of retirement and resort communities in North Carolina has increased tremendously. Along the North Carolina coast, in the Mountains, and in the Sandhills Region golf courses, ski slopes, and associated residential complexes have rapidly transformed once isolated rural areas into roaded concentrations of houses and service centers for a population drawn to North Carolina by the pleasant climate and tranquil pace of life. Because these communities do not typically attain the density of urban centers, they necessarily impact a greater amount of land per residential unit. Careful design of these communities can retain appreciable amounts of forest and natural areas, but the overall result can be a higher degree of fragmentation of natural communities and loss of working forest land. Eventually, growth of such communities requires upgrades to an area's infrastructure, which usually leads to another round of development. Eventually, growth of such communities requires upgrades to an areaís infrastructure, resulting in even more land conversion.

Taxation

Related to development issues, the subject of taxation regarding forested properties poses important questions about how county and local governments intend to allow growth and land conversion to proceed in their jurisdictions. Present use valuation pertaining to non-industrial private lands does not protect private industry lands from appreciating in value as surrounding properties develop. As appraised land values rise, economic forces within the real estate marketplace and competitive pressures within specific industries force companies to consider selling lands or converting them to non-forest uses. This issue especially affects large forested blocks proximal to urbanizing centers or already protected areas attracting recreational and second home development in several parts of the state. County and local governments may be enamored with increases in their tax base but forget relationships between population growth and the need to provide government services. They may forget the value of retaining the very forests that make their locality an attractive place to reside.

Fragmentation (Land Use and Tenure)

Resulting in part from population growth and increased development, fragmentation of forested areas leads to a number of problems. Steady increases in the numbers of forest landowners reduces average tract size in private ownership, which may have a positive or negative effect on North Carolina's future forests. Small ownerships have fewer management opportunities, cost more per unit area to manage, and cost the state more to provide advice and protection. On the other hand, the rapid rise in the number of 10 to 20 acre tracts serving as residences or second homes underlines growing importance of visual quality and privacy as personal justifications for land ownership. These reasons give some assurance that high percentages of such tracts will retain some or most forest cover, yet not as working forests. However, the longevity of such a development pattern as land prices rise and tax rates increase is questionable. Subdividing these "mini-estates" may be inevitable, hence increase fragmentation.

Fragmentation of forests alters habitat for wildlife species. Increased edge effects from the creation of smaller parcels and the infrastructure (roads and utility lines) required to serve these parcels lead to changes in the wildlife community able to sustain viable populations. Constraints on management because of smaller tract sizes and proximity of residences to forest areas also lead to habitat changes that favor some species but disfavor others. The dependency of certain animal species on specific types of forest and certain conditions in those forests makes protection and intentional management of habitat an important legacy consideration.

Forest Mortality

Trees die due to natural causes: weather, insects, disease, and suppression. The extent of mortality is an indicator of the overall health of our forests. The rate of softwood mortality reflected in the 1990 FIA data is essentially the same as that reported by the 1984 FIA report.
However, 1990 FIA data indicate that hardwood growing stock mortality increased 99 percent when compared to the hard-wood mortality reported in 1984. Some species and groups exhibit an extremely high rate of increase. For example, 1990 mortality increase over 1984 was 116 percent for the oaks, 134 percent for the hickories, 157 percent for yellow birch, and 142 percent for yellow-poplar. The data suggest that greater increases are occurring in piedmont and mountain hardwoods. Mortality increases of such magnitude are particularly troubling when comparing data from 1974 to those of 1984 which shows a slight decrease in overall hardwood mortality. A portion of this increase may be due to an aging hardwood resource and its increased susceptibility to pathogens and pollution, but whether the extent of this tree mortality is biologically significant presently remains unknown.

Growing Stock Growth versus Drain

The USDA Forest Service FIA defines growing stock volume as the cubic volume contained in merchantable portions of commercially valuable species. Net growth is defined as growth of growing stock trees minus the volume of trees dying of natural causes. Drain refers to the volume of trees harvested. As long as there is a surplus of net growth over drain, the forests can easily produce a sustainable flow of wood fiber to industry. The most recent survey data show a softwood harvest of 512 million cubic feet of growing stock and net softwood growth of 590 million cubic feet. On forest industry and public forest lands, growth exceeded drain by a very comfortable margin, but drain amounted to 102 percent of growth on non-industrial private forest lands. Incentives for better management on private lands are intended to improve the growth to drain relationship, which would in turn alleviate pressure to increase harvests from public lands.

Curtailment of burning as a viable management practice

Fire has affected North Carolina's forests naturally since their origin. Longleaf pine communities evolved and cannot be maintained without relatively frequent fires. Other forest types have experienced fires at varying intervals. Forest management today relies on using prescribed fire to accomplish a number of objectives: wildfire hazard reduction, regeneration site preparation, competition control, and wildlife habitat management. The legality of prescribing fire is unquestioned. The threat of liability related to fire use has recently been eased by the an act of the NC General Assembly. But the desirable outcomes from using fire are jeopardized by those who object to the smoke generated by prescribed burning. Moreover, development proximal to forests and public outcries when nearby forest lands are burned have limited opportunities and daunted those who would apply the practice. Changes in forest composition, visual quality, forest health, and ability to function as working forest may result.

Lack of Sustainable Product Markets

Where no markets or weak markets exist for forest products, maintaining working forest lands becomes nearly impossible. Conversely, without adequate supplies of suitable raw material, no markets develop. Persistently weak markets for small diameter raw material or certain species of wood have impeded management of forests in parts of North Carolina. Because markets historically only took the highest value logs, past high-grading--selection logging that takes the best trees and leaves the rest--resulted in many forests of relatively low quality today. In order for these lands to be maintained as future working forests, they will require effective regeneration, which entails creating markets for available low-value wood. Action aimed at restoration of economically viable and biologically productive stands is the key to sustaining working forests.

J. Existing Measures to Conserve North Carolina Forests

A variety of approaches have been used in North Carolina to address conservation of forests and natural areas. One innovative example of action taken to conserve forest resources in NC is the private-public partnership approach taken to create the Lower Roanoke River Bioreserve (Dolan 1996). "Many protection tools were used to acquire land including the establishment of a mitigation bank with the N.C. Department of Transportation, tax-free land exchanges, bargain sales, land gifts, conservation easements, and informal, non-binding registry agreements. The objective was to always find a means of protecting land that benefitted both buyer and seller" (p.81).

The federal and state government have several easement programs for protecting farm and forest land. These programs may or may not require a perpetual easement on the property. Most provide technical assistance and incentives payment for required management practices. The major agencies involved in assisting landowners with either technical assistance, assistance programs, easement programs, or a combination of the three include the N.C. Division of Forest Resources, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service Agency, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Cooperative Extension Service. The various programs active in North Carolina are described below.

Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
A Clean Water Management Trust Fund in the State Treasurer's Office can finance projects to clean up or prevent surface water pollution. Three types of applicants are eligible for CWMTF grants: (1) a state agency, (2) a local government or other political subdivision of the state or a combination of such entities, or (3) a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is conservation, preservation and restoration of our State's environmental and natural resources. Grant moneys from CWMTF may be used to (1) acquire land for riparian buffers for environmental protection of surface waters or urban drinking water supplies, or for establishing a network of greenways for environmental, educational or recreational uses; or (2) to acquire easements in order to protect surface waters or urban drinking water supplies.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The CRP is limited to land used for commodity production. CRP payments for forestry practices have resulted in the afforestation of about 2 million acres in the South. Wetlands restoration is a primary focus and the 15th sign-up resulted in the restoration of 800,000 acres of wetlands. Land enrolled in the program must be subject to significant erosion and farmed as recently as three years before sign-up (FSA 1997d). Landowners receive cost-share assistance for approved conservation practices, including tree planting, plus annual rental payments for the 10 year contract period as reimbursement for income lost by not cropping the land. Preference is given to lands within Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs), selected by state and federal agencies and state technical committees as being particularly environmentally sensitive. The four national CPAs are the Long Island Sound area, the Chesapeake Bay area, Great Lakes region, and the Prairie Pothole region.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is an expanded version of the CRP funded by the State Clean Water Management Trust Fund, North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, and the USDA. The program provides cost-share incentives for water quality protection in special areas, primarily focusing on riparian buffers, filter strips along intermittent and permanent streams, and construction of wetlands. The goals of the CREP are to reduce nutrient and sediment by enrolling environmentally sensitive land near water courses in 10-year, 15-year, 30-year, or permanent conservation easements. Areas eligible for enrollment are the Chowan, Neuse, Tar-Pamlico River Basins and the Jordan Lake waters. North Carolina will pay a bonus to landowners willing to assume 30 year or permanent agreements. North Carolina will also pay from 25 to 50% cost share for installing BMPs according to the effectiveness of the BMP and agreement length.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
The 1996 Farm Bill created a new program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), out of the Agricultural Conservation Program, Water Quality Incentives Program, Great Plains Conservation Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Fifty percent of the funding must be applied to livestock-related conservation practices. EQIP is targeted to areas where the most environmental benefit will be obtained by the designation of Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs). There are approximately 20 CPAs in North Carolina. Each year, CPAs are established within watersheds by the State Conservationist based on recommendations of local work groups and the State Technical Committee. Technical assistance to landowners is provided with 5- to 10-year contracts. NRCS will work with landowners to prepare a complete conservation plan, often referred to as a resource management system. Cost-sharing is available for actual costs incurred, not to exceed 75% of the established average. Funding is based on evaluation of the expected environmental benefits and support of local conservation priorities.

Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
The federal government inventories and tracks prime and unique farmlands of the nation under the Prime and Unique Farmlands Program. The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) was created to protect farmland with prime, unique, or other highly productive soils. FPP is part of the litany of programs created by the 1996 Farm bill. The NRCS administers the program that pays for voluntary conservation. Land is eligible if it is subject to a pending offer from a State, tribe, or local government which limit nonagricultural uses of the land to protect topsoil (USDA 1997).

Forest Development Program (FDP)
Landowners who desire to reforest or afforest their lands may apply for cost-share assistance from the North Carolina Forest Development Program, administered by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. Landowners must have a forest management plan approved by the Division to receive funding. Eligible landowners include private individuals, groups, associations, or corporations. Up to 100 acres can be planted with cost-share assistance per year. Reimbursement rates are the lesser of up to 40 percent of the actual cost per acre or 40 percent of the prevailing rate for management practices in the region. Planting longleaf pine, hardwoods, or wetlands species have a 60 percent maximum reimbursement rate.

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)
Cost-share payments are provided for reforestation under the guidance of NRCS and state forestry agencies. To participate in the FIP program, landowners must have a minimum of 10 acres that must be capable of producing at least 50 cubic feet of wood per acre per year. Participants can be individuals, groups, associations, or corporations whose stock is not publicly traded. Approved practices include tree planting, direct seeding, timber stand improvement, or site preparation.

Forest Stewardship Program (FSP)
The Forest Stewardship Program is the first federal program designed to promote integrated management of all resources on non-industrial private forest (NIPF). Forest Stewardship is voluntary. Private ownerships receive total resource planning and management advice based on their objectives. The Forest Stewardship Program provides technical assistance to promote management recommendations that benefit non-timber resources while improving forest health and producing goods and services of value to people. The Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) is a sister program to FSP that provides financial assistance and financial incentives to implement various aspects of Forest Stewardship plans. It is aimed towards relatively small landowners (1,000 acres or less). Activities under SIP include plan preparation, tree planting, forest stand improvement, soil and water improvement, riparian/wetland improvement, fisheries habitat, wildlife habitat and forest recreation. SIP funding has been erratic and minimal in the past few years.

North Carolina Conservation Tax Credit Program
Since 1983, North Carolina has allowed an income tax credit equal to 25 percent of the fair market value of the donated interest. Amendments over the years have increased the tax credit to its current level of $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations. With each increase in the maximum allowable tax credit, the program has appealed to a broader cross section of potential donors. To qualify for a conservation tax credit, several conditions must be met. The donation must provide one or more conservation benefits required by statute: public access to public trails, public waters, or public beaches; fish and wildlife conservation; or other similar land conservation purposes. The donation must also be accepted by a recipient authorized by statute: local government, state agency, orqualified non-profit organization (e.g., land trust). Approximately 20 percent of donations are made by conservation easement. In these cases, the owner retains title to the real property but donates specific conservation-based rights to a qualified recipient. Conservation easements are particularly well suited for working landscapes such as forest land, hunting/fishing preserves, and farmland.

North Carolina Partners Project
Designed to restore wetlands for waterfowl and other wildlife habitat benefits, the North Carolina Partners Project is a multi-agency program. The agencies involved are the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. NRCS provides its funding through the WHIP allocation. The North Carolina Partners program may be used in connection with Stewardship Plans and in certain circumstances with Wetlands Reserve Plans. Landowners must obtain all state or federal wetlands permits if any are required. Landowners must also agree to limit hunting to three, one-half days per week.

North Carolina's Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP)
The Wetlands Restoration Program aims to restore functions and values of historic wetlands losses; obtain a net increase in wetland acres, functions and values in the major North Carolina river basins; provide consistency in required wetlands mitigation; improve the ecological effectiveness of required wetland mitigation; and promote comprehensive protection of natural resources. The NCWRP has developed Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plans for North Carolinaís seventeen major river basins. Using these plans, the NCWRP will work with landowners to restore wetland, riparian, and stream sites. Such sites include channelized streams bordered by previously converted agricultural wetlands, altered sites in headwater areas, degraded streams, and degraded riparian wetlands. No grants or cost share moneys will be provided to landowners. Instead the NCWRP will fund, plan, implement, and manage restoration projects itself using contractors. The NCWRP will buy properties or conservation easements, or accept donations of lands to be restored. The property will be protected in perpetuity after it is acquired by the NCWRP.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Safe Harbor Program
There are several USFWS wildlife programs for private lands, such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife that may be attractive to forested wetland landowners. The USFWS also administers the Safe Harbor program for landowners with endangered species on their property. Under this program, landowners enter into a cooperative agreement with the Service or a state agency to improve or manage habitat for existing populations of endangered species. This participation relieves landowners of the responsibility to protect any additional individuals or species that may be attracted by the improved habitat (Texas Parks and Wildlife 1997). The Safe Harbor Program in North Carolina is limited to the Sandhills region. Landowners who participate in this plan agree to create new habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs). On this new habitat, the landowner is allowed to do whatever he/she desires. Any original RCW habitat must be maintained. The theory behind the program is that original habitat will be protected, most of the new habitat will be maintained and landowners will participate because they will be able to manage all but the original habitat without fear of being charged with violations of the Endangered Species Act. A statewide Safe Harbor Plan is currently being developed. It will cover the entire remaining RCW habitat in North Carolina and the permit will be held by one of the state agencies.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
Partners for Fish and Wildlife is a voluntary program which may provide technical and financial assistance to landowners who want to restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitats on their property. Projects must benefit Federal Trust Resources such as migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and anadromous (migratory) fish. Funds from this program may also be used for educational projects which benefit Federal Trust Resources. Projects in North Carolina include restoration of longleaf pine, bottomland hardwoods, southern Appalachian bogs, and streambank stabilization using bioengineering techniques. Generally, landowners sign an agreement promising to maintain their land in the restored state, usually with some restrictions, from 10 to 50 years. Support from landowners and other contributing partners is encouraged. For more information, visit the Partners for Fish and Wildlife website at www.fws.gov.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
The purpose of the WRP is to restore wetland functions and values to land altered for agriculture and contribute to the national goal of no net loss of wetlands. Previously converted or farmed wetlands are eligible if restoration to a functional wetland is possible. Forest land that was formerly wetland is eligible where the hydrology has been altered. Landowners sell a permanent easement or a 30-year easement to the Department of Agriculture. A new option is 10 year Restoration Cost-Share Agreements that do not require easements. Participating landowners agree to maintain or restore the wetland as directed by a Wetlands Reserve Plan of Operations (WRPO) prepared by the NRCS and approved by the USFWS. The landowner receives payment for the easement as well as cost-share assistance for approved projects. Forest management, including harvesting, can be allowed if specifically stated in the plan. The WRPO specifies the timing, amount, method, intensity, and duration of any permitted use, including timber harvesting. NRCS reserves the right to modify a particular use if conditions of the easement area change, and considers the management plan a living document that can be updated over time. No harvesting methods will be allowed that the NRCS feels are not consistent with long-term protection of the wetland functions and values. In North Carolina, the WRP program is well utilized. As of spring, 1999, there were 41 permanent easements on approximately 16,0000 acres with approximately 10 more projects nearly completed.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides technical advice and cost-share assistance for improvement of wildlife habitat on private lands. Landowners desiring to participate create a Wildlife Habitat Development Plan with the help of the local conservation district and the local NRCS staff. Cooperating state wildlife agencies and private organizations may give technical assistance or additional funding for certain projects if the landowner agrees. Because WHIP is focused purely on wildlife benefits, it is applicable to any landowner, tenant, organization, club or business with land suitable for wildlife. The landowner must have a minimum of five acres with at least one acre to be managed under WHIP for wildlife habitat improvements.

K. Land Trusts in North Carolina

Land trusts are non-profit groups created and sustained to preserve and enrich the natural heritage of countryside through direct land protection, using appropriate tools such as profitable conservation easements, voluntary protection agreements, estate planning, donations, and bargain sales. Organized at local levels, land trusts provide people and communities with choices of how rural and urban green spaces are used. Linked through a statewide umbrella, the Conservation Trust for North Carolina, grassroots land trusts have safeguarded more than 50,000 acres of woodlands, farmlands, greenways, and waterways across the state. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a national organization with local affiliates, has been integrally involved in protecting land in North Carolina. Table 3 lists the land trusts in North Carolina and indicates the amounts of land they have protected.

Table 3. Land Trusts in North Carolina and Amounts of Land Protected.

Name of Trust/Address/Area of Coverage Total
Protected
Owned Under
Easement
Transfer
To
Government.

Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Valley
4419 Guess Road
Durham, NC 27712
Durham and Orange counties, NC

113.5

113.5

265

Blue Ridge Rural land
1081-2 Old US Highway 421
Sugar Grove, NC 28697
Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, Watauga, Wilkes, Yancey counties, NC

298

298

Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
P.O. Box 2822
Hendersonville, NC 28793-2822
Four counties in western NC

649

303

361

Catawba Land Conservancy
105 West Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Lower basin of the Catwaba River, NC

758

102

656

Conservation Trust for North Carolina
P.O. Box 33333
Raleigh, NC 27636-3333
North Carolina

18,137

87

18,028

22

Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina
P.O. Box 3023
Morgantown, NC 28680
Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Cleveland, Lincoln, McDowell, Rutherford counties, NC

23,329

High Country Conservancy
577-5 George Wilson Road
Boone, NC 28607
Watauga, Ashe, Avery counties, NC

15

Highlands Land Trust
P.O. Box 1703
Highlands, NC 28741-1703
Highlands, NC

289.6

84.16

5

Land Trust for Central North Carolina
P.O. Box 4284
Salisbury, NC 28145-4284
South-central Piedmont, NC; Yadkin-Pee Dee River watershed

2,537

172

2,131

Lumber River Conservancy
P.O. Drawer 1087
Lumberton, NC 28359
Southern NC

1,231.5

940.1

296

National Committee for the New River
P.O. Box 1107
Jefferson, NC 28640
New River Valley, northwest NC, Virginia, and West Virginia

700

700

107

Naturaland Trust
P.O. Box 728
Greenville, SC 29602
Western SC and adjoining mountains of NC

1,500

1,500

Nikwasi Land Trust
3257 Goshen Road
Franklin, NC 28734
Upper Little Tennessee River watershed: Rabun County GA; Macon, Swain counties, NC

North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
313 North Front Street, Suite A
Wilmington, NC 28401
Coastal plain of North Carolina

6,587

3,525

2,620

442

North Carolina Rail-Trails
P.O. Box 61348
Durham, NC 27715-1348
North Carolina, rail corridor specific

Northeast New Hanover Conservancy
126 Beach Road South
Wilmington, NC 28405
Twenty square miles between US17 and the ocean

1,500

1,000

460

Pacolet Area Conservancy
P.O. Box 310, 109 Walker Street
Charlotte, NC 28722-0310
Polk, Transylvania, Henderson counties in NC; Greenville, Spartanburg counties in SC

2,690

2,690

Piedmont Land Conservancy
P.O. Box 4025
Greensboro, NC 27404
North-central NC: Alamance, Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surrey, and Yadkin counties

592.75

78.76

404.8

24.4

Sandhills Area Land Trust
P.O. Box 1032
225 North Bennet Street
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Sandhills Region of NC

544

370

165

Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy
34 Wall Street
Suite 802 Public Service Building
Asheville, NC 28801-2710
The Southern Appalachian Mountain Region

18,644

855

3,377

13,966

Triangle Land Conservancy
P.O. Box 13031
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3031
Triangle Region of NC

1,652

882

725

45

The Emerald Land Trust
107 Blue Ridge Avenue
Asheville, NC 228806
Buncombe County

Trust for Appalachian Trail Lands
Appalachian Trail Conference
P.O. Box 807
Harpers Ferry, WVA 25425
The Appalachian Trail, Georgia to Maine

L. Forest Legacy Public Participation

Public involvement has been a key factor in defining North Carolinaís approach to Forest Legacy from the beginning of the stateís effort. At an introductory meeting in February 1999, more than 30 persons representing land trusts and state agencies, upon hearing about the program from the USDA Forest Service, agreed that Forest Legacy participation was desirable and that the Division of Forest Resources would lead the effort to participate. Subsequent confirmation of this desire and then endorsements by state-level advisory committees led to creation of this assessment of need (AON) document and a process soliciting public information and conversation about the forest legacy areas (FLAs). The FLAs were created as discussed in the next section (M.1-3)

Presenting the draft AON and the identified FLAs on the Internet was intended to reach the widest audience possible. Regionally distributed local meetings were held across the state during the week of July 12, 1999 (Table 4) to inform people of the program, to explain the assessment process underway, and to receive information from people specifically knowledgeable about issues and conditions in the FLAs being considered. These meetings were especially necessary to guide the steering committeeís work of adjusting FLA boundaries and refining FLA descriptions. As a result of information obtained through these meetings, adjustments to the FLAs were made to reflect the urgency and conditions specific to portions of the state where legacy areas had been identified.

Table 4. Locations and Times of Forest Legacy Educational Forums.

Date Morning Afternoon Evening

July 12 Wilmington-New Hanover Co.

July 13 Carthage-Moore Co. Hillsborough-Orange Co

July 14 Greensboro-Guilford Co.

July 15 Marion-McDowell Co. Fletcher-Henderson Co.

July 16 Franklin-Macon Co.

Following the week of meetings, further information was received as participants sent in the forms distributed at the meetings, and several lengthy letters supporting the forest legacy idea and stating the critical issues in particular parts of North Carolina were received. Organizations such as the Southern Environmental Law Center and Western North Carolina Alliance underscored the serious threats to forests in North Carolina and raised specific questions or issues they wished to see addressed in the AON. Typically, the majority of these issues had already been addressed in the next draft by the time the comments were received.

The Forest Legacy Steering Committee conducted a teleconference on August 12, 1999 to present its findings and the FLAs identified. Seven sites, at university campuses across the state and the Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center in Fletcher (Table 5), were linked for interactive video discussion. The meeting agenda included an update on the draft AON document, presentation of GIS maps showing the FLA boundaries, and explanation of the individual tract criteria-ranking. Questions were solicited throughout the presentations and dialogue ensued at each stage of the teleconference. The number of participants was smaller than expected, ranging from one participant besides the site host at several locations to 13 in Raleigh. Judging from the audience response, however, the conference succeeded in clarifying several of the questions that had been raised through the preceding process, and the general level of satisfaction by those engaged in the process seems high. Several specific points, especially concerning FLA boundaries, were noted that needed to be addressed by the committee when it met for its final debriefing and project completion.

Table 5. Locations of the Teleconference Studios.

Site City

Appalachian State University Boone

East Carolina State University Greenville

Elizabeth City State University Elizabeth City

North Carolina State University Raleigh

Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center Fletcher

University of North Carolina--Charlotte Charlotte

University of North Carolina--Wilmington Wilmington

In summary, public participation opportunities during the course of developing the AON have been constrained somewhat by the pace at which the assessment has progeressed. However, the range of participantsí interests and perspectives that have been evidenced meets the reasonable expectations of the program proponents in North Carolina. From the beginningof the assessment process the conservation and land trust interests have been engaged and informed of the process and the emphasis that would be placed on forest retention in North Carolina. They have given their ideas and been eager to get on with the project in North Carolina and, most importantly, they have concurred with the identified threats that developement pose to North carolinaís traditional working forests.

Public Input to Forest Legacy Area Descriptions

Your name and address: ___________________________________________

___________________________________________

Area ___: _________________________________

Description of Forest Legacy Area and Important Environmental Values

Current and Future Conversion Pressures

Goals and Objectives of FLA

Potential Partnering Entities

Boundary Description To be completed after public comment and further review

Please return to this form with your suggestions for consideration to:
Dr. Gary B. Blank, Box 8002, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8002

Figure 8. Form for Public Input to Forest Legacy Area Descriptions.

M. The Forest Legacy Program in North Carolina--Addressing the Critical Issues

The Forest Legacy Program in North Carolina will emphasize the importance of maintaining working forests as part of current and future landscapes. This emphasis on working is consistent with centuries-long traditions and remains demonstrably important to maintaining qualities of life North Carolinaís people desire.

Working forests can provide wood for extraction, clean water and air, necessary habitat for game and non-game species, recreational space, visual beauty, tranquillity, and an array of specialty items such as mushrooms, medicinal plants, mistletoe, pinestraw, etc. Working forests produce economic, aesthetic, and spiritual values perceived to varying degrees by people from widely varied perspectives. Working forests provide the aforesaid renewable resources and values under the direction of a management plan designed to meet defined objectives in a sustainable manner. The management plan can include any and all of the objectives acceptable under the Forest Stewardship Program.

Maintaining working forests that will generate these values becomes increasingly problematic in light of the threats previously identified in this document. For that reason, the Forest Legacy Program in North Carolina must assign priority to (1) areas that retain the highest environmental importance, as recognized by the parties engaged in the process, and (2) areas that are now or will soon be most threatened with conversion from their status as working forests.

Definitions

The following terms are defined for specific use in this Assessment of Need document.

conservation: as popularly understood, this means applying sustainable management practices in a manner sensitive to the range of environmental values associated with a specific tract and its component parts.

conversion threat: any action that would change forested land to wholly or partially developed conditions that impair traditional forest uses and thereby diminish traditional values associated with forests (see Appendix A, Part B. Evaluation Factors).

environmentally important forests: lands that contain scenic, cultural, and recreation resources, fish and wildlife habitats, water resources, other ecological values, and that will support continuation of traditonal forest uses (see Appendix A, Part B. Evaluation Factors)

Forest Legacy Area (FLA): a geographically defined space within which forested properties may be identified so property development rights can be acquired and traditional forest uses can thereby be perpetuated.

Forest Legacy property: a specific tract to which a conservation easement procuring development rights has been applied, specifically under terms of the NC Forest Legacy Program, using evaluation criteria set forth in this assessment of need document.

partnering entity: an organization or agency that owns forest land, works to conserve forest land, or will be involved in monitoring conservation easements on forest lands identified as Forest Legacy properties within North Carolinaís defined Forest Legacy Areas.

preservation: as popularly understood, this means preventing alterations of the forest that would not occur under wholly natural circumstances.

protection: prevention of actions that would convert forested land to developed conditions.

1. Eligibility Criteria

To be eligible as a North Carolina Forest Legacy Area, an areaís forest land must meet all of the following criteria:

o be threatened by present or future conversion to non-forest uses;

o be threatened with conversion by encroaching development, by subdivision, or fragmentation of critical wildlife habitat;

o provide for continuation of "working" forest uses;

o contain one or more of the following important public values:

- large block of contiguous forest
- riparian areas, wetlands, or floodplains
- habitat for protected species
- scenic resources
- public recreation opportunities
- important cultural resources
- habitat for forest-dependent wildlife and plants

o provide potential contributions to local economies

2. Assessment of Forest Legacy Areas

Examining the critical issues and determining environmentally important characteristics that would establish priorities for Forest Legacy Area (FLA) identification, the steering committee came to several key agreements.

(1) The focus of FLAs would need to be set beyond extra-territorial jurisdictions (ETJs) of major urban centers; land inside these ETJs is too expensive in most cases for the program to make a concerted effort to protect. That does not mean opportunities cannot be pursued by other means or that such pursuit is not encouraged. But priority proximal to urbanizing areas should therefore be placed on lands considered to be at the rural-urban interface.

(2) Another agreement was to consider river basins as much as possible in identifying FLAs. This approach makes good sense because water quality maintenance is one of the critically important environmental issues in North Carolina. Moreover, agencies at the federal level have undertaken ecosystem management initiatives using river basins as natural boundaries. In several cases, however, legacy areas overlap river basins because the large blocks of contiguous forest that need protection occur at the headwaters of adjacent watersheds.

(3) FLAs would be large enough to allow connectivity among large blocks of still economically viable working forests and already protected areas and would therefore incorporate a variety of forest communities and natural areas. One hope of the proponents is that corridors can be created and gaps prevented between large sections of habitat that still exist in critically threatened parts of the state.

(4) While all parts of North Carolina are still forested, preservation of every possible portion of the stateís forest legacy may be desirable but not possible. FLA priorities need to be established and FLAs will obviously not cover all parts of North Carolina.

(5) Sites given priority by local groups can and should be focal points within the larger, defined areas of Forest Legacy at the state level. Local community and partnering arrangements among private and public interests are to be fostered by the identification of North Carolinaís state level focus on areas.

Based on their collective knowledge of the forests of North Carolina and the pressures on those forests, steering committee members identified a number of general areas across the state that they thought should be considered further. Information provided by local land trusts and other groups also identified candidate areas. Thus, the list of FLAs was assembled so further information could be solicited and gathered to refine the committeeís understanding of priorities. Public educational forums held across the state were especially instrumental in refining the boundaries of areas listed in section M.3.

3. Recommended Forest Legacy Areas

Examining the critical issues and determining environmentally important characteristics that would establish priorities for Forest Legacy Area (FLA) identification, the committee came to several key agreements.

(2) Another agreement was to consider river basins as much as possible in defining FLAs. This approach makes good sense because water quality maintenance is one of the critically important environmental issues in North Carolina. Moreover, agencies at the federal level have undertaken ecosystem management initiatives using river basins as natural boundaries. In several cases, however, legacy areas overlap river basins because the large blocks of contiguous forest that need protection occur at the headwaters of adjacent watersheds.

(4) While forests still exist in all parts of North Carolina, and preservation of every possible portion of the stateís forest legacy may be desirable, FLA priorities need to be established and FLAs will obviously not cover all parts of North Carolina.

The following Forest Legacy Areas have been identified (note that no priority is meant by the numbered order of this list):

Area 1: Lower Cape Fear/ Lower Lumber
Area 2: Sandhills and Uwharries
Area 3: Appalachian Highlands and Foothills
Area 4: Tar and Lower Roanoke
Area 5: New--White Oak--Lower Neuse Complex
Area 6: Piedmont Northern Tier
Area 7: Upper Chowan and Dismal Swamp
Area 8: Southwest Borderlands

These eight Forest Legacy Areas are described in detail in Appendix B.

Figure 9. North Carolinaís Eight Forest Legacy Areas.

N. Additional Suggested Approaches

Explore the potential of partnerships through the various agencies and organizations that provide protection of forested areas. Have a forum discussion (or some format) to learn about where other agencies/organizations are in process of protecting lands and are in discussions with landowners. Use this to develop a statewide partnership between these various agencies/organizations. Be sure to include the following: Clean Water Trust Fund, NC DOT, TVA, County Governments, State & Federal Agencies (USFS, USFWS, NCDFR, etc..), and Land Trusts. Forest Legacy is an opportunity to bridge the preservation community with the preservation of "working forests" community. (This suggestion was amplified at each educational forum: , that FL has the opportunity to build bridges within the state, ).
During FL application process, if a landowner applies for FL and is denied, consider sharing their application with other organizations or agencies that may be able to assist them in another manner. Again, build cooperation between the various agencies/organizations on how they best serve the citizens of NC in protecting forestlands.
Forest Retention or Mitigation Banking Areas: along the lines of the tree conservation plans that must be submitted with construction plans in several Maryland Counties. Work like wetlands mitigation requirements and the "no net loss" policy.
NCDOT ? use conservation easements to forestall development in rural areas that would congest roads. Purchasing development rights on forests adjacent a highway corridor would extend the effective life of the highway and bolster local jurisdictions hoping to preserve rural character.
Look at providing a differential tax fee system to industrial landowners. One reason major industries are selling their lands is a result of the enormous property taxes they incur. Look to provide incentives to those large owners who want to provide corridors for wildlife, water quality, recreational opportunities, etc.
Have CES develop an educational program that introduces landowners to the various incentives and estate planning options that are available to them from various agencies (such as DFR, USDA, etc.) and organizations like landtrusts. Provide regional seminars to the public as an opportunity to look at pros and cons of menus that are available to them.
The State of NC could post FL area signs (like the river basin signs) to inform visitors and remind residents of the importance of the forest to the quality of life and landscape through which they are travelling.

O. References

Brooks, K. 1998. Personal communication and transmittal of NCWRC hunter success data.

Dolan, J.D. and Angela Riegel (eds.). 1996. Proceedings, Environmental Issues Affecting the Forestry and Forest Products Industries in the Eastern United States. 1994 August 24-26, Baltimore, MD. Gen. Tech Rep NE-219. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 166p.

LeGrand, H. E., Jr., and S. P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Div. of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.

LeGrand, H. E., Jr., C.C. Frost, and J.O. Fussell, III. 1992. Regional Inventroy for Critical Natural Areas, Wetland Ecosystems, and Endangered Species Habitats of the Albemarle- Pamlico Estuarine Region: Phase 2. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. 1995. Lumber River State Park Master Plan. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

Drake, D. and P.T. Bromley. 1997. 1997 Natural Resources Inventory of North Carolina. NC Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Megalos, M. 1998. North carolinaís Forestry Incentives Study Group Organization Survey Report. NC State University Forest Extension Report. 15 p.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1989. North Carolina State of the Environment Report. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1996. 1996-97 North Carolina Inland, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Regulations Digest.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 1999. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Biennial Protection Plan: List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas. Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

United States Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 1994. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5: Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Forest Service Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.

United States Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, North Carolina. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

State Board of Agriculture. 1896. North Carolina and its Resources. M.I. & J.C. Stewart, Public Printers and Binders, Raleigh, NC.

P. Appendices

Appendix A. North Carolina Forest Legacy Program Application

Evaluation Factors for Specific Parcels
Forest Legacy Program Parcel Evaluation Package

Appendix B. Forest Legacy Area Descriptions

Appendix C. Questions and Comments from the Public

Appendix D. Authorizations and Communications

Appendix A.

North Carolina Forest Legacy Program Application

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Received by: ________________________ Application Number: __________________

Date: _____________________

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

APPLICANT INFORMATION:
Landownerís Name: _____________________________________________________
Mailing Address:       _____________________________________________________
   _____________________________________________________
Daytime Telephone Number: ______________________
Landownerís Agent: ______________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________
   _____________________________________________________
   _____________________________________________________
Daytime Telephone Number: ______________________

House District: ___________________________________
Senatorial District: ________________________________

PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Legal Description: County _________________________
Tax Map # ______________________
Assessorís Plat and Lot Numbers: ___________________________________
Deed Reference (Book and Page Number): ____________________________
Current Local Zoning (where property is located)
(Include minimum lot size and road frontage requirements): __________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Propertyís Total Forested Acres: ____________________________________
Forested Acres of Tract Offered for Forest Legacy: _____________________
Acres of Cleared/Open Land: ______________________________________

LANDOWNER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Describe your long term goals and objectives for this parcel:

TRADITIONAL FOREST VALUES

What is/are the "Traditional" use(s) of this forest land?

LANDOWNER COMMENTS

In your opinion, is there a "Threat of Conversion to Non-Forest Use" of the parcel proposed for enrollment in the Forest Legacy Program? Be Specific:

Do you currently have a forest management plan? ________________
If so, please provide a copy.

It is important that the following section be carefully and fully completed. The information you supply will directly affect the desirability of the parcel as well as its appraised value and, therefore, the ranking. Note that checking "yes" does not limit your ability to negotiate price and options in the future; it merely assists the Forest Legacy Committee when evaluating your parcel.

Indicate which of the following interests you desire to retain: (These should be the rights you want to retain. All other rights will become the property of the State of North Carolina upon successful completion of negotiations between the State of North Carolina and yourself.)

YES MAYBE

____ ___ Timber and wood product rights

___ ___ Water rights

___ ___ Mineral rights

___ ___ No public access

___ ___ Hunting

___ ___ Fishing

___ ___ Camping

___ ___ Hiking or other passive recreation

___ ___ Bicycling

___ ___ Horseback Riding

___ ___ Grazing

___ ___ Farming

___ ___ Construction of roads

___ ___ Motorized access

___ ___ Expansion of existing improvements

___ ___ Mushroom/Ginseng/Craft Material Collection

___ ___ Other: __________________________________

CONFIDENTIAL

The following information shall remain strictly confidential until such time as: (1) the application is approved and all financial transactions are concluded or (2) all title holders give written permission to release the information.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

State the value of the interests to be enrolled in the Forest Legacy Program, and the method used to determine that value (appraisal, landowner estimate, etc.)

What is/are the estimated sale price(s) of the interests being offered?

State the value of the landowner(s) contribution, if any, either in donated value of in-kind services or financial.

LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES

List any and all liens and encumbrances on the property proposed for enrollment in the Forest Legacy Program. Examples: Utility easements, public rights of way, water flow or use restrictions, septic systems or water easements, deed restrictions, tax liens, etc.

The information provided above is true to the best of my/our knowledge and belief.

ALL TITLE HOLDERS MUST SIGN.

PRINT NAME(S) SIGNATURE DATE

_________________________ _____________________________ ________

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Application Number: ________________________ Date: _______________

FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM - Checklist

With your Forest Legacy Program application package, please submit four (one original and three copies) of the following for each contiguous parcel:

_____ Completed Application

_____ Name(s) and address(es) of other owner(s) of record for this tract

_____ Signed consent agreement

_____ Copy of road map indicating location of the property

_____ Copy of plat or survey map of the parcel

_____ Aerial photo (can be obtained through your local Farm Services Agency Office)

_____ Legal Description (if available)

_____ List of existing permanent improvements on the tract, including houses, barns, lakes, ponds, dams, wells, roads and other structures, and the total number of acres occupied by improvements.

_____ Map identifying all dams, dumps, or waste disposal sites on the property.

_____ Forest management plan

NOTE: All materials become the property of the State of North Carolina and are not returnable.

DISCLOSURE OF THIS INFORMATION IS VOLUNTARY; HOWEVER, FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN THIS FORM NOT BEING PROCESSED.

NORTH CAROLINA

FOREST LEGACY PARCEL EVALUATION PACKAGE

Directions for completing the Forest Legacy Program
Evaluation Package

COVER SHEET: The first part of the cover sheet is to be completed with information supplied on the enrollment application form. The landscape description is meant to include the physical characteristics of the surrounding area including topography, soils, and surface and ground water hydrologies: brief inventories of major vegetative groups, fish and wildlife resources, scenic resources and any other forest resources; as well as surrounding land uses. The parcel description is meant to include an in-depth description of the above mentioned items, but as they pertain to the parcel.

PARCEL EVALUATION - PART A: These pages are to be completed by the field personnel directed to do so by the land agency, in consultation with other pertinent state and local agencies or groups.

Note: both Parcel Evaluation Parts A and B forms will be used to set goals for acquiring the parcel.

SCORING: The final score will not be used as the sole factor in determining which parcel/interest should be acquired but merely as a guide to the relative values of the resource under evaluation.

Subject to funding, priority will be given to those tracts with the greatest need for conservation of the forest and related resources.

PART B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR SPECIFIC PARCELS

The following factors will be used to quantify and qualify information that will satisfy the criteria requirements:

1. Threat by conversion to non-forest uses:

Type and Level of Threat

Various kinds and degrees of threat to valuable forested areas exist, such as encroaching housing development, improved roads, sewer and power line extension into undeveloped areas, and fragmentation of land ownership in smaller parcels. In determining the threat to a parcel, factors to consider include, but are not limited to the following:

is in danger of conversion to non-forest use within 5 years,
may remain wooded, but will become further fragmented,
is currently on the open market/listed by realtors (securing one or more sites now will stem further development),
is remote, but vulnerable,
remnant of a forest type, and/or
others

Factors Affecting Acquirability

Even if a forested parcel is threatened with conversion to non-forest use, protecting it under the Forest Legacy Program can only be accomplished if certain conditions exist which favor implementation. In determining prospects for a successful effort under the Forest Legacy Program, factors to consider include the following:

property is specifically identified in terms of priority, timing, and cost in local land use plans, the state Conservation Outdoor Recreation Plan, Open Space Plans and others as appropriate,
parcel may be available at below fair market value,
intensity and expense of management activities to protect the propertyís value is economically feasible,
protection of the property would increase protection of public properties and protected areas, or enhance the linking of greenways,
property can accommodate proposed priority uses and/or management activities without endangering or degrading its natural value, and/or
property can be protected from future degradation by activities occurring on neighboring properties.

2. Contain one or more important values:

Scenic Resources:

The scenic aspects of a natural resource area may often be subjective, but there are several means of measuring the special qualities that make a given parcel stand out. In identifying scenic amenities of a parcel, these factors must be considered:

includes locally important panoramic views and/or exceptional short view, and/or
is situated along a designated scenic river, road or trail corridor.

Public Recreation Opportunities:

Existing or potential recreational use (especially public access) of a proposed parcel is an important component to be weighed. The following factors must be considered:

water based recreation
trail based and/or day use recreation
natural resource based recreation
adjacent land is protected

Riparian Areas:

One of the most important "products" of forest areas is water. Proper management of forest lands through institution of a Forest Legacy Area can increase the quality and quantity of water for residents of North Carolina. Factors to be included in determining the riparian value of a parcel include the following:

is situated on a river or stream
has extensive (over 300') river or wetland shoreline,
includes floodplain,
contains a minimum 50 foot strip of native trees and shrubs as a natural buffer and sediment filter,
parcel is situated within a watersupply watershed, or groundwater aquifer recharge area
parcel provides immediate watershed/water supply protection,
contains important wetlands.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat:

Preventing fragmentation of forest tracts into smaller units is crucial to maintaining viable populations of wildlife species. Factors to consider:

Parcel contains desirable habitat and other ecologically recognized criteria for one or more species that include: forest interior nesting birds, significant populations of resident species, neotropical migratory birds, areas for resting and feeding of migratory species, forest inhabiting mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.
Parcel exhibits connective habitats, corridors, habitat linkages and areas that reduce biological isolation.

Known Threatened and Endangered Species:

As urbanization and fragmentation of forest lands continue, the need to give special attention to threatened species of fish, wildlife and plants increases. Parcels nominated for the Forest Legacy Program should be inventoried for such natural habitats that may contain imperiled species (on State list as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern). Factors to be considered:

Parcel provides habitat supporting occurrence of rare, threatened or endangered species.
Parcel is within a designated Natural Heritage Area.
Parcel provides suitable habitat for reoccupation by rare, threatened or endangered species (either naturally or through translocation).
Parcel adjoins or is proximal to forests included in a Habitat Conservation Plan or Safe Harbor agreement and would thereby contribute to species conservation goals.

Known Cultural/Historical Resources:

Material evidence of the earlier human occupation in North Carolina comprises a unique and irreplaceable resource, as do historic features and vernacular landscapes. Factors considered:

Parcel contains forest related cultural resources (i.e., historic forest, historic mill or other forest industry site.)
other historic or archeological resources (native American sites)

Other Ecological Values:

In addition to the characteristics already outlined, a parcel may exhibit additional or exceptional conditions that are important and add to the quality of the Forest Legacy Area, such as:

parcel is part of a large block of contiguous forest land,
will provide a corridor between other large contiguous blocks,
includes ecological communities which are dwindling in North Carolina, and/or
contains late successional growth forests (natural area).

3. Provide opportunities for continuation of traditional forest uses:

Maintaining traditional forest uses is important. It permits owners to remain on the land without requiring high-cost services. Positive factors which reinforce this include:

will remain available for timber and other forest products management under a Stewardship Plan,
will continue to serve watershed and water filtration role,
will continue to provide fish and wildlife habitat,
will continue to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and
provide opportunities for environmental education.

4. Reflect important regional values:

Through careful selection parcels should provide regional, not just local significance. The features and functions of these parcels should include:

linkages for recreational values, such as trails, especially along rivers, greenbelts, bluffs and parcels which connect existing publicly-owned and protected lands,
public access to boating and swimming relative to the needs of local population centers and the effects of projected land use change,
public or private drinking water supply protection (ground or surface water),
scenic qualities having their basis in natural and cultural landscapes,
public benefits identified within goals and objectives for Forest Legacy Area where tract is located.

COVER SHEET

FOREST LEGACY PARCEL EVALUATION PACKAGE

_____________________ Forest Legacy Area

File Number: ________________________ Date of Evaluation: ________________

Landownerís Name: _________________________________________________

Parcel Location: ____________________________________________________

Legal Description: __________________________________________________

Investigator(s): ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Landscape Description:

Parcel Description:

Landownerís Name: __________________________________ File Number: ____________
Evaluator(s): ___________________________________________________________________

FOREST LEGACY PARCEL EVALUATION - PART A

I. Reasons for inclusion in the Forest Legacy Program. Prioritize the following reasons for enrollment of the parcel in the Forest Legacy Program:

___ Prevent conversion/development/fragmentation of an important forest resource

___ Protection of scenic resources

___ Provide/enhance public recreation opportunities

___ Protect/enhance a watershed or important drinking water supply

___ Protect/enhance an important riparian/hydrologic area

___ Provide linkage between public properties, protected areas and greenways

___ Protect/enhance/restore fish and/or wildlife habitat

___ Protect/enhance/restore habitat of rare, threatened, and/or endangered species
of plant and/or animal

___ Provide for the continuation of traditional forest uses

___ Provide opportunity to implement Forest Stewardship practices

___ Provide opportunities for environmental education

___ Provide historical/cultural uniqueness or protection

___ Provide buffers (scenic, riparian, etc.)

___ Other ________________________________________________________

II. Degree of threat of development/fragmentation/conversion to non-forest uses.

Yes No
___ ___ A. Parcel is in danger of conversion within 5 years.

___ ___ B. Parcel may remain wooded, but will become further fragmented

___ ___ C. Parcel is currently on the open market, or listed by realtors

___ ___ D. Securing one or more sites now will stem further development

___ ___ E. Parcel is remote, but vulnerable

___ ___ F. Parcel is under a state or federal forest management program

___ ___ G. Parcel is remnant of a forest type

___ ___ H. Parcel may remain wooded, but is in danger of being over-harvested

___ ___ I. Other

III. Factors affecting acquirability. These factors are to be taken into consideration when prioritizing parcels for acquisition.

Yes No N/A

___ ___ ___ A. The property is specifically identified in terms of priority, timing, and cost in the local land use plan, state recreation plan or open space plans.

___ ___ ___ B. Parcel may be available at below fair market value.

___ ___ ___ C. Intensity and expense of management activities to protect the propertyís values is economically feasible.

___ ___ ___ D. Conservation of the property would increase the protection of existing natural areas or enhance the linking of greenways.

___ ___ ___ E. Property can accommodate proposed priority uses and/or management activities without endangering or degrading its natural value.

___ ___ ___ F. Property is/can be protected against future degradation from activities occurring on neighboring properties.

Comments:

Landownerís Name: __________________________________ File Number: ____________

Evaluator(s): ___________________________________________________________________

FOREST LEGACY PARCEL EVALUATION - PART B

I. If parcel contains one or more of the following important public values, place a check mark as indicated, circle appropriate score and tally score in column to the right.

Yes No
A. Scenic Resources (maximum score 100 points)

___ ___ 1. Parcel is adjacent to or in a viewshed visible from a scenic road, river, or trail designated by the State of North Carolina or the United States.

___ ___ 2. Parcel includes locally important panoramic views and/or exceptional short views.

Scenic resources total score ____________

B. Existing or Potential Public Recreational Opportunities
(Maximum score 100 points)

___ ___ 1. Water-based recreation - boating, swimming, fishing, rafting, canoeing
___ ___ 2. Trail-based and/or day use recreation - hiking, picnicking, horseback riding,
cross-country skiing
___ ___ 3. Natural resource based recreation - camping, hunting, nature touring
___ ___ 4. Adjacent land is protected or is within an adopted expansion area for a public park, forest, natural area, private nonprofit preserve, etc.

Public recreation opportunities total score _______

C. Riparian/hydrologic areas (Maximum score 150 points)

___ ___ 1. Parcel is situated on a river or stream
___ ___ 2. Parcel has extensive (over 300') river or wetland shoreline
___ ___ 3. Parcel included in 100 year flood plain
___ ___ 4. Parcel contains a minimum 50' strip of native trees and shrubs as a natural
buffer and sediment filter, or such a buffer will be restored
___ ___ 5. Parcel includes a natural wetland or prior converted area that will be restored
___ ___ 6. Parcel is situated within a watersupply watershed, or groundwater aquifer recharge area
___ ___ 7. Parcel provides immediate watershed/water supply protection

Riparian/hydrologic areas total score _______

Yes No
D. Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Maximum score 100 points)

___ ___ 1. Parcel contains outstanding habitat and other ecologically recognized criteria
        for one or more species that include:
    Forest interior nesting birds
    Significant populations of resident species
    Neotropical migrant species
    Areas for resting and feeding of migratory species
    Forest inhabiting mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates
___ ___ 2. Parcel exhibits connective habitats, corridors, habitat linkages and areas that
       reduce biological isolation
___ ___ 3. Parcel will provide a functional buffer to protect a core habitat or corridor

Fish and Wildlife habitat total score _______

E. Known rare, threatened and endangered species. Species to be considered under this criterion are those currently listed by the Natural Heritage Program and those listed in the Federal Register.
(Maximum score 100 points)

___ ___ 1. Parcel provides habitat supporting the occurrence of rare or endangered species
___ ___ 2. Parcel is within a designated Natural Heritage Area
___ ___ 3. Parcel provides suitable habitat for reoccupation by rare, threatened, or
endangered species (either naturally or through translocation)
___ ___ 4. Parcel provides functional buffer to protect habitat for species of concern, species that are significantly rare, or that are on the NC watch list

Endangered species total score _______

F. Known cultural/historical areas (Maximum Score 100 points)

___ ___ 1. Parcel contains forest related cultural resources (i.e., historic forest,
historic mill or other forest industry site, etc.)
___ ___ 2. Other historic or archeological resources (e.g, native American sites, battlegrounds, etc. )

Cultural/historic areas total score _______

G. Other ecological values (Maximum score 100 points)

___ ___ 1. Parcel is part of a large block of contiguous forest land
___ ___ 2. Parcel provides a mix of native ecological communities
___ ___ 3. Parcel includes ecological communities which are dwindling in North Carolina
___ ___ 4. Parcel contains late successional growth forests, (natural area)

Other ecological values score ________

Yes No
H. Provides opportunity for continuation of existing traditional
forest uses (Maximum score 100 points)

___ ___ 1. Parcel will remain available for timber and other forest products management
under a Stewardship Plan
___ ___ 2. Parcel will continue to serve watershed and water filtration roles
___ ___ 3. Parcel will continue to provide fish and wildlife habitat
___ ___ 4. Parcel will continue to provide outdoor recreation opportunities
___ ___ 5. Parcel will continue to provide environmental education opportunities
___ ___ 6. Parcel will continue to providenatural resources based research opportunities

Traditional forest uses total score _______

Yes No
I. Provides the Priority Public Benefit defined for the Forest Legacy Area where it is located. (Maximum score 150 points)

___ ___ Retains large contiguous blocks of forest (FLAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

___ ___ Protects drinking water supplies (FLAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8)

___ ___ Provides corridors for wildlife migration (FLAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

___ ___ Protects trout, mussel and/or anadromous fish habitats (FLAs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

___ ___ Provides habitat or buffers protected species habitat (FLAs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8)

___ ___ Protects key scenic vistas (FLAs 3, 6, 8)

Priority benefits total score _______

______________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL SCORE _______________

Comments:

Recommendations:

Appendix B. Forest Legacy Area Descriptions

Appendix C. Public Participation Component for the Forest Legacy AON

During the week of July 12-16 (1999), the NC Division of Forest Resources held seven Forest Legacy Educational Forums throughout the state of North Carolina. These forums provided an educational opportunity to introduce the Forest Legacy program to the citizens of North Carolina. They also provided a means for capturing their individual comments, suggestions, and concerns about Forest Legacy as proposed by the Forest Legacy Steering Committee. At these forums oral comments were transcribed, response sheets were distributed, and further contacts with the Forest Legacy team were encouraged. A number of formal written letters from individuals and organizations were received. This appendix summarizes public comment, key questions asked, and the responses given. This appendix does not present copies of all written material submitted.

Each forum began by introducing the agenda:

Purpose of the forums (explanation of FL; what does the public think about the program, the AON document itself, and the FL areas identified; prioritization of the FL areas; address questions and concerns throughout, and record that exchange).
Overview of FL
Overview of the AON
Description of the potential FLAs (as identified by the FL Steering Committee)
Receive Description of the potential FLA (as identified by attendees at the forums or comments mailed in)

1. Suggestions for protecting forested areas came from a number of participants.

Explore the potential of partnerships through the various agencies and organizations that provide protection of forested areas. Have a forum discussion (or some format) to learn about where other agencies/organizations are in process of protecting lands and are in discussions with landowners. Use this to develop a statewide partnership between these various agencies and organizations. Be sure to include the following: Clean Water Trust Fund, NC DOT, TVA, County Governments, State & Federal Agencies (USFS, USFWS, NCDFR, etc..), and Land Trusts. Forest Legacy is an opportunity to bridge the preservation community with the preservation of "working forests" community. (This suggestion was amplified at each educational forum, that FL has the opportunity to build bridges within the state).

During FL application process, if a landowner applies for FL and is denied, consider sharing their application with other organizations or agencies that may be able to assist them in another manner. Again, build cooperation between the various agencies/organizations on how they best serve the citizens of NC in protecting forestlands.

Forest Retention or Mitigation Banking Areas: along the lines of the tree conservation plans that must be submitted with construction plans in several Maryland Counties. Work like wetlands mitigation requirements and the "no net loss" policy.

NCDOT ? use conservation easements to forestall development in rural areas that would congest roads. Purchasing development rights on forests adjacent a highway corridor would extend the effective life of the highway and bolster local jurisdictions hoping to preserve rural character.

Look at providing a differential fee system to industrial landowners. One reason major industries are selling their lands is a result of the enormous property taxes they incur. Look to provide incentives to those large owners who want to provide corridors for wildlife, water quality, recreational opportunities, etc.

Have CES develop an educational program that introduces landowners to the various incentives and estate planning options available to them from various agencies (such as DFR, USDA, etc.) and organizations like landtrusts. Provide regional seminars to the public as an opportunity to look at pros and cons of the menus that are available to them.

For future presentations and educational events associated with FL, design a large map of NC that includes the forest legacy areas and then provide overlays that detail boundaries of development, agricultural lands, wetlands, other non-forested lands, and then all forested lands in public domain (local, state, and federal), all forested industrial land ownership, and those areas (10 acres or more by NC Stewardship definition?) that are in private forested ownership, including inholdings.

The State of NC could post FL area signs (like the river basin signs) to inform visitors and remind residents of the importance of the forest to the quality of life and landscape through which they are travelling.

2. Serious Considerations About the FL Program:

Consider: FL should encouraged "working forest" for those who wish to pursue this form of land use, but the program should not exclude those who wish to leave their forested property in a natural or uncut condition. If timbering is required in order to implement the FL program, there will be considerable opposition from many landowners, thus potentially putting the brakes on this very desirable program. The definition of "working forests" is still unclear. Would a forest belonging to a landowner who manages for pinestraw or firewood or scenic view qualify as a working forest? Is the definition intensive or extensive forest management or both? Public is not clear on this definition. If silviculture practices are not the issue, then how is "working forests" defined?

Response: The reference to "working forests" on page 26 is meant to emphasize that North Carolina is not necessarily going to employ Forest Legacy to acquire forest preserves. First of all, other means to do that exist and have been quite successful in North Carolina while the losses of forest land that are now accelerating stem from productive forests, in many cases managed forests, being lost to conversion pressures. Second, the parcel evaluation criteria reflect relative weight given to the range of management objectives that will be acceptable to be consistent with environmental values and objectives defined for the FLA within which the property is located. Third, management objectives, hence silvicultural practices, may only concern portions of a large tract, so a combination of aims should be expected. Concerning the examples cited, yes, depending on where the parcels are located and what values are at risk, the tracts could qualify as working forests.

Consider: Landowners were concerned about portions of their land going to state and then being condemned in later years.

Response: state will own the development interest in the land and the portion that the state would own cannot be condemned by a local agency BUT another state agency or federal agency (e.g., NCDOT) could condemn the land in the future. However, that is not likely to happen due to the way the EA/EIS process works.

More specific comments from the seven Forest Legacy Educational Forums follow.

NEW HANOVER COUNTY: (Mary Lou Addor, Gary Blank, & Mark Megalos)
Representation @New Hanover: 3 people (1 USFS, 2 Landowners)

General Concerns, Comments, Suggestions:
AON Document: Like the document, well written.
Like the menu of forestry incentive programs offered throughout the state (could distribute segment to agencies and other associations to develop awareness of the various forest incentive programs).
Critical issues identified are right on target such as tree mortality. Consider adding to critical issues, the developmental pressure on industrial lands (possibility to provide corridors {example: on Weyerhaeuser lands})
Recognize that water quality aspects are unique to each FLA (see map submitted from New Hanover participant).
Lack of markets

Personal and/or General Recommendations on Priority Areas
Lower Cape Fear, Sandhills, Blue Ridge Highlands, Georgia Borderlands, Lower Neuse/White Oak River Complex, & Upper Chowan River Basin. Also see New Hanover map for prioritized areas

Opinion of Overall Forest Legacy Area Identification Plan: Very pleased

MOORE COUNTY: (Mary Lou Addor, Gary Blank, & Mark Megalos)
Representation @MOORE: 9 people (1 USFS (?), 3 Land Trusts (Joe McDonald, Marsh Smith, Nell Allen), 2 Landowners (Charlie Webb & ?) , & 3 Agencies (CES (Charles Hammond), DFR (Tom White) , & Games Land (Bill Parsons).

General Concerns, Comments, Suggestions:
Concern about administration and coordination of the program. General comments and concerns from within the audience about who will administer the program: will this be at the state or county level, or both? Where will the secretarial staff come from to administer the program?
Response: understandings will be developed between the State Agency and other participating entities on implementation procedures of the FLAís.

Concern that type of harvest management will generate more "points" for eligibility into the program than another.
Response: same points will be given no matter what the harvest management type is.

Several suggestions that corridors connect the FL boundary areas in order that Forest Legacy can be a tool for preserving wildlife migration corridors. (Map submitted by participant).

Question about who will pay for the appraisals that would be required to determine fair-market value. Suggestions were: DFR hires an appraiser; Landowner pays for the appraiser out of their 25% state match

Emphasize that even though a conservation easement appears to result in a loss of property taxes for the county, there is a public benefit and a no net tax loss since rural areas (undeveloped) only need a small % of services as compared to developed areas like cities and suburbs.

Provide mechanism for major industrial landowners to join the program. Could even set up a competition for these major players to compete with each other for access to the program.

Concern about the tremendous amount of land base that is not included in the FLA. This means there is the potential for a tremendous loss of political support.

Response: forested areas have to be identified and guidelines established to allow applications and hence prevent development of those lands. Within NC there is already a percentage of non-forested lands that could not be included: residential, commercial, farming, mining, and other protected areas and public lands. These lands would not be acceptable since these are already protected from development, in development, or are non-forested areas.

Personal and/or General Recommendations on Priority Areas
See Moore map for responses and map submitted that suggests building corridors to each FL area for wildlife migration routes.

Opinion of Overall Forest Legacy Area Identification Plan: No on-site responses provided

ORANGE COUNTY: (Mary Lou Addor, Gary Blank, & Mark Megalos)
Representation @ORANGE: 11 people (2 Envirn Org (Chris Canfield from Audubon, Greg Gregory from Southern Environmental Law Center, 2 Land owners (Marjorie and Walker Rayburn), 1 Land Trusts (Kevin Brice from Triangle Land Conservancy) , & 6 Agencies (DFR (Mark has list of DFR names) & DENR, (Bill Flournory ) & one FL Committee Member (George Lloyd).

Concerns, Comments, Suggestions:

Concern about definition of "working forest" in AON document. Look into whether the definition that the NC FL Committee is using is in accordance with federal statutes regarding FL. Some citizens are under the opinion that the FL is set up to purchase environmentally sensitive lands and "working forests" are a subset of that.

Response: FL Committee will certainly revisit statutory definition, but the state has the right to substitute the word "working for "traditional." Either word can be construed as ambiguous by a person choosing to advance a particular agenda. Forest Legacy is not about silvicultural choices; it is about land use choices.

Suggestion that AON "working forests" definition read: working forests provide wood fiber for extraction, (remove the section about simultaneously provide), clean water and air, necessary habitat for game and non-game speciesÖ

Response: This change in the text was made the next day and is the wording in the current document

Concern that landowners who do not have plans of harvesting their timber would be excluded from applying for FL (even if in a designated area). Also that those who do not have a history of harvesting timber would be excluded. Does this mean that the landowners who own private forests and have identified recreational use, aesthetic enjoyment, and maintenance of a homesite as their primary reason for ownership of forested land would be excluded from applying (see pg. 9 of the AON document).

Response: The parcel evaluation criteria (Appendix A) clear indication of where the relative weights in scoring are heaviest.

Clarification of the words "preservation and protected" provided during presentation of FL. In FL terminology, it is protection from development and preservation from conversion to non-forest uses NOT preservation from timber harvesting.

Response: definitions of the imporatnt terms are included on page 26.

Concern: left out the Dismal Swamp area, located in the very NE part of the state, and it is developing VERY rapidly. Consider including this area.

Response: FLA-7 has been expanded, but at the Teleconfence, a further expansion was advocated.

Concern about who is the UMBRELLA ORG for FL in NC

Response: DFR will be the lead agency and there will be other partnering entities to administer the FL, depending on the geographic location of the tract accepted. DFR sees this as the opportunity to develop partnerships.

Concern: that a landowner could not apply for present use value if there is no active timber management:

Response: Correct, probably could not apply for present use value if there is not timber management, but that is not a FL issue.

Concern: appears that the AON document lacks the implementation steps (who will decide what lands are accepted into FL, by what criteria, and if applications are denied, where will those apps go, etc.). Let public know what those steps are to make an honest appraisal of the AON and the future of FL.

Response: The evaluation criteria were not completed but are now presented in Appendix A.

Concern: (participant provided these comments in a one-on-one conversation and would like the FL Steering Committee to look into them). Spell out the FL definition of "threatened". It is not clear to this participant what this means. Could "threaten" mean, "threaten" by improper forestry practices, short-term forest growth? Is it possible that this program is an opportunity to improve forestry practices (FPGís and/or BMPís).

Response: definitions have been provided on page 26. The purpose of FL is to keep land in working forest, not to regulate management practices. Threat refers to conversion to non-forest.

Concern: how will FL partner with Land Trusts that have different criteria for accepting and monitoring easements?

Response: there may be some Land Trusts that will not partner with FL as a result of the working forest criteria, and that would be their choice. FL is set up to provide opportunity for landowners to protect working forested land that would not have that opportunity under current landtrusts models.

Concern: How many hoops will a landowner need to jump through to apply? And is the application a boiler plate model?

Response: Application is not a boilerplate. It is based on needs of landowners. A landowner must have a forest stewardship management plan and be located within a designated FL area before being allowed to apply. Committee will rate applications based on established criteria.

Concern: If part of a tract of landfalls outside a FL area, will it be considered?

Response: Yes, so long as part of a tract is within designated boundary, the whole tract qualifies.

Concern: will FL have some sort of an outreach process to attract landowners to apply or will it expect landowners just to apply?

Response: NC will use both kinds of efforts to reach landowners.

Personal Recommendations on Priority Area: See Hillsborough map for responses

Opinion of Overall Forest Legacy Area Identification Plan:
No on-site responses provided

Guilford COUNTY: (Mary Lou Addor, Gary Blank, & Mark Megalos)
Representation @Guilford: 4 people (2 Environ Org (Mischi Binkley &?), 1 Land Trusts (Kathy Treanor from Piedmont Land Conservancy), 1 USFS (?) & 1 Agency (CES, NC A &T, Bob Williamson).

Concerns, Comments, Suggestions:
Question: who will conduct the appraisals and who pays for them?

Response: The landowner pays for the appraisals. The landowner might be able to arrange the cost for the appraisals in part of the remaining 25% that would be required to purchase the development rights. DFR will probably hire an appraiser to make assessments based on fair-market value.

Question: are these boundaries cemented in stone once the AON document is accepted?

Response: No. The Federal government wants some sort of qualification determined when document is submitted. Following acceptance, the boundaries can certainly be added to if another area is determined to be a higher priority. Hopefully, by building partnerships, there will be a range of areas to consider.

Comment: if federal funds are available to landowners within these areas, it would seem there would be an impetus to connect areas and create partnerships.

Response: That is the actual hope for forest legacy. That it will have a life of its own.

Comment: glad FLA #8, Central Piedmont, was identified.

Comment: that FLA #1 is largely in industrial lands and that FL is providing industry an opportunity to enter this program when other smaller tracts should be considered.

Response: FL does not preclude industry involvement, and since preserving large tracts that are threatened with conversion is an aim, there may be good reason to consider industry tracts. They will still have to compete under the same criteria presented in Appendix A.

Comment: lands outside areas could be considered possible links to other areas.

Concern: FL sounds like a way for landowners to create monocultures of pine plantations using tax dollars. And it seems like a way for industry to get paid for harvesting. Industry should pay extraction tax for timber harvested to offset the loss of public benefits (water quality, air quality, etc), especially since they reap the cost benefits from the extraction. Who will monitor the ecological guidelines and who will determine what the management objectives are?

Response: Current silvaculture practices and BMPís that are allowed by NC law, would be considered appropriate on land that could be accepted into the FL program. The silviculture practices are not the issue, but purchases of the developmental rights are. The program is not purchasing rights of harvested areas but areas that could be developed. The NC DFR would monitor the easements with assistance of the partnering entities. The Stewardship Committee would consider the applications and rank the applications for acceptance into the program (see Appendix A). The management objectives are determined by the landowner. The landowner has to have a State Stewardship management plan before submitting an application to the program.

Concern: that there will be an equity issue with choosing land for the FL program. For instance land that is low-intensity managed, maybe several trees a year are extracted for firewood, that this tract would not be considered since it is not intensively managed. In addition, if a tract is less acreage, this also might create the equity issue if they cannot afford to pay the appraisal cost. Have concern then, "who" is over the FL selection process.

Response: The Forest Stewardship Committee choose the land. Will bring equity issue of concern to the FL Steering Committee.

Concern: about asking the public to prioritize FL areas. We need a map of the FL areas and then need overlays with other determining information from which to make an educated decision: projected demographics of area, public forested lands and inholdings, NIPFL ownership, industry holdings, etc. For future education forums, consider delivery using this format.

Question: what is the least amount of land that would be considered for the FL program? The Forest Stewardship Plan accepts 10 acres or more into the Stewardship Plan so essentially this could be the least amount accepted.

Response: FL will accept applications for tracts of any size. However, aims of the FLAs and the program will probably favor larger tracts that accomplish the goal of maintaining large contiguous blocks of forest land. A small tract that connects adjacent tracts already in protected conservation management would be important though.

Question: is FL targeting forest types?

Response: in some cases it is like Area #2, the Sandhills, for its Longleaf pine system which is a significant environmental value that is needed to encourage the development of the RCW population and other Sandhill species. Other areas are addressing the "environmental values" of that particular area, like Area #3, where scenic value is considered very important, and not necessarily the type of forest.

Personal Recommendations on Priority Area: Guilford map provided responses.

Opinion of Overall Forest Legacy Area Identification Plan: No written on-site responses provided however several comments suggested that this is a good program and on the right track.

McDowell COUNTY: (Mary Lou Addor, Gary Blank, & Mark Megalos)
Representation @McDowell: 8 people (3 Landowner (Lislott Harberts) &?,
1 Land Trusts (Susie Jones from the Foothills Conservancy), 1 USFS (?), 1 Industry (Shannon Buckley from Willamette) & 2 Agency, DFR (?, Mark provide) & 1 FL Committee Rep (Rick Hamilton)

Concerns, Comments, Suggestions:
Question: will FLA adjust present use value?

Response: already codified.

Question: has the landtrust that is responsible for the New River Land been contacted?

Response: All land trusts that have been contacted and identified are listed in the AON.

Concern: that the Southern Mountain area is not included in the identified areas (include McDowell County, Lake James located next to Champion lands and Forest Service, Chimney Rock, etc are under developmental pressures). Including an area #14 would maintain large blocks of land and extend boundaries of managed protected areas.

Response: included area #14 on the map at request of entire group present. This area was later joined with previous area #3 to form Appalachian Highlands and Foothills.

Question: what are the restrictions of the lands?

Response: the developmental rights are restricted for perpetuity. One can intensively manage or extensive managed according to NC law and BMPís. FL does not regulate silviculture.

Question: what is the exact role of the partnering entities?

Response: state will hold the easement and monitor the easement with assistance of the partnering entities. Since there will probably not be enough FL money to protect all the areas, then the other entities can ascertain ways to protect these lands.

Question: if there are partnering entities, is the money kept separate? In other words since a landtrust can have different deed restrictions and FL can have different restrictions, would not the PDR money and tax breaks be recorded separately?

Response: yes. Separate deeds and separate by-laws and statutory laws administer agencies and organizations. For example, $ from the CREP program could be used but deed would be fairly restrictive while the FL PDR deed would just be on the development rights.

Question/Comment: how much awareness do local governments have on this program? I feel they are not aware, should be. Provide local entities the opportunity to understand what the program is about and develop an exchange that discusses the tax benefits of protecting lands. Policy makers would probably like to take advantage of the tax breaks associated with easements and the potential to increase the value of their land.

Response: Have informed some in local governments and can do a better job of informing others on the benefits of this program. Need to be aware that easements and their perceived benefits are site specific. Jones County for instance no longer is willing to accept wetlands mitigation within their tax base.

Personal Recommendations on Priority Area: See McDowell FL map for responses. Added the Southern Mountains area, identified as #14.

Opinion of Overall Forest Legacy Area Identification Plan:
No written on-site responses provided however

BUNCOMBE COUNTY: (Mary Lou Addor, Gary Blank, Liz Crane, & Mark Megalos) Representation @Buncombe: 16 people. 2 Industry (Keith Jenkins and associate), 2 Wildlife Biologists (David Yow &?), 4 USFS, 2 DFR (Paul Schuller & ?), 2 Land Trusts Carolina Mountain Conservancy, 2 Envirn Org (Bob Gale & ? from WNCA), & 2 FL Committee Rep (Jerry Cody & Rick Hamilton)

Concerns, Comments, Suggestions:
No problem with "working forests" definition if sedimentation, storm flow, and visual quality are preserved

Comment and Concern: regarding definition of "working forest" that was provided to the audience. Delivery of definition was confusing. Appeared that FL Team was suggesting that FL easements COULD restrict timber harvesting in perpetuity. (The way a forest works is harvesting, TSI, improvement cutting, reasonable rotation to maintain forest health, wildlife, recreation, etc.)

Concern/Question: regarding definition of "working forest" and that this allows purchase of clearcuts. Is there an obligation to landowner to harvest? FL should encourage "working forest" for those who wish to pursue this format land use but the program should not exclude those who wish to leave their forested property in a natural or uncut condition. If timbering is required in order to implement the FL program, there will be considerable opposition from many landowners, thus putting the brakes on this very desirable program.

Response: FL is not purchasing timber harvests and therefore not encouraging one form of silviculture over another. And no, landowner is not obligated to harvest. The management plan is based on the landownerís objections. Each landowner must have a stewardship management plan in order to apply for to FL. Each state has a different focus and FL in NC is focused on working forests. Parcel selection criteria address the different values and reflect weighting of practices.

Comment: when a river basin is designated nutrient sensitive then automatic trigger of FL adjacent to blue line stream in the basin.

Question: can a landowner rise to the top of the application ranking by threatening to sell to development if his/her property is not included in FL?

Response: If they are planning on selling then probably do not have a stewardship management plan and therefore would not qualify. Even if they had a plan and began to threaten would still need to enroll and apply to be rated and be willing to be monitored.

Quesitons: What is the role of the landtrust? How is the value of the land determined? Who holds the easements? How sharply are the boundaries defined?

Response: landtrusts will probably play several roles: may be partnering entities, educators, and also receive applications that FL cannot accept. The value will be determined by two independent appraisals at fair market values. The state will hold the easement and probably monitor or work with partnering entities to monitor. The boundaries are drawn to show areas that we (the Steering Committee and the NC public) believe are important areas to qualify. These boundaries can be expanded after the AON is submitted and accepted if need be.

Personal Recommendations on Priority Area (please select 6): See Fletcher Map for responses

Opinion of Overall Forest Legacy Area Identification Plan: No on-site responses but general audience comments favorable with one exception that the program NOT exclude forest landowners who may be providing public benefits but may not choose to extract timber.

MACON COUNTY: (Mary Lou Addor, Gary Blank, & Liz Crane. )
Representation @Macon: 8 people ( 1 Environ Org (WNCA), 3 Land Trusts, 1 Educator (WCU), & 3 Agency (1 USFS & 2 DFR) & 1 FL Committee Rep.
Norma Ivey, Jamie Johnston, Paul Carlson (also Consulting Forester), Bill ? (Biologist), Pete Bates, Mike Wilson, Bob Mashburn, Ron Siegel.& Jerry Cody.

General Concerns, Comments, Suggestions:
Concern: if 15 areas are identified and 3 rise to the top as priority, what happens to the other 12 areas?

Response: the other 12 areas still able for consideration and additional identified areas can be considered even after the AON has been submitted.

Concern: that by prioritizing areas there is potential to encourage a negative sense of competition. The selection committee will need to take the equity issue into consideration when they consider ranking applications.

Suggestion: (Paul Carlson) made a case for including area #15 (will mail in his comments). He thinks there are pockets of inholdings on public lands, especially in Macon County that should be under consideration as FL Areas. These are not large areas in themselves and instead are fragmented by location but if landowners could sell their PDR, this could assure that inholdings do not allow development in the future.

Comment: consider marketing FL program by indicating that "easements" can add tax value to the tax base. Typically land will increase in value as less land area is available for market and open space/ forested areas command a premium and as it adjoins other protected areas.

Concern: have NCFA identify priority areas that could go into the FL areas and/or landowners that would be willing to enter the program.

Response: If NCFA chooses to cooperate with the FL program, the organizationís link to industry and private landowners could be valuable in identifying key tracts for conservation protection.

Personal Recommendations on Priority Area (please select 6): See Guilford/Franklin Map for responses. Added section #15 to the area, an overlap of existing areas.

Opinion of Overall Forest Legacy Area Identification Plan: No on-site written responses but concern by some in audience that prioritization of areas will setup competition rather than building bridges to protect forested areas from development.

Acknowledgements

Preparing this assessment document would have been impossible without contributions from a host of people. The Steering Committee members have been a constant source of support and guidance. Members of the conservation and land trusts across North Carolina provided
perspectives on their local regions that helped shape the Forest Legacy Areas and focus the issues in each area. Citizens from all parts of North Carolina who attended the education forums asked key questions and submitted valuable information. Scott Payne, our webmaster, and Laura Pickens, our GIS mapper, provided crucial technical assistance. Finally, Liz Crane, USDA Forest Service, and Mark Megalos, NC Division of Forest Resources, were the most congenial taskmasters a contract author could ever encounter. To all of these people, I extend my most sincere and grateful thanks.

02/02/09