We dcvelopt~l a spatially explicit modeling approaclr, using a county-scaled rem01 e forest (i.e., forested area reserved frown or having no direct human interference) assessment derived from l! 184-90 forest resonrce inventory data arid a 1984 trlack bear (Urszrs americancts) range map for 12 states in the southern United States. We defined minirtiinn suitable and optimal black bear habitat criteria and gc o-referenced remote forest classificatiori with csxisting black bear range. Using a suitable habitat criterion, we classified 97.2% of occupied arid 97% of rmoccupied range (38.9% of the south. U.S. region's area). I sing optimal habitat criteria, we classified 60.8% of occnpied and 60.1% of uncrccupied range (63.3% of the r :gion's area), interpreted occupied ram+* withoiit optimal habitat wt su ioptimal areas (9.9% of the regior 's area), ant1 unoccupied range with optimal Irabitat as areas with repopulation potential (26.8% of the r -g ,gion's area). There was a lack of high-density (~34%) optimal habitat linkages among existing black bear populations, which we construed as a limitaticrn on interpopulation gene flow. We recommend expansion of fr ture regional land surveys to (1) address Iargc, carnivore mammal habitat and broad home ranges of other species that may conflict with humails or tlonlcbtic animals, (2) include field inventories of woodland and reserved areas, (3) use standard measures to assess remote forests, and (4) organize available data in a geographic information system.

No abstract

No abstract

0 area ciassjfted as trn~berland declrned by 55 7,000 acres to 15.4 mrllron acres. This loss of timberland represents the first decline measured since the first survey of Virginia. Altogether, 1.3 million acres underwent land use changes. Only 382,000 acres of new timberland were added, as opposed to 933,000 acres that were diverted to other land uses, primarily urban development and agriculture. Net reductions in timberland occurred in all regions except the Southern Piedmont, where area of timberland remained relatively unchanged. area of nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) timberland i s down by 759,000 acres to 7 7.6 million acres. Within the NIPF Table I-Changes In area ot t'trgrn1~3's t~n?berland, b i S u r~e i i i n~i , 1977-1 9 8 t r Unit change Total Total Clther gain Clther lt3'.i C~rban

for tables, graphs, and statistical checking; and the Southern Research Station (SRS) Technical Publications Team for editorial review, styling, and publication of this report. The SRS gratefully acknowledges the cooperation and assistance provided by the Georgia Forestry Commission in collecting mill data. Appreciation is also extended to forest industry and mill managers for providing timber products information. Timber Product Output Database Retrieval System The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Research Work Unit of the USDA Forest Service developed the Timber Product Output (TPO) Database Retrieval System to help customers answer questions about timber harvesting and use in the Southern Region. This system acts as an interface to a standard set of consistently coded TPO data for each State and county in the region and Nation. This regional and national set of TPO data consists of 11 variables that describe for each county the roundwood products harvested, logging residues left in the woods, other timber removals (i.e. land clearing and reserved timber removals), and wood and bark residues generated by the county's primary wood-using mills. The system is available through the FIA Web site: http://srsfi a2.fs.fed.us/php/tpo2/tpo.php. The database is well documented and easy to use. The retrieval system allows the user to select the TPO variables of interest and generate a standard set of timber products, removals, and mill residue tables for the specifi ed resource area, State, or region. The system has been logically divided into two sections to assist the user in making specifi c data requests. In section 1, the user will be asked to defi ne the resource area, and section 2 generates tables for the specifi ed area. In each section, the user is asked to supply specifi c options that will serve to customize the database retrieval. There are four options available for defi ning the geographic area of interest. Each option provides an increasing level of detail. The region, subregion, State, or county defi nes an area. The user selects the option that best suits the level of detail required. Users who select county as an option should be aware that some counties have been combined due to data sensitivity. These combined counties are identifi ed with asterisks in the output tables. The TPO contacts are listed for each region to provide additional explanation or clarifi cation.