Managing Southern Forests for Wildlife and Fish

United States Department of Managing Southern Forests Agriculture (. Forest Service for Wildlife and Fish Souttrarn Forest Experiment Station

New Orleans, Louisiana A Proceedings

General Technical Report 30-65 January 1987 -MANAGING SOUTHERN FORESTS FOR WIDLIFE AND FISH L

A PROCEEDINGS

EDITED BY JAMES Gs DICKSON AND 0s EUGENE MAUGHAN Preface

Southern forests are very productive for wildlife as well as wood fiber. User recreation demands for game and nongame wildlife and fish continue to increase as human populations grow in the sunbelt. The =in deteminant of wildlife populations is suitability of forest habitat and the primary manipulator of the habitat is the forester. Forestry decisions and practices determine habitat suitability for wildlife cornunities and ultimately wildlife populations. With this publication we plan to demonstrate how southern forests can be managed for the myriad of wildlife species. General topics in the publication relating to wildlife communities include economics of accomodating wildlife and fish, impact of specific forestry practices, special techniques, agency policy and practices, and prospects for the future. Although earlier drafts of these papers were edited, the content of each final manuscript was the responsibility of each author. We thank Ronald Thill, Alexander Zale, Hugh Black, Lowell Halls, Roger Baker, George Hurst, and James Neal for assistance in reviewing these manuscripts. This publication is from the proceedings of the Wildlife and Fish Ecology Technical Session, 1986 Society of American Foresters National Convention, Birmingham, Alabama.

James G. Dickson 0. Eugene Maughan, editors CONTENTS

Economies of Beconmaodating Wildlife C* William HcKee ...... SooleBconodc Benefits of Protecting vity< '~~ft~"'"" ...... 1 George '* DissmeYer and Bennett Foster :...... 6

Pine Plantations as Wildlife Habitat: a Perspective A. Sydney Johnson*****...... 12 prescribed Burning for Managing Wildlife in Southeastern Pine Forests J. Larry Landers ....~~~.*~...... -...... ,...... ,...~....~,..+.~.lg Herbicides and Wildlife in Southern Forests William C. ~cComband George A* Hurst ...... o...... ,.,...... 28 Riparian Zones and Wildlife in Southern Forests: the Problem and Squirrel Relationships James Ge Dkkson and J~=Y C- Huntley ...... 37 Effects of Forest Practices on Relationships Between Riparian Area and Aquatic Ecosystems

* SECTION 111. SPECIAL TECmQmS ...... *..-...... ~...... o....*'...... ~..,...... ,48 Assessment of Wildlife Damage on Southern Forests James E. Miller ...~..+...... ,....~,s,,ea~~...... 48 The Influence of Silvlcultural Practices on Fisheries Management : Effects and ~ti~atidi'fieasurea

SECTION IV* AGENCY POLICY AND PRACTICES ...... 64 Wildlife and Fisheries Management in the USDA Forest Service Paul Brouha -...... ~~oto...... ~...... ~...... ,..,..,.....~4 Fisheries Management on Georgia National Forests R* H* England ...... wm~ort~c - uab-fs Unique Approach to ~auagi6i*iti *PdiCit *st6i

I H. Ellis

Although there still are farbe areas of the South where foresters, especially on private It is a pleasure for me to introduce the lands, have little interference from enviromental 1986 technical session of the Working Group on concerns, we appear destined to suffer the same Wildlife and Fish Ecology, The title of this kinds of frustrations that our western colleagues technical session, "-aging Southem Forests for have--unless we have the foresight to anticipate Wildlife and Fish," is an intriguing one, It the most important issues and take action on them incorporates elements of a basic fact, of a now. general area of professional controversy, and of an ever-increasing public interest. It is a fact Land use shifts between agriculture and for- that southern forests, under almost any sort of estry in the South are commonplace and there is forestry program, are major producers of wildlife enormous potential in either direction. The and the sources of a huge proportion of all the environmental benefits of timber management as fresh water supplying southern streams and lakes. compared to farming, mining, and real estate Nothing short of wholesale conversion to agri- development seem so great that there should be a culture could alter this situation significantly. fundamental case for foresters to seek support of commercial forestry from groups which often The disputes between foresters, wildlife oppose it. professionals, and water resource managers over relative priorities among timber, wildlife and The least effective strategy for foresters water are legendary and intensely frustrating to would be to write off complaints from other pro- all sides. Public sentiment seems generally fessions or interest groups as unimportant. In favorable toward trees, animals and fish of all my view, the most useful approach is for for- sorts, is largely uniformed and appears to in- esters to demonstrate a strong concern for the crease in passion as wealth and education and environment, to seek effective ties with other urbanization of the human population grow. Fur- natural resource professions and environmental ther, the spectrum of groups who have legitimate organizations, and to marshal good information interests in forests, water and wildlife grows on the influences of timber management on wild- more and more varied every year. life, fish, and other resources.

In this situation, one would hope that there Research on the environmental influences of would be grounds for common cause among the timber management has been going on for years in natural resource professions, and with environ- the South, with some excellent results. Examples mental interest groups, toward public and private include comprehensive work on white-tailed deer, policies that would best serve the long-run a great deal of information on quail and turkey interests of our region. Technical information, habitat requirements, and extensive research on from experts such as the members of this working effects of harvesting on mountain watersheds. In group, is essential to the search for such contrast, we have not much data relating forestry polisies. and most non-game animals (which now may occasion more serious controversy than game species) or on The South presents particularly important forestry and water management in the coastal opportunities for alliances among natural re- plains. In many instances, we have case studies sources professions for several reasons. First, for a particular locale but inadequate informa- the nature and history of southern forests typi- tion for regional issues. We particularly lack cally have not led to as sharp conflicts between quantitative functions which would predict the foresters and other professions as occur regularly levels of output for other resources in relation in the West. Most of our forest acreage here is to changes in timber production. This is a very privately owned and has been logged repeatedly in tough challenge but one we must meet in order to the past 100 years. We have little virgin forest avoid or meet court challenges and to hold the to draw arguments over preservation. And, until public's confidence. recently, Southerners have enjoyed less wealth and education than people in other regions and Today's working group session brings to- been less disposed towards environmental concerns. gether speakers with outstanding credentials for viewing many aspects of our topic--Managing Second, demographic statistics and the news- Southern Forests for Wildlife and Fish. Some of papers make it clear that the situation in the them are researchers; others are people with South is changing. The southern states are immediate responsibility for reconciling land increasing dramatically in population, educational management issues. All are people who are dealing levels and wealth. The influences of urban popu- with questions of great, long-run importance for lations more and more are noticed in state legis- southern forestry. latures, in local land use restrictions, and in recreational uses of public and private lands.

Thomas H. Ellis, Director, USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA SEmION I. ECONOMICS

Economics of Aecomodating Wildlife C . William McKee

Abstract.--Revenues generated from timber production alone are compared with joint timber-wildlife production. Net revenues from joint timber-wildlife production exceed revenues from timber alone. The increased revenue should provide added incentive for forest landovners, particularly nonindustrial landowners, to practice better forest management.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, intensive forest management exist, as is the case with wildlife and other has received considerable attention from sports- recreational activities, a proxy for market product men and concerned conservationists. Some contend dollar returns must be developed. ivlany studies that converting large areaa of mixed pine-hardwood discuss comparing non-market products with_ stands to intensively managed short-rotation pine marketable products (~ockstaeland McConnell plantations will adversely affect wildlife popula- 1978, Gibbs 1975, Martin et.al. 1974). tions. Others contend that age-class distribution of pine stands, streamside management zones (Section One technique involves assessment of 208, Public Law 92-5001, prescribed burning and investment in terms of opportunity costs. For thinning will increase habitat diversity and, thus, example, if timber is produced jointly with recrea- enhance certain wildlife populations. In other tion or hunting opportunities, revenues from timber words, the quality of forest wildlife habitat normally decline. The reduction of revenues from depends upon the type of timber management practiced timber is considered an opportunity cost in that (Halls, 1975). income must be foregone in order to accommodate other outputs. Loss of timber revenue then becomes In the past, forest managers have been led to an estimate of value for the non-timber outputs. believe that adopting wildlife habitat enhancexent The opportunity cost approach will be used to assess guidelines will have an adverse effect on the timber-wildlife habitat tradeoffs in this paper. business' basic objective of maximizing profit. The industrial forest manager has been forced to ANALYTICAL METHODS AND ASSUMTIONS make decisions oriented toward maximizing profits because tradition has led him to believe that wildlife habitat enhancement can only be achieved Discounting Hodels at the expense of timber production. More recently, forest management strategies have been adjusted to Various methods are used to estimate the accommodate increasing demands for all forest profitability of a timber production investment. resources. The most acceptable method, however, for appraising long-term projects such as forestry is discounted The purpose of this paper will be to identify cash flow or present net worth (PNw) analysis the economic problems and constraints associated (Gunter and Haney 1984). The superiority of the with the assessment of wildlife habitat tradeoffs technique, and the characteristic which distin- and to determine the impact of habitat enhancement guishes it from others, is its recognition that on dollar returns of a typical forest management money has a time value. PNW calculations give strategy. us a dollar figure which tells how much our forestry investment will return. A positive PNW tells us ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND CONSTRAINTS that our investment will return more than the interest rate we choose for discounting--say 12%. Market value is the commonplace and common sense approach to setting values in our democratic Another economic indicator which is based on society. We experience it daily everytime we make PNW is annual equivalent. It automatically adjusts an exchange in the market place as a willing buyer a timber investment, regardless of rotation length, with a willing seller or vice versa. Such exchanges to a one-year equivalent. Annual equivalent thus represent most of the goods and services we acquire provides a convenient way of comparing a timber or provide for others. Where markets do not

C. William McKee, Forest Economist, School of Forestry, Auburn University, Alabama 36849 1 enterprise with shorter-term uses of the land timber sales; install hardwood leave strips such as cropping or recreations. (Streamside mnagement zones); and pay annual taxes. Not every timber grower will have all of Assumptions these expenses, but all will have some costs in growing timber. Such costs can be thought of as To assess economic returns for a typical investments that must be mde to grow a certain forest management strategy, we must make assump- kind of timber in a certain way. Expected costs tions concerning discount rates, expected costs, for this analysis are presented in Table I. timber yields, and stumpage prices. Before timber sale incomes can be derived an Discount rates for the analysis were set at estimate of what kind and how much timber will be 6% in constant or real dollars. A 6% real, or available for sale throughout the rotation must constant dollar, discount rate translatee to a be detemined. Loblolly pine yields for average 10% nominal or market rate if inflation is 4%. site (SI 60) land are presented in Table 2 (Bepp 1985). 'PW' and 'ST' denote pulpwood har- Investors in timber growing may have to buy vested in cords per hectare and sawtimber har- land; prepare planting sites; plant, release, thin, vested in thousand bard feet Scribner per protect, and prune trees; prepare and administer hectare, respectively.

Table 1.--Direct costs of intensive &rest management for timber production only and joint timber-wildlife productionaf

Year Timber only Timber and wildlife ~oday's cost

($/ha) 1 Site Prepare Site Prepare 222.39 (90

1 SMZ installation b / 14.83 (6)

Plant Plant 135.91 (55) 8 Precommercial thinning 111.20 (45)

8 to 35 - 3 year intervals Prescribe burn 19.77 (8) 12 to 35, 5 year intervals Prescribe burn

Annua 1 Management costs Management costs 12.36 (5

Annua 1 Taxes Taxes 3.71 (1.50) a/ Per acre values are in parentheses. b, 6.5 hectacre (16 acre) Streamside Management Zone. Table 2.--Per hectare loblolly,pine yields for timber production only and joint timber- wildlife ~roduction~'

%nagemen t 1st Thin ing 2nd Thinning Harvest Regime Age RBA' PW Age RBB FW ST AGE PU ST

Timber ., 15 198 30.6 25 198 23.5 3.9 35 32.9 21.1 (80) (92.4) (80) (9.5) (1.6) (13.3) 48.61 Timber %/ Wildlife 15 148 19.8 25 148 16.1 6.7 35 15.1 22.0 (60) (8.0) (60) (6.5) (2.7) (6.1) (8.9) a/ Per acre yields are in parentheses. b/ Precommercial thinning at age 8, residual component of 350 stems per acre. '/ 'RBA' denotes residual basal area in square feet per hectare.

The last assumption needed to assess economic returns is stumpage price. Stumpage prices used are based on the average price reported, 1980-1986, For our purpose, we want to establish maxi- in Timber-Mart South for Alabama (Table 3). No mum financial returns as the goal of our forest real price increase in pulpwood or sawtimber manager. With this as our objective, an stumpage is assumed. assessment was mde for managing a 65 hectare (160 acre) tract for timber only and joint Table 3.--Average stumpage price for various forest timber-wildlife production. The management ~roducts , Alabama, 1980-1986 strategy and expected yields have been presented (Tables 1 and 2). To enhance diversity, however, ten percent of the 65 hectares (16 acres) is Pulpwood Sawt imber assumed to be managed as a streamside management zone under the joint timber-wildlife option. The ($/cord ) (S/MBF, SC) streaaside nranagement zone will be managed for production of high quality hardwood saw-timber. High 20 166 Periodic harvests will be made every ten years. Med ium Economic returns for our two management options - 1) timber production only versus 2) Low joint timber-wildlife production are found in Table 4. Present net worth and annual equivalent values indicate that there is an opportunity cost associated with managing for both timber and wildlife. The timber revenue foregone column of Table 4 represents the opportunity cost of the amount of timber revenue that must be sacrificed date wildlife habitat enhancement. a/ Table 4.--Opportunity cost of providing improved wildlife habitat

S turnpage bnagement Present Net Annua 1 Timber Option Regime Worth Equivalent Revenue Foregone ($/ha> ------..------($1halyear I---- Timber Only 433.14 29.87 (175.29 (12.09) High 12.23 (4.95) Timber & 17.64 Wildlife (7.14)

Timber Only

Medium Timber & Wildlife Timber Only 57.55 (23.29) Low Timber & -68.32 Wildlife (-27.65) a/ Per acre values are in parentheses. A variety of options are available in Table 5.--Joint timber-wildlife economic returns forest management. Landowner objectives deter- for an annual leage rate of $12.36 per mine how forest holdings are managed. If the hectare per yeara' landowners objective is joint timber-wildlife production, loss of timber revenue can be offset Stumpage Present Annua 1 Revenue Gain Over by leasing hunting rights. What is an appropriate Option Net Worth Equivalent Timber Only Regime lease fee? Landowners will not incur a loss ($/ha) $ per hectare per yea: for increasing their management efforts if they ------charge leasees $8.70 to $12.23 per hectare per High 447.52 30.86 0.99 year ($3.52 to $4.95 per acre per year). Results (181.11) (12.49) (0.40) of a telephone survey of Alabama forest industry and large landowners revealed that current hunting Medium 316.53 21.84 2.50 leases range from $2.47 to $51.89 per hectare (128.14) (8.84) (1.01) per year ($1 to $21 per acre per year) with an average beginning $12.36 per hectare per year Low 123.13 8.50 4.52 ($5 per acre per year). Hunting lease fees are (49.83 (3.44) (1.83) extremely sensitive to management services provided by the landowner and to population levels Per acre values are in parentheses of the preferred game specie. For the moment, assume that the landowner can lease his land for $12.36 per hectare per year. This fee will buy The added income partially off sets a major the leasee the type of wildlife habitat provided drawback of timber investments for these owners, by the joint timber-wildlife management strategy namely, the long time period between initial identified in Table 1. expenditures and generation of revenues. Compared to the timber only strategy, a Owners of industrial forest land have a some- $12.36 per hectare per year lease fee will in- what different perspective on their role in cre- crease landowner revenue by $0.99 to $4.52 per ating and maintaining wildlife habitat diversity. hectare per year ($0.40 to $1.83 per acre per As Lewis (1983) notes, "Forest industry operates year) (Table 5). within a mixed market economy and owns forest land for one or more of three basic reasons. The DISCUSSION first of these is to insure an adequate supply of raw material for processing plants. The The most apparent conclusion from Table 5 is second is to speculate on the increased value of that net revenues from timber-wildlife mnagement both land and timber. The third is to earn a strategies exceed profits from timber alone. return from the biological growth on a forest This is of particular significance for non- property." industrial landowners since it gives them the opportunity to earn annual income from hunting. Diversity, a key component of wildlife habitat, within the intensively managed forest is the result Gunter, J. E., and H. L. Haney. 1984. Essentials of decisions relating to size, shape, and distribu- of Forestry Investment Analysis. Oregeon tion of pine plantations and the maintenance of State University Book Store, P. O. Box 489 other habitat types in streamside management zones Corvallis, OR 97339. 337 pp. and non-intensive management areas. Deviation from a c~r~oratelregionaltimber management Halls, L, K. 1975. Economic feasibility of strategy to enhance wildlife habitat diversity including game habitats in timber management increase the firm's direct costs. Some examples systems, Trans. N. Am. Wildlife and Natural include breadup of natural empartments into Resources Conference, 40:l68-176, separate units, and harvest and ~Flvicuftural treatmentsare not carried out at the optimum time. Hepp, T.E. 1985. YIEW-Timber Yield Forecasting McKee (1983) estimates these direct costs to range and Planning Tool (Version 1.4). Tenn. from $2.08 to $8.01 per hectare per year ($0.84 Valley Authority, Office of Natural Resources, to $3.24 per acre per year). On a per cubic foot Harris, Tn.. basis this amounts to additional costs of $0.08 to $0.32. Pine stumpage in Alabama is currently Lewis, D. K. 1983. Economic problems and const- $0.55 per cubic foot. Consequently, the direct raints facing industrial foresters in cost of enhancing wildlife habitat amounts to 14 considering wildlife needs. IN Creating to 58 percent of the stumpage value. This is Good Wildlife Habitat ~hrou~hyorest Manage- significant because it adds to investment cost ment and Conservation. Oklahoma State without increasing timber yield. Additional University Cooperative Extension Service, direct costs incurred by the firm include increased Stillwater, OK. 103 pp. road maintenance and fire protection, and control of public access. Martin, W. E,, R. L. Gum, and A. H. Smith. 1974 The demand for and value of hunting, fishing, SUMNARY AND CONCLUSIONS and general outdoor recreation in Arizona. Ariz. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 211, Managing for timber production only will Flagstaff, AZ. 56 pp. provide some habitat diversity. Enhancing wildlife habitat to a higher degree can only be achieved by McKee, C. W., W. E. Killcreas, and 3. E. Waldrop. altering silvicultural treatment and size, shape 1983. Methodology for assessing timber and and distribution of management units. These white-tailed deer habitat tradeoffs. Proc. r activities have a cost associated with them which Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc, Fish and Wild. can be measured by lost timber revenue. Agencies 37:103-117. Forests produce multiple outputs and are often managed on a multiple-use basis. Results from this analysis should help quantify the public relations cost associated with enhanced wildlife habitat.

Where joint timber-wildlife production is the goal, a careful analysis of market opportunities for lease hunting should be made. If the markets are there, all indications suggest that management for joint production of timber and wildlife is more profitable than timber alone. The possibility of hunting lease income should provide additional incentive to owners of forest land, especially nonindustrial landowners.

LITERATURE CITED

Bockstael, N. E,, and K. E. McConnell. 1978. Measuring the economic value of wildlife recreation: An-Evaluation of Techniques. Univ. of R.I., Dept, of Resource Econo., Kingston, R. I, Res. Pap. No. 10, 17 pp.

Gibbs, K. C. 1975. The economics of water- oriented outdoor recreation in the Kissimxttee river basin. Fla. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 679, Gainesville, FL 51 pp. Economic Benefits of Protecting Water Qua1 i ty 6ccrge E. Di ssmeyer and Bennett Foster

Abstract: Often water qua1 ity management is viewed as a c~t with no financial return for the investment, but protecting water quality for fisheries can have positive economic returns to the forest landowner. Many of the practices used to protect water quality are the same ones done to protect or improve soil productivity. Protecting or improving soi 1 productivity means more timber produced per acre, which is translated into economic returns to the landowner. Also, erosion and sediment control practices can save in road construction and maintenance costs.

level during the summer. Stuber et. al. (1982) identify maximum monthly average turbidity during Erosion produces sediment and sport fishery the growing season and substrate composition habitat is adversely affected by escessive sedi- within riverine pools and backwaters or 1 acus- ment. Erosion control in forests can provide trine littoral areas as factors that influence significant economic returns to landowners from largemouth bass. increased timber production, savings in site prep- arat ion, road construct ion, and road maintenance Stowell et, al. (1983) developed a model to costs. predict sediment yield and fish populations for Forest Land Management Planning in the Idaho In forest management, practices to reduce erosion Batholith, The model was built using available are often the same ones needed to maintain or research results and field data. The model was improve soi 1 productivity. For example, to lower vat idated to give reasonable estimates of fish erosion, ground cover is increased by leaving population responses to varying sediment yields. litter and debris in place. Also, care is taken from different management scenarios. The to decrease soi 1 compact ion and displacement . sediment yield model accounts for erosion from Reducing soi 1 exposure, displacement, and compac- various sources, estimates how much of the eroded tion leads to maintaining or improving soil pro- material enters the stream network, and is duEtivi ty, thus sustaining or increasing timber transported to the stream segment where a fish production. It is through maintaining or tmprov- response is approximated. ing timber growth and yields that landowners and ultimately society benefit economical ly Stowell et. al. (1983) presents several habitat (Dissmeyer 1985). and fish response curves fop sediment impacts. The percentage of fine sediment (particles in the SEDIMENT AND FISH HABITAT channel that are less than 6.4mm in diameter) rises as the percent sediment yield over natural Fine sediment has negative impacts on habitat for yield increases (Fig. 1). As sediment yield rainbow trout (salmo airdneri ), smal lmouth bass increases, embeddedness increases and the impact (micropterus doF?m7'argemouth bass upon fish increases. Embeddedness is a rating of micro terus salmoldes). Raleigh et, al. (1984) the degree the larger particle sizes (e.g., !hwohabitat factors for rainbow trout gravel, rubble, and boulder) are covered by fine that are adversely affected by increasing amounts sediment. of sediment: predominant substrate type in riffle-run areas for food production and percent The model developed by Stowel 1 et . at. (1 983) fines in riffle-run and spawning areas durin translates fine sediment and embeddedness into average sumer flows. Edwards et. al. (19833 estimates of percent fry emergence, sumner reports that fine sediments affect smal lmuth rearing capacity, and winter carrying capacity bass habitat suitability indexes for dominant for rainbow trout (Fig. 2). Fry emergence shows substrate type within pool, backwater or shoal a precipitous drop between 20 and 30% fine sedi - areas, and maximum monthly average turbidity ment and is near zero at 40% fines. Figure 1 suggests that increasing sediment by 100% over 1 / Regional Hydrologist and Economi st, respec - natural yields will increase fine sediment in the - ti vely, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, streambed from 20 to 30%. A 180% fncrease in Atlanta, GA. sediment yield would result in 40% fines. SEDImNT YIELD OVER NATURAL (%) Figure 1 - Sediment yield over natural versus EMBEPDEDNESS LEVEL (%) fines by depth response curve for "B" and "C" channels, and versus embeddedness. Clear- Figure 3 - Relationship between summer rearing water and Nez Perce National Forest's data. capacity (density of fish in numbers of fishlm and as a percentage) and substrate embeddedness in runs from age 0 and 1 rainbow trout.

PERCENT FaVE SEO#fN7'

Figure 2 - Fine sediment by depth versus alevin (fry) emergence response curve for rainbow steel- head trout.

For age zero rainbow trout, the summer rearing capacity in runs decreases from 10 to 2 fish per square meter as embeddedness increases from 0 to 100% (Figs. 3A and 38). Rearing capacity for one-year old rainbow trout drops from approxi- so 100 mately 3 to approximately .3 fish per square meter. Similar results are seen with the impor- EMBEDDEDNESS LEVEL (%) tance of embeddedness on the winter carrying Figure 4 - Relationship between winter carrying capacity in pools for young rainbow trout (Fig. capacity of pools (density of fish in numbers 4) of fishlm and as a percentage) and subtract embeddedness for age 0 rainbow trout. The previous information has demonstrates the linkage and importance of sediment yield to trout reproduction and the carrying capacity of are often thee same ones needed to maintain or streams. The same principles apply to smallmouth improve soi 1 productivity. and 1argemouth bass. These re1 at ionsh i ps are important to the fisheries biologist and the Oi ssmeyer (1 985) has summarized the basic prin- fisherman, but forest landowners are more inter- ciples of soil productivity as follows: ested in erosion and sediment control as it relates to returns on investments from their lana, 1. Site productivity is a function of site location, soi 1 productivity, species ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM SEDIMENT CONTROL selection, management, and mortality. Soil productivity is one factor in the Erosion and sediment control for fisheries can equation. If other factors are held also provide significant economic returns to constant, the impact of management on landowners. From increased timber production, soi 1 productivity can be determined, savings in site preparation, road construction, and road maintenance costs. As mentioned earl ier, 2. Three key soil factors affect forest the practices used to reduce erosion and sediment soil productivity: soil physical, chemi- Table 1. Analysis of Two Management Schedules on Site Productivity Light Site Prep. Heavy Site Prep. Si 1 vicul ture Value Per Wood Value Per Wood Year Treatment H~ctare ~3/ha Hectare ~3/ha (1984 $) (1984 $) 1984 Site Prep. /Tree Plantfng 1999 Thinning 252 64.2 pu 1pwood 180 46.0 pulpwood 201 0 Thinning 526 22.3 saw timber 331 5.3 saw timber 33.3 pu 1 pwood 22.0 pulpwood

2020 Final Harvest 2,422 133.5 saw timber 2,071 - 112.3 saw timber 15.2 pulpwood 22.0 pulpwood

Present Net Value (@4%) $623 Internal Rate of Return 12.4% 11

-1 / Based on 4% inf 1 at ion rate assumed.

cal and biotic properties. Silvicul- by soil compaction. The latter treatments also tural operat ions, such as harvesting, increased erosion and sediment yields over those site preparation and control led burning for the light site preparation, Patterson's data can increase or decrease soil pro- reveals that investing $123 per hectare ($50 per ductivity by altering one or more of acre) more in heavy site preparation reduced these three properties. Examples of present net value of the timber by approximately silvicultural impacts on soil properties $319 per hectare ($129 per acre) and reduce the include nutrient removal, soil compac- rate of return from tree growth by 2.3 real per- tion and soil displacement. centage points. The 7.5-meter (5-foot) decrease in site quality resulted in less sawtimber and 3. The amount of nutrients available at the more pulpwood per acre. Conversely, maintaining time of planting governs the rate of site quality yielded larger trees and more valu- seedling growth and early stand develop- able products. ment. A recent economic analysis of the watershed 4. Soil compaction can adversely affect tree management program for the Forest Service's growth and many years are needed for soil Southern Region showed that a 1.5-meter (5-foot) compaction to break down and the soil to site index difference on a 70-year sawlog rota- regain its original bulk density. tion, where the average site index was 70, resulted in a 28 cubic meter (7,000 cubic feet) 5. Growth differences observed during the higher yield of timber produced on the higher first 5 to 10 years of stand development index site. That decreased yield cost the pro- on upland sites will presist through a ducer $227 per hectare ($92 per acre) in yield, : pulpwood rotation and likely to a sawlog besides costing him $74 to $123 per hectare ($30 rotat ion. to $50 per acre) in site preparation costs. Several studies emphasize these principles and Logging operations with accompanying skid trails demonstrate economic feasibility of protecting and roads are sources of sediment. Primary skid soi 1 (Dissmeyer 1985). The way a site is pre- trails and roads are heavily compacted and exposed pared for planting can make a .9 to 4.3 meter (3 to erosion from repeated passes by skidding equip- to 14 foot) difference in site index for pine ment. Hatchell (1970) reports that primary skid planted in uplands, Patterson (1 984) evaluated a trails occupy an average of 12.4% of logged areas, 1.5-meter (5-foot) site index difference obtained secondary skid trails, 19.9%, and log decks, 1.5%. by protecting soil through light site preparation during a 36-year pulpwood rotation loblolly pine Froehlich (1979) found a moderate amount of soil (Pinus- taeda) in Alabama (Table 1). Light site compaction in the root zones of ponderosa pine preparation included practices such as chop and (Pinus ponderosa) reduced growth by 6% over a 1 ight burn or chop and herbicides, Both of these 1-r perlod. For heavily impacted root zones, approaches reduce soil exposure, soil displace- he beports growth was reduced by 12%. Wert and ment, erosion, and sediment. In contrast, heavy Thomas (1 981 ) found growth of 42-year-ofd Doug1 as site preparation, bulldozing and windrowing or fir (Psuedosuaa menziesii) in primary skid trails shearing and windrowing, impaired soi 1 produc- was reduced by 74% compared to trees growing in tivity by nutrient removal caused by pushing undisturbed soil. .i litter, debris and topsoil into the windrows, and Rotat ion 70 Harvest volume per hectare :gars 30'1 Value per cubic metk $a 28.57 Total value of timber per hectare for uncompacted soil $Y 8,500 Timber volume per acre on skid trails (26% of uncompacted soi 1 ) M 3 78 Timber volume lost per acre H3 223 Cost per hectare for skid trail rehabi 1 i tation _I/ $Y 900 Timber volume recovered (75% of loss) M 3 167 Va 1 ue of timber volume recovered $21 4,771 Internal rate of return based upon timber volume recovered %!/ 2.4 3.8 4 .E Net present value of timber volume recovered (@2%) $3 1,193 2,538 4,568 B/C ratio of rehab. cost Ratio 1.33:l 2.82:l 5.07:l

Average cost per acre of skid trail for waterbarring, ripping of disking, seeding, fertilizing, and mu 1ch i ng where needed. -2/ 1986 do1 lars. -3/ Percentage points over inf 1 at ion.

~atchell (1 970) lob101 1y pine (Pinus taeda) found Plain and Piedmont sites show that differences seedl ing establ i shment and earlywmpri - persist to the end of pulpwood rotations. The mary skid trails were adversely affected by growth curves presented by Di ssmeyer (1 985) and compaction. He suggested discing or subsoiling Amateis and Burkhart (1985) suggest that growth to break up the compaction and improve seedling difference would probably also persist through establishment and early growth. Hatchell (1981) 60-to 70-year sawlog rotations. Hatchel 1 (1 981 ) ti1 led and fertilized heavily compacted skid found that 4-year heights were the same between trai 1s and landings and obtained growth of seed- rehabilitated skid trails and uncompacted soil. lings through age 4, that was close to the growth Projecting to the end of a pulpwood rotation, the on undisturbed soil. trees in the former skid trails should be about the same as trees growing on the uncompacted The economics of primary skid trail and landings soil. For the purposes of this analysis, it was rehabilitation can be approximated using the data estimated that only 75% of the growth loss would of Wert and Thomas (1981). Benefits from skid be regained by skid trail rehabilitation. trai 1 rehabilitation for hardwood, hardwood/pine, dnd shortleaf pine on site index 70 (base 50 ke average cost to fully treat hectare of skid years) land is estimated (Table 2). trail is $900 ($360 per acre). Full treatment includes waterbarring, ripping or discing, seed- Evaluated sawlog rotations of 60 to 70 years were ing, fertilizing, and mulching where needed. The used. Table 2 shows the expected volume of present value of the timber productivity recov- timber per hectare and the value per cubic meter. ered ranges from $1,193 to $4,568 per hectare Wert 9 and Thomas' (1981) growth loss of 74% was ($477 to $1,827 per acre). The benef i tlcost used to predict growth of timber on roads and ratio for hardwood is 1.33, for hardwoodlpine - skid trails. The predictions showed 26% of the 2.82 and for shortleaf pine 5.07. timber volume on skid trails as compared to that - on undisturbed soil. Growth losses on skid The real rate of return over inflation ranges trai 1s ranged between 223 and 31 1 cubic meters from 2.4 to 4.8%. The real rate of return of (3,184 and 4,440 cubic feet) for the rotation. 2.4% for hardwood is comparable to low risk investments in government securities. The return Hatchel 1 (I 981) stated that long term growth of 3.8% for hardwoodipine is comparable to invest- could not be projected from his 4-year study on ments from low to medium risk incomelgrowth mutual the effects of compaction, but the data of funds. The 4.8% return for shortleaf pine is Dissmeyer (1985) and Amatei s and Burkhart (1985), comparable to returns from medium risk income/- on early (5-10 years) height differences between growth mutual funds, site preparation treatments on up1 and Coastal Table 3. Analysis of economic benefits of watershea treatments associated with roads. -

Nu 1 ch Mu 1 ch & Mulch Cost per kilometer - !$ 356 569 707 Cost per kilometer for soil and water technical services - $ 62 Total cost of watershed treatment - $ Benefits -in construction costs - $/t(m 31 1 31 1 31 1 Savings in annual maintenance costs - $/Km 186 186 - 186 Benefit /cost (1 0-year period) 4.4:l 2.9:1 2.4:l

-I/ Treatments included fertilization and liming where needea.

It appears from this analysis that investment in and water prescriptions, soils data, and review- skid trail rehabi 1 itation wi 11 reduce sediment ing the project in the field is approximately $62 yields and benefit fisheries, and will also bene- per kilometer ($100 per mile) . fit landowners economically, the more valuable the timber product grown, the greater is the The benefit to cost analysis of rehabilitating return on the investment, Investment in main- cut and fill slopes was limited in my analysis taining soil productivity can be as good as (Table 3) to a 10-year period. For a seed with- investments in some other long term options. out mulch treatment of cut and fill slopes, the benefitlcost ratio is 4.4. For seeding with Roads can be a major source of erosion and mulch, the ratio is 2.9. The B/C ratio for sediment and rehabilitation appears to be hydroseeding is 2.4. Therefore, the analysis economically justifiable. Reducing erosion and clearly shows that it is to the landowner's sediment from roads includes proper location, financial benefit to invest in soil and water drainage, surfacing and revegetating cut and fill consultation, and in revegetating cut and fill slopes. During a planning analysis, Jim Maxwell slopes on permanent access roads. 21 and engineers on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest found the inclusion of soi 1 and CONCLUSIONS water resource management in the 1ocatibon and construction of forest roads results in an The control of sediment that adversely affects - estimated $311 per kilometer ($500 per mile) fisheries is best controlled at its source. savings in construction costs and an estimated Controlling erosion and sediment at its source in annual savings of $186 per kilometer ($300 per forestry, generally means in site preparation mile) maintenance costs (Table 3). These savings areas, logging areas, and roads. Erosion control in construction costs come from avoiding problem at these sources can mean significant economic soils, wet areas, and unstable slopes, Main- benefit to the landowner through reduced road tenance savings are derived from the revegetated construction and maintenance costs, savings in cut and f i 11 slopes, which reduced erosion site preparation costs, by increased timber pro- from these sources and prolonged the time needed duction and larger returns on investments. Water for ditch lines to fill with sediment, Without quality and fisheries will also benefit. Proper revegetating cut and fill slopes, ditch lines soil and water resource management is good for need to be reconstructed one or more times a the upstream landowner, to the downstream fishery year. Vegetated f i 11 slopes are more stable and and water user, and to society in general. Soil less likely to erode or slump, thus fill slope and water conservation is not just a "nice thing maintenance costs are reduced. Also, proper to do", but makes good economic sense in forestry, spacing of road drainage decreases ditch and surface erosion. The costs of revegetating cut and fill slopes LITERATURE CITED ranges from $356 to $701 per kilomter ($573 to $1,128 per mile) depending on the amount of cut Amateis, R.L., and H.E. Burhart. 1985. Site and fill area per mile and the type of treatment index curves for loblolly pine plantations on needed (Table 3). The costs of preparing soi 1 cutover site-prepared lands. Sou. dour. Appl ied For. 9: 166-169. 21 Personal comunication and file data, * Dissmeyer, G.E. 1985. Economic impacts of erosion control in forests. In: Proceeedi ngs Southern Forestry Spp. Nat . Assoc, of Prof. Forestry School s and CO~1 eges . 1985 November 19-21, Atlanta, GA (In Press). Edwards, E.A., G. Gebhart, and 0.E. Maughan, 1983. Habitat suitability information: Smallmooth bass. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv. Pub1 ication FWS/OBS-82-7 0-36, 55 pp. Froehlich, H.A. 1979. Soil compaction from logging equipment: Effects on growth of young ponderosa pine. J. Soi 1 and Water Conserv. 34:276-278.

~atchell,G.E.9 C.W. Ralston, and R.R. Foil, 1970. Soil disturbances in logging: Effects on soil characteristics and growth of loblolly pine in the At1 antic Coastal Plain. J. For. 68: 772-775, Hatchel 1, G*E. 1981. Site preparation and fert i 1 i zer increase pine growth on soi 1 s compacted in logging. Sou. Jour. Applied For, 5: 79-83.

Patterson, T. 1984. Dollars in your dirt. A1 abama's Treasured Forests. Spring 1984: 20-21.

Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, ROC, Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitabi 1 ity information: Rainbow trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., FWS/OBS-82/1Oe6O=64 pp. Stowell, R., A. Espinosa, T.C. Bjornn, W.S. Platts, D.C. Burns, and J.S. Irving. 1983. Guide for predicting salmonid response to sediment yields in Idaho Batholith watersheds, U.S. Dept, Agric., Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT, and Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT., 95 pp, Stuber, R.J., G, Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Largemouth bass, U.S. Dept, Int, Fish and Wild1 ife Serv., Publication FWS/OBS-82-10-16. 32 PP* Wert, S., and B.R. Thomas, 1981. Effects of skid roads on diameter, height, and volume growth in Douglas-fir. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 45: 629-632. SECTION 11. FOmSTRy P~Q~~

Pine Plantations As Wildlife Habitat: A Perspective

A. Sydney Johnson

Abstract. -- Pine (Pinus spp.) forests in various stages of succession provide important seasonal habitat for many wildlife species, and open, frequently burned pine forests are crucial habitat for some species. But extensive aroken tracts of pure pine are not good habitat for wildlife in general. Historical evidence indicates that the great abundance of wildlife in precolonial southern forests resulted from a mixture of forest types with abundant old growth and substantial areas of openings and early successional forests interspersed. Extensive pine barrens supported relatively little wildlife, On pine sites the diversity of age classes provided by modern even-age forest management can provide good habitat for more vertebrate species than some of the original pine forests, but much depends upon how forests are managed. Hardwoods are essential for most wildlife species. The conversion and attempted conversion of hardwood sites to pine often has been counter to wildlife interests, but the current trend toward less intensive timber management on marginal sites probably is beneficial. The vagaries of economics will determine the place of wildlife in southern forests. In recent years the economic position of game animals relative to timber has improved and may provide additional incentive for incorpo- rating wildlife enhancement measures into forest management plms*

INTRODUCTION stands after crown closure were not good wildlife habitat. Thus, the "biological desert" paradip There has been much research on wildlife often fits individual pine stands after crown responses to intensive forest management and it closure. However, before crown closure, pine has been summarized and interpreted, frequently, stands provide excellent year-round or seasonal - in review articles (Speake 1970, Perkins 1974, habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The Johnson et al. 1974, Harris and Smith 1978, specific wildlife values of young pine stands Harris and Skoog 1980, Dickson 1981). Yet pine change rapidly. Therefore, if stands of differ- plantations continue to be discussed with strong ent ages are interspersed and key areas of opinions often based on inadequate information. hardwood are maintained, pine forests can be goo[ Some writers (e.9. Wheeler 1970) contend that the wildlife habitat, and timber and wildlife manage' diversity of age classes provided by intensive ment can be effectively and economically coordi- forest management results in more game animals nated. The discussion that follows develops than when the Indians were here; others (e.9. these points more fully. I thank P. E. Hale, 5. Margolin 1970) maintain that pine plantations are L. Landers, and J. M. Wentworth for reviewing the "biological deserts.". manuscript and providing helpful suggestions,

Evidence discussed in this paper indicates that wildlife was very abundant over most of the THE ORIGINAL FOmSTS Southeast "when the Indians were herew--not because the region was unbroken virgin forest, Most foresters and wildlife biologists but because there was great diversity, and assume that managed lands are more productive disturbance was frequent and extensive. Even than unmanaged or wild lands. And, knowing that then, however, there were areas of pure pine most wildlife species are favored by early stages forest that were regarded as "barrens" or of forest succession, many readily accept the "desert." Then, as now, open pine stands that conclusion that today's managed forests have more were frequently burned were important habitat wildllfe than those first encountered here by for some wildlife species, but fully stocked pine Europeans (e.g. McGinnes and Reeves 1958, Elder e

A. Sydney Johnson, Institute of Natural Resources and School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. 1965, Newsom 1969, Wheeler 1970). This conclu- The general composition and nature of the sion is supported by accounts of the scarcity of original forests (i.e., those encountered by the game encountered by the Lewis and Clark Expedi- earliest European colonists) can be reconstruct- tion (Thwaites 1959) and certain other explorers ed from early accounts and statistics (e.g. in the northwestern part of the continent. Nelson 1957, Rostlund 19571, analysis of corner However, for most of the eastern part of the and witness trees in land survey records (Jones continent, even a ~uperficialreview of histori- and Patton 1966; Rankin and Davis 1971; Pl cal literature will r$ise doubt about this 1975; and Delcourt and Delcourt 1974, 19771, and conclusion. Early travelers obviously were awed relatively detailed descriptions of remnant 5y the abundance and variety of wildlife and, forests in the late 1800% and early 1900's although some early writers are known to have (e.9, Ashe 1894; Mohr 1901, Dunston 1910, Harper exaggerated, there are so many similar reports 1914, 1920, 19431. It is clear from these that they cannot be dismissed. Many of these sources of information that, with some definite statements have been extracted and compiled for exceptions, the original forests of the South- wild turkeys j~efeagrisgallopavo) (Wright 1915) east were very diverse, with distinct forest and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) types that were closely related to soil types. jMcCabe and McCabe 1984) . The Piedmont forests, like those of the In addition to narratives, there are market Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Plateau and export records for skins and other commodi- regions, were mixed forests with a preponderance ties. Except for fish, the white-tailed deer was (53%) of oak (Quercus spp.). The red soils, the most important animal food of Indians in the which occupied 35-40% of the Piedmont, supported eastern states, and deer hides were important very little pine. Gray, sandy soils supported commercial items. Therefore, a good record mixed pine-hardwood forests, and only about 15% exists from which to judge its numbers. McCabe of the Piedmont was predominantly pine (Nelson and McCabe (1984:29) estimated that precolonial 1957, Plwnmer 1975). ~ndiansin what is now Canada and the United States consumed 4.6 to 6.4 million deer per Coastal Plain forest conditions were deter- year--about twice the number harvested in the two mined mainly by topography and soils interacting countries in 1982 (3.0 million--Stransky 1984: with fire. Pine forests were extensive. Sandy, 739). Yet, the age structure of the harvest as infertile uplands supported forests of almost determined from deer jawbones from Indian mid- pure longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). Ha2dwoods dens, indicates that a low percentage of the were excluded by soil characteristics and population was being harvested (McGinnes and frequent fire. In many areas pines were widely Reeves 1958:9 and Elder 1965). spaced and early accounts refer to extensive pine savannas (Plummer 1975) , but some of the In the late 1600's to the mid-1700's deer pine forests were described as very dense (Lane hides became the most important export item from 1973:148, 156). Where soils contained more the Southeast, and the rate of harvest greatly clay, hardwoods, especially oaks, were inter- increased. The number of hides exported from spersed among the pines and often dominated. Charleston, South Carolina, averaged 151,000 per Moist, fertile sites protected from fire often year from 1739 to 1765 (McCabe and McCabe 1984: supported magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), beech 26). These exports are in addition to deer hides (Fagus grandifolia), and other mesic hardwoods, used domestically by Indians and white colonists especially in the Gulf Coastal Plain (Delcourt and probably do not even include all deer export- and Delcourt 1974, 1977). About one-third of ed from South Carolina. Nevertheless, the the Black Belt was patches of prairie or savanna average annual export was almost three times the (S10 trees/acre) on alkaline soils, and the number of deer harvested in the state in 1982 forests, which occurred on the acidic soils, (54,321--Stransky 1984:739). Similar numbers of were only 5-10% pine (Jones and Patton 1966, deer hides were shipped from ports in Georgia and Rankin and Davis 1971). In Georgia about the Pensacola Florida-Mobile Alabama area, and one-third of the Lower Coastal Plain was hard- smaller numbers were shipped from other ports in wood, gum-cypress (~yssa-Taxodium), or cane these states (Young 1956:23; Wing 1965; McCabe (Arundinaria gigantea) swamp (Bartram 1792:28, and McCabe 1984:26). These harvest rates were Lane 1973:52). Along the slopes between the sustained for decades before deer populations swamps and the pine uplands, forests graded from diminished under the intense hunting pressure and hardwood to pine-hardwood to pine. A band of the increasing impact of white settlers. Narra- live oak (g. virginiana) forest extended inland tive accounts and other information indicate that a short distance from the coast (Plummer 1975). other game species also were present in much In the Carolinas, bays and pocosins supporting greater numbers than today, hardwood-cypress swamp, shrub bog, or wet prairie added other elements of diversity. of course there was much more habitat then, and this partly accounts for the large numbers The old growth forests must have produced and great diversity of wildlife. But it is clear mast in quantities difficult to imagine today, that densities of deer, wild turkeys, and other and the abundance of acorns and chestnuts species were very high in some areas. It is (Castanea dentata), clearly were important in instructive for the manager to examine precolo- supporting dense populations of turkeys, deer, nial forest conditions that supported such an passenger pigeons (Ectopistes migratorius), and abundance of wildlife. other species. But, over the Southeast as a whole, unbroken expanses of even-aged old growth into an American pine barren, it looks as if it forest were much less common than generally would never end" (Lane 1973:78). imagined. James Silk Buckingham travelled this route Indians were the major factor affecting the from Augusta to Coluxkbus, in 1828. Between forests, although lightning, wind, and ice Warrenton and Sparta, "our road fay almost wholly storms--often followed by fire--were also sig- through dense pine-forests, and the constant nificant forces of disturbance. Indians practiced succession of these trees, with scarcely any agriculture extensively, clearing land by gir- other variety, made the way gloomy and monoto- dling trees and burning (Swanton 1946~304-310). nou~.~Just west of Macon: .. , a dense forest Some areas near large towns were farmed contin- of pine-trees, the aspect of which was gloomy and uously, but many fields were cropped for only a monotonous in the extreme." And, still farther few seasons then abandoned for new clearings. west, "in the woods, the turtle-dove was the only Some of the abandoned fields became grasslands bird we saw in any numbers; a solitary mocking- maintained by repeated burning. Rostlund (1957) bird was occasionally seen; but though it was now made an extensive review of accounts of precolo- (early spring), we were never once cheered, in nial vegetation in the Southeast and concluded all our journey, by the sounds of the feathered that prairies and savannas made up a considerable choir, that make the woods of 'merry England' part of the region. He quoted references to redolent of song" (Lane 1973: 148, 156, 157). grasslands and cultivated fields in nearly every state and physiographic province from Virginia to These descriptions of some of the pine the Mississippi River. Some referred to grass- forests encountered by early settlers are strik- lands or savannas extending for miles. The ingly similar to those used by today's critics of Indian population over much of the Southeast was extensive pine plantations. Plwer's (1975) drastically reduced between 1560 and 1700 analysis of original land survey records showed (Swantqn 1946:ll-211, and some of the dense pine that the true pine flatwoods (southeastern forests described later may have been established Georgia) had very few tree species. The forest on abandoned Indian fields. he described would have had little midstory or woody understory and little mast production. The diverse pattern of vegetation that has These conditions were favorable for a relatively been reconstructed is consistent with the the few wildlife species. Outside the coastal accounts of abundant wildlife. The intermingling flatwoods and sandhills, especially on the Gulf of mature forests, deadened timber, savannas, slope, pine forests were more diverse (Plummer grasslands, and agricultural fields provided near 1975) and probably supported much more wildlife. optimum conditions for wildlife. The Indians, Although deer, bear (Ursus americanus), and wild probably unintentionally, practiced far better turkey used the pine forests and were abundant in wildlife habitat management than managers can at least parts of the pine region, they seem to affort to today. have been associated with the hardwood swamps that dissected much of the area. For example, However, wildlife was not uniformly abun- most early references to wild turkeys that dant. Although early writers seldom provided mentioned food or habitat conditions referred to enough detail for comparison of wildlife abun- oaks, acorns, or clearings (Wright 1915). dance in specific habitats, descriptions of extensive "pine barrensn in parts of the Coastal However, it is important to recognize that Plain contrast sharply with the often poetic frequently burned, open, mature pine forests were descriptions of the more diverse forests on then, and are today, crucial habitat for some better soils. species. These include endangered and other nongame species of special interest--such as the For example, John Davis, travelling through red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis, an "endless track of pines," between Charleston Hooper et al. 1980), gopher-tortoise and eastern and Georgetown, South Carolina about 1800, wrote indigo snake (Gopherus polyphemus and Drymarchon of the "awful solitude of the woods ... heard no corais couperi, Landers and Speake 1980)--and sound but that of a woodpeckern (Cheney 1910:138- important game species, such as the bobwhite 1391. quail (Colinus virginianus, Landers 1981).

Several English travellers wrote of a stage route along the fall line across Georgia before TOM'S NATURAL FORESTS 1830, John Melish in 1806 described the route about 25 miles south of Augusta, Georgia, as The original forests were cleared rapidly as "completely barren, and covered with pine trees agricultural settlement swept through the South ..." He was one of several travellers to use the in the early 1800's; the last remnants were cut term "desert" (Lane 1973:21, 26). Adam Hodgson, from 1880 to 1920. In most places original at Macon in 1820, wrote " ... from the fort the forest conditions cannot be restored-- soils have eye looks down on an unbroken mass of pine woods, been modified, the equilibrium of species has which lose themselves on every side in the been upset, and important species have been lost. horizon about twenty miles distantn (Lane 1973: Today's "natural" forests--those that regenerated 57). And Basil Hall, writing about the area naturally on cutover lands and lands abandoned southeast of Macon in 1828, said "When one gets from agriculture, 1865-1950--differ substantially from those they replaced. Because they regene- habitats. However, on wet flatwoods sites rated following severe and extensive disturbance naturally occupied by slash pine and unfavorable (agriculture or clearcutting), today's natural for growth of most hardwoods, natural and stands are more nearly even-aged and, of course, planted stands are more similar in species much younger than the original forests. Those on composition than on other sites. On such an abandoned agricultural fields usually have little area in southeastern Georgia, Johnson and woody understory. Landers (1982 and unpublished) compared mid- summer bird populations, small mammals, and .I In the piedaront, soil-disturbance and certain vegetational characters in 40 slash pine lowered site quality resulting from erosion have plantations 11 to 28 years old and an equal a.llowed loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) to become number of naturally regenerated slash pine dominant on sites fornterfy occupied by hardwood stands of the same ages. The naturally regene- or mixed stands, and on most pine sites loblolly rated stands were less densely stocked with pine has displaced shortleaf pine (2. echinata). pines than the plantations, which had 40-60% ~onversely,in much of the Coastal Plain agricul- more trees. Canopy closure occurred later and tural fertilization and fire exclusion have woody understory cover was about 20% more dense allowed hardwoods and slash pine (P. elliottii) in the naturally regenerated stands. Reflecting to invade sites originally occupied by longleaf the earlier canopy closure of the plantations, pine, unfortunately, much of the hardwood density and number of species of summer resident

-invadinq the pine type is of relatively little birds were lower in plantations than natural value to wildlife because it consists of species stands at ages 11-15. But, after age IS, such as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). And despite continued differences in understory and ,ithout selective thinning or burning or both, overstory density of the two types of stands, even desirable species usually remain suppressed differences in bird populations were not detect- in the understory and contribute little mast, able. Trapping success for small mammals was browse, or cavities. But, where wildlife is a mostly related to local site variation (soil major objective in management, as on some public drainage), and differences between natural and lands and game plantations, naturally regenerated planted stands were not evident. pine forests managed on a long rotation with frequent prescribed burning are near optimum Because plantations are, by definition, habitat for many species. managed systems, their wildlife value cannot be assessed without consideration of the management Naturally regenerated pine stands are still practices applied to them. If optimizatick of common on private nonindustrial lands and on timber management as the sole objective could be public lands, but on most forest industry lands realized, most wildlife would be affected they have been replaced by plantations. adversely and there would be no place for some species. Many of the goals of intensive timber management seem contrary to the goals of wild- PINE PLANTATIONS life habitat management. For example, wildlife habitat managers usually strive for a diverse plantations differ from today's natural overstory, sparsely stocked to allow understory stands in several respects. Whereas many natural development, and a long rotation with trees old stands regenerated following high-grade logging, enough to produce good mast crops and form most plantations follow agriculture or intensive cavities. Commercial timber growers want full mechanical site preparation and have less residu- site occupancy by the commercially desired al hardwood rootstock. In some areas drainage species, a short time between investment and and other site preparation allows conversion of return on the investment, high growth and yield cypress or hardwood sites to pine sites, Pine rates, and economic efficiency in management, plantations are more uniform in species composi- These timber management goals are pursued by tion, spacing, and age than are natural stands, full stocking, elimination of competition, short and they are usually managed on a short rotation. rotations, use of genetically improved strains, Generally, these differences would have to be fertilization, large management units, mechani- regarded as unfavorable to wildlife. But, it zation, and a high-density road system. If would be too simplistic to conclude that natural these goals were fully achieved, the intensively stands are always better wildlife habitat. managed forest would indeed be very poor wildlife habitat. This view of pine plantations Because plantation establishment replaces caused many wildlife biologists during the one type of habitat with a very different one, it 1950's and 1960's to dismiss industrial forest is difficult to compare plantations with natural lands as hopeless, stands without carefully replicated experimental studies over a long period of time. Thus, most In the 1970's several things became evident published studies have compared plantations with that caused many biologists to change their natural stands of different and highly variable views. First, because of various econornic and species composition and generally of different public relations incentives and sometimes age (Harris et al. 1974, Noble and Hamilton 1975, personal interests of managers or executives, Dickson and Segelquist 1979, Hurst and Warren wildlife often is given consideration in the 1980, Repenning and Labisky 1985). As would be management of industrial forests. Second, even expected, these studies usually show substantial- where the goals of timber management are pursued ly different wildlife values for the different intensively and single-mindedly, they are rarely achieved because of economic, topographic, and hardwood sites rather than having them dispersed environmental limitations. And finally, biolo- within pine stands. gists recognized that the 30,000,000 or so acres of industrial forest land in the Southeast offers Wildlife may be most effectively incorpor- a great opportunity to increase wildlife produc- ated into timber management by planning the size, tion, hunting, and other wildlife-oriented shape, and arrangement of stknds and scheduling recreation. harvest and intermediate treatments for desired wildlife benefits. Ideally, the pattern should Before crow closure, pine plantations of be such that all the needs of a species are different ages provide excellent year round fulfilled in any area of home range size on the habitat for early successional species--such as tract. This ideal is rarely achieved? and if a quail, rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), small variety of wildlife species are considered, it als, and their predators--and seasonal may be impossible. The goal is best approached habitat for many other species, including impor- by careful juxtaposition of small stands so that tant game animals such as deer and turkey. diversity and patchiness are maintained. But it Wildlife use of young pine plantations has been is important that critical habitats are connected intensively studied and is the subject of many by corridors and streamside management zones, publications (e.g. Brunswig and Johnson 1972, Otherwise habitats may become fragmented into Johnson et al. 1974, Atkeson and Johnson 1979, scattered islands too small to support breeding Landers and Buckner 1979, Buckner and Landers populations and too isolated for use by other 1980). It is clear from these studies that, by populations. This aspect of management is providing a mosaic of different age classes, discussed by Harris and Smith (1978), Buckner and managed pine forests may support a variety of Landers (1980), Harris and Marion (1982), and wildlife species and greater abundance of some Harris (1983) . species than the original unbroken pine barrens. But a hardwood component must be maintained on Intensity of management within stands also hardwood sites for animals, such as gray is an important consideration. Decisions regard- squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and many species ing site preparation, planting, and intermediate - of wood warblers (Parulidae), that depend on treatments such as fertilization, chemical weed hardwoods and to provide mast, which is important control, prescribed burning, and thinnings can to wild turkeys, deer, bear, raccoons (Procyon greatly affect wildlife, and several papers on lotor), and other wildlife. this program elaborate on certain of these. Others are discussed by Johnson et al. (1974), If wildlife is given consideration in Buckner and Landers (1980), and Landers (1985). management planning, many wildlife enhancement If the wildlife objective is considered in these measures can be incorporated at little cost, activities, benefits may be obtained at little or especially considering other environmental and no cost to the timber objective. public relations benefits and the market potential for wildlife-related recreation. Because of Finally, the responses of vegetation and economic factors, the trend in the forest wildlife to silvicultural practices may differ industry at this time is toward less intensive drastically at different places and different management on marginal sites. Furthermore, the times depending upon site characteristics, economic position of game species relative to previous use of the land, and weather conditions. timber production has improved significantly in Site is an especially important consideration. - the last few years. These trends, if they Foresters generally are acutely aware of the continue, should result in increased opportuni- importance of site in timber management, but they ties for management of at least some important often fail to recognize that site characteristics game species. may dictate different strategies in wildlife habitat management. Some sites seemingly resist Guidelines for coordination of timber and management; others respond readily (Johnson et wildlife management in southern forests are al. 1974, Landers 1985). Johnson et al. (1986) already available (Johnson et, a1 1974, Harris pointed out that in deer management, blanket et. a1 1979, Buckner and Landers 1980, Harris and prescriptions across a variety of sites may Marion 1982, and Landers i985), and other papers benefit deer populations in some areas and have in this session deal with the economics and adverse effects in others. application of specific forestry practices. But a few generalizations can be offered. In summary, pine plantations alone can not fully meet the needs of all wildlife species, but The most challenging aspect of coordinating they can provide good habitat for many species. short-rotation timber and wildlife management, Much depends upon how they are managed. The obviously, is maintenance of areas of mature wildlife habitat managers' goal, which must be hardwoods and old-growth pine, Site conversion pursued with an acute awareness of economic (e.9. drainage) and streamside management zones reality, is to arrange stands so as to maintain a are perhaps the most important issues in timber- pattern of high diversity in structure, age, and wildlife coordination. Maintaining units of timber types and to maintain mast-producing hardwood and old growth, linked by travel hardwoods on hardwood sites to the extent feas- corridors and streamside management zones, is ible. crucial to the wildlife objective. In general it a is best to maintain hardwoods in stands on ----- , and W. R. Marion. 1982. Forest stand scheduling for wildlife in the multiple use Asher W, g. 1894. The forests, forest lands, and forest. Proc. Annu. Convention soe. ~m, forest products of eastern North Carolina. For. (1982): 209-214. ~~~thcarolina Geol. Surv. Bull, No. 5. 128 ----- , and P. J. Skoog, 1980. Some wildlife habitat-forestry relations in the south- PP Atkeson, T. D.' and A. 2. Johnson. 1979. Succes- eastern Coastal Plain. Proe. Annu. For, afs on pine plantations in Symp. (Louisiana State Univ.) 29:103-119. kt. Am. Midl. Nat. -----,and W. H. Smith. 1978, Refations of 101:385-392- forest practices to non-timber resources W. 1792. Travels through North and South and adjacent ecosystems. Pages 28-53 in T, Carolinat Georgia, East and West Florida. Tippen, ed. Principles of maintaining 1973 facsimile of the 1792 Edition. Beehive productivity on prepared sites, Proc. press, savannah, Ga. 534 pp. Symp. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Senr., South- Brunsvig, g. L,, and A. S. Johnson. 1972, Bob- east Area State and Private For. and South, white pail foods and populations on pine For, Exp. Stn. plantations in the Georgia Piedmont during ----- , L. D. White, J. E. Johnston, and D. 6. the first seven years following site prepa- Milchunas. 1974. Impact of forest planta- ration, proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. tions on north Florida wildlife and habi- Game and Fish C0lIlm. 26~96-107. tat. Proc, Annu. Conf. Southeast, Assoc, Bucknerf J. L., and J. L. Landers, 1980, A Gme and Fish Comm. 28:659-667. forester's guide to wildlife management. Hooper, R, G,, A. F. Robinson Jr., and J. A. Int, pap. Co. Southlands Exp, For. Tech. Jackson. 1980, The red-cockaded woodpecker: ~~11.NO. 10- 16 pp* notes on life history and management. U.S. Cheney, J, v., ed, 1910. Travels of John Davis in For. Serv. Gen. Rep. SA-GR9. 8pp. the United States of America 1798 to 1802. Hurst, G. A*, and R. C. Warren, 1980. Intensive privately printed. Boston, Mass. v. 1, pine plantation management and white-tailed 181 PP* deer habitat* Annu. For. Synp. (Louisiana Delcourt, H. R., and P. A. Delcourt. 1974. State Univ.) 29:90-102. primeval magnolia-holly-beech climax in Johnson, A. S., P. E. Hale, J. M. Wentworth, and Louisiana. Ecology 55:638-644. J. S. Osborne. 1986. Are we really managing ,,---I and P. A. Delcourt. 1977. Presettlement deer populations? Abstr. Annu. ~outhegst rnagnolia-beech climax of the Gulf Coastal Deer Study Group Meet. 9:9-10. Plain: quantitative evidence from the ----- , and J. L. Landers. 1982. Habitat rela- ~~~alachicolaRiver bluffs, north-central tionships of swer resident birds in slash Florida. ECO~O~Y58:1085-1093. pine flatwoods. J. Wildl, Manage. 46:416- Dickson, J. G. 1981. Impact of forestry practices 428, on wildlife in southern pine forests. Proc, ----- , 3. L. Landers, and T. D. Atkeson. 1974. Annu. Convention Soc. Am. For. (1981): 224- Wildlife in young pine plantations. Pages 230. 147-159 & Proc. symp. on management of _----, and C. A. Segelquist. 1979. Breeding bird young pines. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., populations in pine and pine-hardwood Atlanta, Ga. forests in Texas, J, Wildl. Manage. Jones, A. S., and E. G. Patton. 1966. Forest, 43:549-555. "prairie," and soils in the Black Belt of Wnston, C. E. 1910. Preliminary examination of Sumter County, Alabama, in 1832. Ecology the forest conditions of Mississippi. 47: 76-80. Mississippi State Geol. Surv. Bull. No. 7. Landers, J. L. 1981. The role of fire in bob- 132 pp. white quail management. Pages 73-80 in G. Elder, W. H. 1965. Primeval deer hunting pres- W. Wood, ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife sures revealed by remains from American in southern forests. Proc. Symp. Belle W. Indian middens. J. Wildl. Manage. 29:366- Baruch For. Sci. Inst. Clemson Univ. 370. Georgetown, S.C. r~ R. 1914. Geography and vegetation of ----- . 1985. Integrating wildlife and timber mrthern Florida. Annu. Rep. Florida State management in southern pine forests. Pnt. sum. 6:163-451. Pap. Co. Southlands Exp. For. For. Manage. ----- v320* Resources of southern Alabama, Guidelines No. 8. 12 pp. GeO1* Sum* i+dabama Spec. Rep, No. 11. 152 ----- , and J. L, Buckner. 1979. Ground dove use -----PP of young pine plantations. Wilson Bull. a 1943. Forests of Alabama. Geol. sum. 913467-468. Monogr. 10. 230 pp. ----- , and D, W, Speake. 1980. Management needs L* 1983- An island archipelago model of Sandhill reptiles in southern Georgia. maintaining biotic diversity in old- Proc. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. growth forests- Proc. Annu. Convention sot. Agencies 34:515-529, ---..-AHI* For* (1983):378-382, Lane, M., ed. 1973. The rambler in Georgia. ' '* Hirth~and W. R. Marion, 1979, The Beehive Press, Savannah, Ga. 233 pp. of silvicultural systems for Margolin, M. 1970. Desert under the trees. Nat. Proc. Annu. For. Symp. (Louisiana Parks and Conserv, Mag. 44 (279):8-13. Un1v.f 28;65-80, McCabe, R. E., and T. R. McCabe. 1984. Of slings bird communities of the longleaf pine forest and arrows: an historical retrospection. in northern Florida. J. Wildl. Manage. Pages 19-72 L. K. Halls, ed, White- 49:1088-1098. tailed deer ecology and management. Rostlund, E. 1957. The myth of a natural prairie Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. belt in Alabama: an interpretation of McGinnes, B. S,, and J. H. Reeves, Jr. 1958. Deer historical records. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. jaws from excavated Indian sites let us 47:392-411. compare Indian-killed deer with modern deer. Speak, D. W. 1970. Even-aged forest management Va. Wildf. 19 (12) :8-9, and wildlife habltat. Proc. Southeast. Mohr, C, 1901. Plant life of Alabama. Geol. Assoc. Game and Fish Csm. 24:1-4. Sum, Alabama, Montgomery. 921 pp. Stransky, J. J. 1984. Hunting the whitetail. Nelson, T, C. 1957. The original forests of the Pages 739-780 L. K. Halls, ed. White- Georgia Piedmont. Ecology 38:390-396. tailed deer ecology and management. Newsom, J. D. 1969. History of deer and their Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. habitat in the South. Pages 1-4 in white- Swanton, J. R. 1946. The Indians of the south- tailed deer in the southern forest habitat. eastern United States. Smithsonian Inst. Proc. Symp. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 137. 943 pp. + 107 South. For. Exp. Stn. plates. (1979 reprint) . Noble, R, E., and R. B. Hamilton. 1975. Bird Thwaites, R. G., ed. 1959. Original journals of populations in even-aged loblolly pine the Lewis and Clark Expedition 1804-1806. forests of southeastern Louisiana. Proc. Antiquarian Press Ltd., New York. 8 vols. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Wheeler, P. R. 1970. The South's third forest. Comm. 29:441-450. J. For. 68:142-146. Perkins, C. J. 1974. Silvicultural practice Wing, E. S, 1965. Early history. Pages 5-12 impacts on wildlife. Pages 43-48 in J. P. R. F. Harlow and F. K. Jones Jr. The Slusher and T. M. Hinckley, eds. Proc. white-tailed deer in Florida. Florida Game timber-wildlife management symp. Missouri and Fresh Water Fish Comm. Tech. Bull. No. Acad. Sci. Occas. Pap. 3. 9. Plummer, G. L. 1975. 18th century forests in Wright, A. H. 1915. Early records of the wild Georgia. Bull. Ga. Acad. Sci. 33:l-19. turkey. IV. Auk 32: 207-224. Rankin, H. T,, and D. E. Davis. 1971. Woody Young, S. P. 1956. The deer, the Indians and the vegetation in the Black Belt prairie of American pioneers. Pages 1-27 W. P. Montgomery County, Alabama, in 1845-46. Taylor, ed. The deer of North America. Ecology 52:716-719. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. Repenning, R. W., and R. F. Labisky. 1985. Effects of even-age timber management on Prescribed Burning for Managing Wildlife in Southeastern Pine Forests . J. Larry Landers

Abstract,--Reports involving today's wildfires or prescribed burns often fail to recognize fire's primal influence on wild animals, There is much ecological evidence that recurring fires have been a long-standing, evolutionary agent of habitat change to which native species are adapted in the Southeast, Wildlife mortality from flames or smoke is generally insfgnificant in southern forests. Many upland, resident species thrive in herb-shrub stages that occur in post-f ire suc~essionbeneath pine (Pinus spp ,) canopies, and these species diminish when hardwood overstories begin to overshade lower plant strata. Wildlife species characteristic of complete hardwood overstories should be maintained on true hardwood sites where fire rarely penetrated naturally. Brushy patches, inclusions of deciduous subcanopies, and groups of large living and dead hardwoods add diversity to open pine forests with grassy-forb groundstories. Interspersion could be enhanced in the short term by spot burning under moist conditions together with protection of selected parcels, but on many sites a hotter fire is needed periodically to refurbish the open pine community. Research is needed to determine the proportion at which habitat components should be placed together to support different wildlife assemblages. Low-term studies of the effects of fire or its exclusion on forest co also help land managers choose appropriate burning schedules to reach wildlife objectives,

INTRODUCTION unknown. Thus, wildlife management is primarily involved with on-the-ground judgment guided by Ecologists have long recognized that observations, and the use of prescribed burning to lightning-set fires must have been a recurring influence wild animal populations is still very force in original forests of the Southeast for at much an art. least 8000 years (Harper 1911, Heyward 1939). Thus, there are many examples that show resident This report summarizes the effects of fire on wildlife species to be adapted to fire, if not selected wildlife species and fire's relation to dependent upon it, 1)uring most of that period habitat management in southeastern pine forests. American Indians apparently set fires to drive I appreciate the helpful coments on this gaae as well as to meet other objectives. Natural manuscript by James G, Dickson, Lowell K, Halls, fire regimes were further altered by settlers-- A, Sydney Johnson, Roy Komarek, Brad S. Mueller, through range burning with livestock grazing, and Dan We Speake. extensive farming, and lumbering--and by subsequent eras of fire protection and modern land uses I DIRECT EFFECTS OF FIRE

By the time research-based wildlife Some behavioral reactions of vertebrate magement emerged in this country (early 1920s) animals to burning have been summarized in a there were no virgin tracts left in the Southeast report pertaining mostly to wildfire (Lyon gji a. remote or large enough to experience lightning-set 1978). It has been cornonly observed that less fire at its natural frequency, The historical rnobile species, such as small rodents, are most relationships between fire, natural plant likely to panic while larger animals usually move co-nities, and wild1ife niches are essentially calmly during a fire, White-tailed deer

J* Larry Landers, Station Director, Tall Timbers Research Station, Rt. 1, Box 678, Tallahassee, Florida 32312 ( are known to congregate require specxes-by-species accounts fir thorough on burned-over range and lick the ash residue, discussion. Such detailed analyses are beyond &, apparently to obtain minerals. Upland game birds, scope of thia report. Therefore, general raptors and many snraller birds often are attracted conclusions of several publications are present% to fire or to the smoking landscape as foraging here to form overviews of wildlife groups. sf tes , Reptiles and hphibians Deaths of wild animals are seldom attributed to fire in the Southeast. Apparently, birds kbitats of herps span the entire ~lloisture rarely succumb to fires (Bendell 1974). Means and gradient from xeric to aquatic. Certain very dry Campbell (1981 ) noted deaths of several glass forest types in the southeastern Coastal Plain lfzards ( spp .) and several dimondback inhabited by species which travel in loose sand rattlesnakes ( ) in mid-ecdysis (sand-swimers) or live just above sandy ( preshedding s f prescribed substrates. This group depends upon sites open at burning, but they went on to say that very few ground level, particularly those associated with herps are thus killed in southeastern forests. patches of turkey oak (mlaevis) within Similarly, review papers edited by Wood (1981) longleaf pine (Pinus Dalusfrisj-wiregrass listed no fire-induced mortality of tree (ma) communities or young sand pine f'urbearers, or black bears (w (2. stands (Capbell and Christ~lan1982). 1, Hill ( 1981 ) reviewed mortalities of Beca d ridges must have periodic fire to northern and western habitats caused by keep dense hardwoods from dominating the landscape wildfires or intense summer burns, but he did not (Bozeman t971), reptiles keyed to these open list specific incidents involving southeastern habitats are considered likewise dependent, forests, However, after a fast-moving Another sand ridge reptile, the gopher tortoise experimental fire through a South Florida prairie, ( -1, burrows and nests in sunlit Taylor (1981) recovered carcasses of five marsh sites and thrives on herbaceous plants that are rabbits ( on a 20-ha. plot; dependent on frequent fire; several other rare or some degree of susceptibility of this species was threatened herps and many common species utilizing noted previously by Komarek ( 1969) , The more tortoise burrows are indirectly benefited by fire widespread cottontail (3. floridanus) seems to (Landers and Speake 1980 . easily escape flames, as do most of the smaller mammals which inhabit upland sites. The ability Mesic forests support a less site-specific of small mammals to go underground or to emigrate herpetofauna, For example, Means and Campbell apparently accounts for the scant evidence of (1981) captured 38 species in a study conducted in mortality from heat or suffocating smoke (Taylor northern Florida red hills. Three amphibian and 1 1981 1. reptile species were predominantly in annually burned pine forests, and 3 amphibians were In a review by Stransky and Harlow (1981) no predominantly in hardwood hammock; the rest were records of deer death by fire were noted. But not clearly site specific. These authors also recently, Osborne a. ( 1986) documented summarized results from a summer burn in longleaf numerous deer deaths in a North Carolina pocosin pine flatwoods and from a winter burn in slash after a wildfire had moved through during a dry pine (mm) flatwoods. The overall period ; carcasses were typically found in trap take reached a new high one month post -smoldering hollows within the peat soils. Deer burning on the longleaf site, and the herp species mortality to this eptent has not been reported in dependent on surface cover did not show a other southeastern habitat types and most likely population decline after the burn; 26 species were did not occur under natural fire regimes. active throughout the burned area. In the slash pine study there was no noticeable decline in trap Indications are that fast-moving burns in take of any species following winter burning. habitats of the less mobile species would likely be involved when death results. When mortality Very little information is available does occur, it is usually negligible at the regarding the more aquatic herps. Those which population level (Lyon a. 1978). A proper thrive in or adjacent to sizable water bodies are evaluation should include the effective loss to probably affected very little by fire. The the population in relation to losses that would American alligator ( have occurred through other causes had the burn and associated marsh animals benefit from not taken place (cf. Cringham 1958). Most occasional burning of shoreline vegetation (Lyon undesirable direct effects can be overcome by ef, d. 1978). Species which inhabit small bogs, choosim proper times, places, and methods for such as the pine barrens treefrog (tfY1EL prescribed burning, )* depend on fires to prevent woody plants from dominating their sites (Means and Moler 1979). INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF FIRE Much more research is needed to clarify Fire makes its most important impact on relationships between fire and herp species* wildlife through habitat alteration. There are However, existing data indicate that prescribed many variables involving vegetation types, soil burning benefits mostospecies native to southern properties, topography, animal niches, and pine forests (Means a~dCampbell 1981). characteristics of individual fires that would Birds vegetation; it selects against those dependent on deciduous canopy foliage, midstory trees, or Fire is one of the most important factors litter accumulation; and @edgespeciesff my depend determining the abundance of forest birds, Avian on a habitat interface Such as occurs at the edge food resources are strongly affected by burning, of burns or around hardwood islands within open Total seed production peaks the first growing pine forests. after fire and.. quickly decreases thereafter (~~~knerand Landers J 979) Fleshy fruits are The fertility of pine sites my hare a severely reduced the first year after a fire pronounced influence on bird habitat development, exceptin cases where the more fire-tolerant Studies in slash pine stands show that winter species such as dogwood (w -) Or burning has little overall effect, apparently beautyberry ( are present. because resident birds resume site faithfulness These plants may actually produce more fruits at imediately afterwards (Wen 1930) and because thistime, In open pine flatwoods, fruits of subsequent midstory recovery is too slow to shrubs peak three to five years thereafter mrkedly effect bird diversity, at least during 5- ( Johnson and Landers 1978) Understory burning year burn intervals (Johnson and Landers 1982), my induce longer-term reduction of most soft mast Since warm-season fires formerly entered these on certain upland pine-hardwood sites (Lay poor soil habitats every few years (Wharton 1978) 1956). and these fires inhibit hardwoods and shrubs much more than winter burns, it is probable that litter-dwelling forms of invertebrates deciduous canopy birds were originally restricted *aten by birds are reduced by ground fires in the to wet hardwood drains rather than being co term; herbivorous insects quickly increase residents of pine stands, This deduction might with the regrowth of S~Cculentplants; and certain also apply to the infertile, dry soils of the of flies and beetles are drawn to the Coastal Plain where summer fires thoroughly smke and heat, or later, to damaged trees inhibited hardwoods, On the other hand, the mesic ( DickSOn I 981 ). These changes may affect clay regions (parts of the Coastal Plain and reproductive success because arthropods supply ~iedmont)probably experienced natural fires less nutrients for breeding birds, frequently and responded quickly after a burn, Bush birds and midstory leaf-gleaners would most The physical makeup of bird habitat is also likely inoreaae with the r~pidpost-firs - of great importance. Structurally complex areas sucaeesion, They were probably ephemeral in generally support a greater diversity of birds richer pine forests a8 well as regular residents than uniform habitats, so fire can strongly of hardwood flats. influence the composition of avian assemblages throw its effects on vegetation, Diversity and abundance of birds would be enhanced in areas with a mixture of grasslands and ares st &&,--Only general multilayered hardwoods interspersed in open pine dimU re available on most resident birds forests. These diverse conditions can be achieved in the southeast. Conner ( 1981 drew several by applying fires that result in patchy vegetation pertinent conclusions regarding cavity users* He (spot burniag under moist oonditions, etc,) and by pointed out that woodpeckers and ~econdarycavity sparing selected hardwood areas from fire, umrs will decline where fire eliminates snags. ~mlarly, the ignition of pine gum associated Uofand -,--Habitat requirements of with rsd-oockaded woodpecker (- borealis) upland game birds have been thoroughly studied but =ti ties oan reduce nest sites which are a very there are still many gaps in knowledge of fire ltritsd resouroe in most of today's forests* effects, Mourning doves (wm) Certain foods of woodpeckers can dwindle when fire commonly forage on fresh burns (Stoddard 1963a). reduces litter-dwelling insects, deciduous foliage Such bare areas are particularly important where wlpporting oaterpillars, and the availability of doves do not have access to the kinds of seeds .owns and other important f'ruits. Conner ( 1981) produced by mechanical soil disturbance, It might "Idlo listed soms potential benefits: new snag8 be deduced that, before manes influence, the o created by burns, especially in old- mourning dove had to be a follower of fresh burns orests; low, open understories because it generally does not scratch in litter iatic of burned areas are essential to for seeds, nor does it alight in dense vegetation ded woodpeckers; production of certain when feeding, The tendency for doves to nest in &&tanafter the breeding season can small trees or occasionally in lower plant strata tmmm with prescribed burning; many bird also indicates that periodic fire may have been drawn to residual foods in burned-over beneficial in providing early successional stages. a* fire provides open feeding grounds capture ants, grasshoppers and 9'0u'* Gallinaceous game birds are affected by fire CoaPlait~of the potential negative in several ways, Parasites that infect this bird "* mitiv* effects on cavity-users points out group are reduced by burning (Stoddard 1931, Metz arch On maintaining needed and Farrier 1975, Ahlgren 1974, Bendell 1974, careful burning techniques, Jacobson and Hurst 19791, In pine forests, a nriw of songbirds, Dickson ( 1981 ) bobwhite (u ) and wild turkey iatm(.d mat burniw favors the species C~OM~Y ( ) brood habitat consists s or early successions1 primarily of recently burned herbaceous vegetation (Stoddard 1931, EX= 1985) Cool weather foods of quail and turkey that 'blue dartern hawk) are primary predators of tlrcr increase the first year after burn&- include biFds thslt Plre abundant in fire-mintained gape legumes and certain other large-seeded herbs, lands in the Deep South, bny shrubs and Ptidstory tress will inoregse frmit production if burned occasionally, Because acorn Beoausa hawks nest mainly in liviag hmMrm, proauotion declines in l~anyarsas with frequent and the more widespread oul species nest in be burning, protection of oak patches has been cavities, fire has the potential to adoerrnip recornended in habitat =--ant of' both quail affeot reproduction if it is intense eaow to (~c~aeg& s;L8 1978) and twkeg (m~isS;311661) destroy nest tress. LQht winter burniog pr&&ll doss no substantial h 1 winter burning over most of' a area fa esssntial to ntaintrniniag opulations of quail in pine forests eriodit ( Stoddard 1931 , Speaks 19661. dlthow responses eeping the substrate open of turkey populations are less clear, studies of for burrowing, as well as mintai important requimsents (plant fmd diversity, successioaal stages for the herp- insect production, brocxd-rmring sites, atc, ) on which this owl depends. indicate that oocasioaal burning is necessary to keep pfne-doanated forests from becodng choked with brush (Burst 1981). Re habitat mintenanoe range fr A variety of 1s inhabit each stage of brood areas at least every other year (Ekw 1985) understory adsubcanopy development in southern to a general interval of once every three years pine forests, Wo single species satisfies all of ( Stoddard 1963b). Burning before the nesting its iraraasonal needs in any one unifom stage, season is often recommend Rat$er, their dietary and structural requirennsntrc areas burned each year th are partially in opposition because of competition regular production of gre for sunlight within a stratum and progressive and others every 2-4 yew8 to insure dominance of taller strata over shorter ones. production (Speake a. 1975). Therefore, some degree of habitat patchiness is essential to all mammal species; the acceptable Ruffed grouse ( select scale of this patchiness is related to the hoe herbaceous habitats ( range size of the species under consideration. 1981), One of the mador winter forages of grouse in the Southeast has been .--Of the 44 species of small shown to increase in ~mdeprotein and phospho~us theastern states, only 16 had with burning (Thiackston 8f; 13821, This gme esearch reports when Taylor bird is considered a fire climax species, or at ( 1981 ) reviewed the literature regarding fire least one that benefits from recurring fires effects, He concludsd that the fulvous harvest ( Sharp 1970 ) . mouse ( Reithrodontonnrs fulvescerlg) and cotton mouse (m -) showed a consistent Birds of Prey,--Predatory birds are population increase following fire; the cotton indirectly affected through fire's influence on rat, eastern harvest buanulis), -4 nesting sites and food supplies, Red-tailed hawks round-tailed muskrat showed have been recorded feeding on decreases ; f iel , - from fires, Xestrels (w ) and Florida mouse (P, 1 other hawks and owls also are showed no measurable change; and nine other attracted to burns in search of prey (Stoddmd species were listed under *response unknown,@ 1963a, Komarek 1969). Tha problem with decipheri* small 1 An important factor in the ecology of most responses is related to the very short duration of predatory birds is the population lsvel of prey most studies, The previous evaluation was heavily species, Host hawks and owls depend on the cotton influenced by data from ten studies oonducted fr@ rat ( ) and cottontail rabbit and 4 to 28 months; one inveathgation (Layne 1974) ws8 other -jar prey species (herpa, l~geiasects, oonducted over a three-year period and another etc,) that are affected by any disturbance that (Baker unpubl, had run for seven years at the changes the balance between understory cover and tiwr of Taylor's (1981) review. The complete forage. Since regular burning keeps habitat in a impact of forest burning is difficult to aasess suitable condition for the more comon 1s but because (1) erratic annual population changes can teraporarily exposes them when oover is occur independent of habitat conditions, (2) and sinoe thickets retar4 the efficiencty of several years are required for significant changes predators, it is pmbableifbat fire benefit in sera1 stages, (3) populations can be depressed Predators through availability of food (see imediately by a given burn, but increased in the section), The y populati long run, and (4) when regular burning is stopped, golden eagles ( is an objective populations can increase mediately but become Of burning mountain balds in the Southeast, depressed in the long run,

Cooper *a and sharp-shimed hawks ( The best avai:able information comes from and A. ) sees to key in on quail Baker's (uapub1ie;hed) study which was conducted in and the larger or more colorful passerines. These a park-like loblolry (Pfnua )-shortleaf pine c P* fa) statid that had been Winter-burned Fire may have a positive influence on ant,ual iy fdr decades* Burning ceased in %rch squirrel habitat in soas situations. For example, lgbel attd 13fant succession was allowed to proceed it is generally accepted that squirrel population U,khladerzl~. A live trap census uas begun levels depend to a large degree on the supply of Im~dirtel~after the laat fire, continued for 12 acorns; low-growing oak species in the Coastal ,,,,,,,utive years, and inf tiated again in 7 986. Plain are dependent on periodic fire for e and for acorn prclduction (Williams 1977), Hwtheme~a,squf~refs require certain nutrients that are insufficient in acorns (protein, key minerals), For a balancad diet they also feed on mushroom (which often increase with burnim) or fruits and seeds such as dogwood drupes (a species mintained by fire in many forests), harvest .ice, and house mice (h ~~~~tbof woody cover mixed in with abundant herbs Population data are very scarce for any an important factor in this increase. Shrews squirrel species in pine-dominated forests. Least ( apparently declined during this is known about the ecology of southern flying Deri~d,then became rare or absent for the next squirrels. In Baker's study (ep. G;tfr.) this sir years. secretive species was not captured frequently in a post-fire study plot until about the tenth year The early brush stage (years three and four) when water oaks ( ) and other hardwood abundant Cotton rats and cotton saplings formed a tall midstory. However, in this d~e,but eastern harvest mice and house mice did same pine forest (Tall Timbers Research Station) not persist beyond this Stage; the more omnivorous flying squirrels are very abundant, even though and srboreal golden mouse began a marked increase. most of the landscape has been winter-burned Colden mice increased further during the next two annually for over a century, We Baker (pars, grwing seasons and remained common for at least comm.f)- dooumented 20 to 30 flying squirrels suyears thereafter. Species more fully denning together during winter in a nest box dependent on grounds tory vegetation gradually erected in open pine woods. Habitat quality is declined during this period, but the eastern enhanced by mature live oaks (m -) flying squirrel (Glaucomvs Y~ldWi)becane quite spaced throughout the annually burned property. abundant after the ninth growing season, The Also very abundant in this forest are gray &&-tailed shrew reappeared during years 8 squirrels and fox squirrels (m-1. mrnugb 11 after fire exclusion, probably as a madt of optimal litter structure and arthropod In frequently burned pine-dominated forests, gray squirrels primarily inhabit drains, wet depressions, and upland hardwood islands which get Nineteen years after fire was excluded their start where fire misses areas for a Pew (1gM), a feu golden mice and flying successive years. These hardwood islands develop wutrmls were captured, and gray squirrels less frequently on flat terrain than clay hill were often seen (all terrain, For example, on quail plantations in the date, it appears that the Red Wills region of southwest Georgia and northern k~at~ialspecies and even the semiarboreal Florida, the spread of hardwoods is a constant golden atouse depend on early post-fire problem where old field loblofly and shortleaf suaemional stages in this forest. Whereas pines predominate, Ekrdwood encroachment advances Wrr's Cab nrfght apply only to certain pine as lightning strikes and pine beetles gradually fonrt*, it serves here to illustrate a basic kill the large pines while annual winter fires the nrajority of small 1s thrive in tend to repress pine regeneration, Fire quickly wry- to aidsuccessional habitats which are beco~lesless effeotive at controlling hardwoods as (if not created) by fire, or by some pine needle cast decreases. Since practically all othrr disturbance that has a similar effect on pine forests on well-drained clay sites, whether ?%tatrtrtio The hereationship between sunlight in the Coastal Plain or Piedmont, are old-field LaUwit?, f~uer-levelvegetation, and smll comunities, it is probable that squirrels will be apscias should be investigated in other provided for where winter prescribed burning is rsr*rt tYWs to mere fully assess the role of the sole tool for controlling hardwoods in such ftcn, forests. Because gray squirrels feed to a large degree on pine seeds, habitat quality could be Burning can have a mdor more stable with parcels of mixed pine-hardwood la. Kirkpatrick and ksby I tMt t fire significantly than in pure hardwood forests where fluctuating oak mast 2V.p~haibt of squirrels when it is employed is the only mainstay. However, in erf"Cg..I~ r0 uintain pure pins stands. Coastal Plain forests where wiregrass is still In such abundant in the understory, repeated fires seri~snegative factor was thought suppress hardwoods so thoroughly that gray e to den trees, developing hardwood squirrels are unco 8.M mat- amst producers. 'J.)l 1"-intensity ground fireIn contrast,might * ~~e~~ effects in squirrel woods other Fire has probably been a determining factor * daawatio. Of acorns in the duff. in the niche separation between gray and fox squirrels in the Coastal Plain. Even though both exist in mixed pine-oak forests and feed heavily southern forests. 811 are highly mobile, on acorns, the more competitive gray squirrel terrestrial species--foxes ( Umovon doHlfnates locally where the overlap of oak cmwns allows tree-to-tree travel through the canopy. The much s~~~lllerbody size of grays may also have advantage in contending with low ebbs in acorn &spplies. It has been reported that fox squirrels are Is, but indirect effects on foods and otheF sore abundmt where pawhe& of Usccb~~~prise leas P@8CIU3""09Se?;a54 "O f3a~Ztf0~SPOFL-~) ( HOI~ W8f 1, than 30% of pine-hardwood stands (Hilliarb 1979). From long-tern studies in longleaf pine forests, The welfare of major predators--foxes, Ueigl (1983) theorized that southern fox bobcat, and coyote-depends to a great degree oa squirrels evolved into the largest sciurid in aoeessibility to solaller Is* The benefits pi Dorth America (1 kg or larger) through the fire in maintaining early successional habitats advantage of traveling long distances to find for these prey species was discussed in previous longleaf pine cone concentrations and the greater sections. It is also probable that predator ability to handle and tear apart these large efficienoy is improved by ground fires (open cones. This theory together with the fact that substrates for quieter stalking and easier captw fox squirrels are quite clumsy when trying to of prey, concentrating effect on prey in patches travel in canopies, and spend a great deal of' the missed by fire, etc. 1. If improved ef f iciency ia foraging for acorns as well as bulbs, seeds, eto. a significant advantage, it may be that burning on the ground, would indicate they do best in annually provides better stalking grounds than fire-type pine forests with scattered hardwood biennial or longer intervals that actually yield inclusions. A lush, grassy groundstow maintained the most total prey. This factor might account by fire is important as protective cover from far a dense bobcat population recorded on a quail predators ( Hilliard 1979). The gradual plantation where winter burning was conducted disappearance of this mixture of habitat ' * ' annually (Hiller and Speake 1978). Furthermore, components has led to a serious population decline it has been suggested that, under natural Of fox squirrels throughout the South. conditions, frequent fires worked together with predators in keeping small mammals in normal .--The subject of prescribed fire and population bounds (Komarek 1939). rabbits in southern forests was reviewed by Hill (1981). He stated, *Most wildlife researchers While terrestrial furbearers all eat smaller believe that any planned fire that reduces plant mammals to some extent, other food items are succession to an earlier stage will generally be fmportant to various degrees. Insects are primau beneficial to rabbitsew The immediate adverse or secondary food items. Litter dwellers (certait effects of cover reduction are thought to be ground beetles, etc.) are often displaced by overridden by improved forage quality and quantity herbivorous insects (grasshoppers, etc,) after a for two or more growing seasons after burning, fire; the latter insect group typically Hill (1981) also concluded that burn cycles longer constitutes the bulk of insect components of than two-year intervals would be less beneficial, furbearer diets. but that @any fire is believed better than fire exclusi~n.~ Fruits are important in diets of the more omivorous species ( foxes, coyotes, raccoons, and - There are important implications that burning opossum^)^ Of the major fruit species, acorns, helps reduce the parasite burden on rabbits (Hi11 persimmons (myirainianus), plums and 1971 ; Van Rensburg 1971 1. By combining the cherries (Prunns spp.) , and grapes (U$&sspp. ) findings that rabbit litter size depends on the can be severely reduced by fire in the short run* nutritional quality of forage (Hi11 1972) with the However, these woody species require openings for numerous data that show light burning increases establishment, so edges of burns in pine forests high-protein herbs (legumes, grasses, etc. eaten may be common regeneration sites for many of these by rabbits, the potential becomes clear for a plants. Important berry producers such as positive reproductive response to fire. However, blackberry ( spp .) , blueberry ( since rabbits also feed on certain shrubs and SPP. ) and gallberry (flex produce the most vines ( especially during winter) and require fruit a few years after fire pruning. Fire at thickets for escaping from their many predatory three-year intervals would optimize fruit enemies, it would seem that a clean annual burn production in open slash pine forests (Johnson and would be far less ideal than mosaic burning that Landers 1978). would leave sizable patches of woody plants, It is also possible that burning a number of Hon (1981) inferred that burning on a three- scattered parcels periodically during the colder year rotation should create desirable furbearer months might provide greenery that would help habitat in the southeastern pine region, He also overcome food shortages. To maintain habitat noted that certain fire-sensitive fruit producers diversity, Hill (1981) suggested alternating the should be protected for longer periods, To these burning on adjacent plots during a given year. suggestions might be added that some upland areas be burned more frequently to maintain --There are eight medium-sized grasshoppers, etc-e and low vegetation where ed as fur bearers that live in predators could more efficiently catoh prey. EJ@& HBBC*--Black bears ranged thpoughout notably pruned back by fire and may be virtually the pine belt before the build-up or elainated by repeated burning of areas with dense bumn p~p~lationcenters* Occupied range south of deer populations, Therefore, the burning interval the regions is now restricted to large, and percentage of an area burned each year are inaccessible forests in the Lower major considerations in deer range laanagemat. coastal Plain* Since browse plants generally surpass their ton ( 1 981 josynthesized information prime by the fifth growing season after apswtiw, fire effedt~based prinrarily on his deer range mQht approach optimum coMfition with a five-year cycle scheduled to burn about 20s per be,, in North Carolina and the investigations of other researchers in Florida, year in small parcels, The conflicting He pointed out that periodic winter burning is requirements of low browse vs* hard mst supplies propitious for tion of fruits [dwarf oak, would suggest that delineating browse prcKiuction saw palnetto ( ra~ens),etc. 1 and tender areas apart from major oak stands would benefit shoots which comprise the bulk of the diet, but deer, Research on the optimw size and shape of advised against summer burning because it can burning units would help refine management deprive bevs of a wide variety of foods. For schemes, Studies are also needed on effects of pocosins, X"ilton (QR. St&) Suggested that small, warm-season burns to see if the resulting periodic burning (every three to seven years) be succulent growth might better meet the nutritioml restricted to zones between pine-scrub oak sad needs of pregnant does and young fawns. ridges and Carolina bays or hardwwd swamps. Because broad-scale burning temporarily reduces food supplies over large areas and pushes bears CONCLUSIONS isto unfmiliar territory where they are quite vulnerable, he recommended burning numerous, small The complexity of the foregoing summries ,,s throtighout bear habitat to create a maze of show that any generalization about "how fire post-fire stages, and to burn pine-hardwood affects wildlife* would be tenuous at best. Not habitats on a 5-10 year rotation, This only is each wildlife species affected frequency might have to be modif led differently, each forest type and local habitat depending on soil fertility of a given management situation reacts differently to a given fire, area. Planning for juxtaposition of various Cumulative information must be interpreted successio~lstages seeas as appropriate for cautiously. - mnagiag habitat for black bears as it does for the aid-sized omnivores discussed in the previous Even though fise is generally an moti~a*In p~~si~country i'c is critical to insignificant direct cause of wildlife mortality, schedule prescribed bums when peat soils are it indirectly influences the abundance and species saturated to guard against subsurface fire, composition of pine forest wildlife through However, the benefits of careful burning are regulation of lesser vegetation. Most residents evident when compared to the destructive nature of are early- or midsuccessional species. Habitation uildfires which occasionally ravage through in preclimax stages of today actually reflects a *protecteda poeosins. primal dependence on fire--the prevailing disturbance force for thousands of years. -.--Most informstion rsgdi~gthe effects of fire on deer pertains to Prescribed burning is perhaps the most under- habitat influences, Stransky and Harlow (1981) utilized but valuable tool available to wildlife pobtcrd out that burning typically causes several managers. A critical evaluation of burning is cb.agea: 1) an increaae in certain essential needed before its usefulness can be fully realized Dutrienta (protein and phosphorus which are in even a single-species plan, If the habitat is gewrally limiting in the Southeast) and decadent then fire may provide benefits quickly, Palatability of forage during the first growing but if the habitat is already in prime condition, saraon or longer; 2) initial reduction of lea0 fire nay set back the targeted species, at least blorrsrr , followed by effective increases until in the short term. broum grows beyond a deer 'a reach (bbove 1 ,5 m Wkrs about three years); and 3) an initial Goal-setting is essential in management with dearease in hyit yields of most shrubs, followed fire.' An objective of general wildlife diversiW by inareaass in the next three to five years in is self-conflicting. But because most species aao f0rest8 OF longer-term decreases in others. require at least some habitat patchiness, this a* Overdl higher plane of nutrition resuiti, goal might be approached by blending spot burning fire can improve antler development in bucks with parcels spared from fire for various lengths fh* COMition of fawna (Beasom and Springer of ti-, depepding on site fertility and 19611, vegetation type, Research is needed for developing recommendations for patch size to ~~ativeeffects comonly noted by biologists accoagaodate different species, In all cases, the V. the rsduction of acorns and a temporary quality of pine sites should be taken into *la%bgof deer from &heir home ranges after l%*-.olle fires. Regu1.r burning favors herbs consideration because the richer theesi te , the "w woody brorm plants, more so by warm-season greater the probability that inoreasing numbers of hardwoods will reach fire-resistant size and winter burns. Some of the highly pmr*md forage plants are woody vines which are outstrip the control of low-intensity fires, The opportunity for "natural cornunity DICKSON, J. G. 1981. Effects of forest burning stewardshipR in southern pine forests has been on songbirds. ?ages 67-72 in G.W. Wood, ed., foregone for several decades. Attempts to *Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern duplicate what anyone might visualize as truly Forests. The Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst, natural should be accompanied by plant ecology Clemson Univ., S.C. research involviag variable summer fires together EMLEN, J. T. 1970. Habitat selection by birds with docurnentation of resulting gains and losses following a forest fire. Ecology 51 :343-345, of wildlife. The trade-offs in choosing one goal BUM, J. He, Jr. 1985. Ecology of the eastern over another must be evaluated more closely as wild turkey on an even-aged pine forest in ers try to provide for wildlife on dwindling southern Alabama, PhD Diss. , Auburn Univ, , forest lands in the future. The easiest goal-- Auburn, Ala. 190pp. . featuring deciduous canopy species--can be reached HAMILTON, R. J. 1981, Effects Of prescribed fi in pine forests after many years of benign neglect on black bear populations in southern forests unless a wildfire occurs. The wigdom of taking Pages 129-134 b G.W. Wood, ed., Prescribed that course should be closely scrutinized by all Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. The decision makers involved in conservation, A Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst., Clemson Univ better approach for accorrrmodating such species S.C. would be to manage for hardwood stands on true HARPER, R. M. 1911. The relation of climax hardwood sites. vegetation to islands and peninsulas. Bull. Torrey Bot . Club 38: 515-525. Management with fire will always require on- HARRIS, M. J. 1981. Spring and summer ecology the-ground judgment and a thorough knowledge of ruffed grouse in northern Georgia. MS Thesis the requirements of targeted wildlife. Long-term Univ . Ga., Athens. 133pp. studies of fire-community relationships are needed HETWARD, F. 1939. The relation of fire to stan to help land managers choose the proper burning composition of longleaf pine forests, Ecolog schemes to reach their objectives. 20:287-304. HILL, E. P. 1972. Litter size in Alabama cottontails as influenced by soil fertility. LITERATURE CITED J. Wildl . Manege. 36 :1 199-1 209. . 1981. Prescribed fire and rabbits in AHLGREN, I. F. 1974. The effect of fire on soil southern forests. Pages 103-108 tn G.W. Wood organisms. Pages 47-69 in T.T. Kozlowski and ed., Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern C.E. Ahlgren, eds., Fire and Ecosystems. Forests. The Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst. Academic Press, New York. Clemson Univ., S.C. BAKER, W. W. (unpubl.). Changes in small ma HILL, PI 1971, Grass forage, food for fauna, o populations in annually burned pineland after fuel for fire or both? Proc. Annu. Tall fire exclusion. Mimeo. Report. Tall Timbers Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf., Tall Timbers Res. Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Fla. llpp. Stn., Tallahassee, Fla. 11:337-375. BEASOM, S. L., and M. D. SPRINGER. 1981. HILLIARD, T. H. 1979. Radio-telemetry of fox Response of deer body quality to prescribed squirrels in the Georgia Coastal Plain. MS burning in Southeast Texas. Abst. Annu. Thesis, Univ. Ga., Athens. 120pp. Southeast Deer Study Group Meeting 4: 10. HON, T. 1981. Effects of prescribed fire on BENDELL, J. F. 1974. Effects of fire on birds furbearers in the South. Pages 121-128 in Go and mammals. Pages 73-138 TIT. Kozlowski Wood, ed., Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in and C.E. Ahlgren, eds., Fire and Ecosystems. Southern Forests. The Belle W. Baruch For. Academic Press, New York. Sci. Inst., Clemson Univ., S.C. BOZEMAN, J. R. 1971. A sociologic and geographic HURST, G. A. 1981. Effects of prescribed burni study of the sand ridge vegetation in the on the eastern wild turkey. Pages 81-88 in Coastal Plain of Georgia. PhD Diss., Univ, of G.W. Wood, ed., Prescribed Fire and Wildlife N.C., Chapel Hill. 243pp. Southern Forests. The Belle W. Baruch For. BUCKNER, J. L., and J, L. LANDERS. 1979. Fire Sci. Inst., Clemson Univ., S.C. and disking effects on herbaceous food plants JACBOSON, H, A,, and G. A. HURST. 1979. and seed supplies. J. Wildl. Manage. Prevalence of parasitism by 43:807-811. americanum on wild turkey poults as influence( CAMPBELL, H. W., and S. P. CHRISTMAN. 1982. The by prescribed burning. J. Wildl. Dis. 15:43- herpetological components of Florida sandhill 47. and sand pine scrub associations. Pages 163- JOHNSON, A. S., and J. L. LANDERS. 1978. Fruit 171 in N.J. Scott, Jr., ed., Herpetological production in slash pine plantations in Communities. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Georgia. J. Wildl . Manage. 42: 606-6 13. Wildl. Res. Rep. 13. . 1982. Habitat relationships of summer CONNER, R. N. 1981. Fire and cavity nesters. resident birds in slash pine flatwoods. J. Pages 61-65 in G.W. Wood, ed. Prescribed Fire Wildl . Manage. 46 :4 16-428. and Wildlife in Southern Forests. The Belle W. KIRKPATRICK, R. L., and H. S. MOSBY. 1981. Baruch For. Sci. Inst., Clemson Univ,, S.C. Effects of prescribed burning on tree CRINGHAM, A. T. 1958. Influence of forest fires squirrels. Pages 99-10? G.W. Wood, ed., and forest protection on wildlife. For. Chron. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern 34 :25-30. Forests. The Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst., Clemson Univ.. , S, C. , To E* LYNCH, We J* FLEHING, Go 80 WRIGHT, ~O~REK,E. V. 1939. A progress report on and W. J. HAMRICB. 1975. Habitat use and southeastern mammal studies. J. &mmal. seasonel movements of wild turkeys in the 20: 292-299 1969. Fire and animal behavior. Proc. Southeast. Pages 122-130 ig L*K* Xalls, ed., Tall Timbers Fire ECO~OConf., Tall Timbers PTOC. Third Natl. Wild Turkey Symp., Texas Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Fla. 9:161-~0'i'. Chapter, The Wildl. Soc. LANDERS, J. L., and D. W. SPEAKEe 1980. STODDARD, 8. LO, SR. 1931. The bobwhite quail: enagemen* needs 6C sandhill reptiles in its habits, preservation and increase, C, southern Georgia. Pr0C. Annu. Conf. Southeast Seribner's Sons, New York. 559pp. Assoc. ~ish6 ~ildl:kencies 34:515-529. t963ae Bird habitat and ffre. Proc. 2nd LAY, D. W. 1956. Effects of' prescribed burning Annu. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf., Tall on forage and mast production in Southern pine Timbers Rea. Stn., Tallahassee, Fla. 2:163-115. forests. J. FOP 56 :582-584 * . 1953b. Maintenance and increase of the LA~NE,J. N. 1974. Ecology of small m easkern wild turkey on private lands of the flatwoods habitat in northcentral F1 Coastal Plain of the deep Southeast. Tall emphasis on the cotton rat ( Timbers Res. Stn. Bull. No. 3. 49pp. ), her. Ws. Novitates 254 STRj,NSKY, J. Joy and R. D. HARLW. 1981. Effects LYoB, L. J., H. S. CRAWPORD, E. CZUHAI, R. L. of fire on deer habitat in the Southeast. in G*W* FREDRIRSEN, Re F. HARLOW, LO 4. MENTZ, and H, Pages 135-142 Wood, ed., Prescribed A. PEARSON* 1978. Effects of fire on fauna. Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. The A state of knowledge review. National Fire Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst., Clemson Univ., Effects Workshop, Denver, Colorado. USDA For. S.C. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-6- 22~~. TAYLOR, D. L. 1981. Effects of prescribed fire &RAE, g. A., J. L. LANDERS, J. L. BUCKNER, and R. on small mammals in the southeastern United C. SIMPSON. 1979. Importance of habitat States. Pages 109-120 in G.W. Wood, ed., diversity in bobwhite management. Proc. Annu. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Conf. Southeast. AssOc~Fish and Wild10 Forests. The Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst., Agencies 33:127-1350 Clemson Univ., S.C. METZ, L. J., and M. H. FARRIER. 1971. Prescribed THACKSTOIJ, R. E., P, E. HALE, A. S. JOHNSON, and burning and soil mesofauna on the Santee M. J. HARRIS. 1982. Chemical composition of Experiment Forest. Pages 100-106 Proc. mountain-laurel kalmia leaves from burned and prescribed Burning Symp., USDA For. Serv., unburned sites. J . Wildl . Manage. 46 :492-496. Southeast For. Expo Stn. VAN RENSBURG, H. J. 1971. Fire: its effect on MEANS, D. B., and H. W. CAMPBELL. 1981. Effects grasslands, including swamps - southern, of prescribed burning on amphibians and central and eastern Africa. Proc. Annu. Tall reptiles. Pages 89-97 ig G. W. Wood, ed ,, Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf., Tall Timbers Res. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Sen., Tallahassee, Fla. 11:9-31. Forests. The Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst., WEIGL, P. D., L. J. SHERMAN, and W. J. GRUNDMAN. Clemson Univ., S.C. 1983. Body size, food size, and the ecology of , and P. E. MOLER. 1979. The pine barrens tree squirrels. Presented at the 63rd Annu. treefrog: Fire, seepage bogs, and management Meeting Am. Soc. of Mammalogists, Gainesville, implications. Pages 77-83 in R.R. Odum and L. Fla. Landers, eds., Proceedings of the Rare and WHARTON, C. H. 1978. The natural environments of Endangered Wildlife Symposium. Georgia Dept. Georgia. Georgia Dept. Nat. Res. 277pp. Nat. Res., Game and Fish Dive, Tech. Bull. WILLIAMS, L. E., JR. 1977. Dwarf live oak and WL-4. running oak. Pages 167 and 190-191 in L.K. MILLER, S. Do, and D. W. SPEAKE. 1978, Prey Halls, ed., Southern Fruit-producing Woody utilization by bobcats on quail plantations in Plants Used by Wildlife, USDA For. Serv. southern Alabama. Proc . Annu. Conf . Southeast , South. For. Exp. Stn., Gen, Tech. Rep. set6. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 32:100-Ill, WOOD, G. W. 1981. Prescribed fire and wildlife OSBORNE, J. So, Re D* HcCLENAHAN, Eo B. GILLIS, V. in southern forests. Ed. The Belle W. Baruch F. NETTLES, and 0. FLORSCWTZ, 1986. Effects For. Sci. Inst., Clemson Univ., S.C. 170pp. of wildfires in a North Carolina pocosin on deer populations, harvest, and habitat. Abst. Annu. Southeast. Deer Study Group Meeting 9:5-6. SXARPy We M. 1970. The role of fire in ruffed grouse habitat management. Proc. Tall Timbers Fire kol. Conf., Tall Timbers Res. Stn,, Tallahassee, Fla. 10: 47-61. SPmE~D- 1966. Effects of controlled burning on bobwhite quail populations and habitat on an experimental area in the Alabam P~~dmont.Proc. Annu, Southeast, Assoc. Came and Fish Comm. 20:19-32. Herbicides and Wildlife in Southern ~orestsl

William C. ~c~omb~and George A, ~urst3

Abstract,--A review was conducted of the literature on the direct and indirect effects of herbicide application on forest wildlife. Herbicides vary in toxicity to wildlife, but acute toxicity to most species from most herbicides under normal field conditions is unlikely, Effects on terrestrial vertebrates of repeated applications of herbicides over long the periods or repeated exposure to containants of herbicides (such as occurred with dioxin in 2,4,5,-T) is unknown. Herbicide application alters habitat caposition and structure thereby resulting in differential response to herbicide-treated stands by terrestrial vertebrates. Application of herbicides in most southern forest situations may result in short-term changes in the abundance of some terrestrial vertebrates. Herbicide use in mature forest for TSI will promote canopy gaps and understory biomass production, while use in young elearcuts will temporarily reduce understory biomass. Published data describing direct effects of herbicide application on wildlife reproduction and survival and on herpetofaunal response to habitat changes are lacking.

INTRODUCTION Herbicides in an ecosystem can: (1) degrade on site, (2) be transported to a new site and Vegetation management using herbicides is degrade, or (3) bioaccumulate (U,S. Forest widespread in southern pine and hardwood Service 19841, Degradation rates for most forests, Herbicides are used in pine forests to herbicides have been estimated under a variety of release pine seedlings from competing hardwood conditions and vary widely on different sites. regeneration and to prepare sites for planting, For instance, picloram has a half-life of Use in hardwood stands includes timber stand approximately 1 month on moist sites and up to 4 improvement (TSI), right-of-way management and years on arid sites, Glyphosate and dalapon are wildlife habitat improvement, During 1975, rapidly degraded by soil micro-organisms ; 2,4-D approximately 11 million kg (25 million lbs) has a half-life of 1 month or less but hexazinone acid equivalent (a.e.1 of 2,4-D (mention of has a half-life of from 1 to 6 months (U.S. trade names does not imply endorsement by the Forest Service 1984). Kentucky and Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Stations) was used in the U,S, in non- Herbicide transport is generally either by - agricultural crop situations, including forestry wind, water or herbivores. The solubility and (U,S. Forest Service 1984). The U,S. Forest persistence of a herbicide in water are critical Service (1984) provided use and application rate to toxicological effects on aquatic organisms. information for herbicides used on Forest There is considerable variation among herbicides Service lands in 1981 and 1982. Approximately in solubility and degradation in water (U.S. 100,000 ha (250,000 acres) were treated with Forest Service 1984). Generally, herbicides used approximately 225,000 kg (500,000 lbs) a,e, of 8 in forest management rarely reach high concentra- . herbicides (atrazine, 2,4-D, dalapon, gly- tions in aquatic systems. phosate, hexazinone, trichlopyr, sulfometuran methyl, and picloram) each year, These herbi- The degree of bioaccumulation in vertebrates cides (except atrazine and dalapon) account for is dependent upon solubility in organic solvents approximately 901 of the herbicides used in and water, rate of excretion and rate of metabo- southern forests (C.S. Metcalfe, pers. corn,); lism. Chemicals vary greatly in their acemu- they are applied aerially or broadcast as Lative nature. Herbicides, their metabolites and pellets in most situations except TSI where their contaminants (such as dioxin) probably vary individual trees or stumps are inJected, in bioaccumulation capacity. I his paper (86-8-162) was prepared in connection with Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Projecl No. I 624 and with the ~ississippiAgricultural Experiment Station. Directors. It is published with the approval of the , r 2~ssoeiateProfessor, Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY. 40546. t r: 3~rofessor,~e~artmene of ~ildlifeand Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. 39762. I HERBICIDE EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE HABITAT 1983a, Dickson et al. 1983, and McPeek 1985); IN UPLAND HARDHOODS . herbicide-ingected conifers my not be suitable nest substrates for cavity-nesters (Bull and Herbicide Use indirectly affects two vege- Partridge 1986) but McPeek (1985) reported higher tative components of wildlife habitat: composi- use of herbicide-killed pine snags than of tion and structure* These two Components ape hardwood snags by bark-foraging birds. Longevity highly interrelated; a- change in habitat compo- of herbicide-created snags is approximately 4 to habitat structure. 50% (Dickssn et sition will likely change 8 years for of the snags created al. 1983, McComb and Rmsey 1983a). Although Habitat ~~mposition herbicide-created snags in young stands are ephemeral, they are important to bird use of a Some uifdlife foods can be adversely stand (Warren et al. 1984, Dickson et al, 1983). affected by herbicide application, and some can Gs snags fall, they become logs that provide be enhanced by it* Hard mast Species composi- habitat for forest floor fauna, tion was adversely affected by broadcast appli- cationof piclor- in upland hardwoods, but soft mast species and browse Species composition and HERBICIDES AND SOUTHERN PINE SILVICULTURE dominance increased 4 years after application (McComb and Ruasey 1981 ) s Some plant species Herbicide use in southern forests is most were affected by picloram: grasses frequently in association with production of ( poaceae), New Jersey tea ( Ceanothus southern yellow pines (Pinus spp.), simply americanus), dwarf cinquefoil (Potentilla because of the scale of pine management versus canadensis), blackgm (N~ssaSylvatica) , and hardwood management in the South. Pine plan- sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Integration of tations are a prevalent and growing habitat type wildlife habitat management into TSI is possible in the South, and herbicides have become an by injection of low quality stems competing for integral part of plantation establishment and crown space with oaks (Quercus spp. ) , hickories management (Miller 1984). Research on several (Carya spp P. ) and other mast-producing species aspects of plantation management have been con- (HcComb and Rumsey 1983a). Increased light ducted throughout the South (Harris et al. 1975, penetration into the canopy will allow an in- Hurst and Warren 1980). However, information on crease in crown size and hence a greater likeli- the more recent uses of herbicides in plantation hood of increased mast production (Goodrum et management as they affect wildlife habitat-is al.. 1971) , $imultaneously, killing of undesir- generally lacking (Morrison and Meslow 1983). able trees allows light to strike the forest Some general and specific results of research floor which Should stimulate understory pro- being conducted on the lower Coastal Plain of duction for browse, or (if the canopy gap is MissPssippi and Alabama are presented as indi- large enough) soft mast production by shrubs, cators of the*relationships of herbicides to some wildlife habitat conditions. Habitat Structure Site Preparation: Broadcast Herbicide and Burn Foliage structure will be altered after herbicide application for TSI in three ways: 1) After clearcutting mature forests (often by reducing overstory cover and increasing cover mixed pine-hardwood), pelletized herbicide is at lower foliage levels over time, 2) by in- applied to kill residual stems. A hot, broad- creasing snag (dead tree) availability, and 3) cast burn is then conducted in late summer; by altering the litter layer on the forest pine seedlings are planted the following winter. This floor, Rate and method of herbicide application new method is similar to the mist-blow (2,4,5,- will affect stand structure. Heavy broadcast T) following inject (2,4-01, and burn method. applications in mature hardwoods or tree injec- , tion of residuals after clearcutting will result Conversion of the mature forest to a pine in high snag density (McComb and Runsey 1981, plantation has drastic effects on habitat for Dickson et al. 19831, dense understory cover 1 some wildlife species such as squirrels (Sciurus to 4 years after application (McComb and Rumsey spp.), but the early successional stage created '19811, low overstory cover, and rapid decompo- can represent habitat improvement for other sition of the leaf litter layer (Got tschalk and species (Johnson et al, 1974, Buckner and Landers Shure 1979). As a result of these structural changes, the forest floor likely will be hotter 1980). Hard and soft mast-producing trees are and drier than untreated sites until understory replaced by a herb-dominated (forb, grass, vine, and shrub) community. Soft mast production by Cover increases the shade. Light applications -Rubus spp. increases with plantation age and of broadcast herbicide or TSI likely will result peaks in 5 years (Campo and Hurst 19801, in an increase in foliage height diversity by allowing increased foliage development of sub- The open nature of the first growing season canopy layers. Effects on the leaf litter layer is too harsh for some vertebrates but is excel- mul* be minimal. Snag density would increase mourn in^ and provide foraging substrate for bark-foragers lent for birds such as doves (Zenaida macroura) and bobwhite quail (Colinus - (Hepeek 1985). Hardwood snags created by herbieide-injection have shown the potential for virginianus) that feed on the ground. During the bin8 acceptable nest substrates for cavity- second growing season the vegetation becomes more dense, affording food (forage) and cover for more (C~nneret al. 1983, McComb and Rumsey wildlife species. Preferred white-tailed deer (Odocoileus lbs/ac) on mechanical and herbicide-treated virginianus) forage (grasses, forbs, vines, and and over 550 kglha (500 Ibslacf on plots woody plants) averaged 385 kglha (350 lbslac) in only mechanical site preparation. During th er of the first growing season after first winter, deer forage averaged only 4.4 herbicide treatment (mist-blow and inject) and (4 lbs/ac) on herbicide-treated plots ada burning, whereas mature mixed forests averaged 110 kg/ ha ( 100 lbslac) on mechanically-tpea only 75 kglha (68 lbslac) (Burst and Warren plots (Copeland 1986, Blake 1986a) Veget 1981). Deer forage in~reasedto over 550 kglha on the plantations increased markedly duping (500 lbslac) by year 5 and then declined as second gt~awingseason with 1,145 kgfha [ I,t34"g canopy closure occurred. lbslac) of deer forage in late sumer and 67 kg/ha (61 lbslac) in late winter on plots that a1 populations are generally low received both mechanical and herbicide in mature, mixed forests but increase in early treatments. Deer forage declined the third g sera1 stages on pine plantations. Perkins but still averaged 582 kglha (529 lbslac) ( 1973) found the highest captureleffort index (Copeland and Hurst 1986). (24.8/700 trap nights) for small mamals (mostly cotton rats [Signtodon hispidus] ) on pine plan- Habitat conditions for rabbits ( tations prepared by herbicides and spp. ) were poor the first year because of the Raptors and medim-sized predators -ruf us sparsity of vegetation but conditions improved Q were observed frequently in these plantations. the second year. Both forage production and Small mammal populations declined at canopy lateral and overhead cover greatly increased closure (5-6 years). during the second year (Copeland 1986).

Logging debris, whips, and snags are a Darden ( 1980) found that plantations pre- major component of herbicide-treated sites; pared by the intensive mechanical method had G their addition to the structure provided by lowest number of bird species and densities. rapidly growing herbaceous vegetation improves Perkins ( 1973) reported only 18 species using avian habitat. Darden (1980) found herbicide- comparatively barren conditions during the fi treated plantations to have greater bird species year after intensive mechanical site pre-para diversity and higher relative abundance than (no chemicals) . By the third year 27 species plantations that were mechanically site pre- observed. pared. A total of 47 species was observed with 26 nesting in the first year in mist-blown, in- Site Preparation: Mechanical and Broadcast Vs* jected, and burned plantations (Perkins 1973). Banded Herbicide Warren et ale (1984) reported the highest cavity-nesting bird relative abundance (695l100 A modification of the above site prepar- ha; 278l100 ac) to be in 4-year-old plantations ation method is to aerially broadcast a pel- prepared by herbicides and fire. Snags usually letized herbicide (hexazinone) after intensive deteriorate within 8 years. mechanical site preparation, or to apply a li herbicide (hexazinone), back-pack style, to Site Preparation: Mechanical and Herbicide the top of the beds (mounds). The latter me is more cost effeetive and should leave bett A relatively new practice is to follow habitat conditions in young plantations. intensive mechanical site preparation with a broadcast aerial application, either preplant or Total plant biomass, exeluding pine postplant, of hexazinone (0.6-0.9 kglha; 0.5-0.8 seedlinglsapl ing weight, was significantly lad lb/ac) for competition control. Mechanical site on broadcast-treated plots and banded plots thg preparation (shear, rake, burn, disk, bed) re- on control (no herbicide) plots in the first duces the hardwood component, and the herbicide growing season. Banded plots averaged 450 kg/B temporarily controls grasses, sedges, and broad- (409 lbs/ac) more biomass than broadcast plots6 leaf weeds. Preferred deer forage biomass was only slightly higher on banded plots than on broadcast-treatd Such intensive mechanical site preparation plots. At the end of the second growing seas@ destroys all potential snags and most logging there was no significant difference in total debris; during the first year's growth there is plant biomass or deer forage between the 2 little vegetative cover, but remaining plants treatments or the controls. The herbicide had: exhibit rapid growth rates because of little or short-term effect on plant growth (Blake 1986aj no competition. Burned windrows have luxuriant The number of plant species on the broadcast- herbaceous vegetation. The sparsely vegetated treated plots was about half that found on plantations are excellent winter habitat for control plots the first year but equal to con- mourning doves, American robins (Turdus trol plots the second year (Blake 1986b). migratorius), and bobwhite quail because 2 plant species, dove-weed (Croton capitatus) and poke- Pine Release: Herbicides weed (Phytolacca mericana), are tolerant to the herbicide and produce a large number of seeds Another major use of herbicides is to re- and fruit. lease pine saplings from hardwood competition ' plantation age 4-8 years, An aerial or ground Preferred deer forage in late summer of the application is *used. first growing season averaged only 99 kg/ha (90 Effects of an aerial application of a General Remarks: Herbicides in Pine Plantation herbicide for pine release were studied in west- Management and east-central Mississippi at 4 and 5 years, respectively. In Use of herbicides in pine plantation case, significantly more grass, forb, vine, management is but a small part of the overall and woody preferred deer forage was found on the scheme. Many factors and practices dietate treated, than on control plots (922 vs, 609 habitat conditions, such as plantation size, yg/ha and 965 vs. 519 kglha; 838 vs. 554 lbslac shape, and situation (juxtaposition), age class and 871 vs. 472 fbslacl. ' Forbs accounted for distribution, seedling spacing, and seedling 55-635 af the total forage CHursL and Yarren survival, Intermediate silvicultural practices, 1986). Killing the hardwood shrubs released precommereial and comercia1 thinning, control- forage and seed-producing plants. led burning, fertilizing, and pruning greatly affect habitat conditions. Retention of streaat- Pine plantations in the South are usually side mnagement zones, hardwood leave strips, and dense at age 4-6 years, and the herbicide appli- special areas (seeps, bogs, etc, ) are major cation my improve cover conditions increasing practices. accessibility to some species, Habitat was improved for ground-feeding birds such as bob- Use of herbicides to control grass and ghite quail, mourning dove, and wild turkey herbaceous weed competition is increasing, but (Melea~risgallopavo) , Nesting habitat for the effects are temporary. Generally plant birds that nest in low to tall Shrubs remined biomass, plant species composition, and herbi- adequate. Releasing pine seedlings will cause vore forage are equal to control (not-treated) the canopy to close and habitat conditions to sites by the second growing season after treat- change rapidly. ment. Use of herbicides to kill competing hardwoods, either as mature trees (TSI) or Control of competing hardwood shrubs "brushn in plantations, eliminates the majority (suckers and sprouts) can also be accomplished of the hard and soft mast producers. However, by spot spraying or back-pack spraying (foliar) hardwoods have no *futurew in short-rotation ardwood stems. This technique is used when few plantations; controlled burning will be used rdwood stems exist in plantations, This frequently to top-kill hardwoods, so hard mast thod will result in some release of herbaceous producers will not have an opportunity to pro- ants but on a smaller scale than occurs with a duce, The management scheme will be directed: to tal site application. An important feature of producing forage and soft mast from shrubs and ual stem system is the opportunity vines. Pine seed production should be quite high eld crew to selectively leave (not in intensively managed plantations g~swnon ortant food plants for wildlife sufficiently long rotations. spp,, Callicarpa spp., Rhus spp., -Cornus spp .I . With or without herbicides, habitat conditions in pine plantations change rapidly. If TirPber Stand Improvement (TSI) : Herbiaides the herbicides are successful, pine seedling and sapling growth rates are increased and the rota- Herbicides have long been used to kill tion is shortened, hastening changes in habitat ject,) undesirable stems or species of trees conditions, With faster pine tree growth the in a mixed pine-hardwood forest to release the manager can begin thinning and burning practices pine component, This practice alters the habi- at a younger plantation age to improve habitat tat by reducing or eliminating hard mast (oaks conditions for some wildlife species (Owen 19841, d hickories) and soft =st (Nyssa spp,, spp,, etc.), by reduoing den trees and g vegetative structure and diversity. EFFECTS OF HERBICIDE APPLICATION ON MAMYIALS duction of pine seeds, an excellent wildlife d, would probably increase, Toxicological information on mammals is, to a large extent, limited to tests conducted on The injected trees become snags, providing white lab rats (Rattus norvegicus) (Table 1) . ches, foraging sites, and cavities for a Hudson et al. (1984) smarized toxicological rt time, Fallen trees provide micro-habitats tests on a variety of organisms, but they only some ground-dwelling vertebrates, By kill- included mule deer (~docoileushemoinus 1; domes- most of the hardwoods, small openings are tic goat (Capra hireus) and domestic ferret ted and forage production by grasses, forbs, (Mustela putorius) with rats in their tests on nes, and woody shrubs increases, Fruit pro- 1s. The only herbicides tested on mule deer tion by tall and low shrub species (e.g, were 2,4-D with an LD50 of 400-800 rnglkg (N=3), a spp,) and vines (Lonioera spp. and dose similar to that reported for rats (Table I), spp.) increases, With more vegetation on and silvex with an LD50 of 400 mg/kg (N=7), less forest floor, cover conditions will improve than that reported for rats, Obviously, sample rabbits and some other mamals. sizes for mule deer are low and extrapolation from one species to another is unwise, but it seems that some herbicides are potentially more toxic to wildlife than others, Toxicity of dalapon and hexazinone to rats is considerably less than the toxicity of 2,4-D and paraquat Table 1.--Toxicityya

Herbicide Species ( tD50;mg/kg)

Mallard1 pheasant ~obwhite l ~luegill l%ats2 ( LCzjo, PP~)

dlachlor (Lasso) 3 hi trole ( Amizol Atrazine (AA trex) Balan (Salf in) Efurtylate (Sutan) Chloroxuron (Norex ) Cynazine ( Bladex ) 2,4-1) Dalapon Dichlobenil (Casoron) Dinoseb (Premerge) Diuron (Diurex) DNOC (Selinon) Endothall ( Des-I-Cate) Fluometuron ( Lanex ) Fluorodifen (Soyex) Gl yphosa te (Roundup) IPC-400 (Propham) Paraquat Dichloride (Weed01 ) Picloram (Tordon) Planavin (Nitralin) Potassium Azide (Azide) Silvex (Garlon) Silvisar-510 (Arsan) Sodium Arsenite (Kill-All) 2,4,5-T TBA (Benzac) TCDD (Dioxin, contaminant of 2,495-TI Terbutryn (Igran) Trifluralin (Triflurex) Velpar (Hexazinone)

lfrom Hudson et al. (19841, U.S. Forest Service (1984) or Johnson and Finley (1980). 2from Walstad and Dost (1984). - 3alterna tive common name presented parenthe tically.

dichloride to rats. The U.S. Forest Service Average application rates for commonly used (1984) estimated dermal exposure of herbicides herbicides range from 1.1-5.6 &/ha (1-5 to deer (Odocoileus spp.) of 0.101 nag/kg and to lbs/acre) active ingredient. It probably would rabbits of 0.403 mg/kg for each 1.1 kg of be safer to mammals to use relatively less active ingredient herbicide applied per ha (1 toxic herbicides such as amitrole, dalapon, lb/ac.). At recommended rates of application, piclorm and hexazinone than paraquat dichloride no herbicide for which data are presented in or 2,443 where feasible. Norris (1981) found Table 1 for rats would reach LD50 toxicity traces of phenoxy herbicides in some wildlife levels through dermal exposure. species (0.01 to 10 mg/kg) exposed to field herbicide application, Herbivores also niay be exposed to herbicides by ingestion of herbicide-contminated Sullivan and Sullivan (1981) concluded that plant material. Oral exposure rates of 1,4 and a forest application 2.2 kg/ha (2 lblacre) of 1.1 rng/kg for each pound (0.45 kg) 'of active glyphosate in Douglas-f ir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ) ingredient of herbicide have been calculated for had no adverse effects on reproduction, growth, deer and rabbits, respectively (U.S. Forest or survival of deer mice (Peromyscus Service 198Y). Even at this rate, it is unlikely manicula tus) . Johnson and Hansen ( 1969 ) re- that most commonly used herbicides would be toxic ported similar effects of 2,4-D on deer mice. to most herbivorous 1s under most circum- Indirect effects of 5erbicide application on stances, unless the herbicide bioaccumulates, mammal abundance have been reported in several forest situations. McComb and Rmsey ( 1982) the clearcuts. Warren et al. (1984) reached reported small =ma1 abundance increasing 100% similar conclusions regarding snags created by 4 Years following broadcast application of spraying with 2,4,5-T and by injected 2,Q-D picloram in upland hardwoods, but a 200% mine. Mepeek (1985) recorded bark-foraging bird iwXWase was recorded on clearcut plots. The use of picloram-killed snags in mature addition of logs, stumps and understory cover Appalachian hardwoods, but she did not dete~tany contributed to the habitat quality of the increase in abundance or diversity of birds on treated site. SirnilaPly, Rirkland ( 1978) re- the TSI site. Snags on her site had not decayed ported a 300% increase in small maml abundance to the point of being good nest sites. NeComb 1 Year after 2,4,5-T application in Appalachian and Rurnsey (1983a) and Conner et al. (1983) hardwoods. McCaffery et al. ( 1981) reported indicated that picloram-killed and 2,Q-D-killed more anal1 mamals from piclorarn-created clear- trees respectively were potential nest sites for ing edges than in the center of the clearings or cavity nesters, but girdled trees remained in the adjacent woodland in northern hardwoods standing longer than herbicide-injected trees. Baaed on these studies it seems that field Bull and Partridge (1986) reached similar applications under normal conditions of pic- conclusions in western forests. Broadcast loram, 2,4-D or glyphosate improves habitat for picloram herbicide in upland hardwood forests most small mammal species for a few years; increased winter bird density over untreated species adversely affected by treatment are mature hardwoods after 4 years (McComb and Rumsey reduced in nunbers probably because of habitat 1983b). Breeding bird diversity was higher on changes and not because of herbicide toxicity, herbicide-trea ted plots than on untreated hardwood plots, probably in response to increased Application of herbicide in a mature stand understory and midstory strata representation will likely increase browse availability; appli- after removal of some overstory trees (McComb and cation of herbicide in a young stand will reduce Rumsey 1983b). McCaffery et al. (1981) reported browse availability for a few years. Krefting similar findings in picloram-created clearings in et al. (1956) successfulLy used herbicides to Wisconsin. Morrison and Meslow ( 1984a, 1984b) promote sprouting of mountain maple (Acer investigated the effects of 2,4-D and glyphosate spicatum) for deer browse in northern hardwoods. application on bird use of clearcuts in western McComb and Rumsey (1981) reported an increase in forests. In both studies, herbicide altered the available browse in upland picloram-treated habitat structure resulting in short-term Ehanges areas. Hurst and Warren (1980) reported a in use of the area by some bird species. Savidge similar response by some woody plants in 5-year- (1978) and Beaver (1976) reported similar old pine plantations in Mississippi; but over- differential responses of bird species to 2,4,5-T all, browse availability was reduced on this application in a Jeffrey pine (pinus jeffreyi) site by herbicide (2,4,5-T) application. Easley plantation. We could find no field studies ( 1977) reported short-term reduct ion in woody examining the effects of herbicide application on browse for deer following 2,4,5-T application in reproductive success and survival of birds, southern pine plantations, Little information is available specifically on effects of herbicide application on EFFECTS OF HERBICIDE APPLICATION ON BIRDS habitat of game birds. Hurst (1981) discussed the effects of intensive pine plantation manage- More information is available on toxic ment on wild turkey habitat and he concluded that effects of various herbicides on birds than on intensive pine management, including use of mammals, primarily because of the frequent use herbicides, can provide acceptable habitat for of mallard ducks ilnas platyrhynchos) -as test turkeys. Use of picloram herbicide to create subjects (Table 1). Pheasants (Phasianus clearings in mature hardwoods of central Appa- colchicus) and bobwhite quail also are fre- lachia resulted in ruffed grouse (Bonasa quently used in LD50 tests. Results for most urnbellus) use of 4-year-old treated plots (McComb herbicides tested on all 3 species were con- and Rumsey 1983). McCaffery et al. (1981) sistent, but with sume exceptions. Tests of reported high grouse use of herbicide-created 2,4-D showed higher toxicity on pheasants than clearings during the fall in Wisconsin. Use of on mallards or quail. Cynazine was more toxic herbicides to create openings in mature forest to quail than to mallards. Frequently-used for grouse would seem to be particularly feasible herbieides such as atrazine, glyphosate, pic- in the extensive forest and rugged topography of Loram, hexazinone, and dalapon seemed relatively the southern Appalachians. nontoxic compared with dinoseb, ONOC, and potassium azide. All toxicity tests reported in Table I were conducted under laboratory EFFECTS OF HERBICIDE APPLICATION conditions. ON HERPmOFAUNA ANI) FISH Field studies of bird response to herbicide Toxicity information is largely lacking for application largely describe bird response to herpetofauna. The U.S. Forest Service ( 1984) changing habitat suitability. Dickson et al. summarized LC50 tests for a variety of aquatic ( 1983) compared bird use of clearcuts with and organisms and reported concentrations of 200-350 without 2,4-D-created (injected) snags and con- ppm 2,4-1) resulted in 50s mortality of tadpoles cluded that these herbicide-created snags in- of 3 non-native anurans. Atrazine concentra- creased the diversity and density of birds using tions of 0.4 to 50 ppm for tadpoles of American toads (Bufo americanus) , bullfrogs (Rana Additional research should be conductad catesbiana), leopard frogs (g. pipiens) and herbicide application effects on reproductiai pickerel frogs (Re palustris) were also reported survival of wildlife under field conditions. sad (U,S. Forest Service 1984). No toxicity data on Research is also needed regarding both direct terrestrial forms could be found. indirect effects of herbicide application herpetofauna. Indirect effects of herbicide application on herpetofauna would result by changing the forest floor microclimate and altering the LITERATURE CITED availability of food. Most zunphibians and many reptiles are moisture sensitive so a decrease in Beaver, D. L. 1976. Avian populations in the canopy cover would allow direct sunlight to herbicide treated brush fields. Auk 93:543. penetrate to the forest floor thereby modifying 553. the microclbate. Effects of microclimate modification might be offset by increased avail- Blake, P. Me 1986a. Diversity, biomass, and ability of invertebrate prey. Research is deer forage in banded versus broadcast needed to determine the response of herpetofauna hexazfnone in a loblolly pine plantation, to herbicide application. Proc, Amu. South* Weed Sci. Sob. 39: (in press 1. Johnson and Finley (1980) tested a variety of pesticides for toxicity on fish, Herbicides , 1986b. Plant biomass, plant species varied in toxicity to bluegills (Lepomis composition and pine tree characteristics macroohirus) from relatively toxic compounds for a banded versus broadcast hexazinone such as silvex and 2,4-D to relatively non-toxic treated pine plantation. M.S. Thesis, Hiss, compounds such as dalapon and amitrole. A11 State Univ, , Mississippi State (in studies are laboratory studies and field re- progress). sponse of organisms to herbicides could be different. If use of herbicides in silvicultural Buckner, J, L,, and J. L, Landers. 1980. A practices is at or below rates specified as forester*s guide to wildlife management in permissable in forest streams (Newton and southern industrial pine forests. Tech. Norgren 19771, it is unlikely that acute tox- Bull. No, 10, Southlands Exp. For., Inter, icity to most aquatic organisms would result. A Paper Co., Bainbridge, GA. 16pp. review of indirect effects of herbicide application on aquatic organisms is beyond the scope Bull, E, L,, and A, D. Partridge. 1986. Methods of this paper. of killing trees for use by cavity nesters. Wildl. SUC*Bull* 14:142-146.

SUMMARY Campo, J. J., and C. A. Hurst. 1980. Soft mast ! production in young pine plantations. Proc. i The effects of herbicide application on ' Annu. Conf, Southeast, Assoc. Fish and wildlife habitat are usually ephemeral. Herbi- Wildl. Agencies 34:470-475. cide use at normal, recommended rates of application would not usually result in acute tox- Conner, R. N., J. C. Kroll, and D. L. Kulhavy. icity of most vertebrates, but herbicides vary 1983. The potential of gird1ed and 2,4-D- considerably in toxicity to birds, mammals, and injected southern red oaks as woodpecker fish. Effects on terrestrial vertebrates of nesting and foraging sites. So, J. Appl. repeated applications of herbicides over long For, 7: 125-128. time periods or repeated exposure to contaminants of herbicides (such as occurred with Copeland, J. D. 1986. Wildlife habitat dioxin in 2,4,5,-T) is unknown. Field studies conditions on loblolly pine plantations site of herbicide effects on wildlife are generally prepared by mechanical and chemical methods. of indirect rather than direct effects. M,S. Thesis, Miss. State Univ, , ~ississippi State (in progress). Indirect effects of herbicide application on wildlife is through alteration of habitat. and G. A. Hurst. 1986. Deer Plant species composition in a stand will be forage on pine ~lantationsafter intensive altered depending upon the herbicide used and mechinical- and khemical site preparation. the method of application, Application of Proc. Annu. South, Weed Sci. Soc. 39: (in herbicides in most southern forest situations press) , my result in short-term changes in the abundance of some terrestrial vertebrates, Herbi- Darden, T. L., Jr, 1980. Bird communities in cide use in mature forest for TSI will promote managed loblolly-shortleaf pine stands in canopy gaps and understory biomass production, east Central Mississippi. M.S, Thesis, while use in young clearcuts will temporarily Miss. State Univ,, Mississippi State. reduce understory biomass. Herbicide use in 117ppe pine stands to control hardwood competition will reduce the tree species richness and alter structure to increase habitat quality for some species while decreasing quality for others. Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and 3, H. Johnson, A. S,, J. L. Landers, and T. D, Williamson. 1983. Snag retention Atkeson. 1974, Wildlife in young pine increases bird use of a clear-cut. 3. plantations. Pages 147-159 9W, E. Wildl. Manage. 47:799-804, Balmer, ed. Proc. Symp, on Management of' Young Pines. USDA For, Serv. South. and Easley, J. M. 7977, Effects of chemical brush Southeast. For. Exp. Stn. 349pp. control on vegetation in pine plantations, Remper County, MS.' M.S, Thesis, Miss, Johnson, D. R., and R. M. Hansen. 1969. Effects State Univ., Mississippi State. 45pp. of range treatment with 2,4-0 on rodent populations, J. Wildl, Manage. 33:125-332, Coodrum, P. D., V. W. Reid, and C. F. Boyd. 1971. Acorn yields, characteristics and Johnson, W, W,, and M. T. Finley. 7980, management criteria of oaks for wildlife, Handbook of acute toxicity of chemicals to J. Wildl, Manage. 35:520-532. fish and aquatic invertebrates. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. 137. 98pp. Gottschalk, M. R,, and D. J. Shure. 1979. Herbicide effects on leaf litter Kirkland, G. L, 1978. Population and comunity decomposition processes in an oak-hickory response of small mamals to 2,4,5-T. USDA forest. Ecology 60:143-151. For. Serv, Res. Note PNW-314.

Harris, L. D., L. D. White, 3, E. Johnston, and Krefting, L. We, H. L. Hansen, and M. 8. D. G. Milchunas. 1975. Impact of forest Stenlund. 1956. Stimulating regrowth of plantations on north Florida wildlife mountain maple for deer browse by habitat- Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast, herbicides. J. Wildl. Manage. 20:434-441, Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies 29:347- 353 McCaffery, K. R., J. E. Ashbrenner, and J. C. Moulton, 1981. Forest opening construction Hudson, R. H., R. K. Tucker, and M, A. Haegele. and impacts in northern Wisconsin. Wisc. 1984. Handbook of toxicity of pesticides Dep. Nat. Resour, Tech, Bull. No, 120. to wildlife, 3rd ed. USDI Fish and Wildl. 47~~. * Serv. Resour. Publ. 153. 90pp. McComb, W. C., and R, L, Rumsey, 1981. Habitat Hurst, Go A. 1981. Habitat requirements of the characteristics of forest clearings created wild turkey on the southeast Coastal Plain* by picloram herbicides and clearcutting. Pages 2-43 & P. To Bromley and Re k. Proc. Ann. Coaf. Southeast, Assoc. Fish and Carlton, eds. Proc. Habitat requirements Wildl. Agencies 35:174-184. and habitat management for the wild turkey in the Southeast. Virginia Wild Turkey 9 and . 7982. Response Foundation, Elliston. of small mammals to forest clearings created by herbicides in the central Appalachians, , and R, C, Warren. 1980. Brimleyana 8:121-134. Intensive pine plantation management and white-tailed deer habitat. Pages 90-102 & , and . 1983a. R. H, Chabreck and R. H. Mills, eds. Characteristics and cavity-nesting bird use Integrating timber and wildlife management of picloram-created snags in the central in southern forests. LSU Forestry Appalachians. So. J. Appl, For. 7:34-37. Symposium No. 29. Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge. , and . 1983b. Bird density and habitat use in forest openings , and , 1981. created by herbicides and clearcutting in Enhancing white-tailed deer habitat of pine the central Appalachians. Brimleyana 9:83- plantations by intensive management, Tech. 95. Bull. No. 107, Miss. Agrie. and For. Exp. Stn., Mississippi State. 8pp. McElfresh, R, W., 3. M. Inglis, and B, A. Brown. 1980. Gray squirrel usage of hardwood , and . 1982. ravines within pine plantations. Pages 79- Impacts of silvicultural practices in 89 R. H, Chabreck and R, H. Mills, eds. loblolly pine plantations on white-tailed Integrating timber and wildlife management deer habitat. Pages 484-487 & E. P. in southern forests. LSU Forestry Symposium Jones, ed, Proceedings of the second No, 29. Louisiana State Univ,, Baton Rouge. biennial Southern silvicultural research conference. USDA For, Serv. Gen. Tech. McPeek, G, A. 1985. Decay patterns and bird use Rep. SE-24, of snags created with herbicide injections and tree topping, M.S, Thesis. Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington. 115pp, Miller, J. H. 1984. Where herbicides fit into Perkins, C. J. 1973. Effects of clearcutting forest management schemes. Pages 1-13. in and site preparation on the vegetation and Proc. Fourth Annu. For. Forum. ~erbicidesr wildlife in the flatwoods of Kemper County, Prescription and Application. USDA, For. Mississippi. Ph.D. Diss., Miss. State Serv., Southern For. Exper. Stn. Univ., Mississippi State. 326pp.

Morrison, M. Lo, and E, C. Meslow. 1983. Savidge, J. A. 1978. Wildlife in a herbicide- Impacts of forest herbicides on wildlife: treated Jeffrey pine plantation in eastern toxicity and habitat alteration. Trans. Ng California. J, For. 76~416-478. h. Wildl, and Nat. Resour. Conf. 48:175- 185. Sullivan, T. O., and Do S. Sullivan. 1982. Response of small-mml populations to a , and . 1984a. forest herbicide application in a 20-year- Effects of the herbicide glyphosate on bird old conifer plantation. J. Appl. Ecol. cornunity structure, western Oregon. For, 19:95-106. Sci. 30:95-106. U.S. Forest Service. 1984. Pesticide background 9 and . t984b. Statements Volume I. Herbicides. USDA For. Response of avian cornunities to herbicide- Serv. Agr. Handb. No. 633. induced vegetation changes. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:14-22, Walstad, J. D., and F. Ng Dost* 1984. The health risks of herbicides in forestry: a Newton, M., and J. A. Norgren. 1977. review of the scientific record. Forest Silvicultural chemicals and protection of Research Lab. Special Publ. 10. Oregon water quality. U.S. Environ. Protect. State University, Corvallis. Agency Rep. 9 10/0-77-036. Warren, R. C., G. A. Hurst, and T. L. Darden, Jr. Norris, L. A. 1981. The movement, persistence, 1984. Relative abundance of cavity nesting and fate of the phenoxy herbicides and TCDD birds on pine plantations site prepared by in the forest. Residue Reviews 80: 66-1 35. herbicides. Pages 197-205 & W. C. McComb, ed. Proceedings--Workshop on management of Owen, C. M. 1984. Integrating wildlife and nongame species and ecological communities. lobldlly pine management, Proc. Symp. on Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington. the loblolly pine ecosystem (West region). Miss, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State.

340~~l Riparian Zones and Wildlife in Southern Forests: the Problem and Squirrel Relationships

James G. Dickson and Jimmy C. Runtley

Abstract .--Mature woody vegetation along inter& ttent streams is often retained when upland stands are harvested and are planted to pine. These riparian zones bisecting pine plantations reduce non-point pollution and enhance wildlife habitat. Riparian zones are productive of forage and hard and soft mast, provide habitat diversity, function as habitat corridors, and serve as limited mature forest habitat. Studies are underway to assess the relationships of size and composition of riparian zones to populations of deer, squirrels, wild turkeys, fur bearers, small mammals, breeding and wintering birds, and reptiles and amphibians. In eastern Texas, squirrels were abundant in riparian zones wider than 55 m but were rare in riparian zones narrower than 40 m. Studies of the other vertebrate groups continue.

RIPARARIAN ZONES isolated populations in adjacent mature stands,- thereby helping to maintain population genetic In the South, many mature pine and mixed viability. The zones also provide limited habi- pine-hardwood stands are being cut and replaced tat for species associated with mature forests, by pine (Pinus spp.) plantations. In 1986, 9% of such as pileated woodpeckers and large carni- all midsouth timberland is planted pine, up from vores. Nesting sites, food, and cover probably 6% 8 years ago, and this does not include stands are increased for many species of wildlife. Hard planted to pine but dominated by hardwoods and soft mast are produced by the residual trees, (Birdsey and McWilliams 1986). A large variety and nesting and foraging sites are available in and quantity of herbaceous and woody vegetation the shrub and canopy vegetation. In Mississippi and fruit in young pine plantations make them (Warren and Hurst 1980) and in eastern Texas good habitat for many species of wildlife. (McElfresh et al. 1980), squirrel (Sciurus spp.) White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), cot- use of RZ was much higher than in adjacent upland ton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), cottontail rabbits stands . Hardwood drains along intermittent (Sylvilagus f loridanus), and many birds fare well streams in RZ usually have fertile soils that in young clearcuts. But wildlife habitat for support a luxuriant growth of vegetation, pro- most species deteriorates after 7 to 10 years ducing high yields of a variety of forage and when pine canopies close and shade out mast and also providing escape cover for deer understories of non-pine vegetation. (Halls 1973). Studies have shown that floodplain forests downstream from RZ support more birds When timber is harvested, mature forest than upland pine stands (Dickson 1978, Stauffer vegetation along permanent and intermittent and Best 1980), probably due to their greater streams bisecting upland sites may be retained to vegetative structural diversity. There are also reduce soil erosion and to enhance wildlife habi- a large variety and an abundance of birds along tat. These areas of hardwood or mixed pine- forest edge (Sttelke and Dickson 1980). hardwoods, called stringers, streamers, Retention of mature vegetation along permanent streamside management zones, or riparian zones and intermittent streams in clearcuts has been (RZ), throughout pine plantations create habitat recommended for deer, wild turkeys (Xeleagris diversity and edge, which are important to many gallopavo), squirrels, and song birds. In the species of wildlife. They serve as travel corri- South, the retention of RZ in clearcuts is policy dors for animals between mature stands and can for the USDA Forest Service and several large help maintain genetic flow between potentially industrial forest landowners.

James G. Dickson is Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist and Jimmy C. Huntley is Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Wildlife Habitat and Silviculture Laboratory, Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (In cooperation with School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University). Huntley's present address: USDA Forest Service, Southern Region (R-8), 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30367. We thank Lowell Halls, George Hurst and James Neal for reviewing a draft of this manuscript. THE PROBLEM ducted. Reptiles and amphibians in RZ and on plantation slopes are being surveyed by visual Quantitative data on effects of RZ on counts, inspection of artificial covers, captures wildlife populations are insufficient to enable from drift fences and funnel traps, and by inten- wildlife managers to justify the retention of RZ sive searches each spring. Wild turkey use of RZ in land-use plans on a biological and economical is being determined supplementally by radio te- basis. For informed decisions, landowners need lemetry. The study of squirrels in RZ has been to know--mat are the differences in wildlife completed and is presented here. populations in areas with RZ and areas without RZ, and what are the relationships of RZ width and vegetative composition to aldlife abundance? The Wildlife Habitat Laboratory, Southern Forest Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, is con- fox squirrels (S. niger) are sympatric throughout ducting research to help answer these questions most of the eastern United States (Hall 1981), by assessing the impact of presence, vegetative but favor different habitat types. In eastern composition, and extent of RZ on various segments Texas, the fox squirrel is more nmerous in of the wildlife coarmunity. The purpose of this upland forests, and the gray squirrel is more paper is to provide a background on the nature of numerous in bottomland hardwood forests. Both RZ in the southern forests, discuss the approach species occur along small drainages with hard- and techniques for our research, and present woods and in eco-tones between bottomland hard- current information on the squirrel phase of the woods and the surrounding pine uplands. study . Suitable squirrel habitat is lost when older STUDY AREAS ANE) METHODS forests are clearcut and converted to even-age pine plantations. But RZ in clearcuts are bene- Nine recent clearcuts in East Texas 2-4 f icial to squirrels. In east-central years old and 49 to 121 ha in size were selected Mississippi, BZ along permanent streams and for study. Selection of the 9 nine areas was varying in width from 40 to 141 m had greater based on similarity of topography, soils, vegeta- squirrel densities than mature pine-hardwood tion, and surrounding land use. All areas, which forests (Warren and Hurst 1980). Gray squirrel had been previously vegetated by second growth density was highest in RZ with an average width pine-hardwoods, were recently clearcut, mechani- of 100 m in bottomland sites. In East Texas, cally site prepared, planted to loblolly pines gray squirrels used the RZ that were retained in (Pinus taeda), and traversed by RZ. Mature pines slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations had been harvested from some of the RZ. All (McElfresh et ale 1980). The Texas researchers plantations were on upland sites, and RZ were suggested that Ri! 50 to 100 m wide that connect along first-and-second order internstent adjoining bottomland forests should provide ade- streams. Pines were generally 0.5 to 1.5 m high. quate habitat for squirrels and that additional The plantations were dominated by hardwoods, research would be needed to refine this estimate pines, and other woody and herbaceous vegetation. of necessary width. Oak (Quercus spp.) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) sprouts, Callicarpa americana, Rubus The objective of our study was to determine spp., and Rhus spp. were abundant. Dominant the effect of RZ width on squirrel abundance. overstory vegetation in RZ included southern red Squirrel abundance was estimated with time-area oak (& falcata) , white oak (9.alba) , post oak counts (Goodrum 1940) on 2 replications in 1984 (9.stellata), sweetgum and American beech (Fagus and all 3 replications of treatments in 1985 from grandifolia). observation points at least 100 m apart in each RZ. Observation time at each point was 20 minu- Assigned treatments were RZ of 3 widths: tes, as recommended by Bouffard and Hein (1978). narrow (< 25 m wide), medium (30-40 m), and vide All counts were completed between 0700 and 1030 (> 50 m). Three replications of each treatment hours in mid-to-late September, prior to squirrel were applied. Four sample transects (200 m each) hunting season. In each RZ, 3 counts by dif- were established in each of the 9 study areas--2 ferent observers were conducted from 4 obser- in each RZ and 2 in each adjoining pine plan- vation points for a total of 12 observation tation. Along each transect, understory, periods. One additional count was taken at the midstory, and overstory vegetation was sampled edge of the RZ and adjacent plantation to deter- from 4 points on each transect. Also hard mast mine squirrel use of plantations. The number of is being sampled from visual estimates in tree squirrels seen during these 4 hours of obser- canopies, and then adjusted by collection in vation for each RZ was used to measure squirrel barrels each fall. abundance. Squirrel densities based on average detection distances were not calculated. The vertebrate cornunity is being sampled by various means. Deer tracks are being counted on Squirrel leaf nests were counted in January- plots in RZ and plantations during the fall and February 1985 for another index of squirrel abun- spring. Scent stations baited with bobcat urine dance. In each RZ, all nests that occurred in 2 and fish oil are used to survey furbearere each 200 by 80 m transects and that appeared to have fall and winter. Small mammal abundance is being been constructed in the prior year were counted. determined from live trapping and nrarking each winter. Bird censuses from transects during During both years in t%e time-area counts, winter and the breeding season are being con- squirrels were observed regularly in wide, very rarely in medium, and never in narrow RZ. In 1984, a total of 12 squirrels were observed on LITERATURE CITED wide, 1 on medium, and 0 on narrow RZ. In 1985, with the sample increased by 50%, there were 12, 0, and 0 squirrels on wide, medium, and narrow RZ Birdsey, R. A*, and W. H. McWilliams. 1986. respectively (Table 1). Leaf nest density was Midsouth forest area trends USDA For. Serv. also much greater in the wide RZ, 55 nests were Res. Bull. 50-107. 17pp. counted on wide, 7 on medium, and only 1 on Bouffard, S. H., and D. Hein. 1978. Census narrow RZ. Time-area colunts and leaf nest den- methods for eastern gray squirrels. J. sities indicated that squirrels were permanent Wildl. Manage. 42:550-557. residents in only the 3 wide RZ, which averaged Dickson, J. G. 1978. Forest bird communities of 93, 73, and 55 m in width. The 73-m-wide RZ had the bottomland hardwoods. Pages 66-73 2 the greatest squirrel abundance in both years and R.M. DeGraaf, Tech. Coor,, Proc. wrkshop the greatest density of leaf nests. This RZ also on management of southern forests for non- had numerous large American beech and loblolly game birds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. pine trees, which the 933 RZ generally lacked. SE-14. Atlanta, GA. These were prime sources of food and cavity and Goodrum, P.D. 1940. A population study of the leaf nest sites, and may have accounted for the gray squirrel in eastern Texas. Texas Agric. higher squirrel numbers than in the wider RZ. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 591. Texas A & M, The minimum width of RZ that will maintain College Station, TX. 34 pp. squirrel populations appears to be about 55 m. Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Fewer squirrels were observed in the 55 m RZ than Vol. I. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 600 in the other 2 wider RZ. RZ narrower than about PP 55- do not support permanent resident popula- Halls, L. K. 1973. Managing deer habitat in tions of squirrels. There was only light loblolly-shortleaf pine forest. J. For. squirrel use in the medium RZ of 30 to 40 m 71: 752-757. width. Only 1 squirrel was detected during the McElfresh, R. W., J. M. Inglis, and B. A. Brown. survey, there were only 7 nests in 1,200 m of RZ, 1980. Gray squirrel usage of hardwood and signs of squirrel feeding were sparse. No ravines within pine plantations. La. State squirrels, 1 nest, and no signs of squirrel Univ. Ann. For. Symp. 19:79-89. feeding were observed in narrow RZ. Stauffer, D. El, and L. B. Best. 1980. Habktat selection by birds of riparian communities: Only 3 squirrels were seen from the plan- evaluating effects of habitat alterations. tation edge points; all of these were in RZ, and J. Wildl. Manage. 44:l-15. no squirrels were detected in the 2-4 year-old Strelke, W. #., and J. G. Dickson. 1980. Effect plantar ions. of forest-clearcut "edge" on breeding birds in East Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. Both fox and gray squirrels were observed in 44:559-567. the time-area counts in RZ. Mostly gray Warren, R. C., and G. A. Hurst. 1980. Squirrel squirrels were detected in 2 of the wide areas densities in pine-hardwood forests and and fox squirrels were predominant in the other. streamside management zones. Proc. Ann. Data collection, analysis, and writeup continue Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. for the other animal groups. Agencies. 34 :492-498.

Table 1.--Number of squirrels observed during time-area countsand the number of leaf nests in riparian zones of various widths -i_n_ eastern Texas

Riparian Sepf. 198411 Sept. 198511

zone width Total No./h Total No./h NO. of nest&/

Narrow ((25 m) 0 0 0 0 1

Medium (30-40 m) I 0.1 0 0 7

Wide 050 m) 12 1.5 12 1.0 55

~/TWOreplications of each width sampled in 1984 (8 hours of observation per treatment), 3 replications in 1985 (12 hours per treatment).

L/~oundalong 1,200 m of transect of each treatment, 400-m lengths in each replication in Feb. 1985. Effecte of Forest Practices on Relationships Between Riparian Area and Aquatic Ecosystems

-tr=t,--Riparim vegetation influences food energy, large organic debris loading, str e, streaa~bankand bed stability, terrestria ing and stredlow of lower order forest st These fulctional areas are ihigMy interrslat d detemine aquatic productivity. @portunities to riparian arms to meet tfmber utilization and productivity goals are prmising. Research is needed in all areas to tify the relationships and provide guidance for site-

RIPARIlaM VEGETATION ANI) TEE S ?%e managant of riparian arms for the protection of aquatic ecosystems has received Food Energy attention in the forest ity during In forest streams small enough to be the past 10 years. Best t practices completely covered by the forest canopy a (m's) which include guidelines for large portion of the food base is supplied by stremside management have been developed and the riparian vegetation, Leaves, needles, inplmented either on a regulatory or fruits, twigs, branches, boles, and insects voluntary basis in most states. Despite the from streamside vegetation may constitute 70- development of riparian 3MP% there is very 80 percent of the food energy supply to the little published infomtion on how the aquatic system (Nynes 1970). This food is mnipulation of riparian vegetation affects classified as allochthonous, meaning it aquatic ecosystems (USDA Forest Service and originates from outside the aquatic US Environmental Protection Agency 1978). ecosystem. With the exception of large woody Notable exceptions are in the areas of forest material, the amounts, types, and timing of shade influence on stream temperature and allochthonous inputs are seasonally riparian management effects on stream regulated. A large percentage of this coarse productivity in the northwest United States, organic material is used within the lower The objective of this paper is to provide a order streams by shredding and collecting brief outline of the relationship between organisms. Once this material is processed riparian and stream cmmnities. This will into smaller sizes, it is subsequently help foresters better understand the flushed and utilized by invertebrate objectives underlying streamside management organisms in higher order streams. The designs and identify some areas where an balance of food energy in the aquatic improved understanding of riparian influences ecosystem is produced within the stream in on stream ecosyst~ would be helpful in the form of algae or aquatic vascular plants guidlng management strategies for riparian and is classified as autochthonous. This areas. source of organic matter increases and may The quality of stream habitat for aquatic predominate in streams exposed to direct organisms is influenced strongly by riparian sun1ight . vegetation (Neehan et al. 1977). In a broad The utility of organic material to aquatic view there are six interrelated functions organisms in the stream depends on the type which the riparian area serves with respect of material and the retention time in the to the aquatic environment: 1. Riparian stream (Meehan et al. 1977). For example, vegetation provides a portion of the food leaves are generally more easily used than energy far certain streant orgmisnos; 2, large wood, and hardwood leaves are generally more organic debris, which is an important palatable and digestible than conifer component of some forest streams, is produced needles. Easily decomposible materials in the riparian area; 3. solar energy is supply a ready source of energy and regulated by the vegetation which shades the nutrients while coarse or refractory water surface; 4. the stability of the materials provide a lower, yet less time- streambank and flood plain of smaller streams dependent supply of food. Retention time is depends largely on riparian vegetation; 5. the length of time material remains within a the streanside zone provides a buffer between defined stream section and is therefore the aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and; 6. available for decomposition or conswption. streamflow is regulated to some extent by the Retention time is a function of stream riparian vegetation, morphology, Z~ssociateProfessor, Department of Forestry, I3klahom State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-0491 .1 Large Organic Debris (Brown and Krygier 1970, Levno and Rothacher 1967, Meehan 1970, Hewlett and Fortson 1982, Tree boles, large branches, and root wads, and Swift and Messer 1971). Stream shade classified as large organic debris (LOD), are removal normally results in increased maxi Supplied by riparian vegetation and become an temperatures, a greater diurnal range integral part of many forest streamb This temperature, increased rates of change, a mterial strongly, influences the structure in some cases, reductions in daily mini (morphology) of -small streams by forming temperatures during winter (Swift and Messer pools (Swanson et al. 1976) and retaining or 1971). In some situations stream detaining the movement of sediment and gravel tmperatures decline after flowing through (~ilb~1981, Negahan 1982). LOD also shaded reaches. Cooling of heated water is increases the retention time of smaller usually the result of cool water organic material used as a food source (Bilby contributions from side streams and and Likens 1980), provides cover for fish groundwater, and flow through coarse (Bryant 1983, Sedel et a1.1985), and is an strembed gravel (Swift and Baker 1973, Bilby important substrate for biological activity 1984s). (Meehan et al. 1977). A change in stream channel structure and a reduction in habitat diversity can occur when LOD is removed from S treambank and Bed Stability a section of stream (Bilby 1984b). Geologic characteristics and processes are dominant factors affecting overall stream S treaa Temperature morphology. As stream order decreases, however, riparian vegetation is increasingly For stream organisms, temperature is one important in determining the morphology and of the most important ecological factors stability of forest streams (Zimmerman et al. because basic metabolic processes are 1967). Vegetative protection of streambanks, temperature dependent (Ruttner 1963) + The and on smaller streams the streambeds, temperature of stream water also influences provides for the continued existence of its oxygen holding capacity. Temperature can discrete habitat types. Infrequent episodic therefore limit the broad geographical flood events play a role in reshaping distribution as well as the local (within- streambanks and beds. Although floods cause stream) occurrence of aquatic organisms periods of instability, they provide for the including fish (Hynes 1970). Tolerances to critical restructuring of habitat and in some temperature maximums, miniaums, ranges and systems cause the addition sf large organic rates of change are radically different for debris which add to habitat diversity (Ward the various aquatic organisms. The effect of and Stanford 1983). The banks and beds of a change in stream temperature regime on headwater forest streams are ready sources of individual species can be insignificant or sediment (Swanson and Fredricksen 1982). dramatic. Impacts include changes in growth, Riparian vegetation allows for the necessary development, reproduction, and mobility. natural bed and bank erosion processes, but Because of the interdependence of various effectively prevents accelerated erosion species in an ecosystem the disruption of the which would increase suspended loads and life cycles of one or a group of species may provide a continuing source of active bed cause shifts in ecosystem productivity, load materials. species diversity, dominant species, or total Suspended sediment loads rarely have a numbers present. It should be stressed direct adverse effect on adult fishes (Wallen however that ecosystem changes which result 1951) however, the ultimate results of from alterations in the stream temperature increased suspended loads, although indirect, regime are not uniformily positive or can be serious. Some examples include negative but must be evaluated quantitatively reductions in invertebrate abundances, and qualitatively in light of stream decreased feeding success of sight feeding management objectives. species, and dislocation and mortality of The primary source of heat for lower order early life stages. Attributes of the stream forest streams is direct solar radiation on such as stream temperature and nutrient the water surface, whereas conduction, levels can also be altered by increased convection, and evaporation have little suspended sediment loads. Increased bed influence on stream water temperature (Brown loads and/or intrusion of fines into stream 1969). Shade provided by riparian vegetation gravels can have a major influence on bottom plays a key role in the regulation of solar dwelling species causing shifts in numbers, energy inputs and therefore stream species, and diversity and also have a direct temperature. The effect of riparian shade negative effect on the spawning success of removal on forest stream temperature has been salmonids as well as other fish species. shown in a number of studies across the U.S. There is an extremely wide range in the tolerance of various species to . both decreasing channel and flood plain rOYBbI suspended and bed load sediments precluding increases velocity (Gray and Wigham 19)~) any further broad qualitative statements. The influence of riparian vegetati& stream discharge is not clear, hQYByel,on increased annual stream discharge due to ~errestrialfaquaticBuffer riparian clearing has been reported (w and Fletcher 1943, Rowe 1963). The riparian area acts as a buffer between fluctuating discharge or the seasonal dryingG:", the terrestrial and the aquatic ecosystems. out of streams eliminates The regulation and modification of inputs aquatic species, increases in flowOr duringnull from the terrestrial zone, primarily critical periods may be advantageous, kt nutrients and in some cases sediments, are overall inf luenca of strewide vegetation among the buffering functions. Nutrient would have to be considered in such cases, xt inputs due to leaf and woody matter addition would appear that the influence varies frm are of major importance to the stream riparian stream SYSt in dryland or desert ecosystem but are considered a part of energy environs to those in the humid foreat, or food inputs discussed earlier. In this Investigations have thoroughly demonstrated case we are considering inechanistns by which that forest harvest other than in riparia nutrient levels are regulated or altered as areas results in increased strewlow water passes over and through the flood (Hewlett 1982) and those increases would se- plain, and situations where the riparian to overshadow the effect of riparian clearing area can act as a filter to limit the inputs in humid areas. of upland sediments 'to the stream. The relative importance of the strearnsi.de zone as a nutrient and sediment buffer to the NANAGmNT OF TNE RIPmM FOREST aquatic systm has not been well established, particularly for smaller forest streams. Forest magment options for the riparian Wetlands have been studied for use as area can range from no activity to complete nutrient removal systems (Bender and Correll vegetation removal. The no activity or leave 1974, Tilton and Kadlec 1979) and Lowranee et strip option is practiced primarily on public al. (1984) found riparian forests to be an lands where a conservative mnageraent effective nutrient sink. References stating perspective is coupled with a strong multiple the importance of riparian zones as sediment use directive. On lands where an aggressive filters are common (Meehan et al. 1977, van forest management program is underway, a Groenewood 1977), yet reports documenting balance between the costs and benefits of this function are difficult to find. riparian management and stream habf tat Forest systems are generally nutrient protection must be established. At the other conservative and undisturbed forested soils extreme are those areas where the landowners are well protected from erosion. The goals or attitudes are incompatible with opportunity or need for riparian areas to stream habitat protection, the maintenance of regulate nutrient and sediment inputs from riparian values are not considered, and the terrestrial portions of forested riparian vegetation is abused or eliminated. watersheds are therefore relatively minor. What are some of the generalized impacts on However, the opportunity for the riparian the six functions for a forest management area to serve as a buffer for forest option which includes the removal of selected operations activities conducted on the timber from the riparian area with careful watershed may be significant and is attention to stream habitat protection? " considered later.

Food Energy S treamf low The basic relationship between food energy Current speed (velocity) and discharge sources and the stream ecosystem is (rate) are important physical attributes of reasonably well understood and allows a stream systems that have a major influence on qualitative assessment of timber harvest from the occurrence, distribution and spawning the riparian zone. Removal of streamside success of aquatic species (Hynes 1970). The vegetation would reduce the amounts of relationship between riparian vegetation and allochthonous material entering the stream, the velocity of a stream depends basically on might alter the quality and timing of how the vegetation affects the roughness of allochthonous inputs, and would increase the the channel during low flows and the entire amount of sunlight reaching the stream. floodway during flood flows. Increased The extent and duration of reductions in roughness decreases stream velocity whereas allochthonous imputs following riparian timber harvest is highly site specific and would depend on factors such as the mount of This is certainly an area of research canopy removed, rates of revegetation and opportunity. crown expansion, allochthonous inputs from Webster and Swank ( 1985) hypothesized the stands outside the riparian area, and following scenario for LOD inputs f~llowin~ upstream allochthonous contributions. For logging. Depending on logging practices, example, if the length of riparian harvest there may be an initial increase in LOD from area was short, harvest levels low, and logging slash. Inputs could remain high for allochthonous contributions from upstream a short period as windthrow, breakage, and and/or adjacent areHs large, total reductions rotting residuals fall into streanr channels. in inputs to a stream sepent might be small. Ttre second period would be dominated by Scenerios for large short-term reductions in successional vegetation development and a allochthonous inputs could also be presented. decrease in LOB inputs would occur. Later, Rapid revegetation or crown expansion as successional vegetation declines and shade following harvest could lead to overall tolerant or climax species prevail, an increases in allochthonous inputs in a increase in LOD input would again occur. relatively short period of time following Finally during the long period of forest harvest. maturation, low inputs would prevail until Timber utilization and mnagernent goals natural mortality of the mature stand occurs. will largely determine the species mix of the With intermediate levels of timber removal residual riparian stand while ecological or a selection management approach in the factors will determine the species mix riparian forest, it would appear drastic through the period of revegetation and crown shifts in LOD inputs could be avoided. development. The removal of individual trees Maintaining all age classes and a mix of in proportion to the original stand species would be a key in such a plan. Where composition, for example, would initially Loll is an important component of the stream result in little or no change in residual channel, cleaning of stream channels stand composition, whereas the removal of one following logging should be avoided if or more selected species could change possible (Bilby 1984b) as a means to maintain residual stand composition considerably. The LOD . impact of altering species on food quality and/or the seasonability of allochthonous inputs and ultimately stream productivity Stream Temperature could be positive or negative and would depend on site specific factors. Research which has identified the Finally, increasing sunlight levels to relationship between riparian shade and forest streams can increase autochthonous stream temperature has also led to guidelines production (Duncan and Brusven 1985a, 1985b) for shade management on streams where it has and subsequent increases in invertebrate been determined water temperatures must be production have been shown to increase fish maintained for aquatic habitat protection. production (Murphy and Hall 1981, Hawkins et Vegetative strips which continue to shade al. 1983, Bisson and Sedell 1984). Results small streams are the most effective means of may vary for streams which are not nutrient stream temperature control (Brown 1972). or temperature limited, but these examples Many factors determine the configuration of clearly illustrate that overall productivity riparian shade necessary to control stream is determined in part by the balance of temperature. They include the size of the terrestrial organic inputs and aquatic stream, its orientation, surrounding organic matter production. The overall topography, and the species and density of impact of timber removals from the riparian shade vegetation. (Brown 1972) suggests that zone on food energy cannot therefore be simply specifying the width of shade strips generally classified as negative and must be or the volume of riparian timber to be evaluated on a site specific basis. maintained are not effective ways to provide shade vegetation which meets timber utilization and stream temperature Large Organic Debris objectives. Determining canopy density and the portion of the canopy which provides The importance of large organic debris stream shade during critical midday hours on (LOD) to stream systems is recognized, individual stream segments is necessary. however, little information is available on Individual trees and understory vegetation rates of LOD inputs to streams from natural can then be identified and marked for or disturbed riparian systems, how much LOD protection in the process of planning the is needed to optimize fish or stream managment of the riparian area. This productivity or how to manage riparian areas requires the skill and judgment of the to provide the sizes and types of LOD needed. resource manager working on a site specific basis. activity the more important th Supporting a philosophy that the bfet, Streambank and Bed Stabilf ty area acts as a buffer or filter r ipatlr,, relieve managers from applying silvfcultul,:may tad tc The roots and lower st of both practices in a way that adequatelp Pr,tecl, understory and overstory vegetation bind the the terrestrial site as well as the strw, alluvial sediments of the bed and bank Soil erosion, for example, should be kept together and act to hold large organic debris a mini on forested lands in order t, in place (Likens and Bilby 1982). meintain site productivity. Even if tk Identification of this vegetation is straight riparian area were a perfect sediment filter* forward as it is nonnally found growing on or the foresters overall goals are not wt by directly adjacent to the streabd and allowing soil erosion to occur. There withln the bed of smaller streams. Rmoval situations, however, when the buffering or destruction of this vegetation reduces the capacity of a riparian area or the seperatio,. strength of the bed and bank and allows of activities by providing untreated .oncs accelerated erosion to occur especially adjacent to sensitive sites is of benefit, during flood flows. Restabilization of Riparian areas should be used as buffers strembinnks and beds is nomlly a long term to stream environments when forest ch=icsls process in nature which emphasizes the need - fertilizers, herbicides, and inseeticides - for unintermpted streambank protection. are applied to the watershed. Factors which Providing a wide leave strip would determine the hazard of any chemical are normally assure complete bank and bed exposure and toxicity. Non-toxic chernieals protection but this may not be necessary in pose little threat to organisms and toxic many cases. As with stream temperature, chemicals are no hazard if non-target identifying the critical vegetation for organisms are not exposed. Exposure depends protection while providing for some level of on the behavior of the chemical, where timber removal allows for a more equitable behavior is defined as: 1. the means of balance between timber utilization and stream distribution of the chemical; and, 2, the protection in the riparian zone. movement and persistence of the chemical in Removal ar damage of stream bank each component of the ecosystem. In an vegetation is not the only hazard forestry excellent review of the impact of forest operations in the riparian area pose to chemicals in streams, Norris and Moore (1970) streambank and bed stability. The indicate direct application to surface waters indiscriminate felling of other riparian (improper distribution) is the major source timber and adjacent upland timber, mechanized of aerially applied chemicals in the aquatic skidding or yarding operations which environment. Excluding ' streams from physically damage streambanks or streambank treatment areas by providing untreated buffer vegetation, frequent crossing of streams with strips is an extremely important first step machinery, and chemical supression of to assure the proper distribution af forest streambank vegetation are direct activities chemicals. which can be especially destructive. Slash The riparian area can also serve as a left in the riparian area can cause damage to buffer from the mechanical activities streambanks and beds by accumulating during involved in forest management operations* floods, damming and rechannelizing flow and Exclusion of all mechanical activities in the initiating erosion processes. Properly riparian zone may not be necessary, but managed, however, large slash can enhance special precautions are required to prevent stream habitat by enhancing LOD. Conducting soil disturbance in the flood zone, dmage to - management activities in the riparian area residual riparian vegetation, and the then requires site specific planning and indiscriminate crossing of streams- training of operators in order to meet timber Provision of a special streamside management and stream management objectives. zone emphasizes these special needs. In some situations riparian areas can act as sediment filters for flow from upslope Terristria1,'aquati.c Buffer areas or for road drainage runoff. Miller et al. (1984) and Vowel1 (1984) reported The natural function of the riparian area providing a buffer area, with high as a buffer between the undisturbed infiltration capacity, between road drainage terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems may not be outfalls and adjacent streams, effectively as critical to the aquatic ecosystem as food reduced road sediment loads when, flow energy, solar energy regulation, or habitat discharges were low and flow was not stability. When the terrestrial area is channelized directly to the streams. The under management, the importance of the ability of the riparian area to filter riparian area as a buffer increases and logic sediments will depend largely on the volume suggests the more drastic the terrestrial and rate of flow entering the' area, the sediment load, riparian ground cover, and productivity. Research results. indicate infiltration conditions. Flow which is opportmities exist for timber utilization in channelized when it enters the flood plain is the' riparian area but at lower intensity and generally channelized directly to the main usingmethods which recognize and meet stream stream and no opportunity exists to reduce temperature, food, and other stream habitat the sediment load. When flow . can be requirements. In some cases timber

' delivered to the flood plain at,rates which ' management may be designed and conducted to

, allow dispet5ion and infiltration, enhance stream productivity. The owortunities for sediment. filtration relationship between riparian vegetation and increase. stream productivity is highly dependent on site specific factors, and likewise, riparian management must be designed on a site Flow Regulation specific basis to adequate address tirnber utilization and stream productivity goals. Riparian management ranging from no disturbance to moderate levels of overstory removal should have minor impacts on amounts of streamflow and rates' of stream discharge in' forested watersheds. Short-term increases LITERATURE CITED in groundwater discharge to streams with moderate levels of timber removal might occur Bender, M.E. and D.L. Correll. 1974. The during summer low flow periods and use of wetlands as nutrient removal potentially benefit aquatic organisms in systems. Chesapeake Research streams which are flow limited. Increased Consortium, Pub. No. 29. Baltimore, groundwater discharge could also positively m. impact stream temperatures during stressful ' Bilby, R.E. 1981. Role of organic debris low flow periods. dams in regulating the export of dissolved and particulate matter from a forested watershed. Ecology 62:1234-1243. CONCLUSION , 1984a. Characteqistics and The functions of the riparian area with frequency of cool-water areas in respect to the stream environment can be western Washington stream. J. classified into five areas - food, . large Freshwat. Ecol. 2:593-502. organic debris, solar ener.gy regulation, , 1984b. Post-logging removal sf streambank and bed stability, terrestrial- woody debris affects stream channel aquatic buffer, and streamflow regulation. stability. J. Forestry 82:609-613. These-functions are highly interrelated as , , and G.E. Likens. 1980. they affect stream habitat and aquatic Importance of organic debris dams in productivity. Riparian areas provide an the structure and function of stream important source of allochthonous food inputs 'ecosystems. Ecology 61:1107-1113 and regulate autochthonous ~roduction by Bisson, P.A. and J.R. Sedell. 1984. influencing light levels of smaller forest Salmonid populations in clear-cut vs. streams. Riparian vegetation is tbe source old-growth forests of western of large organic debris to the stream. Washington. Fish and Wildlife Riparian shade is the key regulator of solar relationships. in old-growth forests. energy input and therefore the temperatures W.R. Meehan, T:R. Merrell, Jr., and of small forest streams. . Streamside T.A. Hanley, eds., Amer. Inst. Fish. vegetation is an important factor in Res. Biol., Juneau, Alaska. maintaining streambank and bed stability and Brom, G.W. 1969. Predicting temperatures stabitizing large organic debris. Finally of small streams. Water Resour. Res. . the riparian area is a terrestrial-aquatic 5(1) :68-75. buffer and influences streamflow Brown, G.W. 1972. Forestry and water characteristics, although these functions may quality. Oregon State University be relatively minor in the undisturbed School of Forestry, Corvallis, OR. forested watershed. In general the functional 74~~ influences of the riparian vegetation Brown, G.W. and J.T. Krygier 1970. Effects decreases as stream order increases. of clear-cutting on stream Providing for .totally undisturbed riparian temperature. Water Resour. Res. areas is one approach to maintaining the 6(4) :1133-1139: food, temperature, and habitat stability Bryant, M.D. 1983. The role and management requirements of'streams, but does not address of woody debris in west coast timber utilization goals, and does not sahnid nursery streams. No. Am. J, necessarily lead to optimum levels of aquatic Fish. Mgmt. 3:322-330. riparian habitat. July 9, 1977, 1977, Duncan, W.F. and M.A. Brusven. 1985a. Tucson, AZ. USDA F.F. Gen. Tech, Energy dynamics of three low-order Report 43. p.147-145. southeast Alaskan Megahan, W.P. 1982. Channel sediment Autochthonous production. storage behind obstructions in Freshwat. Ecol. 3:155-166. forested drainage basins draining tb . 1985b. Energy granitic bedrock of the ldaho dynaics of three low-order southeast Batholith, Swanson, F.J., R,J, Alaskan Autochthonous Janda, T. e, and D.N. Swanson, production. J. Freshwat. Ecol. 3:233- eds, Sedbant budgets and routing in 248 .. forested drainage basins; a workshop. hnford, E.G. and P.M. Fletcher. 1947. USDA For Serv. Pacific Northwest par Effect of r~loval of streabd and Range fxp. Sta. Gen, Tech, vegetation upon water yield, Amer, Report, PEJW 141, p, 114-121. Geophys. Union Trans. 28~105-110. Miller, E.L., R.S. Beasley, and J,c, Gray, D.M. and J.H. Wighm. 1970, Covert. 1984. Forest road sedhents: Peakflow-rainfall events. Handbook production and delivery to streams. on the Principles of hydrology. D.M. B .G . Blacbon, ed . Proceedings, Gray ed. Water Information Center, Forestry and water quality: a mid- Inc. Port Washington, NY. south symposim; 1985 May 8-9; Little Hawkins, C.P., M.L. Murphy, N.H. Andersen, Rock, Arkansas; Dept. of For. and M.A. Wilzbach. 1983. Density of Resour., Univ. of Arkansas at fish and salamanders in relation to Monticello, Monticello, AR. riparian canopy and physical habitat Murphy, M.L. and 3.D. Hall. 1981. Varied in streams of the northwestern United effects of clear-cut logging on States. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. predators and their habitat in small 40:1173-1185, streams of the Cascade Mountains, Hewlett, J.D. 1982. Principles of forest Oregon, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. hydrology. Univ, of Georgia Press, 38:137-145. Athens, GA. Norris, L.A. and D.G. Moore. 1971. The . and J.C. Fortson. 1982. Stream entry, fate and toxicity of forest temperature under an inadequate chemicals in streams. Krygier, J.T. buffer-strip in the southeast and 3.D. Hall, eds. Forest land uses piedmont. Water Resour. Bull. 18 and the stream environment, a (6) :983-988. symposium. 1970; Oregon State Hynes, H.B. 1970. The ecology of running University, Corvallis, Oregon. waters. 1st ed. University of Toronto Roue, P.B. 1963. Streamflow increases Press, Toronto, Canada after removing woodland-riparian Levno, A. and J. Rothacher. 1967. vegetation for a southern California Increases in maximum stream watershed. J. For 61:365-370. temperatures after logging in old- Ruttner, F. 1963. Fundamentals of growth Douglas-fir watersheds. USDA limnology . 3rd ed. Trans. Frey, D.G. For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-65, 12pp. and F.E. Fry, 1963. University of Likens, G.E. and R.E. Bilby. 1982, Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. Development, maintenance and role of Sedell, J.R., F.J. Swanson, and S.V. - organic-debris dam in New England Gregory. 1985. Evaluating fish strems. Swanson, F.J., R.J. Janda, response to woody debris. in T.J. T. Dunne and D.N. Swanson, eds. Hassler ed. Proc. of the Pacific Sediment budgets and routing in northwest stream habitat management forested drainage basins; a workshop. workshop. Western Div. Am, Fish. Soc. USDA For. Serv. Pacific Northwest and Coop. Fish Unit, Humboldt St. U,, For. and Range Exp. Sta. Gen, Tech. Arcata, CA. Report, PW 141, p. 122-128 Swanson, F.J. and R.L. Fredricksen. 1982. Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L,E. Sediment routing and budgets: Asmussen. 1984. Nutrient cyclying in Implications for judging impacts of an agricultural watershed: I. forestry practices. Swanson, F.J., Phreatic movement. J. of Environ. R.3, Janda, T. hnne and D.N. Qual,, 13(1):22-27. Swanson, eds. Sediment budgets and Meehan, M.R. 1970. Some effects of shade routing in forested drainage basins; cover on stream temperature in a workshop. USDA For. Serv. Pacific southeast Alaska. USDA For, Serv. Northwest For and Range Exp. Sta. Pacific N.W. For. and Range ap, Sta. Gen. Tech. Report, PW 141, p. 129- Res. Note PNW-113, 9p. 137. Heehan, W.R., F*J. Sw~nson and J.R. , and Lienkaamper, and J.R. Sedell. 1977. Influences of riparial Sedell. 1976. History, physical vegetation on aquatic scosystams with effects, and management implications parti cufar reference to sobonid of large organic debris in western fishes and their food supply, In Spposim on the hportance, presetvation and lnanagement of the established forest road in Oklahamis Oregon streams. USDA For. Ser., Gen. Ouachita Mountains. B.G.Blacbon, ed, Tech. Rep. PNW-56. Proceedings, Forestry and water swift, L.W., Jr., and S.E. Baker. 1973. quality: a mid-south spposim; 1385 Lower water taperatures within a May 8-9; Little Rock, Arkansas; Dept. streamside buffer strip. USDA For. of For. Resour., Univ. of Arkansas at Serv., Southeastern For and Range Monticello, Monticello, AX, Exp. Sta. Res, NotaSE-133, 7p. Walfen, E.1, 1451, The direct effect of , and J.B* Messsr, 2971, Forest turbidity on fish. Bull. Okla. Agric. cuttings raise temperatures of small Exp. Sta. 48(2):1-27, streams in the southern Appalachians. Ward, J.V. and J.A. Stanford. 1983. The J. Soil and Water Conserv. 25:lll- intermediate disturbance hypothesis: 116. An explanation for biotic diversity Tilton, D.L. and R.H. Kadlec. 1979. The patterns in lotic ecosystems. p. utilization of a fresh-water wetland 347-356, in, T.D. Pontaine, I11 and for nutrient removal from secondary S, M. Bartell (eds) Dynamics of lotic treated waste water efflvent. J.of ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science Environ. Qual., 8:328-334. Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. ~sflAForest Service and US Enviromental Webster, J.R. and W.T. Swank. 1984. protection Agency. 1978. Stre Within-stream factors affecting managwent zone statutes and nutrient transport from forested and ordinances. US Gov. Print Off. 796- logged watersheds. B.G. Blackmon ed. 058-190, Washington, D.C. Proceedings, Forestry and water van Groenewood, H. 1977. Interim quality: a mid-south symposium; 1985 recornendation for the use of buffer May 8-9; Little Rock, Arkansas; Dept. strips for the protection of small of For. Resour., Univ. of Arkansas at streams in the maritimes. Canadian Monticello, Monticello, AR. For. Serv., Dept. of Fish, and Zimmerman, R.C., J.C. Goodlet, and G.H. Environ., Maritime For. Res. Centre, Comer. 1967. The influence of - Fredricton, New Brunswick, vegetation on channel form of small Information Report M-x-74, 18 pp. streams. pp. 255 in Symposium on well, 3.L. 1984. Erosion rates and water river morphology. It. Assoc. Sci. quality impacts from a recently Hydrol., Pub. 75. SECTION 1x1. SPECIAL a

Assessment of Wildlife Damage on Southern Forest s

James E. Hiller

Abstract. This paper sumarizes results fran a mail questionnaire sent to forest managers and natural resources agencies in 16 southern States to deternine the extent of damage caused by principal wildlife species to southern forests. Annual wildlife damage to southern forest resources was estimated by respondents to this questionnaire to be $11,182,641 with another $1,643,218 annually being expended in attempts to prevent or control damge on 28,380,182 hectares (70,950,455 acres) of forest lands. Conclusions and implications drawn from this and other survey studies indicate that many natural resources managers ate reluctant or unwilling to provide atanetary estimates of damage caused by vertebrate animals. Reasons for this reluctance are discussed in the paper, however, the lack of practical and effective assessment methodologies or models for determining damage costs is the most significant .

INTRODUCTION damage prevention and control as detrimental to other management objectives or at best , as an Vertebrate wildlife species have long been unplanned for, adjunct necessity when damage or considered one of the manageable resources produced losses become significant. on forest lands in the South and many sf these have high social and economic values attributed to them In recent years, however, both natural by the public, and by the variety of Landowners, resources agencies and organizations and most managers and users. Some wildlife species may at wildlife professionals have come to realize that times, however, cause significant economic damage wildlife damage prevention and control is a vital to valued resources and related properties as well part of natural resources management, A campre- as problems and frustration for the landowner, hensive natural resources management plan with manager and community . objectives for the effective prevention and control of wildlife damage will require a comitment of This study was conducted in an attempt to resources to research and management, a knowledge provide some estimates of the magnitude of damage of current regulations, the capabi 1i ty to assess caused by vertebrate wildlife species to southern the cost/benefits of damagelrisk and the cost fores t s, to delineate some concerns and needs effectiveness of prevention and control methods* related to the issue, and to encourage stronger As an example, consider the following quote from consideration of the issue in future natural the (International Association of Fish and wildlife resources management planning efforts. Agencies 19811, position statement on Animal Damage Control. "A well balanced wildlife management The prevention and control of wildlife damage program includes research, the acquisition of land, on forest lands is an old and complex problem that the development of habitat, the careful regulation rarely is easily accomplished and is commonly of hunting or harvest, the protection of certain misunderstood. It should be a part of any natural species , the enforcement of laws--and the control resource manager's land management objectives, even of animal depredations. Though necessary, this is though it may be controversial. Wildlife damage ainong the least popular and mat controversial of prevention and control on southern forest lands is the wildlife management functions. It is, a8 essential to any comprehensive forest management nevertheless, one of the activities which a program as the prevention and control of wildfire, responsible agency must undertake ." diseases and insect damage. Unfortunately, in the past many natural resources managers, including Further evidence of the assigned importance of some wildlife biologists, have perceived wildlife this management consideration in recent years can

James E. Hiller, National Program Leader, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Rural Development Unit, Extension Service, USDA, Room 3871-South Building, Washington, DC 20250. be found in Department Policy as well as USDA, Aniaral Plant Health Inspection Senrice - professional society position statements. Two good Animal Damage Control, - State Directors; and examples are the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Departmnt of Defense - Land Managers, The non- ~epartmentalRegulation 9500-4 Fish and Wildlife govermental organizations surveyed included policy (USDA 1983) and the position statement and professionals from 15 major forest industry of The Wildlife Speiety (WS 1985) adopted ownerships within the 16 States. 240 attempt was on March 19, 1985, made to survey private non-industrial forest C landgwaets even though ehey are the principal To incorporate an animal damage controi forest landowners in the South and often suffer the pigram into a comprehensive natural resources rnos t animal damage 10sses . @anagesent program, questions for consideration are: (1) If wildlife damage prevention and control is a management issue -- do we address and plan for it in our natural resources management objectives? (2) Do we feel confident in our capabilities to The questionnaire was developed by the author assess accurately the impacts of wildlife damage with review by Federal and State agency by some species andfor wildlife benefits professionals. The purpose and objectives of the tes~ltingfrom species-selective, damage abatement? questionnaire were delineated on an accmpanying (3) Do we support sufficient research and cover letter. It was clearly stated on the cover

technology developent to establish and maintain letter that respondents should . . . "please answer a prevention and control measures? (4) Do the questions with the best estimate available from ,, have the comitment, training and expertise to your own personal knowledge or that provided by implement environmental ly safe and cost-effective knowledgeable personnel from your agency or prevention and control measures to reduce damage! organization," Informat ion compiled from these losses to an acceptable level? questionnaires are estimates only of the extent and impact of vertebrate animal damage to some southern Some related facts that we can be confident forest resources. of, however, include: (1) Wildlife damage has been a vital element in the protection of Total response to the questionnaire, with - bman interests ; (2) As human populations continue explanatory cover letter and self-addressed, to increase and their needs expand, wildlife postage-paid return envelope was 67%. The will have even greater frequency of direct exemplary cooperation and support of administrators or indirect contact and conflicts with humans and within the appropriate agencies and organizations their interests in both rural and urban is sincerely appreciated. Their support and comunities; (3) me prevention and control of assistance helped ensure the excellent, short turn- vildlife damage is complex and can rarely be solved around response to this questionnaire . with one universsl, simple technique; (4) The will rarely solve itself, if ignored ; ( 5) The questionnaire consisted of 10 questions ~f ignored, it can force the landowner, manager or regarding wildlife damage and the prevent ion and cornunity :o implement control practices that control of this damage to southern forest exacerbate the problem, are environmentally resources. Beginning with the first quest ion, the hazardous and /or eliminate remaining habitat for respondent was prompted to list the acreage of all vertebrate wildlife; and (6) Wildlife damage lands by category/ownership where they had prevention and control measures will always be knowledge of the extent and severity of damage by controversial even though these practices may be vertebrate species to forest resources. The total essential for effective natural resources acres owned/managed or reported by respondents was unagemen t . approximately 28,379,823 lfectares (70,125,581 acres) of the total 91,567,705 hectares (226,260,700 acres), or about 31 percent of the STUDY AREA commercial forest lands in these 16 southern States (1982 U.S, Forest Service), Federal and State land fivimagement agencies and mat of the large forest industries in the 16 Species and groups of vertebrate animals known cduthern States that make up the Southeasten to cause damage to forest resources in the South b"sociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies were sent were delineated and space for "others" was provided @if-administered, mail-back questionnaires. The with the request to "specify" if the space adjacent r@*wctiveStates where appropriate personnel were to "others" was checked. For the remaining :Jntrcted included: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, questions, the respondent was given the opportunity "rpir, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, to exercise subjectivity in determining their bl@isaippi,Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, answers. A figure of greater than $400 damage per Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, ~irginiaand west year was used to differentiate annual significant Federal and State agencies and the damage to forest resources f rm non-signi ficant , ye8~rie. of personnel who responded were as The figure of $400 was selected based on a study of '*'lou8: USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, - "Landowner Tolerance of Beavers" ( Purdy et .a1 . kii5nal wildlife Refuge Managers; all Region 8 - 1985 ), which indicated that landowners were **p~re8t Service Supervisors ; USDI ~ational tolerant of damage up to the point where it kkgrvice - Supervisors; State ~ooperative exceeded $400 per year, k@8ioavi$ service - Wildlife Specialists; State Wildlife Agency - Directors or staff; The species list of animals known to cause pare.try Commission - Directors or Staff; damage to southern forest resources were as follows : white-tailed deer (~docoileus wildlife species at $1 1,182,643. They further virginianus); beaver (Castor.canadenis); rodents estimated another $1,645,218 expended in prevention (mice. rats. sauirrels. etc. 1: bear liksus or control efforts over the past 12 months able . z - americanus); wild or feral hogs (Sus scrofa); 2). rabb~ylvilagus--. spp. ) ; birds Gem*others Respondents to this questionnaire reported the beaver as causing the most significant damage, Obviously, evaluation and assessments of estimated at $10,162,263 annually to southern damage caused by wildlife are difficult to forest resources. Other species of wildlife determine in monetary terms, and few research reported by respondents aa causiw significant efforts have been targeted tovard obtaining damage in descending order of annual dollar scientific assessments. This is one of the reasons estimates are: white-tailed deer ; birds ; "other" that an effort was made to obtain best estimates of wildlife; rodents; rabbits; wild or feral hogs; and vertebrate animal damage to southern forest bear (Table 2). resources with this questionnaire. It further points to the need for additional consideration by By far, the species of greatest interest and researchers to develop better models and/or systems significance in recent years to southern forest for practical damage assessment that can be used by managers has been the beaver, as was confirmed in managers. this study. Review of the Southern Journal of Applied Forestry paper titled "Beaver Damage to Non-Impounded Timber in Hiss i s s ippi'"(Bu 1lock and Arner 1985) reported "Computations made with the lowest (stumpage) value of nearly $87,00/acre A total of 234 questionnaires were forwarded estimate the total value of non-impounded timber to the various Federal and State land managing damage by beaver to be nearly $215 million, agencies and industrial forest land managers. occurring over a period of at least 10 years. " Ninet y-eight of the 157 respondents (62%) indicated Other surveys, research and papers reported in the significant damage (e.g., more than $400) caused by literature substantiate the significance of beaver one or mre vertebrate species during the past 12 damage to forests in the South. Earlier studies months on portions of 26,880,776 hectares (Arner and Dubose 1980) projected annual timber (67,201,940 acres). Thus, 59 of the 157 provided damage caused by beaver to be $17 million in no monetary estimate of significant damage to Mississippi and (Godbee and Price 1975) estimated forest resources caused by vertebrate species on annual total timber losses at $45 million in 1,499,406 hectares (3,748,515 acres) (Table 1). Georgia. The total acreage owned, managed or reported by respondents was 28,380,182 hectares ( 70,950,455 Significant damage caused in the South by acres), or about 31% of the comercia1 forest lands beaver to timber through flooding, girdling, in these 16 southern States (U.S. Forest Service cutting , and other damage including roads flooded 1982). and culverts stopped up has been reported since the mid-sixties, and, in fact, some forest irdustries As reported in numerous other studies (e.g., had contracts for control of beaver even earlier. Woodward 19851, many respondents were neither The status of beaver today across most of the South confident in assessing damage caused by vertebrate is that viable populations exist in almost every species nor were willing to provide economic suitable habitat. estimates of such losses even if willing to report that damage was extensive. Thus, some respondents In terms of estimated annual expenditures for reported little or no damage whereas previous prevention and control efforts, the total for each studies in their State have documented millions in species in order of magnitude were as follows: damages. It was also evident that some respondents beaver; followed by wild or feral hogs; white- may not have correctly interpreted the question. tailed deer; rodents ; rabbits; "others"; birds; and Where damage estimates were less than the estimated bear (Table 2). The estimated cost of prevention control costs, either the damage was apparently or control of wild or feral hogs was aver 3 times underestimated, the control implemented reduced the greater than the estimated damage losses and more damage significantly, or damage was being caused to than double for bear. For all other species, the roads or other property not interpreted as estimatsd costs of control were exceeded impacting on forest resources. Other conclusions substantially by the estimated damage losses, are that damage prevention or control can be so which is more commonly the situation with efforts ef feet ive that subsequent damage is insignificant to prevent or reduce significant damage. or it is not cost-effective as reported for some species. Another possibility is that control is As previously reported, 59 of the 157 being implemented out of frustration or to prevent respondents either had no significant damage from expected damage. Frustration and anticipated vertebrate wild species or were not comfortable in damage are legitimate reasons to effect prevention estimating the damage in monetary terms, even when or control measures, but difficult to estimate in the cover letter clearly emphasized that only their monetary figures, e.g., periodically having to best estimates were being requested. Some of the clean out culverts, or significant damage on respondents who would not make a mnetary judgment adjacent properties. that damage exceeded $400 per year would point out that although damage caused by one or mare species Respondents estimated annual damage to was extensive, they would got attempt an estimate. southern forest resources from all vertebrate In response to other questions, some reported damage caused by wildlife as being extensive but methodologies or models are not available for added that they were not cmfortable making a practical use; (3) Few of us have really been monetary estimate of the damage. Others questioned required to evaluate animal damage losses lcosts or whether the damage estimate was only for trees the cost-effectiveness of prevent ion and control ki 1led or if it included yearly product ion 10s t practices; and (4) Even though managers rnay have from flooded lands. SEi11 others simply adnti t ted reasonably accurate estimates of the monetary value that they were unable 05 unwilling to calculate the of a forest stand, they are still reluctant to 10~sor to determine the number of acres where estimate the monetary loss of wildlife damage &anage was occurring. caused to that stand, unless specificially required to do SO. Others indicated that because of their or their own management philosophy, they Some other conclusions drawn by the author did not consider depredation or damage caused by during the course of this study are as follows: any of the species as a problem; the intrinsic or other values these species offered thus outweighed I. Without question, beaver is the vertebrate consideration of losses foregone to forest animal causing the most damage to southern forest resources* Two respondents reported neg 1igibl e resources at the present time. From respondent's damage but indicated significant damage to answers regarding popu fation trends, beaver is also roads, depredation to other natural resources, or the species =st often reported to have increased On preferred wildlife species. over the past five years. White-tailed deer was another species named by respondents as increasing 1 Respondents indicated that they would more significantly, and in the "other" category, several / estimate Species population trends than respondents lieted the increasing coyote (Canis I attempt to estimate monetary damage. Although only latrans) population as a concern because of 98 of 157 respondents estimated significant predation on preferred wildlife populations. damage to forest resources over the past 12 months, 107 respondents checked one or more 2. When examining comments to the quest ion- trend estimate(s) for species causing damage to naire, it was evident that wildlife damage losses forest resources. and frustrations caused to a landowner or mana'ger cannot and should not be evaluated in terms of Less than one-half of the respondents were averages, either regionwide or statewide. Each *ware of the recent Handbook on Prevention and case must be evaluated on-site as to the magnitude control of wildlife Damage (Timm 1984) and fewer of damage and cost-effectiveness of prevent ion or had participated in a regional or national workshop control. or in-service training on animal damage control &thin the last five years. Of the 149 respondents 3. There is a significant need for to this set of questions: 46 either had a copy of development of practical and effective vertebrate the Handbook or access to one; 28 had seen or heard animal damage-loss assessment techniques and of the Handbook but did not own or have access to methodologies and for the determination of the one; 77 were not aware that such a Handbook was cost-effectiveness of prevent ion and control available; and only 17 of the 149 respondents had measures. art icipated in a regional or national workshop, conference or in-service training on animal damage 4. Although several institutions are caatrol within the last five years. These findings expanding their curriculum to offer courses in indicate the level of interest in, and need for, animal damage control for natural resources increased access to qua1ity inf onnat ion about managers, there remains a significant need for miml damage prevention and control and greater in-service training for on-the- job professionals. participation in workshops and other in-service training in this subject by forest resource It is evident from previous studies reported unagers, Most of the 77 respondents who indicated in the literature that the prevention and control "ey did not know that the Handbook was available of vertebrate animal damage Losses is an essential :&icsted an interest in finding out how to obtain element for people's well-being, whether to prevent "0py. losses to agricultural crops, livestock, forests, desired wildlife habitats, other properties, or to prevent disease epidemics and other health hazards, CONCLUS IONS It is time that natural resources managers cooperatively take the initiative to encourage and Although the scope of the questions asked* the support necessary research, development, .:" of potential respondents surveyed, and the operational, technical assistance and educational ''iiditg of the estimates in this study Were programs in wildlife damage prevention and control. mae general conclusions are implied ~areetlymany professional land managers are not J.fortable in answering detailed and complex ye'0"s request ing monetary est irna t es of animal "m forest resources. There could be a ''''Q~Yof reason. for the reluctance to respond to *Ch que8tion8, however, I believe it is safe to ;lq rhar the most cornon reasons arc: (1) Most U,4uld like to have hard data (which is rarely leak); (2) Viable damage assessment Table 1.--Responses to questionnaires concerning vertebtate animal daetage in southern forests

signif- icaGt- Reporting NO Total Response Dmage Darnage Affiliation %umber Hectares

National Wildlife Refuges

U.S. Forest Service

~ilitargLands 37 62 21 367,456 16 280,235

National Park Service 6 ? 5 3 57,063 3 645,901

State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 11 69 6 217,330 5 No Esti.

State Forestry Comiesions 11 69 6 9,044,266 5 214,935

State Extension Service Specialists 9 56 8 87,998 1 No Esti.

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Damage Control State Directors 10 7 1 7 7,527,019 3 4,047

Forest Industry

TOTAL

-llsignificant damage was that exceeding $400; no damage means less than $400

Table 2.--Monetary estimates of damage and control efforts for wildlife in southern forests

Damage Prevention or Control Control Efforts Species ($) Efforts Implemented ($)

White-tailed Deer 420,800 Yes 69,000

~eaver 10,162,263 Yes 1,368,683

Bear Yes

Wild or Feral Hogs l-/ 40,100 Yes 126,700

Rodents 2/ 121,100 Yes 31,450

Rabbits 91,500 Yes 21,400

Birds 3-1 222,000 Yes 7,900 Others 41' Yes

TOTAL

-I/ Estimated costs of control efforts exceeded total damage losses estimtzted , Although several respondents knew the expense of control efforts for these species, some were reluctant to estimate the monetary damage incurred. -21 Other rodents specified included voles and pocket gophers, 31 Birds specified included woodpeckers, blackbirds, goldfinches and mourning doves. - II) -41 "Otherst' specified included cattle, feral dogs, jevelina, and coyotes. 22-25, 1985, North Carolina Coop. Ext. Serv., LITERATURE CITED Raleigh, NC,

Arner, D. H., and J. S. Dubose, 1980. The impact Tim, R. M. (Ed), 1984. Great Plains Handbook: of the beaver on the environment and economy in Wildlife damage prevention and control, Nebraska the Southeastern United States. Proc. Int. Wild- Coop. Ext. Serv., Lincoln, NB, 660 pp. life Conf. 14:241-?47. The Wildlife Society, 1985. Position statement on N. Bullock, 3. F., and b. Arner, 1985. Beaver wild 1i fe damage prevent ion and coatra l . Adopted damage ro nonimpounded cider in Mississippi. by WS Membership, Wash,, D.C., March 19, 1985, Sou. J. App. For. 9:137-A40. 2 PP*

Godbee, J., and T, Price, 1975. Beaver damage U,S. Department of Agriculture, 1983. Departmental survey, Georgia Forestry Conanission. Macon, GAB Regulation 9500-4, Fish and Wildlife Policy. 24 PP* Wash., D.C., Aug. 22, 1983, 7 pp,

International Association of Fish and Wildlife U.S, Forest Service, 1982, An analysis of the Agencies, 1981. Position paper on animal damage timber situation in the United States 1952-2030. control. Adopted by IAFWA at the 71st Annual Forest Service Report No, 23, 499 pp. Meeting, Albuquerque, NH, Sept . 15, 1981, 2 pp, Woodward, D. K., Hazel, R. B., and B, P. Gaffney, Purdy, K. G., Decker, D. J., Ulecki, Rs Ah, and 1985. Economic and environmental impae ts of J. C. Proud, 1985. Landowner tolerance of beavers in North Carolina. Pages 89-96 it.% Proc, beavers : implications for damage management and the Second Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf., control. Pages 83-88 in Proc, the Second Sept. 22-25, 1985. North Carolina Coop. Ext, Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf ., Sept . Serv., Raleigh, NC. The Influence of Silvicultural Practices on Fisheries Management; Effects and

Mitigation Measures

Monte El Seehorn

Abstract.--Silvicultural operations often create severe impacts upon aquatic c nities. This paper addresses basic requirements of several species of fish and points out some of the impacts caused by silvicultural activities- Methods or techniques for reducing level of impact are presented.

INTRODUCT ION conditions. Appalachian brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) found at elevations exceeding 5,000 Stream fishery management, for descriptive feet contend with climatological features purposes, can be separated into population and equivalent to those in southern Canada. Bowfin habitat management programs. Population (kia calve) thrive in subtropical conditions, management refers to the manipulation of at the other end of the spectrum. Stream populations through application of harvest laws gradients range from precipitous waterfalls in and regulations. Habitat management, although the mountains to barely flowing Coastal Plain indirectly affecting population structure, streams with gradients of a centimeter per refers to actions that maintain or modify the kilometer. Maximum stream temperatures range overall stream environment. Habitat management from less than 15 OC to more than 30 OC. consists of protection and enhancement With the extreme diversity of habitat conditions programs. Protection is often considered as and resultant diversity of organisms, maintaining the status quo, while enhancement formulating guidelines suitable for protection programs are designed to improve habitat of all species is a difficult and complex task. conditions. The difference is not always clearcut, because, in some cases, protection of The ma1 Requirements existing habitat ensures gradual improvement or enhancement over the long term. A major dis- Thermal criteria for representative species tinction in objectives is that protective or species groups are shown in table 1. These programs consist of those measures taken to criteria are very general and based upon various safeguard fishery resources from concurrent studies (~incottaand Stauffer 1984, Lee and land use or forest management programs. Direct Rinne 1980, Moyer and Raney 1969, McConnick and entfancement activity, in contrast, may be Wegner 1981, Wrenn 1980) and my field performed independently of other program observations. The limits shown are not absolute activities. This paper deals primarily with because factors such as water quality, age of the protection of fish habitat from impacts fish, acclimation time, and duration of maximum resulting from silvicultural activities. temperatures affect tolerance. Other associated Various strategies for reducing or mitigating species may have broader or narrower limits. such impacts are presented. All fish seek habitats that meet their own thermal preferences even if tolerance limits are HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF FISH relatively broad. Removal of shade and the resultant increase in stream temperature can Southeastern fisheries include habitats cause fish to migrate. Greene (1950) cited a ranging from subarc tic to subtropical study in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park

Monte E. Seehorn, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests, 508 Oak Street, NW, Gainesville, GA 30501 The author wishes to thank Ben Sanders, George Dissmeyer, Lloyd Swift, Jr., Jim Huntley, Eugene Naughan, Greg Gaman, and Gordon Sloane for their help in reviewing and editing this manuscript- Ben Sanders, in addition, made a valiant effort at teaching an "old dog a new trick" by helping the author learn a few basics of editing on the Data General word processor. Table 1.--Thermal requirements of representative species and groups of fishes

Degrees Centigrade Species or groue Nax imum Opt imum

Brook trout (~alvelinusfontinalis) Brown trout (Salmo tfrutta) Rainbow f rout.mmo gairdneri) Smallmouth bass (~icropterusdolomieui) Redbreast (Lepomis auritus) Redhorse (Moxostoma -.) Redeye bass (Micropterus coosae) Spotted bass (Nicro terus punctulatus) Largemout h bas-rus salmoides) Bfuegill ( ~epomismachrochirus) Golden Shiner (~otemigonuschrysoleucas)

in which upstream migration of brook trout was in order to allow unrestricted circulation of simultaneous with removal of shade. He noted water to the eggs and escapement avenues for another study in Pennsylvania where brook trout fry upon hatching. An increase in sediment emigrated from a section of stream because of less than 0.85 mm is especially critical.McNei1 severe overbrowsing of streamside wi 1lows by and Ahnell (1964) showed a sharp increase in deer. trout fry mortality when these fine sediments exceeded 20 percent of the total substrate, In some southeastern streams, brown and Irving and Bjornn (1984) reinforced these rainbow trout reproduce and sustain themselves conclusions, indicating significant reduction in water temperatures occasionally exceeding 24 in survival of three species of salmonids with OC. The key to survival under such maxima is an increase in sediments less than 0.85 m6 in the diurnal temperature fluctuation in which diameter. In their study, particles 0.85 to nighttime temperatures drop to 20 OC or 9.5 mm had relatively little effect upon less- A study (unpublished data) of a small survival. Witzel and MacCrimmon (1983), in a stream in northeast Georgia illustrated different approach, ahowed brook-brown trout graphically the importance of this survival of 0 to 20 percent from hatching to fluctuation. Small (approximately 2 hectares) emergence in unigranular gravel 6.2 mm or less, impoundments were constructed on four headwater and in multitextured gravel with 60 percent or streams containing rainbow trout. The maximum more sand. Survival was 60-90 percent in 9.2 temperature recorded above either impoundment mm gravel and gravels with 20 percent or less in the wannest 2-week period was 19.6 OC with sand. minimums several degrees less, while below the impoundments maximum temperatures ranged from Spawning habits of riverine darters 22 to 23 OC. In a normal situation, these (~ercidae)vary widely by species. Some downst ream maximums would stress, but not scatter their eggs above the substrate, some likely, eliminate trout. In this case, trout bury their eggs, some place them between angled were eliminated in the sections immediately rocks and the substrate, and some cluster them below the outlets becase of the high minimum on the underside of stones. Those species that temperature. The impoundments, acting as a bury their eggs and attach them to the heat sink, eliminated the normal fluctuation underside of stones require relatively sediment and held temperatures to 21 OC or above for free substrate for the same reasons necessary the entire 2-week period. for salmonid survival.

Small changes in stream temperatures also Stream centrarchids such as bass and other have subtle to dramatic impacts upon other sunfish also require firm substrate for components of the aquatic community. Wojtalik spawning. Beds are usually fanned out in and Waters (1970) found that as the temperature gravel where available, although sand is increased there was a serious depletion of the utilized in lieu of coarser materials. The mayfly Baetis vagans. eggs are then deposited, fertilized, and guarded by the male until the fry hatch. Spawning Requirements Although not as critical to survival of eggs and fry as in the salmonids and some of the Stream salmonids require a clean gravel darters, heavy deposits of fine sediments substrate in which to deposit eggs. A redd blanketing the beds likely reduce survival. several inches in depth is excavated in small For spawning and other reasons, species such as to medium size gravel, Eggs are then smallmouth bass (Rankin 1986, Paragamian 1981) deposited, fertilized and covered with gravel and redeye bass occur only in streams or displaced from redds constructed immediately - reaches of streams with predominately gravel upstream. For optimum survival the gravel and larger rock substrate. Even spotted bass, interstices must remain free of fine sediment which proliferate in a variety of habitats including sandy coastal plain streams, seem to populations by increasing stream temperature. prefer such habitat if available. Numerous studies have doctrmented increases of 4 to 10 OC after shade removal (Brown and Redhorse suckers, madtoms (~oturusspp.) Krygier 1970, Burton and Likens 1973, Swift and and other species of fish also use gravel and Baker, 1973, Swift and Messer, 1971). rubble shoals or riffles for spawning purposes Increases of such mgnitude would have severe and are likely to be adversely affected by impacts upon a 11 aquatic organisms , Svif t increased sediment loads. (1982) observed temperature increases at least 5 years after shade removal, although maxims were reduced each eucceediw year because of Pod and Cover Requirements the regrowth of vegetation. Slash burning can aplify stream temperature increase after shade Many species of juvenile fish, including removal. Levno and Rothacher (1969) found that n 1954), rely heavily upon clean the maximum temperature increased by as much as gravel riffles for cover during early life 7.7 OC after broadcast burning of logging stages, while same darters and madtoms spend slash. A critical factor in this study was their entire lifespan in this habitat. In that maxhms were exceeded by 30 percent (889 addition to the fish cover provided, this type hours) of the June, July, and August monitoring substrate is an ideal medium for invertebrate period. production. Erosion and Sedimentation As winter temperature drops into the 5 to 10 OC range, metabolic rates of fish Erosion and resultant stream sedimentation decreaee, reducing food requirements and is the most cornon and difficult problem lowering swiming ability. Under such encountered in silvicultural operations. The conditions, cover or shelter becomes especially effects are subtle in many cases, and are hard critical (Mason 1976). At temperatures less to detect by normal sampling techniques. than 4 to 6 OC, juvenile salmonids enter Sediment can originate from several phases of crevices in the substrate to survive icing and the silvicultural operations, but the concurrent harsh winter conditions (Bjornn transportation system needed to implement the 1971). Larger fish, including stream bass and operations is by far the major source. As much other sun£ish, react in a similar manner by as 90 percent of the sediment in streams can moving into deeper pools containing shelter in be traced to the roads, log landings and other the form of large cobble, boulders, and logs. components of the transportation system (packer Soil erosion and resultant stream sedimentation and christenson). Cederholm and others ( 1981) that fill the substrate interstices destroy pointed out that where roads exceed 3 percent this critical component of the habitat. of a basin area, fines are consistently higher than normal and, where as much as 4 percent of The higher turbidity accompanying erosion the drainage is in gravel-surfaced roads, also has a negative effect upon sight feeders sediment production is increased by a factor of such as bass, (Buck, 1956) bluegill (Gardner four. The same study showed fish survival to 19811, and trout (Sigler and others 1984). emergence decreased by 2 to 4 percent for each Juveniles are most seriously affected, but 1 percent increase in fines less than 0.85 mm. growth rates are reduced even in adult fish. Gradall (19821, in a laboratory experiment McMinn (1984) in a North Georgia study pinted out the strong possibility that measured 37 percent soil exposed and 25 percent increased turbidity likely favored production dislocated in a tractor operation removing 27.6 of creek chubs over brook trout. cords per acre from upper piedmont slopes ranging from 18 to 22 percent. In a concurrent Numerous studies point out the value of sale using a Bitteroot skyline miniyarder to woody debris as a component of quality fish remove approximately 14 cords per acre from habitat (Sedell and Swanson 1982, Angemeir and mountain slopes ranging from 24 to 42 percent, Karr 1984, Bryant 1985, Coulston and Maughan only 1 percent of the soil was exposed and none 1983). In addition to the cover provided, was dislocated. Although volumes of timber snags and other woody debris are also important removed were not equal, the disturbance in in relation to invertebrate food production. proportion to cut was much greater on the Benke and others (1985) illustrated this in a tractor operation. Klock (19751, in study of the Satilla River in Georgia. He summarizing the results of seven studies, stated that instream snags supported 60 percent showed less than 5 percent deep soil of the total invertebrate biomass, and that the disturbance on sale areas when utilizing major fish species obtained at least 60 percent balloon, helicopter and some skyline cable of their prey biomass from these snags. systems. Soil disturbance on high lead cable and tractor operations ranged from 15 to 20 percent and 20 to 35 percent, respectively, POTENTIAL SILVICULTURAL IHPACTS because of the more extensive transportation systems required. Removal of Shade Kochenderfer and Helvey (19841, after mea- Shade removal can severely impact fish suring soil losses frog 11 road sections in the central Appalachians, reported an average of watersheds in the North Carolina Piedmont. 16.3 metric tons of soil per hectare lost Average summer ground cover accounted for 75 annually from ungrave led sections, and only percent of the variation. They suggested use 1*98 metric tons per hectare lost on sections of site preparation techniques that leave at surfaced with clean 3-inch stone. Swift least 50 percent ground cover. (1984) found soil losses of approximately -018 metric tons per ha from a well graveled (15 cm deep) roadbed per-2.54 cm of rain, compared to Douglass and Van Lear (1983) evaluated the a308 metric tons for grassed roads, and ,499 effects st prescribed burning on stream water metric tone for bare soil roadbeds in the quality in the South Carolina Piedmont. They southern Appalachians. He pointed out that in found no significant change in water quality, the third year a thin layer (5 cm) of rock was With proper precautions, prescribed burning little or no better than bare soil. should be feasible even on fairly steep terrain. If burns are hot enough to destroy the Heidsdorf ( 1984) presented the potential entire surface litter, however, serious erosion advantage of using skidders with wide, high may occur. flotation tires instead of conventional tires with front chains on swampy ground. Produc- tivity was increased and previously inac- Effect Upon Streamflow cessible stands became operable with a substantial reduction in ground disturbance and Removal of the canopy on an entire water- compaction. shed significantly changes streamflow patterns. Low summer flows may be doubled with Biller (1984), in a study in the mountains less than 10-percent increase in peak flows in of Virginia, compared road requirements for an Appalachian Forests (Hewlett and Helvey 1970). FMC FT- 180d/ high-speed, low-pressure Although clearcutting 50 ha in a 5,000 ha skidder versus a rubber-tired skidder. The FMC watershed would have no measurable effect upon required 42 percent fewer skidroads than the discharge, cutting 50 ha in a 250-500 ha rubber-tired skidder while operating on grades watershed may have a significant effect. ranging from 10 to 44 percent. The reduction Douglass (1979) calculated the potential gain in roading makes possible a significant in water yield between 20 year and 300 year decrease in overall disturbance. This type timber rotations on 2,560 ha to be over 4.18 equipment, although having some advantages over million liters per day. Clearcutting drainages rubber-tired skidders, can also create erosion as small as 8 ha in the Appalachians can change problems if not used properly. Sidle and streamflow from ephemeral or intermittent to Drlica (1981) measured bulk densities of soils perennial until regrowth occurs. Douglass and utilizing both uphill and downhill skidding Swank (1975) presented an equation for with the FMC. At the 7.5 cm depth, nine passes predicting annual increase in flow based upon increased bulk density for downhill and uphill percent basal area cut. They also pointed out yarding by 25 percent and 45 percent, that conversion from hardwood to pine dec reases respectively. Eighteen passes increased bulk streamflow by increasing interception and density 25 percent at 22.5 cm. With only three evaporation rates due to the greater surface or four passes however, bulk densities area of the pine needles compared to hardwood increased only 10 percent throughout the first leaves. This decrease is most evident in 30 cm of mineral soil. winter months although flow rates are decreased throughout the year. Mechanical site preparation has been documented as one of the more serious contributors of sediment in silvicultural Nutrient Export operations. Dissmeyer and Stump (1978) presented the following data (table 2) on Studies at the Coweeta Hydrologic sediment produced by some of the techniques and Laboratory in North Carolina (Douglass and equipment used in these operations. Bulldozing Swank 1972, 1975) and at the Fernow in mountain areas was by far the moat serious Experimental Forest in West Virginia (Aubertin source of sediment. The methods used in and Patric 1974) indicate comparatively small bulldozing were similar to shearing and nutrient losses from clearcut areas. The windrowing except that a straight dozer blade Fernow study indicated a net loss of only 3.4 was used instead of a K/G or V cutter blade. and 2.8 kg per ha more nitrate-nitrogen and calcium from a cut area than a control area in Douglass and Goodwin (1980) found that soil the first 34 months. These losses decline as loss from mechanical site preparation varied regrowth occurs. Swank and Caskey (1982) with percent cover and runoff on 16 small showed a twentyfold increase in export of nitrate-nitrogen from a clearcut hardwood -1/ The use of trade or firm names is for reader forest in a second order drainage, although information and does not imply endorsement by total loss was less than 1 pound per acre the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any annually due to naturally low nitrogen levels product or service. and instream depletion. Disturbance Period (yrs.) Coastal Plain Piedmont Nountains

Logging (excl. rds.) Prescribed burn Chopping Chop and burn Shearlwindrow Disc ing Bedding Bulldozing

Loss of Organic Materials to the Stream Systems PROTECTIVE MEASURES

Silvicultural operations removing streambank vegetation have other impacts upon fish populations in addition to that of Regeneration System and Method of Harvest,-- temperature change . Trees falling into s t reams The regeneration system can have a direct, are rhe source of large woody debris necessary site-specific impact upon fisheries. for desirable fish populations. Many streams Clearcutting, although viewed distastefully by lack such debris, due to the removal of all the general public, has some distinct large streamside trees in the logging advantages if certain precautions are operations of the early 1900ts, and overzealous observed. Of major importance is the removal of existing instream debris through opportunity to reduce overall roading during various development projects. Existing the rotation. If the even-age system employs second-growth stands have not matured enough to clearcutting as the harvest method, it can be an adequate source of such material. If we offer the greatest potential to reduce continue to remove all large trees from the long-term impacts by requiring fewer entries streambanks, these undesirable conditions will into a given area. If necessary in highly be extended far into the future. critical areas, one entry for harvest and regeneration could be made with no interim operations. In a 100-year rotation, that could Introduction of Toxicants mean only one entry into the selected stands each century compared to more frequent entries Pesticides can be introduced into stream necessary in the single-tree selection system. systems through both ground and aerial spray Shelterwood and group selection fall between operations. Some, such as 2,4-D derivatives, the two extremes in relation to roading needs. are relatively harmless, while others such as paraquat are extremely toxic to aquatic organisms. Clearcutting, in addition to reducing the number of entries into a forest, also allows a Disturbing soils in certain geological greater choice of equipment in harvest formations may introduce toxic materials into operations. As pointed out earlier, the type the aquatic system. Fisheries were destroyed equipment used for harvesting significantly in two Appalachian streams by road construction affects rates of soil disturbance and that exposed AnakeestalWilhite formations. subsequent erosion. Where protection of stream Iron pyrite, a component of these formations, resources is critical and land slopes are over when exposed chemically reacts with air and 35 percent, helicopter and cable logging are water to produce sulfuric acid. In at least preferable alternatives to tractor or two 1ocations on one road the rock was crushed rubber-tired skidder operations. Skyline cable and used as fill material. Acid leaching from systems should be selected over high lead or these road fills reduced stream pH drastically, jammer sys tems when available. Helicopter and resulting in further chemical reactions that skyline operations are not economically released aluminum, manganese, and other toxic feasible, however, for all steep-slope sales, materials into solution. or for the majority of thinning and selection cuts. Equipment that has a low impact, as Diesel fuel, oil, gasoline and sawdust, measured in pounds per square inch of the soil common to any timber operation, all have the surface, is a viable aSternative to con- potential for impacting fisheries, ventional skidders, on-critical areas where cable systems are not feasible. Examples of Stream crossings.--Use temporary bridges & such equipment include the tracked FMC, and -lieu of culverts on temporary roads. Excessive bal loon-t ired skidders normally used for wet disturbance is created by installing culverts soil or swamp logging. and the fill material required. They account for some of the mote serious sources of Rotation.--Lengthening rotations and sediment from timber sales. When the culvert reducing the number of entries reduces overall is removed at termination of the sale, the roading requirements fbr a given period. As disturbance created at that time again adds to previously pointed out, such reduction is a the sediment load. Temporary bridges may range major step in the control of erosion and stream from two planks across a small rivulet to log siltation. stringer bridges on larger streams. Select the simplest structure needed to accomplish the Operating Seasons.--Operating seasons objectives and simultaneously protect the should be determined by local topography and resource at the same time. Ordinarrly, structures climate. Logging should be restricted, consist of abutment logs ins~alledon or in depending upon the equipment used (cable, each streambank, with two or more stringers, tractor, helicopter, etc.) during periods of and decking if needed. The key -:o reducing wet weather. impact is to place the abttments where they will create the least initial disturbance, and Site Preparation.--Buffer strip criteria then leave them in place at termination of the apply to site preparation operations in sale. Decking and stringers can be removed, if addition to harvest activities. No mechanical desired, when the harvesting and retagetation site preparation should be attempted in the efforts are completed. Low water stringer filter or shade strips, and no herbicides bridges can be used to cross comparatively be used in the shade strips. large streams to reach cutting units that would not be economically feasible to cut if prescribed burning normally creates few, if permanent bridges were required, If designed any, problems* However, hot summer burns can properly, the stringer bridges will stay intact destroy ground cover, resulting in significant during major floods that often take out erosion problems- As a general rule, burns conventional bridges. The key to the design is during the growing season should be limited to that they be constructed close enough to the when fuel moisture levels prec lude water surface so that only base flows pass extremely hot burns. under. The upstream stringer or stringers should be a few inches lower than the Slash Disposal=--Logging slash in streams, downstream stringers, thus canting the bridge if excessive, creates severe problems for slightly. This design allows all flood waters fishes by acting as a sediment trap, a barrier large enough to carry trees and other major to fish migration, and reducing oxygen content debris to pass safely above the bridge. The of the water. Conversely, where lack of slight cant creates downward pressure by the organic debris is a limiting factor, the water on the bridge and reduces chance of judicious selection of a certain amount of this flipping it out of place, aaterial to be retained in the channel could enhance the fishery. Needless to say, such selection should be guided by individuals with Revegetation.--The key to stabilization of the necessary fishery expertise. disturbed areas is to establish ground cover as quickly as possible, Cut-and-fill slopes on Transportation permanent roads should be grassed during or immediately after construction. Temporary System Design.--Roads should be as narrow roads, log landings and other surface rr possible. On steep terrain, width is disturbance should be seeded and "put to bed" critical in minimizing the area of bare soil immediately after closure of a cutting unit exposed in cut-and-f i 11 slopes. rather than waiting until the entire sale is completed. To reduce the period of operating Outsloping and construct ion of ou owe eta" or time before revegetation, and for optimum long, gradual dips at regular intervals should erosion protection, the cutting units should be be Used to divert water from the roadbed. planned as small as is economically practical. lwide ditches should not be installed if dips In most areas of the South, seeding can be outaloping are sufficient to prevent water successful throughout the year depending upon traveling the roadbed. the plant species used. The common practice of limiting seeding to short periods in the spring Place log landings and mill sets on ridges and fall is a major factor in soil loss when " WiWS of ridges rather than in ephemeral c 18 or riparian areas. Such placement sales close during other seasons. Where cutting units will be open for long periods, or "'I rauc@erosion and at the same time will operations shut down for any reason, dWu time during adverse weather establishment of a temporary cover such as 191itio..- All roads planned for re-entry and ryegrass is highly desirable. These fast- @'I 'PPr-ches to stream crossings should be @*IIc*l. establishing species should also be included in any mixture of permanent cover crops. Where management of wildlife such as turkey. and ruffed grouse are considered, roads planted with the proper mixtures of vegetation will . Silvicultural activities, if administered provide food for adults and brood range. In improperly, can create severe impacts upon preparing the seedbed, ripping compacted areas aquatic cornunit ies. Problems most commonly and the use of mulch enhances germination and encountered include increased stream ' survival. The mvlch, in addition, reduces temperature through shade removal, stream problems with frost heaving. siltation thro'ugh soil disturbance, and reduction in availability of large, woody Streamside Protection debris through harvest of streamside trees, Problems created by removal of large trees and Buffer Strips. --The .term "buffer strip" is other vegetation from streamside areas is a used loosely even by scientists presenting serious concern, but can be handled relatively research results. Quite often it is difficult simply and effectively by establishing to determine if authors are referring to shade guideline8 for maintaining the necessary . protection, erosion prevention, or both when vegetative component and then implementing they state that buffer strips have been very them. Although sev-era1 researchers recommend effective. For the purpose of this paper, wider zones, it appears Chat a 10- to 20 m buffer strips include both the streamside shade wide shade strip on perennial streams is' strip and sediment filter strip, sufficiant:to maintain a suitable temperature and provide the large, woody debris necessary The effectiveness of a shade strip is.' for a quality fishery. On extremely small determined by many factors including tree headwaters wtiere volume.of flow is so small height, tree species, elevation and aspect, In that fish are not present, and rapid general, a 10- to 20lneter wide strip on both temperature .recovery is likely, retention of. sides of a stream should provide adequate only understory vegetation may be adequate, shading even with selective removal of a portion of the canopy (~ubertinand Patric Pinpointing the primary source of erosion 1974, Burton and Likens 1973). Retention of a and silt deposition from silvicultural significant portion of the canopy into ola activities is relatively easy. The two most growth will also ensure a source of large evident sources are the transportation systa, debris necessary to maintain a quality fiehery. including 'all bladed roads, skidtrails, and log landings necessary for harvesting the timber, Determining necessary filter strip criteria and the site preparation techniques used in is a bit more complicated, Soil type, elope, revegetation efforts. Addressing siltation ' vegetation, rainfall and amount of surface problems created by these operations becomes a litter all have a bearing upon the extent of complex issue when considering road location, sediment movement. Protective criteria should road design, stream mileage, number of stream address potential sediment problems in all crossings, crossing design, filter strip channels, including perennial, intermittent and criteria, type logging equipment, and ephemeral, that have the capacity to carry revegetative needs. General criteria should be ' soil, A common solution is to establish developed for filter strip width based upon filter-strip criteria based upon slope and soil slope, soil type and amount of debris and erodibility, applying only to perennial and surface litter. These criteria should address intermittent stream channels. Such criteria problems with silt deposition in ephemeral may be inadequate where problems with sediment channels in addition ta intermittent and movement in ephemera 1 channe 1s are not perennial channels. Criteria presented in addressed. Ideally, filter-strip width should table 3 should be suitable for Appalachian be based upon site specific conditions, When areas (Swift, 1986). . . . technical expertise in site-specif ic application of variable-width filter strips is not available, standard widths based upon The following alternatives should.be slope, soil erodibility, and other factors considered when planning silvicul tura 1 including those listed above may be the only ope rat ions ; feasible solution. Swift ( 1986) suggests guidelines (table 3) for the southern Favor cable or helicopter logging over^ Appalachians and demonstrates the value of skidders or tractor on slopes over 35 several soil-protecting factors such as grass, percent. mulch, brush barriers, and forest litter. Choose skyline systems over other cable Soil disturbing activities should certainly systems when available. be limited inside filter strips, but the total prohibition of heavy equipment or certain Consider tracked and balloon-tired skidders harvest techniques is not warranted. The that have a low impact (in pounds per objective should be to use the equipment and . square inch of soil surface) on wet and ' technique that will create the least steep slopes when cable systems are not disturbance on a site-specific basis. app'ropriate. Table 3, Minimm filter-strip width (meters) for graveled forest roaddl

Filter strip Percent slope

Mithout brush barri&r 13.1 17.4 21.6 25.9 30.2 34.1 38.4 42.7 46.9 With brush barrier ' 9.8 11.0 12.2 13.4 14.6 15.8 17.1 18.3 19.5

Note: For prescribed burn without brush barrier or forest litter, add 9-4 meters + 2.0 meters per LO percent slope. For ungrassed fill and unfinished roadbed in winter ana early spring, double the table values.

L/ Distances are for roads with grassed banks, either outsloped or drained by ditchline and culvert onto forest floor that is covered- by hardwood litter. Storm runoff that does not infiltrate into the forest soil will carry suspended clay and silt particles farther.

Brown, G* W. and J. T. Krygier, 1970. Effects Reduce number of entries into the forest. of clearcutting on stream temperature. Water Res. Research, Vol. 6, No. 4, Use temporary bridges instead of culverts where possible. Bryant, M. D., 1985. Changes 30 years after logging in large woody debris and its use Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as by salmonids. USDA For* Ser. Gen. Tech. possible. Rep. RM-120, 329-334. Do not destroy the litter layer with Buck, D. H. 1956. Effects of turbidity on lish prescribed burns. and fishing. Transactions of the Twenty First North America Wildlife Conference. Apply buffer-strip protective criteria to 249-261 both harvest and site-preparation . activities. Burton, TO He and G. E. Likens, 1973. The effect of strip cutting on stream Design roads for the minimum width temperature in the Hubbard Brook necessary to accomplish the job. Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, BioScience 23; 433-435. LITERATURE CITED Cederholm. C. J., L. M. Reid, B. G. Edie, and E.O. Salo, 1981. Angermeir, P. L. and J. R. Karr., 1984. Effects of forest road erosion on salmonid spawning gravel Relationships between woody debris and fish composition and population of the habitat in a small warmwater stream. Trans. Clearwater River, Washington. Habitat Amer. Fish. Soc. 113: 716-726. Disturbance and Recovery - Proceedings of a Symposium. California State University, Auberton, G* M. and J. H. Patric, 1974. Water quality after clearcutting a small Cincotta, D. A* and J. Re Stauffer, Jr., 1984. watershed in West Virginia. Jour. Environ. Temperature preference and avoidance Qual,, Val. 3, No. 3. studies of six North American freshwater fish. Hydrobiologia 109( 2) 173-178, Benke, A. C., R. L. Henry, 111, D,M. Gillespie, and R.J. Hunter, 1985. Importance of snag Coulston, P. J. and 0. E. Maughan, 1983. habitat for animal production in southeastern streams. Fisheries, Vol. 10, Effects of removal of instream debris on trout populations. Jour. Elisha Mitchell No. 5. Scientific Society 99(3). Biller, C. J., 1984. Testing the FMC Ft-180 CA Coutant, C. C. Temperature preferences of high speed steel track logging vehicle. Mountain Logging Symposium Proceedings. fish: A review and compilation of West Virginia University. results." Environ. Sci. Div., Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., Bjornn, T. C. 1971. Trout and salmon movements Disameyer, G. E. and R, F. Stump, 1978. in two Idaho streams as related to Predicted erosion rates for forest temperature, food, streamflows, cover, and management activities in the Southeast. population density. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. USDA For. Ser., State & Private Forestry, 100;(3) 423-438. Southern Region, Atlanta, Misc. Rep., 27 pp. Douglass, J. E., 1979. Silviculture for water Levno, A. and J. Rothacher., 1969. Inereaw ip yield. In: Town Meeting Fores try-Issues maximum stream temperatures after sllak for the 1980's; Boston, MA, Washington, burning in a small experimental Vaterl& D.C.; Society of her. For. 90-96. USDA For. Ser. Pace W, For. Bee. sta, * Research Note. Douglass, J. E. and D. H. Van Lear, 1983. Prescribed burning and water quality of ephemeral streams in the Piedmont of South Carolina. For. Sci., Vol. 29, No. 1, 181-189.

Douglass, J, E. and 0. C. Goodwin, 1980. Runoff McCormick, J. H. and 3, A- Wagner, 1981. and soil from forest site preparation Response of largemouth bass f rout dif fernnt practices. In: U.S. Forestry and Water latitudes to elevated water temperature& Quality; What Course in the 80's? An Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc* 110; 417-429, Analysis of Environmental and Economic Issues Proceedings, Water Poll. Control McCrimmon, H. Re, 1954. Stream studies on Fed. Washington, D.C., 50-74, planted Atlantic salmon. Jour. Fish. kes, Bd. Can. ll(4). Douglass, J. E, and W. T. Swank, 1975. Effects of management practices on water quality ~cMinn,J. W., 1984. Soil disturbance by and quantity: Coweeta Hydrologic f ue lwood harvee t ing with a conventional Laboratory, NoC*, USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. ground system and a cable miniyarder in Rep. NE-13. mountain hardwood stands. Mountain Logging Symposium, West Virginia University. Gardner, M. B., 1981. Effects of turbidity on feeding rates and selectivity of bluegills. Trans. Amer. Fish, Soc. 110: 446-450. McNeil, We J. and W. H. Ahnell, 1964. Succeee of pink salmon spawning relative to siee of Gradall, K. S. and W. A. Swenson, 1982. spawning bed materials. U.S. Fish and Responses of brook trout and creek chubs to Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report, turbidity. Trans-Amer. Fish Soc . 111; Fisheries 469. 392-395. Moyer, S. and E. C. Raney, 1969. When do Greene, G. E., 1950. Land use and trout stream temperatures become a problem? ASCE streams, Jour. of Soil and Water Cons., Annual Meeting and National Meeting on VoP* 5, No. 3. Water Resources Engineering, New Orleans, LA ~eidsdorf,E., 1984. The Use of wide high- flotation tires for skidding on steep Neal, A. T*, 1953. Watershed problems and their ground. Mountain Logging Symposium relation to water quality. Washington Proceedings, West Virginia University. Poll. Control Conrm. Tech. Bull., No. 15.

Hewlett, J. D. and J. D. Helvey, 1970. The Packer, P. E. and G. F. Christensen. Guide for effects of forest clear-felling on the controlling sediment from secondary logging - stormhydrograph. WaterRes.Research6; roads. USDA Forest Service ~ntermountain 768-7820 Forest and Range Experiment Station and North Central Region. Irving, J. S. and T. C. Bjornn, 1984. Effects of substrate size composition on survival Paragamian, V. LO 1981. Some habitat of kokanee salmon and cutthroat and rainbow characteristics that affect abundance and trout. Idaho Coop. Fish. Res. Unit Tech. winter survival of smallmouth bass in the Rep. 84-86. Maquoketa River, Iowa. Amer. Fish. Soc. Warmwater Streams Symposium. Klock, G. 0., 1975. Impact of five postfire salvage logging systems on soils and vegetation. Jour, of Soil and Water Cons., Rankin, E. T., 1986. Habitat eelection by March-April. smallmouth bass in response to physical characteristics in a natural stream. Kochenderfer, J. N. and J. D, Helvey, 1984. Trans* Amer. Fish. Soc. 115: 322-334. Soil losses from a minim= standard truck road in the Central Applachians. Mountain Rishel, Go B., J. A. Lynch, and E. S. Corbett, Logging Symposium Proceedings, West 1982. Seasonal stream temperature changes Virginia University. following forest harvesting. Jour. Environ. Qual., Vol. 11, No. 1. Lee, R, MI and J. N. Rinne, 1980. Critical thermal maxima of fire trout species in the Ruth, R, H., 1967. Silvicultural effects of Southeastern United States. Trans, Amer. skyline crane an4 high lead yarding. Jour. Fish. Soc, 109; 632-635. oE Forestry, Val._ 65, No. 4. Sedell, J. R. and J. S. Frederick, 1982. Swift, L. W. Jr., 1986. Filter strip widths for Ecological characteristics of streams in forest roads in thk. southern Appalachians, old growth forests of the Pacific So, Jour. of Applied Forestry, Vol. 10, Northwest. In: Proceeding of Symposium No. 1. Fish and Wildlife Relationships in Old Growth Forests. Available from John W. Swift, L. W. Jr. and J* B. Messer, 1971. Forest Reintjes, Route-4, Box 85, Morehead City, cuttings raise temperatures of small N-C* 28557. streams in the southern Appalachians, Jsurs Soil and Water Cons. 26: 111-116. Sidle, R. C. and D. Kt Dxfica, 1981. Soil compaction from logging with a low-ground Swift, L. W. Jr. and S. E. Baker, 1973. Lower pressure skidder in the Oregon coast water temperatures within a streamside range. Soil Science Soc. of her. Jour, , buffer strip. USDA For. Ser. Southeastern Vof. 45, No. 6. Forest Exp. Sta. Research Note SE-193.

Sigler, J. W., T. C. Bjornn, and F. H. Everest. Witzel, L. D. and H. R. MacCrimmon, 1983. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on Embryo survival and alevit emergence of density and growth of steelheads and coho brook charr, (Salvelinus fontinalis) and salmon, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 113; brown trout (Salmo t rutta) Relative to Redd 142-150. gravel composition. Can. Journ. Zool. 61(8): 1783-1792. Swank, W. T. and William H. Caskey, 1982. Nitrate depletion in a second-order Wojtalik, To A. and TI F. Waters, 1970. Some mountain stream. Jour. Environ. Quality, effects of heated water on the drift of two Vole 11, NO. 49 species of stream invertebrates. Trans, Amer. Fish. Soc., Vol. 99, No. 4, 782-788. Swift, L. W. Jr., 1982. Duration of stream temperature increases following forest Woolridge, D. D., 1960. Watershed disturbance cutting in the southern Appalachian from tractor and skyline crane logging. Mountains. Znternational Symposium on Jour. Forestry, Vol. 58, No. 5, Hydrometeorology. Amer. Water Res. Assoc. Wrenn, William B,, 1980. Effects of elevated Swift, L. W. Jr., 1984- Gravel and grass temperature on growth and survival of surfacing reduces soil loss from mountain smallmouth bass. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. roads. Forest Science, Vol. 30, No. 3. 1094 617-6250 SECTION IV*

i I Wildlife and Fisheries Management in the USDA Forest Service

Paul Brouha

ce policy for management of wildlife and fisheries resources has evolved in response to legislation dating back to the 1897 Organic Actc That legislative history reflects enduring public con- cezn that National Forests be managed for multiple use. Present policy eabodies concerns for plant and animal diversity, maintenance of viable populations, recovery of threatened and endangered species, and mnagement of species in high public demand. Program emphasis and budget increased dramatically in response to the wildlife and fisheries goals stated in the 1975 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) Program, Despite further planned increases in the 1980 RPA Program, since 1980, wildlife and f isheries funding has remained constant while comdity production has been emphasized. Because of this emphasis wildlife and fisheries activities have shifted away from habitat improvement to coordination and mitigation of resource development activities. Public concern about Forest Service programs, especially logging and road building, has increased with the resulting loss of a constituency that would ordinarily support Forest Service fish and wildlife programs. The strength of wildlife and fisheries mnagement in the Forest Service lies in developing closer ties to the user groups interested in these programs.

INTRODUCTION Throughout this period the Forest Service was the grand old outfit that started the censer' vation and "wise use" ethic of land stewardship* They managed and protected the forests, the The National Forest System comprises 77 watersheds, and the wildlife for all Americans to ,million ha (191 million acres) of lands and enjoy in perpetuity. To a large degree, the waters presently managed by the USDA, Forest Service was the organizational embodiment of Aldo Service under the concept of multiple use and Leopold ' s Land Ethic. Act ions were motivated by sustained yield of forest and rangeland resources. a "resource first" attitude because there Were It was not always so. In 1897, the Organic Act plenty of resources for all. established the purposes of forest reserves . . . "Securing favorable conditions of water flows, Then as the United States human population and to furnish a continuous supply of tim- increased and became more mobile and affluent, ber. . . ." Not until 1905 did wildlife pur- the National Forests were subject to increasing poses become recognized when President Theodore and competing demands for resources. The Forest Roosevelt established a wildlife refuge on a Service's ability to manage in this fashion National Forest. In 1911, the Weeks Act changed. The events that initiated the change authorized National Forest land purchases to bad their start with the increased wood deinands ". . . protect . . . denuded lands within water- during and shortly after World War 11. The sheds of manageable streams." The protection of Forest Service did its best to meet the needs of fisheries was specifically identified in Title the wartime economy. Roads were constructed and 111 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of timber harvested, but in the process a whole set' 1937, Title I11 "authorized and directed" the tor of the economy became dependent on a steady Secretary of Agriculture to "correct maladjust- stream of raw materials from National Forest ments in land use, and thus assist in controlling lands. There was no going back; even when other erosion, reforestation, preserving natural sectors of the public voiced their concerns for resources, protecting fish and wildlife. . . ." other resources. I Paul Brouha, Deputy Executive Director, Anerican Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814. Formerly National Fisheries Program Manager, USDA-Forest Service, Washington, DC. Congressional appropriations supported by - Accomplish feasible steps to recover the timber resource users provided for a threatened and endangered species. continued emphasis on timber harvest. - Maintain and improve habitat carrying During this period, however, the Bitterroot capacity for species in public and Monongahela controversies were warning demand. voices crying out their concerns. To reach these objectiws the Forest Service As time passed pdblic concerns resulted in focuses on habitat manipulation through development of the Golden Trout Wilderness; vegetation management, while the States the Rattlesnake Wilderness; ELARE I, 11, and manage fish and wildlife populations through I1 112; and the Elkhorns Wildlife Management adjustments of bag limits and seasons. For Area. The acronyms for multiple use and the Forest Service, the RPA program and the enviromental laws--WSY, NEPA, RPA, NFMA, Sikes Act and Forest Plans specifically FLPMA, AND PRIA became familiar as these define fish and wildlife objectives. concerns became articulated as law. Congressional direction, under which the Forest Service managed the tremendous National Forest resources became much more PAST PRACTICES AND DEVELOPmBTS prescriptive, Finally, the Mapleton Decision, access management in Montana, Forest Plan appeals, threatened lawsuits The historic emphasis of the Forest Service involving the spotted owl and red-cockaded program has been on big-game habitat woodpecker, below-cost timber sales, management to obtain greater harvests. hard-money roads, and at the last, grizzly Because of an abundance of natural habitats bear and woodland caribou appropriation use there was little consideration given to restrictions, all called into question and nongame species until the passage of the have redefined the priorities for National Endangered Species Act of 1973. Fisheries, Forest resource management in the narrowest despite supporting more recreational use- sense. than wildlife, and facing rapid expansion of user demand, remained a custodial program In summary, the Forest Service managing in focusing more on mitigation of harm from response to Congressional and Administration other resource activities than on habitat direction and pressure from its timber enhancement to meet public demands. The interest constituency, found itself subject basic fish and wildlife program centered on to increasing controversy and in danger of coordination with other resource losing its broader supporting constituency. developments and on a small habitat This turbulent development of policy improvement program, With the completion of continues today with the Forest Service the 1975 RPA and Sikes Act plans came striving to satisfy increasing demands on specific objectives to provide for greater limited resources and pressure for more fish and wildlife populations through a balanced multiple use, substantial increase in habitat management, and for coequal treatment of fish and National goals and Regional objectives were wildlife resources with other resources. set for individual species and species The Forest Service has been listening; groups. The Forest Service fish and progress is being made and attitudes are wildlife budget jumped from $4.7 million in changing. 1970 to $38.7 million in 1980. During that period fish and wildlife biologists staffing was aggressively increased to an all time high of 458 wildlife biologists and 136 fishery biologists in 1982.

Additionally, during the 1970's the efforts At present the Forest Service is charged by biologists to quantify the effects of with the following minimm fish and wildlife management activities on fish and wildlife objectives: habitats, to develop species and habitat inventory databases, to classify habitats, Provide for diversity of plant and and to standardize inventory methods animal communities to meet multiple-use coalesced into the Wildlife and Fish Habitat objectives and to preserve the diversity Relationships System. This system relates of tree species similar to that existing information on habitat to the requirement of in the region. a particular species through the use of Maintain viable populations of all plant habitat capability models which can be used and animal species throughout during land asanagement and project planning their existing range. to predict the response of a species to a proposed alteration of habitat. Habitat At present, annual funding of Forest relationships procedures have been applied fish and wildlife programs is Variableez~ in decision processes to evaluate potential does not enjoy secure funding 6Upport resource tradeoffs and use conflicts before broad constituency of user groups. ed & they occur, as well as to assess cumulative user groups do not support such fundingbny effects of many activities spread over time because they do not know what is in th, and space. Forest Service program for them. As a result, despite detailed planning of habitat improvements and resource development project coordination to meet local dearand PRESENT PROGRAM for wildlife and fishing uses, efforts to enhance fish and wildlife habitat have heo frustrated because of the need for intern1 After an initial accounting adjustment to and external support. On National Forest separate general administration expenses lands fish habitat capability has declined, from the fish and wildlife program budget in and wildlife habitat capability for several 1981, the inflation-adjusted budget has desireable species has decreased in more remained roughly constant despite cuts areas than it has increased. proposed by the present Administration. While staying even may itself be considered a success in these austere times, the current level of $38.8 million is about half FUTURE POTEXTIALS AND NEEDED PROGRAM SHIFTS the selected 1980 RPA program; specifically for fisheries habitat improvement, current funding is 23 percent of the 1980 RPA The Forest Service has the potential to program. Of additional concern is that the develop much stronger wildlife and fisheries trend toward increased fish and wildlife programs by establishing closer ties to user habitat improvement, which was started after groups and promoting program opportunities the 1975 RPA, has been reversed as program to meet user needs, There must develop an emphasis has shifted to support and integration of resource objectives with coordination of increased timber resource recreation needs. The public must see that development activities. At present, the the fish and wildlife program is not a habitat management program is focused on mitigation program designed only to support mitigating effects of development commodity outputs, but one of enhancement activities, threatened and endangered opportunfties for fish and wildlife species recovery, and on species such as resources that are worth investing in and anadromous fish for which there is a high managing. Forest plans and the 1985 RPA public demand. Since 1980 fisheries Program provide a promise of more emphasis biologist staffing has been reduced from 136 on wildlife, fisheries, and recreation, It to a present level of 107, moreover, as remains to be seen if this emphasis will be wildlife biologist positions are vacated, translated into reality by the fiscal the positions are not filled. It should be process. noted that other Forest Service programs have also decreased, however public Coalitions of resource conservation groups " responses to current RPA and Forest plans have only recently begun to rally to support have called for an increased emphasis on Forest Service fisheries and wildlife f isheries, wildlife, and recreation. programs. Traditionally, these programs have been submerged in a larger "multiple The resident fisheries habitat improvement use" resource management strategy focused on program ($2.0 million in 1986) can best be timber production. Instead of supporting described as vestigial, and habitat the funding of wildlife and fisheries coordination is inadequate because over 70 enhancements, conservation groups have percent of fisheries personnel work focused on stopping the logging, road primarily on anadromous fish resources. building, mining, and gas and oil This emphasis persists despite the fact that development activities they consider resident fish support 14.7 million 12-hour detrimental to fish and wildlife resources. days of recreational use (46 percent of As a result, wildlife and fisheries efforts total fish and wildlife use) and demand is have emphasized mitigating and resolving increasing 35-50 percent per decade! conflicts. This emphasis has occurred National Forests contain outstanding wild despite growing technical expertise in blue ribbon trout fisheries as well as restoring and enhancing habitat, and a important warmwater fishery resources that general desire to implement Forest Plans for hold tremendous recreation potential. fish and wildlife programs in cooperation with conservation groups. must be defined and the users enlisted to promote fish and wildlife programs that realize these potentials. As this political FUTW PLYDING AND TfMC STMTEGIES support mechanism unfolds, the Forest Service's capability to meet users' needs must be aggressively promoted along with In order to protect base program funding and frequent reports concerning the program increase long-term funding, the fallowiq results sf the user group@' efforts in "closed loop" funding mechanisms are obtaining increases in the products they proposed : desire. Finally, the Chief of the Forest Service must comunicste his comitment to 1, Establish a fish and wildlife mitigation respond to these user groups throughout the and rehabilitation fund from resource organization. The marketing strategy must development activity proceeds. be developed and promoted at the National, Regioxul, and Forest levels in order to be 2. Es tablish access/user f ees successful. In such a way the fish and a. National Forest hunting and fishing wildlife programs detailed in each National permits. Forest Plan can become a reality instead of b. General recreation user fee remaining paper exercises.

3. Expand the scope of the kutson-Vandenberg (IS)fund collections to include all revenue-generating resource development activities and to include the area of effects of those activities.

4. Expand the present cooperative challenge grant approach to leveraging program capabilities by the creation of a national trust, similar to the National Endowment For The Arts, which is used to match private and state funds.

In defining a strategy to obtain political support for such "closed loop" mechanisms one must ask "who cares?" Who cares about increased habitat capability for fish and wildlife on the National Forests? The question leads to an important exercise in developing a fish and wildlife program marketing strategy. The obvious answer is, with the exception of endangered species, that the resource user cares. The recreational hunter and fisherinan and the person in the supporting service and production sectors of the economy cares. The commercial fisherman, outfitter, and guide who makes hie living from the resource and is also the worker in the supporting economies cares. The subsistence user who provides for his family's needs cares. The person who appreciates seeing wildlife and fish in a natural setting cares. The organizations these groups use to express their political desires (WASAudubon, MJFy TU, WC, EDF, TNC, BASS, DUB NWTF, WF) must be involved in the program as a mtter of their self interest. If no organizations exist to coherently express these desires, they must be developed. In turn, the production potentials of the National Forests to meet these users* needs Fisheries Management on Georgia National Forests

R. H. England

Abstract.--Fisheries management on Georgia national forests is directed toward protection and enhancement of trout streams, management of trout populations and harvest, and stocking catchable trout to help meet the demand of increasing fishing pressure. Many streams are stocked, but most 'are managed as wild fisheries. Stream sedimentation is a major concern but current timber and road management policies generally provide adequate protection on national forest land. The future of Georgia's trout resources depends heavily on national forest management practices, and the current planning process places more emphasis on fish and wildlife values than ever before.

INTRODUCTION

A diversity of fish species inhabits Georgia's state. Fisheries resources on these lands consist national forest streams and lakes. Seehorn (1975) of coldwater, coolwater and warmwater streams and lists 158 fishes known or expected to occur within several small lakes. In addition, national forest or adjacent to national forests in Georgia. This land borders portions of several large reservoir,, total includes game fish such as the centrarchid and thus the fisheries reeources of these bodiea basses, trouts, catfishes, pickerels and various of water are influenced by Forest Service policiee species of bream. For most of these species, the and practices. proportion of suitable habitat that lies on national forest land is extremely small compared By Georgia law, wild fish populations are to the statewide total. Therefore, a relatively owned by the etate (~eorgiaDepartment of Natural small percentage of the state's total management Resources 19821, and are the responeibility of the efforts for most of these species is directed state to manage and protect. The agency charged toward populations on national forest land. with this responsibility is the Game and Fish Conversely, the state's best quality trout habitat Division of the Georgia Department of Natural lies on national forest land and therefore manage- Resources. At the federal level the Multiple Use- ment of national forest fisheries is a major part Sustained Yield Act of 1950 included the managemen: of Georgia's total fisheries program. This paper of fish and wildlife as a formal responsibility of focuses primarily on the state's trout program the U.S. Forest Service (~nvironmentalLaw and its relationship to current national forest Institute 1977). This apparent conflict in land management practices. authority is resolved by a formal memorandum of understanding between the two agencies. Approximately 3,860 km (2,400 miles) of streams support reproducing populations of rainbow (Salmo giirdneri 1, brown (Salmo trutta) or brook POLICY AND PRACTICES trout (Salvelinug fontinalis) in Georgia (~atora - and Beisser 1980). About 60% of this lies within Trout habitat in Georgia is limited, the Chattahoochee National Forest. The brook trout, considering that the number of anglers fishing for the only salmonid native to the east coast, occurs trout is estimated at over 200,000 annually only in remnant populations in some 60 small head- (~eorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources 1986). water streams that total approximately 130 km (80 Most individual streams are small and productivitY miles). The rainbow and brown trout, introduced is extremely low due to low total hardness (13ngland into Georgia before the turn of the century, had and Fatora 1974, Fatora 1970). Without supplementa1 established self-sustaining wild populations in trout stocking, many of these streams would sustain most of the remaining suitable habitat by the time only a small portion of the present use. ~eorgia'~ the Chattahoochee National Forest was established management philosophy has been to provide a variety in 1936. of fishing experiences, including intensive put and take fisheries, artificial lures only fisheries

Two national forests, spanning 344,291 ha and trophy trout stream fisheries (~atora1975) 1 (850,731 acres), are located in Georgia (U.S. but to avoid unnecessarily restrictive regulations Department of Agriculture 1985). The Chattahoochee (England 1979). In practice, this had resulted in National Forest covers 301,970 ha (746,158 acres) an intensive stocking program of catchable (23 cm; in the southernmost reaches of the Appalachian 9 inch) fish on selected easily accessed streams, Mountains and the upper Piedmont in extreme coupled with a continuing effort to protect wild northern Georgia. The Oconee National Forest con- populations from habitat degradation and excessive tains 42,321 ha (104,573 acres) and lies in the fishing pressure. In addition, habitat enhance- lower Piedmont in the north-central part of the ment with log and rock scream alteration structures Russell H. England, Regional Fisheries Supervisor, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Gainesville, GA 30501. has been accomplished in selected stream reaches. 3,216 to 13,719 hrlkm (5,175 to 22,077 hrfmile). Mean annual catch rate averaged 0.94 fishlhr, Georgia's general trout regulations consist which is comparable to the 0.86 fish/hr average on of an eight fish daily creel limit, no size limit ten stocked streams in 1958-59 (England 1974). and no bait restrictions except that live fish may These figures suggest that increased stocking not be used. The general trout season runs from levels have allowed the state of Georgia to meet the last Saturday in fiarch to the end of October the demands of increasing fishing pressure without but a number of streafis are open to fishing year a decline in catch rare. around. Streams not open year around are closed to night fishing. In addition, special regulations Other measures of quality fishing, such as a are in effect on ten stream reaches, eight of desire to experience solitude or a relatively which are on national forest land, Nine of these unspoiled natural environment, have not fared so streams require the use of artificial lures only well. Stream banks and adjacent areas on heavily and the tenth, on state park property, is stocked streams have been heavily impacted by restricted to use by children under age 12 and anglers and campers and show severe soil compaction honorary license holders (disabled or over age and removal of understory vegetation. This impact 65). One stream (Noontootla creek) is managed as has created considerable concern among forest a catch-and-release fishery with a 41 cm (16 inch) managers, and attempts to mitigate impacts by minimum size limit. Another (Waters Creek) is restricting camping immediately adjacent to streams zanaged as a trophy fishery with a 56 cm (22 inch) have been only partially successful. In spite of size limit, a daily creel limit of one fish and this recognized impact, these areas appear to be other restrictive regulations. Fish in Waters relatively stable, and are not causing significant creek receive supplemental feeding with stream sedimentation. However, many areas of the commercial trout feed. national forest may be approaching a practical limit in the amount of this type of use that can The pressure on Georgia's trout resources be supported. has steadily increased over the years. The state's population stood at an estimated 5.8 million people Sedimentation is the single most severe in 1984, with well over half of these living anthropogenic problem affecting Georgia's wild within a two hour drive of mountain trout streams trout fishery. Mountain soils are unstable and (Bachtel 1985). Fatora (1983) documented that highly susceptible to erosion (England 1975). The about 80% of the anglers fishing seven heavily popularity of the mountains as a recreation and stocked mountain streams were from the metropoli- retirement area has been accompanied by an ever- tan Atlanta area. Local governments in most increasing demand for residential and commercial mountain communfeies are constantly looking for development and road construction. Georgia has a ways to attract tourists to generate additional sediment control law that requires local govern- income. At the same time, many of the more ments to enact their own ordinances to control influential citizens are in the business of land erosion and requires developers to submit and development, real estate, banking or other growth follow an approved erosion control plan. However, dependent businesses. The result is a steady many activities are exempted and the difficulty of increase in demand for outdoor recreation, enforcement often results in inadequate protection including trout fishing. for trout habitat.

To help meet this increasing demand, the While the sediment control problem is most Game and Fish Division stocks catchable trout in severe on private land, a number of problems exist 166 streams, small lakes and tailwaters. This on the national forest as well. The multiple use stocking typically begins in mid-March and concept recognizes many legitimate uses of the continues until the first of September. Annual forest, and necessitates many compromises by stockings in these waters generally total around managers of the various resources. For the protec- one million trout weighing about one-third pound tion of wild trout habitat an undisturbed watershed each. Approximately 40% of these fish are is desirable, but for timber or game management or stocked in streams and small lakes on national other recreational use, varying degrees of road forest land. access are desirable.

Trout stocking on national forest land is Timber harvest and the accompanying road limited to easily accessible areas that have construction have historically caused the worst historically received heavy recreation use stream sedimentation problems on the Ghattahoochee Restricted stocking is used to concentrate National Forest. Both even-age management (cleat hatchery fish in areas where fishermen concentrate, cutting) and selective cutting methods have been thus maximizing the return to creel of stocked employed. Even-age management has received fish. It is also felt that this approach helps considerable criticism from environmental groups aiaimize the pressure on wild trout populations. and the general public who view it as an environmentally destructive method of timber harvest, Recent creel surveys estimated a 100% return However, road construction or reconstruction appear of stacked trout on five of eight intensively to be the primary source of stream sediment 'tacked streams, and 62% or higher on the other regardless of the form of timber harvest (Patric three (~atora1983). These streams were stocked 1976, Anderson et al, 1976). In the long run, "@kly and total season stocking rates ranged even-age management practices probably produce 4,176 to 9,476 fish/km (6,720 to 15,250 less stream sediment than selective cutting iiah/aile). Season fishing pressure ranged from because a less complex road system is needed, and any given compartment is entered less frequently trout resource. Cooperative relati* for timber removal (Seehorn 1986). state and Forest Service ~LB excellent. The current land Current timber harvesting guidelines ueed by emphasis ueed by the Forest semiet t, the Forest Service in north Georgia are designed etream habitat Protection ehovld help to protect streams from excessive siltation by national foreet trout resource. ln careful placement and design of roads and the use Georgia trout streams on private 1.~4 ah of buffer strips along stream corridors, Such jeopardy, and both agencies need to look lb guidelines appear adequate for stream protection, to promote land use practices that rill but enforcement is sometimes difficult because of thene etreems from further degradatiq, B1 inadequate staff ta administer each individual same time provide for continued publie 8t & sale. The current land mnagement plan (U.S. purchase of land or easement8 along ulz;tz Department of Agriculture 1985) identifies major corridors, the provision of erosion catrol areas of the forest where mnagement for fish and planning expertise to county 8overmnts wildlife should receive priority and it mandates improved wa ter quality monitoring and eaforch. the use of trout as management indicator species. are areas that need to be explored. This approach will require the Forest Service to implement a program to monitor the effects of timber operations on forest streams. LITEMTURE CITED

Habitat enhancements in the form of log Anderson, H.W., M.D. Woover and K.G. highart, deflectors, cover logs and splash dams have been 1976. Forests and water: effects of forart constructed by both the state Game and Fish management on floods , sedimentation, and wtr: Division and the Forest Service. An estimated supply. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. kp. 400 such structures now exist on the Chattahoochee PSW-18, 115~~. National Forest. The Forest Service has recently used volunteer workers from Trout Unlimited to Bachtel, D.C., ed. 1985. The Georgia county add additional structures. The beneficial impact guide, University of Georgia, Cooperative of such habitat work has been debated in low Extension Service. Athens, Georgia. 168pp. productivity waters where food is the major limiting factor. However, in many of these England, R.H. 1974. Trout etream creel ceasu~. streams there are areas with very little natural Pages 6-30 & Statewide fisheries investfgrtim, cover, and in such areas the addition of cover study XV, Vol, VII. Final Report, Dingell- would appear to be beneficial. The placement of Johnson Project F-21-5. Georgia Department of simple cover logs in strategic locations by Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. experienced personnel appears to be the most Atlanta, Georgia. effective fom sf habitat enhancement. England, R.H. -1975. Water quality standard8 for Fisheries management activities on the Oconee turbidity loads on trout waters of Georgia. National Forest have been limited, and generally Final Report, Dingell-Johnson Project F-25-20 handled by Forest Service personnel, Several Georgia Department of Natural Resources, caw small warmwater ponds are managed through and Fish Division. Atlanta, Georgia. 33~~- fertilization and aquatic weed control. Most streams in the area are small, with only limited England, R.H. 1979. Management regulations for reaches on Forest Service property. The state's native brook trout streams . Final Report, management activities on public waters in this Dingell-Johnson Project F-25-5. Georgia Depart' glrea are primarily directed toward large impoundment of Natural Resources, Game and Fish ments and are generally not directly affected by Division. Atlanta, Georgia. Forest Service management. England, R.H., and J.R. Fetora. 1974. Waters Considerable shoreline on both national Creek - a trophy trout stream. Proc. Annu* forests borders several large impoundments owned Conf Southeast. Assoc, Game and Fish Corn* by the Tennessee Valley Authority and Georgia 28:342-351. Power Company. The Forest Service operates campgrounds and boat ramps on some of these, and Environmental Law Institute. 1977. The thus exercises some influence on access and use. evolution of national wildlife law. U.S. Construction of reservoir fish attractors has Government Printing Office, Washington, D*c* been expedited by the use of brush and tree tops 485pp. from adjoining national forest land. These efforts have had a positive impact on the crappie Fatora, J.R. 1970. Noontootla - a sixteen-year fishery of Lake Nottely, a 1,692 ha (4,180 acre) creel and use history of a southern ~~~alachia~ TVA impoundment adjoining the Chattahoochee trout stream under changing management regulac National Forest (Weaver 1985). tions. Proe. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Com. 24:622-637, CONCLUSION Fatora, J.R. 1975. The planning approach to trout management. Pages 107-110 Symposium In conclusion, most fisheries management on trout habitat res5arch and management, efforts on Georgia national forests are directed proceedings. S.E. Forest Experiment Station. towards protection and enhancement of the state's Ashville, North Carol-ina. Fatora, J.R. 1983. Creel survey of intensively- Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil erosion in the eastern Stocked trout streams. Final Report, Dingell- forest. J. For. 74:671-677. Johnson Project F-25-10. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. Seehorn, M.E. 1975. Fishes of southeastern Atlanta, Georgia. 27pp. national forests. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 29:lO-27, Fatora, J.R., and G.S. Beisser. 1980. Trout stream survey. Final Report, ~ingell-Johnson Seehorn, M.E. 1985. The influence of ~ilvf- Project F-25-6. Georgia Department of Natural cultural practices on fisheries management: Resources, Game and Fish Division. Atlanta, effects and mitigation measures. Proc. Soc. Georgia. 18 + xxii pp. Am. For. In press. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1982. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Game and fish laws of Georgia 1982 annotated. [I9853 Land and resource management plan: The Michie Co., Charlottesville, Virginia. Chattachochee--0conee National Forests. 304pp. U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Southern Region.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1986. Weaver, O.R. 1985. Evaluation of :he walleye Fisheries section annual report, FY85. Georgia population of Lake Nottely. Final Report, Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Dingell-Johnson Project F-25. Georgia Division. Atlanta, Georgia. In press. Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. Atlanta, Georgia. 43pp. -SURE Porest - Alabama's Unique Approach To Managing Its Forest Resources

Rhatt Johnson

Abstract.-- Alabsmals private, non-industrial landovners own almost 75X: of the nearly 9 aillion hectares (22 million acres) of forest land in the state. A unique statewide cooperative effort by twelve state and federal natural resource magment agencies has attacked the problem of low productivity adlow intensity managsntent on these and other forest lands by the implementation of the !LREASURE Forest progrant. The program features interagency teems on the county level working with forest landovners to develop multiple use, sustained yield management plans. Landowners who successfully implement these plans are recognized statewide by an awards progrem. The program requires the consideratioxi of timber, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, watersheds, and environmental protection in all management decisions. The impact of the program on the development of Alabama's total forest resource is evident and the program is gaining in acceptance and popularity among all segments of the forest resource management community.

ec&ionomie indices, forest industry is Alabama1s largest industry (McKee 1986) . Alabama contains some of the richest natural resources in the continental United By law, most of the federal lands and much States. Of its more than 13 million hectares of the state lands are managed for multiple (33 million acres), about 66% (8.78 million uses, and timber and wildlife fare well on hectares) are classified as commercial these areas. Typically, forest industries in timberland (Rudis, et 81. 1984). The current Alabama manage very well for timber production Conservation Reserve Program should add another and practice a level of forest management 40,500 hectares (100,000 acres) of marginal generally beneficial to many wildlife species. cropland to that acreage. These forest lands In most cases, however, wildlife is an contain large, heal thy, and dsverse wildlife incidental product and in only a few incidences populations that are comparable to those of any is it regarded as an income producer. southeastern state. Forest management varies Achieving that status in industry circles seems greatly across ownership categories. Alabamat s to be the key to deliberate attempts to improve woodlands, like those of many southeastern wildlife habitat. Currently in Alabama, states, are largely privately owned. Fully hunting rights and wildlife management are 94.6% of Alabama's forests are awned by private regarded by most forest industries as public interests, with farmers owning 27.1%, forest relations tools that might or might not return industry another 20.6%, and non-farm, adequate funds to recover the costs of road non-industrial owners 46.9%. The remainder of repair, wild fire, gates, locks, signs, and Alabama's forests, about 470,000 hectares (1.16 increased supervision which result from opening million acres) or 5 .4%, are managed by various lands to public hunting. A few industries, federal, state, and local governments. The notably Gulf States Paper Company, have made controlling federal agencies include the U.S. extensive efforts to make wildlife management Forest Service (3.2%). the U.S. Fish and an integral part of their overall forest Wildlife Service, and various branches of the management plans with an eye to making it also Armed Forces for a total of about 4.4% of an income producer. Alabama's forest lands. The Alabama Forestry Commission, the Alabama Department of Without a doubt, the greatest potential Conservation and Natural Resources, and various for increasing the quality and quantity of other state agencies own about 0.6% of Alabama's Alabama's forest and wildlife resources lies in forest land and other government agencies only the private, non-industrial sector. Although about 0.4% (Rudis, et al. 1984). By most some of the best management examples

Rhett Johnson, Manager, Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center, School of Forestry, Auburn University, Andalusia, Alabama. be found within this group, the norm is far TTREASURE FORESTS below that found aong other ownership groups, Much of this 6.5 million hectares (16 million The AFPC has been involved in sever& acres) of Alabama forest land is understocked, successful program? in its short tenure, but undermanaged, unburned, and probably yielding the flagship program, particularly in regard to forest products a$ about one-half their forest values other than timber, is the potential. There are various reasons for this =SURE Forest Program. The very name of the situation, but lazk of forest managment prograin is an acronym representing multiple knowledge and diflicaty in obtaining proper use, sustained yield forest management: assistance can often be pinpointed as the major Timber, Recreation, Enviromental enhancement, problems. and Aesthetics for a Sustained Usable Resource. The pragrm was conceived in 1974 and the first mURE Forests recognized in 1975. Since aABAMA FORESTRY PLANNING COmTTEE that time, about 400 forest landowners havel,, received recognition as TREASURE Foresters .- There are a dozen or so state and federal agencies in Alabama that provide natural In a typical sequence, a forest landowner resource management information and/or seeking management assistance is identified by assistance to the general public. In many members of a county forestry planning instances, duplication of effort or conflicting committee. At that time, he is made aware of information has resulted from this multiplicity the TREASURE Forest program and urged to of sources. In 1971, in an attempt to participate. If interested, he is asked to coordinate state and federal assistance sign a TREASURE Forest Creed which pledges him programs, 12 agencies formed the Alabama to the concepts of multiple-use, sustained Forestry Planning Committee (AFPC) to encourage yield, and protect ion of environmental quality. cooperation and reduce competition between the The Creed, like the TREASURE program itself, is member agencies in offering assistance to the non-binding- The landowner's property is then state's forest landowners. The AFPC is listed as a potential TREASURE Forest and he comprised of the folluwing state and federal becomes the target of a cooperative assktance agencies: (1) Alabama Department of Conservation effort in developing a management plan for his and Natural Resources; (2) Alabama Department of property that incorporates the precepts of the Education, Vocational Division, Agribusiness program. Ideally, the landowner would receive Education; (3) Alabama Forestry Commission; (4) timber management advice from the various Alabama Soil and Water conservation Committee; forestry agencies represented on the committee, (5) Alabama Cooperative Extension Service; (6) wildlife management advice from Alabama Game School of Forestry, ~uburriUniversity; (7) and Fish biologists or other biologists on the USDA- Farmers Home Administration; (8) committee, and general conservation and natural USDA-Pores t Service; (9) Alabama Agricultural resources management counsel from SCS, ASCS, or bperiment Station; (10) USDA-Soil Conservation Extension experts. Each landowner must Service; ( 11) USDA-Agricul turd Stabilization; identify primary and secondary management and (12) Tennessee Valley Authority (Wade and ob j ectives chosen from among timber, wildlife, Moody 1983) . aesthetics, recreation, watershed, and environmental enhancement. After adequate The conuuittee, consisting of the head of progress has been made toward achieving these each participating state or federal agency, management objectives, the landowner may be meets twice a year and formal actions are by submitted as a candidate for TREASURE Forest consensus. Despite the expected difficulties, certification. The district TREASURE Forest this arrangement has proved workable. In 1976, coordinator, an Alabama Forestry Conmission the AFPC appointed two special committees, one district office employee, then appoints an to coordinate setvice programs and the other to inspection team for an on-site evaluation of coordinate educational programs . In 1983, a the accomplishments of the landovner. At a third ccntuuittee was created to coordinate forest minimum, this inspection teast must consist of a productivity programs. These three graduate forester and a graduate wildlife subcamittees are made up of staff members of biologist. Other natural resource the various participating agencies. They meet professionals may also accompany and Quarterly and report directly to the AFPC. participate in the inspection.

In 1981, the AFPC requested that forestry A detailed inspection record is completed Planning committees be formed on the county on each property. Infonnation recorded lmel. These committees, comprised of the includes acreages, age classes, forest types, county-level counterparts of the AFPC members, and accomplishments in the last five years in charged with identifying and addressing timber management, wildlife rnanagement , and/or wildlife, and conservation issues in management for other chosen objectives. In tbir particular counties. Most Alabama addition, forest management plans for the next have responded by forming such five years must be prepared, indicating planned c9.itteea. Much of the forestry activity in the state is now initiated at the county level- L/ Letson, N., State TREASURE Forest Coordinator, Personal Conmunication, July 1986. changes in land use, anticipated timber period. At the end of five years* the pr harvests, future regeneration activities, is reinspected to insure its continued protection schemes involving salvage, compliance with the TREASURE Forest g~id.1 sanitation, and wildfire, and the use of 4. prescribed fire as a management tool. There are about 400 TREASURE F,,,,~. Alabama containing about 202,000 hectares The inspecting wildlife biologist must (500,000 acres), and an additiond 50 complete a checklist of accomplishments in signers striving for TREASURE status.-PI wildlife habitat management. Questions cover forest landowner in Alabama may qualify for"inp prescribed burning practices, adequacy of den TRBASURe status regardless of ownership t-, trees and snags, diversity of stand types and All forest land owned in the state must age classes, irregularity of stand boundaries, considered, hawever. and a minimum of 4.047 adequacy of mast product ion, wildlife species hectares (10 acres) is required. The ladmt being managed, protection, harvest procedures, receives several small awards when certifia population levels, permanent openings, etc. a TRBASURE Forest owner and becomea eligible These questions must be addressed by all for statewide recognition. The Helene IlosdY landowners regardless of management objectives. Memorial TRBASURE Forest Awards provide maw monetary awards to the three TREASURE Foreatp A third section of the inspection record judged best in their respective districts md summarizes she overall adequacy of conservation additional recognition is given to the practices on the property including protection landowner judged best in the state. of soil, water, and air quality, with special At this point ia the prograxn, peer recognition and attention paid to erosion control and stream personal satisfaction appear to be the protection. General appearance of the property motivating factors for most TREASURE seekens. is noted, although comments are generally Interviews with TREASURE Foresters reveal a limited to extremely unattractive situations general concern for the land and for future such as open dumps. When aesthetics or generations. recreation are management objectives, a section on accomplishments in development and It is revealing that almost 75% of the management for these resources is completed by as the inspection team. TREASURE Forest owners list wildlife either their primary or secondary management The completed inspection form, with the objective. Only timber is mentioned mote often, with some combination of the two being inspection team's comments and recommendations, most common. Under the precepts of the is returned to the district TREASURE Fo~est program, the landowner must display atmerous Coordinator, of ten with supporting docwents positive accomplishments toward his primary from the County Forestry Planning Committee. obj ective, several accomplishments toward the Use of the property for demonstrations or other educational or research activities is encouraged management of his secondary objective, and in the TREASURE Forest program and documentation demonstrate management of his property in such of such use is also often included in TREASURE a way as to minimize detrimental. impacts on all Forest applications. The District Coordinator other forest resources. These requirements insure that wildlife values will be at least then forwards the application, inspection Although record, and supporting documents to the State protected on every TREASURE Forest . there was no intent to downplay the importance TREASURE Forest Coordinator, a staff forester of other resource uses such as recreation and with the Alabama Forestry Cdssion. aesthetics, the TREASURE program places an of The TREASURE program is administered by the emphasis on provisions for the protection timber and wildlife resources. Services Subcommittee of the AFPC, which is made up of the State TREASURE Forest coordinator and An integral facet of the program is the foresters, biologists, and natural resource specialists from several of the member agencies presentation of the TREASURE award. Ceremonies with attending media coverage are strongly of the AEPC. The Services Subcommittee meets quarterly to evaluate TREASURE Forest recommended and the resulting publicity has generated an amazing amount of landowner nominations received during the quarter. Field personnel are urged to be on hand to answer interest in the program. Some of the most questions about applications from their inpassioned and effective spokesman for the respective counties. Tbe subcommittee rules on program are TREASURE landowners themseleves. each nomination and results are returned through the district level to the appropriate counties. All agency personnel, TREASURE Forest Applications may be approved for certification landowners, and TREASURE Creed signers are by the subcommittee, deferred for clarification eligible to receive a subscription to the TREASURED or further information, or disapproved. In publication Alabama ' s Forests free of instances where nominations are disapproved, charge. This attractive magazine is published county planning committees and landowners are quarterly by the Alabama Forestry Commission apprised of the reasons for disapproval and and contains management advice for all of the strongly encouraged to resubmit the application after corrective measures are taken. TREASURE Forest certification is valid for a five year L/ Letson, Ibid. i reeources covered in the TREASURE progrm. It various agencies for their counterparts in i is oriented toward the private, nowindustrial other agencies, The interdisciplinary forest landowner and contains *cookbodkn type exchanges have been particularly rewarding for articles by natural resource professionals from all involved, increasing understanding arnong sround the state* In addition, one of the natural resource professionals of the URE Forest fami2itiw is usually featured in mnagement hplications of the varioug each issue* b interrelated forest resourcee. The i~teragenc~ nature of the program makes it unique and the URE concept has begun to permeate coordinated, cooperative effort is appreciated t assistance efforts of a11 the by landowners* Many landowners may never mke individual agencies involved in the program* it into the BIEI, program, but, as a result ~andoomersparticipating in industry assistance of the TREASURE Forest program, the concept of progt-s are beginning to request more mdtiple multiple use management on a suatained yield use nianagement assistance as the TREASURE basis has become better accepted in Alabama as concept has gained in acceptance and popularity, the most desirable forest management goal, May forestry consultants use their records as aanagers of qualified lands as a selling point in their dealings with landowners. The Alabama Forestry C-ssion has recently contracted with several private consultants to qtead the 'IXEASURE doctrine throughout the McRee, B* 1986, Forestry: Its Economic state. In addition, the Commission has included Importance to Alabama. Circular M-456, WURE Forest instructional unit in its Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Forestry Academy for all new employees. During Auburn University. February and March of 1986, the Services committee provided a series of training Rudis, V.A,, 3. F. Rosson, Jr., and J.F. Kelly. Beesions designed to educate county level agency 1984. Forest Resources of Alabama* Resour. in the administration of the program. Bull. SO-98. USDA-FS, So. For* Ekp. Sta., - mge sessions were held in ten locations New Orleans. LA. 55p. throughout the state and featured information on the AFPC and its programs, can overview of the Wade, L,H. and C.W. Moody. 1983. Alabama ~uRBForest program, and a detailed nhow-ton Forestry Planning Committee-unique example ocreeionon management for each of the resources sf coordinating and planning for action. featured in the TIZEASURE program. These Alabama" smForests If: 2 :12-13. oeeaion~were designed to enable agency- personnel to assist in the development of ~sgementplans that would lead to TREASURE Foreet certification. In addition, the sessions were expected to better prepare potential WR&Forest inspectors for evaluating WURE Forests,

The impact of the TREASURE program on the wildlife management being practiced on the prrticipating forest lands is obvious. Not only is wildlife of ten a featured managenent oltjactive, the consideration of wildife habitat md welfare must be a part of every management kirion. As the TREASURE Forest program grows, mre acreage will be managed in this manner. Still, the acreage actually in the program is relatively small and does not reflect its impact a th management being practiced in the state. ? htr) landowners and managers, although not *tire participantn in the TRIUSURB program. t begun to adopt the concept in their i -lamt. General acceptance of multiple-uee ', has been increased through the mra and through the emphasis placed on it by 1 absr agencies of the @PC in their 1 -9% landowner assietance activities. k 'he Alabama Forestry Commission has taken in implementing the TREASUM concept* key to the ultimate succees of the is the involvement of all monagoment @: Particularly on the county level. One h8Uights of the program is the ttion gained by the members of the Cooperative Research and Management for the Wild Turkey James Earl Kennamer

Abstract.--Public interest and user demand for natural resources have encouraged cooperative and innova- tive approaches to natural resource research and management. Special interest groups, such as the non-profit National Wild Turkey Federation (NWF) serve as coordinators and leaders providing the most efficient use of the expertise and monies in behalf of an important resource - the wild turkey. NWTF, through a cooperative approach, sets goals and objectives, identifies and addresses problems, encour- ages habitat management, facilitates restocking, transfers technology and educates people, maintains library services, and sponsors research.

INTRODUCTION

The European settlers to North America The wild turkey is an example of a species, found an abundance of game birds and mammals numbering about 30,000 bi,rds at the turn of the which rapidly disappeared with subsistence century, and now has reached populakion levels harvest for food and a corresponding loss of of over 2*5 million birds in 48 contiguous states woodland habitats as they were cleared for and Hawaii, One of the major factors contribut- farming and settlements. These game popula- ing to this phenomenal increase has been the re- tions reached an all time low during the forestation of many private, state and federally- early part of the 20th century. owned lands where wild trapped and transplanted birds were released and protected until huntable In the early 1900s, concerned sportsmen populations were established. initiated a conservation movement which included harvest restrictions and protection Early research was aimed primarily at life to preserve the few remaining isolated popula- history studies and solving local problems neces- t-ions of such game species as deer and wild sary to determine the effects of potential hunting turkeys. seasons, Those early studies were followed by research to improve methods of monitoring, trapping In the 1930s, universities, led in most techniques, restocking efforts, and range ex- cases by affiliated Cooperative Research Units pansion. Most of these studies were done region- and state agency biologists, began efforts to ally with very little contact or cooperation be- study life histories and subsequent management tween states . techniques that would provide benefits to various wildlife species. Techniques to assess Now the time has come for cooperation between habitat conditions, establish populations in resource managers and users to combine their unoccupied areas, and monitor individuals were knowledge and efforts to provide maximum benefits necessary to provide huntable populations of for wildlife in general and the wild turkey in game birds and mammals. As this information particular. Coutmon goals and objectives, infor- was put into practice, through the efforts mation, and practices can be achieved better of state wildlife agencies, the populations through cooperative efforts. began to make a slow recovery.

James Earl Kennamer, Director of Research and Management, National Wild Turkey Federation P, 0. Box 530, Edgefield, SC 29824 Land practices can be coordinated, The technical committee has identified, and agencies can be united in comon goals, land the NWTF Board of Directors has approved, seven managers and resource users can work together, major goals and objectives which include: and biologists and researchers can share resources and infomation for better wild turkey A. Encourage the conservation and estab- management, Unless land management is coordi- lishment of wild turkey populations nated, some practices can offset the gains using best wild stack available, of another. The effects of clean fanning and B. Assist in acquisition, storage, and large-scale conversion of forests to even-aged analysis of infomation and equipment stands can have negative effects to some wild- needed for conservation of the wild life populations. An example of managerfuser turkey resource, cooperation, and an example of agency coopera- C. Encourage development of long-term re- tion, is an agreement between the U.S. Forest search which will provide infomation Service and the NWTF to provide assistance in essential to wild turkey management. managing the National Forests so wildlife D. Encourage protection and enhancement of values will be better enhanced and the nega- wild turkey habitat. tive effects will be minimized. E. Encourage the sound management of wild turkey populations. It is necessary that researchers inter- F. Promote an understanding and appreciation change ideas and expertise to avoid duplication of the wild turkey and its needs. and mistakes. Unfortunately, wildlife re- G, Promote safe and ethical behavior by search efforts have been conducted with only wild turkey resource users. state boundaries separating similar studies. Budget restraints at all levels demand that These needs have been further defined as to cooperative efforts be involved in research identify national, regional, and individual state and management programs. priorities.

The role of special interest groups to The NWTF Technical Committee planned and coordinate these efforts is becoming more executed the Fifth National Wild Turkey Syqosium evident. They can unite individuals and di- when it became apparent that the every five year verse agencies, and they can cut through the event was in jeopardy of being abandoned. Other red tape and politics that have encumbered workshops in North America concerning wild turkey game management efforts at all levels. They researchlmanagement have been developed. These can achieve this through coordination and educational efforts have utilized the coilective facilitation, not through usurping other talents of state and Federal personnel and uni- agencies' responsibilities or charge. versity scientists to provide the best knowledge available. NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION The NWTF committee recently completed its second assessment of the current status of the The National Wild Turkey Federation was wild turkey in the United States. The 1986 Guide founded in 1973 to work for the conservation --to the American Wild Turkey provides consolidated of the American wild turkey. The WFis a information concerning state wild turkey programs, membership-based organization composed prima- from fall and spring hunting season regulations, rily of turkey hunters affiliated into state laws, and includes individual state turkey popu- and local chapters. The NWTF works through lations distribution maps. a national technical committee composed of biologists representing each state wildlife Recent concerns on the relationship of known agency. Members of the committee meet annually comercia1 poultry diseases, such as mycoplasmosis, and communicate regularly to keep informed of to wild turkey populations prompted the committee current developments, plan activities, and to undertake a program to train biologists to test assess and address problem areas. This comuni- for and assess diseases in wild populations, and cation network has provided agencies, managers to evaluate game farm turkeys as potential and researchers collective expertise and re- carriers, The NWTF collects mycoplasma test data sources. from wild turkeys as reported by cooperators for use by resource managers, This year, the WTF, with input from all segments of the organization from the chapter The committee has developed a systematic level to the technical committee, has launched computerized wild turkey bibliography which into a program that promises to accomplish even currently contains over 2000 references. Biblio- greater rewards for the wild turkey. The pro- graphy searches that once took weeks in a library gram will identify major research and manage- now can be accomplished accurately in minutes. ment needs throughout the range of the wild The second phase of the program is to obtain these turkey, and second, implement a funding program publications for a reference library facility at '0 accomplish these objectives , the Wild Turkey Center. The NWTF has funded 58 wild turkey research projects since 1977 which were recornended by the technical committee and approved by the NWTF Board of Directors. Over $350,000 has been granted to fund research efforts which have national implications. Examples of this research include disease assessment, habitat use, timber mnagement and turkey habitat, effects of roads and strip-mining as they relate to wild turkeys. This figure includes $272,000 in funding, plus vehicles, telemetry equipment, nets, and other equipment purchased by the NWTF and loaned to researchers.

The Grants-in-aid Program, as well as the donation of over 20,000 wild turkey trap and transport boxes to state agencies and researchers, have both been mainstays in the comitment of the WFto work for the wild turkey during the last 10 years. The specially made boxes wese donated by St. Regis, Interna- tional, Westvaco, Union Camp, and Meade paper companies.

SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

The second part of the program is to raise the funds necessary to accomplish these goals and objectives. This unique approach is called the Wild Turkey Super Fund, Monies from direct donations and proceeds from fund-raising ban- quets are deposited in individual state accounts which are administered by the National Wild Turkey Federation,

Before monies can be withdrawn from a state account for a project, the project must be approved by the state chapter president, the particular state representative to the NWTF Technical Committee and the NWTF Director of Research and Management. Approval by the technical committee representative assures that the mbney will be spent only on projects that will benefit the wild turkey resource. Ccordi- nation through the national office makes sure monies will support goals and objectives as approved by the NWTF Board of Directors and the accountability of the money is maintained.

CONCLUSION

The cooperative approach to natural resource management is necessary to protect our resources and meet future management objectives. Private organizations can serve as cooperators, facili- tators, fund raisers, lobbyists, and educators. They can interact positively or negatively with other agencies in the best interest of the resource as situations dictate. More than ever before, we must work together to protect our wildlife resources as we face the challenges of the future. Anything less will be a disservice to what so many have worked for in the conservation movement. gildlife Management By Champion Internationnl Corporation Charles E. Allen

Champion International Corporation is developing a multi- faceted wildlife program aimed at integrating wildlife and forest management. The program includes: (1) forest management prescriptions to accommodate wildlife, (2) developing land classification and fee access systems and (3) cooperative research to test wildlife management practices. Champion leased approximately 626 thousand ha (1.55 million ac) in the South in 1985. Income varies per ha depending on region and tract desirability. Wildlife management ia funded mainly through hunting lease fees generated primarily from local hunting clubs, Indirect returns include customer entertainment on Company lands, promotion of a positive public image and public recognition for its wildlife management practices.

INTRODUCTION Fiber production is the primary purpose for Champion's land ownership. Commercial forest land in the United Wildlife and fish are also important States is estimated at 195 million ha (482 renewable natural resources. After pur- million acres). Approximately 72% is in chasing St. Regis Corporation in 1984, private industrial and non-industrial holdings, Champion appointed a wildlife programs and 28% is publicly owned (American Forest manager and expanded wildlife operations Institute 1982). Land uses such as urban nationwide. expansion and reservoir construction (e tc.) are eliminating wildlife habitat in the commercial Timber Management and Leases forest land base by .4 to 1.2 million ha (1 to 3 million ac) per year (Tomlinson 1985). The Corporate policy states that Company land current demand for outdoor recreation promises will be managed for multiple uses. While to intensify. A 66% increase in demand for big environmental concerns and promotion of a game hunting is expected by 2020 (USDA Forest positive public image are very important, Service 1975). The result has been over- economic justification for wildlffe management crowding on public land and increased pressure guidelines is through access fees. Champion end problems for the private sector. promulgates guidelines addressing subjects such 1 CHANPION' S PROGRAM as riparian zones, clear-cut size, shape and * distribution, and retention of hardwood areas* Outlined in this presentation are Champion Although management varies somewhat by International Corporation's wildlife management region, land managers in each region are practices on approximately 2.63 million ha (6.5 encouraged to protect important wildlife aillion ac) nationwide. It is hoped these corn- habftats surrounding major streams and drain- "nrs will be useful to other private land ages and to consider altering the shape and mmgers. size of clear-cuts to benefit wildlife when possible. Protected riparian zones average Wildlife and outdoor recreation opportunw from 15 to 61 m (50 to 200 ft) wide. Clear discussed here will focus on game species cuts are recommended to be 81 ha (200 ac) or activities that generate user fees and less, irregular in shape with a 5 year age 'nc* for their management and continuance . differential to the adjacent stand. %ion recognizes the importance of non-game ''tals and nonconsumpt ive recreation such as White-tailed deer are a primary game 7btography and observation however to date, species for hunters in the southern forest. Consmptive users have provided monetary mly In order to recommend deer management %mrtfor management. "F v'"xes E. Allen, Wildlife prosms Manager, Champion International Corporation, 0. Box 1913 "at~ville, TX 77340 procedures, Champion has initiated a compu- a point scoring system, Points are awarded for terized data system designed to maintain habitat and wildlife species diversity, hunter records of animals harvested on each lease. accessibility, tract size, site index, and Lessees, especially those with tracts 405 ha presence or absence of water including fishing (1000 ac) or more, are encouraged to collect opportunities. Conditions that negatively biological information from all harvested deer. impact the tract's attractiveness are also Data include field-dressed weights, age, antler considered and points are subtracted from the measurements, sex, and lactation condition in total for adverse situations. Classification doe deer. These data are collected by the categories are expressed as Class 1 through 5. district offices across the South and are Ranges are 181-225 for Class 1, down to 0-55 forwarded to Huntsville, Texas for cmputer for Class 5 land. Prices vary by region but analysis. Each lease is sent a summary indi- range between $.50 to $5.00 per acre. The cating average weights and antler measurements system is being tested in selected areas this by age class as well as computer generated year, Corporate policy is that local sportsmen graphs comparing these data with previous shall be given preference in leasing with fees years, Statistical tests comparing years or at or below fair market value. adjacent leases can also be performed. This data, combined with deer census information and Test Practices and Cooperatives in Research forest management plans, form the basis for the wildlife plan for each area, The Brushy Creek Experimental Forest in eastern Texas is used for forest management, Land Classification and Fee Access Systems wildlife research and management, and customer and guest hunting entertainment. Forest Access fees are realized primarily through management consists of a 25-year pulpwood leasing to hunting clubs. Champion leased 626 rotation, clear-cutting, site preparation and thousand ha (1.55 million ac) from a total fee planting, prescribed burning, and protection of acreage of 1.05 million ha (2.59 million acres) riparian zones. Special practices for wildlife across the South in 1985. Leasing additional include prescribed burning 5-10% of the area acreage is being initiated or intensified, each year and planting chufa, oats, wheat, and clover for turkeys and deer on about 1% of the Wildlife surveys of Company land indicate area annually. Logging operations have been leased areas support higher and more diversi- suspended during spring in turkey's nesting fied game populations than unleased holdings. areas and regular patrolling of the area and Lessees develop a surrogate ownership behavior limited access to the public appear to limit pattern conducive to protection from poaching, illegal hunting. trash dumping, arson, and vandalism, These reasons, coupled with economic incentives, are Wildlife management and research on Brushy providing the impetus to develop fee access Creek are directed at eastern wild turkey programs in unleased holdings. For example, a (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) and white- 45,000 ha (111,200 ac) free permit area in tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Thirty- Washington State adjoining Mt. Ranier National two wild-trapped turkeys were released on Park is being studied as a potential fee permit Brushy Creek in 1979. These birds were radio area. Campsites, firewood, and hunter check tracked from 1979 to 1983 by Texas A&M Univer- stations are now provided. Hunter management sity to determine forest habitat use patterns. incfudes designating areas where only walk-in Information from this study has contributed to hunting is permitted. Spotlight and helicopter knowledge of habitat requirements. Reproduc- census information as well as biological data tion from this population has been used to from hunter kill provides population status and restock unoccupied habitat in eastern Texas. animal quality data, A contract security man More turkeys have been trapped and transplanted is provided to patrol the area for trespassers from Brushy Creek than from any other East and game violators. Cooperative wildlife Texas restoration area. This population will management with the Washington Department of continue to be of paramount importance in Game is being studied to produce older aged- restocking efforts. class elk (Cervis canadensis) and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) to deve- Prior to 1971, Brushy Creek was open to lop higher animal quality. unrestricted hunting and cattle grazing. The area was posted in 1971 and hunting was pro- Differences in habitat quality and game hibited until 1977. Grazing has been discon- species diversity affect desirability of tinued since 1977, the deer management emphasis various tracts available for leasing. The pur- has been to produce and harvest quality deer. pose of our investigating a land classification Management to accomplish this goal includes system is to objectively quantify these differ- maintaining the herd at or below carrying ences so that tracts are equitably priced for capacity, harvesting at least an equal number both the lease holder and Champion. Five of does and bucks and harvesting spike bucks. different classifications were devised based on Census work is performed using spotlight and helicopter techniques. Buck age-class management is by rotational hunting, Brushy Creek enforcement personnel are frequently is divided into three management units, each contacted by Champion's personnel approximately 3,100 ha (7660 ac) in size. All developing a positive working relation- areas are hunted for spikes and doe deer ship, For example, as a result of a depending on the pcpulation, but branched proposal by Champion" Wildlife Prsgrama antlered bucks are hunted only in one area each Manager, Champion and the Texas Parks and year, All huntingmisperformed by customers Wildlife Department are cooperating to and guests. Each unit is not hunted again for analyze the effects of pre-season antler- three years to allow a higher buck age-class less deer harvest in East Texas for the distribution to develop, 1986 hunting season.

This procedure has proven effective. Data Champion is cooperating with the Montana from five years indicate that 32% of the bucks Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department on a harvested have been 4.5 years old or older. A big-horn sheep restoration effort and typical 4.5 year old buck from a sample of 46 investigating cooperative efforts with the from Brushy Creek weighed about 49 kg (109 lbs) Washington Department of Game on aerial field dressed, with an inside antler spread of census and cooperative management programs 38 cm (15 in), average base circumference 11 cat for elk and black-tailed deer. (4.3 in), main beam length 51 cm (20 in), and had 9.2 points. From 1977 through 1981, data Other cooperative working relation- were collected on 144 bucks harvested from ships have developed between wildlife Brushy Creek. Measurement data from these agencies or organizations and Champion. bucks were compared to those of 406 bucks Champion's Wildlife Programs Manager harvested throughout the Pineywoods ecological serves as chairman of the Private Lands region and to data from 795 bucks measured in Committee of the Southeastern Section of storage facilities in the South Texas Plains the Wildlife Society and works closely ecological region. Deer from Brushy Creek had with the Wildlife Management Institute, similar weights but generally had larger Champion's Wildlife Programs Manager for' antlers than the deer from South Texas. Texas is involved with the Texas Forestry Association's Wildlife Committee and Cooperative Research and Management implements wildlife management activities in Texas, Cooperative research has been conducted with U.S. Forest Service's, Wildlife Habitat & Customer and Guest Hunting Silvicultural Laboratory (WHSL) in Nacogdoches, Tx, These cooperative projects have proven Product sales and marketing are the beneficial from several aspects. Champion heart of any manufacturing company. By obtains information that can be used in prac- offering customers and guests the opportun- tical m& 2agement applications, The wildlif e ities to hunt on the Brushy Creek Experi- lab benel its from consultation on experiments, mental Forest, the company generates assistance in applying treatments, use of customer goodwill and increased product company land, and from information it obtains sales, while maintaining strict control of from Company biologists regarding research hunting methods, hunter kill, and biolo- needs. Research results also directly benefit gical data collection. the wildlife resource through improved management techniques and ecological understanding. Public Relations Studies and cooperative work have included economic and biologics1 aspects of green-tree Champion's involvement in wildlife reservoirs (Allen and Balls 1978), dispersal, management and research has appeal to many reproduction, mortality, and habitat utiliza- hunting, conservation, and environmental tion of restocked eastern turkeys in East Texas groups. This involvement is publicized by (Hopkins 1981) , and development and hpact of outdoor writers and the news media through an industrial wildlife program (Allen and the efforts of the Company's Wildlife Dicbon 1983). Current projects with WHSL Programs Manager and its Public Affairs include a study comparing hunter success and Department, The Company and its wildlife deer sightings in 10-20 year old pine planta- personnel have been recognized for their tions versus other habitat types. conservation contributions by the Texas Forestry Association, Safari Club Interna- Management goals of the various state tional, Sportsmen's Clubs of Texas, the Vildlife agencies and Champion are similar in Texas Outdoor Writers Association, and the instances. Wildlife personnel for Champion Soil Conservation Service. While difficult %tressthe importance of antlerlese deer to measure, these indirect benefits may be &meat and other wildlife management techniques even more important to Champion than hunting clubs. State biologists and law direct returns from lease hunting. CONCLUSIONS

Managing the wildlife resource on industrial forest land in a professional manner is providing both direct and indirect returns to Champion. Direct returns are realized primarily from leasing fee access to hunting clubs. The company has successfully implemented programs that help lease holders collect and analyze biological data to improve their recreational experiences. Cooperative management and research efforts between Champion and federal and state wildlife agencies have proven beneficial. Indirect returns include a wide range of benefits, including customer entertainment on wildlife management areas, promotion of a positive public image, and recognition for environmental enhancement.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, C.E. 1980. Feeding habits of ducks in a green-tree reservoir in eastern Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:233-236.

Allen, C.E., and J.G. Dickson. 1983. Develop- ment and impact of an iudustrial wildlife program. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Assoc. 35:8-13.

Allen, C.E., and L.K. Halls. 1978. Feasibility of a green-tree reservoir in eastern Texas, Proc. Annu, Conf. Southeast. Assoc, Fish and Wildl. Agencies, 30:404-407.

American Forest Institute. 1982. Green Paper- Forest and industry facts. American Forest Institute, Washington, D.C. 4 pp.

Hopkins, C.R. 1981. Dispersal, reproduction, mortality, and habitat utilization of restocked eastern turkeys in East Texas. " Ph.D. Thesis. Texas AM University, College Station. 116 pp.

Tomlinson, B.H. 1985. Economic values of wildlife: opportunities and pitfalls. Trans. N. her. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 50:262-270.

USDA Forest Service 1975. RPA the at ion's renewable resources - an assessment, 1975. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 345 PP Samary and Concluding Remarks

Dan W, Speake

Today's speakers have emphasized that see that not all pine plantations are "biolog- opportunities for wildlife and fish management ical deserts'Qrhroughout the rotation and that on southern forests a= good and improving. The camercial foreetry is much better wildlife reasons given for this fortunate etare sf affairs habitat than strip mines, large agricultural were several. &gee has shown that landowners can fields, or subdivisions, When it comes to expect profits from timber-wildlife management prescribed burning, Landers stated it well, programs to exceed profits generated from timber "prescribed burning is perhaps the most under- alone, Annual fees for the lease of hunting utilized but valuable tool available to rights have been increasing to the point that it wildlife managers," Current knonledge of the certainly pays for a landowner to consider lease use of fire for both wildlife and forestry hunting as an annual source of income from forest purposes is such that both foresters and land between the time of tree planting and harvest, wildlifers regard it as an under-utilized tool. At the same time the technical information Another much under-utilized tool is thinning, that is needed for the integration of wildlife Frequently thinning benefits both timber management with timber management is improving. management and wildlife management; in fact This information helps the forest manager justify there are many situations where burning without wildlife mnagement practices, R, Johnson has thinning is of little value to wildlife habitat, shown how the Treasure Forest program is organi- As hunting and fishing lease holders pay zed to get technical information out to the more money and learn more about management persons that actually control the land use of 7% techniques that affect wildlife and fiah, they of Alabama forest land. Kennamer has shown us how will be putting more pressure on foresters to a special interest group, The National Wild Turkey modify some of their practices to benefit Federation, has begun to help finance and coordi- wildlife and fish. S, Johnson pointed out the nate research, management and education efforts on tendency for less intensive timber management on a nationwide scale, marginal sites which can be beneficial to some Still another positive factor is the improve- species. It might prove more desirable and ment in cooperative attitude between the various profitable in the long run to manage some mixed natural resource groups. Ellis reminded us that or hardwood stands that have good wildlife value disputes between foresters and wildlife and fish with a selective cutting or group selection system professionals over priorities are legendary. Most that maintains wildlife habitat values ad timber of the speakers have stressed that cooperation is values continually. Some areas such as deep generally good at this time. Allen said that sand ridges and bogs, that often are poor timber public recognition may be even more important than sites, could receive special consideration the direct returns, His company has cooperative because of their value to rare, threatened or 'working relations with state and federal agencies, unique plants and animals, outdoor news media, universities and others. I was much impressed with the comments of hamp pion's activities include collection and various speakers regarding the importance of analysis of data from hunring clubs, support of riparian zones. What emerges from the research and promotion of wildlife management, presentations of Dissmeyer, S. Johnson, Dickson Hunting lease fees from company lands support this and Huntley, E.L. Miller, Seehorn, and England program. Several other industrial forestry compa- is that essential fishery values such as food nies operating in the south have similar programs. production, water temperature, sediment control The U.S. Forest Service has a mandate to manage for and stream flow regulation are protected by multiple use of all resources on the public lands almost the same actions recommended for under its control. protection of soil productivity, provision of We could go on pointing out areas where fores- diversity, and retention of the mature forest ters and wildlife and fish managers have interests component for mast and fruit production, travel that are the same but of course there are places lanes, and essential habitat for squirrels, where the different values cannot be well managed turkeys and some non-game species, Surely most for at the same time, We cannot have multiple use of us can agree on the importance of riparian everywhere, at least not on private land. zones, but further research is needed to clarify I'm sure that most foresters would prefer their values to key wildlife species and to diversity, abundant wildlife and fish and aesthe- determine how wide they should be for specific tically pleasing surroundings if they can bring purposes. This type of information is about such conditions without having to pay too especially needed to improve the management of high a price. On the other hand, as S. Johnson wild turkeys and is being acquired by Dickson pointed out, wildlife professionals have come to and others, Lest we paint too rosy a picture, it should be acknowledged that many problems exist Dan W, Speake, Assistant Leader, Alabama and many improvements could be made. One Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research problem that has worried me for years is the 333 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, possibility of severe restrictions on burning a* 36849. that could come about due to public pressure. Well-meaning, but ill-informed, pressure grotsps public wildlife mnagement areas and other public sometimes act as though they believe that all lands will be heavily impacted, It may become fires are enviromentally destructive. Demon- necessary for the state wildlife managaent areas stration and education or re-education will to increase user fees a& suggested by Brouha perhaps take care of th5.t. There is the nagging for the national forests, not only to have funds possibility that lawsuits from road accidents for mnagement, but to keep private lands in the caused by smoke or other smoke problems will existing Enanagement areas. Ways must also be lead to such restrictions that burning will be found for the states to acquire additional lands practically banned. With the conversion of for pu"olie wildlife =mgeEar areas and for many upland mixed forests to pine types having a direct habitat hprovment to become a better naturally lower wildlife value, we have become supported activity on national forests. more and more dependent on the burning tool for Many of the speakers today referred to the wildlife mnagment.. It would be disastrous necessity for site specific evaluations that to wildlife values if we could not use it. must be made by individuals with the necessary Vegetation control with herbicides can be judgment and technical expertise. As S. used to benefit some wildlife species at the Johnson stated, "the responses of vegetation and same time it benefits timber. However, some of wildlife to silvicultural practices may differ the goals stated in the newspapers by proponents drastically at different places and different of herbicide use tend to alarm wildlife biologists, times. Blanket prescriptions don't work hunters, fishermen and nature lovers. If it everywhere," As the economic values of wildlife *becomes possible or economical to really remove and fish increase, the opportunities will like- herbaceous growth from pine plantations for more wise increase for skillful practitioners of the than a short time or to eliminate woody plant art of wildlife managment. Good, experienced rootstocks altogether from pine plantations then field ecologists and wildlife managers are in serious conflicts would develop, As McComb short supply, and many of today's wildlife and Hurst pointed out, the effects of herbicides training programs are not emphasizing management, on wildlife species reproduction and survival Managers in the field are frequently moved need more research, Even though toxicity levels cbout so much that they do not get enough on-the- of the commonly used compounds appear low, we ground experience to develop expertise for a need to be sure of the possible long-term effects particular envircnment, or they end up in an on non-target organisms. Land managers that office. I believe that foresters should have value the use of herbicides as tools should not some training in plant taxonomy and plant ecology forget the recent controversy in which the use to include lesser vegetation as well as trees. of 2,4,5-T was lost, Wildlife biologists should be exposed to enough I think that J, Miller is entirely right forestry training to at least be faniliar with in criticizing the wildlife community for not silviculture and have some understanding of the adequately encouraging and supporting research economic reasons for forestry practices. and education programs in animal damage control. All of today's speakers ref erred to the need Wild animals not only sometimes seriously for research to further define the requirements damage timber values but also can limit of wildlife and fish and their responses to populations of other preferred and threatened management practices. They cited many examples animal species, Where beaver control is of successful research in recent years and cecessary it can sometimes be accomplished by called for additional work to solve specific organizing trappers in problem areas. Part of problems. Recent advances in technology have the inducement can be permission to take other improved research tools, for example we now furbearers such as raccoons, foxes and bobcats, have much better radio telemetry equipment for The latter group of species along with wild dogs tracking animals than was available just a few are frequently important limiting factors on years ago. Solutions to many problems will be populations of such species as wild turkeys and forthcoming when research is better funded. This gopher tortoises. Since man has remo~~edmany of is especially true fcr tk.e non-game and threatened the checks on furbearer species and his land and endangered species whjch have not been well management frequently helps bring about an studied as a group. One of the reasons for this increase in their numbers, he sometimes has to has been that financing has not been as available assume responsibility for balancing things. for research on these species as it has for Free public hunting as we have known it is research on game and sport fish. Sportsmen on the way out. If it becomes economically deserve a great deal of credit for their support feasible to manage land for wildlife, then it of game and fish species, and other interest becomes economically unfeasible for the hunters groups should folloti their example. So far to have a free ride. To me it is an obvious most of the research on nongame species has truth that as wildlife values increase because been financed by public agencies but I might of rising demand and investments in managenrent, mention a notable exception in this reglon, more and more lands will be cloaed to the general The International Paper Company (IP) recently non-paying public. One hears a good deal of spent money to investigate the ecology of the grubling now about, "out of state hunters lowly gopher tortoise, a species that is of leasing up all of our land." For some reason interest to a relatively few very enthusiastic the protest is almost always directed toward people. The work was extremely well done and out of state hunters, but regardless of who IP was presented with an award by the Gopher leases the hunting rights, some people will be Tortoise Council. The affair of the gopher forced out of traditional hunting grounds, For tortoise is not over since it turns out that this a time ttere will be trouble over this and species is crucial to the welfare of several rare and at least one threatened species and the tortoise itself is now a candidate for listing as threatened in the western part of its range, There is now a demand for technical information on management of this species that has been supplied in large part from the efforts of IP, Huch more research is needed along the lines of work being done by Tall Thbers Research Starlon, a private organization located near Tallahassee, Fla, Tall Timbers is involved in long term studies of Southern Coastal Plain ecosystems. They are responsible for much of what we know about the role of fire in coastal plain pine forests. It takes years of study for many of the ecological relationships that form the basis for forestry and wildlife mnagement to be worked out, Short term applied research will not do the whole job. It might be well for us to consider that technology will not solve all our problems, Some of the most serious ones are social. Natural resource managers deal with a public that is frequently poorly informed but still determined and vocal. Our peculiar system where most of the land and timber is privately owned and the wildlife is state owned can lead to confEicts and controversy unlese strong trespass laws exist and can be enforced to protect the rights of the landowner in marketing the opportunity to harvest the wildlife, In spite of the problems, there is a great potential for wildlife management on southern forests. With the economic value of hunting and fishing opportunity now increasing, I am looking forward to a bright future for these natural resources.

*US. GOMRNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19 8 7 -7 6 1 - 0 8V 6 0 0 16 Rknrerks about pesticides appear in sow technical papera contained in these Proceedings. Publication of these statemnts does not constitute endorsemhnt or recomndation of them by the Conference sponsors, nor does it intply that uses discussed have been registered. Use of =st pesticides is regulated by State or Federal law. Applicable regtilotione lnust be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies.

CAUTION: P~rsticidescan be injurious to hwns, domestic anim8ls, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife--if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices given on the label for use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.

The use of trade or company names of products or services in these

Proceedings is for the benefit of the reader. Such use does not constitute an endorsement or approval of any service or product by the Conference aponaors to the exclusion of others that map be suitable. . Dickson, James G., and 0. Eugene Maughan, editors. Managing southern forests for wild1ife and fish --a proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO- 65 , New Or1eans, LA; U. S. Department of Agricul ture, For- est Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1987. 85 p.

Papers from a technical session wsrkfng group sf the 1986 Society of American Foresters national convention. Topics include economics of accomodating wildlife and fish, impact of specific forestry practices, special techniques, and prospects for the future.