This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
USING SILVICULTURE TO ACHIEVE
A DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN
THE SOUTHERN REGION
Jim Fenwood
ABSTRACT
mammalian trash species," we're concerned that small clearcuts fragment the habitat of neotropical migratory forest interior birds, and we're being asked to assess the impacts of
silvicultural treatments on reptiles, amphibians, mollusks,
and plants that we may not have even heard of before.
Today, if not simpler, at least life is more interesting,
both for silviculturists and biologists. Furthermore, practitioners of each profession will have a key role in shaping
the desired future condition of both the National Forests
and the Forest Service.
Where silvicultural objectives for a stand may once
have been relatively simple, they are now often considerably
more complex. Today we are concerned with how our actions
affect a wide variety of organisms. Furthermore we are
charged by law (NEPA, NFMA, and ESA) to actively manage National Forests for the maintenance of biological diversity. We began the process in the South first by restoring
the forests and later by mitigating adverse effects of timber
harvesting on certain animals and plants. Today, public
acceptance for traditional forestry practices is declining.
Project implementation is most successful when approached
as a process of setting measurable objectives for achieving
desired future conditions for biodiversity.
BACKGROUND
Three key pieces of legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
are at the heart of changing directions in National Forest
management. Although many theories have been put forth
regarding the impetus for these laws, at the core of each is
a concern for what we now call biodiversity.
Recently, the mandates found in these laws were clarified by the Chief in his decision on two forest plan appeals.
The decision explains that biodiversity can be thought of as
the variety of life in an area, including the variety of genes,
species, communities, and regional ecosystems. Through
the land management planning process, Forest Service
responsibilities include:
INTRODUCTION
A forester I once worked with had a favorite saying: "A
hundred years from now, nobody will know the difference."
Standing by his pickup truck, casting a frown in my direction, he would inspect a regeneration area where things obviously had gone wrong. It seemed that the marking crew
had gotten confused, the logger had been careless, the prescribed burn too hot, and the firewood cutters had finished
off what was left of the hardwood inclusion. Scratching his
chin, he would repeat his favorite phrase.
In many instances he may in fact have been correct.
Southern forests are forgiving. They recover quickly, mistakes are soon hidden, and nobody knows the difference.
In other instances I fear that our grandchildren will be
asking, "Why did they do that to our forest?"
Once, practicing silviculture on a Ranger District was
relatively simple. There were no "Certified Silviculturists"
and few District silviculturists. The forester's job was to
assure "a fully stocked stand of pines, evenly spaced and
free to grow." Today, objectives for a stand may include:
"increasing the percentage of mast-producing hardwoods,
creating snags for cavity nesters, promoting production
offorage and sofimast, while protecting microhabitats for
salamanders, in a visually pleasing way, using uneven-aged
methods, without herbicides."
Life was once simpler for biologists as well. As long as
there were more deer and turkey than the year before, everyone was happy. Now, we're told that deer are "mid-sized
1. Managing to recover federally endangered plants
and animals.
2. Managing to assure viable populations of other
plants and animals, especially sensitive species.
3. Managing to maintain unique plant and animal
communities.
4. Managing for higher levels of selected species
("demand" species).
Interestingly, the Forest Service is the only Federal
agency with such a specific mandate to maintain the elements of biodiversity. Furthermore, our extensive landbase, which includes many unique communities and habitats for rare species; our skilled cadre of managers and
researchers; and a long-standing interest in maintaining
elements of biodiversity put the agency in a unique position to assume a leadership role.
THE PAST
Paper presented at the National Silviculture Workshop, Cedar City,
UT, May 6-9, 1991.
Jim Fenwood is Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships Coordinator,
Southern Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Atlanta,
GA.
This long-standing interest was first demonstrated in
the South when eroded and depleted lands were acquired
by the Forest Service during the early part of this century.
40
The job of restoring these lands to productive forests can
be viewed as the most massive and successful example of
"restoration ecology" ever undertaken. While those given
the job of restoration may not have used the term, it was
in fact "biodiversity" that they had begun to manage for.
After this initial restoration phase, National Forest management for biodiversity shifted first to protection and later
to mitigation. As southern forests recovered to the point
where the timber resource could be actively utilized, restrictions and limits were imposed to protect fish, game, and a
few threatened and endangered (T&E) species. This was
usually accomplished through forest policies, handbook
guidelines, and later, forest land and resource management plan standards and guides. Limits on clearcut size
and spacing, extended rotations, and retention of key areas
such as den tree clumps, are examples. Concern for T&E
species was usually limited to a few charismatic vertebrates
such as bald eagles and red-cockaded woodpeckers.
project. Project alternatives are evaluated on the basis of
how well they accomplish forest plan objectives for maintaining specific elements of biodiversity (as described in the
Chiefs decision) rather than how well they mitigate adverse
effects of timber harvesting. Not coincidentally, these are
also the projects where concerned publics are involved from
the onset, in a genuine way.
Another sign of change is an increasing willingness in
the field to try unconventional techniques such as irregular shelterwood cuts to lessen visual impacts and retain
key habitat elements; or to shift to growing-season burns
for restoring wiregrass in longleaf stands, use low-impact
site preparation techniques, and employ selective release
treatments.
THE FUTURE
As complicated as things appear today, they will almost
certainly be more complicated in the future. The list of
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species grows even
as you read this. As public attention increases and becomes
more focused, acceptance for traditional methods such as
clearcutting and fire will diminish. Increasingly, forests
will be viewed as a part of larger systems, which will require analyses and management efforts that cross administrative boundaries. It will become increasingly important
to better understand what presettlement conditions, particularly disturbance regimes, looked like so we can understand how our management schemes might more closely
mimic them.
Furthermore, although our jobs will become more specialized, they will increasingly require cooperative, crossfunctional efforts that draw on the unique talents and
knowledge of specialists.
THE PRESENT
In many instances, we are in a similar mitigation frameof-mind today. Managers ask "How much can I cut? How
many snags do I have to leave? What am I required to do
to protect this population of sensitive plants?" But the
environment we operate in has changed! In the Southern
Region alone there are 90 T&E and over 800 sensitive species. There is increasing public concern for ecosystem values and increasing savvy regarding our planning process.
In parts of the Region where timber values are relatively
low, such as the Southern Appalachian Mountains, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify timber sales from a
strictly economic standpoint.
There are internal signs of change as well. At the recent
"Red-cockaded Woodpecker Summit" and a followup meeting the question was asked: "Given that certain biological
conditions provide the best habitat for the woodpecker, what
silvicultural options are available to obtain these desired
future conditions?" And, "How can we manage for the entire community of plants and animals associated with the
longleaf/wiregrass system of which the red-cockaded woodpecker can be considered to be a keystone species?"
At another meeting, the so-called "Baldrock Summit,"
forest supervisors, timber staff officers, and wildlife staff
officers gathered to consider public concerns about silvicultural practices in the Southern Appalachians. Here
the question was, "How can silvicultural practices, particularly clearcutting, be modified to appease some of these concerns?" And, "What changes in direction will be necessary
to keep even-aged management a viable option for achieving the desired future condition both from a timber production and a habitat standpoint?"
In the field, our levels of staffing and expertise reflect the
magnitude of change. Most Districts have a certified silviculturist. We are moving closer to a similar situation with
biologists. Both are important members of District interdisciplinary teams.
As appeals and litigation become commonplace, we find
that project implementation is most likely to be successful
where silvicultural treatments are proposed as a means of
reaching a desired future condition for a range of resources.
With this approach, production of timber volume is viewed
as a secondary benefit rather than the driving force for the
CONCLUSIONS
As we move toward the next round of forest planning, it
is with a realization that we must tackle the job of describing desired future conditions for measurable elements of
biodiversity and set goals for their accomplishment.
It is likely that, in places like the Southern Appalachians,
we will find ourselves out of the timber management business if we fail to heed the words of Dr. David Smith, Professor of Silviculture at Yale University, who said, "Silviculture is normally directed at the creation and maintenance
of the kind of forest that will best fulfill the objectives of
the owner.... The growing of wood may, in fact, have low
priority among these objectives or none at all" (Smith 1986).
One hundred years ago the first employees of the Forest
Service were given the job of establishing the National Forest System. Not too long after that the first employees of
the Southern Region were given the job of repairing the
damaged lands that now are the South's National Forests.
Most would agree that these folks did an admirable job.
One hundred years from now, will our grandchildren say
the same of us? I hope so.
REFERENCE
Smith, D. M. 1986. The practice of silviculture. New York:
John Wiley & Sons. 527 p.
41