This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Managing Snag Habitats In Southwestern
National Forests1
William D. Zeedyk2
Unfortunately, it is not sufficient to say that
snags are necessary and provide useful functions
in the managed forest. Maintaining snag habitats
diverts wood fibre away from other uses, involves
opportunity costs, and drains revenues. Snags,
like most products of the forest, are a renewable
resource, but their management causes conflicts.
The ~orest Service is cognizant of the need for
snags and is determined to resolve, to the greatest
extent feasible, conflicts between snag habitat
management and other resources.
INTRODUCTION
The Forest Service is pleased to participate
with Northern Arizona University, Arizona Game and
Fish Department, and The Wildlife Society as a cosponsor of this important symposium on the management of snag habitats
There is now general recognition that snag
habitats are of high importance to a wide variety
of wildlife species. Various laws, regulations,
departmental and agency policies imply that snag
habitats be recognized and managed as a necessary
component of forest diversity and to sustain viable
populations of natiye wildlife.
SOME PROBLEMS FACING MANAGERS OF SNAG HABITATS
1. Characteristics and attributes of snag
habitats vary widely between biotic communities
or forest types. Managers need more information
on the relationships existing between dependent
wildlife species and the dominant tree species
characteristic of a particular forest type. Such
information can be used to determine the relative
importance and identify conflicts with other
resource demands. In the ponderosa pine type, for
example, one species, the pine, must provide all
the needs; but in the gambel oak-ponderosa pine
type, a portion of snag habitat requirements can
be met by large oaks, releasing some pine volume
to meet sawtimber demands.
Much information is now available, but much
more is still needed to enable the wise management
of the snag habitat resource in harmony with other
multiple use-sustained yield resources of the
forest. This symposium is providing a long overdue
forum for exchange of such information and will be
valuable to the Forest Service as land management
planning continues.
SITUATION
During the course of this symposium, you will
learn again and again of the many species of vertebrates that need snags and why they need them.
Birds need snags. Mammals need snags. Reptiles
need snags. Even fish need snags in the form of
down logs imbedded in the streambanks. The facts
are well-known and well-accepted among wildlife
biologists, foresters, planners, and land managers.
In the Southwest, there is a considerable
volume of information available on snag habitat
requirements of cavity nesting species inhabiting
the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer types, but
relatively little on spruce-fir, aspen, pinyonjuniper, or riparian forest types.
2. Due to the requirements of the National
Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, there is great emphasis being
placed on habitat monitoring. Managers need
efficient monitoring systems that will establish
and track conditions and trend in snag habitat
quality and abundance by forest type and land
area. Ideally, snag habitat monitoring systems
will be compatible with other resource monitoring
activities, and any needed information will be
collected in conjunction with other resource inventories.
The question is no longer one of need. The
question is: What options does the land manager
have available for providing adequate snag habitats
to meet wildlife management objectives without
creating unacceptable impacts on other resource
uses? What yield of wood fibre must be diverted
annually per unit of area to perpetuate snag
dependent wildlife at desired population levels?
What are the most efficient ways of providing
snag habitats? Can we perpetuate snags without
creating unacceptable safety hazards? Can we
perpetuate snags without creating an unacceptable
insect and disease menace or fire hazard. Do
the needs and opportunities vary by ecosystem?
3. Forest land and resource plans being
developed pursuant to the National Forest Management Act and accompanying regulations place a great
deal of reliance on the management indicator species
concept to predict the effects of alternative
prescriptions on wildlife. There is a critical
need to test the management indicator species
concept to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
trends in the status and distribution of selected
indicator species are truly representative of the
1
Paper presented at the Snag Habitat Management Symposium. (Flagstaff, Arizona, June 7-9,
1983) 2
William D. Zeedyk, Director of Wildlife
Management, USDA, Forest Service, Region 3, Albuquerque, N.M.
2
snag habitat dependent species they are intended
to represent. Management indicator species
typically selected for National Forests in the
Southwest include such dependent species as pygmy
nuthatch, hairy woodpecker, and plains titmouse.
Do these species fairly represent the needs of
other cavity nesters utilizing snag habitats in
their respective ecosystems?
activities are soon taken illegally after a sale
closes.
6. A concerted effort by wildlife biologists,
silviculturalists, timber sale administrators,
and safety inspectors is needed to develop improved
practices for identifying and safeguarding snags
and potential snags for retention in sale areas.
Many otherwise suitable potential snags are destroyed inadvertently because live cull trees are marked
for cutting which might be retained. Isolated snags
are felled as safety hazards where they might be
retained if included within clumps of unmarked leave
trees.
4. An educational program is needed to gain
public knowledge and appreciation for the value of
snag habitats. While there is increased internal
acceptance within the Forest Service of the need
to maintain some standing snags and downed logs
for wildlife, the public may see this as a poor
management practice and wasteful of the fuelwood
resource.
CONCLUSION
There is an established and growing acceptance
of the value of snags for wildlife. Managers agree
that snag habitats are needed and have a role in
the managed forest, but a number of questions need
answering. The main question is: What options
are available to forest managers to perpetuate
snag habitats at acceptable levels while addressing
other public issues and management concerns? Hopefully, this symposium will provide some answers and
point the way to resolving some of the conflicts
inherent in protecting snag habitats in the managed
forest.
5. All efforts to manage snag habitats for
wildlife that may result from more enlightened
forest management will fail in accessible areas
if the now rampant illegal cutting of standing and
down woody material for fuelwood is not brought
under control. This is perhaps the most urgent
threat to snag habitat protection facing land
managers in the Southwest. Because trained personnel available for law enforcement are scarce and
regulations pertaining to fuelwood possession weak,
many snags retained during commercial logging
3