Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
JULY 22, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
2611 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
JAMES R.
WOEHR
SENIOR SCIENTIST
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
S8UBJECT - WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ON NATIONAL FORESTS
BODY:
Madam Chair:
The Wildlife Management
Institute (WMI) applauds your decision to hold this hearing on Wildlife
Conservation on National Forests, and I am pleased to be here to testify. Our
National Forests offer tremendous opportunities for meaningful wildlife
conservation. In many cases, federal lands are the only large blocks of land
where wildlife conservation can be a priority, and where habitat needs of forest
wildlife can be addressed on anything approaching the landscape scale necessary
to sustain diverse wildlife species in abundance in a dynamically shifting
mosaic of forest types and ages.
Much good wildlife conservation is already
being practiced on federal lands. The current efforts to restore natural forest
ecosystems are wonderful examples of good wildlife conservation. I am referring
especially to efforts to restore ponderosa pine ecosystems in the West, longleaf
pine/wiregrass ecosystems in the Southeast, and shortleaf pine/little bluestem
ecosystems in Arkansas. All three of these ecosystems depend upon frequent
ground fire, and their restoration is highly compatible with other important
objectives, such as reduction of fuel loads and fire ladders, risks of
catastrophic wildfires, and indeed, with forest health. I have personally stood
amid restored stands of all three of these types, and was amazed at the variety
and abundance of wildlife which could be seen and heard. Restored and healthy
forests can be expected to be teeming with wildlife, and, not coincidentally, to
contribute greatly to the recovery of numerous threatened, endangered, and
"sensitive" species.
There is so much more opportunity to conserve wildlife
on National Forests, however. WMI was involved in the creation of the Challenge
Cost Share Program, where Forest Service dollars are matched with private
dollars to fund habitat management for numerous game and fish species. In recent
years, the Forest Service has been unable to match the dollars offered by
private sportsmen's organizations, and, as a result, numerous opportunities to
accomplish important fish and wildlife habitat management projects were missed.
Strong funding of the Challenge CostShare Program would be a very cost-effective
way to achieve much wildlife conservation on National Forests.
A great deal
of attention has been paid to the forests of the Pacific Northwest and the fire
risks in forests of the Northern Rockies and Southwest. This is all well and
good, but while our national attention has been diverted to western forest
issues, the forests of the Lake States, Appalachians, and Northeast have
received comparatively little attention. These forests have real needs, too, and
again forest health and wildlife conservation go hand in hand. I will focus my
remaining comments on these forests.
Eastern forests were heavily cut over
from the time of early European settlement through the 19th century. Many states
went from 80%+ forested to as little as 20% forested, and are now 80% or more
forested once again. The clearing of these forests was so substantial that
wildlife species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, black bear, and beaver,
all abundant today, would likely have been on an endangered species list had one
existed at the time (MacCleery 1992).
Problems with forest condition and
wildlife populations in eastern forests today are a direct result of that
pattern of forest loss and regrowth. The majority of eastern hardwood forest
today is 60 100 years of age, as forest regrowth occurred primarily from the
last big logging of the 19th century through the large-scale abandonment of
small farms in the Great Depression of the 1930s. This period of large-scale
regrowth coincided with the first really effective fire exclusion and
suppression, and occurred in the nearly total absence of large herbivores (deer,
elk, and bison) which once browsed the eastern forests. The result is a forest
which has an unnaturally truncated age distribution (lacking both young and old
forests), and which is unnaturally dense because of the minimal influence of
normal disturbance factors.
In central and Appalachian hardwood forests,
oaks are extremely important to wildlife. Indeed, oaks and acorns fundamentally
influence eastern wildlife communities. With the loss of American chestnut and
the decline of American beech, oaks and their acorns have become vitally
important to eastern wildlife. Acorns may comprise more than 80% of the seed
crop in eastern forests, and acorn production may be 3 to 10 times greater than
all other browse produced (Rogers et al. 1990, Segelquist and Green 1968). Yet,
despite the fact that oaks have been selfperpetuating for the past 6,000 to
9,000 years, oaks have been declining for the last 50 years (Healy et al. 1997),
and this period coincides with the exclusion of fire. However, severe
disturbance may be important in maintaining the function of oak ecosystems, and
fire without accompanying canopy disturbance may not benefit oak regeneration
(Ashton and Larson 1996, Moser et al. 1996).
Bird species which nest and
forage in the crowns of mature trees have done exceptionally well (with very few
exceptions) as forests recovered. Even within mature forests, however, species
which nest or forage on the ground or in the low understory are declining across
the eastern forests. The size and density of the trees has created such dense
shade that large areas are virtually devoid of ground plants, shrubs, or
understory trees. Many species of shrubs and native wildflowers are declining
due to years of heavy shade, and tree species which require direct sunlight are
being replaced by different species which are more shade-tolerant. The loss of
ground plants, shrubs, and understory trees leaves a forest which lacks the
structural characteristics required by many species of wildlife. Moreover, the
relatively even-aged forest and high tree densities have created ideal
conditions for the spread of disease organisms which kill trees and for epidemic
outbreaks of defoliating insects such as the gypsy moth. A healthy eastern
deciduous forest should include vertical stratification of vegetation into
several layers, including ground plants, shrubs and understory trees, as well as
the canopy trees. Such a forest would sustain a diverse array of wildlife
species.
The Breeding Bird Survey, conducted annually since 1966, is an
excellent indicator of habitat changes. This survey was established by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and is now coordinated by the Biological Resources
Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. Thousands of volunteers, all highly
skilled at identifying birds by sight or song, have performed roadside counts of
birds along 24.5-mile long routes each spring. These counts demonstrate long
term changes in bird populations, and reflect the habitat changes which have
occurred over the 30+ years of the Breeding Bird Survey.
I grouped forest
birds into species of young forest habitats and species of mature forest
habitats, then used population trends from Breeding Bird Surveys to compare the
number of species whose populations have increased with the number of species
whose populations have declined for each of 23 different forested regions
(physiographic areas - see Figure 1) from the Lake States south to the Gulf of
Mexico and east to the Atlantic Ocean. I then looked for patterns of population
change in birds of young and mature forests across the eastern United States.
For the 30-year period from 1966 - 1996, there is a pretty
consistent pattern in population trends of forest birds from the Lakes States to
the Northeast. Birds of young forests have more declining species than
increasing ones (Figure 2), while birds of mature forests have more increasing
species than declining ones (Figure 3). This demonstrates the aging of the
forests across the region, with forests continuing to mature and young forest
habitats advancing into more mature stages.
From the Ozarks to the Atlantic,
the pattern is similar. The 30-year trends show that more birds of young forests
are declining than are increasing in abundance across the Southeast (Figure 4),
and except for a few areas, more birds of mature forests are increasing than
declining (Figure 5).
It takes centuries to produce old-growth forests.
However, many of the structural characteristics of old-growth forests can be
created in the 60-100 year old forests existing today throughout the East by
careful management. Young forest habitats can be created in just a few years by
cutting trees, but such forests don't stay young. It may be only 5- 15 years
before trees have grown too tall and the ground too shady to provide the habitat
needs of species needing really young forest. So such habitats need to be
recreated over and over again, and on a scale sufficient to maintain populations
of species dependent on them.Madam Chair, eastern forests generally will
continue to age. Private forest lands are being divided into smaller and smaller
parcels, creating more and more owners, who are not buying their land for timber
management, but for second homes and recreation (Birch 1997). Eastern National
Forests must provide much of the habitat for species needing very young forests.
Perhaps as little as 5% to 10% of the forest needs to be less than 10 years
old to meet the needs of these species. Yet at the current harvest rates, the
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson National Forests in Virginia, for
example, would have to cut between 4 and 5 times their current annual harvest
levels just to maintain that little amount of young forest habitat. The
reductions in timber harvest on eastern National Forests in the last 25 years
have been so substantial that there is an inadequate supply of local loggers
today. Forest Service personnel say it could take up to a decade to rebuild a
sufficient supply of loggers to harvest timber at rates that would leave only 7%
or so of the forests under ten years old at any given time.
In the last 10
years, we have heard much about forest fragmentation, the splitting of forests
into small, isolated blocks. This can have a strong negative effect on species
which require large blocks of mature forest. This was well demonstrated by
research performed primarily in southern Illinois, northern Missouri, and
northern Chesapeake Bay area. These are some of the most highly fragmented
landscapes in the eastern United States, where agriculture has replaced forest
habitats. The Breeding Bird Survey data, however, show that forest fragmentation
is NOT a major problem throughout most of the forested East, i.e., the
Appalachians, Northeast, and northern Lake States, where landscapes are 70%-80%
forested. Unfortunately, some National Forests in these heavily forested eastern
landscapes insist on managing for large blocks of mature forest out of concern
for these so-called "forest interior" birds, while the declines of species
needing forest openings and early stages of young forest continue unabated
because timber harvests are inadequate to provide the needed habitat.
It is
very difficult to prescribe management (silvicultural) methods which would be
appropriate to create needed wildlife habitat on eastern National Forests. The
variety of forest types is too large and current forest conditions too variable
to permit blanket recommendations. However, it is clear that we should keep all
silvicultural management tools in our tool kit. This means canopy- opening
timber harvests are needed. This could include widespread thinning to reduce the
basal area and densities of trees to permit increased light penetration to the
ground and encourage the recovery of a well-developed ground flora and
understory. It would also mean providing at least 5% of the area in young,
regenerating forest stages under 10 years of age. That could be accomplished
through the use of small group selection cuts (2-5 acres) distributed widely
across the landscape, in combination with larger stand regeneration cuts
(clearcuts, seed tree, and shelterwood cuts) up to 40 acres in size where
appropriate. Declining species of eastern forests which would benefit from group
cuts include the eastern wood-pewee, least flycatcher, northern flicker, and
whip-poor-will. Declining species which would benefit from opening the canopy to
induce dense, shrubby understory and ground cover include the wood thrush,
veery, Canada warbler, black-and-white warbler, worm-eating warbler, white-eyed
vireo, American redstart and Kentucky warbler. Declining species which would
benefit from stand regeneration cuts include the golden-winged warbler, prairie
warbler, eastern (rufous-sided) towhee, yellowbreasted chat, common
yellowthroat, gray catbird, field sparrow, ruffed grouse, and American woodcock.
Madam Chair, timber harvests on our eastern National Forests in the last two
decades have not been adequate to provide habitat needs for many species needing
very young forest habitat or needing forest openings and dense, shrubby
understory. Some have argued that species needing very young forests are having
their needs met on private lands, but neither the Forest Services's Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data nor the Breeding Bird Survey support that
argument. Private lands in the Southeast do provide much young forest habitat,
but it is almost all in pine plantations which for 3-4 years provide habitat for
some species of young forests, but their reproductive success in such
plantations is very poor. Southeastern forests have seen much land converted
from deciduous forest to pine forest, and young deciduous forest habitats are in
very short supply.
National Forests in the east comprise millions of acres
of public land. There is plenty of room to meet the needs of species of old
forest and the desires of people seeking solitude in large roadless
areas, while at the same time meeting the needs of other species
requiring forest openings, dense understory, and very young regenerating forest.
We do not have to choose between one extreme and the other. While we can't meet
all needs on the same acres, the National Forests are large enough that we can
find a place to meet all needs, while at the same time producing sustainable
fiber supplies, jobs, and local economies - and those economies can be based on
recreation and tourism as well as timber.
LITERATURE CITED
Ashton, M.S.
and B.C. Larson. 1996. Germination and seedling growth of Quercus (section
Erythrobalanus) across openings in a nixed-deciduous forest of southern New
England, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 80:81-94.
Birch, T.W. 1997.
Eastern forest landowners: Who's buying what and why? Transactions North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 62:289-301.
Healy, W.M.,
K.W.Gottschalk, R.P. Long and P.M. Wargo. 1997. Changes in eastern forests:
Chestnut is gone, are the oaks far behind? Transactions North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference 62:249-263.
MacCleery, D.W. 1992. American
forests: A history of resiliency and recovery. Publication FS-540, USDA Forest
Service, Washington, DC. 59 pp.
Moser, W.K., M.J. Ducey and M.S. Ashton.
1996. Effects of fire intensity on competitive dynamics between red and black
oaks and mountain laurel. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 13:119-123.
Rogers, M.J., L.K. Halls, and J.G. Dickson. 1990. Deer habitat in the Ozark
forests of Arkansas. Research Paper SO-259, Southern Forest Experiment Station,
USDA Forest Service, New Orleans, LA. 17 pp.
Segelquist, C.A. and W.E.
Green. 1968. Deer food yields in four Ozark forest types. Journal of Wildlife
Management 32:330-337.
END
LOAD-DATE: July
27, 1999 
