stantial impact on wildlife and fish resources in the 
South. 
With high-intensity timber management comes 
increased use of herbicides, increased stocking 
rates, shorter rotation lengths, and more-intensive 
site preparation. These practices can have adverse 
impacts on wildlife populations and habitat quality. 
Though herbicides may not cause a direct negative 
physiological impact on wildlife populations, they 
do have substantial negative impacts on habitat 
quality. Large-scale use of these herbicides on 
clearcuts or hardwood stands can make an area 
useless to wildlife for 2 or more years--particularly 
for species with a low range of mobility. 
Substantial increases in timber production on 
private land will result in a reduction of key wildlife 
habitats such as bottomland hardwoods, riparian 
and other wetland zones, longleaf pine communi- 
ties, and mature mixed-pine and hardwood forests. 
With a reduction in key habitat types, species de- 
pendent on unique or old-growth forests may be 
relegated to public lands. Consequently, further 
pressures and demands will be placed on public 
lands to increase diverse habitat components as 
they are lost on private and industrial lands. 
Increased demand for wildlife recreation is re- 
sulting in higher lease and use fees on private 
lands. This economic incentive will result in more 
private landowners having wildlife as primary or sec- 
ondary objectives in their management plans. Al- 
ready in the South, annual hunting lease fees in 
some areas exceed the value of the forest's annual 
increment of growth. As this trend continues, more 
private landowners will direct their management 
programs toward wildlife production. 
Under the base alternative of ‘The South's 
Fourth Forest," habitat capability for deer and wild 
turkey on the South's 164 million acres of private 
forest land will be substantially decreased. Environ- 
ment for the endangered red-cockaded woodpeck- 
er would be virtually eliminated on private land. The 
species may survive only on national forests and in 
wildlife refuges. Coldwater fisheries habitat on pri- 
vate land would be reduced by 40 percent. Similar 
adverse effects could be expected for other wildlife 
species. The total impact from such an alternative 
cannot be assessed because the draft version of 
“The South's Fourth Forest" did not contain a sec- 
tion discussing effects of any alternatives on fish 
and wildlife. 
Current Forest Service regulations require the 
maintenance of viable wildlife populations on all For- 
est Service land. One assumes that if such is the 
130 
mandate on Forest Service lands, it is appropriate 
for the Forest Service to promote viable population 
management on private lands. Apparently this is not 
the case. The worst possible scenario is found in the 
proposed assessment. We doubt that viable popu- 
lations of some plants and animals can exist under 
the alternatives. 
The appropriate management of the South's 
land base should be coordinated to meet two main 
objectives: (1) to maintain biological integrity and 
future resource options, and (2) to be responsive to 
the market demands by wildlife and fisheries users 
of the South. 
In addition, critical habitats should be identified 
and managed to sustain and enhance characteris- 
tic plant and animal communities dependent upon 
them. These habitats should be linked to avoid frag- 
mentation and maintain regional diversity. 
Resource managers must develop a systematic 
approach to identify, protect, and manage critical 
habitats needed to maintain biological integrity. 
Present demands for specialized habitat types must 
be considered and future demands projected. 
Though public lands have in the past accommodat- 
ed the protection of critical habitats, future political 
pressures will dictate that all ownership sectors pro- 
tect these habitats. 
One of the Congressional mandates to the For- 
est Service is in the area of State and Private 
Forestry. It seems that the current assessment is 
directed specifically to this area. But, should not the 
efforts toward State and Private Forestry programs 
be based on the same multiple-use principles that 
apply on Federal lands? The answer is yes. If the 
Forest Service is promoting this assessment for tim- 
ber, then should they not direct the same type of 
assessment for wildlife--and other resource areas 
as well? Throughout the recent land and resource 
management planning process, wildlife was the first 
and foremost public concern on most forests. Con- 
siderable public comment was directed toward in- 
creased outputs for fish and wildlife, yet such out- 
puts were not reflected in the plans. It is obvious that 
the current assessment does not give wildlife and 
fisheries equal consideration with the timber re- 
source. Until such time as Congress directs, as a 
result of public demand, that forest programs (1) 
provide wildlife with consideration equal to that giv- 
en other resource interests and (2) produce a mix- 
ture of resource yields with no single resource being 
managed or emphasized to the detriment of anoth- 
er, timber programs on national forest lands will 
continue to dominate over other resources. 
