We Need a New National Debate
Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth
Izaak Walton League, 81stAnnual Convention
Pierre, SD - July 17, 2003
Thanks, Stan, for that nice introduction. It's a great pleasure and privilege
to be keynote speaker for the Izaak Walton League at your annual convention.
I'd like to start by saying a few words of appreciation about your president,
Stan Adams. Stan goes way back with the Forest Service—he was a
district ranger on the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma back in the
60s, at about the same time I joined the outfit. I understand that his
job at the time involved chasing arson fires and feral hogs—not
sure which was worse.
Stan retired in 1991 after a distinguished career with the Forest Service
lasting some 30-odd years. He's been the State Forester for North Carolina
ever since, including a stint in 2000 as President of the National Association
of State Foresters. We've continued working closely with Stan in his State
Forester capacity.
Stan has always given freely of his time for conservation. He's well
respected by his colleagues and by civic organizations and conservation
groups of all types. Stan, I applaud and congratulate you for everything
you've accomplished in your career.
Shared Purpose
I think Stan's career is a fine example of how federal and state natural
resource management intersects with conservationism in the private sector
through organizations like the Izaak Walton League. As I see it, we're
all in this together. In fact, a lot of our employees are Ikes or belong
to similar organizations. We share the same commonsense, grassroots approach
to conservation.
We also share the same concerns. A major goal for the Izaak Walton League,
as I understand it, is "to assure long-term quality of life."1
That's a major goal for us, too. In fact, our National Leadership Team
met a few weeks ago and talked about the need to protect air, water, habitat,
and everything else that makes for a high quality of life for the American
people.
For a number of years, Americans have faced growing threats to our quality
of life. At the Forest Service, we've tried to promote a national dialogue
about those threats. At our recent National Leadership Team meeting, we
talked about four major threats: fire and fuels; unwanted invasive species;
loss of open space; and the impacts of unmanaged recreation, particularly
the unmanaged use of off-highway vehicles. Today, I want to say a little
about those four threats.
But first, I want to acknowledge some of the ways we've worked together
over the years. Last year, our two organizations signed a master challenge
cost-share agreement. Among other things, the agreement will help us protect
watersheds and wetlands. But the master agreement goes beyond just watershed
conservation; it gives us a national framework for collaboration on all
types of projects, including trail work, upland habitat improvements—you
name it.
I also want to compliment the Izaak Walton League for your participation
in the Public Lands Shooting Sports Roundtable, a collection of land management
agencies and shooting sports organizations working together. And I applaud
the MOU you recently signed with EPA on managing lead from spent ammunition
at your shooting ranges. Our two organizations also signed an MOU on sharing
resources to address recreational shooting needs.
So we have some good foundations for a strong conservation partnership.
Of course, that doesn't mean we will always see eye to eye on everything.
We all have strong opinions about how to manage the land, and with those
opinions naturally comes debate. I think having a debate is good and necessary,
particularly when it comes to public lands. We need to hash out any conflicts
we might have so we can come to agreement about how to manage these lands.
So debate isn't the problem. The problem is the direction the debate
has taken in recent years. I think the debate focuses on the wrong issues
for the beginning of the 21st century. Times have changed; we should be
focusing on four great threats-fire and fuels, unwanted invasive species,
loss of open space, and unmanaged recreation. I'll say a little about
each.
Fire and Fuels
One great threat is fire and fuels. In two of the last three years, we've
had some of our biggest fire seasons since the 1950s.2
Four states had record fires last year, and a fifth came close. This year,
parts of the West are again being threatened. For example, the Aspen Fire
near Tucson, Arizona, has burned more than 80,000 acres and destroyed
hundreds of homes.
The underlying issue is that so many of our forests have become overgrown
and unhealthy. I don't want to oversimplify-many of America's forests
are healthy, and some forest types were always dense.3
Big fires naturally occur in these forests, but not very often. But some
ecosystems are not adapted to big stand replacement fires. Instead, they
are adapted to low fires that used to come quite often. Some fire-adapted
forests had fires as often as every few years.
Then came decades of fire exclusion and overgrazing in some areas, resulting
in fewer low-intensity fires. A wetter climate in the West also favored
woody plant growth, and in the last decade we've had declining timber
harvest on most national forests. As a result of all these things, brush
and small trees have built up in many areas. Just to give you some idea,
in the Southwest-Arizona and New Mexico-annual growth is enough to cover
a football field 1 mile high with solid wood, even after losses from mortality.
Recent removals have been only about 10 percent of this.4
Today, there's a drought in many of these overgrown forests, and fires
no longer stay low to the ground. Instead, they tend to burn up through
the undergrowth and into the tree crowns. The entire forest might burn
up. Both people and ecosystems are at risk.
On the national forests alone, 73 million acres adapted to frequent fire
are at risk from wildland fires that could compromise human safety and
ecosystem health.5
That's an area about half again the size of South Dakota-a pretty big
chunk of ground. And it's not just on the national forests-it's all across
America. In fact, some 397 million acres fall into the same category of
moderate to severe fire risk-about a fifth of the contiguous United States.
National forest land makes up only a fraction of that.
Americans must decide: We can remove some of the trees and lower the
risk of fire danger; or we can do nothing and watch them burn. I think
the choice is obvious: In a good part of the country-where fire-adapted
forests are overgrown-we must return forests to something more like the
way they were historically, then get fire back into the ecosystem when
it's safe.
I mentioned the Aspen Fire near Tucson in Arizona. It's a good example
of both the challenges and the opportunities we face. Before the fire
came through, we'd done some fuels treatments in some areas. Some of them
worked to make the fire less severe, and some didn't. But after the fire
started, we did some burning out to protect homes in much the same way
we do controlled burns for fuels management. In many of those burnouts,
the fire did what we hoped. It dropped to the ground, and homes were saved.
That just goes to show that our treatments can work.
Unwanted Invasive Species
The second great threat is the spread of unwanted invasive species.6
These include not just plants, but also animals and even disease-causing
pathogens-things like West Nile virus or monkeypox. They are species that
evolved in one place and wound up in another, where the ecological controls
they evolved with are missing. They take advantage of their new surroundings
to crowd out or kill off native species. In the process, they might alter
key ecological processes, such as hydrology or fire return intervals.
Unwanted invasive plants alone give you some idea of the scope of the
problem. Nationwide, invasive plants now cover an area larger than the
entire Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine. Each year, they gobble up
an area larger than the state of Delaware.7
Every region has its own major problem with invasive species-gypsy moth
in the Northeast, kudzu vine in the South, white pine blister rust in
the West. All invasives combined cost Americans about $138 billion per
year in total economic damages and associated control costs.8
The ecological costs are even worse. The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe
sponsored a recent study on the major causes of biodiversity loss in the
United States. The study found that invasives have contributed to the
decline of almost half of all imperiled species.9
So this is a huge issue for the Forest Service, and it should be for
all Americans. Public lands-especially federal lands-have become a last
refuge for endangered species-some of the last places where they can find
the habitat they need to survive. If invasives take over, imperiled animals
and plants will have nowhere else to go. We are losing our precious heritage.
Loss of Open Space
That brings me to the third great threat-loss of open space through urban
development.10 Every
day, we lose about 4,000 acres of open space to development.11
That's almost 3 acres per minute, and the rate of conversion is getting
faster all the time.12
Our population is growing, especially in counties with national forests,
which are huge retirement magnets.13
The pressures are especially obvious in the East, where about 4 out of
10 Americans live and where almost half of the nation's 20 largest cities
are located. The Ikes are well represented in this part of the country,
and I'm sure you've noticed the pressures on open space-the heavy use,
the summer homes, the growing wildland/urban interface.
The South is seeing similar land use changes. Last year, we completed
a major multiyear assessment of southern forest resources, and we found
that urban land uses are rapidly expanding.14
We also found that rising urban use is altering forest structure in large
parts of the South while limiting management options, such as prescribed
fire.
Maybe the biggest threat is to wildlife. Urbanization eats away at forest
interior habitat by eliminating large blocks of unfragmented forest. America
is losing valuable corridors needed to connect parts of the national forests
with other large undisturbed tracts of land. Animals like marten, bear,
or cougar need large, relatively undisturbed forests to survive. Many
birds also need forest interior habitat.
We're also losing rangeland habitat in the West. Developers often target
the bottomlands adjacent to federal land. Millions of acres of open range
have been converted to ranchettes, condominiums, and other developed land.15
That means we're losing the ecological integrity of the land as a whole.
Elk, for example, depend on lower slopes and bottomland for winter range.
Without it, they won't survive, no matter how good the habitat is on adjacent
public land.
Unmanaged Outdoor Recreation
The fourth great threat comes from unmanaged outdoor recreation. In my
years with the Forest Service, I have seen a tremendous growth in the
amount of recreation on the national forests.16
I think that's great. It gives people a stake in the land and a stronger
sense of place.
The issue is this: Back when we had light recreational use, we didn't
need to manage it so much; but now that it's heavier, we do. There are
still uses like blueberry picking that we don't need to manage much. But
if every blueberry was picked, we would need to manage it more. At one
time, we didn't need to manage mushroom picking much, but now we do in
some areas.
At one time, we didn't much manage the use of horses or vehicles, either.
But horseback riding has reached levels that are causing serious concern
in some parts of the South and East. Nationwide, something similar goes
for off-highway vehicles.17
OHVs are a great way to experience the outdoors, and only a tiny fraction
of the users leave lasting traces by going cross-country. But the number
of OHV users has just exploded in recent years.18
Even a tiny percentage of impact from all those millions of OHV users
is still a lot of impact.
Each year, the national forests and grasslands get hundreds of miles
of unauthorized roads and trails due to repeated cross-country use. We're
seeing more and more erosion, water degradation, and habitat destruction.19
We're seeing more and more conflicts between users. We're seeing more
damage to cultural sites and more violation of sites sacred to American
Indians. And those are just some of the impacts. We've got to get a handle
on that.
Finding Solutions
Those are the four great threats we face today-fire and fuels, invasive
species, loss of open space, and unmanaged outdoor recreation. I don't
mean to suggest that these are the only land management challenges we
face or that they are entirely new. In fact, the Izaak Walton League has
been addressing them for years. Your major policy publications discuss
the same threats,20
and you put out a pamphlet last year making the same points about unmanaged
OHV use.21
So I think we're on the same wavelength, and we have been making
progress. Let me just briefly outline some of what we've been doing:
- Fire and fuels: The National Fire Plan and
the Healthy Forests Initiative are working. With the help of the western
governors and other partners, we have agreed on the need to focus our
treatments on the areas most at risk, such as long-needle pine ecosystems
near communities and in municipal watersheds. In fiscal year 2002, the
federal agencies together treated about 2.26 million acres, a big increase
over treatment levels a decade ago.
- Invasive species: When it comes to invasive
species, I think we can all agree that prevention and control work best,
but only if they are done across ownerships on a landscape level. The
Forest Service has some good partnership programs with the states, such
as "Slow-the-Spread" for gypsy moth in the Northeast.
- Urbanization: A good way to conserve open
space is to keep ranches and working forests in operation, and the Forest
Service has some programs for that. We've got conservation easements
through the states so that willing landowners can keep their lands forested,
and I was glad to see that the Ikes strongly support our Forest Legacy
Program. We've also got forage reserves that ranchers can use to give
their grazing allotments a rest. Through programs like these, we can
work together across the landscape to keep the land whole.
- Unmanaged recreation: We encourage local
programs to keep OHV use on designated roads and trails. National user
groups such as the Blue Ribbon Coalition have pledged to work with us
to promote responsible OHV use. The focus is on improving our own travel
management through better inventory and maps, more public involvement,
clear standards and guides in forest plans, clearer signage, better
communication, and local partnerships for road maintenance.
So we are making progress, but there's still a long way to go. For example,
although we've picked up the pace of our forest health treatments, they
are still far below the levels called for in a strategy we prepared in
2000.22 Are we still
falling behind on federal lands? And what about state and private lands?
Such questions don't have easy answers. In fact, we're going to need to
resolve them through a vigorous national debate.
Diversions
So what's stopping us? Unfortunately, we're distracted by other issues.
Too many folks are stuck in the past, still fighting the same old battles
from 20 or 30 years ago. We're too focused on logging, some people tell
us; we're too focused on building new roads. But it's just not true:
- Today, the national forests produce less than 2 billion board feet
of timber per year. That's less than 15 percent of what we produced
15 or 20 years ago. In terms of sheer weight, Americans produce more
woody yard waste than national forest timber.23
- In the last 5 years, for every mile we added to the forest road system,
the Forest Service decommissioned 14 miles of road. Our road system
is not growing, it's shrinking.
The fact is, our management is not what it was 15 or 20 years ago. Instead
of mitigating damage from outputs, we now capitalize on activities
for generating outcomes. That includes using vegetation removal
as a tool for restoring healthy, resilient forest ecosystems. That's why
the debate today-focusing on limits to diameter size of the trees we remove-misses
the mark. Some people contend that forests are unsustainable if we remove
any trees at all over a certain diameter size. To my knowledge, there
is no science to support that.
In my view, the way to manage for clean air, clean water, and healthy
habitat is to focus on what we leave on the land, not on what we take
away. On a landscape scale, the number and size of the trees we remove
doesn't matter. What matters is what we leave on the land to achieve healthy
landscape conditions. The goal is to meet the desired future condition.
Last, Best Refuges
Okay, let me summarize so far: We've got four great threats facing us
as we open this century-fire and fuels, invasive species, loss of open
space, and unmanaged recreation. Unfortunately, we've also got some great
diversions, like logging and roadbuilding. In that connection, let me
mention a study on biodiversity loss by The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe.
The study ranks the causes of biodiversity loss.24
Invasive species are at the top of the list. Farther down come land conversion
for development; outdoor recreation, including unmanaged OHV use; and
disrupted fire regimes-fire and fuels. Toward the bottom of the list you
finally get to the combined effects of logging and logging roads.
So why do we spend so much of our time debating logging and roads? Shouldn't
we be focusing more on these other issues instead?
With that said, the study did find that logging and roadbuilding do affect
some imperiled species. It's not necessarily on national forest land,
because the study covered the whole United States. But I still think that's
unacceptable. I would also be the first to admit that past management
practices had some adverse impacts on national forest land.
- That's why the Forest Service is so careful about designing our vegetation
management projects to achieve the desired future condition. In fact,
our vegetation treatments are often wholly or partly designed expressly
for that purpose-to protect long-term biodiversity.
- That's also why we're decommissioning unneeded roads as rapidly as
we can. And it's why we're moving slowly and carefully to amend the
roadless rule in order to protect roadless values in perpetuity while
still providing flexibility at the state and local level.
- Finally, it's why we're working so hard on our ranger districts to
reverse the adverse impacts from past management practices-to help the
land heal and again become whole.
Is it working? Well, another study sponsored by The Nature Conservancy
and NatureServe points out something interesting: The greatest number
of imperiled species in the United States is not found on wildlife refuges
or national parks, where some people might expect. It's found on the National
Forest System. It's about a quarter of all imperiled species nationwide.
It's about half of all the populations of federally listed species found
on federal lands.25
Why? Not because of Forest Service mismanagement. It's because the national
forests and grasslands have always been the best places for endangered
species to make a final stand. That's why it's so important to address
the great issues-fire and fuels, invasive species, loss of open space,
and unmanaged recreation. These are the biggest threats to biodiversity,
and we must actively manage them if we truly want to keep America's
last, best refuges for biodiversity.
Focus on the Threats
In closing, I think it's time we focused on what's really at risk. I'm
not saying we have all the answers-we don't. In fact, we need an open,
productive debate on what to do about each of these threats. We must continue
to welcome upfront public involvement in our decisionmaking and constructive
criticism of everything we do. But beyond that, we've got to stop debating
the past and start looking to the future. It's time to move on.
I really believe you can help. The Izaak Walton League is one of the
oldest and most respected environmental organizations in America. We really
could use your help in focusing attention on the four greatest threats
to our nation's forests and grasslands. We could use your help in jumpstarting
a national dialogue.
These threats are scientifically and socially complex. They have multiple
aspects. They affect both public and private lands. And they will take
years to address. So let's get started now-there's no time to lose. In
that spirit, I welcome your questions and comments, and I'd now like to
open the floor.
#
1"The
Izaak Walton League of America: Conservation Policies 2000" (National
Conservation Center, IWLA, Gaithersburg, MD), p. 6.
2In 2002, 6.9 million
acres burned, according to the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise,
ID (http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html). That is more than
in any year since the 1950s, when 9.4 million acres burned each year on
average, except for 1963 (7.1 million acres); 1988, the year of the Great
Yellowstone Fires (7.4 million acres); and 2000 (8.4 million acres).
3In forests with a
long fire return interval (200+ years), only 1 percent on national forest
land show a severe deviation from the historical condition. These naturally
dense forest types include spruce/fir and coastal Douglas-fir/western
hemlock. See Kirsten M. Schmidt, James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendel
J. Hann, and David L. Bunnell, Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data
for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management (GTR RMRS-87; USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT),
p. 14.
4Marlin A. Johnson,
"Combining Social and Ecological Needs on Federal Lands: A Global Perspective"
(unpublished paper; USDA Forest Service, Forestry and Forest Health Staff,
Albuquerque, NM), p. 4.
5Classified as condition
classes 2 and 3 (moderate to severe deviation from historical condition)
in fire regimes I (low-severity fires every 1 to 35 years-e.g., pine,
oak, pinyon/juniper) and II (stand replacement fires every 1 to 35 years-e.g.,
grassland, chaparral, sagebrush), these lands are considered priority
areas for treatment. See Schmidt and others, pp. 12-14.
6Unwanted invasive
species include both native and nonnative forest and rangeland pests that
are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
They usually spread unchecked by environmental controls such as native
predators, displacing native species through competition, predation, parasitism,
or by other means.
7Invasive plants now
cover about 133 million acres in all ownerships nationwide, and they are
expanding at the rate of about 1.7 million acres per year. USDA Forest
Service, "Destroying the Silent Invaders," p. 2.
8David Pimentel, Lori
Lach, Rodolfo Zuniga, and Doug Morrison, "Environmental Economic Costs
Associated With Nonindigenous Species in the United States" (unpublished
paper, 12 June 1999; College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY [http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/species_costs.html]),
p. 14.
9David S. Wilcove,
David Rothstein, Jason Dubow, Ali Phillips, and Elizabeth Losos, "Leading
Threats to Biodiversity: What's Imperiling U.S. Species," in Bruce A.
Stein, Lynn S. Kutner, and Jonathan S. Adams (eds.), Precious Heritage:
The Status of Biodiversity in the United States (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press, 2000), p. 242.
10In this context,
habitat fragmentation is the division of habitat in both forest and rangeland
ecosystems into smaller, more isolated patches, posing a threat to the
health and sustainability of ecosystems.
11From 1982 to 1997,
the net increase in developed land was 21.8 million acres, almost totally
due to converted forest-, crop-, pasture-, and rangeland. Because so much
pasture-, crop-, and rangeland also converted to forestland, there was
a small net gain in forestland overall. USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Natural Resources Inventory Summary Report (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/table5.html).
12 By 1997, the rate
of development had doubled in just 5 years. H. Ken Cordell and Christine
Overdevest, Footprints on the Land: An Assessment of Demographic Trends
and the future of Natural Lands in the United States (Champaign, IL: Sagamore
Publishing, 2001), p. 98.
13 By 2020, the U.S.
population is expected to grow by 50 million. Of the 80 high-growth retirement
destinations nationwide, 74 percent abut or contain national forest land.
Cordell and Overdevest, p. 58, 129.
14 David N. Wear and
John G. Greis, The Southern Forest Assessment: Summary Report (Asheville,
NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002).
15 From 1982 to 1997,
3.2 million acres of rangeland were converted to developed land. NRCS,
table 5.
16Since 1946, the
number of visitors to the national forests and grasslands has grown 18
times. USDA Forest Service, "National Forest Recreation Use, 1924-1996"
(Washington, DC: Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Staff, 1997). Visitation
data collected before 2000 are not absolutely reliable, but because they
were consistently collected in the same way, they do measure the growth
in recreational use.
17In this context,
OHVs are wheeled motorized vehicles capable of traveling cross-country
(i.e., away from established roads and trails).
18The number of users
has climbed from about 5 million in 1972 [Executive Order 11644 (President
Richard M. Nixon, 1972]), to 19.4 million in 1983, to 27.9 million in
1995, to 35.9 million in 2000 (H. Ken Cordell, Jeff Teasley, Greg Super,
John C. Bergstrom, and Barbara McDonald, Outdoor Recreation in the United
States: Results from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
[Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Research Station], ch.
2: Outdoor Recreation Participation, p. 8, table 2.1; NSRE 2000, table
2).
19Patricia A. Stokowski
and Christopher B. LaPointe, "Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs
and ORVs: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment" (unpublished
paper; 20 November 2000, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont,
Burlington, VT); Richard B. Taylor, "Literature Review: The Effects of
Off-Road Vehicles on Ecosystems" (Certified Wildlife Biologist, Texas
Parks and Wildlife [http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/texaswater/rivers/]).
20On urbanization,
see "Conservation Policies 2000," p. 63; on invasives, forest health,
and outdoor ethics, see Izaak Walton League of America, "Annual Report
2001" (National Conservation Center, IWLA, Gaithersburg, MD), pp. 10-11,
13, 16-17, 20-21.
21Izaak Walton League
of America, "Caught in the Treads: Unethical Advertising in the ATV Industry"
(Gaithersburg, MD), pp. 22-23.
22The 15-year treatment
schedule called for ramping up treatments to 4.2 million acres per year
on national forest land (Forest Service, Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy [Washington,
DC: Forest Service, Washington Office, 2000], p. 40), compared to 1.3
million acres actually treated in fiscal year 2002 (USDA Forest Service,
Report of the Forest Service: FY2002 [Washington, DC: Forest Service,
Washington Office, 2002], p. 27).
23David B. McKeever
and Kenneth E. Skog, "Urban Tree and Woody Yard Residues: Another Wood
Resource" (unpublished draft paper, 9 January 2003; Madison, WI: USDA
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory).
24Wilcove and others,
pp. 242-247. The study found that the two leading causes of biodiversity
loss on all ownerships nationwide are habitat loss and degradation (affecting
85 percent of the species studied) and invasive species (49 percent).
Because habitat loss and degradation are caused by 11 different activities,
the largest single cause of biodiversity loss can be said to be invasives.
Within habitat loss and degradation, land conversion affects 35 percent,
recreation affects 27 percent (including OHVs-13 percent), disruption
of fire ecology affects 14 percent, and logging/logging roads combined
affect 12 percent.
25Craig R. Groves,
Lynn S. Kutner, David M. Stoms, Michael P. Murray, J. Michael Scott, Michael
Schafale, Alan S. Weakley, and Robert L. Pressey, "Owning Up to Our Responsibilities:
Who Owns Lands Important for Biodiversity?" in Bruce A. Stein, Lynn S.
Kutner, and Jonathan S. Adams (eds.), Precious Heritage: The Status of
Biodiversity in the United States (Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press, 2000), pp. 280, 282.
|