This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT--A BROAD VIEW
R. Max Peterson
Chief
USDA Forest Service
ABSTRACT
Wildlife and fish habitat management is a part
of the Forest Service•s land management planning
under the National Forest Management Act and the
Resources Planning Act. The philosophy, the
policy and the planning mechanisms now exist
to simultaneouly benefit wildlife and fish and
other forest and rangeland resources in the
National Forest System.
As keynote speaker, I am not here to present a paper on major new research
findings, nor to detail specific activities to promote wildlife habitat on the
National Forests, nor to discuss the excellent State-Federal relationships concerning wildlife. I want instead to describe to you a very broad planning process
as the basis for all Forest Service resource decisions, and to discuss major changes
that I see in resource management and philosophy. One of these, I•m happy to say,
i~ fish and wildlife management, including nongame birds, is now a key part of our
resource planning.
Before I do that, I would like to congratulate those who put this workshop
together for the breadth and depth of the subject matter being covered. The participation of Federal and State agencies as well as professional wildlife organizations
and citizen conservation groups attests to both the breadth of intent in the subject
matter and the importance of a professional approach to making progress.
As for management of National Forests, I can do no better than to quote the
National Forest Management Act of 1976, the mandate that Congress has given us for
managing the National Forests:
Insure consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource manaqement, including the
related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide for
outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and
fish ...
11
1
To do this, we will: 11 Provide for diversity of plant and animal communities
based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet
overall multiple-use objectives ..... , meaning, the objectives of the land management
plan for that forest.
I think you get the idea. The National Forest Management Act, and its subsequent
regulations, is one of the most specific mandates we have ever had.
It calls, in short, for a completely integrated wildlife program; one that provides diversity, and goes beyond merely favoring or encouraging certain species. We
mean a holistic look at all resource management, including the wildlife and fish
program. And we gladly accept the challenges.
Fish and wildlife habitat management must be more than a slogan or good intention. Fish and wildlife management is a fully functioning part of our land management planning. One of the reasons that wildlife now plays a strong role in multiple
use management is the advancement of knowledge that many of you here today have
achieved. An excellent example is the first Nongame Bird Symposium, held in 1975.
It was Dixie Smith who did most of the pioneering for this whole effort. He had
the original idea. He set up the steering committee. He was the ringleader for
the original Symposium. Then, Dick DeGraaf picked up the leadership, and brought
us through regional symposia in Portland, Altanta,Minneapolis,and now Salt Lake City.
I want to thank those of you who have contributed so much. The fact that proceedings
were issued immediately after the first Symposium is testimony to your dedication to
taking research results and putting them into practice in the forest. Sometimes we
forget that the role of knowledge.is to improve what we do--and to lose that value
when we don't translate knowledge into action.
And, speaking of translating words and knowledge into action, that is exactly
the role of land management planning on the National Forests. Every resource use,
consideration, trade-off, and so on, must begin at this point. As you probably know,
we are now doing comprehensive land management plans--which emphatically must include
all resource uses--for each National Forest. The plans must be done by the end of
1985, but we are working hard to complete them earlier, in order to tie in as closely
as possible with the 1985 Resources Planning Act program update. We expect that the
Secretary's long-range program recommendations for Forest Service activities together
with the 1980 Assessment covering all the Nation's public and private forests and
rangelands will go to Congress soon. After than, the Program will be updated in five
years, and the Assessment every ten years. Basically, the Assessment projects demands
and supplies for all the renewable resources. The Program then sets goals for Forest
Service programs for Research, Cooperative programs and management of National Forests
to meet a share of these demands. For instance, a number of alternative goals were
suggested in the Draft Program. The alternative outline went from intensive management of the National Forests for a number of resources, to an alternative which
would emphasize providing more of the production from private lands. I can't tell
you the specifics we are recommending, since the documents have not yet gone to
Congress. But I can tell you how the program was developed, and tell you it does
deal signigicantly with fish and wildlife programs.
The Program itself was built from the field up. The National goals will be
disaggregated from the National Program back to regional programs, and then to the
Forest level. I must emphasize that the Program is not the product of a Washington
think-tank approach--everything set out in the Program is possible, and is developed
from information received from all levels of the Service and from many sources outside.
The RPA Program and the Nationdl Forest land management plans go hand in hand.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of this. The key to realistic resource
2
management is one comprehensive, integrated land management plan. Previously, we have
had detailed single-resource plans, with mechanisms for coordination. Sometimes it
worked very well, sometimes it didn•t work as well.
We are doing now what has been termed holistic management. This simply means
that we are looking at the whole picture rather than pieces. You wildlife professionals know the value of this, and the inherent truth that anything done in the forest
environment affects wildlife, whether it•s planned that way or not. So, why not do
planning for all resources at one time, aAd benefit the wildlife and fish, the
recreationist, the public that needs timber, and many others as well? Or, if we can•t
benefit them all at once, at least we can make a knowledgeable choice, rather than not
even being aware than we are making choices.
Let•s, for once, start with the recognition that there•s a great deal of resource
management that is complementary. If not complementary, many resource activities can
be made compatible. Early on in the wildlife business many of us tended to look at
all habitat change as bad. We were operating in a trade-off or confrontation mode.
We now recognize that it is possible to manage forests to benefit a number of responses, and a number of public demands. For example, insectivorous birds feed on insects
that can be damaging to a forest. Timber can be managed to accommodatethese birds.
Our snag policy is another example of managing the forest resource for both timber
and wildlife.
I might add that,
individual reasons for
wildlife are not shown
whether the management
ence. It just accepts
in some ways, the end result is more important than the
each management decision. A lot of activities that benefit
in the budget column under wildlife. It doesn•t matter
is direct or indirect. The wildlife doesn•t know the differthat benefit.
Wildlife and timber management have been traditionally claimed as being at cross
purposes. I do not accept this any more than I accept the cliche that good timber
management is good wildlife management. I hope that there is more compatibility in
timber and wildlife management than most people will admit, or care to admit. I am
asking all of us here to break some traditional prejudices and work together for the
best management for the total forest resource. To do so, I realize, will call for
more flexibility by many different professions than has been traditional. In the
West particularly, there has been more focus on the big game, such as deer and elk.
I see this changing. There is increasing awareness and concern for bird habitats as
well.
Symposia such as this one can help break through what has been the greatest
barrier to managing wildlife habitat on the same level as many other resources. Very
simply, we have had a lot of information on timber for many years--perhaps because
forestry was one of the earliest resource professions, and it focused on the vegetation aspect. Now, we are getting much more information on wildlife, but we still
need more. The wildlife profession deserves credit for the way they are developing
better ways of predicting results of actions and positive steps we can take to promote habitat of various groupings of wildlife and fish species. We have to go with
some grouping system because we can•t deal with 200 to 300 different species on any
one area.
Endangered species habitat has been emphasized for some years now, but we have
to keep it in perspective. Species such as the California Condor, the Kirtland•s
Warbler, and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker have received a great deal of work and
publicity. But, we must also have diversity.
3
We believe that the key to providing habitat for wildlife species is habitat
diversity--as stated in the National Forest Management Act. Today, we have specific
policies for wildlife and fish. These policies are now being sharpened even more.
We recognize inherent relationships within the wildlife resource. Everything we
do as resource managers will benefit some species, be detrimental for some, and,
perhaps, not even affect some. The ~ is to ~for diversity, of both plants and
wildlife, over areas of land.
There are trade-offs among resources. We cannot deny this. And two of the
toughest trade-offs to plan for right now involve old growth timber in the West and
riparian habitats. We recognize this, will acknowledge it in our planning, and we ask
for your help as land management plans are drawn up for each National Forest: Both
trade-offs are important to nongame birds, and to long-term multiple uses of our
forests and rangelands. We need more information about the habitat needs of some
species. We need to know more about the adaptability of other species. This is
really crucial, because in many cases we know that a certain management action will
cause a certain effect on habitat. But, at what point does it affect the populations
of the species?
I have intentionally saved one of the most important areas--Research--until last.
I want to emphasize how much Forest Service research involves wildlife, even
though a particular project may not appear in the wildlife column of the budget. For
instance, the Intermountain Station is doing a good deal of research on reclaiming
disturbed lands, and a major consideration is reclaiming these lands for wildlife
species including nongame birds. In Provo, Utah, and Boise, Idaho, a shrub improvement project on disturbed lands--and the value of those shrubs to wildlife is one of
the major criteria.
Another project out of Boise is studying the effects of livestock grazing systems
on the aquatic system. Needless to say, anadromous fish and all the species associated with riparian habitats will benefit greatly from these and other ongoing
research studies.
The 1981 budget gives new money for western range research, which will include
wildlife considerations.
A major Forest Service research initiative is to integrate fish and wildlife
studies with other, broader studies. For instance, research on improving silvicultural systems for the purpose of increasing softwood production relates the impacts
of possible increases on other resources, including wildlife.
From now on, most of our Forest Service research will follow this broad concept,
so that we can better relate it to achieving overall multiple use objectives. We
consider this an important way to utilize research dollars.
I have used a few specific Forest Service examples; yet I in no way mean to imply
that any one agency or group is carrying the ball by itself. Individually, none of
us can do the total job. We are, in a very real sense, pioneering in wildlife management. We need our collective knowledge and experience. For example, the Soil
Conservation Services' Resource Conservation Act Appraisal and long term program hold
major promise to improve wildlife habitat on the Nation's farmlands.
I am asking you to look realistically at the areas of potential conflict.
some looming ahead, particularly in the energy arena.
4
I see
I ask you also to look at the total resource and the sum total of demands and
opportunities. The RPA Assessment shows that all demands on the forest resources--for
water, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and timber, will increase greatly over
the next 50 years. In fact, most demands will double. Some will even triple. The
Progran1 that we present to Congress shortly will be possible, from the economic,
social, and environmental vantages. I know that what it calls for can be done. Now,
we need to go out and make sure that we have specific plans to do it, and then put our
plans into action. We have the philosophy, the policy, and the planning mechanisms
that wildlife professionals and other resource specialists have been wanting for years.
Now, let•s make sure that we use them to benefit the entire forest and rangeland
resource.
5