Forest Cover Loss Story Full of Holes
A recent journalistic gloss appeared in USA Today that claimed the world lost 3.1 percent of forest cover from 2000 to 2005. That story is a twisted misinterpretation of a single scientific report, and as such is typical of the yellow journalism that infects the alarmist Mainstream Media.
Reaction to USA Today slanted article has been swift. The Society of American Foresters called the story “overgeneralized,” “inaccurate,” and based on false assumptions:
Forest study article raises concerns from foresters nationwide
By David Smith, Siskiyou Daily News, May 03, 2010 [here]
Yreka, Calif. — A recent study report and an article revealing some of its findings sparked reactions from Siskiyou County and across the nation last week as foresters looked to address a message about the status of American forests.
Siskiyou County Natural Resource Policy Specialist Ric Costales stated on Wednesday that he had notified a number of individuals and organizations of a USA Today article titled “U.S. losing trees faster than other heavily forested nations,”an article based on the recently-released results of a study that quantified global gross forest cover loss (GFCL).
The study, conducted by representatives from South Dakota State University and the State University of New York, utilized satellite imagery to assess GFCL on an international scale. According to the study report, the GFCL was quantified by using satellite mapping techniques in the year 2000 and again in 2005 to detect areas where forest cover had been lost.
The issue that has arisen for some in the forestry discipline is the characterization in the news article that forests in the United States are fading. Erica Rhoad, director of forest policy for the Society of American Foresters, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today, which she shared with the Siskiyou Daily News Wednesday.
“The recent article titled ‘Fading Forests’ grossly over-generalized and assumed the state of U.S. forests based on satellite photos. One need not be a forester to realize that many of the assumptions in the article are false,” Rhoad says in her letter, stating that “this study only looks at gross forest loss and disregards offsetting forest gains, giving an inaccurate picture of forest cover.”
Lucky for us, SOS Forest operatives are on top of this story and we can clear up all the confusion here and now.
First, the USA Today story was based on an “interpretive” article written by Jeremy Hance of Mongabay.com [here]. Mongabay is a popular enviro website that concentrates on tropical forest issues. It was founded by Rhett Butler [here]. Jeremy Hance is their principal journalist. They have significant biases, but who doesn’t?
More importantly, Hance’s “interpretive” article omitted important features of the research paper in question, and as a result, so did the USA Today article.
The research paper in question is:
Hansen, Matthew C., Stephen V. Stehman, and Peter V. Potapova. 2010. Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/07/0912668107. Full text [here].
The objective of the study was:
… to provide a global estimate of forest cover extent and GFCL. The methodology is based on a stratified random sample of 541 18.5-km × 18.5-km blocks (a sampling density of 0.22%) and employs data from two satellite-based sensors. Coarse spatial resolution data from the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sensor enable the stratification of the earth’s forested biomes into regions of homogeneous forest cover loss. Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) data obtained for the sampled blocks were then used to quantify area of year 2000 forest and area of GFCL.
The study defined “forest” as “25% or greater canopy closure at the Landsat pixel scale (30-m × 30-m spatial resolution) for trees >5 m in height.”
Note that a single Landsat pixel is 30×30 meters, about the size of a football field. From each dot of light (pixel) the researchers estimated whether the trees in that football-field-sized area were greater or less than 5 meters tall.
That’s some pretty fancy dot of light analysis.
In addition to assumptions about the accuracy and interpretation of satellite imagery, the study looked at gross forest loss, not net:
Gross forest cover gain is not quantified and, consequently, net forest cover change dynamics are not reported. Forest cover gain is a more gradual process than forest cover loss and would require adjustments to our methodology. Regional variation in forest land use, natural and human-induced drivers, and forest recovery is significant, and GFCL captures only a part of the global forest cover change dynamic.
In other words, the researchers did not consider that trees grow and that some forested areas that were less than 5 meters tall may have grown to that height during the 2000-2005 study period.
By the way, there are many definitions of “forest.” According to the World Wildlife Federation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO), forests don’t require trees at all of any size [here].
So we have a study that purports to measure “gross” forest cover loss from tiny dots of light encompassing areas the size of football fields, dots that have passed through satellite sensors, filters, computer algorithms, and who knows what. The researchers conclusions are iffy to say the least, being based on a raft of questionable assumptions. An enviro website interprets the study as a sky-is-falling dire report, and USA Today runs it as “factual.”
SAF foresters respond by raising certain issues. From the Siskiyou Daily News article linked to above:
Rhoad states that much of the forest in the western United States has been altered by catastrophic wildfires in previous decades, adding, “Many factors, including decades of fire suppression, growth (forests grow each year – they are not static), drought, climate and lack of management has created a ‘perfect storm’ in many areas in which vast forested landscapes are dead or dying due to insects, disease and wildfire.”
Erica Rhoad makes a good point. During the period of study, 2000 to 2005, nearly 40 million acres burned in wildfires in the U.S. alone. That’s roughly 6 percent of all U.S. forested acres.
Since 2005, an additional 30 million acres have burned in wildfires. Most of those acres are on Federal land and have not been replanted. The intensity of the fires killed most trees and converted forests to brush. Hence the USA Today report may have had accidental validity in that the net change in forest cover has indeed been negative, at least as far as Federal forestland in the U.S. is concerned.
From the Siskiyou Daily News article linked to above:
Darrel Kenops, executive director of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, stated in an interview Friday that restorative efforts, such as the planting of seedlings to replace burnt or harvested trees, would likely not show up with the imagery methods used to determine GFCL.
Darrel Kenops is a great forester, a friend, and an SOSF reader, but he knows very well that the USFS does not do (hardly any) reforestation in burns. He also knows that repeat burns in many areas are converting forests to brush.
Kenops noted that the United States Forest Service, which is tasked by Congress to evaluate and record forest conditions in the country, has a number of methods for tracking net changes in forest use and the ways in which forests are affected by various factors.
One of the available tools for tracking change, Kenops said, is the Forestry Inventory and Analysis Web site, which can be found at http://fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/default.asp. He also noted that during his work as a forest supervisor, he and his staff would “keep track of forest conditions, demand and needs,”a practice which he said continues today.
While both the authors of the study and Kenops state that limited resources hinder extensive monitoring of forest change, Kenops noted that national forest plans provide for monitoring goals and methods used by foresters across the country.
I wish to be fair to all concerned, but truthfully the job the USFS is doing monitoring forest change has been less than satisfactory, in my opinion. The destruction of America’s priceless heritage forests is not being well-measured or well-reported by FIA (USFS Forestry Inventory and Analysis). They have some new fancy web software, but the information gathering system leaves much to be desired. I don’t believe they have a good handle on the changes that are occurring.
Rhoad also touches on the future of forestry and how she feels the issue should be framed. “Foresters are continually trying to improve forest management and conservation in America – there’s still much we need to do,” she said. “Nonetheless, we should be proud of forest management in the United States and all we’ve accomplished since the birth of the forestry profession and modern conservation.”
Again, I wish to be courteous and fair. I strongly support my profession and am doing what I can to improve it. But in my opinion more foresters need to speak up. We need to explain to the general public that government policies which exclude foresters and curtail forest management are destroying our forests.
We cannot continue to burn our forests with abandon and expect them to persist. We cannot incinerate vast tracts and provide myriad forest resources and values at the same time. The problem is not excessive logging — logging has all but stopped on our National Forests. The problem is catastrophic forest fires in the absence of forest management and stewardship.
Excuse me Ms. Rhoad, but “decades of fire suppression” is NOT the problem. Let It Burn is.
Had there been no fire suppression for decades, there would be no forests today. Our forests would have all burned to ashes. Allowing wildfires to burn unchecked (today’s policy) is not perpetuating forests — it is converting forests to fire-type brush.
I hope THAT message gets through to the SAF someday. It would be a good thing for forests, forestry, and foresters if we could all agree that incinerating forests in catastrophic holocausts is not good stewardship.
The absolute best way to have a diverse, functioning, real forest, is to have a couple hundred thousand acres of contiguous land divided into 80 acres parcels, all of it, and have a different person managing each parcel. You would have diversity. And probably a lot more productivity and species than if it were under one bureaucratic rule by a designated agency.
I can remember seeing a golden eagle over by Harry’s Mountain. On the west side. A nesting golden eagle. I told a BLM biologist. He told me there was a pair near Valsetz and nesting pair up the little North Fork Santiam on Evans Mountain, just off the Federal land on Crown Z’s ground (at that time-once again whorehouser’s and once again, for sale-REIT). Large contiguous clearcutting had produced the habitat for golden eagle prey, and they were there using it. Of course it would grow to be pecker pole doug fir and hemlock over time, but for now it was golden eagle habitat. Habitat changes and moves, and so should we expect forests to be doing, also. The Great Basin juniper forest is new. And is forested land that was never before. I saw juniper nursing doug fir seedlings in the Owyhee mountains in Idaho. Doug fir seedlings coming up along the drip line of juniper trees. Forest succession. Up high in those mountains, all the fir had been cut in the mid 19th century to serve the mines and mining town of Silver City. Lots of springboard, old stumps among the second growth forest, none of it planted. Just the natural regrowth from 19th century logging. A forest in transition.
America, and especially the West, is predominantly urban. The urban mindset is not focused on the same natural resource values that were here even thirty years ago. The world changed, and world land use issues are more theoretical than practical. The urbanite is looking for Eden in the wild, and works to that end. Maybe it is not going to be found, but not for the lack of trying. Is it really important that we don’t burn all our forests to mineral dirt? I am too old to care, really. There is nothing in planting a tree for me. There was when I was 20 or 30. But not today. And if 20 or 30 today don’t think it is important, and if trees are to grow, they should come from a natural progression, then who would I be to argue? Why waste my energy. Reinventing the wheel is a national pastime, now. Don’t let us old fogies stand in the way.
Mike,
I don’t disagree with the points you make, but would like to point out three things:
1) I didn’t say that fire suppression was the only problem nor did I say that we shouldn’t have suppressed fire. My quotes were very, very general related to the supposed ‘deforestation’ in the US (which was actually due to catastrophic fire, which wasn’t mentioned in the USA Today article to which I was referring)—so to turn this into me saying that fire suppression was the problem, is inappropriate.
2) My last quote was about forestry and foresters in America since SAF was created in 1900 — I do think we should be proud of all we’ve accomplished since 1900. As I stated, we also have much we need to do, which includes fixing the multitude of problems with the Forest Service and actively managing our public forests. Reforming federal forest laws is something I work on almost every day — it is my opinion that Congress must change the laws if they want to see progress on managing our national forests. I also agree that foresters need to speak up.
3) Finally, to say: “It would be a good thing for forests, forestry, and foresters if we could all agree that incinerating forests in catastrophic holocausts is not good stewardship” is just plain unfair to SAF. I don’t know a single member that would say, “incinerating forests in catastrophic holocausts is good stewardship.” We are constantly making the point with policy makers that fire plays a role, but not the only role. We need mechanical management as well, and those that believe they can achieve desired conditions with fire as the only tool are wrong. Of course we’ll have larger discussions and disagreements about fire within SAF, but from a policy standpoint, that is our message.
Thanks for letting me comment. I understand where you’re coming from and certainly appreciate the compliments you also gave me in your piece. I also share your frustration with the current management (or lack thereof) of our public lands — it keeps me up at night.
Reply: Thank you very much for your comments, Erica. I apologize to the SAF for implying that members might consider catastrophic fire to be good stewardship.
Hate to be a pain, but we in the industry need to watch our own rhetoric. In talking about the USA Today article and the study upon which it was based, we should not give any credence to using “loss” in this discussion. Any “loss” is only really shade (canopy) and is only temporary until plantations fill in. I would argue that this isn’t loss at all in any practical sense and particularly in the manner that the authors of the study and the article imply, particularly the USA Today guy who made the leap from loss of canopy to loss of trees. As well, while I am not qualified to know the answer, there may be an overall gain when productivity, carbon sequestration, and other factors are taken into account. To use a simple analogy, are we losing anything when we harvest a carrot and plant another in its place? Loss is simply not a functional concept in this discussion.
The exceptions, which should really have been the story, are areas like ours in Northern California that have experienced a “moderate” loss which has absolutely nothing to do with harvest, but rather catastrophic fire. This indeed DOES represent a loss, because it has occurred exclusively on Forest Service ground and will likely not be replanted — because they will be unable to adequately prepare the sites by removing the standing dead trees which will be left to be the source of future catastrophic fire. Ultimately, these areas will likely be converted to brush in the fairly short term and may never return to conifers if the climate change models for our area are correct. It is shocking to think that our area shows up on a satellite to an extent deserving distinction in a global study and that no one is really doing anything that will make a change. I can’t think of a word that adequately describes the combination of waste, shame, stupidity, tragedy, etc. that this situation represents.
Thanks for helping correct this mess. I hope USA Today has integrity enough to try to make amends.
Yes, fire DOES play a role but, that role has been blurred, twisted and bastardized. Letting forests burn, regardless of the shape those forests are in, regardless of fuel moistures, regardless of fuel densities, is simple disregard for common sense and established science.
There seems to be a concerted effort to eliminate forestry altogether from public lands. Radicals would rather see the conversion of green forests vast acreages of snags and brush than to let the Forest Service sell a single tree. They don’t just have blinders on, they has severe tunnel vision! People like that would rather not have foresters making policy, excluding them from meetings and decisions. They would rather see foresters only implementing policy written by others, instead.
As Mike has been saying for so long, fires should not be allowed to burn in unmanaged forests, or in forests not “prepared to accept fire”. The goal is to have quick, cool burns that meet the analyzed prescriptions. That simply isn’t happening much on today’s public lands.
USA Today and “integrity” don’t seem to mix well. Selling newspapers and advertising is their main goal. Retractions, which don’t sell newspapers, always occur in a lower corner of a forlorn page.
Excellent discussion and analysis, Mike! It’s sad that our government and academia is using our forests as a political football, not caring that our forests are, indeed, disappearing. “Modeling” is a very poor excuse for “boots on the ground”. You cannot get the rank and file of the remaining Forest Service crowd to wander through brush-choked parcels of 100+ acres. “That’s what temps are for”, is the continued response of aging “Piss Firs” (of which I used to be!… I always told myself that I would never treat temps the way I was treated during my 15 years of “Temporary” duty).
Now, I want to go and explore the websites to see the eco’s spin on this article. Basing an entire line of reasoning on a USA Today article is ridiculous, at best. Sure, I’ll take any opportunity to discredit the eco’s ways of thinking!