Environmental Consequences of Using Fertilizer and OtherChemicals in Forest Management

By

ROBERT F. TARRANTForestry Sciences Laboratory

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experil

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agi

Corvallis, Oregon

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

FROM FILES

Mr. Tarrant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and greet-ings, friends of the forest.

An anonymous scribe recently noted that unlessstream pollution is halted, walking on water no longerwill be regarded as a singular feat. This wry observa-tion is based on a once popular concept of pollution ashaving to do with introducing solid materials intowater. The greatest outcry from today's concerned cit-izenry, however, is aimed not at the "old time" pollut-ing agents but against the unseen chemical residueswhich result from efforts to produce more goods andservices for a rapidly expanding population.

Defining "pollution" is not easy when we considerthe semantic interactions and personal emotions in-volved. The definition I prefer is a synthesis of severalthat have appeared over the past few years:

Pollution is any impairment of the environment thatadversely affects man either directly as a living orga-nism or indirectly by reducing the value of his phys-ical possessions or his opportunity for recreation andappreciation of nature. I believe this definition is sup-portable, but I think also it illustrates why we havedifficulty in communicating about the subject at hand.

What are the environmental consequences of usingfertilizers and fire retardants in forest practice? Mostforest fire retardants contain chemicals also used com-monly as fertilizers. Thus, we can simplify the ques-tion and speak in terms of a single class of materials,chemical fertilizers.

Answering the direct question assigned me for thispanel discussion is relatively easy. I do not believeanyone can now define accurately the nature and ex-tent of the impact of fertilizer on the forest environ-ment. Thus, no one can say with any certainty that aproblem exists. Indeed, we can hypothesize on thebasis of our present level of knowledge of the forestecosystem that fertilizing forest lands should havelittle or no effect on water quality. But, in terms ofthe popular temper, a hypothesis is no longer ade-quate to allay concern nor to assure continued use ofthis potentially important silvicultural tool.

Perhaps an easier topic to speak of in more directfashion would be the problem of maintaining the useof chemical tools for natural resource managementpurposes. I think this point is most germane to the as-signment of this panel, and I wish to develop itbriefly.

Maintaining an acceptable or even livable environ-ment will become increasingly difficult if presentlyprojected population increases occur.

Unprecedented population levels, rising livingstandards, and subsequent spiraling demands forgoods and services are the causes of most of the de-cline in quality of our environment. The problem canbe described, admittedly oversimply, in terms of Xamount of unwanted materials generated on the be-half of each person divided by Y cubic feet of environ-ment available for dilution of this heterogeneous ef-fluent.

Our individual allotment of dilution space is shrink-ing at an alarming rate. For the first time in history, alarge segment of the human population has come tounderstand that we live in a closed system — theaquarium has finite limits adequate for several fishbut it cannot satisfactorily support a doubling ortripling of population with attendant demand forliving space. Thus, dilution is no longer the solution topollution.Managers of natural resources face increasingly diffi-cult tasks in producing goods for a rapidly expandingpopulation.

During the next 50 years, the population of ourcountry is expected to increase by two or three times,but acreage of forest lands in our country will decline.Much of our forestry research is aimed at solving thebasic problem of producing more wood fiber from ashrinking land base. Economic chemicals are very im-portant tools for helping achieve the necessary pro-duction increases.

The foregoing statement obviously does not tell re-source managers something new. It needs to be said,however, in case anyone does not know why chemi-cals are used in the forest. Critics of chemical usemust understand the economic reasons for using fertil-izer and for controlling brush, insects, and other ob-stacles to full production of wood fiber and its ameni-ties from our shrinking forest land resource. If thereare valid alternatives to the use of chemical tools,they must be offered along with criticism.An articulate, increasingly well-organized segment ofthe population is concerned over possible deleteriouseffects of economic chemicals on the local and globalecosystem.

Critics of chemical practices are justified in asking,

"If you don't know the long-term effects of a chemicalon the environment, how can you justify its use?" Thesuccess of organized, concerned citizens in makingtheir viewpoints known and achieving political resultsis evident in increasing restriction of chemical useand, in some cases, removal of chemicals from themarket. Battlelines have been drawn, major en-counters have been fought, and skirmishes prelimi-nary to the next major engagements are constantly oc-curring.

Perhaps what we are witnessing now is the sweepof the pendulum of reaction to free use of economicchemicals. Unfortunately, although little is being doneto attack the basic cause of our environmental prob-lems, much is being done to restrict the use of impor-tant production tools necessary to sustain a rapidlygrowing population, and no realistic evaluation of al-ternatives is being offered. There is hope, however;for unless someone is successful in leading a move-ment to repeal Newton's third law of motion, the pres-ent swing of the pendulum must eventually be re-versed.It is time to stop viewing chemical use as a matter ofone "side" against the other.

Resource managers are learning that never againwill they be allowed to introduce chemicals into theforest, no matter for how laudable a purpose, withoutconsidering the impact on all components of the envi-ronment. New information from research is constantlyproviding safer methods of using economic chemicals.Everyone. involved in applying these tools, from themanager down to the last man on the field crew, mustbe aware of his responsibility for proper chemical use.

I hope that sincerely motivated critics of chemicaluse also realize their strong obligation. They must bewell informed in their concern, objective in their useof scientific information, fully aware of the importanteconomic reasons for the use of chemical tools, andmindful of the consequences of nonuse of chemicals intoday's world.The common ground on which concerned people canmeet in regard to matters of environmental quality isin a unified demand for better knowledge.

Research on environmental matters which affectevery human being must be implemented in a fashionnever known before. Priorities for allocating financialresources must be reexamined. Alternatives to the use

of chemicals as important tools for maintaining pro-ductivity of resources worldwide must be weighedand understood before indiscriminate bans of chemi-cals are sought.

I believe the widespread concern for our environ-ment can stimulate an improved research approach toforestry problems. It seems very clear that from nowon our research programs must include a well-inte-grated approach to problems. When we study the sub-ject of forest fertilizing, for instance, we need to lookfurther than the one question, "Does fertilizer increasetree growth?" We must be ready to answer with soundfacts such questions as, "What is the effect of fertiliz-ing on water quality and aquatic organisms?" "Onwater yield?" "On incidence of disease organisms andinsects?" and, undoubtedly, many other questions wehaven't yet thought of but which someone else will.

Such an integrated research program requires aconcerted attack by teams representing a wide varietyof talent. We have these talents at hand — it is the ef-fective organization of this resource that requires im-provement.

No one can escape his share of responsibility in thismatter of environmental protection

The'forest resource manager is obligated to producemaximum benefits from a shrinking land base yetavoid undue impact on environmental quality. A largeorder!

The forest research administrator is obligated to im-prove planning and coordination of research effortsubstantially in a period of generally decreasing fundsfor biological research. A big challenge!

And the critic of forest chemical practices is obligat-ed to call attention to deficiencies in the use of chemi-cals. At the same time, he must resist emotion andoffer constructive input to solve the problems that re-sult from eliminating chemical tools in this overpopu-lated world. A great opportunity to contribute to thecommon cause!

No matter in which of the three categories one con-siders himself — forest resource manager, forest re-search administrator, or critic of forest practices — weare all in the world together. Whether we can solvethe population-environment crisis depends directly onour ability to demonstrate that man is a rational ani-mal. Thank you. (applause)

Purchased by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, for official use

Reprinted from Combined Committee Meeting Wsstern Forestry and Conservation Association

December 2, 1969, Spokane, Washington