Two Forests, One Plan | Jack Igleman of Carolina Public Press

If you hike, bike, hunt, hammock, picnic, forage or just otherwise like to wander around the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests, you care about how these forests are managed. And the history and culture of this region play into the mistrust some people feel about management at the hands of federal officials. Today's guest is Jack Igleman. When he’s not teaching economics courses at Warren Wilson College, he’s the lead environmental reporter for Carolina Public Press. He recently wrote about the finalized plan to manage both our neighboring national forests. We’ll unpack his story and also dive deep into the evolving forest ecology and the conflicting politics that shaped the plan.

Transcript

Matt Peiken: If you hike, bike hunt, hammock, picnic, forage, or just otherwise, like to wander around the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests, you care about how these forests are managed and the history and culture of this region play into the mistrust. I'm 

Matt Peiken. My guest today on the Overlook is Jack Igleman. When he's not teaching economics courses at Warren Wilson College. He's the lead environmental reporter for Carolina Public Press. He recently wrote about the finalized plan to manage both our neighboring national forests.

We'll unpack his story and also dive deep into the evolving forest ecology. And the conflicting politics that shape the plan.

The new forest management plans began taking shape a decade ago. I began my conversation with Jack Ilman by asking what was top of mind for the people responsible for updating these plans.

Jack Igleman: Number one, federal law requires that every national forest have a management plan. And the last one governing the Nantahala and Pisgah was from 1987. It was revised in 1994, and they're supposed to last 15 to 20 years. So the current forest plan at the time was outdated. And in 2012, the federal. past a set of planning rules.

That National Forest needed to use in order to create their new forest plan. And the two things that were probably on their mind when they started as number one, getting the best science available to manage the national forest. And number two, to engage the public at a really high. 

Matt Peiken: You just anticipated a question I was going to ask about what needs to be updated.

In a sense, you know, the forests don't change in and of themselves. What does change that necessitates updating this plan? 

Jack Igleman: A big thing is just the recreational demand on the forest as Asheville's booming, and it is a major destination. . So a big change over the last 10, 20, even 30 years, has been the recreational demand.

The visitation of the forest has increased significantly, and that requires thinking about how you manage the various resources, access, roads, trails. But I do wanna say, Also the ecology has changed. The ecology of the forest is really always evolving and climate change is a big factor right now. So it really forces forest managers to think about what is the best way to manage this forest?

Matt Peiken: Give me a sense of what happens in day-to-day management that's laid out in this plan in a way that is either public facing or ways in which the public may not readily. 

Jack Igleman: The forest plan is a strategic document, so it really lays out the strategy for how the forest service, this public agency is gonna manage the forest.

So it's a strategic document and it's very, It's dense. 

Matt Peiken: Does it go into the nitty gritty of how to manage, you mentioned strategy. Give me some examples of things that are laid out in this document that are an operating manual. Yeah. For people who are tasked with managing the Nantahala and Pisgah Forest.

Jack Igleman: Yeah, I think a big one that probably. Most people can relate to our trails in the forest. So the forest plan sets out a strategy for how the agency will expand, maintain, and improve trails. And it's the forest plan sets goals for doing that where the actual work happens. Is later. And that comes through various projects that the Forest Service will unroll in the next, in the coming years.

And currently they're engaged in many projects, but the forest plan really sets the strategy for. How to navigate, how to create, and then the projects are really have the nitty gritty of what trails are gonna improve, how many miles are gonna improve, what that will look like, and also engaging the public and helping plan those things at the project level.

Matt Peiken: I want to get in a little bit to the public's involvement in shaping. Master plan, but one of the things that was in your story, I thought was interesting that the plan that they did end up approving recommends 49,000 acres of newly recommended wilderness and nine newly eligible scenic rivers. I don't know what that means.

Yeah. new, newly recommended wilderness is this. Man wilderness that was just not managed before. And the nine scenic rivers are these new rivers. I don't understand. 

Jack Igleman: Yeah. Yeah. There's so much to unpack. So let's take wilderness first and then we can talk about wild and scenic rivers perhaps. But wilderness is the highest form of land protection in the United States. 

Matt Peiken: Wilderness is an actual designation. 

Jack Igleman: Yeah, absolutely. It's not a physical thing. We can't define wilderness. It's a designation can first define wilderness and see, and then tell us how it applies here. Congress, decades ago passed the Wilderness Act, which gave Congress the ability to set aside lands throughout the United States as wilder.

And it's restrictive in how that land can be used. Obviously, you can imagine you can't develop it, you can't drive motorized vehicles on it. It's to really take our most precious, most beautiful pieces of land and wilderness looks a little different out west. It's a little more remote than what it looks like in North Carolina.

So the definition of what wilderness is a little bit tricky, but here's what it looks like. Here's how it happens, is the forest. That has 1 million acres that they manage during this forest planning process is they identify acreage throughout the forest that they believe meets the characteristics of wilderness, and in the forest plan, they recommend it.

So now 49,000 acres have been recommended. I think that's over maybe eight different places and eight different places. I'm not sure about that we can check. Recommended means that over the life of this forest. 15 or 20 years, it'll be managed as wilderness. And so that's really important. You can't ride a mountain bike in wilderness, for example.

So it changes how we use those trails, for example. It also impacts whether we can harvest trees. We can't on wilderness. to make those pieces of land permanent wilderness requires an act of Congress and a signature of the president, and that's a whole nother ball whack. So 

Matt Peiken: this is just a recommendation. And you mentioned that it's 1 million acres and that of those 1 million acres, 49,000 of them, they're recommending our designated wilderness. Yeah. Which really amounts to, if you think about it, that's what about 5%. Yeah, the 1 million, which I don't know, is that a lot? Is that not a lot?

Jack Igleman: Yeah, that's, there's already 66,000 acres of wilderness. People in Asheville are probably familiar with the Shining rock wilderness, which was designated many years ago. There are other units of wilderness. It's hard to say whether it's a lot, whether it's a little, it depends on who. Ask. It tends to be a pretty controversial topic in Western North Carolina where obviously people who environmentalists, for example, prize this designation, whereas in.

Rural counties of Western North Carolina cringe a little bit. When they hear the topic of wilderness. They, and I don't wanna speak for anyone, but they may see it as because of the restrictions that come with wilderness recommendation and designation. Some people see that as, Closing them out of land that maybe they've used for decades or generations.

So wilderness has always been a really tricky topic for the Forest Service to navigate. That 

Matt Peiken: does give some perspective that there were already about 66,000 acres. Under wilderness designation. Another 49 is not insignificant. It's not doubling it, but it's quite a bit. That's about 80% more. Let's talk about the people who are opposed to the wilderness designation, or at least who are resistant to having more wilderness designation.

What are they looking to protect and preserve? 

Jack Igleman: That's such an interesting question. I think on one hand, we live in such a polarized time that I think wilderness is just one of those things. It doesn't even need to mean anything. Just the term wilderness gets people riled up and maybe upset depending on which side of the coin that they're on.

But I think more practically, if you look. Back, and I've tried to incorporate this into my writing as a real historical perspective of the acquisition of public lands in Western North Carolina, and we have really two big units, the National Park, the Great Smokies, and these two large national forests.

And if you go back a hundred years that there has been some resistance over decades in the Southern Appalachians to saying, Hey, we don't necessarily trust federal government to come in and manage our land. In some cases, that land was leveraged away from landowners. So I think if you go back. Decades.

There's a mistrust of federal government, and of course wilderness is a strong act of federal government to say, here is how this land is gonna be managed in its most narrow definition. And so some people see that, whether it's a historical legacy, whether it has to do with our current polarized time is hard to say, but nevertheless, it's remained a tricky topic.

Matt Peiken: You're saying that a lot of it is. The trigger of, yeah, governmental control of this land rather than specific fears of what will happen. 

Jack Igleman: Yeah, and I think so. And there is that as well. You, for example, you might have enjoyed riding an ATV in an area that this is probably an unlikely scenario. This is a place that we've used, my family perhaps has used it for years, and now you're saying I can't.

So it's also an access issue and what people do not like to say they can't use something in a specific way. And so that opens. Up the door to lots of emotions and wilderness has been that sort of focal point of that tension. 

Matt Peiken: Can, can you talk a little bit historically? you just alluded to it and when you talked about how a lot of these national forest lands were taken from people who had domain over it and I, I think of eminent domain and we know of eminent domain largely.

Urban development and interstate highways and other roads, and primarily communities of color. Yeah. And more poorer communities have had land taken from them and homes taken from them for the quote, greater good. Is this similar in terms of how these forests were initially developed and expand? 

Jack Igleman: Yes and no.

Let's take the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Essentially, the federal government drew a circle in Tennessee and North Carolina and said, this is now a national park, and many people were forced to move out. So good example of eminent domain. You can also look at the creation of a lot of lakes. Made by the Tennessee Valley Authority that was, here comes the lake.

We're gonna need y'all to move. Not your choice. The Forest Service was a little bit different. The first acquisition of National Forest was in 1916 in McDowell County near Marion. And all of those transactions were quote unquote, voluntary, so people did not have to necessarily sell their land to the Forest Service.

It was a different. 

Matt Peiken: Was the mistrust that you spoke of earlier, did it not exist at that time? 

Jack Igleman: Oh, absolutely it did. It did, yeah. Then how you could imagine too, that a lot of Southern Appalachian people who had been here for many years may not have a deed. To their land and the Forest Service was able to leverage that to acquire land.

You don't have clear ownership. So I think there was, this is a can of worms I suppose, but there was some sense of your fencing in land. That we've used as a commons, for example, to graze our cattle. And now you're saying we can't do that and 

using legal maneuvering to leverage them out. 

Matt Peiken: Yeah. And there's some great historical work done on this, the book called Blue Ridge Commons that I'd recommend to folks, which is a great history of the acquisition of National Forest in the area.

And it gets into some of that in terms of the feedback and criticism that came about. In the process of developing this plan, does some of that historical residue play into what the feedback was and the criticisms were of this plan? 

Jack Igleman: Yes. Talk about that. Yeah, I think a great example of what this looks like, if you go back to the early years of the forest plan, 20 14, 20 15, there was a wave of county commissioners that passed non-binding resolutions that said, no wilderness in our counties. So Graham County, Swain County, Cherokee County, other county commissions, basically posturing saying we just want to be clear about how we feel. Now, those are elected officials, right? Maybe five or seven or six, seven or eight or nine, whatever the number is.

Counties. And of course there are probably many people in those rural counties that would love to see more wilderness, but of course they're the elected officials speaking for the county. And I think that's such a great example of how that played out. Buncombe County, the county commission here, pastor resolution in favor of more wilderness in our county, but I think Buncombe County was probably the only one.

Matt Peiken: Why do you think there was that difference? 

Jack Igleman: Yeah, I think Asheville is part of our identity is a progressive community, and I think it attracts people that tend to be more in favor of protection of wilderness compared to rural counties where rural counties have real deep economic connection to the national forest.

And if not an economic connection. Just a really deep cultural connection to these places. And I think that's a little bit different in Asheville where many of us have moved here from other places. We do have National Forest in Buncombe County, but we use it in a different way. We use it to mountain bike, we use it to.

Find solitude or whatever it may be. And that's a, in the rural counties, it's just a completely different relationship and it's such an interesting one to explore and it just underscores, the one thing that everyone has in common, whether you're in Buncombe County or rural county, is just how much we love.

These national forests for different reasons and different values, but we're so deeply connected to them. 

Matt Peiken: And yet from what I understand from your reporting, that there were a number of environmental groups who came out in opposition. They banded together in opposition to this finalized plan. 

Jack Igleman: Yeah, and this was, this is not fully unexpected.

A draft plan was released last year. There was an intensive objection process. Over the last year, we understood where many people had concerns about the forest plan. What were those concerns specifically? They're complex, but I would, to simplify it, I would say it's important to point out. That the National Forest has a multi-use mandate, which essentially means they do a lot of stuff with their land.

They provide trails, they restore the ecology, they help manage wildlife habitat, and they also harvest trees. That's an important component of the National Forest mission. I wanna note in the forest plan that one of the focuses. Timber harvesting and the forest plan is to restore the ecology of the forest to create young forest, which is needed for some species.

So to manage the forest in a thoughtful way, where the concerns really come down to is where. , the Nantahala Forest Service does some of those timber harvesting activities and some groups have real concerns that timber harvesting will occur in special areas of the forest. So this really, 

Matt Peiken: it's fascinating to me the way you laid this out.

It seems like a mirror of what happens in urban development. There's planning departments and there's zoning. Yeah. And people don't wanna see industrial development happen where residential is, and then there's business districts and there's noise ordinances. Yeah. In some ways what you're saying is this happens in the forest too.

There are such a variety of uses. Are they incompatible with each other in the way that industrials incompatible with residential, you have to have separation. Am I off base in that? 

Jack Igleman: No, Matt, that's a great analogy. And in fact, I've heard some people refer to the forest plan as a zoning document, if you will, to say, and in fact, the forest Service has divided the forest plan into geographic areas where different activities occur as well as different management areas.

So there are parts of the forest like wilderness. Like, all right, this is the most restrictive part of the forest. You cannot build hotels here. That's a joke. But can't, you can't ride a mountain bike. It's the most restrict groups have to be limited in size, whereas other areas are wilderness is not compatible in a place like Bent Creek, which is just absolutely slammed with people.

And yeah, harvesting timber is not compatible with wilderness. So there are many. Conflicting values in the forest and in places where there are potential conflicts. And as we grow, as in this area, as there are more users of the forest, those potential conflicts exist throughout the forest, just like in an urban area, just similar to the things that we're facing right here in Nashville.

Matt Peiken: How is hunting is addressed in the new forest management plans? 

Jack Igleman: The hunting rules don't necessarily change. There are some places where you can and where you can't hunt.

One thing that is interesting to note is that hunters have. Largely involved in this plan. They've had a huge influence actually on what this plan looks like. 

Matt Peiken: Talk about that a little bit. I imagine when we hear about the environmental groups participating. Yeah. I imagine the hunting lobby is just as vocal.

They're not necessarily opposed to each other, but they have very different interests. Talk about the hunting lobby. Yeah. If and how the pressure put on to affect this plan and how did that manifest in this plan? 

Jack Igleman: That's such a good question, and I'm glad we can talk about it. Number one, hunters are, and the numbers are declining.

It doesn't mean that you won't see a young hunter out there, but the numbers are going down. Unlike mountain biking where numbers are surging, it's a massively growing sport. So I think it's important to point that out. Hunting is also really important in these rural counties that we talked about, and hunters early on in the process.

Involved with the plan because they were concerned about declining numbers of game that they like to hunt, deer, wild Turkey grouse, and their belief, and I think there's good science to back this up, suggests that the aging forest has eliminated. That some of these species need. So grouse need a young forest.

They need grassy shrub young trees. That's the habitat that they like. But as the forest has aged, As those areas have grown up into more mature forests, those that habitat is gone. And so hunters have been strong proponents for saying we need to, throughout the forest, actively manage the forest. And that means timber harvesting, for example, going in and clearing out some trees in various spots that would be ideal, not just for game, but also for songbird and other species that aren't hunt.

I think hunting is just culturally it's important, and even though the numbers may be declining, I think particularly in rural areas, I know plenty of hunters actually right here in Nashville and Buncombe County. This is something that they wanna see continue to thrive in the forest. 

Matt Peiken: You've talked about a number of different constituents here.

You said hunters are, they're aging. You talked about different ecological factors have changed in the last 20 years. There's a lot for this plan to have to approach and address. It's very complex. From your reading of it, what was effectively or at least balanced management and where do you think that there were some, maybe some holes or flaws or over tending to in this plan?

Were there. Interest that got more consideration than others. 

Jack Igleman: That's such a great question, and it really depends on who you ask Matt. 

Matt Peiken: So just so I'm asking a journalist, yeah. Who's covering this from a central standpoint and understands all this, just from your high-altitude reading of this, what's your takeaway going into this?

Jack Igleman: Through input from people I interviewed is that forest planning is really all about getting a little bit and giving up a little bit. If everyone is a little bit happy, but also a little bit disappointed, then that's a good forest plan and that I feel is what we have here. The wilderness, I think, was pretty good balance.

Wilderness advocates would've liked more. Of course, some of those county commissions would've liked less. I think they found a really good balance. Where there is some concern is around old growth forest and a lot of people. Feel that the forest service did not get the management of present and future old growth?

Correct. And that's where you're seeing some of this. 

Matt Peiken: In what way? How does that manifest in this plan? 

Jack Igleman: Again, getting a little bit complicated and trying to stay out of the weeds is the forest service in this plan has created 250,000 acre old growth network and this is forest that won't be harvested.

Now it's not all old growth, some of it by this current old growth, but much of that network is forest that is. That will eventually age into old growth, which is, there are scientific characteristics as to what is old growth and what is not. And here's really the sticking point. If the Forest Service on a future project should find a small patch of old growth, An unknown patch of old growth.

That's all that's left. There's no big thousand acres of old growth that we hadn't found. What we might find is 10 acres here or 20 acres there, and if the forest Service in a project decides to harvest a patch of forest, and it's discovered that some of that forest has the characteristics of old growth but isn't in the network, then the decision of whether to harvest that or.

Falls on one of six district rangers, and many people are upset with that. They'd like to see clarity around old growth. And if we find old growth, many people want that to be automatically protected and not up to a district ranger who might have a variety of different reasons for choosing to cut that forest.

And so again, getting into the weeds, but that's where we do logging. And timber activities is the, where people get a little cross. 

Matt Peiken: You just mentioned that they've identified 250,000 acres to designate as wilderness. Correct. Did I hear you correctly? 

Jack Igleman: As in the old growth network. And what is, so it's not wilderness.

It's just to recognize that this, these are trees that we want to age. We want some old forests just as we want some young four habitat. But this old forest, we want a certain percentage. And it takes a long time to grow a tree. It takes many decades before it gets even close to being considered old growth.

So these are very special forests and we wanna, it doesn't mean we can't ride bikes in them, it doesn't mean we can't do all sorts of activities. We're just not gonna harvest them. 

Matt Peiken: But that sounds like wilderness, right? Am I wrong on that? 

Jack Igleman: Yeah. I would say it's, we can do all sorts of activities around old growth trees.

We can drive our cars, we can ride our bikes. I see. It's much less restrictive than wilderness. We're really just talking about is specifically whether these are trees that we can consider cutting in the future, or whether these are trees we're gonna leave alone and I. old growth is such a complicated topic when you mention old growth.

Probably a lot of people think about the Joyce Kilmer Forest, which are these unbelievably old, beautiful trees, or they've read the over story, a great book about old growth recently, or they think about these giant sequoias old growth looks very different. in our forest, there's not much virgin old growth.

Nearly everything has been logged at least once, but there are little patches of 150, 200 year old trees, and it's not just the trees, but it's also the environment around them that makes a forest and old growth forest. what's happening in the soil, the various layers of canopy in a tree species that live there.

So it's scientifically pretty complicated and the Forest Service and some environmental groups do not see eye to eye. on some of this, and I think they're a bit unhappy with what came out in the forest plan. 

Matt Peiken: What else came out in the plan that we haven't talked about that you think is new or notable that is going to guide management for the next couple of decades?

Jack Igleman: Yeah. I think sustainable recreation is a big component of the plan, and I think that's exciting. They're just really looking and thinking about. How to design and where to design trails. If you go by Brevard, the use is really intense among mountain bikers, horseback riders, everybody, and they're trying to think about how do we spread that out?

How do we create cool trail networks in places where people aren't going? That's good for those communities. It brings economic activity, but it also spreads. It spreads out the pain a little bit. It spreads the crowds out. And so I'm really encouraged and I think many people are really excited about what the Forest Service came up in that.

So that's an exciting part. 

Matt Peiken: You mentioned mountain biking is mushrooming. From my observation alone, it's not scientific observation, but there are a lot more hikers out there, so many more people on the trails since Covid. And I was wondering how did the uses of our forests change when people were getting outside during Covid?

And how has that changed how people are using our network of forests?

Jack Igleman: I don't think it can be understated just how transformational Covid was for the outdoors. I'm still expecting a lot of people to put their mountain bikes in the garage and see them collect dust, but I think a lot of people, Discovered the outdoors, and I think many of those people are gonna stay.

Matt Peiken: And so wasn't there a problem for a while that people were trashing the trails, that there were some reports a couple of years ago when Yeah, during covid that trash along the trails was becoming a problem. I, with just so many more people using them, Is that something the Forest Service can manage? You can't gate off trails.

You can gate off roads and road access. Yeah, but what, how can they manage the glut of people using them? 

Jack Igleman: That's a sore spot. I think the Forest Service is under-resourced, and that's been a trend over many decades as it has been for many federal. And they have a tough time doing the things that they have to maintaining roads, maintaining trails, cleaning up trash, policing them.

All of these things are really difficult to enforce in the forest service. I think they do their best, but they don't have the resources to do it. I think one thing I'm seeing at Bent Creek, for example, I'm seeing many poached trails, illegal trails created by users. And it's very hard to stop that kind of activity from happening.

So you can close a trail, but how do you close it? 

Matt Peiken: So you're talking about not just someone cutting a corner and creating a little shortcut on a trail, you're saying an entire trail as being made by, let's say mountain bikers. Yeah. Who just decided this is a route I want to go and it's become a, a defacto trail for mountain bike.

Jack Igleman: Yes. Period. And you're also seeing, I do see the mountains to sea trail for example. Many listeners are probably familiar with that. That is a hiking only trail. But take a look under your feet and I guarantee you'll see some bike tread marks. 

Matt Peiken: that bugs the hell outta me. 

Jack Igleman: Me too. I use the MST all the time.

Matt Peiken: Yeah. And I've seen mountain bikers on what I can't, I'm not gonna tell them, Hey, I'm not gonna be Joe Cop here and say, you're not allowed on here. 

Jack Igleman: I will do it for you. Please do look out for Jack on the trail if you are poaching it, because I am not afraid to call you out. And I, I do think. In lieu of Rangers everywhere doing it.

I think a little public shaming is okay. I think we do need to help the Forest Service maintain the standards, and I think the Forest Service is looking. They're not stupid. They're like, Hey, lots of people are poaching trails here. That means we need more trails. Maybe we should go in and design this trail.

But poach trails, you know, they're unlikely to be designed sustainably, and that's really important. Climate change, we're having bigger storms. That means more runoff. Trails and we really have to think thoughtfully about designing them to be able to weather the storm and be able to deal with the increased or the heavier amounts of rain that we get.

So that's a big problem, not just that it is annoying, it's damaging to the forest in the trails. 

Matt Peiken: Does the public have any responsibility for shaping things going forward?

Jack Igleman: Absolutely, and I think there are a few ways the public can be involved. A big one is to get involved with the development of various projects, and if you dig a little bit on the website, maybe Google Pisca National Forest Projects, you'll come to a project page.

and those projects, the information is available to the public. The public has opportunities at various stages of the development of a project to provide input, and that's such an important way to get involved. I would say also support. An organization that represents what you love, whether that's hunting, whether it's mountain biking, whatever it is, support that organization.

They're often on the front lines in figuring out what's best for the forest from their point of view. And then third, I think just really loving the forest and that looks. Different for all of us, we need to respect each other and how we use it, whether it's for hunting, whether it's for solitude, whether it's for gathering mushrooms or whatever it is.

There are a lot of mushroom foragers in this area. Yeah, I think keep loving it and respecting it. For me, that'll be yelling at mountain bikers, poaching trails, but I also love to mountain bike and I just get on the right ones.