UM’s Proposed Biomass Plant: Questions and Concerns

By Matthew Koehler, Ian M. Lange and John Snively

Last fall news broke that the University of Montana was planning to construct a $16 million wood-burning biomass plant on campus next to the Aber Hall dormitory. UM officials claimed the biomass plant would save UM $1 million annually and protect Missoula’s air quality by reducing emissions over the existing natural gas heating system.

As interested citizens, we attended the university’s biomass “poster presentation” last December, which, unfortunately, raised more serious questions than it answered. So we continued to ask questions and research the proposal. In March, we even conducted an “open records” search of UM’s biomass project file, pouring over hundreds of documents and emails between UM officials and representatives of Nexterra, a Canadian biomass boiler manufacturer, and McKinstry, a Seattle energy services company. Suffice to say, our records search turned up even more troubling questions, especially related to costs, maintenance and emissions.

As the Missoulian reported last month (April 20), information in UM’s air quality permit application to the Missoula City-County Health Department showed that “Contrary to previous claims by UM administrators, the university’s proposed biomass boiler will not reduce emissions to levels below that of natural gas. In fact, UM’s proposed state-of-the-art biomass gasification plant will produce nearly twice as much nitrogen dioxide as its existing natural gas boilers – and in some cases, will release three times as much particulate matter.” The emissions are higher than what McKinstry’s feasibility study predicted.

Our records search also turned up a document showing that the biomass plant would also increase emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by 40 percent or more over the existing natural gas system.

Obviously, Missoula is prone to severe inversions and air stagnation, especially during winter, when the greatest load would be on the biomass system. We found a UM biomass grant application that stated, “The Missoula Valley’s constrained topography presents ideal research conditions for long term analysis of environmental impacts of efficient woody biomass boiler combustion.” Do we really want to risk Missoula’s air quality for the sake of research?

It’s also been difficult to get an accurate assessment from UM of the biomass plant’s up-front and long-term costs, something all Montana taxpayers deserve. For starters, we noticed in the project file that in April 2010 the cost of the biomass plant was $10 million. By July, the cost went to $14 million. Now it sits at $16 million. UM’s financial pro forma also shows that during the first 20 years the biomass plant would need nearly $10 million for additional operation and maintenance expenses over the existing natural gas system.

The pro forma is also troubling in other aspects. It over-estimates the cost of natural gas, while under-estimating the cost of biomass fuel trucked to campus, especially given rising diesel costs. The pro forma also completely zeros out all natural gas expenses and maintenance costs, even though UM now admits that a natural gas boiler would be used during cold winter days to augment the biomass system, and also used from May to September, when the biomass system is too powerful to use.

Further complicating the picture, UM realized during the permitted process that its existing natural gas boilers are in violation of air pollution limits. The fix will cost around $500,000. And UM’s contract with McKinstry was amended recently, meaning that UM is already contractually committed to McKinstry for $532,000 just for project development.

It is our belief that all of these significant issues need to be fully analyzed and rechecked, not just by the biomass project’s supporters, but also by the Board of Regents, independent of McKinstry and UM. Guarantees of performance by McKinstry need to be carefully scrutinized, as other colleges have paid the price for poorly written contracts or poorly vetted companies.

At the end of the day, Montana taxpayers deserve to see accurate, updated financial information from UM concerning all aspects of the biomass plant, including the initial $16 million price tag and $10 million needed for additional operation and maintenance expenses. And Missoula’s citizens have a right to expect that the University of Montana would not risk Missoula’s fragile air quality by needlessly increasing emissions over present levels.

Matthew Koehler is executive director of the WildWest Institute; Ian M. Lange is a professor emeritus, Department of Geosciences at the University of Montana; and Dr. John Snively is a retired dentist. All three live in Missoula.

Here’s the U of M Biomass website.

“Privatization” and Forest Service Recreation Again..

Here’s an essay from High Country News called:

Privatization threatens an Arizona national forest

When I think of “privatization” I think of something a bit more far-reaching than concessionaires… but OK, it’s an attention grabbing headline. Here are my questions for discussion:

What do you think about the use of concessionaires in recreation?

If you were the Forest Supervisor what would you do?

If you were the Chief what would you do?

What do you think keeps the FS from getting enough recreation funds?

Why don’t recreation groups get together and lobby Congress for enough funds?
Hypothesis: too busy debating each other to unite?

Here’s a website I found that points out some of the benefits of concessionaires, especially in this economic environment.

Here are the presentations from the 2010 NFRA conference.

Privatization threatens an Arizona national forest
Essay – April 29, 2011 by Kitty Benzar

Once upon a time, the Western public lands — places like our national forests and parks — were supported with American tax dollars.

In return, we were welcome to use them. Undeveloped areas required no money to enter, and developed facilities were basic but affordable. Land managers were public servants whose mission was stewardship – or so it seemed.

As in a fairy tale, public lands have fallen under an evil spell. Now the most popular of them sport high-end facilities with prices set to whatever the market will bear. Now, land managers implement business plans while we, the citizen-owners, have been downgraded to mere “customers.” Nowadays, even simple access frequently requires payment of a fee.

The latest place to fall under the spell is the Payson Ranger District of Arizona’s Tonto National Forest. The district is currently soliciting bids on the for-profit management of virtually all recreation there. The successful bidder will control more than 25 facilities located on your public land and constructed using your tax dollars. And the winning bidder won’t even be required to follow the same federal laws as the national forest would have to, if it continued doing its job.

The Forest Service defends recreation fees by claiming that the agency retains the money and uses it to directly benefit the very place you paid to visit. By leasing federally owned recreation facilities to private firms, the agency makes a mockery of that argument. Fees become just another tax, and concessionaires become private tax collectors.

In a prospectus issued in early March, the Payson District began soliciting companies to privatize six family campgrounds, four group sites, a horse campground, an interpretive site, 10 picnic areas and seven trailheads. The prospectus vastly expands the number of fee sites on the district and does so without public involvement or comment. It’s a clear attempt to evade federal legal requirements and prohibitions on where fees can be charged.

What’s more, the winning bidder will not be required to honor federally issued recreation passes. The concessionaire will be allowed to issue and sell a pass of its own creation and keep all revenues. Furthermore, the concessionaire will be allowed to charge fees that the national forest is prohibited from charging, including fees just to park your car and gain access to trails and the backcountry.

A law called the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was supposed to set strict limits on the recreation fees the Forest Service can and cannot charge. But in a feat of hocus-pocus, the agency says it can simply set these limits aside when it surrenders lands to a concessionaire’s private control.

The Enhancement Act also requires that any proposed new fee sites must undergo a robust and transparent public process, with final review by a citizen advisory committee. Apparently, that’s become too much if a hassle for the agency, because it doesn’t always get the needed public support. Land managers on the Payson have chosen to hand over previously free recreation sites to a concessionaire and declare the process exempt from the law.

The Tonto National Forest is attempting to do all this at the Payson District’s picnic areas, trailheads and a prehistoric Native American village, even though four of the picnic sites were improved in 2010 with taxpayer dollars. We own these sites, and we just paid to fix them up. Isn’t it an outrage that the Forest Service intends to allow a private company to sell us access to our own investment?

The Tonto did not invent this policy, but it is among the worst offenders. There is an America the Beautiful Pass that costs $80 and allows entry into all national parks for a year. It also covers day-use fees at virtually all Forest Service-operated recreation sites. But it won’t get you into the Tonto. For that, you need to upgrade the interagency pass and pay an additional $15. That makes the Tonto the most expensive federal recreational land in the country. And soon, even your pricey new Tonto Pass won’t allow you access to most recreational opportunities on the Payson Ranger District. As for your lifetime Senior or Disabled Pass, both of them will be nearly worthless.

Across the national forest system, creeping privatization has overtaken recreation like the briars that defended Sleeping Beauty’s castle. We need more defenders of free access to our public lands, and you don’t even need to kiss any frogs to speak out; just email Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell at [email protected] and tell him that federal law applies on all federal land. Otherwise, the concept of public lands is nothing but a fairy tale.

Kitty Benzar is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). She runs the Western No-Fee Coalition in Durango, Colorado.

Oregon O&C Lands In Play, Again

Anyone remember the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000? The Act, along with follow-up legislation was supposed to wean rural Oregon Counties from long-standing dependence on timber revenues from O&C and other Federal Lands and put them on a path to “self-determination.” Guess what? It didn’t. In fact by funding the counties at highest revenue levels ever for a period of time, the Law may have increased the dependence. Admittedly, the recent global recession played a part in the drama, but the question remains as to whether the secure rural schools law really paved a path to “self-determination.” No matter. The Lands are once-again under consideration to help the counties out of a financial bind. Isn’t it time then, once again, to bring up the notion that these lands ought not to be put into play as a single-purpose program? Isn’t it time to realize that given the broad scale of this checkerboard (here’s a map, pdf), we need better resolution of a mixed ownership problem? Watershed concerns loom large, as do species viability problems. Then there are the ever-present access and esthetic problems that surround public lands ownership. And these are no doubt just the tip of an iceberg of problems. [Note: A good short history of this saga up to 2007 is found in Forest Magazine, a longer history was published in 2010 from the Congressional Research Service (pdf)

This is a problem that cries out for “all lands management,” yet our political system doesn’t seem ready to confront multi-scale deliberative democracy (Wikipedia link). We have tried to jump start that program for many years and always come up short. Remember Kai Lee’s Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Lee’s masterwork went to press in 1993. Nearly 20 years later we seem to have largely forgotten that the issue is still on the table. It always will be, because as John Muir noted long ago, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” So too with the O&C lands.

When I looked at the O&C lands map yesterday I thought, Why not just trade away the checkerboard federal lands for lands nearer the larger blocks, i.e. block-up ownership? That way land management would be made easier. But easier is not always better, as the massive and extensive clearcuts of recent memory in the Northwest constantly remind us. In the old days the clearcuts tended toward checkerboard, following the ownership patterns. If we were to block up the ownership what might we get, particularly on the then predominant private lands?

I sometimes ponder Gifford Pinchot’s notion of needing to regulate all forest lands. In Pinchot’s day the rallying cry was to prevent a “timber famine.” In our day, I believe we need to regulate all lands in an attempt to stave off and/or reverse a “biodiversity famine.”

Increasingly I ask myself, What might Aldo Leopold recommend? Leopold not only was a forest supervisor, but in later years also helped found the Wilderness Society, and importantly helped to guide the foundation of both wildlife management and environmental ethics. So, What might Leopold recommend?

Note: As I was updating this post, I realized that an alternative resolution to the funding side of this problem has been on the table for a long time: provide “just compensation” to counties with a preponderance of federal lands via PILT. A careful look at the recent Congressional Research Service’s assessment of the situation (pdf), yield’s Ross Gorte’s long-standing contention that the Congress ought to find means to get overly dependent counties off the federal dole by fully funding PILT payments, and thereby rid the nation of the plague of over-cutting federal lands in the name of “revenue enhancement.” Or maybe I just read Gorte’s CRS piece too quickly, in which case I can either amend this post one more time, or maybe just “deep six” it.

—————————————
Updated (4:56 PM MDT): After Andy Stahl corrected me via email on an earlier version of this post as to what is/has been in play w/r/t Oregon Counties and Oregon School Districts:

The [1937 ] O&C Act gives the counties three times the stake in BLM logging as compared to national forests — 75% of sale receipts vs. 25%. Further, the counties don’t share any O&C revenue with schools. The schools get only a portion of national forest logging receipts. The school’s share is set by state law at 40% in Oregon with 60% going to county road funds. Schools receive zero BLM O&C monies.

So I changed my mistaken wording that tied rural schools to O&C timber receipts, and reworked other parts of this post accordingly. Lemee know if I’ve still got it wrong.

Get Your House Ready for Fire Season -From the Denver Post

Because the Denver Post is one of the larger newspapers in Elk Country (the interior West), you see different kinds of stories here than in places where neighbors are not evacuated due to wildfires. I thought the above diagram with what to do to prepare your home and yourself deserved wider circulation that just Post readers. You can read it more clearly by looking at this link and clicking on the image to make it larger.

As Jim Fenwood has suggested perhaps the whole “living with wildfire” deal needs to be rethought. But for this fire season (I was close to being evacuated, although I live in town), we are dealing with what is, and not what might be in the future.

Finally, I was working at home one weekend while the Indian Gulch fire was in back of my house. Smoke was in the air and the whirring of helicopters coming by to get water at a pond in back of the neighbor’s house. I think sometimes some people outside of our fire-prone country think there are “good people” who live in town, and “bad people” who live in the woods and who are fragmenting the landscape. Where I live the distinctions are not so clear. Plus in my hometown (Golden) many people who live in the canyons come down to restaurants, stores, or to the library. They are all members of our community. Any policy provisions to be debated need to recognize the communities as we experience them.

Here’s a photo of the Indian Gulch fire by Jeff Warner, a local photographer. Other of his photos, including more on the fire, can be found at his blog here.

Dry Wood Burns Differently- Scientists Learn

Another great photo from Bob Berwyn, Summit County Voice

I know, I know. What you have long observed in your fireplace or woodstove turns out to be more generally true..

New study shows beetle-killed trees ignite faster

(AP) – 7 hours ago

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The red needles of a tree killed in a mountain pine beetle attack can ignite up to three times faster than the green needles of a healthy tree, new research into the pine beetle epidemic has found.

The findings by U.S. Forest Service ecologist Matt Jolly are being used by fellow ecologist Russ Parsons to develop a new model that will eventually aid firefighters who battle blazes in the tens of millions of acres from Canada to Colorado where forest canopies have turned from green to red from the beetle outbreak.

The new model incorporates a level of detail and physics that doesn’t exist in current models, and it is much more advanced in predicting how a wildfire in a beetle-ravaged region will behave, Parsons said.

“It gives you so much more information about what to expect,” he said. “Are these people safe here or should they run away? If we put a crew on the ground here, can they make it to the top of the ridge in ample time?”

Many communities in the Rocky Mountain West have beetle kill forests in some proximity.

And the new research dispels the notion that beetle-killed trees present no greater fire danger than live ones, a theory that had gained traction after a couple of wet, cool summers tamped down fire activity in the region, Jolly said.

On the contrary, beetle-killed trees can hold 10 times less moisture than live trees, Jolly found. That means they not only ignite more quickly than live trees, but they burn more intensely and carry embers farther than live trees, Jolly said.

He found that it takes less heat for wildfires to spread from the ground to the crowns of beetle-killed trees, making a wildfire in a forest with beetle-killed trees potentially much more difficult to contain.

Mountain pine beetles also start losing their moisture before the needles change to that tell-tale red, Jolly said, meaning even a healthy-looking pine tree could pose an increased fire threat to an unsuspecting firefighter.

Jolly took more than 1,000 tree moisture content measurements and conducted hundreds of ignition tests last year in four states, using foliage from trees with red, yellow, orange and green needles.

Jolly and Parsons will present their research Wednesday in Helena at a seminar on wildfires and the mountain pine beetle held by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The seminar will also host researchers from the University of Idaho and British Columbia, where the beetle infestation covers an estimated 43 million acres, which is more than 67,000 square miles.

“I think this is a first step,” DNRC director Mary Sexton said of the new research. “I think overall this has been an area where folks are just beginning to have guidance or definite information.”

In Montana, beetles are estimated to have attacked about 4 million acres of forest over the past decade. A survey taken last year shows the beetle activity may be declining in some of the most ravaged parts of the state between Helena and Butte.

But that may be because the beetles are simply running out of trees, Sexton said. Meanwhile, beetle activity in the central and northwestern part of the state is still increasing, she said.

South of Montana, the beetle epidemic has spread to about 4 million acres in Colorado and southern Wyoming, according to forestry officials.

Research hasn’t been able to keep up with the fast spread of the mountain pine beetle infestation over the past decade, Parsons and Jolly said. Even now, much of the research is dedicated to the long-term ecological effects of the outbreak, something of little use to firefighters, Jolly said.

“They’re not concerned with 10 years from now. They’re concerned with how a fire is going to behave now,” he said.

The new model isn’t ready to be used by fire managers in the field, so the old models shouldn’t be thrown out yet, Parson said. Only a few people in the Forest Service and collaborating institutions are using the new one, he said.

“Our hope is that this kind of modeling will increasingly become an important part of the decision-making and it will provide the science that feeds into fire management decisions,” Parsons said.

This quote:

Research hasn’t been able to keep up with the fast spread of the mountain pine beetle infestation over the past decade, Parsons and Jolly said. Even now, much of the research is dedicated to the long-term ecological effects of the outbreak, something of little use to firefighters, Jolly said.

“They’re not concerned with 10 years from now. They’re concerned with how a fire is going to behave now,” he said.

makes me wonder if we could improve the connection between people who need questions answered and the way research questions are framed.

Plan for Plans; Rule for Rules

Controlled burns are just one of many issues addressed in a proposed rule change in the National Forest Service. (photo Chattahoochee-Oconoee National Forest)
I really liked the “plain Englishness” of this story by Orlando Montoya of Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Forest Land Plans Could Change
By Orlando Montoya

ATLANTA, Ga. —
Controlled burns are just one of many issues addressed in a proposed rule change in the National Forest Service. (photo Chattahoochee-Oconoee National Forest)
National Forest Service officials are considering changing how they manage public land.

The details go by a long name — the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule.

It’s long and complex.

But, it basically tells officials how to plan everything in the national forests — from controlled burns and use of roads and trails — to how to manage wildlife and what factors go into declaring areas off-limits to human activities.

Call it a plan for plans. Or a rule for rules.

And for the first time, the proposal takes into account how forest officials should plan for the effects of climate change.

It’s the first major overhaul of the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule in almost 30 years.

Sarah Francisco of Southern Environmental Law Center says, with more than 800,000 acres in 25 Georgia counties under the rule’s juridiction, it’s critical to get right.

“Each national forest has to have a forest management plan,” Francisco says. “This is the rule that tells the agency what the plans need to consider.”

Fransisco says, her organization applauds most of the proposal, but also has some concerns about it, including a lack of “concrete steps” and “clear standards” that will ensure healthy forests.

But National Forest Service planner Paul Arndt in the Atlanta Regional Office says, specificity isn’t exactly the rule’s aim and actually would tie local hands.

“This is a national rule, so it’s hard to get too specific on things,” Arndt says. “There’s a lot of discretion give to the forest supervisor to look at what is the current situation and what are those local needs and adjust accordingly.”

You can find more details and offer your comments on the proposal by going to this National Forest Service website.

Officials are taking public comments through May 16th.

Should Numbers Count?

Over 7,000 people have signed an Earthjustice petition at change.org.  The Forest Service has always insisted that commenting on NEPA documents is not a numbers game.  Should it be?  The agency insists that substantive comments carry more weight that mass mailings.  Should they?  What do these 7,000 signatures really mean?

SIGNATURES

7,130

PETITIONING

U.S. Forest Service

SPONSORED BY

OVERVIEW

For nearly 30 years, some of the most prized and important waters and wildlife habitats have been protected by a federal rule that directs the management of our National Forests. But all of that could change with a proposed rule change that would leave wildlife and waters in peril.

Tell the Obama Administration and the Forest Service to strengthen – not weaken — this rule so that it guarantees protections for our National Forests.

In the United States, there are 155 National Forests, covering more than 190 million acres. National forest lands are the single largest source of drinking water in the nation, providing fresh water to some 124 million people. In addition to giving many of us the water we drink, our forests also are cherished grounds of our nation’s outdoor legacy.

Millions of Americans visit our National Forests each year to enjoy world-class hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and recreation activities, and many millions more rely on them for safe drinking water. Don’t let the Administration give up these precious resources by weakening the federal regulations.

Let the Administration and Forest Service know that we won’t stand by as federal rules damage our National Forests.

National Parks, I Mean Forests

From TreeHugger.com.  I know the Sierra Club clearly knows the difference, but note that the “Read more” links at the end of the piece all reference national parks. I wonder how many Americans are actually well-informed enough to comment critically on the draft planning rule?

An Opportunity to Protect Our National Forests

by Sarah Hodgdon, Sierra Club on 04.29.11

ozark national forest.jpg The Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas. Photo credit: Rhea S. Rylee, U.S. Forest Service.

Don Parks has been involved in protecting national forests since the 1970s. For him, they’re a place to take a nice hike to enjoy nature and relax. His favorite national forest is the OkanoganWenatchee because of its variety of forest-types.

Beyond relaxation and exercise, national forests provide a valuable lifeline for all Americans. “National Forest Service lands produce large quantities of domestic water, clean our air, and contain very important wildlife habitat,” said Parks, a lead volunteer for the Sierra Club in Seattle, Washington.

To protect our forests in a rapidly changing world we need to change how we think about forest use and conservation. Forest management policies put in place more than 20 years ago are no longer effective. My favorite national forest is the Pisgah in North Carolina—I can’t imagine not having it around.

Parks has joined many other forest activists in making sure the latest round of national forest management planning is done correctly. Right now the U.S. Forest Service has stepped forward with a landmark opportunity to prepare our national forests for climate change by proposing new protections to manage the water, wildlife, and other natural treasures American families enjoy and depend on.

Parks and many others spoke out for commonsense protections at one of the National Forest Service’s public hearing in Seattle last month. “We want to see the Forest Service manage for climate disruption,” explained Parks.

“We want them to be lighter in their touch – so we’re looking at the importance of wilderness designations and the retention of unroaded lands. These values help build resiliency in the climate changing world.”

Beyond the resiliency for animals and plants, the wildlife, clean water and scenery provided by our forests are crucial to supporting the nation’s $700 billion outdoor recreation economy and the people it employs.

Parks and the Sierra Club know that through working with the public, the forest service can develop a forest policy that safeguards the health, jobs and outdoor heritage of the American people.

Graham Taylor, a Sierra Club Conservation Organizer in the Northwest, said every American should care about how our national forests are managed. “Many Americans live by national forests, or recreate in them – that’s all impacted by how (the Forest Service) manages,” said Taylor.

“The management of our lands in any one aspect can affect all other aspects. Even the littlest decision we can make can have a huge impact.”

Parks sees that, which is why he’s been so active for national forests for several decades. “What happens on public land is a personal matter to me. I have seen to many poor decisions made on our public lands, development such a road building, timber sales, and off-road vehicle abuse. I want the Forest Service to act as true stewards and retain the natural values that make these lands special.”

You can help make sure the Forest Service creates a smart management plan. Take action today to tell the agency that helping natural and human communities adapt to the impacts of climate change should be the Forest Service’s top priority, with forest managers being given clear tasks, standards and guidelines to meet this tremendous challenge.

Read more about national parks:
25 US National Parks Under ‘Grave Threat’ From Climate Change
No Child Left Inside: Economist on National Parks
Are You a National Parks Wiz? (Quiz)

Op-Ed on Planning Rule: Scientists in the Fishbowl

This op-ed, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, reminds me of suggestion I would like to make to all science students (or natural resources, or environment)- and to designers of curricula. I was blessed to have had an excellent course in history of science at UCLA before I started my science degree programs. At the time (70’s) there was also a body of literature on peer review and other aspects of the sociology of science related to the question of why women were not as successful in their careers. If you looked at these papers, the sociological aspects of the scientific enterprise were pretty much “in your face” (as well as living through the experience). My point is that the history of science course made me aware of the social context within the science biz before I was exposed to the biz itself. I think formal coursework in the history of science, and science-policy studies, both should be required to anyone who becomes a scientist. It continues to amaze me that some folks think deference should be given to some fields, say, conservation biology, but others (like science policy studies) not so much. I call this a “selective disciplinary filter .”

What brought this to mind was this quote:
“This would ensure that all of the most recent and important research is considered, as well as to provide some measure of critique if management seems intent on ignoring the science in favor of some special interest.” (my italics).

I think first year requirements for courses in science policy studies and history of science for any policy-relevant science master’s would really help students understand the real world that they will be exposed to on graduation, as well as the complex interplay of scientists, representative government and society. Otherwise, the fish can’t sense that they are swimming in a fishbowl.

Sam Rabin

The more than 850,000 acres of national forest across our state — and the millions of Georgians who depend on these lands — will benefit greatly from recent revisions to the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule, under the direction of the U.S. Forest Service.

The planning rule, up for public comment through May 16, is the guiding document that supervisors of individual national forests use to develop strategies to manage their land for wildlife, timber, recreation and other uses. Until a new rule is put in place, the Forest Service is essentially stuck using a version first published in 1982.

With every week that passes without the implementation of a new rule, the Forest Service becomes more out of touch with developments in the realm of conservation science.

Jewels such as Georgia’s Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests are threatened with obsolescence and decline if planning for their management does not take new knowledge into account. These forests are beloved by many Atlanta residents as a way to escape and reconnect with nature.

The Chattahoochee River — which fills the Lake Lanier reservoir, providing us with most of our water — has its headwaters in the Chattahoochee National Forest. If the forest is degraded, we can expect the quality and quantity of water in the reservoir to decline. Our city’s struggles with water supply during the most recent drought vividly illustrated that no such reduction can be tolerated.

Atlantans must consider it imperative, then, that the planning process for the national forest system incorporate the most up-to-date scientific thinking so that this valuable ecosystem service may be preserved or even enhanced.

One theme that has gained traction since 1982 is the idea of sustainability — making sure that pursuing our livelihoods does not impinge upon the ability of future generations to pursue theirs.

Another is the idea that climate change and other large-scale stressors could bring major changes to our managed lands, in areas including ecosystem health and timber productivity.

Finally, it has been broadly accepted that, even in the absence of resource extraction, the preservation of healthy, functional ecosystems provides our society with a number of services at scales ranging from the surrounding landscape — such as the dependence of Atlanta’s water supply on the Chattahoochee National Forest — to the entire globe. The proposed rule addresses such concepts and processes, which makes it a vast improvement over the 1982 rule.

All that said, there is room for further improvements. First, no protected area should sit isolated in a sea of habitat that has been degraded or destroyed. It is critical for ecosystem and species health that high-quality, well-connected habitat be distributed throughout the surrounding landscape; the new rule should do more to encourage managers to work with other agencies and private landowners in this regard.

Second, the rule should require more consultation of managers with independent scientists. This would ensure that all of the most recent and important research is considered, as well as to provide some measure of critique if management seems intent on ignoring the science in favor of some special interest.

Finally, the Rule should provide more guidance about resolving conflicts between preservation of species diversity and other uses of the forest.

These improvements will help preserve the health of our national forests for many generations of Americans — and Atlantans — to come.

Sam Rabin is a native Atlantan obtaining a graduate degree in ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Forest Service Retirees’ Position Statement on Forest Health and Fire

Below is a position statement from the National Association of Forest Service Retirees.

Here’s a link to their website.

What do you think?

Position Statement on Forest Health and Fire, April 27, 2011

To achieve forest health, protection of adjacent communities from catastrophic fire, other forest management goals and to maintain National Forest lands in an ecologically sustainable condition, the NAFSR advocates use of proven silvicultural practices and prescribed fire to achieve these goals.

The National Forests are capable of providing the many values and benefits that people expect from their forests, but they need proper management in order to provide these values. NAFSR supports prescribed fire, commercial timber harvest, and noncommercial treatments on National Forest lands allocated for such uses through appropriate land and resource management planning processes. Further, we believe the commercial utilization payments can be a big part of financing the total treatment needs of the forests.

NAFSR believes that current treatment levels on National Forest lands are insufficient to maintain forest health, meet the goals for hazardous fuel reduction to reduce wildfire risk, provide resilient forests capable of withstanding future shifts in climate conditions, or provide protection from wildfire as well as economic and other community benefits.

Fire control should be aggressive while prescribed fire use should also be increased and appropriately managed. Natural fires should only be allowed to burn when approved plans are clearly indicated under weather, time of year, and fuel conditions encountered, and under the direct supervision of fully qualified fire supervisors.

Planning and treatment must be at an annual scale of millions of acres over the next half century. We must recognize that the environmental costs to wildlife habitat, domestic and industrial water supplies, soils, and viewsheds of inaction, or inadequate levels of action, will be with us for decades to centuries. There will also be serious financial and economic costs to local communities and businesses as well as the taxpayers if action is not taken.

The National Forests have a Congressionally mandated mission, and management goals are determined through comprehensive land management planning processes with extensive public participation, and include not only healthy forest ecosystems but also protection and well being of adjacent communities and other values. Forest managers are then responsible for selecting appropriate, site-specific practices, which may include commercial thinning and harvest, pre-commercial thinning, and use of prescribed fire to accomplish desired forest health, watershed, wildlife and fishery habitat objectives. Consideration must be given to maintenance of a diversity of tree species and age classes, diverse structure and function, and thus treatments should not be limited to any particular size of trees or other vegetation. Focus should always be on the remaining conditions following thinning instead of what is removed. Skillful use of silvicultural practices can achieve desired resource conditions including appropriate forest densities, reduced fuel loads, and mimic natural levels of forest openings and understory vegetation. Healthy forest ecosystems are the key to how disturbance events such as fire or pest outbreaks perform. Removal of excess biomass is critical for allowing fire use to return without detrimental effects.

Forest Service leaders should take advantage of collaborative planning processes with interest groups and communities, while providing focused leadership in order to minimize problems with gridlock resulting from public disagreements with choices made to restore the forests. Building coalitions at national, regional and local levels to support science informed decisions can greatly reduce conflicts that have led to delays in the past.

Appropriately scaled forest industries should be encouraged to utilize and sequester carbon from thinning and harvest products as well as helping the economy of communities.

Furthermore, NAFSR believes that current laws and regulations offer ample protection to sustain the full range of forest values on public lands. We believe that timber harvesting is a legitimate use of the national forests as the multiple-use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 calls for, and that it will promote wildlife and fishery habitat as well as recreation opportunities.

ISSUE

For almost a century, through forest fire protection efforts, wildfire on National Forest lands has been purposely suppressed in many areas that are naturally adapted to periodic low intensity wildfires. We now know from science and experience this policy has had some unintended and undesirable consequences, including altered tree species composition and increased density of trees per acre. This increased stand density, or overstocking, increases fire hazard in most forest types. Because of lack of vigor, dense forests are highly susceptible to insects and diseases and, consequently, increased tree mortality. Excess tree density as well as mortality increases fuel loading, resulting in hazardous forest fire conditions that can put watersheds, wildlife habitat, and other forest values at risk. These conditions also increase fire suppression costs and make wildfire control more dangerous and difficult. Unnatural fires resulting from extremely dense stands create artificial and unnatural conditions for soil erosion, flooding, plant invasion, type conversion and altered viewsheds. The dominant factor affecting forest fires, health, and vigor is stand density.

For nearly four decades, National Forest Managers have recognized the fact that overcrowded forests are not sustainable without some form of treatment. The public as well has seen vast areas succumb to insects, disease and wildfire.

BACKGROUND

Fires in Western ecosystems are problematic with uncharacteristic fire becoming more destructive and costly. Forests on National Forests of the West are most often far too dense. There is a huge increase in woody biomass, mostly in the overstory, above natural levels in almost every forest ecosystem. This excess forest density has contributed to a serious decline in herbaceous vegetation in the forest understory.

Certain circumstances can exert uncommon stress on forests and predispose them to extraordinary insect outbreaks and damage. In stands that are unmanaged by either silviculture, natural or prescribed fire, trees often grow too close together and develop small crowns and root systems. These stands have low vigor, leading to susceptibility to drought, insects, diseases, and catastrophic wildfire. Under these stressful conditions, tree mortality can be extremely high. Large areas of aging forests are also susceptible to insects and diseases. During the past decade, several of these forest health problems have arisen simultaneously, causing extensive tree mortality.

Because of widespread forest health problems, many of our forests would benefit from thinning or other measures to control stand density, reduce vulnerability to insect-caused mortality, increase diversity of tree sizes, and accomplish regeneration of desired tree species. However, National Forest managers often find themselves engaged in debate about the relative benefits and perceived detrimental effects of using active intervention to affect the future condition of national forest lands.

Some environmental concerns are misguided and lead to inaction or wrong action.

Unnatural and destructive wildfires are increasing in size faster than management is addressing the problems. Human developments on forest in-holdings of private land create both fire suppression and forest management problems.

Costs of forest management can be partially, if not completely, recovered from scientifically designed treatments based on soundly developed plans