Full Text
Dear Greenhouse Gas Committee, Please excuse my delayed response to this and other comments with respect to the statement drafted by the greenhouse gas subcommittee. The topic is obviously complex and there are questions as to the utility and need of such a statement. Alternatively, climate change is an equally elusive phenomenon for which it is difficult to develop actions that are more than philosophical in nature, especially when real issues that immediately affect Missoula residents are at hand. I commend the subcommittee on seeking to gain the best possible knowledge about this topic and in their desire to draft a statement that sets the groundwork for future more direct action items. I am especially impressed with the committees resilience in dealing with a topic that results in many strong opposing opinions and in some instances a desire to push overly strongly one's own opinions based on personal land management philosophies and viewpoints. The term "mislead" has been used, which I find regrettable and unprofessional since its definition: "1)to lead in the wrong direction, 2) to deceive or delude, 3) to lead into wrongdoing" (webster's new world dictionary) certainly does not fit to the work the committee has accomplished nor to the drafted statement. With regard to the overall drafted policy statement I can understand a reluctance to address anything more than specific action items that pertain to the Missoula city limits. This may be appropriate as the only items that the committee wishes to address. Alternatively, surrounding forested landscapes will not exclude themselves from affecting the affluence and quality of life in Missoula proper. I just returned from a congressional hearing in Washington DC dealing with forest health issues, primarily the impacts of Mountain pine beetle in Colorado and Wyoming where over 2 million acres of lodgepole and ponderosa pine forest are now dead, an unprecedented phenomenon during the past 2 centuries that now threatens powerlines, watersheds, primary tourism based industries and for which there are few options since larger community apathy allowed the wood products industry to vanish decades ago. Although there are proposal for biomass-to-energy facilities the added issues of wood recovery is complicated in the fact that there are no skilled and experienced wood procurement (logging professionals) that can remove this material in an efficient and ecologically sensitive manner. Such skills are not taught in schools and only come from years of experience and individuals commitment to invest millions of dollars to purchase modern machinery. As usual, the only solutions available are the requests that the federal government offer millions of dollars of financial aid to the communities. Thus the committee may want to consider the impacts of not offering advice, even though philosophical in nature, about the broader forested landscape. ---PAGE BREAK--- Finally with regard to the comments offered by some of my academic or special interest colleagues. The practice of forestry is a complex one that uses information from a wide range of expertise including ecophysiology, soils, wildlife, ecology, engineering, hydrology, geology, microbiology, climatology, economics and social sciences. Examining and accounting for the effects and interactions of all these sciences is at least as complicated as for example, building a space shuttle. Depending on who you ask, each of these sciences is the most important. However, as with the space shuttle, ultimately there is a range of variability associated with all of these that one or several engineers must direct for the purpose to make the thing fly. Imagine if many of the scientists working on projects like the space shuttle would be directing their efforts to find reasons why the shuttle should not fly, instead of directing their efforts to making it fly better. Examples of things that could go wrong would rule the day, much as it does in forestry today. Invasive species might be transported onto a site, specific logging practices could exacerbate the wildfire situation for example. All of which can be supported by scientific studies of specific circumstances. They can also be contradicted by other studies that showed the opposite effects, and scientists could argue that one situation is more important than the other. In my opinion this all diverts from the real issues at hand, and the priorities of the situation. Our forests in Montana, just as in Colorado are at risk of unprecedented change if climate change is a reality. The IPCC has clearly outlined what they predict the most likely scenarios will be. So far, the impacts such as drought, milder winter temperatures and more extreme wildfire behavior have shown themselves to be correct. Whether they are within historical parameters or not is irrelevant since according to our climate reconstructions Montana has seen dramatic climatic fluctuations in the past 10,000 years and just about anything including total forest consumption by wildfires might fall within historical variability. In the past 9 years wildfires have affected more than 5 million acres in Montana, and not all in high elevation forests that more often than not burned that way. Significant areas have burned with impacts that have changed the vegetation and site characteristic for at least a century if not longer. A map of the burned areas is in the attachment, and about half of the burned are area is outside the high elevation forest zone, and a significant proportion of each of these burned areas burned with an intensity that removed the tree seed source and thus natural regeneration potential. And although Bob Keane intended for the purpose of academic discussion, to point out that fires may not be burning outside the historical range of variability, he is also the first to admit in both his paper and in person that there is not enough data to be able to determine this, nor is the intent to indicate any future impacts positive or negative. ---PAGE BREAK--- Using this reference for the intent of indicating that there is robust science that indicates current fires are "natural" or not uncharacteristic, and that this supports that forests left alone are not threatened, is misleading. As I indicated to the subcommittee over a year ago, forests do not need us, however, to maintain our quality of life, we need landscapes with forests that are mostly similar to our current forests. Under climate change scenarios this requires some manipulation on our part to moderate what could be (and already are in other states) catastrophic impacts. To conduct these practices, designed with modern practices not to leave higher fuel conditions or introduce noxious weeds, we need to maintain a skilled workforce and industry. The loss of Smurfit-Stone would not only have a significant impact on the Missoula economy, the loss of a market for small diameter logs would also severely limit our ability to conduct thinning operations for the purpose of increased tree vigor and decreasing undesirable insect and wildfire impacts. Pictures or studies that show undesirable impacts of logging from half a century ago while interesting from the perspective of learning from past mistakes, do not represent forestry and logging practices of today. I would use patte Canyon or Blue Mountain as an example. The contractor who conducted those operations by the way is clearing brush from under powerlines in Kansas these days because there is no work available in Montana and he has over $700,000 worth of debt to pay off for investing in and developing the most ecologically sensitive logging equipment available anywhere. Thanks for reading (or deleting) my perspective on this issue. As the state extension forestry specialist it is a topic I am very committed to, using the best science available and promoting the best forestry practices. I am certain I have my own biases, which also tell me that the precursory "whereas" statements to your recommendation are not only necessary, they accurately provide the background for your recommendations. Thanks for allowing me an opportunity to offer my perspective to your effort to address climate change at a local scale. Peter Kolb MSU Extension Forestry Specialist Ps. Attached is the testimony I offered the congressional subcommittee of natural resources.