Arctic honey pot

need for more funding for the forest service in the light of the increasing burden imposed by fires. Established in 1905, the US Forest Service was created to ensure the sustainability of the timber industry, protect important watersheds, and provide recreation areas for an increasingly urbanized public. Together the national forests comprise an area approximately the size of Texas. As one might imagine, the service must somehow balance two conflicting objectives — exploitation of resources and conservation. This conflict is borne out in legal challenges brought forth by conservation groups bent on preventing any further deforestation and destruction of habitat. To address this issue, Secretary Vilsack emphasized the need to encourage all ‘stakeholders’ to come together for the purpose of finding some common ground. In this way, both interested parties can agree up front on which forest areas will, for example, be protected from further road development and which will be designated for timber harvesting. The recent agreement between the timber industry and environmentalists concerning the management of Colville National Forest in the state of Washington was cited as an important example of the potential to avoid legal challenges and, indeed, no such challenges related to this project have been levied for the past five years. Speaking in general terms, the secretary also mentioned an interest in using the forests’ resources for biofuel production. In addition to the current contracts with the timber industry, the sale of feedstocks for biofuel could theoretically be used to pay for ongoing restoration efforts (creating habitats, decommissioning roads, etc.) and seems to play into the Obama administration’s overarching goal for America to become less dependent on foreign oil. As yet, however, it is unclear whether there will be a market for these alternative feedstocks because the technology to convert them to biofuel, on an industrial scale at least, is unproven. And some are sceptical that the national forests are compatible with large-scale feedstock production. Chris Somerville, Professor of Alternative Energy and Director of the Energy Biosciences Institute at University of California at Berkeley, for one, has his doubts, saying, “...there are problems with using the materials because the terrain is difficult and it is not feasible to make the capital investments for processing facilities if feedstock supply is irregular. So I doubt that much will happen with the federal forests.” Somerville, however, did mention that forests on private lands may be a viable option. For now, it seems that existing timber contracts will be a key revenue stream for the forest service. The secretary himself seemed to concede this, saying that “without a robust forest industry that includes traditional markets and these new markets, like biomass energy, it will be much more difficult and much, much more expensive to improve the health of our forests.” It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that, while huge by most comparisons, the US national forest system is actually quite small compared to total forest area and resembles a seemingly unimpressive splatter of ink when superimposed on a map of the contiguous states. In truth, the national forests constitute only 20 percent of forests in total, with the remaining lands owned by states and private parties. This vast expanse of wilderness is exposed to the risk of deforestation and development. It is thus somewhat re-assuring that, in addition to the other goals outlined, Secretary Vilsack placed a strong emphasis on the need to collaborate with private landowners to ensure that forests outside the realm of the forest service are protected as well. Again, perhaps not surprising in these early days, the secretary spoke only in general terms, so we are left wondering what meat will be put on these bones. If previous efforts are any indicator, collaboration will mean the continuing implementation of stewardship programs that proved financial incentives, such as tax subsidies and cost-sharing, aimed at encouraging the preservation of forests that harbor critical watersheds and habitat. But, as the smoke still lingers over California, we are left wondering whether the National Forest Service will have the wherewithal to realize these ambitious goals.