EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NAMED

A new era of excitement has been ushered in with the hiring of former Congressman John E. Peterson as the executive director of the Allegheny Forest Alliance.  Mr. Peterson succeeds Jack Hedlund, who retired after serving in that capacity for the past nine years.

Mr. Peterson comes to the AFA with very impressive credentials and amazing enthusiasm for the task ahead.  He served eight years in local government, nineteen years in the state general assembly; seven as assemblyman from the 65th district, and twelve as senator for the 25th senatorial district.  Following a distinguished career in state politics, John made a successful transition to the federal level where he served twelve years as the representative from the 5th congressional district in northcentral Pennsylvania.

There is no facet of regional politics that has escaped John’s awareness.  He is tireless in his pursuit of the best interests of the people in rural, northcentral PA, indeed all of rural PA.  Most will recall his relentless effort to scuttle tolling on Interstate 80 as well as his passion for the development of natural gas production across America, both while serving in Congress.  He was embraced by the Western Coalition for his hard and fast stance on timber management on all national forests.  In particular, he stood up on many occasions for increased financial support for active management of the ANF with notable success.

There is no issue large or small that John will not tackle.  If in his knowledgeable opinion it serves the best interests of the constituents he serves, he will grab hold like a pit bull and not let go until there is resolution regardless of the opposition.  Being a man of principle, he does not measure issues by their feel good nature, but rather by their utility and what is truly in the local people’s best interest.

We are extremely pleased Mr. Peterson has consented to move the coalition forward, and the Board, as well as the alliance’s many constituents, is looking forward to his leadership in the years to come.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONUNDRUM

Several stories have emerged recently that shed light on the paradoxical situation preservationists find themselves in now that they have ascended to the top of the political food chain.  Rather than having their cake and eating it too, they have found they have their cake, but swallowing it is somewhat distasteful.

A few issues ago, I mentioned the bind preservationists found themselves in when they successfully shut down timber interests in Montana.  With the victory came the spoils, and that was exactly the right term.  Since timbering was abhorrent and unsightly, the property interests who no longer could engage is such practices decided the only way they could realize monetary benefit from their investment was through subdivision.  Wow, hold your horses!  Suddenly even a cut-over wood lot that would eventually regenerate had it all over a subdivision that would forever corrupt the landscape.  Now timbering is beginning to gain renewed appreciation in northern Montana.

Have you heard the story coming out of California?  It seems the preservationists once again find themselves in a pickle.  In their haste to promote clean energy they are faced with the possibility of having solar panels and wind turbines in the Mojave Desert simple because it offers the greatest potential for continuous sunlight and wind.  Heaven forbid!  You cannot be serious!  For a starter, it will destroy the habitat for an endangered tortoise.  It will also ruin a pristine landscape.  The alternative is putting up wind turbines on the hills outside of LA and other urban areas as well as outfitting roof tops of urban dwellings with solar panels.  How many seriously believe that will happen?

This dilemma reminds me of the preservationist conundrum in New England.  Remember when it was suggested by the greenies that we needed to convert energy production over to wind power, but for heaven sakes do not build those unsightly generators where the locals will see them.

And then there is the last revelation announced by Ken Salazar, now Secretary of Interior, at a recent hearing in Atlantic City.  Salazar claims wind turbines off the Atlantic can produce enough electricity to replace the 1 million megawatts currently being generated by coal, natural gas, nuclear, biomass and other energy sources.  Understand that wind generates less than one percent of the nation’s energy needs.  Researches estimate it will take 309,587 giant turbines to fulfill Salazar’s claim.  Broken down further, the researchers state there would need to be about 172 turbines per mile of Atlantic coastline, not to mention the need for the wind to blow 24 hours a day.  More importantly, the consumers will have to pay twice as much for their electricity.

Let’s consider the aesthetics only for a moment.  Remember when Congressman Peterson was debating his heart out for more oil and gas exploration off the Continental Shelf only to have preservationists insist we could not be having those unsightly rigs destroying the scenery for the tourists, particularly in Florida?  I do not suppose those 300 foot wind turbines would affect the scenery, do you?  Perhaps not in Florida, but we already know the sentiment of the folks in New England about the prospect.

In the preservationist’s haste to reduce the carbon footprint, they have glossed over the particulars of what all this will cost, where the new generation units will be located, what potential environmental problems these units may create, how the generating units will convey the power to the market and countless other issues.  But then again, they aren’t much for detail and because of that, they are finding themselves increasingly in a corner.

LOCAL ECONOMY BE DAMNED

As you may be aware, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires all 155 national forests to develop new forest plans every ten to fifteen years.  The ANF completed its latest rewrite in 2007.  In the opinion of the AFA membership generally, and me in particular, an area of severe neglect in the new plan is its implied effect on the local economy.  In fact, the coalition appeal of the plan cited that very issue, albeit unsuccessfully.  The fact that the Forest Service denied the appeal does not alter the truth of the matter.   

The fundamental charge in the planning process is to craft a document that reflects the ecological, social, and economic impact on the local situation.  The notion is often referred to as the “three legged stool” of planning.  The implication is the stool will not stand if any of the three are not planned for adequately.  It is my firm belief the current ANF plan missed the mark on economic impact analysis thereby rendering the stool/plan dysfunctional.  The most notable case in point is the OGM issue.

The new plan rewrote the design criteria (outside the planning process I might add) affirming standards and guidelines that severely restrict access to privately held subsurface estates.  The plan also virtually usurps the legal authority of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to regulate the environmental condition and permitting.  In fact, it places a new performance barrier upon the private estate holder, the so-called “notice to proceed.”  First, the PA DEP must issue a permit for each new well, but now that must be followed by a notice to proceed from the Forest Service before any work can begin.  Short of conforming to the potentially illicit standards and guidelines, the operator is simply not granted notice.  Such has been the case across the forest since mid-January thereby prompting a new challenge in federal court.

A recent study by Jim Decker, the President/CEO of the Warren County Chamber of Business and Industry illustrates the profound effect of the virtual forest lock-up and therefore the failed economic analysis of the plan.

•                     No less than 80 different companies are being denied access to their property with approximately 100 new well permits being delayed by failure to issue notices to proceed. 

•                     Each of those new wells could generate nearly $1M over a ten year period, with an average annual income of more than $15,750. 

•                     Completion of a single well requires 3,200 man hours or roughly 1½ jobs per year. 

•                     100 new well permits represent 150 full time positions (shovel ready jobs) being denied by lack of notice.

•                     American Refining Group (ARG) in Bradford relies upon the ANF for nearly 25% of its crude oil stock.  

•                     A 25% reduction in crude at ARG would result in the elimination of 40 full-time jobs.

•                     At $50 per barrel, $100,000 is returned to oil producers daily.

•                     Natural gas drawn from the ANF daily generates $48,000 for the regional economy. (Approx. 8,000 CFD at an average of $6 per CFD)

Needless to say, the current forest plan did not include these and many other important economic facts in their plan analysis and the stool is falling over.

 THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

The local Forest Service Administration is currently moving forward as directed with a planned “supplemental environmental impact statement” (SEIS) to amend the new “Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP) that went into effect in 2007.  The SEIS is intended to set standards and guidelines for oil and gas operations whether privately owned or leased.  I believe there are major roadblocks ahead that may scuttle the effort. 

You will recall the 2007 Plan met stiff resistance and needed review by the Washington office.  Joel Holtrop, reviewing officer, issued a response to the many appeals in early 2008 requiring resolution to three issues before the new plan could be fully implemented.

First, the “design criteria” in the new plan was completed outside of the scope of NEPA and needed to be redone.  The SEIS appears to respond to that directive.  Coincidently, however, the USFS began a similar effort for all national forests in December of 2008, fully two months earlier than the local effort.  It appears to me the local process is nothing more than a duplication of the national effort and therefore is a waste of time and money.  In addition, the local supplement could end up being contrary to what evolves from the national effort thereby creating conflict from within.

More importantly, however, is the fact that Mr. Holtrop directed ANF Administration to clearly delineate the authority among the three stakeholders involved on the ANF; the Forest Service, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), and the subsurface property owners.  Until that directive is adequately addressed, enforcement of any design criteria may well be illegal.  If the courts uphold dominant authority of the subsurface owners and the environmental governance remains with the PA DEP, the effect of new design criteria will likely have little or no bearing on the local situation.

The third issue cited by Mr. Holtrop is of little or no consequence, in my opinion.  The local administration was directed to conduct air quality testing to determine the “cumulative effects” caused by various activities occurring on the forest as it relates to air quality.  I wonder how the increase in methane emissions due to the incredible number of dead and dying trees across much of the forest factors into the equation. 

Quite frankly, even though the amount of emissions is bound to rise as activities across the forest increases, total pollution would be infinitesimal compared to what is emitted every minute of every day in an urban/suburban setting with barely a whimper.  Of course, cap and trade will wash away those urban sins, most at rural expense.  But that situation is another story.

 FAREWELL

One cannot help but marvel at the coordinated effort of a flock of geese as they pass overhead in the spring and fall.  Each goose takes a turn at the head of the V to cut the wind so those behind can regain their strength.  As the lead bird tires, it peels off to the end of the line and others move forward one spot to continue the journey.  Accordingly, my period at the head of the V has come to an end and others among our flock are moving forward. 

I leave with mixed emotions.  On the one hand, I am disappointed for having so little influence on federal forest affairs at the local level.  When I became the lead goose in 2000, I felt it was possible to shape the situation to the benefit of our schools and townships as well as the many local folks who depend on the forest for their livelihood.  Unfortunately the final score is all that counts; not how the game may have been played.  I firmly believe, however, my successor possesses all the right tools to advance the mission.  Rather than struggling long periods to get to know the issues and all the players as I often did, Mr. Peterson can “hit the ground running” so to speak, given his extensive background in public issues of the region.

On the other hand, I have made numerous friends and acquaintances all across the nation who shared common goals and ideals.  Absent my involvement in the coalition, few if any of those associations would have ever happened.  In the final analysis, those associations are what I will miss most.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the Board for their continued support and guidance.  The membership remained virtually intact throughout my tenure as executive director, which made it easy to communicate and respond to issues in a timely fashion.  All members brought particular strengths to the table and all members were willing to share their thoughts and ideas.  To say the least, I am grateful for their faith in my leadership.

So, both Linda and I bid each and every one of you farewell with special regard to John Peterson for moving forward to be the next lead goose.  Though the trip is long, I am confident the coalition is moving ever closer to the goal.

SPRING BOARD MEETING

The spring board meeting of the AFA is scheduled to convene on May 12 at the Olmsted Manor in Ludlow.  It has been a considerable time since we last met in November, due to the difficulty getting the annual membership meeting organized.  Much has happened since then, and the spring meeting promises to be informative.

For starters, the Board members will be introduced to the coalition’s new executive director.  Transition activities will be discussed along with a time-table for completion.  Board members will also be apprised of the situation regarding the coalition’s partnership in the OGM lawsuit against the Forest Service, as well as the forecast for future challenges facing not only coalition members, but most of rural PA.

Board members are encouraged to attend this important meeting.  Again, it will be held on Tuesday, May 12, at the Olmsted Manor in Ludlow, starting with a noon lunch with the business meeting to follow.