]PA230-R-92-005
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
(PM-221)
230-R-92-005
November 1992
Enhancing Management of
Forests and Vegetation on
Department of Defense
Lands: Opportunities,
Benefits, and Feasibility
PUT ON YOUF
THINKING CAPS
The Environment
Is Important
To Mission Success
Protect the Balance Between
ENVIRONMENT
AND TRAINING
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains
at (east 50% recycled fiber
-------
ENHANCING MANAGEMENT OF
FORESTS AND VEGETATION
ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LANDS:
OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS,
AND FEASIBILITY
November 1992
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Climate Change Division
Prepared for U.S. EPA by:
The American Forestry Association
Clark Row, Principal Investigator
Steven Winnett, EPA, Project Director
Kenneth Andrasko, EPA, Project Director
James Marsh, DoD, Project Director
Sofia Dorsano, Editor
-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's and the Office of Management and Budget's peer and administrative review
policies and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
For more information, contact:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Climate Change Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Page ii
-------
CONTENTS
ENHANCING MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS AND VEGETATION
ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LANDS:
OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS, AND FEASIBILITY
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Purpose of the Report 1
Benefits Overview 1
Potential Programs 3
Opportunities to Implement New Conservation Programs 4
II. POTENTIAL PROGRAM OPTIONS 7
Improving Delivery of Environmental Services 7
Global Climate Change 7
Carbon Sequestration and Forests 8
Program Potential and the DoD Land Base 8
Military Land Uses 9
Climatic Vegetation Zones 10
Current Management 11
III. PROGRAM ELEMENTS 15
1. Intensify Management of Unimproved DoD Lands 15
1A. Convert or Plant Unstocked or Poorly Stocked Forest Land 15
IB. Intensify Management of Existing Commercial Forest 18
1C. Improve Management of Non-Forest Lands 19
ID. Assess Agricultural Leases 19
2. Establish a Biofuels for Energy Program 20
2A. Use DoD Biomass Along with Current Technology for Bioenergy Power 20
3. Improve Vegetation on Training Lands 21
3A. Restore Natural Vegetation Usability 21
3B. Improve Vegetation on Artillery and Bomb Impact Areas 22
3C. Improve Vegetation in Target Range Fans (Small Arms) 23
4. Modify Installation Landscape and Grounds Management 24
4A. Establish Heavier Vegetation on Rights-of-Way 24
4B. Improve Vegetation on Runway Medians, Buffers, and Approaches 25
4C. Improve Vegetation in Storage Areas for Ammunition and Fuel 26
4D. Promptly Landscape New Military Construction 27
4E. Improve Lawn and Ground Cover Management 27
5. Reduce Heating and Cooling Expenditures by Strategic Landscape Planting 29
5A. Implement Landscape Planning with Current Knowledge 29
Conclusion 30
IV. HYPOTHETICAL BASE 33
Base Lands and Facilities 33
Potential Vegetative Management Programs 33
Conversion or Tree Planting 33
Intensified Management of Existing Forest 33
Assessment of Agricultural Leases 35
Development of Biofuels Program 35
Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) 35
Improved Vegetation on Artillery Impact Areas 36
Page Hi
-------
CONTENTS
Improved Vegetation on Semi-Improved Lands 36
Prompt Landscaping of New Construction 36
Improved Lawn/Ground Cover Management 36
Residential Landscape Planting 37
The Expected Base Program Costs and Benefits 37
V. TASK IMPLEMENTATION 39
1. Develop Evaluation and Planning Programs 39
2. Modify Comprehensive Planning to Include Climate Change Concerns 39
3. Initiate R&D Programs to Develop Needed Guidelines 40
3A. For Strategic Landscape Planting and Bioenergy Facilities 40
3B. For Gasification ofBiofuels and Use of Aero-derivative Turbines 41
4. Develop Funding Sources—Initially from Existing Sources 42
5. Establish Program Momentum 43
VI. REFERENCES 45
VII. APPENDIX A: COMPUTING CARBON MITIGATION BENEFITS FROM PROGRAMS TO
INCREASE BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY 47
Types of Carbon Mitigation Benefits 47
Choosing the Time Frame for Programs and Benefits 47
Converting Understocked Forest Land by Planting 48
Planting Old Fields and Pastures 48
Intensification of Forest Management 48
Improved Management of Non-Forest Land 48
Biofuels Programs 49
Recycling of Products 49
Air Conditioning/Heating Fuel Savings 49
Vffl. APPENDIX B: METHODS OF VALUATION USED IN THIS REPORT 51
Land Management Income 51
Wildlife and Recreation 55
Water and Erosion Control 55
Maintenance Savings 55
Fuel Savings 56
Non-Valued Benefits 56
Discounting Techniques 56
IX. APPENDIX C: DoD's LAND RESOURCE BASE 57
X. APPENDIX D: HISTORY OF THE DoD LAND BASE 63
Management Since Acquisition 64
Current Management Programs 64
Other Related Programs 65
Future Impacts of Current Management Policy 65
An Estimated Scope of DoD Global Climate Change Program 66
XI. APPENDIX E: INFORMATION SOURCES 67
Site Visits 67
The DoD Climate Change Questionnaire 67
Instructions for Questionnaire of Land Management for DoD Installations 67
Military Installation Vegetation Data Form 69
Vegetation Management in Unimproved Areas 70
Compilation of DoD Vegetation Survey—1990 71
Page iv
-------
CONTENTS
TABLES
ES-l. Provisional economic and carbon benefits for potential vegetation management options 3
1. Land used and managed by DoD 9
2. DoD bases by predominant use type as of 1989 11
3. Area by vegetation type and size class, in thousands (1000s) of acres 12
4. Provisional economic costs and benefits for potential vegetation management programs 16
5. Program costs and long-term carbon benefits from feasible vegetation treatments 31
6. Provisional economic costs and benefits of hypothetical military installation program 34
7. Program costs and long-term carbon benefits of treatments on hypothetical base 38
B-l. Non-carbon benefits from feasible vegetation programs 52
B-2. Timber revenues from typical plantations 53
C-l. Area by vegetation type and size class, in thousands (1000s) of acres 59
C-2. Area in DoD bases by vegetation and development type (estimated), in thousands (1000s) of acres 60
C-3. Potential carbon storage by vegetation and development type, in million metric tons 61
C-4. Area in DoD bases by predominant use type and service, in thousands (1000s) of acres 62
C-5. Area in DoD bases by use type and size class, in thousands (1000s) of acres 62
D-l. Site productivity of land in southern pine (public owners) 63
D-2. Stocking and growth of other public forest area in the South 65
FIGURES
I. Military installations of 10,000 acres or more in the United States 10
D-l. Stocking/carbon biomass relationship in southern pine 66
Page v
-------
Page vi
-------
Acknowledgments
This report is the product of a cooperative agreement between the Climate Change Division of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the American Forestry Association (AFA). The project's Prin-
cipal Investigator is Clark Row. The Project Directors are Steven Winnett and Kenneth Andrasko of EPA, and
James Marsh of the Department of Defense (DoD). The publication editor is Sofia Dorsano.
The report represents the cooperation of many people extending over two years. The project was initiated
by Kenneth Andrasko (EPA), with the assistance of Phillip Liu (now at the University of California). We wish
to thank Neil Sampson, Dwight Hair, and Al Sample of the American Forestry Association; Don Cole, Chief
Forester, U.S. Army; Mario Acock, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; Don M. Bandel, U.S. Army Engineering
and Housing Support Center; A.L. Clark, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force; Bill Echols, U.S. Air Force (retired);
L. R. Shotton, U.S. Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Christina Ramsey and Peter Boice of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (environment), and Michael Adler, Jane Leggett, and Tom Peterson of EPA.
In addition, we would like to convey our thanks to the base commanders, natural resource managers, and for-
esters who hosted visits to bases, and who took the time to provide us with information for this report.
For their graphic, editorial, and other bookmaking contributions, we extend our appreciation to the staff of
The Bruce Company, Presentations Division.
Page vii
-------
Page viii
-------
Introduction
The mission of the Department of Defense (DoD) has been changing over time. In response to heightened
concern shown by the public and Congress, DoD is paying increasing attention to achieving a new environmen-
tal mission. They have begun to cooperate with a number of federal agencies and other groups to address this
new mission, most notably the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and The Nature Conservancy. EPA and DoD have cooperated in the past on matters concerning toxics
and hazardous waste. This report represents a new effort between the two agencies to address the broader im-
plications of land use on DoD bases.
EPA has been actively assessing potential changes in climate and identifying responses to address the
problem. One of the most promising and cost-effective response strategies is planting trees to absorb and store
carbon from the atmosphere. EPA initiated this project to investigate the role that DoD lands could play in an
integrated U.S. strategy. The Climate Change Division in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation has
been analyzing large-scale reforestation, vegetation management, and strategic landscaping, and has begun
working with DoD on applying these concepts to DoD lands. This report is an attempt to assess the feasibility
of those activities. In the coming months, the agencies will work together, and with other agencies,
to research the energy conservation attainable through strategic landscaping and light-colored surfacing. EPA
looks forward to the opportunity of working with DoD to implement the recommendations of this report.
Page ix
-------
Pagex
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Report
The Department of Defense (DoD) manages approximately 30.4 million acres of land on
military bases in the United States. An estimated 6 million acres of this land is forest. This for-
est and vegetation provide DoD with varied environments for carrying out realistic training mis-
sions and has contributed to enhanced liveability on bases. Over time, stresses from heavier
equipment use, intensified combat training, and increased residential uses have degraded the
quality and usefulness of some of this vital acreage. This report offers an initial assessment of
the current state of vegetation and forests on DoD lands and a study of the feasibility of addi-
tional natural resource and vegetative management programs. These programs were evaluated
using the following criteria: 1) ability to increase the production of biomass—the total mass of
wood and vegetation, 2) opportunity to lower the expense of heating and cooling, 3) ability to
regenerate vulnerable or unusable land utilized in training missions while reducing the costs of
land management and training, and 4) possibilities to sequester carbon and to mitigate the po-
tential effects of global climate change. This paper suggests and discusses five program options
for achieving these goals and their multiple, associated benefits. These benefits include im-
provements in:
• the military mission
• cost savings
• energy efficiency
• sequestration of carbon to mitigate global climate change
• other environmental values
• quality of life
Benefits Overview
A continued investment in increasing biomass productivity can generate on-going returns.
Benefits can be quantified in terms of carbon sequestration or in purely economic terms. In eco-
nomic terms, the potential program options analyzed in this report may generate $3.5 billion in
revenues and savings over the next 40 years. The estimates of costs and benefits given here are
preliminary and should be improved with better data and further analysis. In general, data of
this type on DoD lands are inadequate for conducting precise evaluations. For the information
currently available, however, the options listed here represent promising opportunities (see
Table ES-1). A brief overview of potential economic and environmental benefits follows. All
returns reported are discounted net present values.
V Increase Timber Revenues
• Converting nonproductive lands into productive forest could add 2,000 ft3 of merchantable
wood per acre over 480,000 acres, with a net (after cost) return of $96 million.
• Thinning and improving timber stands on a suggested 400,000 acres could add 25 to 35 ft3
of merchantable wood per acre, with a net return of $113 million.
V Decrease Energy Use and Increase Savings
• Strategic landscape planting in cantonment areas could reduce utility bills of buildings newly
landscaped by 10 to 30 percent Implementing the program outlined could result in a net 40-
year savings of $981 million at an effective annual rate of $84 million per year, discounted.
• Establishing and expanding biofuels programs for 175 bases could result in a 10-year sav-
ings of $500-$600 million and a 40-year savings of $ 1.8 billion.
Page 1
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
• Decreasing energy demand through strategic planting could significantly decrease carbon
emissions.
V Improve the Quality of Training Lands through Integrated Training Area Manage-
ment (ITAM)
• Reducing the soil loss and runoff from erosion can decrease the expense of vehicle repair
and lost training time, and increase the safety of vehicle operators.
• Increased management of training areas can restore presently unusable areas.
• Increasing biomass and improving vegetative management in training areas can improve
and preserve the quality and realism of training lands, enhance readiness and fighting ca-
pabilities—mission after mission—and reduce the costs of land management.
V Improve Recreational Areas and Wildlife Resources
• Improving vegetative cover in the 650,000 acres of artillery and bomb impact areas can
reduce erosion and increase wildlife and watershed values.
• Increasing forest cover would reduce soil erosion, improving water quality and the health
of fisheries resources.
• Improving DoD land resources can increase their recreational value to military and civilian
personnel alike.
V Decrease Maintenance Costs
• Improving vegetation on rights-of-way can substantially reduce maintenance costs.
• Introducing native ground cover can reduce maintenance, manpower, and gas-
oline expenses.
• Planting and managing appropriate vegetation on runway medians, buffers, and ap-
proaches can reduce maintenance costs.
V Improve Overall Safety on Bases
• Improving resource management and planting in target range areas and artillery impact ar-
eas could decrease the frequency of accidents. Denser vegetation is more likely to stop
stray bullets and flying schrapnel.
• Increasing vegetation around fuel and ammunition storage areas can create better absorp-
tion of the impacts of explosions.
V Mitigate Potential Climate Change
• Implementing vegetation management and strategic planting programs on DoD lands
would support the America the Beautiful Program inaugurated by President Bush and re-
spond to the environmental concerns of citizens, Congress, and DoD.
• Converting bare, unstocked, and inappropriately stocked forest lands into productive forest
land could result in added carbon storage in biomass of 50 to 60 metric tons per acre over
480,000 acres.
• Pre-commercial thinning and timber stand improvement of over 400,000 identified acres
could result in a long-term increase of carbon in biomass of 0.5 to 0.6 metric tons
per acre.
• Improving management of 1.5 million acres of non-forest land could significantly increase
carbon in biomass by 0.85 metric tons per acre per year, reduce erosion, and improve wild-
life habitat.
• Improving vegetation on 210,000 acres of rights-of-way could result in an increase in car-
bon sequestration of 8 metric tons per acre.
Page 2
-------
/. Executive Summary
The overall biomass benefit of feasible programs on DoD lands would be an added 50 to
55 million metric tons of carbon over the next 3 to 5 decades. (Energy savings would also be
substantial, though easier to estimate following pilot projects).
This report uses a case study of a hypothetical base to illustrate the potential opportunities
on DoD lands, and their benefits and costs (Chapter IV, page 33). The base "studied," a 50,000-
acre installation in the Southeast, combines attributes of several actual bases. Sixteen thousand
acres of its forest lands were found to have opportunities for management, resulting in $3.8
million in net benefits. Returns on investment in energy of $17.5 million from establishing a
biofuels program and $4.3 million from strategically landscaping residential and commercial
areas dominated the monetized benefits accruing to the base from the identified programs. Car-
bon benefits totalled 703,000 metric tons over the 40-year program period.
TABLE ES-1
Provisional economic and carbon benefits for potential vegetation management options (no eco-
nomic value is assigned to carbon)
Program Element Total Carbon
Benefit
Mil. Metric Tons/40 years
1 . Intensity Management of 36.5
Unimproved DoD Lands
2. Establish a Biofuels For 44.8
Energy Program
3. Improve Vegetation on 5.0
Training Lands
4. Modify Installation Landscape 3.9
Acres and Grounds Management
5. Reduce Heating and Cooling 45.6
Expenditures by Strategic
Landscape Planting
Total 135.8
*Discounted.
Total Cost*
SMH./10 years
169
194
51
39
138
591
Total Benefit*
SMH./40 years
419
2,040
291
294
1,119
4,163
Benefit/
Cost
Ratio
1.3-8.3
10.5
2.1-9.4
0.4-22.7
8.1
7.0
Net Economic
Benefits*
SMJI./40 years
250
1,846
240
255
981
3,572
Potential Programs
This paper discusses five program options that could be easily integrated with current en-
vironmental and natural resource programs on bases, as well as with military missions. Section
IV of this report introduces a hypothetical base to illustrate how the potential programs might
be implemented. The program options identified are these five types:
1. Intensify management of forest and non-forest "unimproved" lands, including areas now
under agricultural lease. These options include reforestation of nonstocked and
understocked forest land, and thinning and timber stand improvement of existing commer-
cial forest land. Most, if not all, of these investments would generate reasonable financial
rates of return from benefits not related to global climate change (3,660,000 acres).
Page3
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
2. A DoD-wide biofuels program would use wood and other biofuels, along with solid
wastes generated by military bases, for central heating/air-conditioning plants and
other power needs. Individual bases might cooperate with local authorities to
build joint facilities. Substitution of biofuels for fossil fuels would be clean and cost-
effective for bases, would promote energy independence, and would help to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Restore degraded maneuver and training areas to their previous level of forestation under
the Integrated Training Area Management (IT AM) program. IT AM should be intensi-
fied by restoring forest and riparian land vegetation at appropriate locations, and by con-
tinuing the present revegetation of open areas. An enhanced IT AM program would serve
the objectives of military missions, watershed protection, and increased biomass
(1,220,000 acres).
4. Modify installation landscape and grounds management: rights-of-way, target range
fans, artillery and bomb impact areas, airfield approaches and buffers, ammunition and
supply depots, and landscaping and lawns around administrative and industrial facilities.
Such modifications could produce major cost savings as well as more carbon sequestra-
tion (415,000 acres).
5. Utilize strategic landscape plantings which shelter housing and other buildings from the
sun and wind to reduce energy expenditures for cooling and heating. Together with other
building improvements, such plantings would reduce energy expenditures and improve the
liveability of military bases.
In addition to their attractive environmental and economic benefits, the goals of these programs
speak directly to the issues facing DoD in the early 1990's. While supporting and enhancing IT AM
and other on-going natural resource programs on military bases, the identified activities contribute
to the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP).
SERDP was designed to:
1. Address environmental matters of concern to the DoD through support for basic and ap-
plied research and development of technologies that can enhance the capabilities of the de-
partment to meet their environmental obligations.
2. Identify research, technologies, and other information developed by DoD and the Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) for national defense purposes that would be useful to governmental
and private organizations involved in the development of energy technologies and of tech-
nologies to address environmental restoration, waste minimization, and other environmen-
tal concerns, and to share such research, technologies, and other information with govern-
mental and private organizations.
3. To furnish other governmental organizations and private organizations with data, en-
hanced data collection capabilities, and enhanced analytical capabilities for use by such
organizations in the conduct of environmental research, including research concerning
global environmental change.
4. To identify technologies developed by the private sector that are useful for DoD and DOE
defense activities concerning environmental restoration, hazardous and solid waste mini-
mization and prevention, hazardous material substitution, and provide for the use of such
technologies in the conduct of such activities.
Opportunities to Implement New Conservation Programs
In order to initiate a program of vegetation management activities which ultimately helps
to mitigate the potential effects of climate change, a number of short-term tasks should be con-
sidered. These are:
Page 4
-------
/. Executive Summary
Initiate measures to incorporate environmental concerns into comprehensive planning.
In the long term, these concerns will be integrated into DoD installation management
only if they are part of the strategic planning process. Specific steps can be taken to issue
policy direction on the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions as one of the objectives
in DoD land management. Planning guidelines and technical information can be distrib-
uted for demonstration of the effects of management on carbon emissions and storage.
Establish R&D programs to assist management in areas where planning information
is scarce. Two of these areas have been identified: Use of strategic landscape plant-
ing to reduce utility costs, and gasification of organic solid waste and biomass for
power generation.
Develop strategies to fund land management activities with existing budgets. Most pro-
gram elements will have multiple benefits (i.e., increased revenues, cost savings, energy
savings, mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions). Investigate the availability of existing
sources for funding, such as operation and maintenance funds saved from cost reductions,
forestry funds, and other trust accounts.
Institute a system of recognition and accountability to establish program momentum.
Visits and questionnaire responses have identified the following options: Briefings for
installation commanders and staff, and recognition through service installation awards.
For example, the Installations of Excellence programs have been a source of great
pride for those bases cited.
Provide resource managers with the latest research on mitigating climate change,
and the opportunity to evaluate the proposed programs and the potential problems
of implementation.
Page 5
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Page 6
-------
II. POTENTIAL PROGRAM OPTIONS
Improving Delivery of Environmental Services
The Department of Defense (DoD) is involved in a number of activities aimed at improv-
ing environmental quality on its lands and the delivery of environmental services. The Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) was established to address con-
cerns such as environmental restoration, waste minimization, and hazardous waste substitution
through energy and environmental research, and the development of new technologies. Addi-
tional land and water management programs include:
• The Legacy Resource Management Program, which seeks to inventory, protect, and man-
age biological, cultural, and geophysical resources on lands owned or used by DoD.
• Implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan on DoD bases, in con-
cert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
• A cooperative agreement with The Nature Conservancy to identify, document, and maintain
biological diversity and endangered species on DoD installations.
• Existing DoD forestry, wildlife, and fisheries programs.
In the last few years, the public and U.S. government have been increasingly concerned
about atmospheric changes that could significantly alter climatic and vegetation patterns
throughout the world. Among the most practical and efficient strategies to address concerns
about climate change are the management of forests and vegetation. This report suggests ways
in which DoD land management programs may be enhanced to address these concerns. The
changes in traditional vegetation and forest management practices that the report suggests are
worthwhile for their own inherent benefits, in addition to providing benefits from a climate
change perspective.
Global Climate Change
Concerns about changes in climate are based on the following scientific conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1992):
• Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric
concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and
nitrous oxide.
• The evidence from the modelling studies, from observations and the sensitivity analyses
indicate that the sensitivity of global mean surface temperature to doubling CO, is unlikely
to lie outside the range 1.5° to 4.5°C.
• Global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3° to 0.6°C over the last 100 years.
Despite these discoveries, the relationship between increased concentration of greenhouse
gases and observable changes in climate is not well established. Therefore, models of the earth's
climate cannot precisely predict the magnitude and timing of a potential change in climate on
regional climates. Nevertheless, many scientists are convinced that significant temperature rises
in the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C and shifts in the distribution of precipitation are likely to occur
(Smith and Tirpak, 1989). These changes could affect agricultural and forest productivity, sea
levels, water resources, and human health.
Since 1988, various U.S. government agencies have coordinated research related to global
climate. Avenues of research include fundamental climate processes, aspects of global carbon
and water cycles, ecological impacts and adaptations, and monitoring systems. Another ap-
proach has been to develop potential programs and policies that may mitigate the prospective
changes in climate (Lashof and Tirpak, 1990).
Page?
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Among the previously considered programs are those geared toward increasing vegetation
biomass within the United States. Increased biomass withdraws carbon from the atmosphere
and sequesters it in terrestrial biomass. This concept underlies President Bush's 1990 America
the Beautiful Program, which proposed planting one billion trees per year in the United States
and improving forest management on targeted lands. It was enacted by Congress in 1990 at a
smaller scale, to commence in 1992 with planting.
Carbon Sequestration and Forests
Carbon can be stored in several ways. Forests can sequester substantial amounts of carbon in
tree stems—up to 50 to 60 metric tons per acre for a managed, commercial stand in the temperate
region. Leaves, needles, twigs, and undergrowth vegetation accumulate modest volumes of bio-
mass—up to 10 metric tons of carbon per acre—though the turnover rate from decay is high. Soil
can store between 30 and 80 metric tons of carbon per acre, depending largely on factors of cli-
mate and vegetative cover. Forest soils contain more carbon than the soils of grasslands and other
non-forest vegetation types. (The colder the climate, the larger the share of total biomass in the
soil.) Desert ecosystems store less carbon.
There are several advantages to utilizing forests for carbon sequestration. When the
wood is cut, some of its carbon may be kept indefinitely in "wood-in-use" and eventually in
landfills. Biomass carbon can also substitute for carbon in fossil fuels and, therefore, reduce
the total amount of carbon added to the biosphere.
For DoD lands, increasing vegetation biomass translates directly into greater energy sav-
ings, greater self-reliance, higher environmental quality, and enhanced resources for carrying
out mission objectives.
Program Potential and the DoD Land Base
Any feasible program on DoD lands designed to mitigate climate change must address the
following considerations:
• Specific military land activities for individual bases affect the compatibility of land uses and
treatments with assigned military missions.
• Climatic vegetation zpnes of each base's location determine the types of vegetation that may be
grown and the applicability of treatment.
• Characteristics of existing vegetation, such as its current condition and growth rates, influ-
ence which treatments may be feasible and cost-effective.
The 30.4 million acres of land managed by DoD comprise roughly 1.35 percent of the total
land mass of the United States. DoD owns or leases 23.5 million acres of this land and uses 6.9
million acres owned by other federal and state agencies. As Table 1 illustrates, the bulk of land
was acquired from the public domain, primarily in the West. A number of tracts exceed one
million acres in size. Approximately one-third of the land was purchased from private owners.
Smaller areas managed by DoD are in "temporary use," either by the public domain or private
owners, through easements or lease.
PageS
-------
//. Potential Program Options
TABLE 1
Land used and managed by DoD
Status
DoD Lands
Owned by DoD (in fee)
From public domain
Temporary use
Land easements
In lease
Subtotal
Other DoD lands including
the Pentagon complex
Special use arrangements
with federal and state
agencies
Total
Army
Air Force
Navy
Total
Thousand Acres
4,113
5,844
368
19
467
10,811
705
11,516
1,368
6,887
527
175
212
9,169
6,212
15,381
1,487
1,975
0
60
0
3,522
0
3,522
6,968
14,706
895
254
679
23,502
5
6,917
30,423
Military Land Uses
According to a recent real property inventory, DoD manages 973 installations in the
United States (see Figure 1). As depicted in Table 2, the installations have varied purposes and
are classified by military mission. The mission of each installation influences land management
and options for vegetative improvement.
Most large military bases have a wide variety of land uses: barracks, motor and equip-
ment pools, support facilities, training areas, range or target areas, ammunition storage, sup-
ply areas, medical facilities, community areas, and airfields. Weapons ranges, target areas,
and test sites—covering roughly 17 million acres—are highly dangerous during use and of-
ten long afterward. Other remote sites include maneuver and training areas, helicopter fields,
ballistic missile sites, and communications and radar sites. Ammunition and supply depots,
which are less dangerous, may have high security restrictions. As much as 5.4 million acres
of ground force bases, both Army and Marines, are used for maneuvers and training. Forest
and other dense vegetation is often necessary for realistic training exercises.
Most aviation centers—Air Force bases, Naval Air Stations, or Army aviation bases—
often require substantial land areas and are suitable for intensive land management. Several
types of installations—Naval bases, supply and logistic centers, industrial plants, base head-
quarters, medical, and research facilities—are generally developed near metropolitan areas
and seaports. These bases are now largely developed, urban areas, but may provide opportu-
nities for improved strategic landscaping to reduce energy use, and to improve quality of life.
Within the military base, the land allocation for mission and support functions strongly
affects vegetation management and opportunities to increase biomass. The common military
distinction between cantonment, semi-improved, and unimproved areas, is useful in identi-
fying program opportunities. Base by base, over 530,000 acres are estimated to be in canton-
ment areas, and over 750,000 acres are in semi-improved use (see Table 2).
Page 9
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
FIGURE 1
Military installations of 10,000 acres or more within the United States
Legend:
10,000- 50,000 acres
Forested
Nonf crested
50,000 or more acres
Forested ^
Nonforested
o
s. _
Cantonment areas contain administrative, housing, maintenance, medical, and other sup-
port facilities. These generally receive manicured lawn and landscape maintenance. Semi-de-
veloped areas—airfields, hangars, equipment storage, weapons firing sites, ammunition de-
pots, transportation and utility corridors, and other modified areas—generally are not land-
scaped, but are "rough mowed" periodically and receive brush removal. Unimproved lands,
including most maneuver areas, bufferstrips, drop zones, firing ranges, and ammunition
impact areas, are left in natural vegetation or as cleared fields. These are frequently managed
for timber production under forest management plans, or they are grazed or mowed for hay.
A minimum base size is necessary for economically feasible forestry operations, though
neighboring bases often share foresters and other land management specialists. A number of
bases are too small and isolated to have such programs. Approximately 500,000 acres of DoD
lands may be located on bases too small to have an active land management program.
Climatic Vegetation Zones
Some 6 million DoD acres (or 19 percent) are in land types that can support commercially
valuable timber (see Table 3). Of these acres, some 3 million are in the usually productive
southern pine types, and another 0.3 million acres are in rapid growth Douglas fir and hemlock-
Sitka spruce types. In these land types, intensive forest management, including plantation silvi-
Page 10
-------
//. Potential Program Options
TABLE 2
DoD bases by predominant use type as of 1989
Type of base
Range/target area
Remote site
Ground forces, stationary
Ground forces, training
Air base, stationary
Air base, training
Naval base
Ammunition depot
Supply center
Industrial plant
HQ, medical, etc.
Closed
Totals
No. of
Bases
34
301
21
36
183
38
42
7
92
73
112
34
973
Total
Pers.
(Thou.)
11.4
176.3
241.0
364.4
648.1
191.0
295.4
3.6
338.5
27.7
318.8
0.0
2,616.2
Total
Area
8,203.7
8,849.2
1,953.2
3,448.1
5,670.5
521.7
147.0
215.1
792.0
304.6
261.4
56.5
30,423.0
Canton-
ment
(Thou, ai
3.4
43.8
68.2
96.3
150.5
49.2
20.2
0.6
46.6
2.1
48.6
0.0
529.5
Semi-
improved
:res)
2.8
36.5
113.7
192.5
200.7
82.1
16.8
2.8
77.7
3.6
24.3
0.0
753.5
Unim-
proved
8,197.4
8,768.9
1,771.2
3,159.3
5,319.3
390.4
109.9
211.7
667.7
298.9
188.4
56.5
29,139.6
culture, is often practiced both by DoD and other landowners. A large amount of DoD land,
however, even in these productive types, is in the lower end of the type's productivity range.
Other extensive areas of DoD forest land are in less productive hardwoods and in other soft-
wood types. Nevertheless, the majority of the potential of DoD lands to sequester carbon is in
forest areas.
About 80 percent of DoD lands are in non-forest types. An estimated 23.3 million acres are
desert shrub, sagebrush, savanna, chaparral, pinyon-juniper, and southwest shrubsteppe lands
with very low biomass productivity, and low potential for carbon storage. Approximately 1.4
million acres are savanna, chaparral, and pinyon-juniper lands of low productivity. The 1.8 mil-
lion acres of alpine and arctic lands (approximately 6 percent) are ecologically fragile. On these
lands, the sensitivity to long-term damage from disturbance, especially vehicle traffic, is a major
environmental problem. Measures to reduce future damage, and to correct past damage, are per-
haps more important than the limited potentials of these particular vegetation types to sequester
carbon in biomass.
Current Management
The third major factor affecting potential programs to mitigate climate change is current
land management. In effect, nearly all DoD lands are now planned and managed under a mul-
tiple use policy. Multiple uses of particular importance are described as follows:
• Military uses, already mentioned, have primary, though not absolute, priority. In recent
decades, the deployment of new weapons systems, often involving heavier vehicles,
greater firepower, and requiring larger maneuver areas, have increased military land
needs. Training areas normally require some land to be kept in non-forest vegetation—
tank trails, firing points, drop zones, and bivouac sites.
Page 11
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
TABLE 3
Area by vegetation type and size class, in thousands (1000s) of acres
SIZE OF BASE IN THOUSANDS OF ACRES, BY SIZE CLASS
Vegetation Type More than
100,000
White-red-jack pine 0.0
Spruce-fir 0.0
Longleaf-slash pine 1,015.7
Loblolly-shortleaf pine 465.0
Oak-pine 0.0
Oak-hickory 214.6
Oak-gum-cypress 0.0
Elm-ash-cottonwood 0.0
Maple-beech-birch 107.3
Aspen-birch 0.0
Douglas fir 0.0
Ponderosa pine 0.0
Hemlock-Sitka spruce 0.0
Western hardwoods 946.4
Subtotals 2,749.0
Sagebrush 6,923.8
Desert shrub 9,601.9
Texas savanna 216.9
Southwest shrubstep 2,859.4
Chaparral 0.0
Pinyon-juniper 924.1
Plains grassland 137.4
Prairie 101.0
Annual grasslands 0.0
Alpine and arctic 1,582.6
Hawaiian ecosystems 109.9
Subtotals 22,457.0
Totals 25,206.0
25,000 to
100,000
0.0
0.0
201.2
570.2
38.4
322.9
28.6
0.0
151.2
59.8
220.2
64.5
61.5
293.1
2,011.6
83.4
274.9
27.9
140.5
47.9
44.1
235.0
75.4
0.0
175.1
68.2
1,172.4
3,184.0
5,000 to
25,000
1,000 to
5,000
Forest types
0.0
11.1
188.9
308.6
7.4
242.1
19.1
0.0
93.8
29.0
12.5
0.0
13.2
43.1
968.8
0.0
3.0
47.2
55.6
0.0
49.4
12.3
0.0
17.4
8.4
11.3
0.0
0.0
18.0
222.6
Non-forest types
33.6
35.7
37.9
27.7
61.7
40.1
128.5
57.2
28.8
27.9
54.4
533.5
1,502.5
8.3
22.2
31.8
2.4
17.3
1.3
25.6
13.4
7.1
37.8
19.3
186.5
409.1
1,000
or less
0.0
1.1
19.3
12.3
0.0
25.9
0.9
1.0
13.1
1.5
3.1
0.0
0.7
6.3
85.2
0.2
0.7
3.7
0.1
6.0
2.1
5.2
2.8
1.2
7.0
7.6
36.6
121.8
Total
0.0
15.2
1,472.3
1,411.7
45.8
854.9
61.0
1.0
382.8
98.6
247.1
64.5
75.3
1,306.8
6,037.0
7,049.3
9,935.3
318.2
3,030.1
132.9
1,011.7
531.8
249.8
37.1
1,830.5
259.4
24,386.1
30,423.1
Forest management operations have increased as natural forest regeneration has re-
stocked large areas of lands that were denuded and degraded when initially acquired.
Programs requiring heavy investments, such as planting, pre-commercial thinning, and
timber stand improvement, have not been as extensive as those on similar private
lands, or lands managed by other federal agencies.
Wildlife and recreation programs are extensive. Increased hunting and recreation opportu-
nities are popular with both military personnel and civilians.
Page 12
-------
//. Potential Program Options
Although the management of DoD lands has been increasingly intensive, there are a num-
ber of major problems. Some of the problems encountered are described as follows:
• Many areas used for military maneuvers by ground force units have been severely degraded.
Vegetation has been killed, trampled, or otherwise damaged. Tree reproduction is often ab-
sent. Erosion is often widespread and severely damages watersheds. The Army and Marines
have recognized this problem, and under the Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM)
program, have begun inventories, monitoring, and limited restoration measures.
• Some areas capable of supporting productive forest vegetation are still unstocked or
understocked. Most of this land is on deep sand and highly eroded sites in the South. The
primary obstacle to revegetation has been a lack of investment funds. The funds needed are
far in excess of those generated by the service or trust funds for DoD forest management.
• As a result of fires, some areas have regenerated, or have been converted to low value tree
species, or timber stands with large proportions of poor quality, rough, or rotten trees. Such
stands are difficult to market for commercial timber harvest, without large, local markets
for low value wood products, such as fuel wood and pulpwood.
• Fire is a greater problem on military lands than on other lands because of the use of tracer
rounds and other ammunition that often set fires. Extensive use of prescribed fires, fire
lanes, and other preventive measures are necessary, and may limit some treatments.
• DoD lands are subject to the Threatened and Endangered Species Preservation Act,
which makes the preservation of such species' habitat an absolute legal priority. The
major endangered species problem on DoD lands, for example, is the red-cockaded
woodpecker. Requirements to protect this species have affected forest management on
some 600,000 acres of DoD lands in the southern pine type.
Page 13
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Page 14
-------
III. PROGRAM ELEMENTS
The elements of the identified programs that seem worthy of implementation and further
research differ markedly in applicability, extent of opportunity, treatments, limitations, benefits,
and program costs. Though grouped into five categories, these elements are linked (see Table
4). For example, much of the critical timber stand improvement would need a market for bio-
mass cut for use as biofuels in order to be economically advantageous.
1. Intensify Management of Unimproved DoD Lands
1A. Convert or Plant Unstocked or Poorly Stocked Forest Land
Military bases include substantial acreage considered to be in unproductive condition.
These areas did not regenerate naturally into productive forest and were not successfully con-
verted. Not all such lands can be treated effectively, or at a reasonable benefit-to-cost ratio.
In the long-range planning for each installation, there should be a process for setting pri-
orities for treating forest stands that would compare the current and prospective benefits from
the present stand with the benefits likely to be achieved by treatment. This planning and evalu-
ation process is discussed in greater detail in Section Five: Task Implementation.
In many cases, present installation and forest management plans have recognized these
opportunities to reforest unstocked areas and convert low-productivity stands, but the bases
have not had the investment funds needed for such projects.
The opportunities discussed and quantified here emphasize softwood production. How-
ever, other options exist whose benefits are harder to measure. These options emphasize other
multiple uses, including wildlife, recreation, hunting, and water values, which may have finan-
cial returns which rival or surpass those of commercial timber production. Similarly, the carbon
values of these alternatives may rival or surpass those of commercial timber systems, but have
not as yet been quantified. These other uses may be best served by keeping lands in hardwood
or mixed pine/hardwood systems. Such retentions need not be limited to forests close to rivers,
streams, and creeks.
Extent of opportunity
Tentative estimates of the acreage that could be reforested were made from information
derived from the questionnaire and were supplemented by data from The South's Fourth For-
est (USDA Forest Service, 1989). The data listed are in Appendix B. Areas that could be con-
verted to managed forest comprise the following types:
a. Presently bare or unstocked forest area (those scheduled to be regenerated after harvest
under current management are not included). 150,000 acres.
b. Lands under agricultural or hay lease that might be better used in forested condition.
(See discussion under SectionlD).
c. Forested areas which regenerated after DoD acquisition to non-commercial,
understocked, or poor-quality tree species. These lands do not promise to develop into
economically manageable stands within 10-20 years. A prime example are the stands on
deep sands at Eglin AFB. Also included in this category are hardwood or mixed pine-
hardwood stands. 780,000 acres.
d. Plantations of inappropriate species for the site or climate. Examples are slash pine
stands on deep sands in the South that deteriorated, and should be replaced with ecologi-
cally suitable species. 330,000 acres.
Page 15
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
TABLE 4
Provisional economic costs and benefits for potential vegetation management programs (No economic value
is assigned to carbon)
# Program Element
o 1A. Convert or plant unstocked
or poorly stocked forest land
1 B. Intensify management of
existing commercial forest
1 C. Improve management of
non-forest lands
1 D. Assess agricultural leases
2A. Develop biofuels program
3A. Integrate management of
training area
3B. Improve vegetation of
artillery and bombing
impact areas
3C. Improve vegetation in
target range fans (sm. arms)
4A. Establish heavier vegetation
on rights-of-way
4B. Improve vegetation on
runway medians, buffers,
and approaches
C. Improve vegetation in
storage areas for
ammunition and fuel
4D. Promptly landscape
new construction
4E. Improve management of
lawn and ground cover
5A. Improve landscaping/
planting in residential
and commercial areas
TOTAL
o Benefits and costs reflect the higher cos
Unit
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Metric
Tons/yr
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Sq.ft.
Resid'l.
Comm'l.
:, more intei
Uiwnhw
nunDw
(Thou)
1,260
400
1,800
200
2,800
500
600
120
210
50
35
25
95
764,530
305,007
459,523
isive option
Cost/
Unit
$
130
50
10
90
90
60
50
50
120
120
120
400
50
232
s for these
Total
Cost
Mil.$*
lOyeara
126
15
14
14
194
23
23
5
19
5
3
8
4
138
591
acres.
Benefit/
Unit
Vvear
133
24.1
2.2
6.6
55.0
72
27.3
16.4
543
60.8
35.8
10.0
66.2
110.5
Total
Benefit
MiL$*
40 years
222
128
52
17
2,040
48
217
26
151
40
17
3
83
1,119
354
765
4,163
Benefit
/Cost
ratio
1.8
8.3
as
1.3
10.5t
Zlt
9.4
5.6
7.8
8.7
5.1
0.4*
22.7*
8.1
7.0
Net
Economic
Benefits
Mil.$*
40 years
96
113
38
3
1,846
25
194
21
132
35
14
-5
79
981
3,572
t B/C ratios affected by inability to value some benefits and costs.
* Discounted.
Page 16
-------
///. Program Elements
Market development would increase economic opportunities in the central and northern
regions. In particular, many areas in northern New England and the Lake States would ben-
efit from forest type conversion, if markets for hardwoods—such as bioenergy plants—could
be developed.
Treatments
Lands in categories (a) and (b) can usually be planted with minimum site preparation, at a
cost ranging from $50-$ 100 an acre (for conifers) depending on species and site. Costs for hard-
woods are generally higher. Costs of planting species like longleaf pine on deep sands can also
be relatively high (Row, 1987).
In categories (c) and (d), extensive site preparation is needed to remove competition, and
to allow mechanical planting. In some cases the cost of clearing and site preparation may be re-
covered or subsidized by timber revenue from saw timber, pulpwood, and fire wood. Current
costs for such site preparation/conversion are running from $100-$250 an acre, depending upon
the existing stand.
Limitations
As mentioned, some areas in deep sands, on shallow hardpans, or on droughty ridges
may have too little natural productivity to justify treatment. In other areas, especially on
moist or water-logged soils, regeneration of preferred species may prove to be technically
difficult. The land is best left to slowly recover as natural wetlands. A few areas may have
threatened or endangered species, such as degraded longleaf pine remnants in the South that
are habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Many of these low-productivity areas, however, were originally in grass or scrub tree spe-
cies due to fires ignited naturally or by humans, and there is sentiment to keep them in natural
successional states.
Benefits
An average, expected growth of biomass in 25 years would be 50 to 60 metric tons of
carbon per acre, including approximately 2,000 ft3 (25 cords) of wood. After thinnings, an av-
erage of 40 to 50 metric tons of carbon would remain in the forest, but approximately 50 per-
cent of the periodic harvests, about 5 metric tons of biomass carbon, would remain in wood-
in-use and landfill carbon sinks.
Associated benefits would include the income from timber harvest, which should return the
original investment along with at least 4 percent interest. Assuming the timber is managed on
longer rotations that sequester more carbon and are economically most advantageous, substantial
additional wildlife, watershed, and recreational benefits would be achieved.
Such management would create a mosaic of ages and stand conditions on the ground,
and result in improved areas for military maneuvers and exercises.
Program costs
If 80 percent of these acreage estimates mentioned earlier were to be reforested or con-
verted, the total cost would be $150-$ 175 million. Many factors, including potentials for sal-
vage of current stands, would affect the funds needed.
Page 17
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
IB. Intensify Management of Existing Commercial Forest
A large percentage of acquired or regenerated commercial forest is now managed ac-
cording to forest management plans. In these areas, a sizable amount of timber is harvested
annually, and the land is generally site-prepared and reforested to the previous forest type
(either through natural regeneration or by planting). Since most of the regrown or reforested
timber stands are relatively young compared to conventional rotation ages for their forest
type, the biomass has increased rapidly in recent decades and will continue to increase under
current plans. As more stands come to rotation age, the area harvested each year will in-
crease. Since most installations have been cutting the worst stands first, average volume and
quality will grow.
Revenues from timber sales are transferred to service-wide trust funds, which are
then allocated back to installations based on need. Bases which are just starting for-
estry programs are often subsidized until the activities become established and rev-
enue-producing. The aim of all services is to make each installation's forestry program
at least sustain itself, if not produce a surplus. In the meantime, however, many bases
lack the funds for intensive treatments, such as pre-commercial thinning or fertiliza-
tion, that could further increase the rate of biomass (and timber volume) growth.
Extent of opportunity
Based on replies to the questionnaire, and on estimates from The South's Fourth Forest
(USDA Forest Service, 1989), the areas that could be treated for greater productivity include:
• Pre-commercial thinning of existing planted or natural stands which are too dense: 50,000
acres.
• Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) through stocking control and release: 350,000 acres.
Some responding installations also mentioned opportunities for commercial thinning of
poletimber stands, overdue harvesting of mature stands, and salvaging firewood. These oppor-
tunities are generally already planned and produce net revenues. But backlogs may exist as a
result of delays in implementing management plans, or placing forests in additional installations
under management. These opportunities were not considered in the study since they do not
represent additional opportunities.
Treatments
Mechanized pre-commercial thinning of young stands can be accomplished relatively in-
expensively. As the stands mature, thinning requires the individual cutting of trees with power
saws which can cost approximately $30-$60 an acre.
TSI costs vary with treatment needs, approximately $50-$75 an acre.
Limitations
The same limitations apply as with reforestation, though for proportionately smaller areas.
Another factor to consider is whether herbicides, though approved for such use, are effective,
and whether they would create negative public reactions.
Benefits
On the whole, it is more cost-effective to manage existing merchantable—or potentially
merchantable—stands, rather than converting to other vegetation. In the long term, both of
these treatments may increase sustained growth by 0.5 to 0.6 metric tons of carbon in biomass
per year, or some 25 to 35 ft3 of merchantable wood per acre annually.
Page 18
-------
///. Program Elements
Program costs
These programs are not as extensive or as costly as others: $20 million.
1C. Improve Management of Non-Forest Lands
Unimproved lands in woodland/range vegetation types also offer opportunities for in-
creased biomass productivity, but treatments that would eventually generate commercial rev-
enues are limited.
Several important reasons to improve management of woodland/range/desert lands are:
• Military impact in some areas has substantially degraded the land and watercourses. Natu-
ral regeneration is not often effective in restoring these areas.
• The land often has important value in terms of wildlife and watersheds.
• The increased opportunities for hay and other leasing arrangements would generate finan-
cial and managerial benefits to the bases and may be compatible with military missions.
Extent of opportunity
The extent of opportunities for treatment of non-forest lands depends on the vegetation
type and current condition of the land. According to the completed questionnaires, the oppor-
tunities are varied and include the following:
• Restore poorly stocked and degraded areas. This may include blading to im-
prove areas rutted by repeated vehicle use, spraying or burning to kill noxious
exotic weed species, fertilizing and liming where appropriate, and reseeding. The
object is to help establish a successional trend toward natural and stable ecosys-
tems. 1,500,000 acres.
• Treat riparian vegetation along watercourses, including filling or otherwise stabi-
lizing gullies, maintaining the stability and integrity of stream banks by planting, and
providing overhanging vegetation for shade. Approximately 300,000 acres.
• Restock, where appropriate, with native or once-native animal and fish populations.
Limitations
Some of the land has been in ammunition impact areas. As a result, ground equipment
treatments generally are not feasible. Restorative operations must be conducted by air. In some
areas, use of herbicides and fire as range management techniques are restricted.
Benefits
Significant multiple-use benefits would include reduction of erosion and improvement
of wildlife habitat. An estimated increase in biomass carbon of 0.85 metric tons per acre
per year might be obtained on 1.5 million acres, at most, of military land affected.
Program costs
Since only part of the area will need treatment, the average cost per acre may be low—perhaps
$12. The total cost of the program is $18 million using this low cost.
1D. Assess Agricultural Leases
Approximately 1.4 million acres of land on military bases are under agricultural lease.
They generate roughly $14 million each year in cash and in-kind payments, or about $10 per
acre. The land leased, however, varies from highly productive farmland—worth many times its
cost—to relatively poor grazing land.
Page 19
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
The leasing conditions from base to base tend to be complex and unique. Some of the
leases date back to the time when bases were organized before and during World War II. Many
farmers were resentful that their land was taken. Sometimes, they were given leases to not-yet-
used land and buffer areas. In other cases, the agriculture leases include agreements for the
maintenance of rights-of-way and other areas.
Leases are made in all areas of the country and on all types of bases. Comments from site
visits and completed questionnaires indicate that there is a question as to whether or not some
leases are still the best use of the land.
Similar to much agricultural land, some of this leased land is likely to be on eroding or
erodible soils. Some areas that may be subject to flooding may best be managed as wetlands,
and some with low productivity may no longer be farmed economically (the leases on some of
the latter have already been relinquished).
The extent of land that should be in forest but is currently under agricultural lease can-
not be determined in this study. Within the strategic planning process of each base, how-
ever, consideration should be given to the question of retaining leases, keeping in mind the
benefits of utilizing the land for increasing biomass productivity and mitigating climate
change. Specifically, the income opportunity from agriculture on these lands may be out-
weighed by the value of forest products, energy savings, wildlife protection, forest conser-
vation, and carbon sequestration.
The treatments necessary to restore the land to forest, rangelands, or wetlands are discussed
under the opportunities for intensified management of forest and non-forest lands.
2. Establish a Biofuels for Energy Program
2A. Use DoD Biomass Along with Current Technology for Bioenergy
Power
Many military bases with at least 20,000 acres of forest land, or with at least 10,000 mili-
tary personnel, possess substantial untapped sources of biomass. These sources are:
• Municipal solid waste (MSW) generated by residential, administrative, or industrial activi-
ties. Based on rates produced by medium-sized cities, even with extensive recycling, 2 to
3 Ibs. of burnable waste is generated per person per day (Office of Technology Assess-
ment, 1990). The projection for 10,000 military personnel and their dependents includes
4,500 metric tons of dry biomass generated per base per year.
• Forest logging residues, thinnings, or sanitation cuttings. For most forest areas some 30 ft3
per acre could be generated per year. This would amount to 10,500 metric tons of dry bio-
mass per year for 20,000 acres.
• Landscaping or yard waste, including tree maintenance, brush cutting, and leaf and lawn
debris. This might amount to approximately 1,000 metric tons of biomass per year for such
a base.
Therefore, a 10,000-acre base with 20,000 personnel would produce roughly 16,000 metric
tons of biomass per year, or 50 metric tons of dry biomass a day. This quantity of fuel justifies
the conversion of a current coal-burning boiler to a mixture of coal and hogged biomass fuel.
Such a conversion would cost $500,000-$2,000,000, depending on current boiler or furnace
configurations.
The financial benefits derived from" such a biofuels program might be on the order of
$1,000,000 annually in fuel savings and $200,000 annually in landfill costs. These fiscal ben-
Page 20
-------
///. Program Elements
efits, combined with the benefit of reducing the emission of CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmo-
sphere, provides a persuasive case for the conversion. The carbon in the forest and other bio-
mass would be replaced by additional biomass growth.
Approximately 175 military bases could install the facilities for handling forest and other
biomass. (A large number already burn some solid waste generated on base in heating plants.)
For many of the bases, the extent of the program could be substantially larger than the mini-
mum-sized facility projected above. Therefore, reasonable but preliminary estimates of cost
savings over a 10-year period might be $500-$600 million.
A detailed engineering analysis, beyond the scope of this feasibility study, is needed to out-
line the type of investment required and the attendant financial returns. It is also technically pos-
sible to use an advanced technology to increase the yield of energy. The gasification of biofuels
and the use of aero-derivative turbines are methods that have been suggested for similar situa-
tions (Williams, 1989). Applying this technology to DoD installations would require an R&D
program and is a suggested implementation task (see Section 3B).
3. Improve Vegetation on Training Lands
3A. Restore Natural Vegetation Usability
Most bases on which ground forces are stationed, especially training bases, contain land
areas with such heavy or frequent use—including maneuver areas, bivouacs, firing points,
and drop or assault landing zones—that other uses are severely restricted.
Many of the affected lands have become severely degraded, a problem that the military
services are increasingly recognizing. One cause of the degradation is the more mechanized,
heavier, and more mobile weapon systems now being used in land warfare. These systems
possess vastly increased potential for combat. Their power to destroy the environments in
which they operate has already been proven. Many young military personnel enjoy testing
this equipment to its limits, often severely disturbing natural vegetation, fragile slopes, and
sensitive watercourses.
Many training and active force commanders do not yet fully appreciate the situation. On a
number of Army posts, areas can be rutted and gullied by frequent military exercises, thus los-
ing their usefulness for continued training. Also, commanders are requesting additional areas
for training, and permission to purchase more land.
The Army has formed a group under the Corps of Engineers Research Laboratory (CERL)
in Champaign, Illinois, to study the problem and to recommend training practices and rehabili-
tation treatments for such disturbed land.
Some useful practices include rotating the locations of exercises and restricting the use of
some areas for several years while they are restored from damage caused by vehicles and activi-
ties. The concept is similar to the "rest rotation" management of livestock range, and is prima-
rily supportive of environmental restoration, secondarily of global climate change.
On training land used for a single purpose, approximately one-half of the vegetation treat-
ment opportunities exist (per acre) for vegetative growth and carbon storage in biomass, com-
pared to similar lands managed for multiple uses. Because harvest is often not possible, inten-
sive forest management opportunities either do not exist, or are economically unfavorable.
Page 21
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Extent of opportunity
The available data from CERL include estimates for many planning and treatment
items of land management. It was not possible to separate the treatment costs.
Treatments
The IT AM program has a number of phases and techniques for training area manage-
ment and scheduling, the design and layout of training facilities, and treatments to restore and
maintain vegetation.
Benefits
The land management treatments include the replacement of roads, the restoration of areas
affected by erosion, and the planting/reseeding of vegetation. Detailed plans for most have yet
to be worked out. On most bases, IT AM is still in the data collection and analysis phase.
The primary benefit of the IT AM program is the success of training missions on military
bases with less time and effort lost, greater availability of training areas in all seasons, and less
damage to military equipment.
The program will also have the important environmental benefits of reducing soil loss
and runoff. By restoring vegetation, it will also increase the biomass within the managed
training area.
3B. Improve Vegetation in Artillery and Bomb Impact Areas
Within many bases, particularly ground force training bases, there are areas so heavily
affected by military use that management for forest products, range forage, or wildlife habitat
is infeasible or severely restricted. These areas include ordnance impact areas, where
unexploded ammunition is a danger, and where schrapnel may severely degrade timber values.
Extent of opportunity
The military manages over 8 million acres in installations which have primary uses as fir-
ing ranges, target sites, or test/development areas. Approximately 90 percent of this area is
southwestern desert or brush land. On most of these ranges the impacts are not concentrated.
On others, such as the lands attached to Luke AFB, the main environmental impacts result from
occasional use by ground force training detachments.
On many other bases, particularly those with armored or artillery training roles, there are
large ordnance-impact areas. For instance, at Fort Sill, OK—an Army artillery training base—
approximately 42 out of 92 thousand acres are in impact areas.
In these areas, a large portion of the tree vegetation is broken or shattered, and the land-
scape is pockmarked with impact craters. Fires from exploding ammunition are frequent and
are often allowed to burn within the designated boundaries because of the dangerous condition
of the land. In general, the existing biomass is a fraction of the potential.
An estimate of the total bomb impact area on DoD land is approximately 275,000 acres in
range/woodland types and some 375,000 acres in forest or potential forest types.
Treatments
Treatment possibilities within the impact areas are limited by the danger to both personnel
Page 22
-------
///. Program Elements
and vehicles. Salvage of timber within the areas is not possible. Treatment is apparently limited
to aerial grass seeding. There is little likelihood that most forest species would survive the fre-
quent fires, though fire-resistant species might be seeded.
Benefits
Aside from providing space needed for ordnance impact, these areas have wildlife and wa-
tershed values. Deer within the areas seem to adapt and thrive. Without vegetative cover, these
areas could become highly eroded.
Program costs
Costs for seeding these by helicopter would depend on the type of seed and the terrain.
Commercial spraying or seeding land on moderate forest terrain costs about $30-$50 per
acre for the flying alone.
3C. Improve Vegetation in Target Range Fans (Small Arms)
Many military bases have firing ranges for training in small arms and large weapons types.
The area surrounding the firing points, the area between the firing points, and the targets them-
selves need to be cleared of interfering vegetation. But the fan-shaped area behind the targets is
a danger zone of several miles that needs special management.
Management of such areas is often limited to keeping the area clear of people, especially
during periods of firing range use. In general, there is no reason that such areas should not be
used to establish heavy vegetation.
Extent of opportunity
Area within firing range fans is approximately 100,000 to 120,000 acres on military bases.
Treatments
Plant trees or other heavy vegetation that the site would support.
Limitations
Timber from the area may contain embedded ammunition and, therefore, lose sale value.
Because there is a moderate threat of fire if tracer shells are used, the area should be managed
with fire lines and fire pre-suppression activities.
Benefits
Since data on existing vegetation within range fans are not available, a reasonable assump-
tion is that vegetation treatments may generally increase biomass as much as improved man-
agement of the lands.
An additional benefit is that heavy vegetation, such as deciduous forest, would add some
safety in absorbing stray or wide shots, in the same manner as the embankments built behind
many target areas.
Program costs
Costs are dependent on current vegetation, as well as the forest type that would replace it,
Page 23
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
the terrain, and the presence of unexploded ammunition. An average of $100-$200 an acre
might be a reasonable estimate.
4. Modify Installation Landscape and Grounds Management
4A. Establish Heavier Vegetation on Rights-of-Way
Outside of the cantonment areas, military bases have extensive networks of roads to access
maneuver areas, training areas, ammunition depots, recreation areas, and support facilities.
Current management of most of these rights-of-way keeps them in grass or other low vegeta-
tion by periodic mowing, depending on the terrain. When tree vegetation seeds into the right-of-way
areas, it is cut using brush cutters or other equipment. The frequency of mowing averages several
times a year; the timing of brush removal varies widely, often occurring at least once a year.
On some roads, and on many utility rights-of-way, extensive amounts of herbicides are
employed. Once the herbicide of choice was 2,4,5-T, but since its ban, other herbicides have
taken its place, and have also increased the cost of herbicidal treatment.
On road rights-of-way, the object of vegetation is to maintain sufficient shoulder space for
disabled vehicles to exit traffic safely, and to maintain line-of-sight visibility for safety. On util-
ity lines rights-of-way, the objective is to maintain access and working room for emergencies.
These requirements are generally set by regulation agencies.
Extent of opportunity
Depending on the type of military base, there are about 3 to 7 miles of road for each 1,000 acres
of land. The total extent of roads outside of the cantonment areas is about 22,000 miles. Assuming
an average right-of-way of 35 ft. on each side of the road, there are about 170,000 acres in road
rights-of-way on military reservations.
In addition, there are rights-of-way for utility lines not on roads, and railroad spurs. These
add another 40,000 acres.
Treatments
Feasible modifications of right-of-way maintenance might allow for additional vegetation
and reduction of long-term maintenance costs. These modifications are:
• Plant shrubs on the outside edges of road rights-of-way that would establish permanent
woody vegetation. Select species (such as sumac) so that the growth does not exceed ap-
propriate heights for the site, requires no thinning, and does not spread too rapidly.
• Establish low ground cover that would require no mowing, would retard invasion by grass
and other herbaceous species, and would be self-maintaining wherever possible.
Limitations
Some rights-of-way are used for troop movements and therefore should remain in grass. Cuts
and fills—where there are no rock outcrops—already require special vegetation to retard erosion.
Benefits
The data are too limited to permit more than a rough estimate of the extra biomass that
could be stored, but studies suggest biomass carbon storage could be increased 100 percent, a
gain of 8 metric tons per acre.
Page 24
-------
///. Program Elements
Associated benefits would include a substantial reduction in annual maintenance, once
the shrubs and ground cover were established. Current right-of-way maintenance varies
from about $20-$60 per acre per year, depending on the prevailing vegetation and climate.
There is about 0.6 acre per mile for very narrow road rights-of-way, and 1.1 acre per mile
for wider ones adjacent to main roads.
Some minor additional benefits from greater watershed protection and wildlife habitat
may accrue.
Treatments
The cost of establishing shrubs and ground covers would vary by vegetative type. High-
way departments often spend up to $300 an acre to landscape parkway rights-of-way, though it
could probably be done on DoD bases for $200-$300.
4B. Improve Vegetation on Runway Medians, Buffers, and Approaches
Most large military bases, or complex of related bases, contain an airfield. DoD statistics
on total area of runway, taxi strips, and aprons, suggest that some 35,000 acres may be paved.
Extensive areas around the runways function primarily to separate the runways from each other
and from possible flight obstructions, and to maintain maximum visibility for pilots.
Further, the clearance around airfields supposedly reduces problems in the rescue and in-
vestigation of aircraft crashes. An interservice study, however, showed that a very high propor-
tion of military air crashes occurred within a few yards of the center line of a runway, and
within a mile from its end. Other crashes, even ones connected with takeoffs and landings, were
widely dispersed.
Within the military services, there is a belief that more land than necessary is kept in grass
or other low-vegetation types.
Extent of opportunity
The areas around airfields, shown in sample base plans, extend in a ratio of approximately
8 to 1 to paved area. This would suggest that some 200,000 acres are involved. Some of the
largest air bases, however, are located in plains areas in the northern tier of the United States,
and in the Southwest. In these areas, the land surrounding airfields is usually the sparse native
vegetation, and no improvement in vegetative biomass is feasible. These conditions—and rec-
ognizing that only a portion of the area in airfields should be treated—suggest that the potential
treatment area might be 50,000 acres.
Treatments
Establish the areas farthest from the runways of many forested regions in shrubs or
ground covers that would accumulate more biomass than grass. Species could be selected
that would have limited height growth, and would require less maintenance.
Benefits
The benefits from an increase in biomass carbon sequestration may be similar per acre to
those resulting from controlled vegetation in road rights-of-way.
Noise control is an associated benefit of surrounding airfields with vegetation taller than
grass. Shrubs and trees are relatively effective in blocking high-pitched sound transmission.
Page 25
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
This type of vegetation might help in reducing noise near operational and administrative build-
ings, as well as in off-base areas affected by aircraft noise.
Program costs
Program costs, like those of other innovative vegetation treatments, are highly speculative.
4C. Improve Vegetation in Storage Areas for Ammunition and Fuel
Two significant land uses on military bases are for ammunition and fuel storage. Both ar-
eas tend to be isolated in secure, out-of-the-way, semi-improved areas, with specialized struc-
tures separated by varying amounts of space.
Ammunition is stored in special ammunition supply centers and depots, and at individual
military bases in smaller quantities. Fuel is usually stored at the military base where it is con-
sumed: The amount stored depends on the service and mission of each base.
Two considerations sharply affect the layout and design of these facilities. First, ammuni-
tion and fuel should be separated into a number of units so that if one or several are destroyed,
the remainder would be unaffected. This requires adequate space around each unit, or group of
units. Second, sufficient security from intruders should be provided. The need to detect intrud-
ers tends to favor planting grass, at least in the immediate vicinity of ammunition bunkers or
fuel tanks.
Extent of opportunity
Records of DoD real property list the number of structures and tanks (and their capacity),
but not the extent of the areas in which they are located on bases. Based on an approximate ratio
of 3 acres for each ammunition structure (within the building group and within the depot area),
and 2 acres for each fuel tank, some 35,000 acres are involved.
Current management of ammunition depots and fuel farms generally favors grass, mowed
frequently, within the groups of ammunition buildings or fuel tanks. However, separating
groups of storage units can be accomplished by using natural vegetation. Many bases often use
wooded areas because trees have the advantage of reducing blast velocities and damages if an
explosive incident occurs.
Possible treatment
Some natural resource managers feel that far more vegetation could be grown, or left to
grow, within these storage areas on military bases. The requirement that intruders be identified
does not mean that the grass must be maintained by methods used on golf courses. Mowing
could be decreased or ground cover use could be increased. In addition, the areas between stor-
age units could be left to grow or could be planted with trees or other large vegetation.
Benefits
The benefits from increased carbon biomass on a per acre basis would be similar to those
along rights-of-way, or those adjacent to airfields.
One suggested benefit from trees surrounding ammunition or fuel storage would be a re-
duction of the damage to neighboring structures in case of an explosion. Evaluation of this
benefit is beyond the scope of this feasibility study.
Program costs
Program costs would be similar to those opportunities on rights-of-way and airfields.
Page 26
-------
///. Program Elements
4D. Promptly Landscape New Military Construction
In recent years, military construction has slowed substantially. With both new and older
construction, however, "catch-up" landscaping needs to be done. Landscaping provisions devel-
oped by the architects were often inadequate or inappropriate to the site or vegetative zone, or
were omitted from construction when contractor bids exceeded available funds. Most of the ra-
tionale for landscaping today is purely aesthetic. None of the personnel on bases cited fuel con-
servation as the reason for the planting in progress. Few of the grounds personnel were formally
trained or experienced in strategic landscaping concepts.
Extent of opportunity
Some 100,000 administrative, medical, and support buildings are located on military bases.
This does not include the operations, supply, motorpool, and other areas which are often not
landscaped. At present, buildings are landscaped 40 to 70 percent compared to what is consid-
ered adequate landscaping by non-military standards. If, on the average, two additional trees or
shrubs were planted per building, the procedure would require more than 250,000 trees.
Limitations
In some areas, such as the Southwest, landscaping that is not drought resistant must be
watered, especially in the hot summer months. In such cases, the disadvantages of water use
may outweigh the benefits of landscaping.
Administrative buildings offer major opportunities for fuel savings and biomass in-
crease. On some bases, many buildings from the World War II era were poorly built and
maintained, but are still in use. Most of these buildings have been modernized by the place-
ment of skirts around crawl space foundations and by the replacement of wall insulation, in-
sulating windows, heating/air-conditioning equipment, and roofs. The remaining unimproved
buildings either have low occupancy or are used as warehouses. Ground maintenance person-
nel are reluctant to invest in major maintenance or landscaping projects for these buildings
when they expect them to be replaced. In addition to increased maintenance and planting of
low-water-use species (such as native vegetation in arid lands), other technical assistance is
needed for these aging buildings.
Benefits
The chief benefit from strategic planting is accrued fuel savings from the reduced need
for heating and air conditioning. Savings could be up to 30 percent of the utility bill of a
house. For larger structures with heavier block, brick, or other masonry walls, savings would
not be as great. Improvements in the quality of life for military personnel stand out among the
additional benefits derived from these plantings.
Program costs
The costs of planting a landscaping tree ranges from $50-$ 120, depending on its size, its
species, and the number planted. Also considered in the cost is the potential to achieve economy
of scale.
4E. Improve Lawn and Ground Cover Management
The cantonment areas of most military installations are typified by numerous low-rise
headquarters, operations, training, housing, and support buildings, each with a nearby parking
area. Lawns surround the entire cantonment area on most bases. The predominant suburban
Page 27
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
military environment is significantly modified only in the Southwest, where many bases retain
desert or native vegetation around non-residential buildings.
Extensive, frequent, and closely mowed lawns are taken as a sign of a well-run base. Many
base commanders place a high priority on maintaining a well-policed appearance. However,
many natural resource personnel on bases believe that the emphasis on maintaining extensive
areas of grass—rather than native vegetation or perennial ground covers—does not make sense.
The frequency and closeness of mowing, as well as the use of excessive quantities of scarce
water to maintain the lawns, are unnecessary uses of resources. Also, some maintenance per-
sonnel show resistance to planting landscape trees because they consider trees to be complica-
tions in mowing.
Treatments
For lawns themselves, many horticultural and landscape experts recommend that
healthier lawns have somewhat taller grass (2-1/2 to 3-inch mowing), and that mowing
should occur only when the grass gets 50 percent higher. Such lawns have better root systems
that require less frequent but deeper watering, and have better chances for surviving
droughts. These lawns also store considerably larger amounts of biomass carbon than thinner,
closely mowed lawns (Roberts and Roberts, 1989).
Program costs
DoD does not maintain comprehensive information on the area of lawns, but from real
property records, it is estimated that there are some 95,000 acres maintained as lawns. The
maintenance of lawns is a major activity during the growing season. Lawns are mowed as fre-
quently as 20 times a year at a cost of roughly $12 per acre per mowing. Fertilization and her-
bicides are also expensive. In many regions of the United States, lawns are watered seasonally
to maintain a healthy, green look through hot or dry periods.
Limitations
Conversion of lawn areas to ground cover or natural vegetation, while generally decreasing
the frequency of mowing, watering, and fertilization costs, is considered a controversial method
at some installations.
Lawns are preferred as play areas and are thought to look neater and more military. Some
posts have tried ground covers, but have reported difficulty in keeping them sufficiently dense
and free from weeds, or conversely, from spreading too rapidly. The situation varies from post
to post.
Personnel on cantonment grounds cite a wide variety of technical problems with landscap-
ing—such as finding suitable species and maintenance programs, as well as handling diseases
and insect pests. Many grounds personnel feel that they need expert technical assistance.
Benefits
Shifting lawn maintenance policies and replacing unnecessary lawn with native vegetation
or ground covers would save maintenance costs, conserve water supplies, and reduce fertilizer
and pesticide use. The increase in biomass carbon may be only moderate at first—perhaps 0.5
metric ton per acre over the period of implementation—and thereafter remain stable. The sav-
ings in maintenance costs, water, and gasoline may be substantial, but would take further study
to estimate. Cutting back on the use of fuel would also reduce the amount of carbon emissions
from mowing. If lawn mowing were reduced by roughly 15 percent, then approximately
600,000 to 800,000 gallons of gasoline would not be used—about 1,200 to 1,500 metric tons of
carbon per year.
Page 28
-------
///. Program Elements
Program costs
Changes in lawn policy would not be expensive to implement, but replacement of grass
with native vegetation or ground cover would cost roughly $ 100-$200 per acre.
5. Reduce Heating and Cooling Expenditures By Strategic
Landscape Planting
5A. Implement Landscape Planning with Current Knowledge
Landscaping around air-conditioned and heated buildings may significantly reduce energy
requirements by reducing heat gain in summer and heat loss during winter. The heat gain is re-
duced primarily by shading walls, windows, and sometimes roofs; the heat loss is prevented by
reducing wind around the building (Rosenfeld and Hafemeister, 1988).
Though some residential and commercial buildings on DoD bases have substantial land-
scaping that is mature (and in older bases, overmature), many have only one-half or two-thirds
the landscape biomass as compared to nonmilitary areas of similar age. In general, an over-re-
liance on existing trees (many of which are not suitable for long-term landscaping) has limited
the funding available for landscape planning. Other limitations include maintenance problems,
caused by the dense population of dependent children, and frequent changes in home occu-
pancy. Additional opportunities for cost savings do exist: Improving building design, increasing
insulation, rebuilding roofs for better insulation and heat reflectance (Bevington and Rosenfeld,
1990), and improving maintenance—opportunities which are outside the scope of this prelimi-
nary study.
Extent of opportunity
Military bases in the United States contain 435 million square feet of family housing and
1.4 billion square feet of other facility space. Expenditures for thermal and electric energy were
around $2 billion in 1991 for bases in the U.S. Approxmately $650 million went to space heat
and $175 million to air conditioning. Roughly 62 percent of the buildings are located in the 12
southern states where the cost of cooling is equal to or greater than the cost of heating. Though
some older building types are well-landscaped, present vegetation is approximately 30 percent
of the desired amount for reducing heating and cooling costs. We have assumed that there are
opportunities for landscaping the remaining 70 percent.
We assume that 100 percent of the residential space (family housing and that used by
single personnel—BOQs and BEQs) can realize energy benefits from landscaping. In addition,
80 percent of the approximately 32 percent of facility space taken up by administrative, training,
community, and hospital/medical buildings may also benefit from landscaping. Reductions were
made for oversize buildings, for those with more than two floors, and for other unsuitable space.
Limitations
Many housing and commercial units that are 20 to 30 years old need renovation—replace-
ment of roofs and windows, modernization of kitchens, and other major repairs. Since a good
portion of the existing landscaping is damaged or destroyed during renovation, programs for
strategic landscaping must be scheduled after renovation is completed.
Benefits
The major benefit of strategic planting is the reduction of heating and cooling costs.
Studies have shown that depending on the region, and type and condition of building, strate-
gic landscaping may save between 10 to 40 percent of heating costs, and 15 to 50 percent of
Page 29
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
air conditioning costs. Adjusting for these factors, we have assumed that strategic landscap-
ing may save 25 percent of both heating and cooling costs. A complete DoD program to im-
prove the landscaping of military housing and commercial units may potentially save 10 percent
of the present annual cost, or approximately $84 million per year, nationwide.
Other important benefits of landscaping include the increased comfort and well-being
afforded to military personnel and families, and other employees. Further, the mission ben-
efits from increased morale, and retention rates among officers and enlisted and civilian
personnel lead to major savings in personnel and training costs.
Program costs
Tree planting costs range from $50-$ 120 per tree, depending on species, soil, and economy
of scale. Shrubs cost less. We have assumed a need for two trees on average per unit, plus shrubs,
at a cost of $300 per housing unit. The cost for commercial units is less expensive, due to the rela-
tively smaller amount of perimeter per internal space. Considering a payback period of 2-4 years,
the program is cost-effective.
Conclusion
Though this study has emphasized the identification of program elements that may contrib-
ute significantly to the mitigation of carbon emissions, generalized estimates of program costs
(or investments) can be made. Both costs and impacts of global climate change will depend on
local factors, such as vegetation growth rates and climate. In addition, the benefits toward miti-
gating climate change are likely to comprise only a fraction of the total benefits.
A summary of these feasible opportunities is shown in Table 5. The calculations assume
that a 10-year program would accomplish both the overdue forest vegetation treatments and the
restoration of degraded training areas. The benefits of the program are estimated over a longer
period to include the long-term effects of reforestation and restoration. Most of the impacts of
the landscaping and ground maintenance programs would have fewer benefits extending be-
yond the 10-year program period.
Page 30
-------
///. Program Elements
TABLE 5
Program costs and long-term carbon benefits from feasible vegetation treatments
# Program Element
o 1A. Convert or plant unstocked
or poorly-stocked forest land
1B. Intensify management of
existing commercial forest
1 C. Improve management of
non-forest lands
1 0. Assess agricultural leases
2A. Develop biofuels program
3A. Integrate management of
training area
3B. Improve vegetation of
artillery and bombing
impact areas
3C. Improve vegetation in
target range fans (sm. arms)
4A. Establish heavier vegetation
on rights-of-way
4B. Improve vegetation on
runway medians, buffers,
and approaches
4C. Improve vegetation in
storage areas for
ammunition and fuel
40. Promptly landscape
new construction
4E. Improve management of
lawn and ground cover
5A. Improve landscaping/
planting in residential
and commercial areas
TOTAL
o Benefits and costs reflect the higher
t Biofuels from thinnings and salvage inck
* Discounted
Unit
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Metric
Tons/yr
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Sq.ft.
cost more in
idedin2A
Number
Htiou.)
1,260
400
1,800
200
2,800
500
600
120
210
50
35
25
95
764,530
ensive options
Cost
Cost
per Unit
$
130
50
10
90
90
60
50
67
120
120
120
400
50
232
For these acre
Total
Cost*
milVIOyrs
126
15
14
14
194
23
23
5
19
5
3
8
4
138
591
s.
Carbon Benefit
Biomass
Energy
Total
million metric tons in 40 years
11.1
9.2
1.2
14.4
0.0
3.0
1.6
0.3
23
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.1
1.6
46.0
t
44.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
44.0
89.0
11.0
9.3
1.2
15.0
44.8
3.1
1.6
0.3
14
0.6
0.4
03
0.2
45.6
135.7
Page 31
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Page 32
-------
IV. HYPOTHETICAL BASE
Base Lands and Facilities
Bases vary in landscape, mission, and mission resources. This hypothetical base integrates
composite features of several bases. The base covers 50,000 acres in the Southeast, with 30,000
acres on rolling, moderate-to-deep sand soils or "sand hills," 15,000 acres on former agricultural
land, and 5,000 acres of stream and river bottoms. The sand hills were largely cut-over pine
forest when acquired in the late 1930s. About 20,000 acres regenerated to pine and pine/hard-
wood forest and are now under moderately intensive forest management in the base program.
Ten thousand acres are still covered with scrub oaks and sparse pine stands. Most of the old ag-
ricultural fields are seeded into pine stands, and 7,000 of these acres are under forest manage-
ment. Some 4,000 acres of the agricultural land and bottom land are under agricultural lease.
Most of the other stream and bottom lands are not actively managed.
The cantonment area, and most of the semi-developed military land, is on formerly agricul-
tural land. This includes some 1,500 acres in administrative and industrial buildings (including
equipment depots), 1,000 acres in on-base military housing (some 3,000 units), 1,500 acres in
and around the base airfield, 500 acres in ammunition and fuel storage areas, 700 acres in small-
arms range fans, and 800 acres in non-cantonment rights-of-way. Some 4,000 acres of the scrub
oak and sand hill land comprise an artillery impact area. The remaining undeveloped sand hill,
old field, and bottom lands, totalling 26,000 acres, consist of various trails for tracked armor, ar-
tillery, and personnel vehicles, firing points, bivouac and staging areas, and other miscellaneous
training facilities.
The ground force garrisons have heavily used the base for 50 years. The IT AM project has
identified 500 acres of the undeveloped training lands as needing restorative treatment, and
3,000 acres as needing rest from heavy use.
About 20,000 military personnel and dependents live on the base, and 60,000 people reside
in the adjacent city. Both military and civilian families use portions of the base for recreation,
especially for hunting.
Potential Vegetative Management Programs
Most of the programs identified in this report are appropriate for this base. Table 6 pro-
vides brief program descriptions, and shows the necessary investment funds. Table 7 shows
the carbon storage and fuel substitution benefits associated with each one. All of the program
elements have multiple benefits. Some will significantly improve military mission accom-
plishments, reduce maintenance and fuel costs, and boost base morale. The extent of addi-
tional benefits depends on numerous local factors.
Conversion or Tree Planting
Of the 6,000 acres of sand hills still in scrub oak, 5,000 could feasibly be planted. In addi-
tion, 2,000 acres planted with pine species which cannot adapt to the sandy soils should be re-
planted with a more suitable species. The value of the pine and hardwood salvaged for pulpwood
or biofuels reduces the conversion costs.
Intensified Management of Existing Forest
The existing forest management program has concentrated management on the most
productive and best-stocked old field and sand hill pine forests. As stands are thinned,
some of the proceeds have been used to cover the cost of removing cull and low-value
Page 33
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
TABLE 6
Provisional economic costs and benefits of hypothetical military installation program (without values
for carbon)
# Program Element
Q1A. Plant scrub oak.
sand hill land
1B. Intensify management
of forest land
1D. Assess agricultural
leases
2A. Develop biofuels
program
3A. Integrated Training Area
Management (ITAM)
3B. Improve vegetation of
artillery and bombing
impact areas
3C. Improve vegetation in ^
target range fans
(small arms)
4A. Rights-of-way '
4B. Runway approaches
4C. Ammo/fuel depots
4D. Improve landscaping,
new construction
4E. Improve management
of lawn and ground cover
5A. Improve landscaping/
planting in residential
and commercial areas
TOTAL
Unit
Acres
Acres
Acres
Metric
Tons/year
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
1,000
Sq.ft.
Number
7,000
8,000
900
24,000
500
300
950
50
700
2,922
Cost/
Unit
$
130
50
90
20
60
50
120
400
50
232
Total
Cost
Thou.$«
10 years
707
311
63
373
23
12
89
16
27
527
2,148
Benefit/
Unit
$/year
13.3
24.1
2.2
55.0
7.2
27.3
41.0
5.0
15.0
110.0
Total
Benefit
Thou.$*
Benefit/
Cost
Ratio
- 40 years -
1,233
2,554
26
17,489
48
109
516
3
139
4,278
26,395
1.7
8.2
0.4
46.9t
2.0*
9.3
5.8
0.2t
5.1t
8.1
12.3
a Benefits and costs reflect the higher cost, more intensive options for these acres.
t B/C ratios affected by inability to value some benefits and costs.
* Discounted.
Page 34
-------
IV. Hypothetical Base
trees. The mature stands cut for regeneration have been replanted. Some additional funds
have been invested in timber stand improvement in overstocked and stagnant stands. In
addition, markets have developed to make sanitation cuts (harvest with market value that
removes cull trees) in many of the bottom hardwood lands. In all, some 8,000 acres may be im-
proved. As with the conversion program, salvage values for pulpwood and biofuels reduce the
treatment costs.
Intensified forest management must recognize several limitations. First, numerous small
areas of older pine forests have nests of red-cockaded woodpeckers, an endangered species pro-
tected by federal law. Second, the habitat in hardwood and mixed pine/hardwood forests is
highly valuable for deer, turkey, squirrel, and their hunters.
Assessment of Agricultural Leases
Most of the remaining agricultural leases have been held by the same families for decades
and are continued on a yearly basis. The majority of this leased land is best suited to crop land,
with a substantial yearly income. About 900 acres, however, are unsuitable for continued leasing
for one of two contrasting reasons. First, some land has too much slope for row crops without ex-
cessive erosion and is now overgrazed and eroding pasture. It would meet U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture (USDA) guidelines for the Conservation Reserve Program. Other land is in bottom lands
that flood every few years, and under Army Corps of Engineer criteria, should be allowed to revert
to wetlands or be planted to appropriate hardwood species.
Development of Biofuels Program
The 9,000 metric tons of municipal solid waste that the base operations and on-base housing
produce each year were formerly sent to a landfill on base. This landfill did not meet U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, and several years ago the base began bringing
waste to a county landfill. Since that landfill has capacity for only five more years of waste at cur-
rent rates of dumping, both the base and the city face a looming municipal waste problem. To
extend the life of the landfill, the base and the city have started recycling programs. A major ob-
stacle, however, is that with similar recycling programs becoming widespread, waste paper is a
glut on the market and cannot be profitably sold from the base's relatively isolated location.
In addition, the forest lands on the base could produce at least 15,000 metric tons per year
of biofuels—logging residues, thinnings of hardwood stands, and cull and low-value trees from
timber stand improvement treatments. Thinnings from pine stands have a greater value, metric
ton for metric ton, if sold for pulpwood.
The central base heating/air-conditioning plant is overdue for a major overhaul and conver-
sion to more efficient technology. It now burns natural gas. Electrical power is bought from the
local utility.
The program on which the base and city have agreed is to contract jointly with an indus-
trial power-supply firm to build a power-generating facility on base land adjacent to the canton-
ment area, with independent access to outside trash-hauling trucks. It will burn waste from the
base, the city, and eventually the rest of the county. It will also use the biofuels from the base,
and perhaps additional low-value biofuels purchased from other large landowners. The plant
will supply both steam heat and power to the base, with excess electrical power feeding into the
regional power grid. The industrial power supply firm arranges capital financing. An additional
benefit is that the site of the old power plant is freed for military purposes. Natural gas is still
purchased for heating military housing and outlying buildings.
The base and city recycling efforts must be redoubled and regulations enforced to assure
that the solid waste stream, when burned, will not produce toxic air pollutants that exceed
EPA standards.
Page 35
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM)
The primary problems found by the base's ITAM study concern excessive soil compaction,
impediment of regeneration in natural forests, and erosion from a poorly planned network of
trails and roads for tracked military equipment. Among other treatments, the network must be
redesigned, bridges must be built to allow for stream crossings, existing trails must be graded
and revegetated, and firing points and staging areas should be rotated, with the vegetation re-
stored on those going out of use. Some 500 acres will be treated for revegetation over 10 years.
Improved Vegetation on Artillery Impact Areas
Since the existing impact area is on low-productivity scrub oak sand hills, only modest
treatments are advisable. Impact craters in the sandy soil do not produce significant erosion,
except in areas around stationary targets that take frequent hits. On these areas, grass and shrub
seed is to be broadcast by helicopter. Field commanders do not want tall vegetation because it
interferes with the observation of firing accuracy.
Improved Vegetation on Semi-Improved Lands
Modified vegetation management on several types of semi-improved lands takes advantage
of similar conditions. These include lands in small-arms target ranges; road, utility, and railroad
rights-of-way; airfield buffer and approach land; and land used for ammunition and fuel storage.
The adjacent vegetation, particularly since most of these areas are now dominated by tall,
mature pine and hardwood trees, seed into mowed areas prolifically. When the brush and grass in
the areas is mowed closely, the seed reaches mineral soil, germinates, and will eventually grow to
heights and density that are not desired. The encroachment is most intense close to the surround-
ing woods, but continues out to about twice the height of the trees. Periodic brush mowing tem-
porarily eliminates the forest encroachment but does not solve the long-term problem.
The maintenance strategy adopted by the base has three phases. First, the area actually
needed to be kept clear, or at least kept in shorter vegetation than the prevailing forest, is criti-
cally examined. Security, road lines of sight, and emergency access are considered. Second, the
strategy includes planting tree and shrub species, such as sumacs—whose mature heights are
shorter than the pine and hardwoods—to prevent forest encroachment within two tree-height
buffer strips. Some 350 acres are evaluated for planting. Third, ground covers within the areas
that must be kept clear are planted to replace grass and weeds. These reduce the frequency of
mowing and maintenance substantially.
Prompt Landscaping of New Construction
Within the last 5 years, some 20 new buildings have been constructed on the base, includ-
ing replacement barracks and a new hospital. On the majority of these projects, the low bid ex-
ceeded appropriated funds for construction. The easiest portions of the projects to be deferred
have generally included the lawn sprinkler systems and the landscaping. As a result, some 50
acres surrounding new buildings need to be planted with trees and shrubs, partially to reduce
air-conditioning/heating costs, and partially for appearance.
Improved Lawn/Ground Cover Management
Grounds management policy requires weekly close mowing of lawn areas, frequent wa-
tering, and seasonal fertilization and liming. Little ground cover has been used. A modified
policy calls for allowing the grass to grow higher before cutting, with cutting intervals ad-
justed to seasonal rates of grass growth. The thicker grass requires less frequent watering.
Appropriate ground cover has been found to replace some 80 acres of lawn.
Page 36
-------
IV. Hypothetical Base
The benefits from the modified policy are modest increases in biomass, particularly from
accumulated soil carbon. Even greater are cost savings from mowing less frequently, eliminat-
ing mowing in the ground cover areas, and reducing watering needs.
Residential and Commercial Landscape Planting
The 7 million square feet of military housing and commercial buildings on the base vary
greatly in landscaping. Single family houses of senior officers are generally adequately land-
scaped. Those of junior-grade officers and enlisted men range from 10 to 50 percent of potential
strategic planting effectiveness. The same is true of the administrative and other commercial
buildings. In the hot, humid climate, the base uses fuel equivalent to about 4 metric tons of car-
bon emissions annually per house. A reasonable program, based on limited experience else-
where, might save 10 percent of this fuel use. This would require an average of 1.5 to 2 addi-
tional trees per house or house-sized commercial unit, and 3 to 4 shrubs.
The housing is currently in a program of rehabilitation, section by section, to replace heating/
cooling equipment with more efficient units, windows and doors with more airtight styles, and on
some units, roofs that are better insulated and have more reflective surfaces. These programs will
also save substantial energy. The landscape planting must follow the rehabilitation work.
The Expected Base Program Costs and Benefits
Implementation of the vegetation management program is to be phased in according to a
variety of factors. The basic program is to be completed within 10 years. The benefits will lag
behind accomplishments, but a 40-year period was chosen for the illustration because the forest
plantations will be mature by then (see Table 6).
Page 37
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
TABLE 7
Program costs and long-term carbon benefits of treatments on hypothetical base
# Program Element
D1A. Plant scrub oak,
sand hill land
1B. Intensify management
of forest land
1D. Assess agricultural
leases
2A. Develop biofuels
program
3A Integrated Training Area
Management (ITAM)
3B. Improve vegetation of
artillery and bombing
impact areas
3C. Target-range fans
4A. Rights-of-way "1
4B. Runway approaches I
4C. Ammo/fuel depots |
40. Improve landscaping,
new construction
4E. Improve management
of lawn and ground cover
5A. Improve landscaping/
planting in residential
and commercial areas
TOTAL
o Benefits and costs reflect the hie
Unit
Acres
Acres
Acres
Metric
Tons/year
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
1,000
Sq.ft.
her cost, mot
Number
7,000
8,000
900
24,000
500
300
950
50
700
2,922
e intensive op
Cost/
Unit
$
130
50
90
20
60
50
120
400
50
232
:ionsforthesi
Total
Cost*
thouS/IOyrs
707
311
63
373
23
12
89
16
27
527
2,148
3 acres.
Carbon Benefit
Biomass
Energy
Total
thou. metric tons in 40 years
63
184
65
0
3
1
9
1
7
1
334
T
320
0
1
42
363
63
184
65
320
3
1
9
1
8
43
697
t Biofuels from thinnings and salvage included in 2A.
* Discounted.
Page 38
-------
V. TASK IMPLEMENTATION
This study has suggested a range of program options to mitigate potential global climate
change by improving vegetation management on DoD bases. Each option should be evaluated
further for its compatibility with current programs at bases with varying vegetation types and
funding potentials. Implementation would require substantial planning and effort at a number
of levels in each service.
The following factors are important to consider before beginning task implementation:
• Almost all of the suggested programs are complementary to activities for natural resource
and facility management. They accomplish two or more goals with one program.
• No additional organizations, groups, or types of technical specialists would be needed.
Within DoD, management of military base facilities and natural resources is decentralized.
Each base or complex has various facility, housing, and natural resource support staffs. The ad-
ministrative organization and terminology varies by service, and sometimes by installation.
Most bases or base complexes have, or are preparing, long-range strategic plans that in-
clude subordinated facility and natural resource plans. If the base has forestry operations, the
natural resources plan includes forest management objectives, as well as recreation, wildlife,
and other activities on unimproved land. Many forest management plans may need factual and
procedural updates.
Landscaping and grounds maintenance is planned and conducted under a facilities man-
agement group, which often includes one or more specialists in energy conservation. On most
bases, substantial coordination and cooperation between the facilities group and natural re-
sources group is observable.
The following short-term actions are suggested to initiate the planning and implementation
of the programs.
1. Develop Evaluation and Planning Programs
Modify forest management practices and plans, and provide opportunities for DoD re-
source and facility managers and specialists—representing a range of installation types—to dis-
cuss climate change issues and mitigation possibilities on DoD lands. These activities may be
best initiated with a conference or other forum. Whatever the method chosen, three main objec-
tives need to be addressed. First, managers should become familiar with updated material on the
problem of global climate change as a national issue, with emphasis on the types of mitigation
programs authorized or considered. Second, they should examine the potential use of DoD
lands in mitigating global climate change. The programs identified in this feasibility study
should be considered. Special attention should be given to compatibility and interrelations
among existing activities. Finally, managers should conduct an analysis of the opportunities and
problems of implementing each type of program. These three goals begin to form a foundation
for actual program design and planning.
2. Modify Comprehensive Planning to Include Climate Change
Concerns
The strategic plans of military bases could incorporate the need for appreciable improve-
ment in vegetative management to absorb and store atmospheric carbon. Up to this point, cli-
Page 39
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
mate change mitigation has not been incorporated into strategies, though fuel conservation for
security and costs savings, a related issue, is one objective in DoD strategic planning. The incor-
poration of any significant objective into strategic planning includes the following steps.
Establish direction
The appropriate direction, from both DoD and the respective military services at the national
level, is essential. A successful directive to make mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions an ob-
jective must include the following supporting elements: aspects of base management considered
most important; activities needed to implement the policy; information necessary to plan and
evaluate those activities; and methods for implementing those activities in military missions and
base management.
Provide technical guidance
For most aspects of base management, DoD and the military services provide abundant
guidance in the form of manuals, training materials, and even analytical techniques and com-
puter programs. For many technical aspects of forestry and land management, however, base
programs rely heavily on information from other sources, including the USDA Forest Service,
state extension and forestry organizations, universities, and professional societies. Through
professional meetings and joint activities, most DoD resource specialists maintain contacts with
other local resource managers and specialists. Time and travel limitations have sometimes kept
professional exchanges below desired levels. Nevertheless, these contacts assist in incorporating
recent research and experience into DoD resource programs, and particularly in solving vegeta-
tion management problems unique to the locality of each base.
Therefore, program implementation will require newly developed research materials to
support the efforts of DoD resource specialists. DoD guidance should emphasize concerns for
mitigating climate change in the design and evaluation of activities that have mitigation poten-
tial. In most cases, such materials would be similar to applied technical information for other
land management agencies such as the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and state
resource and environmental agencies. The information should be placed in a format that can be
substantially expanded as additional basic research and results of program implementation—
both within DoD and elsewhere—become available. This guidance information should allow
for local supplements containing references to local sources of information and expertise.
On some lands, such as the prevalent deep sands in the Southeast, technical problems re-
main unsolved. More extensive use of existing research results from the Forest Service or state
university/research programs may support their resolution.
3. Initiate R&D Programs to Develop Needed Guidelines
3A. For Strategic Landscape Planting and Bioenergy Facilities
There are two areas of research and development where planning information is scarce and
where DoD installations qualify as appropriate places for application: the use of landscape
planting to reduce utility costs for buildings; and the use of municipal solid waste, landscape
maintenance waste, and forest-produced biomass for installation heat and power production.
Demonstrate the potential savings from energy conservation in joint cooperative
project with EPA and DOE
Research on test buildings or components has suggested that well-chosen and well-
placed trees, along with other landscaping plants, may reduce energy use by up to 30 percent.
Page 40
-------
V. Task Implementation
This research has been conducted notably at Department of Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Ber-
keley Laboratory (Akbari et. al., 1989). Such strategic planting is complementary to other en-
ergy-saving programs such as improved insulation for windows/doors, for more efficient
heating/cooling mechanical equipment.
The benefits which accrue from trees and landscape plans are dependent on place-
ment relative to sun and wind, and other aspects of the building's microclimate. The type
of plant material—whether deciduous or nondeciduous—its density, and other character-
istics, also are significant factors.
DoD has committed to begin a research and demonstration project with EPA and DOE
which will examine the kind of savings that would be achieved through a practical program
within individual or groups of buildings—perhaps with varying existing landscaping. The
project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1993. A wide variety of practical problems have
not yet been addressed. These include:
• What are the best tree and shrub species for various placements in various climates?
• How should a program be implemented—all at once or staged?
• What are the most cost-effective components of a program, and what types of buildings
would benefit most?
• What practical considerations—landscape, maintenance, pests and diseases, drought/
heat/cold hardiness, safety and recreational use concerns—need to be addressed?
• What are the expected costs of installation and maintenance? And, how do these costs
compare with the long-term benefits of carrying out a program?
The use of military housing and barrack-type buildings to demonstrate the effects of stra-
tegic landscape planting has many advantages. Some of these are described as follows:
• Many bases have large housing developments with numerous identical units and existing
vegetation—which is often limited. Variation of measured energy use between buildings
would be dependent on vegetation, with little of the variation attributable to house de-
sign and condition.
• The military base is the landlord and could install landscaping and monitoring equip-
ment without obtaining outside permission. Payments might be involved if privately
owned buildings were used in such a study. (Most military families would probably be
cooperative, if they are not seriously inconvenienced).
• Housing and facility management and engineering personnel could be used to monitor
the test buildings, and help collect energy use and other data throughout the test period,
which could last several months or seasons. Most bases have facility engineers whose
duties include energy-reduction programs.
• Many military bases in diverse climatic zones have similar building designs. Either
initially, or at a later study stage, this uniformity would have great value in correlat-
ing energy savings and costs with climatic zones and would assist in the necessary
adaptation of strategic planting programs to geographic location.
3B. For Gasification of Biofuels and Use of Aero-Derivative Turbines
One problem with the use of biofuels, whether municipal solid waste, forest logging resi-
dues, or wood-burning power plants, is the relatively low proportion of potential energy effec-
tively used (Weinberg and Williams, 1990). The energy yield ranges from 20 to 40 percent, de-
pending on the type of fuel and the equipment used for burning it. This same problem exists,
but to a lesser extent, with the existing electrical generating capacity, much of which uses coal.
Page 41
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
New technology has emerged that greatly improves the yields of energy from carbon-based
fuels, but it has not yet been applied to biofuels. One of the most promising initial strategies for
modernizing bioenergy, particularly for electrical power generation, is the use of advanced aero-
derivative gas turbines fired with gasified biomass. Electricity produced this way could be competi-
tive with electricity produced from fossil fuels. The use of aero-derivative gas turbines could achieve
high efficiencies and low capital costs at the modest scale required with bioenergy systems.
The current state of technology is approximately as follows (Williams, 1989):
• Gas turbines (essentially the same equipment that powers jet aircraft) have been combined
with high-performance electrical generators to produce modular commercial power gen-
erators. Commercial application has so far used natural gas and petroleum products. The
primary advantages of this technology are low unit-capital costs, relative portability, high
thermal-conversion efficiency, and less expensive, readily available maintenance.
• Other organic biofuels could be used, but the gasification process is still in the conceptual
stage, and has not been demonstrated in pilot stage. Potentially, both coal and other
biofuels could be converted to energy with yields of 40 to 60 percent.
Much of the research and development has been undertaken by jet engine manufacturers
who foresee substantial markets in facilities for modular electrical generation. This may extend
to the development of coal gasification technology, which could have large applications for
stationary power facilities. High efficiencies are possible in the 25-100 MW range or less, which
should be good for a large base or for a smaller base if power is sold to a utility. Major markets
for biofuel gasification have yet to appear, though it has been introduced as a promising technology for
developing countries that have substantial supplies of agricultural waste or forest biomass.
Development of biofuel gasification technology might be considered by DoD for both mili-
tary missions and for mitigation of climate change objectives. Development of power generation
capability using biofuels would have these advantages:
• The facilities would be modular, and relatively small-scale;
• They would be portable, capable of being airlifted to areas of conflict;
• They could use a variety of local biofuel sources, relieving the necessity to supply the
plants with liquid fuels;
• Natural gas could be used as a backup to biomass on a turbine system;
• Maintenance would involve skills similar to those needed to maintain jet aircraft, and
would be more readily available than those skills needed for facilities driven by diesel or
steam power.
4. Develop Funding Sources—initially from Existing Sources
Providing funding for efforts to mitigate climate change by improved vegetation manage-
ment on DoD lands could be difficult in an era of declining post-Cold War military expendi-
tures. There may be little likelihood of securing major new funding from regular DoD sources.
Funding from non-DoD federal programs to offset climate change is possible. Reforesta-
tion programs have been proposed, and it is evident that it is more cost-efficient to reforest fed-
erally owned lands than to lease lands from the private sector under the Conservation Reserve
Program and other federal, cost-sharing programs. Those programs are expensive because of
the initial start-up cost, combined with the annual rental payments for the 10 or more years of the
program's contract with the landowner.
Page 42
-------
V. Task Implementation
However, DoD natural resource groups have several other smaller but significant sources of
funds, which include the following:
Use of operation and maintenance funds for cost saving purposes
Many of the options identified promise major savings. As policies are reviewed and
implemented, some of the changes in vegetation management can be incorporated into ongo-
ing maintenance and renovation activities. For example, renovation of base housing will still
continue, and strategic landscaping can be incorporated into the renovation program as a fully
justified element.
Use of trust account funds
The remarkable development and expansion of the DoD forest management programs has
been largely financed by recycling income from timber sales through trust funds, from which
expenditures for reforestation and forest improvements are made. Other resource programs
have been similarly expanded. The military services are far from cutting the growth on its forest
lands, and timber harvest can and probably should be expanded—resource personnel and pro-
grams permitting. Depending on the economy and timber markets, additional funds in the trust
accounts can be expected.
No major shifts in the use of these trust funds would be necessary although they could
be augmented by additional funds. They could be used to reforest understocked areas,
perform timber stand improvement measures, and intensify management. Consideration of
global climate change concerns may modify the direction and mix of the programs.
5. Establish Program Momentum
Concerns for mitigating climate change could be recognized at local installations. The vari-
ous facility and natural resource staffs should be aware of the potential contributions of programs
on local bases to climate change mitigation, and how these programs generally complement ex-
isting facility and natural resource programs. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions may be
considered as another important multiple-use concern, nationally and locally.
Briefings of installation commanders and staff
One means to achieve recognition of the contribution bases could make to mitigating
greenhouse gases is through briefings to base commanders and appropriate staff. It is particu-
larly important to include global climate change topics along with briefings of natural resource
and facility concerns. It is important that this type of briefing take place during the transfer of
the base command, when the incoming commander is briefed on the installation mission, facili-
ties, and responsibilities.
Relate to awards programs—Installations of Excellence
A number of base personnel were highly complimentary of the Installations of Excel-
lence programs of each military service, which differ somewhat in title and scope. These
programs examine a wide range of base management and support activities, and they award
citations for those that score best within military commands and services. Facility and re-
source managers have been impressed with how many improvements in base functions are
made as a result of their inclusion as criteria in the program. Efforts to mitigate global climate
change, as well as other natural resource and environmental tasks, should be incorporated as
criteria in these programs.
Page 43
-------
VI. REFERENCES
Akbari, H., A.H. Rosenfeld, and H. Taha. 1989. Recent Development in Heat Island Stud-
ies: Technical and Policy. Presented at: Heat Island Workshop, Berkeley, CA. Feb
23-24. 16p.
Bevington, R., and A.H. Rosenfeld. 1990. "Energy for Buildings and Homes." Sci. Amer.:
263(3): 76-80, 82, 84, 86.
Birdsey, R.A. 1990. Estimation of Regional Carbon Yields States. Washington, DC: USDA
Forest Service. 15p. (draft).
Cao, Q.V., H.E. Burkhart, and R.C. Lemin. 1982. Diameter Distributions and Yields of Thinned
Loblolly Pine Plantations. Pub. FWS-1-82. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytech. Inst.
and State. Univ. 62 p.
Curtis, R.O., G.W. Clendenen, and D.J. DeMars. 1982. A New Stand Simulator for Coast
Douglas Fir: DFS1M User's Guide. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-128.
Portland, OR: Pac. Northw. For. & Range. Expt. Sta. 79 p.
Farrar, R.M., Jr. 1979. Growth and Yield Predictions for Thinned Stands of Even-Aged Natu-
ral Longleaf Pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Paper SO-156. New Orleans, LA: South.
For. Expt. Sta. 78 p.
Flather, C.H., and T.W. Hoekstra. 1989. An Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish Situation in the
United States: 1989-2040. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-178. Fort Collins,
CO: Rocky Mountain For. & Range. Expt. Sta. 147 p.
Graedel, T.E., and P.J. Crutzen. 1989. "The Changing Atmosphere." Sci. Amer.: 261 (3): 58-
64,66,68.
Guldin, R.W. 1989. An Analysis of the Water Situation in the United States: 1989-2040.
USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-177. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain For.
& Range Expt. Sta. 178 p.
Haynes, R.W. 1990. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1989-2040.
USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-199. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain For.
& Range Expt. Sta. 268 p.
Houghton, R.A. et al. 1987. The Flux of Carbon from Terrestrial Ecosystems to the Atmosphere
in 1980 Due to Changes in Land Use: Geographical Distribution of the Global Flux.
Tellus39B.p.l22-139.
IPCC. 1992. 1992 IPCC Supplement: Scientific Assessment of Climate Change; Submission
from Working Group 1. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 21 p.
Jones, P.D., and T.M.L. Wigley. 1990. "Global Warming Trends." Sci. Amer.: 263(2); 84-91.
Joyce, L.A. et al. 1990. "Integrating Forage, Wildlife, Water, and Fish Projections with Timber
Projections at the Regional Level: A Case Study in Southern United States." Envir.
Mgt. 14(4): 489-500.
Lashof, D., and D. Tirpak. 1990. Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA.
Lundgren, A.L. 1981. The Effect of Initial Number of Trees per Acre and Thinning Densities on
Timber Yields from Red Pine Plantations in the Lake States. USDA For. Serv. Res.
Pap. NC-193. St. Paul, MN: North Central For. Expt. Sta. 25 p.
Marland, G., and R.M. Rotty. 1983. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels: A Procedure
Page 45
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
for Estimation and Results for 1950-1981. Doc. DOE/NBB-0036 (TR 003). Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Dept. of Energy, np.
Moffat, A. S., andM. Schiler. 1981. Landscape Design That Saves Money. New York, NY:
William Morrow. 223 p.
Nordhaus, W.D. 1990. "To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect."
Revision of paper prepared for the 1989 International Energy Workshop and MIT
Symposium on Environment and Energy. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ., Dept. of
Economics. 28 p.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1989. Facing America's Trash: What's Next for Municipal
Solid Waste. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
Rept. 0-424. 388 p.
Parker, J.H. 1983. "Landscaping to Reduce the Energy Used in Cooling Buildings." J. For-
estry: 81(2): p. 82-84.
Ramm, C.W. 1989. RPAL: A Growth and Yield Simulation Model for Red Pine Plantations in
the Lake States. 'East Lansing, MI: Mich. State Univ., Dept. Forestry. 18 p.
Roberts, B.C., and B.C. Roberts. 1989. "Environmental Benefits of Turfgrasses." Landscape
and Irrigation, p. 69-73.
Robinette, G.O. 1983. A Guide to Estimating Landscape Costs. New York, NY: Van Nostrand
Reinhold. 228 p.
Rosenfeld, A.H., and D. Hafemeister. 1988. "Energy-Efficient Buildings." Sci. Amer.: 263(3):
258(4): p. 56-63.
Row, C., 1987. "Using Costs and Values in Forest Vegetation Management Analyses." Forest
Vegetation Management for Conifer Production. John D. Walstad and Peter J. Kuch,
eds. New York, NY: John Wiley, p. 327-364.
Row, C., and R.B. Phelps. 1990. "Tracing the Flow of Carbon Through U.S. Forest Products
Sector." Proc. 19th World Congress, Inter. For. Res. Organ. Montreal, Canada. 13 p.
Schneider, S.H. 1989. "The Changing Climate." Sci. Amer.: 261(3): 70-79.
Smith, J.B., and D.A. Tirpak. eds. 1989. The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the
United States. Washington, DC: Report to Congress. U.S. EPA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. "Integrated Training Area Management." Fact Sheet EN-
13. Champagne, IL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Lab. np.
Ulrich, A. H. 1989. U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption and Price Statistics 1950-
1989. USDA Misc. Pub. 1471. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 76 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Conservation Reserve Program: Progress Report and
Preliminary Evaluation of the First Two Years. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of
Agric. 98 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1989. The South's Fourth Forest: Alternatives for the Future. USDA For.
Serv. For. Resource Report WO-24. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 512 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1990. The Forest Service Program for Forest and Range Resources: A
Long-term Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
Weinberg, C.J. and R.H. Williams. 1990. "Energy from the Sun." Sci. Amer.: 263(3): 147-154.
Williams, R.H. 1989. "Biomass Gasifier/Gas Turbine Power and the Greenhouse Warming."
Presented at: IEA/OECD Expert Seminar on Energy Technologies for Reducing Emis-
sions of Greenhouse Gases. OECD Headquarters, Paris. 15+ p.
Page 46
-------
VII. APPENDIX A
COMPUTING CARBON MITIGATION
BENEFITS FROM PROGRAMS TO
INCREASE BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY
Types of Carbon Mitigation Benefits
There are many factors to consider when estimating the net benefits from programs de-
signed to increase biomass productivity. The carbon/climate change mitigation benefits are
often only one class of benefits from a program. But whether these benefits are a major or mi-
nor rationale, they need to be considered systematically and estimated with reasonable consis-
tency. At this time, however, many of the factors or coefficients are known only approximately,
and thus great accuracy cannot be expected. These less well known aspects include the increase
of carbon in soils and non-wood vegetation, flows of carbon in landfills, and the impacts of
landscaping buildings on fuel use for air conditioning and heating.
Mitigation options include the following:
• Accumulating terrestrial biomass, which may:
— Increase carbon in living plants and animals
— Increase carbon in the soil
— Increase carbon in litter and dead debris
• Harvesting forest products, some of which may:
— Increase carbon sequestered in "wood-in-use" and landfills
— Substitute for carbon in fossil fuels
• Reusing discarded products, that might:
— Recycle for another use, reducing new material use
— Substitute for fossil fuel use if incinerated
• Landscaping houses and other buildings with trees and shrubs, which would:
— Increase carbon in vegetation
— Directly reduce energy use for heating and cooling
— Indirectly reduce energy use by decreasing the buildup of heat islands over
major cities
• Reducing use of equipment fuel or energy
Choosing the Timeframe for Programs and Benefits
Most programs to increase biomass productivity can be implemented over a shorter period of
time (such as 10 years) than the period of time it takes the benefits to accrue. Though some activi-
ties may take the full implementation period, some can be accomplished in less time. Attaining
full benefits may require a number of decades until reforested areas reach mature size. Many ar-
eas, such as non-forest areas, may achieve the maximum increase in biomass in much less time.
The benefits realized may be one-time benefits or continuing streams of benefits in various
programs. Discussion of ways to estimate these benefits for major types of programs follows:
Page 47
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Converting Understocked Forest Land to New Forest Plantations
The biomass in living trees and other organisms grows rapidly in the first decades after re-
forestation. As the canopy closes, and later as the trees mature, the net growth rate slows. Even-
tually, loss of carbon from the death of overcrowded trees will nearly balance the growth of sur-
viving trees. The carbon in the soil will also increase somewhat proportionately. Biomass in
litter and debris builds up rather quickly after reforestation and then stabilizes. Estimates of
carbon accumulation in each biomass component have been computed for specific forest types
and land productivity classes (Birdsey, 1990). The gain in carbon can be expressed as a one-
time increase from the beginning of the benefit period to the end, or as an average rate of in-
crease during the benefit period.
The estimates of biomass on the converted land must be subtracted from the biomass (living trees,
litter and debris, and soil) that would have accumulated if the land had not been converted from
understocked forest to plantation. This amount includes the biomass cleared from the land before con-
version (less any used for fuel or products), plus the biomass that would have grown during the benefit
period.
If thinnings are to be removed and converted to products, the carbon content that would
still be stored in wood-in-use or in landfills at the end of the benefit period should be included.
The portions of the carbon removed during forest harvests that are still in use or in landfills after
given periods of time have been estimated (Row and Phelps, 1990). Conceptually, the carbon
content of the fuel used to harvest and process the harvests should also be considered.
Planting Old Fields and Pastures
Benefits are similar to those of converting understocked stands, but the carbon in the soil
and pasture biomass does not increase significantly over time. Thus, the carbon benefits (but not
necessarily the financial benefits) of planting old fields or pasture are far higher than those for
understocked land. Estimates of the carbon in various types of non-forest land uses are in
Houghtonetal. (1987).
Intensification of Forest Management
The carbon benefit is the increase in biomass carbon within the analysis period (the result-
ing stocking less the amount that would have resulted had the forest been left to grow). Often,
stands needing timber stand improvement are relatively fully stocked with little net biomass
growth. The changes in carbon are roughly proportional to changes in cubic feet in the forest
biomass. The carbon in the soil, litter, and debris of fully stocked forests is relatively stable.
As with the thinnings previously discussed, the amount of carbon in the wood products sal-
vaged in "sanitation harvest" or for fuel wood, and the amount that remains in products or land-
fills (or that have substituted for fossil fuels), should be added. Because most stand improve-
ments concentrate future growth on merchantable trees, and thinnings may occur soon thereaf-
ter and repeatedly, gains from intensification of management are relatively high.
Improved Management of Non-Forest Land
The biomass benefits of improving non-forest land (including range lands, land kept
in grass, ground covers, low native vegetation, and in lawns) are one-time differences in
treated and non-treated land. Thick carpets of grass and vegetation contain more carbon,
especially in the soil, than degraded vegetation (Roberts and Roberts, 1989), but the
amounts are modest compared with the accumulation of biomass in forests. The primary
benefits of programs on non-forest lands may be a reduction in erosion and other environ-
mental and operational improvements.
Page 48
-------
VII. Appendix A
Unlike the harvest of forest biomass, the harvest of forage by livestock has little effect on
long-term carbon sequestration. Most of the carbon is dissipated back to the atmosphere in res-
piration, and in decomposition of animal waste and sewage. Relatively small amounts remain
permanently in landfills.
Reducing mowing or brush cutting of lawns, areas kept in grass, ground cover, or rights-
of-way, may save from 2 to 3 gallons of gasoline per acre per mowing. Since gasoline contains
about 5 Ibs. of carbon per gallon and areas may be mowed from 5 to 30 times a year, savings in
fuel, carbon, and more importantly, in expense, are significant.
Biofuels Programs
Green logging residues, thinnings, and low-value wood harvested may be as much as 50
percent moisture, by weight. Air-dried wood, such as commercial fuel wood, still may contain
8 to 12 percent moisture. About one-half of bone-dry wood without moisture (or 51 percent, de-
pending on species) is carbon. In contrast, coal, oil, and gas have little moisture, and are about
90 percent carbon. The energy efficiency of burning wood carbon, even in high technology fur-
naces built for wood fuel, is about 70 to 80 percent of coal, oil, or gas.
In municipal solid waste (MSW), 60 percent (by dry weight) is burnable—newsprint, other
paper, wood products, plastics, and food waste (Office of Technology Assessment, 1989). Its
moisture content depends on the garbage or trash collection practices. The energy content of
MSW depends on the portion which is plastic—a substance with far more carbon and energy
than other organic products. In general, the energy produced by the burnable proportion of solid
waste is similar, pound for pound, to forest residues. American communities generate from 2 to
3 Ibs. of MSW per person per day.
Another major component of MSW—leaves, grass clippings, and chipped yard and land-
scape waste—is sometimes composted relatively inexpensively instead of being hauled to land-
fills. Through decomposition, this component of MSW loses about 80 percent of its carbon
content in 12 to 18 months, but produces a high-grade and salable landscaping mulch. Depend-
ing on the extent of landscaping and maintenance, from 0.3 to 0.6 metric tons of such yard
waste are generated per year per acre of land in urban, landscaped areas.
Recycling of Products
Energy savings result from making new products from recycled materials instead of mak-
ing them from raw materials. For paper, the major biomass product recycled, approximately
one-half of the energy used in production is saved by recycling.
Air Conditioning/Heating Fuel Savings
The carbon content of fuel consumed to air-condition and heat an individual U.S. home
averages about 2.5 metric tons of carbon per year, but varies widely depending on climate. With
air-conditioned homes, energy use increases from the North to the South, with air conditioning
in the summer consuming the most fuel. An average home in the Southeast may use the fuel
equivalent of 4 metric tons of carbon emissions per year.
Full landscaping, especially shading the south and west facing walls of a home, can
reduce energy use by 30 percent (Parker, 1983; Akbari et al., 1989; and Bevington and
Rosenfeld, 1990). But computing the savings for a landscaping program must consider the
age and condition (including energy efficiency) of the building(s), the extent of existing
landscaping, the phasing of the program implementation, and the ability to maintain the
trees and shrubs in good condition.
Page 49
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Page 50
-------
VIII. APPENDIX B
METHODS OF VALUATION USED IN
THIS REPORT
The general approach used in valuing the benefits is to develop representative values for
each option per unit per year. Annual values for the other resources and cost savings are shown
in Table B-l; annual revenues for timber management are shown in Table B-2. All values are
annualized, or expressed in the equivalent amount of steady-stream benefits during the evalu-
ation period, regardless of whether they accrue yearly or periodically. This removes the prob-
lem of timber rotations not matching the evaluation period (40 years in this study). The cost and
benefit values are discounted to take into account the time value of money. The discounting
procedures used are discussed later in this appendix.
Basic values per unit output or effect are from the most recent sources obtainable. None
of the values are assumed to increase over the coming decades, despite the significant but
episodic rises in values for some resource outputs—timber and energy in particular—during
the last 40 years.
Land Management Income
This category includes future additional timber sale revenues (including firewood) and ag-
ricultural lease income.
Annualized timber incomes represent four species and site-quality conditions appropri-
ate for military bases—longleaf pine, loblolly pine, red pine, and Douglas-fir. Longleaf pine,
though not a major species in the South, is particularly suited for deep sand soils on which it
has been difficult to establish plantations. Such soils are prevalent on bases, such as the
465,000-acre Eglin Air Base, on the line of sand hill regions that stretch from North Carolina
to Florida. The low site index (70 ft. in 50 years) and long rotation assumed reflect typical
conditions on these bases.
Yields for appropriate management schedules are presented in the tabulations in Table B-
2. They come from the cited publications or growth simulators. The values (column 3) repre-
sent average prices paid for National Forest timber in the 1980's for these species, or pulpwood
in the South (Ulrich, 1989). Douglas-fir prices used are lower than those reported because tim-
ber from second-growth plantations is less valuable than old-growth timber. The values are con-
verted from conventional MBF (thousand board feet), or cord units, to those per cubic foot.
Total values (column 4) are reduced by: (a) 10 percent because ideal yields from tables or simu-
lators cannot be obtained for all land in major programs, and (b) 10 percent for sale administra-
tion costs. Each revenue is discounted to the year of planting, and an equivalent annual income
(EAI) is estimated using a 5 percent real interest rate. The equivalent annual incomes for each
species are weighted by estimated percentages of available land on military bases: longleaf
pine, 40 percent; loblolly pine, 40 percent; red pine (or similar northern species), 15 percent;
Douglas-fir, 5 percent.
Timber revenues for intensified forest management are generated from estimates
in annual productivity increases (in cubic feet) from The South's Fourth Forest (USDA
Forest Service, 1989), and in the more recent timber portion of the Forest Resource As-
sessment (Haynes, 1990). They represent a typical mix of treatments comparable to those
Page 51
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
TABLE B-1
Non-carbon benefits from feasible vegetation programs
# Program Element Unit
1A. Convert or plant unstocked Acres
or poorly stocked forest land
IB. Intensify management of Acres
existing commercial forest
1C. Improve management of Acres
non-forest lands
1D. Assess agricultural leases Acres
2A. Develop biofuels program Metric
Tons/yr
3A. Integrate management of Acres
training area
3B. Improve vegetation of Acres
artillery and bombing
impact areas
3C. Improve vegetation in Acres
target range fans (sm. arms)
4A. Establish heavier vegetation Acres
on rights-of-way
4B. Improve vegetation on Acres
runway medians, buffers,
and approaches
4C. Improve vegetation in Acres
storage areas for
ammunition and fuel
4D. Promptly landscape Acres
new construction
4E. Improve management of Acres
lawn and ground cover
5A. Improve landscaping/ 1,000
planting in residential Sq. ft.
and commercial areas
Mgt.
Income
Wildlife
&Rec.
Water &
Erosion
Mainte-
nance
Savings
Dollars/Unit/Year
9.0
22.0
1.5
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.5
0.3
0.9
0.0
1.2
0.3
0.6
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.6
0.4
3.4
0.0
6.0
2.0
0.8
2.8
0.3
0.3
5.0
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
5.0
0.0
25.0
15.0
35.0
50.0
25.0
0.0
50.0
-50.0
Fuel
Savings
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
15.0
165.0
Total
Benefits
13.3
24.1
2.2
6.6
55.0
7.2
27.3
16.4
54.3
60.8
35.8
10.0
66.2
115.6
Page 52
-------
VIII. Appendix B
TABLE B-2
Timber revenues from typical plantations
Longleaf pine (Shelterwood rotation)
Year
30
35
40
45
50a
55
60
Cut
cu.ft.
540
210
180
155
1,280
990
885
Value
$/cu.ft.
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.60
0.90
0.95
0.90
Total Value
$/acre
87.5
51.0
58.3
75.3
933.1
761.8
645.2
Discounted Value
$/acre
20.2
9.3
8.3
8.4
81.4
52.1
34.5
Total 4,240 179.6
Yield Per Year 71 Equivalent Annual Income = 9.0
Source: Farrar, 1979.
Loblolly pine
Year
15
20
25
35
45b
Cut
cu.ft.
365
320
475
625
3,725
Value
$/cu.ft.
0.20
0.40
0.80
0.95
0.95
Total Value
$/acre
59.1
103.7
307.8
480.9
2,866.4
Discounted Value
$/acre
28.4
39.1
90.9
87.2
319.0
Total 5,510 245.6
Yield Per Year 122 Equivalent Annual Income = 12.3
Source: Cao, Burkhart, Lemin, 1982.
a = Shelterwood harvest, revenues in other years are from thinnings and overstory removal.
b = Final removal harvest, revenues in other years are from thinnings.
Page 53
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Red pine
Year
30
40
50
60b
Total
Cut
cu.ft.
960
806
889
2,955
5,610
Value
$/cu.ft.
0.15
0.30
0.60
0.80
Total Value
$/acre
116.6
195.9
432.1
1,914.8
Discounted Value
S/acre
27.0
27.8
37.7
102.5
92.5
Yield Per Year 94 Equivalent Annual Income = 4.6
Source: Lungren, 1981; Ramm, 1989.
Douglas-fir
Year
28
36
50
66
80b
Total
Cut
cu.ft.
999
1,262
1,769
1,954
12,200
18,184
Value
$/cu.ft.
0.20
0.40
0.80
0.95
0.95
Total Value
$/acre
161.8
408.9
1,146.3
1,503.6
9,387.9
Discounted Value
S/acre
41.3
70.6
100.0
60.1
189.4
271.9
Yield Per Year 94 Equivalent Annual Income = 13.6
Source: Curtis et al., 1982.
b = Final removal harvest, revenues in other years are from thinnings.
that occur on military bases. The increased yields are assumed to start 10 years after treatment
and last for 30 years. The estimates of increased annual productivity are valued and weighted
in the same manner as the plantation yield harvests.
To estimate the value of land currently under agricultural leases, average income reported
in DoD statistics for 1988 was subtracted from the plantation income for the land in Option
ID—assessment of agricultural leases. Subtracting the income from agricultural use reduced
the net benefits from converting this land, though the benefit-cost ratio is still greater than one.
Page 54
-------
VIII. Appendix B
Wildlife and Recreation
This category includes benefits from increased hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses
that would be generated by the improved vegetational management programs. Logically, these
would include both the values of fees generated as well as non-fee values. Not included are the ur-
ban or cantonment wildlife benefits that might result from landscape trees and ground covers.
The benefits of increased forest management for such wildlife as white-tailed deer, turkey,
upland birds, cold and warm water fish, and other game and non-game species is valued in
terms of recreational days. Opening up and improving dense, second-growth forests in Option
IB may especially improve wildlife habitat (Joyce et al., 1990). In the South, for example, the
average recreation user days in hunting, fishing, and non-game recreation is roughly 0.075 days
per forest acre (Flather and Hoekstra, 1989). (A user day is any combination of 12 hours of total
use, such as one person for 12 hours or a family of 4 for three hours each.) The gain on land
with intensified forest management might be 0.04 days per acre. The value for a recreation day
used in the Forest Service's RPA planning is $36 (USDA Forest Service, 1990). The benefits
for other options are estimated as a proportion of the assumed gain on land treated with inten-
sified forest management. These wildlife benefits contribute only a modest portion of the total
benefit values of most program options.
Water and Erosion Control
Included in this category are the benefits of increased water seeping into groundwater
tables, the prevention of erosion damage, and the improvement of downstream water quality,
both on and off the military base.
The water benefit values are based roughly on the increase in groundwater absorption of
lands without existing tree cover, or without managed landscaping. The increased water is val-
ued at $30 per acre-foot, as for additional water in the South used in the Renewable Resource
Assessment (USDA Forest Service, 1989). These benefits may be even more likely to occur for
military bases than for other areas. These bases are often dependent on groundwater wells and
thus may suffer from limited availability in some seasons.
The values for erosion reduction are based on those used by the Department of Agricul-
ture in assessing the benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1989).
Maintenance Savings
Maintenance savings should occur as vegetation management in semi-improved and can-
tonment areas is improved. Savings are estimated based on the reduced cost of less brush cut-
ting and mowing per acre. For example, the cost of mowing a lawn using large industrial trac-
tors and smaller mowers and edgers around buildings is $15-$20 an acre. The costs of the work,
often locally contracted, are heavily influenced by local labor wages. Reducing the number of
mowings per year by 20 percent would save from $90-$ 120 per year per acre.
Some options require increased maintenance of planted trees and shrubs around new con-
struction, housing, and other buildings, slightly offsetting other benefits. Other options may
affect fire control costs, but values were too uncertain to include. The biofuel program will
likely decrease net costs of establishing and maintaining landfills for municipal solid waste gen-
erated on bases. Fuel savings for maintenance equipment are included in the next category.
Page 55
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
The expense of maintaining trees and shrubs would partially offset savings in brush cut-
ting, lawn mowing, watering, and fertilization and pesticide treatment. Cost estimates of brush
cutting, mowing, and tree maintenance were developed from Robinette (1983).
Fuel Savings
Estimated reductions in carbon emissions were developed from the lowered fuel use for
heating, air conditioning, and maintenance equipment. The value of fuel savings are based on
an average fuel oil price of $1 per gallon. Conversion factors from other forms of energy are
from standard sources (Marland and Rotty, 1983, for example). The savings are consistent with
other estimates made independently (Moffat and Schiler, 1981).
Cooling and Heating Energy Savings
The data on DoD energy use and building square footage is for 1991, from all four ser-
vices. For cost calculations, we assumed that each building unit that can be heated or cooled
comprises an area of 1,100 square feet (chosen as the average of 1,000 and 1,200 square feet).
An adjustment was made for the larger perimeters of commercial buildings. Costs and benefits
are reported in the tables per 1,000 square feet. The percentages of thermal and electric energy
for space heat and air conditioning were derived from Department of Energy data on primary
energy consumption by fuel type, for commercial and residential buildings (Analysis and Tech-
nology Transfer Annual Report 1988, DOE. May 1989). Financial savings from reductions in
energy use are calculated in direct proportion to the percentage of the square footage of build-
ings available for landscaping, of suitable types, and able to realize energy savings.
Benefits Not Evaluated
This category includes complex, overlapping net benefits from improved personnel mo-
rale; quality of life for military personnel, dependents, and base employees; availability of local
recreation facilities; and base security.
A special category of benefits not evaluated in this analysis are those from the Integrated
Training Areas Management. These include the greater availability of land and facilities for
training throughout the year, better cover and suitability of training conditions, reduced main-
tenance and increased availability of vehicles and equipment, and other benefits. The IT AM
program may also reduce or eliminate some needs for additional land acquisition for military
training purposes. The Army Corps of Engineers (1989) has made separate, detailed cost-ben-
efit computations for sample bases for the IT AM program that resulted in benefit/cost ratios
from 5 to 27. The detailed studies were not available for this study. This suggests that the esti-
mates of benefits for Option 3 A are substantially underestimated.
Discounting Techniques
Both costs and benefits were discounted using a 5 percent real interest rate (Tables ES-1,
4, and 6 in the main report). Each program option was assumed to be accomplished in equal
yearly segments over 10 years. The total discounted cost of an option is 7.772 times the cost of
a yearly segment, considering the discounting of segment costs in later years. Similarly, the
benefits of each implementation segment were assumed to start the year after its completion and
to extend for 40 years. The total benefits for an option, considering both the disounting of a
segment's 40 year benefit period and the spread of the segment implementation over 10 years,
are 13.249 times the annual benefit rate of the option.
Page 56
-------
IX. APPENDIX C
DoD'S LAND RESOURCE BASE
Though most bases differentiate these area types in planning and base management,
DoD does not compile acreage by use or degree of development in real property records. An
inspection of numerous base plans reveals a relationship between the size of the cantonment
areas and the number of personnel assigned (0.3 acre per person). Similarly, the area of
semi-improved land varies, depending upon installation function and personnel contingent
(0.5 acre per person for ground force bases, 0.4 acre for air bases and supply and industrial
plants, and 0.15 for all others).
Table C-l shows the distribution of DoD managed lands by the major vegetation type in
the area where each installation is located. The vegetation classification used is borrowed from
the USD A Forest Service's assessments of renewable resources, mandated by the Renewable
Resource Planning Act. The vegetation type for an area is approximately which vegetation type
would grow if the land reverted to a natural state (with natural fires and weather disturbance).
Each military installation was classified on the basis of DoD installation maps, correlated with
maps of ecosystems.
Only 20 percent of DoD land is capable of supporting forest vegetation. Of the 6 million
forested acres, some 3 million are usually in productive southern pine types, and another 0.3
million acres are in rapid-growth Douglas-fir and hemlock-Sitka spruce types. In these types,
intensive forest management, including plantation silviculture, is often practiced by DoD and
other landowners. A large portion of DoD land, however, is in the lower range of a type's pro-
ductivity. Of the remaining forest types found on DoD land, 1.4 million acres consist of eastern
hardwood or mixed hardwood/conifer types, and 1.3 million acres support western hardwood.
The 1.4 million acres of mixed eastern hardwood types are typically productive, but it has been
found that intensive management is not economically feasible. Landscaping and strategic plant-
ing to lower energy use and reduce fossil fuel use are certainly feasible on all bases within forest
vegetative types.
On lands already damaged by use, restoration programs may include cleaning up vegeta-
tive and other debris, grading eroded areas, installing water bars on roads, building soil retention
ponds, and reseeding/replanting. On fragile sites with low-vegetative productivity, there is litde
that can be done other than cleaning up, refraining from further abuse, and letting nature and
time restore the ecosystems. For bases in these vegetative types, particularly in the Southwest,
cantonment lawns and landscaping require substantial care and almost always supplemental
watering. Selection of grass types, and native or other dry climate landscape species, can
greatly reduce water and maintenance requirements.
Of the 1.1 million acres of continental grasslands and Hawaiian types, programs to restore
degraded lands seem feasible. Landscaping programs are usually possible, though they gener-
ally require supplemental watering. The majority of cantonment and semi-improved land is in
forested regions, as depicted in Table C-2, whereas the majority of unimproved land is in desert
or shrub region areas—particularly the bombing, target, and test ranges in western states. Nev-
ertheless, about 5.2 million acres of unimproved land is in forested regions.
Applying rates of biomass growth and accumulation by vegetative type suggests the po-
tential of DoD lands to sequester carbon. Table C-3 shows the amount of carbon that could be
sequestered on DoD lands. It assumes that unimproved land could reach 80 percent of poten-
Page 57
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
tial—the potential for timber stocking per vegetative type—considering mission requirements
and relatively low site productivity. Both semi-improved land and cantonment areas might
achieve 25 percent of potential carbon sequestering.
The estimates of potential for forest types—what effects moderate timber stocking
would have on that type—were developed from research material prepared by the USDA
Forest Service (Birdsey, 1990). Estimates for non-forest types were adapted from the litera-
ture, especially from Houghton et al. (1987). Most of the potential for carbon sequestration
on DoD lands is in forest ecosystems, particularly in the southern pine and Douglas-fir types.
Estimates of existing biomass on DoD lands can only be approximated from fragmentary
information. The existing vegetation and management also strongly influences what mea-
sures may be feasible in a program.
Page 58
-------
IX. Appendix C
TABLE C-1
Area by vegetation type and size class, in thousands (1000s) of acres*
Size of Base in Thousands of Acres, By Size Class
Vegetation Type More than
100,000
White-red-jack pine 0.0
Spruce-fir 0.0
Longleaf-slash pine 1,015.7
Loblolly-shortleaf 465.0
Oak-pine 0.0
Oak-hickory 214.6
Oak-gum-cypress 0.0
Elm-ash-cottonwood 0.0
Maple-beech-birch 107.3
Aspen-birch 0.0
Douglas-fir 0.0
Ponderosa pine 0.0
Hemlock-Sitka spruce 0.0
Western hardwoods 946.4
Subtotals 2,749.0
Sagebrush 6,923.8
Desert shrub 9,601.9
Texas savanna 216.9
Southwest shrubsteppe 2,859.4
Chaparral 0.0
Pinyon-juniper 924.1
Plains grassland 137.4
Prairie 101.0
Annual grasslands 0.0
Alpine and arctic 1,582.6
Hawaiian ecosystems 109.9
Subtotals 22,457.0
Totals 25,206.0
*Also shown as Table 3 in main rep
25,000 to
100,000
0.0
0.0
201.2
570.2
38.4
322.9
28.6
0.0
151.2
59.8
220.2
64.5
61.5
293.1
2,011.6
r 5,000 to
25,000
Forest
0.0
11.1
188.9
308.6
7.4
242.1
19.1
0.0
93.8
29.0
12.5
0.0
13.2
43.1
968.8
1,000 to
5,000
types
0.0
3.0
47.2
55.6
0.0
49.4
12.3
0.0
17.4
8.4
11.3
0.0
0.0
18.0
222.6
Non-forest types
83.4
274.9
27.9
140.5
47.9
44.1
235.0
75.4
0.0
175.1
68.2
1,172.4
3,184.1
ort.
33.6
35.7
37.9
27.7
61.7
40.1
128.5
57.2
28.8
27.9
54.4
533.4
1,502.2
8.3
1,000
or less
0.0
1.1
19.3
12.3
0.0
25.9
0.9
1.0
13.1
1.5
3.1
0.0
0.7
6.3
85.2
0.2
22.2 0.7
31.8
2.4
17.3
1.3
25.6
13.4
7.1
37.8
19.3
186.5
409.1
3.7
0.1
6.0
2.1
5.2
2.8
1.2
7.0
7.6
36.6
121.8
Total
0.0
15.2
1,472.3
1,411.7
45.8
854.9
61.0
1.0
382.8
98.6
247.1
64.5
75.3
1,306.8
6,037.0
7,049.3
9,935.3
318.2
3,030.1
132.9
1,011.7
531.8
249.8
37.1
1,830.5
259.4
24,386.1
30,423.1
Page 59
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
TABLE C-2
Area in OoD bases by vegetation and development type (estimated), in thousands of acres
Vegetation Type Total
Area
White-red-jack pine 0.0
Spruce-fir 15.2
Longleaf-slash pine 1,472.3
Loblolly-shortleaf pine 1,411.7
Oak-pine 45.8
Oak-hickory 854.9
Oak-gum-cypress 61.0
Elm-ash-cottonwood 1.0
Maple-beech-birch 382.8
Aspen-birch 98.6
Douglas-fir 247.1
Ponderosa pine 64.5
Hemlock-Sitka spruce 75.3
Western hardwoods 1,306.8
Subtotals 6,037.0
Sagebrush 7,049.3
Desert shrub 9,935.3
Texas savanna 318.2
Southwest shrubsteppe 3,030.1
Chaparral 132.9
Pinyon-juniper 1,011.7
Plains grassland 531.8
Prairie 249.8
Annual grasslands 37.1
Alpine and arctic 1,830.5
Hawaiian ecosystems 259.4
Subtotals 24,386.1
Totals 30,423.1
Canton-
ment
Forest type
0.0
1.6
62.8
112.0
5.0
72.2
6.1
0.2
18.9
4.8
18.9
0.2
4.7
32.6
340.0
Semi-
improved
s (thou. acres)
0.0
2.0
88.9
169.1
2.5
98.6
7.7
0.3
24.0
6.6
27.1
0.4
6.9
50.9
485.0
Unim-
proved
0.0
11.6
1,320.7
1,130.6
38.2
684.2
47.2
0.5
339.8
87.3
201.0
63.9
63.8
1,223.4
5,212.2
Non-forest types (thou. acres)
7.1
30.8
23.7
15.6
29.3
1.7
37.8
15.9
6.3
4.1
17.5
189.8
529.8
9.6
42.3
39.0
23.4
35.4
2.8
58.1
19.8
9.6
5.8
23.1
268.9
753.9
7,032.6
9,862.2
255.6
2,991.2
68.1
1,007.3
435.8
214.2
21.2
1,820.6
218.8
23,927.6
29,139.8
Page 60
-------
IX. Appendix C
TABLE C-3
Potential carbon storage by vegetation and development type, in million metric tons
Vegetation Type Potential/
acre (in tons)
White-red-jack pine 94
Spruce-fir 71
Longleaf-slash pine 104
Loblolly-shortleaf 104
Oak-pine 88
Oak-hickory 80
Oak-gum-cypress 73
Elm-ash-cottonwood 81
Maple-beech-birch 81
Aspen-birch 73
Douglas-fir 350
Ponderosa pine 55
Hemlock-Sitka spruce 470
Western hardwoods 80
Subtotals
Sagebrush 10
Desert shrub 5
Texas savanna 15
Southwest shrubstep 10
Chaparral 20
Pinon-juniper 20
Plains grassland 20
Prairie 30
Annual grasslands 25
Alpine and arctic 10
Hawaiian ecosystems 80
Subtotals
Totals
Canton-
ment
Semi-
improved
Unim-
proved
Total
Forest types (million metric tons)
0.00
0.03
1.63
2.91
0.11
1.44
0.11
0.00
0.38
0.09
1.66
0.00
0.55
0.65
9.56
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.15
0.01
0.19
0.12
0.04
0.01
0.35
1.06
10.62
0.00
0.02
1.39
2.64
0.03
1.18
0.08
0.00
0.29
0.07
1.42
0.00
0.49
0.61
8.22
0.00
0.53
89.28
76.43
2.19
35.58
2.24
0.02
17.89
4.14
45.73
2.28
19.48
63.61
359.40
Non-forest types
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.11
0.01
0.17
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.28
0.88
9.10
45.71
32.05
2.49
19.44
0.89
13.09
5.67
4.18
0.34
11.83
11.38
147.07
506.47
0.00
0.58
92.30
81.98
2.33
38.20
2.44
0.03
18.57
4.30
48.81
2.29
20.51
64.88
377.22
45.74
32.12
2.67
19.52
1.14
13.11
6.03
4.38
0.42
11.85
12.00
148.98
526.20
Page 61
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
TABLE C-4
Area in DoD bases by predominant use type and service, in thousands of acres
Type of Base Army
Range/target area
Remote site
Ground forces, stationary
Ground forces, training
Air base, stationary
Air base, training
Naval base
Ammunition depot
Supply center
Industrial plant
HQ, medical, etc.
Closed
Totals
(thou. ac)
994.5
4,806.0
1,953.2
2,428.0
236.1
179.3
32.3
207.7
271.5
259.9
162.5
0.0
11,531.0
Air Force
(thou. ac)
7,000.9
3,704.6
0.0
0.0
4,019.9
131.8
0.0
0.0
398.6
14.1
84.0
56.5
15,410.4
Navy
(thou. ac)
208.2
271.9
0.0
1.1
1,414.5
203.5
114.7
7.5
109.1
30.6
14.4
0.0
2,375.5
Marines
(thou. ac)
0.0
64.9
0.0
1,019.1
0.0
7.2
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1,100.7
TABLE C-5
Area in DoD bases by use type and size class, in thousands of acres
Type of base
RangeAarget area
Remote site
Ground f's, sta.
Ground f's, tng.
Air base, sta.
Air base, tng.
Naval base
Ammunition depot
Supply center
Industrial plant
HQ, medical, etc.
Closed
Totals
More than
100,000
25,000 to
100,000
5,000 to
25,000
1,000- to
5,000
1,000
or less
Total
Thousand acres
7,823.3
7,793.2
1,594.3
2,607.7
4,606.2
259.3
0.0
147.4
374.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
25,206.0
281.5
794.3
296.2
754.8
569.3
105.0
63.1
45.0
108.6
0.0
125.1
41.4
3,184.3
87.1
107.2
51.9
77.4
389.1
107.1
59.9
14.6
241.6
281.5
79.2
5.7
1,502.2
11.3
110.5
9.9
7.4
84.3
45.6
16.5
7.5
50.9
14.1
43.5
7.7
409.3
0.4
44.1
0.8
0.9
21.6
4.8
7.5
0.7
16.3
9.1
13.6
1.8
121.6
8,203.7
8,849.2
1,953.2
3,448.1
5,670.5
521.7
147.0
215.1
792.0
304.6
261.4
56.5
30,423.0
Page 62
-------
X. APPENDIX D
HISTORY OF THE DoD LAND BASE
Though some DoD lands, especially the core portions of historic posts, date back to the
Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the bulk was acquired around World War II. Most of the land
in the West was taken from public domain lands and managed by the USDA Forest Service or
the USDI Bureau of Land Management, or their predecessors.
In the East, the land was bought from owners of marginal or abandoned farmland and
cutover timber land, or was taken over from agencies such as the Forest Service. This DoD
land was part of the more than 35 million acres that the federal and state governments bought
from private owners in the 20 years spanning from 1925 to 1945.
When acquired by DoD, much of the land was degraded—cutover, burned, heavily
eroded, or abandoned—forest and farm land. Much of the land in the South was open range,
and was annually burned over, either by accident or intentionally. Under most purchase agree-
ments, the former owners retained the right to harvest the remaining timber, and generally they
cut it within a few years.
Subsequently, even within typically fertile regions, DoD land is less productive than aver-
age. As Table D-1 depicts, a tabulation of the site productivity of land in southern pine types
belonging to public owners reveals that these groups have substantially higher proportions of
poor sites than all owners, on average, in the South. These results suggest that average growth
potential for other public land (which includes DoD land) is about 12 percent less than the av-
erage for the South.
TABLE D-1
Site productivity of land in southern pine (public owners)
Site class
cubic feet
120
85
50
20
0
in annual
growth
+
- 120
85
50
20
All Other
South Public
Percent
14.3
33.1
43.7
8.8
.1
7.2
27.9
43.5
21.2
.2
The category of "other public land" in the South is a reflection of the fact that DoD land is
not identified separately in the Forest Service's forest inventory statistics. In the South, DoD
land constitutes some 2.9 of the 6.8 million acres of other public land, or 43 percent. In a spe-
cial tabulation for this study, the Forest Service verified that DoD lands were about average for
this category, but not enough plots were located on the land for more extensive analysis.
Page 63
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Management Since Acquisition
The initial management programs for newly acquired DoD land emphasized fire control
and fencing to gain security and reduce trespass. Very little active forest management was
practiced. Nevertheless, fire control and closure promoted natural reforestation and regrowth.
This first management philosophy—'let it grow'—lasted into the 1950's.
Beginnings of forest land management
In the 1950's, the military services realized that they possessed a valuable resource. Let-
it-grow management had inadvertently succeeded in restocking most of the high-site and me-
dium-site land. A large portion of the low-site land, however, reverted to low-quality hard-
wood and pine/hardwood forest. The military services hired foresters and created forestry orga-
nizations on many large military bases. Early efforts at active management included harvesting
remaining timber, salvage cutting, and investing some of the proceeds in reforestation and
planting open land.
Professional land management
By the 1970's and 1980's many more bases had added foresters to staffs, timber salf s
programs had grown to significant portions of local timber supplies, and the reinvestment of
the proceeds in reforestation and better management were paying off. Still, the DoD program
as a whole was on a pay-as-you-go basis, with negligible outside funds provided for large-
scale operations aimed at converting remaining unstocked and poor-quality stands to fast-
growing, high-value species. Elsewhere in the South, regeneration occurred on millions of
acres of forest industry lands located in many of the same areas as DoD lands. Although
many areas were planted, most of the land regenerated naturally as a result of strict fire pro-
tection and livestock fencing.
Integrated resource and facility planning
Currently, most large DoD installations are engaged in integrated resource and facility
planning. Natural resource programs are major components of these plans. One of the objec-
tives of such planning is to consider long-range needs for military uses of the land, and the limi-
tations these uses place upon the land management. The programs developed by this planning
must tailor natural resource programs, such as forest management, around the needs of the
military. One facet of these plans is the IT AM, a program designed to rehabilitate lands de-
graded by excessive use in maneuvers and training exercises. Using systems such as training
area rotation will likely have significant effects on forestry programs.
Current Management Programs
At present, DoD services have relatively active natural resource management pro-
grams. Some 2.3 million acres are under forest management plans. Receipts are $14.3
million and exceed expenses. Though receipts fluctuate with the market, the amount of
timber offered has gradually increased, and substantial efforts have been made to assure
prompt regeneration.
The effects of this forest management, along with the policy of harvesting only a por-
tion of growth, has been to increase vegetative stocking on most military installations. No
overall measure is available, but the statistics from the Forest Survey in the South are in-
dicative, as shown in Table D-2.
Page 64
-------
X. Appendix D
TABLE D-2
Stocking and growth of other public forest area in the South
Year
1952
1962
1970
1977
1987
ALL COMMERCIAL FOREST
Stocking
Growth/yr
OTHER PUBLIC FOREST
, Stocking
Growth/yr
Cubic feet per acre
1,172
1,335
1,574
1,795
2,087
48
56
69
78
79
866
1,094
1,259
1,445
1,554
37
35
49
56
57
Levels of inventory and growth on public land have lagged behind the South's average.
Current inventories, as well as growth rates, are approximately 75 percent of the long-run ca-
pability of the land. Since the harvests from DoD lands in this classification are still much
lower than growth, inventories can be expected to increase, assuming current programs re-
main in place (Haynes, 1990).
Other Related Programs
DoD lands also have active fish and wildlife programs affecting some 10.6 million acres
with public access. Outdoor recreation plans cover 9.6 million acres. All of these multiple-use
programs put some limitations on forestry programs, and will affect many of the feasible pro-
grams for increasing vegetation to mitigate global climate change.
Another major program with implications for increasing vegetation is the agricultural and
grazing leasing program. Such leases cover 1.4 million acres. The leases not only make pay-
ments to the government, but also perform many services in kind, such as mowing rights-of-
way, ammunition storage areas, and other sites. The lease payments are some $7.8 million
dollars annually, and the services are valued at $6.8 million.
Future Impacts of Current Management Policy
If the trends on other public land is representative of DoD lands, military installations will
probably continue to accumulate timber inventory on forest lands at a slowing but appreciable
rate. Current net growth is approximately 60 ft3 per acre per year, and cut is roughly 40 ft3 per
acre per year. The gap will continue to narrow as more of the timber reaches merchantable size
and can be harvested. A rough projection would indicate that in another 50 years (the horizon
of concerns for global climate change), the average inventory of such lands may level off to
about 2,000 ft3 per acre on unimproved military lands under management.
To translate the growth into a quantity of carbon sequestered, the relationship of forest
stocking to carbon in biomass—shown in Figure D-l—may prove helpful. This shows that as
stocking increases in a southern pine forest, the carbon stored in total biomass increases, but in
varying proportions. The increase of inventory levels to 2,000 ft3 amounts to a 19 percent in-
crease in biomass.
Page 65
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
An Estimated Scope ofDoD Global Climate Change Program
The present inventory and growth rates permit a rounded estimate of an outer scope, or
envelope, of feasible programs for mitigating global climate change on DoD lands. This
outer scope assumes a continuation of accumulation of biomass on DoD lands toward the
levels found on the best-managed forest lands. This outer scope anticipates minimum impact
of military uses.
More intensive management, including converting leased agricultural lands, may in-
crease and extend the accumulation of vegetative biomass that has occurred in recent decades
by natural growth and forest management programs. A reasonable goal for additional vegeta-
tive management programs on forest lands would be a 10 percent increase in the rate of carbon
sequestering that would be expected with a continuation of current management.
For non-forest lands, a reasonable goal would be less—7 percent. Rates of increase
for cantonment and semi-improved areas, which are much smaller areas, may be 25 percent.
Assuming such increases across the entire DoD land base, the outer scope for improvement op-
portunities might increase carbon biomass on DoD lands by 45 million metric tons over the
next 3 to 5 decades.
FIGURE D-1
Stocking/carbon biomass relationship in southern pine
•-
8
§
.!=£
C OB
O 5
•5s-
s
o
CM
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Stocking of merchantable timber
(Cubic feet/acre)
Source: Birdsey, 1990.
Page 66
-------
XI. APPENDIX E
INFORMATION SOURCES
Site Visits
During this study, site visits were made to the following installations:
Fort Lewis Washington
Fort Sill Oklahoma
Fort Leonard Wood Missouri
Fort A P Hill Virginia
Fort Campbell Kentucky
Andrews Air Force Base Maryland
Eglin Air Force Base Florida
Luke Air Force Base Arizona
Jacksonville Naval Air Station Florida
Pensacola Naval Air Station Alabama
Quantico Marine Base Virginia
Camp Shelby Massachusetts
The DoD Climate Change Questionnaire
To gather information concerning the areas in a sample of DoD installations being man-
aged, a survey questionnaire was sent through the appropriate DoD organization structure to a
sample of DoD bases.
The questionnaire form and instructions are reproduced in the following pages. The Survey
Compilation on pages 76 to 78 presents the information on the forms returned. The information
is incomplete as not all bases responded.
Instructions for Questionnaire of Land Management for DoD
Installations
Purpose of questionnaire:
This questionnaire is being used to collect information for the EPA/DoD feasibility study
of the potentials for improved vegetation management on DoD lands to mitigate global warm-
ing. The information requested is not available for most military installations in other DoD or
military service sources.
Page 67
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Background ofEPA/DoD study:
Substantial scientific evidence suggests that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases
in the atmosphere will probably cause significant warming of the earth within several decades.
This wanning, by 5° to 8°F, will cause substantial dislocations of agriculture and forestry, in-
crease demands for energy for cooling, raise sea levels and cause coastal flooding, and other
major impacts. The basic causes of the build-up of carbon dioxide are the extensive conversion
of forest lands and fossil fuel combustion.
The Federal government and other research institutions are studying promising ways to
reduce the atmospheric carbon build-up and mitigate the effects of global climate change. These
include reduction of energy use, switching from fossil fuels to other energy sources, and in-
creasing vegetative growth in types that are long-term carbon sinks and large producers of
oxygen. All economic activities and types of land are being studied, including those of DoD.
Major way DoD lands might mitigate global climate change:
• Increased growth of vegetation, especially forests, would capture carbon from the atmo-
sphere and store it in biomass and vegetation and in the soil. This may be particularly sig-
nificant in forests of species that can accumulate large levels of growing stock.
• The use of wood for fuel would replace fossil fuels and indirectly reduce the flow of car-
bon to the atmosphere since the wood fuel can be renewed by forest growth and fossil fuels
cannot. Wood fuels have air emissions problems; however, they are significantly less than
alternate fossil fuels.
• Harvest of timber for long-term use converts carbon stored in forest-growing stock into
carbon stored in structural materials in buildings or other durable goods such as furni-
ture. Thus, the carbon in forest harvests will be stored for additional decades. Some will
be permanently stored in landfills while the land is being regenerated and growing ad-
ditional biomass which stores carbon.
• Landscaping around air-conditioned and heated buildings may significantly reduce
energy requirements by reducing heat gain during summer and heat loss during winter.
Associated benefits from improved vegetative management:
Include control of erosion and sedimentation and rehabilitation of training ranges. The
methods used and rehabilitation efforts will enhance training realism when restored land is re-
turned to training use and will significantly contribute to the most efficient and cost-effective
methods of maintaining critical training lands in conditions to simulate realistic terrain condi-
tions. Improved vegetative management will also maintain training areas with improved cover
and accessibility, reduce turf and landscape maintenance costs, and improve the livability and
safety of military bases.
Instructions for completing form:
• Use data from recent management programs or planning efforts if readily available; if not,
please estimate the answers. Indicate estimates with asterisks after the figures.
• Please include data for all lands you manage; if you manage lands for another military
installation, either include them in totals, or make a copy of the form and submit the reports
separately.
• For vegetation types, use the most appropriate class listed on the last page of the form.
Page 68
-------
XI. Appendix E
Military Installation Vegetation Data Form
Land Area Under Management or Use (in acres)
In Cantonments
Mowed grass areas:
Natural nonwooded vegetation:
Wooded areas:
Paved areas and building footprints:
Total Cantonment Area:
In Semi-Improved Areas
In heavy-use training areas:
In rights-of-way:
(road, railroad, utility, etc.)
In restricted use land areas:
(ammo storage, impact areas, etc.)
In safety danger areas:
(range firing fans)
Other semi-improved areas:
Total Semi-Improved Areas:
In Unimproved Areas
Under forest management plan:
In agricultural leases:
Other areas:
(water, wetlands, chaparral, desert, etc.)
Total Unimproved Areas:
TOTAL AREA:
Page 69
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
Vegetation Management in Unimproved Areas:
Forest Lands
Vegetation type Area in type Area logged
(see list in (Avg. in
instructions) last 2 yrs.)
All Lands
Needing Needing
planting other
treatment
Describe other treatments (in last column above).
Do areas need to be treated for erosion control (Y/N)?
If so, how many acres and what treatments?
Are there areas that could be converted to faster or better tree species (Y/N)?
If so, how many acres and what types?
Could the use of thinning/residues for fuel be expanded if markets existed (Y/N)?
If so, how much and what kind?
Are there major constraints (other than funds) against improving vegetation growth rates (Y/N)?
If so, what are they?
Improved Vegetation Management in Semi-Improved Areas:
Do military training and exercise areas need vegetation treatment to control erosion and maintain
usefulness (Y/N)?
If so, what kind of treatments and how many acres?
Are there areas around facilities that could be converted to forest or native vegetation (Y/N)?
If so, what kind of treatments and how much area?
Could some rights-of-way areas be converted to trees of lower height form or native vegetation,
saving maintenance costs (Y/N)?
If so, how much area to trees and to native vegetation?
Page 70
-------
XI. Appendix E
COMPILATION OF DOD VEGETATION SURVEY -1990
BASES BY REGION AND LAND USE TYPE, IN ACRbS
In cantonments
Base Mowed
South
Eaker 650
Columbus 553
Patric 1118
Redstone 1619
KmgsBay 1200
Norfolk 492
Norfolk 802
NewOrleans 160
Jacksonv 950
Portsmouth 447
Charleston 4000
Mendian 186
Orlando 961
Norfolk 300
Beaufort 900
PanamaCty 125
CherryPt
VABeach 450
Chesapeake 102
Norfolk 40
Gulfport 398
Yorktown
WhitmgFId 495
Dalgren
Ouantico 910
Maxwell 1780
Robins 748
Barksdale 497
Pensacola 239
Central
IndianHead 30
Andrews 356
Wnght-P 2014
Milan
Ravenna 53
Lakehurst
ColtsNeck 110
Newark 2
Annapolis 386
Patuxent 976
Millington 1375
Crane 210
Nonwoods
0
0
1035
0
0
3
276
0
200
15
0
0
130
126
200
17
0
20
30
0
0
0
250
0
0
0
10
0
0
18
10
1
16
150
0
Woods
0
0
0
0
0
5
230
0
45
21
0
0
268
0
300
185
0
0
5
35
137
30
0
15
3125
0
150
50
0
0
105
30
1
223
539
0
Paved
265
775
717
1300
2735
500
240
347
370
754
712
584
302
87
100
93
2150
30
20
204
1174
360
149
1398
10000
2038
25
462
802
26
200
35
180
350
525
5790
Total
915
1329
2870
2919
3935
1000
1540
507
1565
1237
4712
770
1561
513
1500
420
2600
157
125
739
1699
1270
2194
5271
1497
2427
115
818
2816
202
350
39
805
2015
1900
5900
In semi-improved areas
Train
8
1998
0
200
0
0
446
0
5
0
0
0
10
0
200
0
505
20
0
77
219
1112
0
45
0
0
0
220
0
50
1030
0
0
10
130
ROW
0
44
1087
513
215
5
1
175
200
5
2000
75
8
30
100
3
0
0
60
7
9341
40
0
175
125
553
80
165
699
150
1070
500
2
200
235
4800
Impact
126
48
141
2783
810
50
0
668
970
75
0
1488
5
249
300
27
225
10
0
8
0
40
2500
10
25
800
650
480
0
84
500
450
0
30
75
400
Fans
9
2
2
0
160
0
0
50
11
0
0
0
5
0
100
0
0
200
0
1877
0
20
0
3
10
20
100
10
67
289
0
50
13
1500
90
Other
263
137
0
962
715
0
0
68
150
10
0
100
26
0
500
0
1600
0
0
98
0
3337
0
318
900
880
81
320
0
1619
30
0
3
20
378
15
Total
406
2229
1230
4458
1900
55
447
961
1354
90
2000
1663
54
279
1200
30
2330
230
60
2068
9560
4549
2500
506
1050
2253
911
1195
766
2192
2630
955
18
20
2118
555
5200
In unimproved areas
ForMgt.
0
1241
511
15665
5100
200
288
722
952
0
9532
6009
0
1345
3000
174
8095
1860
2146
475
171
7400
2255
2540
39395
0
2405
17236
2462
1207
28469
327
14718
4097
9100
0
35
1437
450
50395
AgLease
1966
0
0
8822
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
1600
886
0
0
0
750
0
0
0
0
101
0
0
1850
116
85
0
0
0
0
500
360
Other
0
131
12028
6371
5350
15
795
2729
25
15
220
2772
357
426
800
14
12500
365
406
10
0
650
310
1540
17265
149
0
2305
924
713
7178
2694
3785
1892
705
12
870
452
225
900
Total
1966
1372
2599
30858
10450
215
1083
3451
977
15
9752
8781
357
1771
4000
198
20595
3825
3438
475
171
8050
3315
4080
56660
149
2405
18610
3386
1920
37497
3137
18588
5979
9805
12
905
2389
1035
51295
Base
Total
3287
4930
15138
38235
16285
1270
3070
4919
3896
1342
16464
11214
2072
2563
6700
643
20595
8755
3680
660
2978
10622
9563
5052
60430
2849
8726
22361
6724
3230
39081
8145
21420
7412
11110
70
1730
6522
3490
62395
Page 71
-------
Enhancing Management of Forests and Vegetation on Department of Defense Lands
In cantonments
Base Mowed
North
Hanscom 415
Brunswick 10000
Cutler 22
Weymouth 70
Newport 190
Groton 97
Griffiths 850
Pease 293
Loring 1806
Sawyer 1784
Platsburg
Wurtsmith 15
Prairie
Eldorado
Peterson 98
AirfAcad 377
Orfutt 1380
Iowa Ammo 400
GreatLakes 0
Beeville 220
Glenview 300
Kingsville 1233
Reese 325
Carswell 780
Cheyenne
Minot 2026
Kelly 520
Altus 350
McConnell 641
Grandforks 1028
Lackland 1265
Lacklin 608
Sheppard 808
Vance 264
Malstrom 545
Gcodfeltow 194
Grisson 993
Elsworth 901
Desert
Williams 272
Falton 23
Edwards 500
Nonwoods
0
0
0
15
100
0
10
202
100
0
584
311
0
200
3205
67
1
86
2792
2200
Woods
156
925
7
70
200
65
100
10
0
0
0
0
1981
5
43
1500
0
1
100
Paved
218
350
25
25
350
200
822
710
1598
708
0
8
9
320
889
803
91
587
401
455
578
682
40
912
520
700
836
370
736
306
904
156
983
217
312
1204
708
501
2200
Total
789
2275
55
180
540
297
1672
1303
3469
2592
20
23
9
620
1263
2183
591
807
1285
3980
903
1462
40
2943
1250
1477
4646
2088
914
1779
420
1528
411
1305
2106
119
3316
5000
In semi-improved areas
Train
50
0
25
0
0
130
804
500
2054
250
0
0
1754
2190
166
1583
84
42
16
1185
2000
ROW
25
12
100
257
54
28
50
20
4
20
345
250
68
218
131
0
0
6
832
304
16
111
147
3132
450
80
1000
Impact
500
2875
815
3
53
75
140
25
300
500
5
160
125
1005
2218
2
150
230
360
700
55
2270
1785
256
217
1381
26
97000
3000
Fans
0
2
22
174
10
30
7
7
35
5
1
100
10
35
7
25
26
46
5
269
60
0
1000
Other
0
30
150
87
754
357
1488
902
220
740
0
256
3050
817
0
76
895
1640
336
130
820
262
257
1887
54
92
1036
650
130
1000
Total
575
2919
815
278
87
1064
486
1650
1129
580
1420
16
443
4200
977
1760
76
2218
33
2054
1045
68
548
1640
1087
865
882
1760
2353
3066
456
203
1447
5448
536
97210
8000
In unimproved areas
ForMgt.
1500
15
0
820
1400
4013
965
700
191
9666
7722
411
599
0
0
0
AgLease
0
0
75
0
193
25
0
0
427
7683
5578
1586
25
861
177
132
1794
0
105
606
1227
0
13334
0
Other
200
11
1050
255
162
147
1039
292
528
125
84
85
127
3581
488
1371
94
13
30
497
362
18
80
2955
1814
586
2913
420
510
4547
2670
0
28800
Total
1700
26
1050
330
162
1160
2464
4305
1493
825
275
85
127
13247
915
16776
94
5578
1586
30
522
411
1223
616
177
212
1794
2955
5080
691
691
1647
510
4547
2670
13334
28800
Base
Total
789
3400
3000
2045
1148
546
3896
4253
9424
5214
1425
1718
110
1190
19107
4075
19127
170
8603
1285
5585
2987
3029
519
4717
1813.3
2514
2554
7322
6813
5536
5
3631
1124
2752
12101
4422
113860
301000
Page 72
-------
XI. Appendix E
In cantonments
Base Mowed
California
LosAngeles 64
Beall 1085
Castle 178
Mare Is 300
Moffett 326
Concord 60
Oakland 8
RMolate 4
Alameda
EIToro 82
RLoma 9
ChinaLake 100
SanDiego 400
Scaggls 10
El Centra 90
SanDiego
Crows Is 5
SanDiego 200
Alameda 381
Pt Mugu 300
Stocton 40
29 Palms 5
McClellen 320
Vandenberg 966
Northwest
Keyport 70
Seattle
Jimcreek 30
OakHarbor 500
Silveidale 64
McChord 1250
Other
Key West 540
Wahiana 1530
Lualualei 10
Keka 500
PearlHarb 175
PearlHarb 645
Adak 30
Nonwoods
384
150
46
20
332
6
50
200
19
2710
152
50
146
800
0
5
200
71
170
530
50
87
1680
Woods
2
50
40
64
18
100
43
1
0
1
32
0
10
15
525
125
150
310
10
0
Paved
175
604
134
600
294
30
351
20
179
417
130
9800
697
4
491
0
175
350
951
2000
584
600
568
3698
5
10
10
200
542
1235
1000
125
10
327
612
555
690
Total
240
2075
312
1100
666
150
359
420
179
499
163
10000
1190
15
581
200
200
3929
1484
2350
770
1405
898
4664
90
10
45
1525
677
2610
1860
1965
550
887
874
619
2400
In semi-improved areas
Train
50
3466
1000
399
144
12
2
22
200
25
100
0
58
61
10
ROW
1817
107
38
50
163
4
27
5
1500
37
75
50
29
629
3
166
10
510
30
66
9
100
113
200
477
100
77
26
330
Impact
50
2
935
300
140
1000
505
10
22
2150
20
374
0
15
20
947
13
850
300
482
100
5
200
7900
78
1780
Fans
50
300
10
35000
0
0
1279
13
2
15
2
70
2
1
75
9
0
395
1080
Other
802
510
360
294
1500
113
309
50
81
700
0
355
1272
2390
50
5
875
517
86
480
0
92
240
266
510
Total
2619
767
700
4461
163
4
621
145
40000
150
889
509
95
4070
119
1106
168
595
1829
2460
1129
76
865
2225
1178
447
200
8092
800
292
3700
In unimproved areas
ForMgt
1500
100
7
4150
3425
4174
1802
4230
873
0
AgLease
13440
10
273
1316
6200
550
2987
820
1122
427
150
490
230
36629
1709
0
2660
234
3458
Othe
3310
3320
314
2000
200
1045900
310
16C
54075
257
4
15801
962
14414
5
594258
798
50497
290
8730
150
1000
45
686
2660
13
42
685
4096
329
65400
Total
18250
10
3593
1730
8300
550
200
1 045900
310
3138
54895
257
1133
16244
1163
14414
495
594258
1028
91276
3715
8730
4324
4511
4275
1559
5000
247
3500
685
4096
329
71500
Base
Total
240
22944
322
5460
3096
12911
522
424
179
1670
508
1095900
1500
3303
56475
1006
1528
23606
2716
17860
1433
596258
3755
98400
4934
8820
5234
8162
6130
4616
2412
124142
2372
4970
1240
77600
Page 73
------- |