Study finds transatlantic pellet trade results in SIGNIFICANT GHG REDUDUCTIONS over fossil fuels

by

Selected quotes from Biomass Magazine article summarizing a joint study conducted by U. Ga., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Yale:

– “A new study … has determined that the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of a unit of electricity generated in the U.K. using imported wood pellets is at least 50 percent lower than the GHG intensity of grid electricity derived from fossil fuels”

This study addresses the shortcoming of previous studies as follows: “those studies have typically assumed the feedstocks for pellet production were sourced from either nearby forest for from a wood processing facility located at a fixed distance to the pellet plant. The researchers also stressed that existing studies have considered only one harvest cycle when determining GHG savings, which has raised concerns among environmentalists and others.”

– “the researchers determined relative GHG emissions savings for electricity generated in the U.K. using imported wood pellets under 930 different scenarios. The analysis considered three types of woody feedstocks, two forest management choices, 31 plantation rotation ages and five power plant capacities. Depending on the power plant capacity and the rotation age, the results found relative per unit GHG savings in the range of 50 percent to 68 percen”

– “According to the information published in the study, the results of the analysis contradict the general belief that the use of wood pellets from 10 to 15 year old pine plantations in the southern U.S. do not provide GHG savings in Europe. Rather, GHG savings were found to be at least 50 percent, even at lower rotation ages.”

The full study can be found on IOP Science/Research Letters

Logging to Conserve a Conservation Easement

by

Logic and an open mind shows a conservationist with a strict conservation easement and the land trust Montana Land Reliance the need for modifying their agreement to save a forest through sound forest management. This is an example of tailoring sound forest management to accommodate strong conservationist viewpoints while recognizing the shortsightedness of their original “blinders on” “no harvest and no logging” agreement in order to reduce the risk of loss and improve aesthetics. Where there is a common goal and a true love for the forest, blinders come off and the environment wins. See the Bitterroot Star.

Some quotes include:

– “The sixty-acre tract of land, located up the Tin Cup Creek drainage west of Darby, is owned by Stewart Brandborg, a longtime conservationist. A conservation easement was placed on the land to preserve it in its forested state. “It was a pretty strict easement,” said Brandborg, “to the extent of no harvest and no logging.” So why are they in there logging now, you might ask. To preserve the forest would be the short answer.”

– “The Brandborgs went to the Montana Land Reliance, the company that holds the easement on the property, and worked out a solution that was satisfactory to all concerned. It would allow some light-on-the-land forest thinning to take out the bug killed trees. A prescription was designed by John Wells, a professional forester, that would make for a healthier stand of trees and lessen the fire hazard while preserving the values which the conservation easement was designed to maintain. It was not designed for profit.” –> Note: Profit here is “Landowner Profit”

– “Two small landing areas were cleared where the down trees were hauled to be de-limbed, cut to length and sorted. There was a pile that would go to a small sawmill in Corvallis, a couple of other piles of #1 and #2 house logs, a pile to go to Porterbilt for posts and rails, a pile for Pyramid Lumber, a pile of firewood, and a pile of slash that could be chipped or burned on the spot when the job was done. Stoker said that keeping the destination of the product as close to the logging site as possible was the key to making the small operation profitable.” –> Note: Profit here is “Logger Profit” to keep his business going.

– ““The big thing we try to do is to see what we want it to look like in the long term,” said Stoker. “Then, like Michelangelo and the rock, we take out everything that doesn’t look like that picture.”

All the big yellow pines and the big fir trees were left. In fact, almost all the larger living trees on the place were left untouched. Lots of dead snags were also left for the benefit of wildlife. Big patches of thick growth were also left scattered through the area as refuge and bedding spots for big game and other animals.

“What I like is that you can see a lot of individual trees now,” said Stoker. He pointed to one large 400-year-old pine and said that close to 50 small Douglas fir trees from 15 to 30 feet tall were removed from around the base of the big pine. It not only gets more air and light, it might even survive a fire now that the “fire ladder” surrounding it has been removed.

Stoker said that the woods were so thick on this piece of land that it was hard to see anything.

“We also opened up some views,” said Stoker. “Now you can see some of those big yellow pines on the cliff and see the cliffs themselves. Before, the canopy was so thick that you couldn’t see anything from down here. I think it’s cool seeing the ice coming off the cliff like that. It’s beautiful.”

Stewart Brandborg remains an ardent conservationist. But he also believes that local loggers can still be put to work doing sound management for the health and well-being of the forest, and, with the right machinery, at the right time, and with the right amount of care, they can do it without destroying the landscape.”

Rotenone and Paiute cutthroat recovery: The end of “endless appeals and lawsuits”

by

From High Country News (http://www.hcn.org), a look at how some environmental groups used “endless appeals and lawsuits, all based on fiction,” to block efforts to save a native fish from a non-native predator.

 

When poisoning is the solution

By Ted Williams/Writers on the Range

One of the more spectacular success stories of the Endangered Species Act is playing out in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness of the Toiyabe-Humboldt National Forest, high in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Heroic and persevering managers of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service have prevailed in their 10-year legal battle to save America’s rarest trout — the federally threatened Paiute cutthroat. Its entire natural habitat consists of nine miles of Silver King Creek.

Cutthroat trout subspecies of the Interior West are being hybridized off the planet by rainbow trout from the Pacific Northwest, dumped into their habitat during the age of ecological illiteracy, which ended circa 1970.

In most cases, the only hope for the natives is rotenone, a short-lived, easily neutralized, organic poison rendered from tropical plants.

But a war on rotenone has been declared by chemophobic environmentalists, who refuse to learn about it, and by anglers who don’t care what’s on the other end of the rod so long as it’s bent. Although rotenone is essential to management as defined by the Wilderness Act, the group Wilderness Watch, for example, asserts that “poison has no place in wilderness.” And Peter Moyer, founder of the Orwellian-named Wild Trout Conservation Coalition, offers this mindless defense of cutthroat trout extinction: “I am a bit of a mongrel myself.”

State and federal fisheries managers are mandated by the Endangered Species Act to save the natives by poisoning the aliens. For years, however, this work has been impeded by individuals, publications and organizations that concoct and recycle horror stories about rotenone.  Apparently, they haven’t figured out that fish are wildlife, too.

The worst offenders have been Outdoor Life magazine, Range magazine, Real Fishing magazine, Friends of the Wild Swan, Beyond Pesticides, Defenders of Wildlife, two Sierra Club chapters, Wild Trout Conservation Coalition, Wilderness Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, Pacific Rivers Council, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Friends of Silver King Creek, and the Western Environmental Law Center.

The last six of these organizations managed to derail Paiute cutthroat recovery for a full decade. They accomplished this with endless appeals and lawsuits, all based on fiction. Typical of the absurd statements about rotenone was this proclamation by the pro bono counsel for the litigants, the Western Environmental Law Center: “Unfortunately, the chemical does not just kill the fish in the water but the entire ecosystem, including turtles, snakes, frogs, birds, terrestrials, insects and other animals that live in or drink from the poisoned water.”

Rotenone used in fish recovery has never affected an ecosystem except to restore it. And it has never killed a turtle, snake, frog, bird or any terrestrial organism. Aquatic insects usually survive treatment, and the few that don’t are swiftly replaced by natural recruitment. In fact, insects frequently do better after treatment because they don’t have to contend with fish they didn’t evolve with.

Appellants and litigants claimed a “link” between rotenone and Parkinson’s disease, basing this untruth on an Emory University study in which concentrated rotenone was mainlined into rats’ jugular veins via implanted pumps. (Rotenone used in fisheries management is applied at less than 50 parts per billion.) At the end of a year and a half no rat had Parkinson’s disease. The researchers knew they couldn’t cause Parkinson’s and never intended to. They wanted to establish a “Parkinson’s-like condition” — i.e. tremors — in an animal model.

Appellants and litigants also claimed that rotenone threatened the rare mountain yellow-legged frog. But it was extirpated in the watershed sometime in the 20th century, probably by the very alien rainbow trout that had been extirpating Paiute cutthroats. Rotenone doesn’t affect adult frogs but can kill tadpoles, though it usually doesn’t. If frogs are present, managers delay treatment until tadpoles transform. Ironically, rotenone is being used elsewhere in the Sierras to recover yellow-legged frogs by killing the alien trout that are eating them.

With each successful appeal and lawsuit, rotenone opponents boasted that they had “saved” Silver King Creek. But last August they ran out of legal options, and the managers applied about two quarts of rotenone to the entire treatment area. In case a few hybrids survived, two more quarts will be applied next August. Then, pure Paiutes will be reintroduced.

This will be the first time humans have restored a threatened or endangered fish to 100 percent of its historic range. Maybe it’s a turning point in the war.

 

Ted Williams is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He writes for Fly Rod & Reel magazine. Read more on this issue at: www.flyrodreel.com/blogs/tedwilliams/2014/january/big-win-for-our-rarest-trout

 

Map of Federal Courts

by

And “now for something completely different”, only on the NCFP blog can you find Monty Python clips, a discussion of the jet stream, and a map of the federal circuits! As I replied to Dave Skinner below I had a crisis of confidence and decided to check:

FederalJudicialCircuitsAndDistricts

Note: I think I remember some FS cases going to DC or federal court but can’t remember for sure and can’t remember why. Can anyone out there help?

The California Drought and Climate Change: Revkin and Hoerling

by

I think Revkin and Hoerling deserve a shout-out for this piece in terms of explaining how the IPCC reached their conclusion. Revkin quoted from a note from Martin Hoerling, a NOAA scientist, so I guess Dr. Hoerling has a gift for explaining things at what I consider the right level of detail (I know this is in the eye of the beholder). Here’s a link to the Revkin blog post. Below is part of the quote from Hoerling’s note.

Concerning the “debate” highlighted by the above exchanges between Pielke and Holdren, the issue isn’t about analogues to past droughts (which, by the way, the California resource managers were more interested in), but about the scientific evidence that California droughts have become more severe due to climate change.

To the extent that precipitation is key, it can be said with high confidence that there is no trend toward either wetter or drier conditions for statewide average precipitation since 1895, so that has not likely been a player. But there are other indicators, and aspects of rainfall behavior that could be conducive to drought, even if the mean seasonal rainfall isn’t changing. What is the evidence there?

The argument hinges mostly on temperature and how it may be affecting water resources. (Never mind, by the way, that the farmers and water managers are praying to the heavens for rain, not for cooler temperatures, to bust their drought!).

A way of integrating the effects of temperature on drought is to examine soil moisture time series. These have been assessed (based on simulations with sophisticated land models), the results of which are summarized by the IPCC (2012) report on extreme events (for which this drought qualifies). The Palmer Drought index and simple counts of consecutive dry days have also been diagnosed. That latest 2012 report, (the so-called SREX report) in their Table 3-2 examines the evidence for regional changes since 1950, and makes the following assessment of these various indicators for western North America:

“No overall or slight decrease in dryness since 1950; large variability; large drought of the 1930s dominate.”

The team of 42 authors assigned a “Medium Confidence” to that assessment. The report’s team in Table 3-3 then goes on to assess the scientific evidence for how drought in this region will change in the 21st century. They write:

“Inconsistent signal in consecutive dry days and soil moisture changes,” to which they assign a low confidence.

It is quite clear that the scientific evidence does not support an argument that this current California drought is appreciably, if at all, linked to human-induced climate change.

This is not to say that a warmer climate can’t and won’t act to decrease soil moisture. It simply reminds us that the current drought event, like its historical ancestors, continues to be strongly driven by the vagaries of storm tracks and the manner in which rains are delivered to the narrow stripe of the U.S. West Coast.

Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation

by

Folks on this blog may be interested in this paper: “Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation,” by Amanda M.A. Miner, Robert W. Malmsheimer, and Denise M. Keele, Journal of Forestry, January 2014.

I haven’t finished reading it yet, but this long paper has a wealth of data and analysis on the topic. Here’s the abstract:

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of USDA Forest Service litigation from 1989 to 2008. Using a
census and improved analyses, we document the final outcome of the 1,125 land management cases filed in
federal court. The Forest Service won 53.8% of these cases, lost 23.3%, and settled 22.9%. It won 64.0% of
the 669 cases decided by a judge based on cases’ merits. The agency was more likely to lose and settle cases
during the last 6 years; the number of cases initiated during this time varied greatly. The Pacific Northwest
region along with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the most frequent occurrence of cases. Litigants
generally challenged vegetative management (e.g., logging) projects, most often by alleging violations of
the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. The results document the
continued influence of the legal system on national forest management and describe the complexity of
this litigation.

ESA lawsuits: fair and balanced

by

Environmental litigants seem to be a favorite target these days of both Congressional hearings and criticism on this blog.  So after reading (here) about a recent lawsuit that led to DE-listing of species, I decided to look into what these anti-environmental plaintiffs were trying to accomplish with it.  What we have (here) is an exact mirror image of the litigation strategy to list species under ESA, and the same reason they won – failure to meet deadlines.

In this example, plaintiff’s reasons for de-listing have nothing to do with the species or restrictions resulting from the listing.  The species will still be protected.  As the other article says, the lawsuit was merely “symbolic.”  Harassment maybe.  Now wasn’t defending against it a good use of our tax dollars?

Just saying – it’s ok to talk about whether limiting litigation is a good idea, but let’s not suggest that judicial review inherently favors any particular position.

 

The World’s Most Advanced Building Material Is… Wood

by
cross-laminated timber
cross-laminated timber

Thought folks might be interested in this piece from Popular Science here.

Why the sudden interest in wood? Compared with steel or concrete, CLT, also known as mass timber, is cheaper, easier to assemble, and more fire resistant, thanks to the way wood chars. It’s also more sustainable. Wood is renewable like any crop, and it’s a carbon sink, sequestering the carbon dioxide it absorbed during growth even after it’s been turned into lumber. Waugh Thistleton estimates that the wood in Stadthaus stores 186 tons of carbon while the steel and concrete for a similar, conventionally built tower would have generated 137 tons of carbon dioxide during production. Wood nets a savings of 323 tons.

Demographers predict that the planet’s urban citizenry will double in 36 years, increasing the demand for ever-taller structures in ever-denser cities. Whether architects and construction firms build those towers from unsustainable materials like steel and concrete or employ new materials like CLT could make a huge difference in the Earth’s health. Put differently, the world’s urban future may just lie in its oldest building material.

…..

But the biggest driving force behind the turn toward wood is a growing awareness among architects and developers about their field’s contribution to climate change. “Our industry leads all others in terms of its impact on the planet and human health,” Waugh says. Concrete and steel require enormous amounts of energy to produce and transport, generating more than a ton of carbon dioxide per ton of steel or concrete.

Wood, on the other hand—even engineered wood like CLT, which requires additional energy to cut and press into sections—is far more environmentally friendly. According to Wood for Good, an organization that advocates for sustainable wood construction, a ton of bricks requires four times the amount of energy to produce as a ton of sawn softwood; concrete requires five times, steel 24 times, and aluminum 126 times. Wood also performs better: It is, for example, five times more insulative than concrete and 350 times more so than steel. That means less energy is needed to heat and cool a wood building.

When CLT is used to build high-rise towers, the carbon savings can be enormous. The 186 tons of carbon locked into Stadthaus are enough to offset 20 years of its daily operations, meaning that for the first two decades of its life, the building isn’t carbon neutral—it is actually carbon negative. Rather than producing greenhouse gases, Stadthaus is fighting them.

Adopt-a-Project Opportunity: Blankenship Veg Project

by
Photo courtesy of Lewis and Clark national forest
Photo courtesy of Lewis and Clark national forest

UPDATE: One of our generous readers offered a copy of the complaint here.

Based on this coverage in the Great Falls Independent paper, I am curious how the FS should have surveyed according to Garrity, and what they actually did.

“First, this case is about the Forest Service’s failure to use ‘best available science’ and properly survey for Canada lynx and report those survey results, and the agencies’ use of improper and inadequate survey results in the finding of ‘no adverse effects’ for lynx, in violation of the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act,” the lawsuit says.

Dave Cunningham, a spokesman for Lewis and Clark National Forest, said the forest has received widespread support for the Blankenship fuels treatment project. The project had been scheduled to be implemented this spring.

“At this point in the process, when a suit is filed, we need to stand down for a moment, study the complaint that has been filed, confer with our Office of General Council attorneys, and then based on their advice, take the next appropriate steps,” Cunningham said.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Great Falls against the U.S. Forest Service, Faye Krueger, regional forester for the agency’s Region 1 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Canada lynx, known for their distinctive facial ruff on each side of the snout, large round feet and black-tipped tails, are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The estimated population in Montana is 300, Garrity said.

The Forest Service issued a biological assessment in July concluding the project wasn’t likely to adversely impact lynx, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife concurred.

The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Endangered Species Act.

If a listed or candidate species may be present, agencies must prepare a biological assessment to determine projects would harm them.

It is possible lynx move through the area, but the habitat isn’t considered occupied, according to the Forest Service, but the lawsuit disputes the methods used to reach that conclusion.

“Even the Forest Service previously determined that at least part of the forest is considered ‘occupied’ by lynx,” Garrity said. “So, from the best available present and past data, there is ample evidence to suggest that lynx may be present in the Little Belts and the Blankenship area.”

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks trapping records show 268 lynx were trapped in northcentral Montana, which includes the Little Belt Mountains, between 1959 and 1967, Garrity said.

It took me a while to find this site, which has everything you might possibly want to know, including appeal responses, which probably covered this topic.

Here’s what I picked up from a brief foray into Appendix II.

Canada Lynx
The project area is within secondary, unoccupied habitat (USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). There are historic sightings of lynx near the project area from 1979 to 1981, over 30 years ago. From 1981 to 1997 there are nine additional records in the Little Belt Mountains (see project file). These records do not meet the definition of a verified observation or record (USDA Forest Service 2007, pages 142 to 144). Telemetry data of lynx in Montana from Devineau (2010) is not presented at a scale conducive to determining exact locations, and the accuracy of the data varies widely (from 0.15 to 10.0 km). These records also do not meet the definition of a verified observation or record. There are no current sightings in the Little Belt Mountains. During fiscal year 2009, winter surveys were conducted in a portion of the Little Belt Mountains (including the Blankenship Project area). There were no lynx located during these surveys.

Informal consultation for the Blankenship Project was initiated by obtaining the THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES for the LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL FOREST 2/13/2012 species list from the Montana Field Office website at http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/Forests/L&C_sp_list.pdf). Lynx is not included on the FWS species list for the Jefferson Division, nor is the Jefferson Division within designated critical habitat (USDI 2012). The effects of the Blankenship project on habitat for Canada lynx are disclosed in the Blankenship Vegetation Treatment Project Lynx Analysis Report, LAU LB4 (March 2012, project file). This project will have No Effect on lynx or designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act.

Would someone be willing to volunteer to learn about this project? (I assume we can’t talk directly to the FS folks due to litigation, as the story says). I’m sure someone here could get a copy of the complaint and the evidence Garrity cites, and we could figure out the two perspectives (plus add our own ;)).

Note: Any volunteers for Project Adoption don’t have to use their real names AND can contact me directly if they don’t feel comfortable announcing it to the world. Terraveritas at gmail.com.