Ecologists question research on burns in bug-killed forests after Montana fires

by

Photo by Matt Stensland
Thanks to Derek for submitting. From the Missoulian here.

Last summer, a wall of flame roared through a three-mile stretch of tinder-dry, bug-killed lodgepole pine forest and forced a large group of firefighters to retreat to a safety zone.

An official said later the flames moved through the trees like fire does through grass.

In the upper West Fork of the Bitterroot, another fire blew through 17,000 acres in a day. Much of that area also was covered by lodgepole pine killed by mountain pine beetle.

That unusual fire behavior now has some fire ecologists questioning conventional research that suggests that wildfires won’t burn as fiercely through forests filled with bug-killed trees.

“We definitely saw some unusual and pretty amazing runs under fire conditions that we would normally consider to be moderate,” said Matt Jolly, a research ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula.

Earlier research based on modeling suggested that stands of dead and dying trees were not as prone to flare into fast-moving crown fires. And if the fire did manage to make it into the crowns, the research said it was unlikely to stay there long.

Firefighters and researchers saw something quite different happen this summer.

“These fires were quite a bit more active than what the conventional research suggests,” Jolly said. “The problem is most of the conventional research used simulation models. If you don’t have good observations, then you have to assume the models are correct.”

Before this year, the past three summers were marked by very wet Augusts, which is typically the peak of the wildfire season in western Montana.

“We’ve been dodging the bullet, if you will, over the last three seasons,” Jolly said.

Canadians have been reporting similar fires in their own forests filled with beetle-killed trees for a number of years.

The fires this summer burned in conditions that weren’t considered extreme over an understory that was often still green. At times, the solid walls of flame reached from the ground to far above the canopy.

In some cases, the fire was burning through a forest of mostly dead trees that had already shed most of their needles.

***

Jolly said trees attacked by mountain pine beetles start a downward spiral that makes them more susceptible to fire early on. Once the trees die, their needles turn red before falling off. The red needles are extremely flammable.

Once the needles fall off, the forest has a gray appearance. This summer, Jolly said the fires blew through those standing gray stands.

“A lot of people have proposed that once the needles fall off, there’s little opportunity for a crown fire,” he said. “In these gray stands, you essentially have a vertical dead fuel with extremely low fuel moistures that once ignited, can create a flaming front.”

Fire researchers also noted the fires were quick to form a column that created its own weather, which further enhanced burning conditions.

For these fires to occur, Jolly said fuel conditions, weather and topography have to be aligned just right.

In many cases, the fire conditions were not considered extreme.

“These fires burned under less than extreme conditions in the same way that a healthy stand would burn under extreme conditions,” Jolly said.

The dead stands are made up of vertical fuels that respond quickly to changes in the weather and humidity levels.

“That’s why it happens very quickly,” he said.

***

With hundreds of thousands of acres of bug-killed stands scattered across the West, Jolly said there is a “very real possibility” of seeing more fires like this past summer’s.

“It’s totally dependent on weather,” he said. “As soon as we have a dry year like we saw in 2000 or 2003, which came with a very prolonged period of drying, it will be very interesting to see what happens.”

Bitterroot West Fork District Ranger Dave Campbell said research like Jolly’s will be important to those who fight and attempt to manage the blazes.

“This was a good opportunity for us to partner with the fire lab, which has some of the best fire scientists around,” he said. “Hopefully, we will be able to make the models for the future.”

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_33e5c862-f930-11e0-9771-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1bEYungr1

Experts disagree about griz numbers, implications

by
Figure from the Wyoming 2002 Grizzly Management Plan

Interesting story from the Cody Enterprise..

By MARK HEINZ | Posted: Monday, October 17, 2011 3:57 pm

Grizzly numbers in the heart of the Yellowstone area habitat appeared to have dipped, but some experts’ opinions vary regarding how much, and why.

There are an estimated 593 grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, compared to 602 last year, according to a new study.

The number of bears killed, for various reasons, over the past few years “has taken a powerful bite out of the population,” said ecologist Chuck Neal of Cody, who is retired from decades of field work with the BLM, Forest Service, and contract work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“The take-home message is the population seems to have reached a plateau. We might be exceeding the female morality level,” said Mark Pearson, conservation program director with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

But Game and Fish bear expert Mark Bruscino said he thinks the population remains robust.

“The survey behind the study was only on the grizzly population in the core of the habitat, and only for one year,” he said.

“In areas where we haven’t done systematic sampling, the bear population continues to grow, both in terms of numbers and distribution. Overall, the grizzly population is doing quite well,” Bruscino said.

He was among experts and other interested parties who attended a recent meeting in Bozeman, Mont., of the Yellowstone Ecosystem subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The IGBC includes representatives from G&F, Forest Service, Park Service, BLM, USFWS, the U.S. Geological Survey, wildlife agencies in Idaho, Montana and Washington, and Canadian Wildlife Service.

Much of the discussion centered around a population study, done mostly by USGS and USFWS researchers,

Even a slight dip in grizzly populations can be worrisome to bear experts and conservationists, because the bruins’ reproductive rates are much lower than other wildlife species.

There seems to be consensus over the idea that grizzlies are ranging farther and consequently getting into more scrapes with people. But there is some disagreement over why.

There is also differences of opinion over whether grizzlies should be delisted, and perhaps even hunted, in Wyoming.

Bruscino thinks that’s a good idea; Pearson and Neal said they want to bears retain federal endangered species protection.

A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the matter is expected soon.

Looking for food?

Bears are losing some key ingredients of their diet because of the decline in white bark pine and cutthroat trout in the heart of grizzly country, Neal and Pearson said.

“Habitat quality has been in decline, primarily because of the loss of white bark pine to beetles,” Neal said.

Grizzlies like to feast on pine cone nuts, which are rich in fat and calories.

“It’s an important food source for them right now, as they fatten up for winter,” Neal said.

“We must take into consideration the effects of climate change on their food sources,” Pearson said. “With less food available in the interior habitat, bears are roaming into the fringe areas.”

Neal recalled the last time grizzlies began to disperse widely, get into trouble and, consequently, get killed in higher numbers.

That was back in the 1970s when the Park Service decided to shut down open landfills in Yellowstone, where bears had gotten accustomed to easy gorging.

Now, essentially the same thing is happening. But instead of the loss of a bad, artificial food source, grizzlies are losing natural sources, Neal said.

But Bruscino is dubious about the idea that bears are wandering to find food.

Rather, more bears are showing up in more places because they’re being pushed out by grizzlies that have laid claim to the interior habitat, he said.

Bruscino said according to what he knows, grizzlies are far more likely to adapt to new food sources in their territory, rather than wander somewhere else.

“Bears are the quintessential omnivores,” he said.

“The core habitat is saturated We just don’t see bears leaving their home ranges, he said. “Fat levels on bears in the core of the Yellowstone habitat indicate those bears are doing very well nutritionally.”

Neal said he doesn’t agree with the idea that habitat saturation is behind conflicts with people.

“They are getting into areas where people themselves are expanding their presence,” Neal said. “It’s not so much ‘saturated’ habitat,’ as it things like trying to raise chickens and sheep on the edge of occupied grizzly habitat.”

A question of tolerance

Bruscino said the GYE grizzly population has met or exceeded all the biological goals set when the recovery program started.

“We need to do more on the fringes to reduce conflicts,” he said. “In my opinion we could be hunting grizzlies, today, and it would not be detrimental to the population.”

Neal and Pearson said the answer isn’t to delist bears now, but rather to allow them to expand their habitat.

“The key has never been numbers. It’s always been enough occupied, contiguous habitat,” Neal said.

Opinions might hinge on whether people see the GYC as essentially a “island” of wild habitat, with nowhere else for grizzlies to go, or as part of a larger network of places where the bears feasibly could roam, Pearson said.

For example, GYC favors enough interconnected habitat to allow for genetic exchange between the Yellowstone and Glacier Park grizzly populations.

But he noted that conflicts with people could ultimately drive policy.

“Human tolerance is absolutely going to be the deciding factor regarding where grizzlies can thrive,” Pearson said.

California resident Dave Smith, who worked for years in Yellowstone, and still frequently visits, agreed.

“Grizzlies have been on the Endangered Species List for 30 years now, and I think people are getting worn out,” said Smith, who has written two books about staying safe around grizzlies and other large animals.

“The Game and Fish in Wyoming is having to play ‘musical bears,'” by constantly trapping and relocating troublesome grizzlies, Smith said.

This raises some questions for those that know this part of the country… given our economic situation, are folks still building houses into or next to grizzly habitat? Is critical habitat designated for private land?

I was also interested in these quotes:

Bruscino said the GYE grizzly population has met or exceeded all the biological goals set when the recovery program started.

“The key has never been numbers. It’s always been enough occupied, contiguous habitat,” Neal said.

I am not very expert on ESA, but if there are population goals, can they shift through time? That could get discouraging to people trying to implement policy
if folks are moving the goalposts.

And if the problem with endangered species is not numbers, how do we decide what is “enough occupied continguous habitat”?

Fourmile Canyon Fire Report Confirms Firewise

by

The Rocky Mountain Research Station released its Fourmile Canyon Fire report, requested by Senator Udall of Colorado. The Report confirms that:

1) A home’s fate depends upon fuel in its immediate surroundings and construction materials;

2) Fuel treatments, especially those that leave fine fuels untreated, are ineffective protection against wildfires that threaten homes, i.e., windy, dry conditions; and,

3) Fire suppression resources are easily overwhelmed precisely when Fire-Unwise homes need them the most.

The report took a special look at aerial attack, finding that the great preponderance of retardant was dropped after the fire had already stopped advancing.

Sarewitz on “Consensus Science”

by

This piece is reposted from Roger Pielke’s blog here. Note from Sharon: we have been discussing collaborating in terms of developing agreements about what action to take; I see a clear distinction between their use in policy (getting groups together to decide or recommend an approach or action) and in science (getting groups together to determine the current scientific thinking).

The below post by Roger, describing some of the ideas in Dan Sarewitz’s piece in Nature, deals with the latter. I don’t think we do much in terms of this in the world of public land management, which may be a good thing. Also note a comment here on Roger’s blog by Andy Stahl about consensus policy; some think that committees are places where good ideas go to die.

Writing in Nature this week, Dan Sarewitz reflects on his recent participation on the BPC Geoengineering Climate Remediation task force and why efforts to achieve consensus in science may leave out some of the most important aspects of science. Here is an excerpt:

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice.

Yet, as anyone who has served on a consensus committee knows, much of what is most interesting about a subject gets left out of the final report. For months, our geoengineering group argued about almost every issue conceivably related to establishing a research programme. Many ideas failed to make the report — not because they were wrong or unimportant, but because they didn’t attract a political constituency in the group that was strong enough to keep them in. The commitment to consensus therefore comes at a high price: the elimination of proposals and alternatives that might be valuable for decision-makers dealing with complex problems.

Some consensus reports do include dissenting views, but these are usually relegated to a section at the back of the report, as if regretfully announcing the marginalized views of one or two malcontents. Science might instead borrow a lesson from the legal system. When the US Supreme Court issues a split decision, it presents dissenting opinions with as much force and rigour as the majority position. Judges vote openly and sign their opinions, so it is clear who believes what, and why — a transparency absent from expert consensus documents. Unlike a pallid consensus, a vigorous disagreement between experts would provide decision-makers with well-reasoned alternatives that inform and enrich discussions as a controversy evolves, keeping ideas in play and options open.

Not surprisingly, Dan and I have come to similar conclusions on this subject. Back in 2001 in Nature I wrote (PDF):

[E]fforts to reduce uncertainty via ‘consensus science’ — such as scientific assessments — are misplaced. Consensus science can provide only an illusion of certainty. When consensus is substituted for a diversity of perspectives, it may in fact unnecessarily constrain decision-makers’ options. Take for example weather forecasters, who are learning that the value to society of their forecasts is enhanced when decision-makers are provided with predictions in probabilistic rather than categorical fashion and decisions are made in full view of uncertainty.

As a general principle, science and technology will contribute more effectively to society’ needs when decision-makers base their expectations on a full distribution of outcomes, and then make choices in the face of the resulting — perhaps considerable — uncertainty.

In addition to leaving behind much of the interesting aspects of science, in my experience, the purpose of developing a “consensus” is to to quash dissent and end debate. Is it any wonder that policy discussions in the face of such a perspective are a dialogue of the like minded? In contrast, as Sarewitz writes, “a vigorous disagreement between experts would provide decision-makers with well-reasoned alternatives that inform and enrich discussions as a controversy evolves, keeping ideas in play and options open.”

Collaborative Groups as Friends of the Court?

by

In terms of what Mike said here about other groups (such as collaborative groups) filing in lawsuits as friends of the court, I would think that if it works for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, it would work for local collaborative groups (if they could afford attorneys, or perhaps law students could volunteer to support these groups). Hopefully, more knowledgeable people can tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree here.

Here’s the link.

Bay Foundation, others can join restoration suit
By ALEX DOMINGUEZ Associated Press​
Posted: 10/13/2011 02:49:17 PM MDT
Updated: 10/13/2011 03:45:13 PM MDT

BALTIMORE—The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other groups can join a court fight over bay restoration efforts, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Thursday.

The bay advocacy group, other environmental organizations and associations representing sewer authorities asked to side with the federal Environmental Protection Agency​ as defendants in the suit. The American Farm Bureau Federation sued the EPA in January over the stricter federally led effort and other groups have since joined the challenge. Critics say it is too far-reaching and will burden states with huge costs.

U.S. District Sylvia H. Rambo said the groups may help settle the complex case.

“In fact, given the complexity and voluminous size of the administrative record, which includes scientific models, the court finds that the presence of the intervenors may serve to clarify issues and, perhaps, contribute to resolution of this matter,” Rambo said in her order.

A telephone call by The Associated Press seeking comment from the American Farm Bureau Federation was not immediately returned Thursday afternoon.

Foundation attorney Jon Mueller said the groups were “looking forward to arguing this case in order to ensure that Bay restoration moves forward, and that all do their part to reduce pollution.”

The other environmental groups joining the foundation in the motion were Penn Future, Defenders of Wildlife, the Jefferson County Public Service District, the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which represents sewer authorities nationwide, also sought to intervene with state sewer authority associations. The head of the association said in May that his organization has some concerns about the EPA’s strategy, but is much more concerned with attempts by the plaintiffs to walk away from the process.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William Baker accused the plaintiffs on Thursday of trying to halt the restoration process.

“The effort to derail Bay restoration must be stopped, here and now,” Baker said. “We are pleased we can be part of defending the Bay restoration effort and are confident that the court will uphold the public’s right to clean water.”

The EPA’s strategy puts everyone in the six-state bay watershed on a “pollution diet” with daily limits for how much sediment and runoff can come from each area. Pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer, auto and power plant emissions cause oxygen-robbing algae blooms once they reach the bay, creating dead zones where sea life can’t live.

Farmers and agriculture interests are concerned about the strategy because agriculture is the single largest source of bay pollutants, according to the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay model. While agriculture has made gains in reducing bay pollution, the strategy calls for even more reductions from all sectors.

———

The Mirage of Pristine Wilderness: From High Country News

by

I thought this piece and the comments were both interesting. Here’s the link.

The mirage of pristine wilderness

by Emma Marris

One summer day, I went with my father and daughter to Schmitz Park in West Seattle, famous for being among the only chunks of old-growth forest within city limits. A few urban noises penetrated the 50-acre park, mostly airplanes and boat horns. But it was markedly quiet — and beautiful. The turf was springy with a thousand layers of needles. Creeks wended their way under fallen logs. Ferns and firs and hemlock quietly photosynthesized, cradled by the debris of dead trees. And all around us, right along the trail, were bushes heavily laden with red huckleberries. I ate a couple and gave several to my toddler — something I probably wouldn’t have done five years ago, when I took more seriously the solemn duty not to besmirch natural areas, especially old-growth forests, with my human presence.

As a kid growing up in Seattle, I was proud of the Northwest’s old-growth forests. We still had pristine wilderness, while the people of the Midwest and East Coast had used theirs all up. It made me feel smug.

But, of course, it isn’t that simple. For the last several years, I’ve been writing about ecologists and conservationists coming to terms with the fact that “pristine wilderness” is a mirage. Climate change, pollution, species movements, land-use changes — we’ve transformed the whole globe for good, every inch of it. And even if we could undo all that we’ve done, what would we go back to? Prehistoric humans changed landscapes much more than we once believed. And paleoecologists are teaching us to see familiar ecosystems not as eternal, unchanging, harmonious wholes so much as accidental, ephemeral aggregations — ships passing in the night in geological time. There never was a one right time, the ecologists say — no Garden of Eden.

A year or so ago, I interviewed Feng Sheng Hu, a paleoecologist at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He explained that the Northwest’s old-growth forests present a puzzle. Not because they are so old — because they’re so young. The very oldest gray, grand, massive Douglas firs in the region are about 700 years old. But their normal lifespan extends to 1,200 years, making those wise grandfathers just a titch over middle-aged. The reason, said Hu, was that the climate has only been cool enough for them for 700 years. Go further back, and you find yourself in a hotter time called the Medieval Warm Period, when frequent fires would have kept any Doug-fir forests from reaching a ripe old age. A mere 700 years ago, there were already people living in the Northwest. As Hu spoke, my pride was instantly shattered. The vaunted old-growth forest ecosystem wasn’t even one tree-generation old. It didn’t predate human settlement. It wasn’t unchanging. It was … what? Just a forest?

So as I walked through this little scrap of urban old growth, my daughter on my back, I was thinking hard about my emotional reaction. I wanted to see if it felt any different now that I know that old-growth forest isn’t the timeless, unchanging, right ecosystem I once believed it to be.

Among the skunk cabbage and black mud and moss and lichen, the big trees still seemed impressive, solid, silent — detached but somehow tender. I realized that even after we learn that old-growth ecosystems aren’t necessarily that old, the trees are still really, really big.

Then my father spoke. “We came here when you were tiny,” he said cheerfully. “You were still mastering walking longer distances, and I think you walked all the way up the trail.” This, then, was presumably back in the early 1980s, when my parents were still together. I felt a stab of nostalgia for my childhood, and my train of thought switched tracks. You can’t go home again, I thought. That’s the message of all this new research. First you learn that you can’t go back, and then you learn that there never was a home to go back to. Everything is always in flux; any date you pick is arbitrary, whether it is before or after Columbus, before or after we killed off the mammoths and giant ground sloths, before or after the logging industry began in the Pacific Northwest around 1850. And it is sad. I’ve written a whole book arguing that ditching the “pristine wilderness” idea is empowering and liberating because it allows us to look to the future and create more nature instead of clinging to disappearing scraps of seemingly untouched land. That’s still true. But it is also reasonable to grieve for the loss of a beautiful, simple ideal.

Dad and I made a list of the reasons Schmitz Park is valuable. “It is a rare ecosystem type in the city,” I said. “And it is beautiful. And there are really big trees.” “And,” he said, “no one has ever changed it.” My first impulse was to pooh-pooh this as yet another manifestation of the counterproductive obsession with pristine wilderness. And certainly it isn’t strictly true. Some trees were taken out before it was protected, and volunteers are fiddling with it all the time, removing exotic species and planting native seedlings. But he’s right that it stands out from a sea of bungalows and coffee shops and sidewalks and docks, a green swath with big old trees. Maybe not old enough to impress Hu and maybe not pristine. But big and old, goddamn it. Big and old. A good place to let yourself mourn a little for the Eden that never was, for the early childhood you remember only hazily through photographs. A good place to feed the kid some berries. Other people may be too scared to eat them, or too respectful to touch them, but I have given up worshiping wilderness in favor of tasting it.

Emma Marris is a freelance environmental journalist based in Columbia, Missouri. Her first book, Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, comes out this month.
© High Country News

Legal Decision on Monitoring SW Species

by

Thanks to Matt Koehler for this submission..

For Immediate Release, October 12, 2011
Contact: Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Erik Ryberg, Western Watersheds Project, (520) 622-3333

Court Slams Forest Service’s Refusal to Monitor Southwestern Endangered Species

TUCSON, Ariz.— A federal judge on Tuesday sided with the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project in a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s chronic refusal to monitor the health of threatened and endangered species in national forests throughout Arizona and New Mexico.

The 2010 suit alleged that the Forest Service failed to monitor populations of species, including the Mexican spotted owl and ridge-nosed rattlesnake, as required by a 2005 “biological opinion” authorizing implementation of forest plans for national forests in Arizona and New Mexico.

“The U.S. Forest Service has been shirking its legal obligation to monitor the Southwest’s most imperiled species and make sure its actions aren’t pushing them into extinction. Instead the agency’s been spending its money elsewhere and leaving these vulnerable species in the lurch,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center. “This court ruling finally holds the Forest Service accountable for neglecting these species and putting them at the very bottom of its list. We hope the Mexican spotted owl and other imperiled species will now get the protection they need and deserve.”

The ruling provides endangered species with interim protection while the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service reinitiate consultation on the regional forest plans. The ruling suspends livestock grazing on four grazing allotments that were determined likely to harm endangered rattlesnakes, imposes restrictions recommended by Fish and Wildlife on logging near Mexican spotted owl nests at the Upper Beaver Creek timber sale in northern Arizona, and may provide a basis for suspending other actions harming endangered species prior to completion of a new biological opinion.

“Arizona’s public lands are deceptively rich in animal life, and it is unfortunate that the Forest Service treats those animals with such disdain,” said Erik Ryberg with the Western Watersheds Project. “Western Watersheds Project is hopeful that this legal victory will cause the Forest Service to acknowledge the damage that their widespread livestock grazing programs inflict on animals that make these public lands their home.”

In June 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion that gave the Forest Service, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, permission to implement forest-management plans in all 11 national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. As a condition of that permission, the Forest Service agreed to monitor threatened and endangered species’ populations and their habitats.

But in October 2008 the Service issued a report admitting it had not done the monitoring. It also admitted that it might have exceeded its allowable quota of harm to some species, including the Mexican spotted owl. The Center warned the Forest Service of an impending lawsuit if it did not begin the required monitoring, which the agency has continued to refuse to do. After the Center filed suit, the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service reinitiated consultation; today’s decision provides interim protections for endangered species until the reinitiated consultation is completed.

The lawsuit was argued by attorneys Marc Fink with the Center for Biological Diversity and Matt Kenna from Durango, Colorado.

To view Tuesday’s ruling, click here.

U of South Carolina’s Biomass Experiment

by
The University's biomass facility will take advantage of some of the state's 21 million tons of waste wood chips each year. Photo: University Marketing and Communications

Here’s a post from Matthew Koehler.

FYI: The University of Montana’s proposed $16 million wood-burning biomass plant has been supported by the SouthWest Crown of the Continent “Collaborative” as well as highlighted by Senator Tester as he pushes his mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Here’s a comprehensive look at how the University of South Carolina’s biomass boiler (from the same Nexterra Corp who will build UM’s biomass plant) actually turned out. Perhaps it would be wise for the environmental community to pay attention to these actual real-world experiences with wood-burning biomass.

———————

As the University of Montana prepared to spend over $16 million installing a wood-burning biomass boiler next to the Aber Hall Dorms, it’s interesting to look at the new information coming out of the University of South Carolina and that school’s experience dealing with the same type of Nexterra biomass boiler that UM proposes to use.

Ironically, despite three “‘potentially lethal accidents’ and a host of other problems with the Nexterra wood-burning biomass boilers at the Univ of South Carolina, Nexterra still proudly features the Univ of South Carolina biomass plant on their website (http://www.nexterra.ca/industry/johnson.cfm).

In addition to the remarkable article below, make sure to check out “University of South Carolina looking for refund on $20 million biomass plant”
http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/money/story.aspx?list=195145&id=672649

Below are a couple of excerpts from the piece

Sun, Oct. 09, 2011
USC’s biomass plant debacle
How the university’s green dream went bust after three ‘potentially lethal accidents’ and a host of other problems

By WAYNE WASHINGTON
[email protected]

On June 28, 2009, an explosion rocked the biomass-fueled power plant on the campus of the University of South Carolina.

The force of the blast sent a metal panel some 60 feet toward the control office of the plant at Whaley and Sumter streets, according to documents obtained from USC by The State newspaper through a Freedom of Information Act request.

No one was hurt, but USC officials were concerned enough about the “potentially lethal accident” that they ordered an independent safety review and, in a strongly worded letter to the company that had built the plant, made it clear that university staff would not be allowed back into the building until the review was completed.

The blast underscored what some USC officials privately grumbled about for years: That the plant has been a $20 million disaster, a money pit that was poorly planned and built by a company that had never constructed such a cutting-edge “green energy” power plant before.

Interviews with USC officials and a spokeswoman for the company as well as a review of more than 1,800 pages of documents show that:

• USC, whose officials touted the plant “as the cat’s meow” before its startup in December 2007, closed it in March of this year after it had been shut down more than three dozen times. In one two-year period, the plant only provided steam – its purpose – on 98 out of 534 days, according to a USC review.

• There was no separate bidding process for the construction of the plant. The firm that built it, Johnson Controls Inc. of Wisconsin, was the only firm that included the construction of a biomass plant as part of its effort to win a competitively bid energy services contract. JCI won that $33.6 million energy services contract, then alone negotiated with USC the added cost of the biomass plant.

• USC paid JCI an additional $19.6 million for the plant. The university was to get its money back in energy savings or payments from JCI. So far, JCI has paid USC $4.3 million because the plant did not perform as promised. As things stand now, USC will recoup its $19.6 million investment by 2020 from payments by JCI.

• Despite a relationship that was, at one point, so acrimonious that USC hired outside legal counsel, the university continues to work with JCI. One option that USC now is considering is putting natural gas-fired turbines in the closed biomass plant to produce power, and JCI may be involved, a USC official says.

• Most substantively, however, the biomass experience led USC to change its structure of governance, giving a reformulated committee of its board of trustees responsibility for overseeing and vetting projects.

Now sitting idle, with spider webs and a thin film of dust replacing a plant’s hard-hat hustle and bustle, the biomass plant stands as a monument to the university’s failed push toward new, “green” technology, inadequate oversight and naïveté, some of its own officials acknowledge in internal documents.

The plant blemishes the legacy of the late Andrew Sorensen, the beloved, bow-tied president who was in charge of USC when the plant was conceived and constructed. And it also raises questions about whether USC’s revised system of oversight will be able to prevent future instances of idealism gone wrong that marred the biomass project from the beginning.

“A (expletive) mess with many layers,” is how William “Ted” Moore, a former USC vice president of finance and planning, described the plant in an email to Ed Walton, USC’s chief financial officer.

In another email, this one to USC president Harris Pastides, who succeeded Sorensen, Moore said: “The value of this thing may be scrap metal.”

That’s not the way JCI sees the project.

“We remain committed to the long-term success of the USC project, and the university has been supportive and appreciative of Johnson Controls’ efforts to fulfill its commitment,” said Karen Conrad, the company’s director of marketing communications.

Check the whole article out here..

Here’s another quote relevant to our usual biomass discussion.

In broad terms, the idea behind the biomass plant was simple enough.

USC would take wood byproduct, plentiful in South Carolina, heat it up and create steam that would be used to supply up to 85 percent of the Columbia campus’ energy needs.

Some environmentalists have questioned whether that process is actually “green,” since it creates a demand for wood products. USC, however, saw the move as a step toward the cutting-edge future of energy production, a chance to move away from fossil fuels.

“Getting away from fossil fuels to a renewable energy source is a very positive, very green thing to do,” Kelly told The State in 2006. “We are excited about being on the leading edge of this.”

On Friday, Kelly reiterated his belief in biomass as a new and important fuel source. He and Zeigler said those who are critical of the project don’t understand the circumstances that USC faced when it sought proposals from firms that could help the university save energy and money.

The university’s energy system was inefficient, they said. Several boilers were being used past their expected lifespan, and the price of natural gas, the university’s primary source of fuel, was rising sharply.

It was in that context, Zeigler and Kelly said, that the university sought ideas from companies for how USC could save energy and money.

JCI had been working on energy projects for USC for many years before the university sought proposals to improve its energy system. “We knew them,” Kelly said. “They weren’t fly-by-nighters.”

An important bonus for USC was the belief that its energy costs would be reduced by going with biomass. JCI promised that USC would save $2.1 million a year though the biomass plant or JCI would pay the university any difference between its actual savings and that sum – a pledge USC nailed down in writing.

To help pay for the project, USC would borrow money by selling bonds, and the university would use its energy savings – or JCI’s payments – to make the debt payments.

Now Entering Litigation: The Cone of Silence Descends

by

I would just like to restate that I believe strongly in “telling the truth and obeying the law.” The discussion below is about the pros and cons of resolving natural resource disputes through the courts.

Awhile back, I had some questions about what the litigants on the Colt Summit project felt needed to be changed about the project, so we could understand their reasoning better.

Matthew suggested here that I write the litigants directly, which I did. Here’s the series of emails.

Here’s my original note:

Dear Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan,

I administer a blog called New Century of Forest Planning. We have
been following the litigation on the Colt Summit Timber Sale with some
interest. We would be interested in finding out exactly what changes
could be made to the sale such that you would support it enough not to
litigate. Could you explain what activities you want to stop in what
units and why?

Thank you!

Sharon Friedman

Here’s his response:

Dear Ms. Friedman,

Thank you for contacting me.

Since you are a Forest Service employee and Forest Service attorneys have gotten upset with us in the past for talking to Forest Service employees about pending litigation, we need to first ask our attorney to contact your attorney to ask if it is alright to negotiate with you.

We do think is is odd that the Forest Service was non-responsive to our comments and appeal and yet we are supposed to believe that if we debate this on a blog site it will bring changes to the project.

Sincerely,
Michael Garrity
Executive Director
Alliance for the Wild Rockies

Mike,

The NCFP blog is something I do in my spare time and not related to my
“day job”. Therefore, any discussion with FS lawyers would be
inappropriate.

I wasn’t implying that blogging will bring changes to the project,
but it would bring understanding to our readers of what your position
is in terms of “specific activities on the ground that you disagree
with.” The purpose of our blog is to help understand and clarify why
people disagree about resource issues (in a safe and respectful
environment).

We seek to understand.

Sharon

Dear Sharon,

You are still a Forest Service employee so before I discuss the case with you I would like your lawyers to OK it first so they don’t get made at me later. They were very clear in the past that I was not to discuss any pending litigation with Forest Service employees. They didn’t make any distinction about after hours conversations. If you would like to learn more about the case without talking to me I sure the Forest Service attorneys would be happy to discuss it with you.
Sincerely,
Mike Garrity

This all makes sense to me. The FS and AWR are in litigation now, so only lawyers should be talking and only ones involved in the case. But I still think that we need to be upfront about the disadvantages of going from an open public dialogue to something else. Again, I think a required period of mediation, open to the public to observe, would be an improvement. I think we would all learn something about the different approaches people take, and different beliefs, and interpretation of facts.

I’d also like to clarify that I see my role on this blog similar to my membership in SAF and, in the past, when I was in leadership in that group. I could represent the SAF at some times, the FS at other times- as long as I was clear with others whom I was representing. If there were potential conflicts of interest, I would recuse myself. I am not blaming Mike here for not making the same distinction; it is a natural consequence of entering Litigation World. But, again, when we may need a broad diversity of viewpoints and ideas to come to a mutually agreeable conclusion, I wonder if under the “cone of silence” is the best place for that to happen.

Colt Summit Map and FWS Concurrence Letter

by

It seems like this project has led to much discussion so..
Here’s the map of this project..

Given the discussion of wildlife impacts on previous posts, I thought it might be enlightening to review the FWS letter on the project.
Here is the link (the FWS letter is listed under “supporting”):

The proposed action consists of activities to improve habitat conditions for wildlife and restore forest conditions by developing a diverse mix of vegetative composition and structure that better represents historical conditions for the area. Activities include: vegetative treatments including prescribed fire on about 2,043 acres; decommissioning 4.1 miles of road along Colt creek; maintaining approximately 17 miles of existing roads under Forest jurisdiction and implementing BMPs where necessary; constructing approximately 3 miles of temporary roads and snowroads;
storing or decommissioning 25.2 additional miles of road; allowing 9.9 miles of road which is closed to public access and naturally restored to remain in this condition; replacing two aquatic barrier culverts; and conducting ground-based noxious weed herbicide treatments. All temporary roads and snowroads would be decommissioned following completion of the vegetation management activities. The proposed action consists of two distinct parcels that lie directly across highway 83 from one another and are in close proximity to a cluster of private homes.

Further information regarding the proposed action was provided in the biological assessment. The Service has reviewed the biological assessment and concurs with the determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), or designated critical habitat for Canada lynx. Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.13 (a), formal consultation on these species is not required.
The Service bases its concurrence on the information and analysis in the biological assessment prepared by Scott Tomson, East Zone Wildlife Biologist. The proposed action is located within the Northern Continental Dived grizzly bear ecosystem (NCDE), in the Swan subunit and the Mission subunit, and outside of the NCDE where grizzly bears may occur. Although temporary roads will be constructed during the grizzly bear non-denning period, they will only be used for harvesting activities during the grizzly bear denning period with the exception of units 6 and 7 which are located along Highway 83. These temporary roads would primarily be snowroads, would only be used for access/hauling, would be closed yearlong to the public, and would be decommissioned upon project completion. Some BMP would be conducted on approximately 7.1 miles of roads and trails. The best grizzly bear habitat in the vicinity of the project provides spring habitat and the majority of road work, including road construction, would occur from July 1 through April 1, outside of the spring period. The road along Colt Creek would be decommissioned and re-routed in lower quality habitat at mid slope, closer to private land along the Highway 83 corridor. Although this re-route would result in a half mile increase in linear road density, the action would result in a more desirable condition for grizzly bears overall. Upon completion of the project, total road density would decrease by 4 percent and security core would increase by 1 percent (330 acres) within the Mission Subunit. Open road density would decrease by 1 percent within the Swan subunit. Also, the re-routed road would be closed during the spring season (April 1 through June 30). In addition to access management related impacts, project related activities may result in minor effects to cover; however, adequate forest cover would be retained within the action area. The potential for some activities to result in disturbance to grizzly bears does exist. However, most of the activity would occur during the grizzly bear denning period. Also, adequate displacement areas within the Bob Marshal Wilderness and Mission Mountain Wilderness are within close proximity to the project activities. A district-wide bear attractant order is in place which requires safe storage of all bear attractants.
The proposed action is located with the Clearwater Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) in areas also designated as critical habitat for Canada lynx, containing primary constituent elements (PCEs). No precommercial thinning is planned and the stands selected for treatment are not considered mesic, multi-storied forests providing quality snowshoe hare habitat (lynx foraging habitat). Therefore, lynx foraging habitat (PCE1a) would not be impacted. Some temporary snowroads would be constructed for harvesting activities and most activity will occur during the winter. Therefore, some additional snow compaction would occur as a result of the action. However, such impacts would be minimal to lynx and to PCE1b. The project area is not considered to be high quality denning habitat (PCE1c). Large blocks of mature forest with significant amounts of coarse woody debris occur within the LAU and denning habitat is not considered limiting on the landscape. Therefore, impacts to denning habitat (PCE1c) would be minimal. Finally, the project area includes some matrix habitat (PCE1d). All treatments proposed would maintain the forested nature of the stands, thus maintaining the ability of lynx to travel through matrix habitat (PCE1d). Habitat connectivity would be maintained and the action would not result in permanent destruction of lynx or snowshoe hare habitat. The proposed action is consistent with all applicable standards and guidelines of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction.
We agree with the conclusions in the biological assessment that project related impacts to grizzly bears, Canada lynx, and designated critical habitat for Canada lynx would be insignificant.