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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Collaboration Can’t Fix What Ails Public Forest Management
By Steve Kelly, Friends of the Wild Swan
For decades, forest activists have performed vital oversight, monitoring and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Caused by the rapid rise of neoliberalism, beginning in earnest during the Reagan administration, Congress and administrative agencies largely avoided policy responsibilities associated with our environmental laws. Politicians and agency bureaucrats have been screaming bloody murder about grassroots environmentalists and “gridlock” ever since. The simple fact remains, the primary cause of “gridlock” is the government’s systematic refusal to follow environmental laws and regulations.
The steady rise of neoliberalism in the Clinton years led to the now commonplace sharp political rhetoric, which directs its attacks toward the legitimacy of local grassroots forest activism. Add to this a proliferation of market-based, professional “problem solvers” touting “win-win” solutions and jobs, and one can see the game is rigged in favor of those with a vested financial interest in subsidized commodity extraction. This approach is typically dismissive of science and the law and grassroots activism.
Stakeholder partnerships prefer to engage in consensus and collaboration processes which favor a narrow, economics-based view of forest ecosystems. When challenged, collaborative stakeholders say one thing, and do the opposite, which usually leads to more old growth logging, and bulldozing new roads to access the remaining pockets of big, old trees.
One recent example of collaboration gone wild is the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which was authorized in 2009 under the Omnibus Land Management Act. The stated purpose of this collaborative program is to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes.
In practice, normal environmental assessment procedures, required by the National Environmental Procedures Act (NEPA), are being undermined by making decisions that may affect thousands of acres of public forest before conducting proper analysis of forseeable environmental impacts, especially cumulative impacts. Full funding has already been allocated by Congress and the Obama administration to a program that lacks a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NEPA just becomes a speed bump at the end.
Once a project has been selected a work plan and business plan must be developed within 180 days. These plans describe how projects will be implemented, treatment costs, infrastructure needed, projected supply of woody biomass and timber and the local economic benefits.
The work plan is then submitted to the Regional Forester for approval. Project
implementation may begin once the requesting unit has been notified that the work plan
has been approved.
All of this indicates that any NEPA will be front-loaded.
Here is a copy of the Friends of the Wild Swan Newsletter
**************************
I read this piece, but I don’t understand it. I know some things about NEPA but perhaps not as much as I should about CFLRP, so perhaps readers could enlighten me.
What does Mr. Kelly want a programmatic EIS on? A specific project?
NEPA doesn’t say that agencies can’t work with the public in developing proposals to be analyzed, in fact one of the ideas in NEPA is fostering public involvement. Doesn’t it make sense to develop a proposal before you analyze it? How else could it work? Would it be better for agencies to develop proposals without the public? Maybe I’m missing something here…
And I wonder about this quote:
Stakeholder partnerships prefer to engage in consensus and collaboration processes which favor a narrow, economics-based view of forest ecosystems. When challenged, collaborative stakeholders say one thing, and do the opposite, which usually leads to more old growth logging, and bulldozing new roads to access the remaining pockets of big, old trees.
It is a pretty broad brush statement about “stakeholder partnerships.” I think that some of the collaborators around the country might question whether their view is “narrow, and economics-based”. They might see themselves as seeing the big picture of sustaining the land and people, and working respectfully with each other to understand different views and find the best solutions. They might see others as “lawsuit-happy ideologues.” 😉
Here’s the link, thanks to Matthew Koehler for submitting this..
Guest column by MIKE GARRITY | Posted: Thursday, October 6, 2011 Government has to follow laws as well
How ironic is it that while the Missoulian was chastising the Alliance for the Wild Rockies for filing a lawsuit to protect the environment in its editorial last Sunday (Oct. 2) the Alliance, the Environmental Protection Agency and Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality had just reached an agreement in a lawsuit originally brought by the Alliance 14 years ago.
The agreement has huge benefits for cleaning up Montana’s rivers, streams and lakes that would not have happened without the lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreement. Here’s a direct quote from the Reuters article that appeared in the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune and other major papers and media outlets nationwide.
“Richard Opper, head of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, credited the 14-year-old lawsuit brought by environmentalists with making the state ‘get its act together.’ ‘We lost the original case, and we deserved to lose,’ he told Reuters in a telephone interview on Monday. ‘In the old days, we weren’t following that federal law very well. Now we have a new attitude, and we are doing the right thing.’ ”
Opper’s quote and the credit he gives the Alliance for bringing the lawsuit is timely considering the Missoulian editorial board’s stance. More importantly, it brings the seminal issue to the forefront: We are a nation of laws, not a nation where a handful of “collaborators” can decide which laws will or won’t be followed. Government agencies, just like the rest of us, have to follow the law.
Had the “collaborative” Colt-Summit logging project – for which the Missoulian criticized the Alliance – followed federal law, the Alliance would have applauded it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The agency refused to follow the law or heed well-documented evidence. And so, as part of the process proscribed by law, we were forced to file a lawsuit in federal district court to stop this timber sale for the sake of taxpayers as well as the elk, fish, grizzly bears, lynx and a myriad of other old growth dependent species that rely on unlogged national forests.
Consider these points:
• The plan to log federally designated critical habitat for lynx and bull trout as well as prime grizzly habitat violates a host of federal laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act.
• The Forest Service’s own analysis notes that 94 percent of the project is in an area that the Lolo Forest Plan requires to be managed for the benefit of grizzly bears as its top priority. The agency also admits that logging and the new roads that go with it will reduce important wildlife hiding cover and that similar logging on adjacent private lands has harmed big game and grizzly bear habitat. Yet, the agency and the collaborators who support the logging plan fail to explain how reduction of existing cover levels on our national forests can possibly be called “restoration.”
• Contrary to Forest Service claims, the logging destroys lynx habitat since it drives out the snowshoe hare and ground squirrels, upon which they prey. The Forest Service’s own research show that lynx do not use forest lands that have been recently clearcut or thinned. In fact, forests that have been logged in the Seeley-Swan Valley are avoided by lynx.
• The Forest Service’s own environmental assessment reveals that this timber sale will cost taxpayers over $1.5 million with little in return except the destruction of critical wildlife habitat. Given the current national debate over government spending, an expensive and destructive timber sale to benefit a for-profit corporation is not defensible.
• The Alliance and its environmental allies fully participated in the Colt Summit process, which is required before anyone can file a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service’s decision.
“Collaborators” do not make laws – and we all have to follow the law. The Missoulian would do its readers a favor by remembering that before it criticizes the Alliance for the Wild Rockies – or any other citizen group – for trying to get the federal government to follow the law.
Mike Garrity is executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
Pittsburgh Pirates catcher Ryan Doumit breaks his bat during a recent game. Since a 2008 study exposed a pivotal structural weakness in maple bats, the number of shattered bats has dropped 50 percent. Courtesy Major League Baseball
Another “home run” from the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. Did you know that Aldo Leopold was the Assistant Director of the Forest Products Laboratory. If you’re interested, check out this video on FPL history, or browse their website here. If you want to know about wood you can probably find something of interest in their general interest publications here.
In April 2008, a jagged projectile of maple wood hurtled into the stands at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles and struck Susan Rhodes in the face. She left the ballpark with a concussion and a broken jaw. By June, Major League Baseball (MLB) had commissioned a $500,000 investigation into the alarming number of bats that had shattered that season, including more than 750 in just three months.
Fans attending the 2011 World Series should be relatively safe from impalement, owing to some sharp scientific sleuthing that has reduced the number of pulverized bats in the league by 50 percent and shed light on one of baseball’s strangest mysteries.
In their 50-page report to MLB, the researchers, led by U.S. Forest Service engineer Dave Kretschmann, pinned blame squarely on two culprits: the type of wood (maple) and the cut of the grain. The conspicuous spike in shattered sticks, they discovered, coincided with a shift in preference from traditional ash bats to maple, a supposedly more durable wood that skyrocketed in popularity after Barry Bonds clobbered a record-breaking 73 home runs with maple bats in 2001. The researchers also found that in some bats the wood fibers ran along the handle at an angle, instead of straight up; parallel fibers create a solid foundation to absorb the force of the ball. Angled fibers are easy to spot in ash but are nearly invisible in maple, so manufacturers were unknowingly distributing bats that were sapped of up to three-quarters of their potential strength (although Bonds did not seem to notice). “That’s the problem you have when you make something with wood,” Kretschmann says. “There are so many variables.”
MLB has since mandated that bat manufacturers place an inkblot on the handle of every maple bat they make. The ink bleeds along the grain of the wood, allowing a third-party agency contracted by the league to ensure that the fibers run at an angle of no more than 3 degrees from vertical. As a result, the number of splintered bats plunged by 30 percent in 2009 and continued a steady descent last season. For Kretschmann, watching baseball has never been more satisfying: “On a high-definition TV I can see the little black inkblots and say, ‘Oh, I was involved in that.’ ”
a>Plant-covered land is red in the June 21 false-color image of the Wallow fire burn scar. Patches of unburned forest are bright red. Flecks of black indicate some burning. The charcoal-colored areas burned severely. NASA Earth Observatory image by Jesse Allen using data from the NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team.
Thanks to Foto for forwarding the link to this podcast(http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201109231) on the Arizona fires, with Dr. Wally Covington and others. From Science Friday.
Managing Forests To Manage Wildfires
Plant-covered land is red in the June 21 false-color image of the Wallow fire burn scar. Patches of unburned forest are bright red. Flecks of black indicate some burning. The charcoal-colored areas burned severely. NASA Earth Observatory image by Jesse Allen using data from the NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team.
Record breaking fires in the Southwest have burned thousands of acres, disrupting people and animals, and leaving muddy, flood-prone landscapes in their wake. In this remote broadcast from Flagstaff, Arizona, Ira Flatow and guests discuss fire ecology, and how new forest management strategies may help stifle the blazes.
Guests
William Wallace Covington
Regents’ Professor of Forest Ecology
Executive Director, The Ecological Restoration Institute
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona
Mary Lata
Fire Ecologist
U.S. Forest Service / USDA
Flagstaff, Arizona
Paul Summerfelt
Firefighter, Type 1 Team Incident Commander
Wildland Fire Management Officer
City of Flagstaff
Flagstaff, Arizona
Thanks to Marek Smith for this piece on carbon and forests.
Here’s more on “forests are dying”.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, plus some of the sidebars. I just quoted the part here on our favorite topic, fires’n’bugs.
Wildfires and Bugs
Stripping the bark of a tree with a hatchet, Diana L. Six, a University of Montana insect scientist, pointed out the telltale signs of infestation by pine beetles: channels drilled by the creatures as they chewed their way through the juicy part of the tree.
The tree she was pointing out was already dead. Its needles, which should have been deep green, displayed the sickly red that has become so commonplace in the mountainous West. Because the beetles had cut off the tree’s nutrients, the chlorophyll that made the needles green was breaking down, leaving only reddish compounds.
Pine beetles are a natural part of the life cycle in Western forests, but this outbreak, under way for more than a decade in some areas, is by far the most extensive ever recorded. Scientists say winter temperatures used to fall to 40 degrees below zero in the mountains every few years, killing off many beetles. “It just doesn’t happen anymore,” said a leading climate scientist from the University of Montana, Steven W. Running, who was surveying the scene with Dr. Six one recent day.
As the climate has warmed, various beetle species have marauded across the landscape, from Arizona to Alaska. The situation is worst in British Columbia, which has lost millions of trees across an area the size of Wisconsin.
The species Dr. Six was pointing out, the mountain pine beetle, has pushed farther north into Canada than ever recorded. The beetles have jumped the Rocky Mountains into Alberta, and fears are rising that they could spread across the continent as temperatures rise in coming decades. Standing on a mountain plateau south of Missoula, Dr. Six and Dr. Running pointed to the devastation the beetles had wrought in the forest around them, consisting of a high-elevation species called whitebark pine.
“We were going to try to do like an eight-year study up here. But within three years, all this has happened,” Dr. Six said sadly.
“It’s game over,” Dr. Running said.
Later, flying in a small plane over the Montana wilderness, Dr. Running said beetles were not the only problem confronting the forests of the West.
Warmer temperatures are causing mountain snowpack, on which so much of the life in the region depends, to melt earlier in most years, he said. That is causing more severe water deficits in the summer, just as the higher temperatures cause trees to need extra water to survive. The whole landscape dries out, creating the conditions for intense fires. Even if the landscape does not burn, the trees become so stressed they are easy prey for beetles.
From the plane, Dr. Running pointed out huge scars where fires had destroyed stands of trees in recent years. “Nothing can stop the wildfires when they get to this magnitude,” he said. Some of the fire scars stood adjacent to stands of lodgepole pine destroyed by beetles.
At the moment, the most severe problems in the nation’s forests are being seen in the Southwestern United States, in states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The region has been so dry that huge, explosive fires consumed millions of acres of vegetation and thousands of homes and other buildings this summer.
This year’s drought came against the background of an overall warming and drying of the Southwestern climate, which scientists say helps to explain the severe effects. But the role of climate change in causing the drought itself is unclear — the more immediate cause is an intermittent weather pattern called La Niña, and research is still under way on whether that cycle is being altered or intensified by global warming, as some researchers suspect. Because of the continuing climatic change, experts say some areas that are burning this year may never return as forest — they are more likely to grow back as heat-tolerant grass or shrub lands, storing far less carbon than the forests they replace.
“A lot of ecologists like me are starting to think all these agents, like insects and fires, are just the proximate cause, and the real culprit is water stress caused by climate change,” said Robert L. Crabtree, head of a center studying the Yellowstone region. “It doesn’t really matter what kills the trees — they’re on their way out. The big question is, Are they going to regrow? If they don’t, we could very well catastrophically lose our forests.”
A couple of thoughts..
It’s interesting to me that people are predicting that trees are “on their way out”. I wonder specifically what evidence is there for this? I wonder about what I call the “pontification to data ratio” of some of these observations.
It’s also interesting when people use the term “devastation” to describe mountain pine beetle killed forests. Because “natural” cycles vs. “climate change induced” cycles look exactly the same (acres of dead trees).
Thanks to Terry Seyden for this find (so glad you’re back!).
Putting lawsuits before results: Environmental groups suing over timber sale need to collaborate
Missoulian editorial | Posted: Sunday, October 2, 2011 8:00 am
Nearly everyone – environmental groups, timber companies, private landowners and public lands agencies – would agree that land management decisions are best made outside the courtroom. Years of bitter legal disputes have demonstrated that the vast majority of problems are best solved out of court, so forest lands can be managed in a more timely, efficient, and less costly manner.
This has been especially apparent in Montana, where a relatively new collaborative approach is increasingly gaining traction – and being watched carefully by others hoping to copy its success.
By bringing to one table all those with a vested interest in forest land management, collaboration has significantly cut down on the number of lawsuits concerning the Lolo National Forest, supervisor Debbie Austin told the Missoulian editorial board last week. What’s more, she said, it results in better management decisions.
But not everyone is on board. Certain environmental groups remain stuck on the old way of getting their way. Apparently, they continue to favor lawsuits over a seat at the table.
Earlier this month, several environmental groups filed suit against the Forest Service over a timber sale near Seeley Lake. The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Wild Swan, Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and Native Ecosystems Council say the Colt Summit Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project should have included a full environmental impact statement, and that the statement’s results should be compared to the provisions in the National Forest Management and National Environmental Policy acts. They also argue that the project ignores the potential impact on wildlife.
The groups involved in the project’s planning, of course, beg to differ. The Wilderness Society, for one, believes the environmental analysis performed on the project is sufficient – and certainly more expeditious than a cumbersome environmental impact statement. That is especially important given the risk of wildfire to the Seeley Lake community, said Megan Birzell, a Northern Rockies forest associate for the Wilderness Society.
The project now being challenged in court would both remove roads and thin forests on more than 4,300 acres of land over five years. The specifics of the project are the direct result of much hard work, debate and problem-solving by a group of people with diverse but intersecting interests – and a test, of sorts, for the Montana Forest Restoration Committee, to see whether collaboration can trump litigation.
It ought to. Lawsuits have an important role to play in protecting public resources from bad decisions. But they should be methods of last resort, used only after all other options have been exhausted.
Unfortunately, some environmental groups may be so used to slapping lawsuits on new projects that they are missing an opportunity to solve potential problems before they become actual problems. They are rejecting an open invitation to resolve their concerns during the planning process, instead of after the fact.
Regardless of whether they win or lose in court, that’s clearly not the best way to go about protecting Montana’s public lands.
EDITORIAL BOARD: Publisher Stacey Mueller, Editor Sherry Devlin, Opinion Editor Tyler Christensen, Sales and Marketing Director Jim McGowan
Thanks to Matt Koehler for this submission..
