BSC In the News
Biomass a viable alternative fuel
EDITORIAL — OPINION OF THE RAVALLI REPUBLIC
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Last weekend in Hamilton, more than 100 people spent the best part of a Saturday listening to speakers from all over the west talk about the potential for another source of alternative energy n biomass.
Link to complete editorial.
--
Biomass Symposium offers energy alternatives
Ravalli Republic, March 3, 2008
More than 100 people gathered at the Hamilton Fairgrounds Saturday morning to learn all aspects of the biofuel industry.
Focused on advocating the use of biomass from large-scale national forest thinning, the day was sponsored by the Big Sky Coalition.
Co-hosted by the Bitterroot National Forest and the Ravalli County Commissioners, the symposium offered a range of information regarding current and future biomass production and the potential of turning wood waste into ethanol and methanol for electricity and heat.
BSC Executive Director Sonny LaSalle said although he expected more attendance, he was pleased with the turnout.
“I’m hoping the day serves as an educational and informational setting for this community,” LaSalle said. “There’s a lot of opportunity in this county, not only for the bio-fuel industry, but also for the job market.”
Link to complete article.
--
A suggestion for the first Big Sky Coalition staff member (Repost, Clark Fork Chronicle)
by John Q. Murray
Most people would probably agree that a survey of the American West before European settlement would represent a valid benchmark.
It would offer a valuable insight into how the natural ecosystem functioned before the Euro-Americans moved in and started transforming the landscape.
While a snapshot at any one site should not be viewed alone out of context--it would represent only a particular moment in time--a collection of tens of thousands of such snapshots would offer enough data to search for patterns and start the theory-building process. The visual information could be used to enhance all the other resources available to scientists as they build models of a healthy ecosystem.
And amazingly, such a collection is available. The U.S. Geological Survey has a treasure trove in Denver, Colorado, with photographs taken from the late 1800s when government surveyors set the corners for every township and range. Jack Losensky, who has pored over the collection, says there are literally tens of thousands of these photographs, taken all over the West.
In this respect, the American West offers an amazing opportunity. This landscape isn't like Europe, which has been chopped and changed for centuries. While Oregon and California and Utah led the way before the Civil War, most of the West did not get its big waves of settlement until after the Civil War. These photographs offer a glimpse of the land as it appeared to the first settlers, giving us an opportunity to discover how the ecosystem worked before the United States government started making its first changes.
Most people would think that environmental groups would be ecstatic to find such a resource. If federal agencies have incontrovertibly violated the natural landscape, these photographs would offer a way to return to a time before their actions. They would offer an opportunity to see exactly what the West looked like before the foresters got started, at a time when the only management was by Mother Nature. It would be like seeing how the West would appear as if it were all being managed as a wilderness area.
And most people would be wrong.
At least one local group is not at all interested in the "historic conditions." The Ecology Center, now the WildWest Institute, argued six ways till Sunday why the U.S. Forest Service should not conduct commercial thinning and prescribed burning operations in an attempt to start restoring the landscape to its historic conditions.
As attorney Tom Woodbury said this week: "'Historic conditions' is a canard, significant of nothing."
Or as he successfully argued at more length before the Ninth Circuit Court in 2005: Changes to the landscape would alter old-growth habitat, possibly harming the old-growth species dependent upon the habitat; information regarding historic conditions is incomplete; altering particular sections of forest in order to achieve “historic” conditions may not make sense when the forest as a whole has already been fundamentally changed; many variables can affect treatment outcomes; and the treatment process is qualitatively different from the “natural” or “historic” processes it was intended to mimic.
If the Forest Service is really interested in historic conditions, he said this week, they might restore the historic amount of old-growth habitat, estimated at 20-50 percent of the northern Rockies.
And the Ninth Circuit has already made its decision. Two of three judges agreed with Woodbury that the Forest Service should not proceed with the Lolo post-burn project. That decision also established a legal precedent that could be used to block other future projects.
"While Ecology Center does not offer proof that the proposed treatment causes the harms it fears, the Forest Service does not offer proof that the proposed treatment benefits — or at least does not harm — old-growth dependent species," the opinion states.
In other words, there wasn't enough information to make a decision, so the courts imposed their usual no-action alternative.
A new environmental group that formed in the Bitterroot has expressed interest in moving past the no-action alternatives. The Big Sky Coalition drew over 600 people to a meeting last month to start addressing the threats to forest health and human health posed by catastrophic wildfires.
They have expressed an interest in hiring staff members to participate in public land decision-making, just as smaller groups like WildWest have been doing. They are also hoping to sponsor legislation.
The Bitterrooters looked at some of Losensky's photographs and understood immediately that we have spectacularly altered and ruined our forestlands. But it doesn't matter, because the Ninth Circuit has already ruled against what most people would consider common sense.
If they really want to be effective, the Big Sky Coalition should stop looking at the front end of the public policy process and start looking at the back end. The lasting decisions affecting forest management aren't being made by Congress, but by the courts.
The first staff members they hire should be some sharp attorneys in the mold of Scott Horngren, while also recruiting some dedicated young law school grads who have lived in the West and have seen for themselves the effects of catastrophic wildfires in our parched and overcrowded forests.
The last generation of environmental attorneys succeeded in what were essentially negative actions, blocking the Forest Service from taking action. It will be interesting to see whether the next generation can promote a positive agenda, and succeed in effectively promoting restoration efforts.
--
John Q. Murray
Publisher, Clark Fork Chronicle
119 Mount Ave.
Missoula MT 59801
406-721-1129
http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com
EDITORIAL — OPINION OF THE RAVALLI REPUBLIC
Thursday, March 6, 2008
You can hardly turn on the television without seeing her.
“It’s going to have to come from a lot of different places,” she says while staring thoughtfully off into the sky.
The “it” this spokesperson for a major oil company is talking about is energy. The commercial continues with others weighing in with opinions on a variety of alternative energy sources including wind and solar.
Link to complete editorial.
--
Biomass Symposium offers energy alternatives
Ravalli Republic, March 3, 2008
More than 100 people gathered at the Hamilton Fairgrounds Saturday morning to learn all aspects of the biofuel industry.
Focused on advocating the use of biomass from large-scale national forest thinning, the day was sponsored by the Big Sky Coalition.
Co-hosted by the Bitterroot National Forest and the Ravalli County Commissioners, the symposium offered a range of information regarding current and future biomass production and the potential of turning wood waste into ethanol and methanol for electricity and heat.
BSC Executive Director Sonny LaSalle said although he expected more attendance, he was pleased with the turnout.
“I’m hoping the day serves as an educational and informational setting for this community,” LaSalle said. “There’s a lot of opportunity in this county, not only for the bio-fuel industry, but also for the job market.”
Link to complete article.
--
A suggestion for the first Big Sky Coalition staff member (Repost, Clark Fork Chronicle)
by John Q. Murray
Most people would probably agree that a survey of the American West before European settlement would represent a valid benchmark.
It would offer a valuable insight into how the natural ecosystem functioned before the Euro-Americans moved in and started transforming the landscape.
While a snapshot at any one site should not be viewed alone out of context--it would represent only a particular moment in time--a collection of tens of thousands of such snapshots would offer enough data to search for patterns and start the theory-building process. The visual information could be used to enhance all the other resources available to scientists as they build models of a healthy ecosystem.
And amazingly, such a collection is available. The U.S. Geological Survey has a treasure trove in Denver, Colorado, with photographs taken from the late 1800s when government surveyors set the corners for every township and range. Jack Losensky, who has pored over the collection, says there are literally tens of thousands of these photographs, taken all over the West.
In this respect, the American West offers an amazing opportunity. This landscape isn't like Europe, which has been chopped and changed for centuries. While Oregon and California and Utah led the way before the Civil War, most of the West did not get its big waves of settlement until after the Civil War. These photographs offer a glimpse of the land as it appeared to the first settlers, giving us an opportunity to discover how the ecosystem worked before the United States government started making its first changes.
Most people would think that environmental groups would be ecstatic to find such a resource. If federal agencies have incontrovertibly violated the natural landscape, these photographs would offer a way to return to a time before their actions. They would offer an opportunity to see exactly what the West looked like before the foresters got started, at a time when the only management was by Mother Nature. It would be like seeing how the West would appear as if it were all being managed as a wilderness area.
And most people would be wrong.
At least one local group is not at all interested in the "historic conditions." The Ecology Center, now the WildWest Institute, argued six ways till Sunday why the U.S. Forest Service should not conduct commercial thinning and prescribed burning operations in an attempt to start restoring the landscape to its historic conditions.
As attorney Tom Woodbury said this week: "'Historic conditions' is a canard, significant of nothing."
Or as he successfully argued at more length before the Ninth Circuit Court in 2005: Changes to the landscape would alter old-growth habitat, possibly harming the old-growth species dependent upon the habitat; information regarding historic conditions is incomplete; altering particular sections of forest in order to achieve “historic” conditions may not make sense when the forest as a whole has already been fundamentally changed; many variables can affect treatment outcomes; and the treatment process is qualitatively different from the “natural” or “historic” processes it was intended to mimic.
If the Forest Service is really interested in historic conditions, he said this week, they might restore the historic amount of old-growth habitat, estimated at 20-50 percent of the northern Rockies.
And the Ninth Circuit has already made its decision. Two of three judges agreed with Woodbury that the Forest Service should not proceed with the Lolo post-burn project. That decision also established a legal precedent that could be used to block other future projects.
"While Ecology Center does not offer proof that the proposed treatment causes the harms it fears, the Forest Service does not offer proof that the proposed treatment benefits — or at least does not harm — old-growth dependent species," the opinion states.
In other words, there wasn't enough information to make a decision, so the courts imposed their usual no-action alternative.
A new environmental group that formed in the Bitterroot has expressed interest in moving past the no-action alternatives. The Big Sky Coalition drew over 600 people to a meeting last month to start addressing the threats to forest health and human health posed by catastrophic wildfires.
They have expressed an interest in hiring staff members to participate in public land decision-making, just as smaller groups like WildWest have been doing. They are also hoping to sponsor legislation.
The Bitterrooters looked at some of Losensky's photographs and understood immediately that we have spectacularly altered and ruined our forestlands. But it doesn't matter, because the Ninth Circuit has already ruled against what most people would consider common sense.
If they really want to be effective, the Big Sky Coalition should stop looking at the front end of the public policy process and start looking at the back end. The lasting decisions affecting forest management aren't being made by Congress, but by the courts.
The first staff members they hire should be some sharp attorneys in the mold of Scott Horngren, while also recruiting some dedicated young law school grads who have lived in the West and have seen for themselves the effects of catastrophic wildfires in our parched and overcrowded forests.
The last generation of environmental attorneys succeeded in what were essentially negative actions, blocking the Forest Service from taking action. It will be interesting to see whether the next generation can promote a positive agenda, and succeed in effectively promoting restoration efforts.
--
John Q. Murray
Publisher, Clark Fork Chronicle
119 Mount Ave.
Missoula MT 59801
406-721-1129
http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com
posted by Jay at
3/06/2008 08:27:00 PM
To comment on this post via email, click here.
Subscribe to
1 Comments:
John: I thought your opinion was pretty balanced, and appreciate the lack of distortion in your characterization of our position. I would point out, however, as I think is at least implicit in your piece, that we are not opposed to restoring historic conditions in the least on a forest-wide, or ecosystem, scale. What we will continue to oppose is the "landscape analysis" approach of the forest service that attempts to impose historic conditions in a particular landscape without regard for the historic conditions of the forest as a whole, and without every considering wildlife impacts of restoring those conditions. In other words, it needs to be a top-down approach, not a bottom-up approach, that seeks to balance the emphasis on historic landscape conditions with a realistic assessment of the imbalance created by nearly a century of logging older forested habitat.
Another way of stating this - if you consider the "historic condition" of the forest as a whole, this will yield a picture of diversity and dynamic equilibrium, while if you only consider the historic condition of a particular landcsape, all that tells you is what that particular landscape looked like at a given point in time, which really doesn't tell you much at all relative to current disequilibrium. If you think about it from the perspective of the inhabitants, especially the 70% of wildlife species that inhabit old growth forest, then naturally those species are going to move around the forest over time as one area ripens into old growth and another is lost to stand-replacing wildfire. So just because a landscape that is old growth today was not inhabited by old growth species 100 years ago, and thus the historic conditions included the absence of that wildlife diversity, does not provide good scientific rationale for thinning that landscape in such a way to make it uninhabitable by old growth species today. And that is the gist of what we argued, and the Circuit Court agreed with, in the Lolo post-burn case. Again, I appreciated the reasoned nature of your opinion, whether or not I agreed with it. My sense is we don't disagree as much as we might presume.
- Tom Woodbury, Forest Defense PC
John,
I would agree with Tom that with respect to the issue that was at hand in the Lolo Post-burn case highlighted by the quote which you were originally interested in, I appreciate that you included as much of the context from our briefs as you did. However, I'm disappointed that you made such a strong point of an issue which is quite unsubstantiated by anything in your article or by reality. After a lengthy intro about the amazing set of historical photos available from old surveys, you make the claim that WildWest Institute is totally uninterested in what there is to learn from studies of historical forest conditions. It seems sometimes that you are so eager to take a jab at us or craft a dramatic sentence that you entirely miss evidence to the contrary even if it's sitting right under your nose. For instance, in an article that I wrote and which the CFC published recently along with an unannounced, out-of-the blue, non sequitur strong arm piece railing WildWest which you threw together, I specifically refer to research which I have been involved with for the last several years that quantifies historical forest conditions and assess changes to them due to historical anthropogenic influences such as logging and fire exclusion.
Historical photos are of some value, but they have huge biases and give only limited visual information about historical conditions. Scientific publications studying old survey photos have equally found evidence of dense, crowded forest conditions in ponderosa pine forests that predate Euro-American influences (see Baker et al 2006, Journal of Biogeography), evidence that is contrary to the general notion of widespread open parklike ponderosa pine stands. Other, more scientifically rigorous methods for assessing historical conditions are available. Our research and our methods are one example. Another is spatial analysis of current vegetation patterns and reconstruction of historical conditions. Hessburg et al (2007) in the journal Landscape Ecology recently released a study of mixed ponderosa pine forests in eastern WA using these methods. Both Hessburg's data and ours suggest that the story of historical conditions in ponderosa pine forests of the Northern Rockies is much more complicated than the usual park like stands anecdote employed by the Forest Service. This was one of the points we consistently make to the public and to the Forest Service, but is frequently ignored for the simpler and more appealing park-like stands anecdote.
In addition to this point, our point in the Lolo Post-burn case is that no link has been made between the restoration of historical conditions (even if there was agreement on what they were) and population trends of old growth species. This is especially true when the FS is proposing "restoration" on a project level scale and ignoring the fact that the current and proposed Forest Plans have no intention of restoring landscape scale historical conditions such as abundant old growth forest or processes such as fire. That is why we argued it was irrelevant to that particular issue in the case at hand which dealt with the Forest Service's management of old growth associated species. To make the jump from these points which are well outlined in the various court briefs to statements such as "one local group is not at all interested in the 'historic conditions'" is absurd, unfair, underhanded and contrary to fact, to put it mildly. This is especially true considering that we are actually very involved in scientific studies of historic forest conditions in this region, which you are aware of since you recently published an article about it, and since WildWest has been quite outspokenly concerned, in the Lolo Post-burn briefs which you say you thoroughly read among other venues, with the Forest Service's refusal to restore landscape patterns and processes that characterized Montana's forests historically.
--Cameron Naficy, WIldWest Institute
Post a Comment
<< Home