Jim Doran, J.D.,
IBDR
Community Forestry Resources
P.O. Box 888
Twisp, WA 98856
(ph) 509-997-2295
(cell) 509-293-1535
(fax) 509-997-2192
Joint Fire
Science Program/
National Fire
Plan
Panel
Discussion
Corvallis,
Oregon
March 19,
2003
Resolving Barriers and Taking Advantage of Local
Opportunities
The topic ÒResolving barriers and taking advantage of
local opportunitiesÓ is very appropriate
for rural communities throughout the northwest. I am going to present my comments from the rural point of
view. If the time will allow I
will include a couple of stories.
They asked me to first say something funny to wake you up
and get your attention, so I thought I would describe my home town, Twisp. No, Twisp is not really funny, but the
name is strange. You have to
remember that in Washington we have such wonderful place names as Hamma Hamma,
Dosewalips, Duckabush, and Humptulips.
Okanogan, Methow and Twisp are nothing compared to those. The name Twisp is Indian. It essentially means, ÒThe place where
the rivers join and you hear the sound of a zillion yellow-jackets when the
summer Chinook spawn and die upon the river bankÓ. It is a sweet little town nestled up in the high mountain
valleys of the North Cascades.
I want to cover four specific points in my discussion. The four points are: 1) The thinking
amongst environmental organizations with regards to forest wildfire; 2) The
need for local communities to see that something positive is being done to
reduce the threat of wildfire; 3) The value of Federal and State participation
in the Wildland Urban Interface fuels reduction strategies; and 4) The need for
appropriations directed to fuels reduction planning and implementation at the
community level.
I should take a moment first to tell you who I am. I am a lifelong resident of Twisp. Twisp was once a lumber mill town that
shut down in 1984 and has been struggling since then with economic
decline. I am the former Mayor of
Twisp and I have served on many economic development institutions in Okanogan
County in attempts to find some solutions to the poverty of our County. I chaired the Small Diameter Wood
Initiative in 1999 and 2000. I
have also participated in the environmental efforts of our community because I,
like most of the local inhabitants, love Twisp and the Methow Valley deep
within the core of my being. I am
also an attorney with a small town practice and I am raising my third child in
Twisp with the hopes that there will be a future for him in my home town.
I have committed the past nine years to the principal that
humans have a responsibility to actively manage the already logged and degraded
forest landscape in a way that restores the health and productivity of the
forest.
I spent seven of those years working with many enthusiastic
people on the goal of rebuilding an economic generator based upon the
utilization of small diameter wood in the Methow Valley, where Twisp is
located. However, we learned
(again) that once the economic infrastructure collapses it is very difficult to
rebuild it. They literally sold
off the mill, dry kiln and the planer and it all was removed. Once the community collapsed the
capital was not there to do anything substantial. It is also easier in those busted communities for people to
move towards ideological polarities.
The discussion of forest health is academic and political, since the
local folks donÕt have a real stake in it any longer.
I am now working with a coalition of loggers, mill owners,
operators, environmentalist, local politicians, educators, citizens at large
and the state and federal agencies in the Colville area, north of Spokane. We call it the Colville Community
Forestry Coalition. I am working
there now because I realized the need to save the infrastructure there before
it too collapses. I believe that
the Vaagen Bros. mill in Colville is the linchpin to both the community
economic health and to the forest health of that region. That mill and its ability to utilize four
inch and smaller material is a very significant asset that can be used as the
tool for forest fuels reduction and forest health thinning. I suggest that when strategies can be
directed to save existing businesses and communities, that we go there first. If we can solve the political and legal
quagmire over natural resource issues in places like Colville, then we
realistically can take up the challenge to rebuild communities that have
already lost their assets.
Additionally, I have found in Colville that there is still a
vibrant wood resources community.
That means that they have something to lose. When people still have something to lose they are often more
willing to negotiate. They are all
tired of beating each other up and they want to find some common ground before
another mill goes down.
For my first point, I want to comment on the internal
dynamic within the general environmental community. I have just come back from attending the Restoration Summit
in Ashland where fifty environmental representatives spent three days in field
trips and serious discussions on the topic of forest restoration. The main topic of discussion was
wildfire, fuels reduction and living within the wildland urban interface
zones. These representatives have
had many years experience in their local forested communities and have very
clear ideas about fire strategies in their local context. In general, I can tell you that
something significant has happened over the course of the past few years. I hope that the federal and state
resource leadership, the fire managers, can grasp the moment and the
opportunity that has presented itself.
Many environmental organizations have come to accept the need for fuels
reduction on both the wildlands and the urban interface. ÒVariable density thinningÓ is a term
that is now being used in the discussions within environmental organizations.
There are holdouts amongst the fundamentalist faction of the
environmental crowd who still adhere to the Òno cutÓ ideology. But they have been marginalized because
of the closed mind approach that avoids the issue of Òfixing what we have done
wrong for a hundred yearsÓ. We all know that forest maintenance was not done on
much of the public lands for many years and that fire suppression has loaded the
forest like a tinder box. There is
work that needs to be done and much of the environmental community believes
that it should be done. That means
explicitly cutting trees for fuels reduction and the reintroduction of
underburning for forest health and wildfire prevention. If decision making is based upon the
needs of the ecosystem, many supporters will come from the organizations that
formerly opposed most public forestland management.
Secondly, in the Colville we have begun our efforts by
focusing on a Community Fire Plan for the Chewelah watershed. The goal is to engage the local
residents in what California is calling a ÒFire Safe CouncilÓ and develop the
strategy to reduce fuels and to plan the points of attack or escape in case a
fire does occur. I have gathered
up several model Community Fire Plans.
However, I have also found out that not many Community Fire Plans have
been started, let alone finished.
As I dug into this I was told that the majority of the National Fire
Plan funding has gone for fire suppression and has not gone to the local
community level for plans or for implementation. More fire trucks and fire suppression. Suppression is, as we all know an
endless pit and will suck up all of the funding, if we let it. I was surprised and shocked at this
state of affairs, if it true.
Community Fire Plans are needed for some very significant
reasons. First, of course, is that
many communities need the protection from wildfire. But the more interesting component of Community Fire Plans is
that the individual members of these communities need to be relieved from the
fear that they may be faced with catastrophic wildfire. The public land managers will never be
able to use under-burning for fuels reduction until after the local communities
feel that the threat to their homes has been reduced and negated. You must relieve that fear within the
human psyche. Remember, we have
created a culture of fear regarding fire.
We will have to reduce that fear before the natural tool of fire can be
effectively utilized.
We also need the Community Fire Plans to show that the
public land management can be trusted.
Fire safe work is Òcommon groundÓ.
The environmental community is willing to accept that more intensive
treatments are needed in the wildland urban interface. However, we need to engage the
environmental community at the grass-roots level with the Community Fire Plan
process and during the implementation of the fire plans. This will build the trust that is
needed before we will be able to move the fuels reduction thinning to the
forest landscape. That trust does
not yet exist, but the door is open. By next year we should be able to put
together a few small seminars in Colville with the best fire expertise
available. We need that expertise to
inform us about fuels reduction principals and how we can employ them at a
landscape level. However, right
now I implore you who have influence to walk through that opening door and
focus energy and funding intensely on the wildland urban interface fuels
reduction planning and implementation.
It will pay great dividends over the next few years.
Before my third point I want to make a quick detour. I remember when my older brother was a
smokejumper out of Twisp. He and
his buddies were all pumped up with themselves. TheyÕd take over the local tavern and scare the bejeezus out
of the regular guys. One time I
asked John why they put the fires out.
His answer was simply, ÒBecause we canÓ. And I think that was true. From what I know of smokejumpers, it is definitely a macho
nature domination trip. Then in
1987, when my oldest boy was five years old and going to visit Smokey the Bear
at the Forest Service compound, I told him, ÒJoey, Smokey the Bear is not your
friend.Ó ÒUh huh, dad.Ó So I began to explain it to him fifteen
years ago. Now he works on the
fire fighting pumper-trucks and comes home and tells me all about the over
stocked forest stands that are burning up.
Thirdly, the Colville National Forest has begun the planning
process to Òfire safeÓ the entire Colville Forest Wildland Urban Interface
Boundary. That is a significant
project and will address a significant acreage of forested land. I asked Duane Vaagen if the urban
interface fuels reduction areas of the Colville Forest would provide a
meaningful supply of small diameter material to the Vaagen Bros. mill. His reply was affirmative. In the
Chewelah drainage alone there are at least three thousand acres that needs to
be thinned fairly intensely. There
are many other similar small outlying communities. In other words, we do not have to move rapidly into the
forest wildlands. The Òtrust
buildingÓ, as we have seen it progress, and the utilization of the small
material removed for fire prevention will have a positive affect within the region. WeÕll get to the forest wildlands soon
enough.
It is particularly satisfying that the Forest Service has
engaged the Coalition at the earliest possible moment in its planning
process. That seems like a small
matter, but it is a very significant shift within the agency. Maybe it is because of the make-up of
the Colville Coalition membership, or maybe it is a simple maturation within
the process. But it does make
sense to get community input early on, rather than in the appeals process. We want things to move forward. Nevertheless, we are still unclear
about the US Forest ServiceÕs ability to engage in the implementation of the
Community Fire Plan regarding the adjacent federal lands while the Boundary
Project goes through its NEPA process.
We will need some creative use of categorical exclusions or some other
tool to actually create a fire safe community while this forest wide plan
labors through its process. I can
just see it. We will work with the
private owners and the State, but there the forest service land will sit
untouched for at least two more years.
Fourthly, and finally, is the matter of appropriations. The future of any forest restoration or
Fire Plan funding is quite uncertain as we are apparently going to roll into a
war while incurring federal deficits and tax breaks all at the same time. So, these are probably wishful
thoughts. In any case, we need to
see more funding go into the National Fire Plan. And we need to insure that it goes to Community Fire Plans
and the implementation of those plans.
That means in at least some areas, like the Colville, the removed
material can support the community.
In general, however, the cost of thinning cannot be covered
by the value of the wood. The
Vaagen Bros mill is an exception to the rule because of the way it can utilize
nearly all of the material, even below four inches. Anyone who has been in this business for awhile knows that
the only way we are going to see forest restoration is if we, the body politic,
pay for it. We need to re-invest
into the forest landscape. We paid
for its degradation, now we are going to have to pay for its restoration. It really is as simple as that. Where you can find ways to inject money
into the scheme, it will help. But
the only way it makes sense is if we appreciate and economically value the
benefits of clean air, clean water, carbon sequestration, fire prevention and
forest health and productivity.
For criminey sakes. Those
have a value that justifies spending $300 or $400 per acre instead of spending
$2,000 an acre to try to put out the fires. I think forest restoration and fuels reduction should be
funded. I think if more people
heard this entire story, they would agree.
So, let me close with one
more somber quote from what I call a Comment on Economic Development. ÒOne of the ironies in resource
management and economic development these days is the way that the local
communities have adapted to the changes within the federal and state forest
resource management. It has taken
ten to fifteen years, but the local entrepreneurial spirit has shifted from the
past economies of forest products manufacturing to a new lucrative industry in
contracting with the government for fire suppression. While it is a natural transformation, and quite beneficial
to the local communities, it is also a sad comment on the lack of vision of our
resource managers. How is it
possible that we not only allowed the over-harvest of forest resources over a
hundred years, but that we now will allow the stagnant re-growth to burn
down? We have gone from a
productive economy to a destructive economy in very gross terms.Ó
Thank you.
Jim Doran
(509) 997-2295
jimdoran@mymethow.com