________________________________________________
NO ONE WINS:
FOREST MANAGEMENT HAS TO CHANGE
________________________________________________
2004 Small Log Conference on Utilization – March
31- April 2, 2004
Coeur dÕAlene Resort, Idaho
Sponsored by: HewSaw and NEWNES/MCGEHEE
Produced By TimberWest Publications, LLC
By: Jim Doran
Executive Director,
Colville
Community Forestry Coalition
(c) copyright 2004
NO ONE WINS:
FOREST MANAGEMENT HAS TO CHANGE
The topic I have chosen, ÒNo
One Wins: Forest Management Has To ChangeÓ, is a topic that probably all of us
have muttered to ourselves or even out loud at times over the past fifteen to
twenty years. Today I do not want
to overemphasize the frustration and negativity that history has shown, but
rather point out some very hopeful developments in the management of public
lands.
I was asked to say something
funny in order to wake you up from the lunch drowsies, so I thought I would
tell you about my home town, Twisp.
It is a sweet little town nestled up in the high mountain valleys of the
North Cascades. 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 wonderful to get to
such a nice resort as this one here in Coeur dÕAlene for this conference. In fact, I was able to get my wife,
Gretchen, to come along on this trip.
She stopped going with me on jaunts after we visited about a dozen sawmills. But she will take this one.
I will cover four points in
this presentation. They are: 1)
the Colville Community Forestry Coalition and this thing called Òcommunity
collaborationÓ; 2) Stewardship contracting and what it might mean for the small
log industry; 3) The vision of stewardship contracting and the revitalization
of rural communities; and, 4) What
needs to occur and what if it doesnÕt happen.
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 saw its mill shut down in 1984 and it 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 ten
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.
We have learned (again) that
once the economic infrastructure collapses it is very difficult to rebuild
it. In Twisp 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, nor do they have the
ability to do anything about it. Most efforts are small and undercapitalized.
One of the ironies of where we are in the dry-side western states is
the creation of the boom in private fire-fighting. A lot of money has been poured into the communities where
the wildfires rage. Wildfire is
good for the local economy. My son
Joe has worked on the pumper trucks for two years. He makes good money.
He is going back for more.
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. 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. ÒHow 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
1)
The Colville Community Forestry Coalition and this thing called Òcommunity
collaborationÓ. 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 larger, but only up to 12 inch, 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,
we should 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.
The Coalition was formed 3
years ago. We have set two very important sideboards, or parameters. First, we are not talking about
accessing old growth. It simply
isnÕt in our discussion. Our focus
is on the hundreds of thousands of acres that have already been logged once or
twice; the Òalready managed and roaded forest landsÓ. Second, we are not talking about extensive new road
systems. In fact we may be able to
see the elimination of some roads.
The Coalition supports the
maintenance of Wilderness and Roadless areas and will not appose the creation
of new Wilderness or Roadless areas, as long as the remaining forest stands are
treated with fuels reduction and forest health prescriptions.
Our Coalition operates under
the principal that if we have the community of loggers, mill owners,
environmentalist, business owners, local government and citizens at large
involved early on in the planning process with the Forest Service, then the
forest Service projects are less likely to be appealed. As simple as it sounds, it is a new
concept for the Forest Service.
The Òblood oathÓ, as I like
to call it, is that we will not devolve back into the conflicts of the past
twenty years. We are not here to
beat each other up, anymore. We will
use our best creative thinking to solve the problems that are preventing forest
restoration. We are up front about
it, if you canÕt go along with this commitment to problem solving, then you are
not welcome at this table. You can
beat each other up down at the tavern, but not here.
Even with these sideboards,
this is still a very delicate tightrope, but it is much needed. Local communities are collapsing. My home town saw the mill close down in
1984. 180 union scale jobs left
and 500 related jobs left. In a
town of roughly a thousand people, this closure destroyed the town
economically. Rural communities
dry up and blow away or turn into tourist towns with very low wages; thatÕs
Twisp, my home town. Families
cannot make it on $8 or $10 bucks an hour, seasonally, with no benefits. This results in stressed and broken
families, alcoholism and crime, violence and the mean polarities between
ÒloggersÓ and ÒenvironmentalistsÓ that keeps haunting our communities.
I come at this issue from the
angle that there is a lot of good work that needs to be done to restore the
integrity of the overstocked and unhealthy forest landscape. A lot of guys and gals could find good
work with a meaning to it, doing this restoration work. There is plenty of work to do. Plenty of family wage jobs could be
created. And rural communities
would find themselves revitalized.
I have a favorite saying
about this: ÒWhen the local guys
drinking beer at the Antlers Tavern talk about their work, because they will,
and they are talking about forest restoration in their own terms, then we will
change the ethics of small communities across the west. No amount of preaching about
Òsustainable communitiesÓ will change the ethic as well as will good work that
has inherent value.Ó
There is a lot of tension in
this effort. Years of mistrust
isnÕt easily put aside. So, the
Coalition has decided to focus first on the wildland/urban interface fuels
reduction needs in the area. There
are plenty of houses scattered among the forestlands. There is a ski hill and housing developments. Structures, homes, towns, schools,
infrastructure need to be protected from the threat of wildfire.
The Colville Coalition is
working with the US Forest on Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) projects. The first WUI projects are small and
are using the expedited Categorical Exclusions to the NEPA permitting
process. Each of the overall
projects are 4,500 acres of prescribed fire and 1,000 acres of mechanical thinning. I guess 1,000 acres is not so small by
todayÕs standards. These projects
are right next to communities that are obviously threatened by wildfire if the
stand is not thinned out.
The environmental community
agrees that thinning needs to be done in this WUI zone. In fact, Mike Petersen, with the Lands
Council, spoke up at a meeting with the Forest Service, including Deputy
Regional Forester Jim Golden, and stated quite clearly that the environmental
community supports ten simultaneous WUI projects on the Colville National
Forest. In fact, Mike complained
because it is taking so long for anything to happen at all. If we can build trust on several of
these wildland urban interface fuel reduction projects over the next few years,
then we may be able to move out into the broader forest landscape that is in
need of fuels reduction thinning.
That is the strategy. Find
ways to build trust and develop the larger goals once a track record has been
proven.
I have been amazed at the Òus vs. themÓ attitudes within rural
communities. Yes, we all know that
the forest landscape got Òhigh-gradedÓ and then neglected. And we all know that litigation has
paralyzed even restoration work.
There is plenty of blame to go around. But that blame doesnÕt accomplish anything good at all. In fact, most of the blame is
misplaced.
It has taken me a lot of effort to even articulate to the environmental
community that Òit wasnÕt the logger what done it.Ó If the logger had been told not to cut a tree within the 200
foot riparian zone or to space the trees 14 or 18 feet, Òor youÕre firedÓ, he
would have done as told. I know
some ancient loggers who tried to tell the forest and mill owners that the
harvest levels of the fifties and sixties could not go on forever. And now, it is the guys and gals with
dirt and diesel on their hands who live out in the countryside that are going
to restore forest health and all that goes along with it. We have simply got to put down the
superficial and uneducated criticisms, on both sides, or the forest will go up
in smoke and no one will win.
2) Stewardship contracting and what it might mean for the small log
industry. Back on the positive note. Something called Òstewardship contractingÓ has gone from its
pilot project stage to a fully authorized method to structure forest management
projects. It is a somewhat complex
topic but mostly because it is new and requires learning a new system. Nevertheless, it is my belief that this
is the Òsystemic changeÓ in the USFS that we need and that we have been waiting
for.
Stewardship contracting is basically designed to improve efficiencies
within the Forest Service and how projects are implemented on the ground.
1.
Efficiencies to the USFS:
a.
End Results Contracts allow the Forest Service to use designation by
description for both commercial and
non-commercial material. Designation
by prescription may be used for
non-commercial material but only for commercial material if the sale is
scaled. Both methods are currently
being used on private lands in the area.
Both techniques obviate the need for the Forest Service to paint trees;
thus, saving that cost. Local
landowners have used test plots to instruct the operator. The evidence of stumps are left and
provide ÒaccountabilityÓ.
b.
Goods for Services allows the Forest Service to trade the value of the
material removed, if any, for the costs of the services provided. Since it is expected that the WUI areas
will require fairly intensive thinning, the value of the material removed
should be greater than the costs of the services provided. Even if the value of the material
removed does not equal the entire costs of services, the value of the materials
would be an off-set to the services costs.
c.
Residual Receipts
or Retention of Receipts allows the
local Forest to retain the funds that are generated from the project above the
costs of the services of the project.
Again, the WUI projects should result in a Òretention of the residual
receiptsÓ.
d.
Combined Contracts, Combined Contracting
Officers and one Administrative Path
reduces the duplication that exists when one contract for a logging sale must
be let and another for thinning services.
2.
The Stewardship approach
allows the Forest Service to combine its Timber Program goals with its Fire
Program goals.
3.
Community
Collaboration:
a.
The Coalition has been
instrumental in breaking the ÒconflictÓ model of resource management on the
public lands in northeastern Washington.
The Coalition has proven that it is, indeed, the collaborative voice of
these communities.
b.
The National Fire Plan
and Stewardship authorities require Òcommunity collaborationÓ. The Colville Coalition is willing and
able to continue to provide this function for the WUI/CE projects, as well as
for other projects.
c.
Community collaboration
is intended to prevent appeals of Forest Service projects by providing the
up-front dialogue with the Forest Service so that all reasonable issues are
addressed. Stewardship authorities
will provide the most direct link between Forest Service management plans and
the voice of the local community.
4.
Industry and the
Economy:
a.
The local economy can be
stabilized and stimulated by the use of Stewardship authorities because these
Stewardship Projects are not likely to be appealed and will provide materials
to the local mills.
b.
Stewardship authorities
also provide that a preference is to be given to Òlocal contractorsÓ that
will benefit the local community. This authority allows the Forest
Service to insure that there will be local economic benefits from the project.
c.
Job training and
educational components can be made a part of a Stewardship Project.
5.
Multiple Purpose
Projects:
a.
Stewardship authorities
allow a project to address many functions that need to be addressed in one
administrative project. Projects
can be designed that will remove merchantable material, non-merchantable
material, provide prescribed fire, prune trees, repair or remove roads, trails,
bridges and culverts, address riparian concerns, repair or establish
recreational facilities, or any combination of these.
b.
Retained receipts from
one stewardship project can be moved for on-the-ground functions at a different
location in another stewardship project.
6.
Multi-Party Monitoring:
a.
The stewardship
authorities do not require and do not fund multi-party monitoring of the
on-the-ground project. However,
the Colville Coalition will provide the resources for multi-party monitoring
function for each project. We
believe that this is necessary in order to provide a before and after ÒpictureÓ
of the project and to provide at least some level of determining if the project
was successful or not.
7.
Public Perception of the
Forest Service:
a.
Stewardship Contracting
will provide the opportunity for the Forest Service to have an intimate
relationship with the public through the Òcommunity collaborationÓ process that is required. This interaction will eliminate the public impression that
has long haunted the Forest Service; that the management plan has already been
decided and you now have the right to comment on the project. The Colville Coalition has already
taken the stance that up-front discussions will substantively and perceptually
change this image of the Forest Service.
Section
61.21 of the Forest Service Stewardship Handbook does not allow retained
receipts to be used on the NEPA planning for the next successive stewardship
project. This is somewhat
disappointing to us, but we will work with the Forest Service to acquire the
needed funding from the Region, from the CountiesÕ Title II and Title III funds
and from grants if necessary.
The website to get the Stewardship Handbook is: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/projects/stewardship/index.shtml
3) The vision of
stewardship contracting and the revitalization of rural communities. There is a method to this madness. The problem that we ÒdiscoveredÓ in the
Small Diameter Wood Initiative four years ago was, and is, the ÒsupplyÓ
issue. That issue translates into
the reason ÒwhyÓ capitalists wonÕt invest in a small diameter mill in places
like Twisp. If there is no
long-term, 20 to 30 year, availability of wood from the forest no one is going
to invest real money into these rural communities and there are not going to be
any real jobs. No one wins.
The ÒsupplyÓ issue is all
about the politics of the forest.
Since there isnÕt going to be any Òguaranteed supplyÓ, like in the good
old days, there has to be a different approach to solving this issue. ThatÕs where the promise of stewardship
contracting holds the key; if it is grasped firmly by the USFS and turned to
open the door. The same ÒtoolsÓ as
I described a few minutes ago could be used on the larger forest
landscape. A 10,000-acre project
would not be unusual. Each of
these stewardship projects can exist for a ten-year period. The plan, in a place like my Methow
Valley, would be to have successive stewardship projects within the ÒcircleÓ of
efficiency. One at Hungry-Hunter
in the south valley; one at Alder Creek right outside of Twisp, one at Black
Pine Basin in the upper Methow; and one near Boulder Creek in the Chewuch. Three or four stewardship projects
strung out over a twenty-five year period would make it ÒsafeÓ to invest the
$10 to $15 million to locate the HewSaw mill and a bio-mass generator in
Twisp.
As a side note, the Okanogan
County PUD will spend over $2 million fighting over a new $8 million powerline
to the upper Methow. Two megawatts
from a bio-mass generator in Twisp would provide all of the emergency power
needs of the upper Methow and avoid the need for the new line. Why canÕt we get leadership to look at
the solutions to multiple problems that just might be answered by solving the
small wood ÒsupplyÓ issue?
If the goal is to treat a
significant portion of the already logged overstocked small diameter stands;
then this stewardship tool will provide the efficiencies that can make it
happen. In particular, the ability
to Òretain receiptsÓ from the value of the material removed for further stewardship work, combined with the
ability to Òtrade goods for servicesÓ and the ability to Òbundle together many
different contractsÓ and to, finally, get away from the cost of Òpainting
treesÓ will provide the ÒgreaseÓ (the money) that will make forest restoration
work. I cannot believe that the
public coffers will open and stay open for a direct funding of the millions of
acres of restoration and fuels work that needs to be done. It may last for a few years, but the
only way that this work is truly sustainable, is by the use of the efficiencies
provided through stewardship contracting.
4) What needs to occur and
what if it doesnÕt happen? In the Colville we have a very fine new
Forest Supervisor in Rick Brazell.
He is here at the Conference today. He came here from Colorado where the fires burned up many homes
in his jurisdiction. He has been
an inspiration here in the Colville.
He wants to get something done on the ground that will show that the
Forest Service is not paralyzed.
We think that if there were ever an opportunity to create these new
models, it would be here and now in the Colville. We need to get through the planning and implementation of
eight or ten of these WUI/CE Stewardship projects over the next couple of
years. While those are proving
out, we need to plan the larger landscape scale stewardship project or two. And while the first landscape based
Stewardship Project begins, we need to have the next two or three in the
planning stages.
Since the Forest Service
cannot use the Òretained receiptsÓ for planning or for NEPA permitting, the
Forest Service will need to shift budget to provide for these costs up front. However, if the result shows that there
is ten times the amount of work that gets done on the forest being funded
through stewardship contracting, then it should be a no-brainer.
However, and here we go into
the negative Òwhat ifsÓ, the Forest Service has been known to become paralyzed
in the face of change. There is no
guarantee that the vision of forest restoration and community economic
revitalization that I have painted here will ever get off the ground. For instance, the new National Fire
Plan and Stewardship authorities require Òcommunity collaborationÓ, but no one
mentions how that is to be funded.
And, as I mentioned, there is no commitment within the Agency, yet, to
re-allocate funds specifically for the planning and NEPA for Stewardship Projects.
So, I think the jury is still
out on this one. Will the Forest
Service seize the moment and the authorities that have been presented? Or do we go back into the paralysis
mode while it all burns up?
I have given you the vision
of hope. The box has been opened
and I do not think that anyone will be able to put the light back in and shut
the lid.
The reverse angle, however,
is not pretty. Vaagen Bros. mill
gets re-located to northern Siberia where there is no supply issue. 700 jobs leave Stevens County. Wildfires rage through the forest and
communities. Ecological values are
further compromised. And, as my
topic states, no one wins.
There is one further negative
topic that I need to mention, since I do think in lawyerly type of terms. If the bureaucracy foils this approach
and the federal budget reins in the Healthy Forest Initiative, the only thing
left will be the economy of wildfire.
That is not acceptable to me.
The legal theory that some large law firm could take up in Federal Court
would be a claim against the US Forest Service for Ònegligent resource
managementÓ.
Basic Forestry 101 explains
that after a harvest in the dry-side western states you must go in at 8 to 10
years and thin out the reproduction, and do it again at 20 to 25 years. Our public agencies did not require
this maintenance even though it was well understood. Anyone who knows much about real forestry knows that what I
am saying is true. It would not be
hard to find an expert witness.
What would the remedy be? I
would ask the Federal Judge to order the Forest Service to devise a plan for
the deferred maintenance and order it funded and implemented to treat these
fuel laden and over stocked forest stands. I would, quite frankly, take the position that the most effective
way to do this would be by using the exact efficiencies as outlined in the
Stewardship Handbook.
Talk about the mother of
lawsuits. The spotted owl and the
salmon suits would pale compared to this controversy. It would take at least another five years to get there,
nasty years at that, and a lot of lawyersÕ fees. I donÕt really, personally, want to go there. IÕd rather go fly fishing in the Cascades. In fact, if that litigation track
happens, I may be the only one who wins; I will go fishing.
I want to close with a short
quote from what I call one of the governing principals. And I do believe this with all of the
light in my head. ÒWe have a moral
and social, not to mention an ecological, obligation to take the task of forest
restoration seriously. If we
commit a fraction of the public funds to the ecological restoration of the
forest resources as we have committed to the degradation of the forest ecology,
we would make serious progress ecologically, socially, and economically. It is good work waiting to be done and
it will rebuild a legacy for the future.Ó
And finally, I think the
question to the environmental community, the timber industry and the public
resource managers alike can be put this way: ÒIt is one thing to take a stand against things that you
donÕt want. It is a more demanding
endeavor to describe and create what you do want.Ó
So, I ask. What do you want?
Thank you.
(509) 997-2295
doran@mymethow.com