Mr. Jim Doran
Community Forestry Resources
Testimony
Before the Committee on Resources
United States House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
October 4, 2006
Honorable Greg Walden:
Honorable Cathy McMorris:
Thank you for allowing me to present
these comments to this subcommittee.
I have lived in Okanogan County most of
my life. I was raised on a working
cattle ranch outside of Twisp, in the Methow Valley. I have a small town law practice but have converted my
business into a new vocation: Community Forestry. This began when I served as Mayor of Twisp and sat as a
board member of the Okanogan County Economic Development Council and
participated in many efforts to create a economic base that would provide good
jobs and not harm the environment.
I lived in Twisp when the lumber mill
shut down in 1984. When the
unemployment checks ran out most of my friends left to find jobs in other
places. All told over 200 union
scale jobs at the mill disappeared and over 600 other jobs and local businesses
failed. Now Twisp is a rather cute
town with an Art Gallery, a Playhouse and lots of cultural activity. However, the Methow, the Okanogan, and
to some degree most of the rural west has not recovered from the timber crises
of the past twenty years. We may
look cute for tourism, but there is nowhere near the same amount of money
flowing around in the local peopleÕs hands that was when we had vital forest resource
industries in our communities.
Ten years ago while I was the Mayor,
right after the great Tyee Fire above Lake Chelan, the thought occurred to me
that maybe we ought to start treating some of the overstocked and fire prone
stands within the National Forests.
For instance, that fire cost the taxpayers over $300 million. Theoretically, if we had treated those
same already logged forest stands to remove some of the fuel to make them fire
resistant, we could have done the work on the entire area for about $30
million. I used the Òchange the
oilÓ metaphor back then and it is still appropriate. You change the oil in your car every five thousand miles for
$27.95. You donÕt wait till the
engine blows up and spend $13,000 every year. I think by now we have all become familiar with this
situation. We can save the
taxpayers hundred of millions of dollars by doing the up front preventative
work instead of dealing with the disaster.
The problem ten years ago was that there
was no cooperation whatsoever on forest management. Things were deadlocked in litigation and the Òus versus
themÓ mentality. Believe me, I
have seen my share of community controversy and disintegration. I took the approach that we need to get
all of the players to the table and figure out what we did have in common. Afterall, we all love the land, the
place where we live. It is a
beautiful place.
My approach has been to move beyond the
blame game and talk about solutions.
I first worked on what was called the ÒSmall Diameter Wood
InitiativeÓ. What we found was
that there was some common ground on the issues of managing the already logged
and roaded public forests.
However, what we also found was that the Forest Service was pretty well
paralyzed and demoralized because of the twenty years of the timber wars. We needed a shift in the way business
was going to be done. As the
acedemians put it, we needed a Òsystemic changeÓ in the Forest Service.
We got some changes, first in the
Stewardship authorities, then in the Healthy Forest Initiative, then in the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the National Fire Plan and last year in
President Bushes Executive Order regarding Òcooperative conservationÓ. The key within all of these federal
authorities is the requirement for Òcommunity collaborationÓ. That is why I have dedicated the past
ten years of my life to this story.
We, the people, have a place at the planning table. More than that, we the Òproblem
solversÓ, can actually get projects through their design phase and through the
permitting phase successfully. I
want to thank the Congress for not defining Òcommunity collaborationÓ. This has given us the leeway to create an authentic
organization that includes all of the stakeholders. The one prerequisite is that each participant has to be a
Òproblem solverÓ rather than a belligerent warrior from either side of the
issues.
It has taken five years in the Colville
National Forest but we have proven that collaboration can work. We have focused on the already logged
and roaded forests. We have not
harped on the blame for how we got into this mess. We have had to push the Forest Service. I have been called the agitator,
sometimes, rather than the facilitator.
But look at what we have accomplished. From deadlock five years ago the Colville National Forest
now has seven or eight thinning
projects permitted that contains more than 50 mmbf of usable material and will
treat as much as 20,000 acres. We
are working on a 25,000 acres stewardship project in Ferry County. There are many more ongoing projects
that will set up a secure wood products resource for the future years and
reduce the threat of wildfire.
Through collaboration, pre-NEPA
discussions, we have permitted the Burnt Valley project, the Orient project,
the Deadman project, the Quartzite project, the Bangs Mountain project, and
several more. This wasnÕt easy but
we did it. Because of these
successes the Region has directed more funding to the Colville National Forest. Nothing builds success like
success. I think this approach
needs to be taken with all projects on federal lands, including the post fire
treatments and salvage.
We are also pushing the envelope on
biomass utilization. There is
enough work to be done and material to be used to recreate a sustainable,
longterm economic base from Canada to New Mexico. But we will need to continue to restructure the way the
Forest Service does business. The
key to all of this is community collaboration. No one has pointed out another potential method to get the guys
and gals back into the woods restoring the long term health and productivity of
the forest and all the rest of the ecological functions.
I have worked with loggers, mill owners,
environmentalists, professional foresters, local government, educators and
citizens at large. We have
developed trust by working through issues in a calm manner with respect for
each othersÕ points of view. I
have watched the environmental community change over the past five years. I can comfortably say that they have
moved from the ÒdonÕt cut any treesÓ position to the Òcut the right treesÓ
position. I have seen the small
diameter timber industry cooperate with the environmental community. They are saying, ÒJust tell us how you
want it done and weÕll do it that way.Ó
These are exciting times.
You can tell from my comments that I am
not going to go into Òhow we got hereÓ.
That is another discussion.
All I want to say on that topic is that the work is going to cost money. Deferred maintenance in the already
managed public forest lands is going to cost money. Fuels reduction and fire resistance treatments are going to
cost money. The Ògoods for
servicesÓ aspect of stewardship authorities is a good start, but it isnÕt
enough because that funding mechanism cannot be applied to the planning and
permitting of projects. We are
also working with the Biomass Utiliztion programs and the Renewable Energy
programs, the National Fire Plan programs and Fire Safe programs to try to
create the necessary funding for preventative fuels reduction work and to help
communities become prepared for wildfires such as the Tripod Complex fires.
What we donÕt need here today, or in any
of our management concepts, is the Òus versus themÓ approach. It didnÕt work for more than two
decades and it wonÕt work again.
DonÕt fool your selves into thinking that a change in the political
landscape can give one faction the ability to steamroll the other side. If Congress were to reneg on all of our
legal rights to influence public projects, there would be a backlash and
nothing would happen to restore the neglected forest stands that are in need of
treatment. There are some
constituents that would Òrather fight than winÓ. I have watched that here for many years. Consider the water wars or the
endangered species act. There are
people that wonÕt see the positive opportunities. I am here to tell you that we have a positive opportunity,
if we work together in a collaborative manner.
I have heard it said that Òpolitics is
the art of the possibleÓ. What is possible here on the Tripod Complex post
fire treatments? Lessons were
learned on the Biscuit Fire. Since
then there have been successful post fire salvage collaborations, such as on
the Fremont Forest in southeastern Oregon. It can be done, especially when the planners adhere to the
scientific knowledge about salvage and rehabilitation.
I want to comment on NEPA. In the realm of forest practices on
federal land NEPA isnÕt broken; the Forest Service is. It is the agency and the budget that
arenÕt working. We have worked
through things like motivation and multi-tasking with a very cooperative
Colville National Forest Supervisor and staff. It has not been easy.
Supervisor Brazell has taken me aside before and reminded me that some
of his staff who are reaching their eighteen or twenty year career mark have
spent their entire careers in the Òwe canÕt do itÓ Forest Service. Can you imagine what it must be like to
work an entire career where every single one of your projects fails. Whew!
One example we had of the ability of the
Forest Service, when motivated, is the Togo Fire Salvage sale in north Ferry
County a few years ago. They were
able to process an EA (Environmental Assessment) in six weeks. If this same Òcan doÓ attitude is used
in tandem with the collaborative process, then we can expect things to happen
in a timely manner, especially in the first phase of a small diameter salvage
sale on the Tripod Complex.
The Forest Service has faced drastic cuts
in its staffing levels. This hurts
the ability of the agency to process projects. For instance, if there were funding for the archeological,
wildlife and botanical studies we could speed up the NEPA process by eight
months per project. We are
wondering if retained receipts shouldnÕt be used for these purposes. We have had the experience many times
now where the collaborative group has come to a Pre-NEPA agreement on the
project design, but then the Forest Service doesnÕt have the manpower or
funding to move the project through the formal NEPA process. That is frustrating.
My comments should not be misunderstood. Something isnÕt working, but the
problem isnÕt NEPA. Here is a
shorthand description of what needs to be done, on fuels reduction or post fire
treatments, if you want to get real and see something happen.
1.
Get all the
players together in a problem solving context.
2.
Stay out of
the areas where you know there is controversy.
3.
Listen to
the science.
4.
Put the
budget needs into the discussion.
5.
Multi-task;
i.e., do more than one thing at a time.
6.
Fund the
collaboration process.
7.
Fund the
Forest Service and when they are successful reward success.
8.
Compromise;
honor the collaborative efforts.
9.
Build trust
with the collaborative group and within your agency.
Once you build trust and a project or two
succeeds you find that the participants take pride in their work. That is exactly what has happened in
the northeastern region of Washington State. We now have such organizations as Conservation Northwest,
The Wilderness Society and Vaagen Bros. Lumber here now talking about the
appropriate post fire treatments on the Tripod Complex. We are using our best creative thinking
to find the path to access and utilize the very small material, ten inches and
below, before they check and crack and become unusable. We know that the best time to do this
initial work would be this January and February on a cushion of snow.
How are we going to be able to do
that? What are the obstacles? I can tell you this for sure, if we can
get the collaborative process working quickly enough we may be able to solve
the timing problem. There are
authorities that can facilitate this.
Again, the key is to have all of the interested parties come to an
agreement beforehand in an authentic dialogue. We are going to proceed in this manner.
I can also tell you with certainty, that
if you try to remove the rights of the people to participate in the process,
either through collaboration or through the formal NEPA process, we will not
see any of this burned material removed in a timely manner. It wonÕt happen if the old wounds are
torn open. It wonÕt happen if the
old wars are re-ignited.
The dream that drives me is a vision of
the deferred maintenance being done throughout the inland western states. We can create real jobs, with benefits,
with a long term future by doing the work that needs to be done. We have proven that it can be done
through the collaborative process.
And now we are working on the biomass utilization component of our
future in the western states. I
can see all kinds of wonderful opportunities for our communities built upon the
precept of doing what is right for the land. I think our citizens want that very much. I know they would rather have jobs in
the woods and in mills and wood shops than serving dinners or other meager
tourist jobs.
In conclusion, please donÕt foment
controversy by messing with the environmental laws. It wonÕt work; we will only descend again into controversy. On the other hand, fund the Forest
Service so it can timely process NEPA, especially once a project has been
through the collaborative pre-NEPA process. Reward collaboration by funding those projects. Where collaboration doesnÕt exist, help
to get it started. And finally,
help us with creative solutions.
I am used to success; I know we can do
this on the Tripod Complex and maximize the material removed and fund the
rehabilitation and restoration work that is needed.
Thank you.
Jim
Doran
Community
Forestry Resources
P.O.
Box 888
Twisp,
WA 98856
(509)
997-2295