I am disappointed by the Forest Service’s decision to continue full speed ahead on the Westside Project without taking the time to consider easy and economical compromises that would bring agreement among a broader range of stakeholders and truly embrace the tenet of collaboration supported by the Western Governors Association and governor Steve Bullock.
The project began five years ago, with the recognition that the area around Ward Mountain required thinning to reduce the possibility of crown fires that could threaten nearby homes. Had the Forest Service proceeded with that original recommendation, the thinning might have been completed one or two years before the outbreak of the Roaring Lion fire. The hand-thinning project would have been small enough to eliminate the long process required by the Westside Project.
Instead of going ahead with the recommended project, the Forest Service added thousands of acres of logging and road construction including a permanent bridge across Camas Creek. The size and scope of the larger project and the addition of extensive road building at tax payer expense required a different, much longer procedure. The Forest Service’s rationale was that this would help pay for the hand thinning. Considering the cost of fighting the Roaring Lion Fire, the losses incurred, and the Forest Service personnel involved in five years of planning, that hand thinning project might have more than paid for itself.
All of the stakeholders involved in the public input stage of the Westside Project process agreed with the need for thinning in the Roaring Lion area. But most were opposed to the roads crisscrossing the Coyote Coulee trail, logging with no buffer to protect the integrity of the trail, a permanent bridge across Camas Creek, and running hundreds of fully loaded logging trucks down narrow, winding residential roads. These stake-holders offered a number of compromises, but the Forest Service continued full steam ahead regardless of these concerns.
Now that the original hand thinning project area has burned, it seems the perfect time to compromise with local stakeholders and hand thin in Unit 2 (the Coyote Coulee area); thus, ending the need for the contested roads and permanent bridge, protecting the Coyote Coulee trai,l and supporting the recreation industry. The roads and bridge will cost taxpayers half a million dollars. Why not save that expenditure and allow the remainder of the project to pay for the thinning in the Coulee area? Why not collaborate with the stakeholders rather than disregard them so that their only recourse is a lawsuit?
The Timber Industry commands only 3% of the GDP due to cheap imports and mechanization. The burgeoning recreation industry holds more than 20% of the GDP and is steadily growing. Unit 2 is a small part of the Westside project. Commercial logging there will cost tax payers and the local economy by compromising a valuable recreation area. The remaining commercial logging will cost less while still supporting the Timber Industry and creating local jobs. That support will not be at the expense of the growing recreation industry that not only provides jobs and boosts the local economy, but also entices business and industry to the area.
The Forest Service admitted that it did not collaborate well with local stakeholders on the Westside Project at the Western Governors Association meeting. They said they would do it differently if they had to do it again. But why not correct this mistake now? They can still collaborate by compromising and hand thinning in Unit 2, thus eliminating the controversial road-building, logging trucks on residential roads, and damage to the locally built, maintained, and loved trail.
Michele Dieterich
Hamilton