Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Last December, as environmentalists howled over the Healthy Forests Restoration Act's streamlining processes -- which raised the image of big timber running rampant in the woods logging old-growth trees -- rural communities looked at the act with hope. The HFRA was the Bush administration's answer to the dangerous buildup of fuel in federal forests, and for rural communities the act suggested there would be chance for them to benefit from Forest Service fuel-reduction dollars.
Given their history of logging and their in-depth knowledge of the local forests -- and because they have perhaps the highest stake in reducing wildfire risk because it is their homes that burn first -- rural forestry workers seem the logical choice to do fuel-reduction work. As one forest community advocate pointed out, "They live in forests because they are forest people, and they are terribly concerned about the demise of the forest."
More specifically, the people in Hayfork expected to have regular meetings with the Forest Service to discuss forest-restoration plans, including those for fuel-reduction projects funded under HFRA, and to go over how they might collaborate with the Forest Service in doing the work. But although Congress authorized such meetings, funding was not set aside for them in the final bill. Thus, with no budget for planning meetings the Forest Service has had little incentive to talk to local communities and has instead given contracts for restoration projects to big companies.
Lynn Jungwirth, director of the Watershed Research and Training Center, seethes over the fact that EAP grants and HFRA projects are out of reach for her community.
"There's been a lot of forward thinking in local communities that pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and now they have to take time out to fight for a program [EAP] that's only $35 million. That's nothing. We're not talking about a $500 million program here," Jungwirth says. "This one is a very good use of taxpayer dollars."
Jungwirth has seen firsthand how much help the EAP grants have brought to rural communities. Her husband, Jim Jungwirth, was one of the first recipients of EAP support in Hayfork. His wood-flooring business, which uses small-diameter timber that in the past was not considered valuable, has been a success. The business now has 12 employees.
Frustration is evident in her voice as Jungwirth explains how Hayfork had become a national leader in innovation, working with the Forest Service and experimenting with new business ideas. She is stunned that her community, which played such a role in the EAP plans, is still mired in poverty.
Jungwirth and Maia Enzer, the director of Sustainable Northwest, a nonprofit based in Portland, Ore., that works to promote the interdependence of economies and environmental health in rural communities, have heard a litany of excuses as to why EAP funding has been cut. Among the choicest responses from legislators: "It's not one the jobs of the Forest Service to work with rural communities" and "There's a war on." Only sustained, intense pressure resulted in some of the money being restored, Enzer says.
"We know what the EAP economic action program does," Jungwirth says. "It creates a consensus at the local level so more restoration work gets done on public ground than they've done in their own programs. We're that small investment that has such a big multiplier effect. We hope it is not this administration's way of saying, 'We think we already have the votes from the West, so we don't need to help them anymore.'"
Enzer puts it this way: "Rural people don't have a lot of votes, it's easier to pick on our program, we don't have much a voice. In terms of reality, this has been devastating for those of us who helped them get restoration work done for wildlife habitat."
