How to Boost the Economy in the North Cascades

Mount Higgins from U.S. Forest Service Road 2435 (Dan's Creek/Decline Creek). 

Sloan Peak from U.S. Forest Service Road 2435 (Dan's Creek/Decline Creek).

Mount Pugh, Sloan Peak and Foggy Peak at after sunset from way trail about 15 to 20 minutes hike from the end of U.S. Forest Service Road 2435 (Dan's Creek/Decline Creek). 

Upper Skagit Valley in the Marblemount area and the Pickets in North Cascades National Park from U.S. Forest Service Road 16 (Illabot Creek) in an opening created by a logging unit on private timber land. 

To this point the reader has heard a number of complaints and criticisms from me about the economic situation in eastern Skagit County and the North Cascades. I would now like to present some ideas that I have about how that situation might be improved.

While developing these ideas a number of questions came to mind. While tourism is an important part of the economy in eastern Skagit County and not to be dismissed, as a general rule, tourism jobs here won’t create enough stable, family wage jobs to build a strong economic base. From my experience, government seasonal jobs are better than tourism but still not the best for stability without additional sources of income. So, what are some activities that would boost the economy and help build a stronger economic base?

It is much simpler to generate revenue to support an economy if you are producing or manufacturing goods or commodities that society will buy to meet its needs without a second thought. In other words, something that has a natural demand. The far eastern end of Skagit County is probably too remote to make it economically feasible for most businesses to transport raw materials to a manufacturing site, manufacture the goods and then transport the finished product to market. So what are some candidates for goods or commodities that are economically feasible to produce or manufacture in eastern Skagit County?

I think that there are several goods and commodities that could fit this bill for eastern Skagit County and ultimately all could be combined together along with tourism to create a good deal of economic diversity here. Hydropower is a proven commodity and I think that in the right situation it can be done with a minimum of environmental impact. Agriculture may also be a strong contender, especially if climate change hits other areas particularly hard and Skagit County remains relatively unscathed, though this, by no means, is a certainty.

To my mind one of the best candidates to help build a stronger economic base is timber, specifically, federal timber. I focus on federal timber because it has historically been a major player in rural economic systems where resources have always been limited and it has pretty much been out of the game for the last 20 years. One doesn’t have to look too deeply to see that our rural communities that depended heavily on those local resources aren’t flourishing. Obviously rural communities don't live in a vacuum and they have been affected by things like national recessions and the growing income gap but they have suffered all this on top of losing the major economic contributions of federal timber.  

Timber is a resource that is already here and abundant and, since it is already here, raw materials don’t have to be transported here from some other source for manufacture. This would save manufacturing costs. Timber products are also in high demand by society, so much so that ready markets for it exist without even having to advertise.

Over the 20 year period that federal timber has been largely cut off, there has been a lot of logging activity on private timber land but I suspect that this activity has tighter margins than federal timber. In speculating about tighter margins I in no way mean to disparage private timber companies because they still create a living wage jobs and contribute in many ways to our communities.

I know to some people federal timber harvest will conjure images of devastation on public land but the forest management I have in mind not based on old models that viewed old-growth forests as decrepit and needing to be replaced wholesale with young, “healthy” forests or on models that see our forests solely as crops to be managed in order to produce maximum fiber in the shortest possible time. The forest management I have in mind is based on using forests that have already been logged and are not old growth. In my mind, this is a very good opportunity to figure out and set an example of how to manage forests in as self-sustaining manner as possible while producing materials that are renewable, recyclable and biodegradable.

The old multiple use implementation got off target because many old school managers probably didn’t want to make use of new information concerning a number of practices, including those that heavily impacted streams, and they continued to cling to old views of forests needing to be replaced before they went to waste. On top of this many old school managers probably disregarded new ecological information or implemented it poorly, in some cases causing more damage than if things had been left alone, the harmful practice of cleaning creeks and removing large woody debris comes to mind.

Also, at some point, the amount of the federal land base placed in roadless designation increased, creating de facto wilderness and increasing pressure on remaining land base to produce timber, resulting in more roads, higher road density and more environmental degradation than would have occurred if that pressure had been spread over a wider area.

The pressure to maintain cutting levels and thus increase pressure on the remaining available land base was at least in part due to decisions heavily influenced by political pressure. If the practice was more harmful, at least part of the reason behind it was understandable. Certainly some political pressure was exerted by big timber interests but I think a lot of the pressure to maintain cutting levels had an altruistic aspect. I feel at least part of it was an effort to provide hard scrabble, timber dependant communities some level of economy as is required of the U.S. Forest Service. I have come across a number of old newspapers from the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, in the middle of this overcutting boom on Forest Service land and in them there is a constant litany of this program or that study trying to find a way to help economically distressed timber communities. So it was tough going even back then. Of course, in hindsight, those days seem like a golden age.

In a nutshell, the main idea is to manage federal forests for a number of societal values including, fish and wildlife, aesthetics and recreational opportunities as well as for timber production. In other words, multiple use. The U.S. Forest Service had it right a long time ago even if, for a number of reasons, the implementation got way off target. Any attempt at sustainable or self-sustaining forest management should employ several scientific disciplines, biology, social science and forestry, and new knowledge, information and new technology to meet the goals required to maintain the aforementioned societal values. One term that could be used to describe this type of forestry is ecoforestry, short for ecologically based forestry and it would actually have many fewer impacts on the environment and native ecosystems than conventional organic farming does.  

There are any number of science based models available that have been developed that all, or part of, could be applied to the problem of managing our forests in an ecologically based, self-sustaining manner. Many of these models have been available and in use for decades. And there is a large pool of older knowledge available, much of it gained through hard lessons, that can be applied along with the new methodology as well. I have created a short list of ideas, models and programs that could be employed to help manage our forests in a logical, self-sustaining manner that meets a number of society’s needs. See the addendum to my Farming and the Fragile Forest post of 12/8/14 for this list. Some of these ideas, models and programs are being employed in third world countries where the forests are much less resilient than ours, apparently to good effect though I would have to see for myself before I believe anything.

As I have tried to make apparent in various previous posts titled Know Your Forest, and Farming and the Fragile Forest of 12/8/14, Pacific Northwest forests are quite resilient and perfect candidates for management to meet these goals. And they can be managed in a manner even more self-sustaining than organic farming. From decades of observations of our forests, I feel that, done right, forestry and timber in Pacific Northwest is the greenest, most environmentally friendly means to meet society’s needs for raw materials while at the same time not significantly damaging the other things for which society values forests.

Renewing federal timber harvest in a responsible manner, with the right supporting programs could help establish a positive economic feedback loop. It would be a means to produce commodities that are in demand and readily accessible to consumers on local, regional and global markets. Some people think consumer is a bad word. Actually, we all consume resources to meet our basic needs and timber is no different than any other resource. So, we can get our resources in a manner that is logically planned out to take into consideration a number of values in our forests, in an area where we can keep an eye on things and in country where these plans have a very good chance to stick. Or we could just get them from anywhere (a store somewhere probably) without thinking about it. 

The wages earned manufacturing these commodities would be higher than most wages earned in tourism. A good part of these wages would potentially be circulated several times through in the local communities. Manufacturing would also generate revenue in the form of taxes on both the commodities produced and the wages of the people producing those commodities. These taxes would not only benefit rural communities directly and indirectly but general society as well.

Most wages generated by tourism would probably not be on par with commodity production but tourism still generates wages and is still important to the local economy and economic diversity. Timber harvest activities would create another reason to keep at least some roads open and revenues generated could help defray the cost of road maintenance. This would maintain or increase access for the general public to public lands and this would draw more people to the area and increase opportunities for tourism businesses.

If it is done properly, federal timber harvest should also create jobs in biological monitoring programs as well. I feel a monitoring program is a crucial component of a system that does timber harvest in a responsible manner and will address this a little later. Revenue generated by timber harvest could be used to defray some or all of the above costs. It would be even better if enough revenue was generated to pay for trail maintenance as well, creating more jobs in that sector but I don't know how realistic this hope is. Well maintained trails would also help increase access to public lands, creating more of a draw for tourism.

Pacific Northwest forests regularly experience naturally occurring large scale disturbances, and in fact, large scale disturbances are an important part of the ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Timber harvest could be done in a way that doesn’t exceed these normally occurring background levels of disturbance. And it could be tailored to mimic natural disturbances that native species are adapted to deal with or even benefit from. The most common of these disturbances would probably be forest fires.

Naturally occurring forest fires, usually started as the result of lighting strikes in wilderness areas and other set aside lands are often allowed to burn. There are some very good reasons for this. Among other things, fire changes the way nutrients cycle in the burned area and creates habitat for species that require large openings in the forest and lots of snags and woody debris. Our forests and the species that live in them are adapted to this type of disturbance which also often plays a role in the biodiversity of our forests.

Fires can have what might also be considered as having detrimental effects to the environment such as increasing the amount of sediment transported into streams and destroying habitat for species that require denser forests. This is well illustrated in my post Know Your Forest Cascade River of 11/11/13. This fire which occurred in about 2005 and much of which burned in the Glacier Peak Wilderness where logging is prohibited (it also occurred in an area that had been logged and replanted in the 1950’s though the results appeared to be very similar in these areas as in the old-growth forests in the wilderness area), was allowed to burn out naturally. So the resulting destruction of old-growth forest and heavy sedimentation in the South Fork Cascade River was the result of natural causes. I think it is okay in wilderness designated areas to let natural processes like fire work. However, I have seen many logging jobs where the environmental damage, at least that which was obvious, was much less than on the South Fork Cascade fire of 2005. We can harvest timber with less impact, at least in certain aspects, than many naturally occurring fires.

South Fork Cascade River in area logging in the late 1950's (note the large cut stumps) that was burned during the fire of 2005 or 2006. My dad may have planted the tree that is to my left. This photo is from the post, Know Your Forest, South Fork Cascade River. 

South Fork Cascade River in Glacier Peak Wilderness that burned in the fire of 2005 or 2006. This area has never been logged. This photo is from the post, Know Your Forest, South Fork Cascade River. 

South Fork Cascade River in Glacier Peak Wilderness showing massive erosion (mass wasting) that was probably triggered or exacerbated by the fire of 2005 or 2006.  Note the large amounts of sediment that have created bars all down the vier channel. By the time this photo was taken in 2013, it appeared that the erosion and mass wasting had largely stabilized and the river had begun to cut down through these sediment deposits. This area has never been logged. This photo is from the post, Know Your Forest, Cascade River. 

South Fork Cascade River in Glacier Peak Wilderness showing massive erosion (mass wasting) in side stream channel. that was probably triggered or exacerbated by the fire of 2005 or 2006. This area was also beginning to stabilize in 2013 as evidenced by the vegetation beginning to grow on the bare sediment. This area has never been logged. This photo is from the post, Know Your Forest, South Fork Cascade River. 

South Fork Cascade River in Glacier Peak Wilderness showing massive erosion (mass wasting) in side stream channel. that was probably triggered or exacerbated by the fire of 2005 or 2006. This photo shows even more vegetation on bare sediment, more evidence that this area was also beginning to stabilize in 2013. This area has never been logged. This photo is from the post, Know Your Forest, South Fork Cascade River. 

The important thing in managing forests sustainably would be to minimize heavy-handed management practices that manipulate conditions rather than mimic them and to monitor the effects of any given treatment and incorporate the knowledge gained in planning future treatments. An example of this might be to model more intensive types of timber harvest to forest fires, leaving more structure, trees, snags and logs behind and scattered in random patterns and limit these more intensive harvest treatments to longer rotations, maybe up to hundreds of years. Another might be to mimic gap dynamics where large trees in the forest fall and leave large gaps in the forest canopy where shrubs and young trees grow. 

As I stated earlier, there are a number of ideas on how to go about implementing a sustainable forestry program. I think one of the first things would be to set goals for fish and wildlife habitat. Identify vulnerable species or target species and tailor timber harvest to leave these species habitats as unimpaired as possible. Habitat can be defined based on metrics such as percentages of the land base with forests in a given successional stage, numbers of snags per acre and logs per acre and many other features that the best evidence indicates are important for target wildlife species. 

Establish and maintain habitat in wildlife migration corridors so individuals of a given species can move from one area to the next. These can be tailored to fit habitat needs on lands under other management regimes such as wilderness designated lands or private timber lands.

Enhance habitat wherever possible. An example of this could be commercial thinning to speed second growth forest succession to a multiple canopy layer state similar to old growth forests. Another could be increased retention of the largest trees and/or of rot resistant species that persist longer in the landscape. Also very important would be to move harvest rotations out to longer intervals to grow larger timber and provide more late successional wildlife habitat.

Finally, whatever the goals and practices may be, I think it is very important to have some sort of monitoring program to get feedback on how different species have reacted to the management practices and measure how closely the management practice has mimicked a natural disturbance. Obviously human disturbances like logging are not exactly the same as natural disturbances like forest fires so it is important to understand these differences as much as possible. Even natural disturbances like fires and the revegetation that follows don't happen the same way every time. There is a lot of variability in how much burns and how hot and what trees and plants grow back afterwards. It is important to try to keep human caused disturbance at levels within the variability of naturally occurring disturbances.

Habitat goals should be based on features that the best evidence indicates are important for target wildlife species. The monitoring program would verify if the information used to develop particular forest management treatments is correct or whether it is wrong or needs to be modified. In other words, if the human disturbances are falling within the variability of naturally occurring disturbances. What we might consider to be “damage” as I referred to the results of a naturally occurring forest fire above, might actually be beneficial. The only way to know for sure is to measure it.

I think it would be best to favor simpler, long term, lower cost studies for monitoring purposes. With an eye on the long term, some good cost effective monitoring programs could be devised. Management practices can be adjusted in the future to track more closely with management goals.

A possible timber harvest, wildlife monitoring scenario might involve taking baseline observations of habitat, vegetation and wildlife presence in plots within a timber harvest area. Then after harvest, monitoring those plots again every few years over many years to see how wildlife and especially species of concern have reacted to different forest management treatments. Treatments that have obvious, rapid deleterious effects could be abandoned or modified, though with the long term monitoring, beneficial effects might be discovered after enough time has passed. The opposite might happen as well, treatments that initially looked beneficial turn out not to be in the long term. All of this information, both in the short and long term could be considered and incorporated into long term management strategies.

Obviously long term monitoring will incur a lot of costs over time. One way to deal with this might be to devise monitoring programs that focus on fairly easily observed organisms or habitat, the relative abundance of different plant species or the presence, size and abundance of features like structural habitat including living trees, snags and downed logs. Other methods that would probably be very effective is birding by ear or documenting change in the forest via photo points.

Many of the less technical tasks could be performed either by citizen volunteers or better yet, by incorporation with school science programs. This would serve a number of purposes. People would learn about the forest and many of the plants, animals and features in it and why certain species and features in a forest are important. They would also be involved in programs where they can actually see changes both in communities of species and features happening in the forest over the long term. Hopefully this will not only build a sense of ownership of the forest but increase understanding of how biological systems in forests function and not only how we get our resources from our forests but how we can get them in a sustainable manner.   

Keeping management practices on track with management goals will be a moving target. It always has been because, even though any given forest might seem to be relatively static, every forest is constantly changing and each new forest gets established and progresses through its different successional stages under different conditions than the forest it replaced. This will probably be especially true in the era of climate change. So I think it is important to have the best understanding possible of how our actions are affecting other organisms, hence my emphasis on regular monitoring of the effects of management treatments.

Today forest managers have an enormous technological advantage over their predecessors. We went to the moon with computers less powerful than a pocket calculator. I would think that with the computing power and programs available to us today it should be possible to use this computing power to track and measure complex biological interactions not only between landscapes and organisms but the reaction of different organisms to disturbance patterns in those landscapes, including timber harvest activities and different types of treatments within these timber harvest activities. Combined with past knowledge, often gained at a high price, this could be a very powerful tool to help manage our forests in a self-sustaining manner.

It is important to recognize though that our knowledge about our forests is imperfect and probably always will be and we will probably never be able to perfectly mimic natural disturbances. This is why I think strong monitoring programs are a must in order to measure and adjust our activities so as to be able to keep the disturbances we create within the range of natural disturbances as much as possible. Not being able to know everything is not an excuse in my mind to simply set aside more lands to timber harvest because the resources we don't get here where we better understand our limitations of knowledge and have some control over timber harvest activities will then be gotten somewhere else where the knowledge will also be imperfect, maybe more so than here, and we will have less control or no control over timber harvest activities. 

Burn on the South Fork Cascade River caused by a lightning strike. This fire occurred in 2005 or 2006 and this photo was taken in 2013. This particular area was an old growth forest. Note the numerous snags and a few surviving trees, most of which are larger diameters. Note the thick shrub layer that has grown back. This landscape, with its snags, downed logs and shrubs will provide habitat for a number of native species of animals and many of the shrubs will produce berries and fodder. This landscape favors species that prefer open forests over species that prefer closed forests.   This photo is from the post, Know Your Forest, South Fork Cascade River. 

An area owned by my family that I last logged in 2008, this photo taken in 2013. It looks very similar to the photo above but there are a number of important differences. This is a second growth forest area dominated by hardwoods so many of the leave trees are hardwoods which won't reach the diameters and have the longevity as both living trees and snags or logs of the old growth trees of the conifer dominated forest pictured above. This area was also not subjected to fire like the area pictured above so important processes like nutrient cycling in the soils here are either different from the photo above or they didn't happen at all. There are probably a number of other important differences as well. On the other hand, there are also many similarities. The shrub layer that has developed will serve many of the same functions as the shrub layer in the photo above. There are a number of snags present, though, as I stated, not of the size and longevity of the snags pictured above. I also plan to leave a certain number of the larger conifers in perpetuity so they will hopefully someday reach the sizes of the trees in the photo above and at some point be recruited for large trees, snags and logs for the forest. Currently there are a number of larger diameter conifer snags killed by various diseases and wildlife that have been left for habitat. I would love to know more about the similarities and differences of the two forests pictured above and how to create better plant and wildlife habitat in this forest so that it more closely resembles the forest pictured above via monitoring and feedback. Unfortunately I currently don't have the time or wherewithal to do this myself. This photo is from the post, Farming and the Fragile Forest.   

Forest roads provide access to forests and the outdoors in general to a wider segment of our population than other venues such as hiking, allowing more people to get out and enjoy and connect with the public lands that they own and have as much right to as anyone else. Until I was in my late twenties, access was very good via a number of U.S. Forest Service roads and roads on private timber land to many parts of the North Cascades, excepting of course, North Cascades National Park and designated Wilderness areas where roads are prohibited. These roads provided, among other things, relatively quick access to trailheads, resources like hunting mushrooms or game and berrying or simply a lot of opportunities for people to get up on a mountainside somewhere to get a good view of the landscape.

This access was quite democratic in that anyone who was able to ride in a vehicle, motorized or otherwise, could get access. Access was not limited only to people capable of walking many miles at a time. This meant that people with a variety of physical limitations could partake of our resources. It also meant that you didn’t have to have days at a time, set aside to make a trip into the mountains. You could do many trips in a day or less and you could take small children along as well. Some of my very first trips into the mountains, at the age of three or four were on such roads, both private and federal. Because of these roads, my parents had time to take me to places that, otherwise, their busy schedules wouldn’t have allowed. In today’s fast paced world in which time is a premium and many people have less time to engage in many outdoor activities, I think the need for access is more acute than ever.

Today nearly all of the roads on private timber land are gated and many U.S. Forest Service roads are closed due to lack of maintenance funds. Many more Forest Service roads are slated for closure. Access to roads on private timber land has been curtailed due to things such as garbage dumping and the fact that, if some idiot shooting off fireworks or letting a campfire go in the middle of a dry summer accidentally torches millions of dollars worth of timber on lands owned by a private timber company, that timber company won’t recover its losses. This is unfortunate but I can’t say that I blame them. Roads on federal land are another matter. These lands belong to all of us and though some of the aforementioned problems and others exist, I think there are ways to deal with these problems without denying access to public lands. What is the point of having public lands if the majority of the public cannot access and use them?  

I think every effort should be made to retain a robust forest road system on federal land for public use. As in the past, roads would be used for multiple purposes, recreational and economic would probably be the most prominent but the roads would also provide ready access for the pursuit of science and education. Helicopter flights are expensive. Paying someone days or weeks worth of wages to access a study area is also expensive. For many studies there may be no getting around these expenses because they occur in remote areas.

Roads would provide more ready access to a larger land base and cut costs for studies in other areas. When I worked on stream survey crews, we regularly used forest roads to access many miles of streams in hours or fractions of hours that would have taken days to access otherwise.

Currently federal agencies have a plan to shoot barred owls which appear to be responsible for much of the ongoing decline in spotted owl populations by preying on spotted owls, outcompeting them for resources and interbreeding with them. Barred owls are everywhere and I personally don’t think this plan will be successful because, to be successful it will probably have to be maintained in perpetuity which will become extremely expensive. Be that as it may, wouldn’t it be ironic if the logging roads, which provide more ease of access at less expense actually made it more economically feasible to continue to eradicate barred owls in order to help spotted owls?

Roads could also provide opportunities for tourism businesses. A friend of mine had a plan to buy a small touring bus or van that could travel logging roads and take people out to see the sights and dispense local knowledge and stories for information and entertainment. The presence of forest roads would be crucial for this business plan because it would provide opportunity for access to the broades customer base possible, something that is important when you are dealing with the thin margins of tourism. Via roads, my friend could provide services to people who lack the physical ability to access the mountains by other means such as hiking or even horseback riding.

Finally, more roads would mean spreading the pressure for resources over a wider area rather than concentrating it in the few areas where open roads remain. This will become more important as our population grows. If more people want to access the outdoors and most of this pressure is concentrated in just a few areas, it will undoubtedly result in user group conflicts and probably some kind of lottery or reservation system where a certain number of people will be excluded. You won’t build support for public lands and wise use of the land if you start excluding people.

Along with all of their benefits, forest roads can also have a lot of detrimental effects including increased sedimentation in watersheds, triggering landslides, interfering with wildlife habitat and movement and increased impacts from more recreational use among others. I mentioned above that I worked on stream survey crews that used roads to readily access larger areas. Some of the streams that we surveyed were also adversely impacted by the roads that we used to access them. There are a number of measures that could be taken to minimize or eliminate many of these problems.

Roads should be evaluated to identify which ones provide maximum protection to watersheds by occupying the most stable parts of the landscape and minimizing the number of roads in any one area. Soil maps that are now widely available, landform maps and GIS technology can be utilized to identify geologically unstable areas where roads are likely to cause problems such valley headwalls and wet slopes. Any roads that do exist in such areas should be removed and the slopes restored. New roads should not be built in these areas.

With any luck, much of the forest road system that already exists could be utilized with needed upgrades without building any new roads except where needed to replace problem or poorly placed roads. Where they are needed to replace existing roads that are to be removed, new roads should be placed in stable parts of the landscape and adhere to strict road building practices.

Roads should also be evaluated and retained or placed to minimize any impacts on wildlife through edge effects and migration barriers and for the best recreational access patterns. From the recreation standpoint this would mean maximizing value for recreational access in many areas while not providing easy access to everything. Roads should be properly maintained in order to minimize their negative impacts and I think a weed management program should be build into the maintenance scheme. Even a well built, well placed road can cause problems if not properly maintained.

Timber harvest activities could help defray some or all of the costs of road maintenance. Over the years I have heard people bemoan the fact that the U.S. Forest Service spent way too much money on road building and that many contractors pocketed a lot more federal money than they should have. What is not considered in this argument, or complaint, if you will, is that those roads were built with the intent that they would be used for many, many years afterwards. What seems like a huge expense to build a road up front, is actually probably very cost effective if that road is used for many decades afterward. Allowing our forest road system to decay is a poor way to care for these investments of our tax dollars.

Whitechuck Mountain from U.S. Forest Service Road 2510 (Conrad Creek). This road was no longer maintained and undriveable  at the time of this photo in 2009. I believe it is slated for removal. It took about 2 hours of walking to reach this point. 

Mount Pugh from U.S. Forest Service Road 2435 (Dan's Creek/Decline Creek).

Pugh Mountain and Whitechuck Mountain at dawn from U.S. Forest Service Road 2642 (Grade Creek).

Pugh Mountain from Rat Trap Pass on U.S. Forest Service Road 27. 

Whitechuck Mountain and Prairie Mountain with Sloan Peak in the background and Sauk Mountain trailhead in the foreground from U.S. Forest Service Road 1030 (Sauk Mountain Road).

Sauk Mountain and Skagit Valley near Rockport from U.S. Forest Service Road 16 (Illabot Creek) in an opening created by a logging unit on private timber land.  

Upper Skagit Valley in the Marblemount area and the Pickets in North Cascades National Park from U.S. Forest Service Road 16 (Illabot Creek) in an opening created by a logging unit on private timber land. 

Upper Skagit Valley in the Marblemount area and the Pickets in North Cascades National Park from U.S. Forest Service Road 16 (Illabot Creek) in an opening created by a logging unit on private timber land. 

Mount Chaval and Upper Illabot Creek from U.S. Forest Service Road 16 (Illabot Creek). The section of road that this photo was taken from has now been closed. 

Upper Skagit Valley at Marblemount and Picket Range in North Cascades National Park from the West Jordan Creek Road on private timber land. This road is now gated and it took several hours of walking to reach this point. When I was younger all of this area was accessible for driving by the general public. I don't fault private timber companies from protecting their interests by gating roads but it greatly decreases access to views such as this to the general public. 

Upper Skagit Valley at Marblemount, Diobsud Buttes and Picket Range in North Cascades National Park from West Jordan Creek Road on private timber land. This road is now gated and it took 3 to 4 hours of hard, steady walking to reach this point.  I was younger all of this area was accessible for driving by the general public. I don't fault private timber companies from protecting their interests by gating roads but it greatly decreases access to views such as this to the general public. I find it quite ironic that such a sweeping view of North Cascades National Park isn't easily accessible to the general public within the boundaries of the Park itself. The best views of the park accessible to all, including those with diminished physical capabilities, are all from roads on private timber land or U.S. Forest Service land. 

Jordan Creek Falls from West Jordan Road. 

Mount Formidable, Cascade River from U.S. Forest Service Road 1550 (Irene Creek). 

Baker Lake and Upper Baker River from gated road on private timber land. It took several hours of walking to access this point. Again, most of the mountains in the distance are in North Cascades National Park and can't be accessed or seen by much of the general public. 

Making access easier for the general public usually creates a number of peripheral  problems related to recreational use. Poorly monitored or abandoned campfires, trash and poor sanitation top my list of the most common of these. Some of this is the result of slobs. I don’t know if there will ever be anything that can be done about slovenly behavior but I don’t think everyone should be punished for the actions of a few individuals. At least some of the issues related to recreational use are born out of ignorance and there is probably a lot that can be done on that front.

There are a number of programs in operation, whether it be stream stewards or beach stewards or master hunters as well as hunter’s safety, that require people to engage in training and maybe some volunteer time in order to get a certification in that program. Once certified, the enrollee can get their hunting license or certain privileges in return for their time and training.

Many of the negative impacts of heavy recreational use could be addressed with a similar educational program. People could go to a class for several hours or even a weekend that covers proper outdoor practices and etiquette. A range of subjects could be presented about things such as safety in the outdoors, proper care of campfires, proper sanitation, proper camp cleanliness and how to hang food and why you want to do these things. I think it would be very important to explain to people why the different rules, practices and etiquette were developed. I also think if the information is presented in a reasonable manner with no preaching and a little natural history thrown in, it could be an interesting and informative experience for many people. Many of these people in turn, would be more likely to adhere to the practices and etiquette. 

If the class was done well enough it might even attract people just for the learning aspect alone but some sort of incentive would undoubtedly draw more people. My vote for this perk would be for a reduction in the cost of trailhead parking permits which used to be free when there was still timber money available to pay for trail maintenance. I think the incentive would draw a lot of people, both people new to the outdoors and people who have been around a long time who, though they might not realize it, stand to have memories refreshed about certain things and might even learn a thing or two that is new.

The type of timber harvest I have described would undoubtedly generate revenues. Hopefully these would be enough for the Forest Service to pay for a lot of things like road maintenance, trail maintenance and biologists. It would also create family wage jobs for people in the timber industry. However, I think most of the models one looks at that are self-sustaining won’t generate the volumes and revenues of the old days when the Forest Service was the only government agency that paid for itself, so there won’t be as many jobs as there once were. But there would be more jobs than there are now. That is the main reason I argue for it.

I think more jobs could be generated with less timber harvest by investing in and developing economic models based on value added products and incentives for people to circulate timber dollars (actually all their dollars, no matter where they came from) through their local communities more. Rather than ship raw logs far away, more jobs would be created by processing those logs locally into lumber, chips, bark, fuel etc. It would create even more jobs to further process these products into other products. The only two things I can think of at the moment that fit this bill would be furniture and trusses but I believe with a little thought, hopefully some of it out of the box, a number of other products might be identified that could be manufactured locally.

To my mind the ultimate best outcome (and its probably just a fantasy) would be to create a big enough market for sustainably harvested timber products from large diameter timber harvested at longer intervals and sold at higher prices either as raw logs or value added products to incentivize private timber companies to shift at least part of their land base towards longer rotations and larger timber in order to capitalize on the market. This type of market would probably appeal to many small private forest land owners who hold a high percentage of the private timber in this state. I don't think this is a fantasy. The larger timber in these later successional forests would provide more habitat for late successional species who don’t really care if they are on private or federal lands.  

Another approach that might generate more revenue as well is a green certification for logging outfits and timber companies. Green certified timber products, harvested sustainably could allow a premium or even higher prices for those products, like organically produced goods.

There are green certifications already in place. Unfortunately, some of these certifications are relatively meaningless because companies who don’t necessarily use the most sustainable timber harvest practices create their own green certifications and market their products as such. 

My solution to this would be to offer a training program similar to the one I outlined above for recreational users except this one would be for workers in the timber industry. Or, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries currently has a program that greatly reduces the amount loggers have pay for state industrial insurance if they attend a day long safety class. Another proven model would be to follow the pesticide licensing model administered by the Washington State Department of Agriculture where applicants receive training either online or in the classroom and are required to demonstrate knowledge of the subject by passing a test. Once certified, applicants are periodically required to keep their training current.

A similar approach could be taken for green certification. Classes explaining timber harvest rules, what they are and why they are they way they are could be administered by an organization such as the Washington State Department of Natural Resources or some other neutral entity. If enough of a company’s crew has taken the class, then the company would be green certified and be able to charge extra or a premium for the things they produce, I’m thinking primarily logs and lumber but it could be other things as well. The neutral entity helps ensure that the green certification will remain meaningful to consumers. In order for this to work there would have to be some sort of public awareness effort so most people who bought timber products would be aware of the program.

Without a doubt many in the timber industry would be skeptical but if the incentives are good enough, many of these people would attend such a class. Again, an effective and interesting training program would help quite a bit in this area. Without a doubt, a certain percentage of attendees would also take the information to heart. People in the timber industry aren’t stupid and many understand the need to do things right and improve where possible. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if some very strong advocates for environmentally sound timber harvest practices came from such a program.

There is also a strong sentiment to protect and take care of all kinds of natural resources, not just timber, within the timber industry community. This is certainly not universal but I think it is significant.

I recall a logging job on private timber land where I worked just when the DNR had started requiring riparian leave trees along streams. There was a stream running along the back of the logging unit where we were working and some trees along a section of the riparian leave strip had blown down. None of us on the crew had any concept of the importance of riparian trees for, among other things, shading stream water and, when they fell into the stream, creating very good fish habitat. We didn’t have any instructions or information at all to deal with the situation so we bucked them off their roots and yarded them out, thinking that was the responsible thing to do rather than leave them to go to waste. Almost everyone on that crew was an active, if not avid, fisherman. If we had had the information I have just described above along with the rules to leave the trees where they had fallen, I think we would have made a much better decision and the outcome would probably have been much different. 

I would also point out two instances that I know of where people who were probably not of the preservationist mindset who stepped in to save unique stands of timber.

Harold Engles was a district ranger at Darrington. In this position he was responsible for administering the federal lands under his control in a responsible manner, according to Multiple Use Policy. In those days, multiple use allowed for a pretty healthy timber harvest and I have never heard Harold cursed as a tree-hugger so I assume that he didn’t have a problem with logging as long as it was done according to the rules and laws of the day. Yet he stepped in to stop a sale in a patch of old-growth western red cedar on the North Fork Sauk river because it had a number of unique characteristics and possibly because he thought the cut was getting a little too heavy in that particular area-if I remember the story correctly. That stand of cedar remains today and bears his name. There is a plaque and a short version of this story that is probably more accurate than this one which I have recounted from memory.

The other guy is a man named Curley (I’m not positive if Curley is the proper spelling here) Chittendon. He was a foreman of the Canadian logging crews responsible for logging the area to be flooded by Ross Lake in the 1940’s and early 1950’s. From my understanding his whole life was spent in logging and construction.

He refused to log an area in the valley bottom not far above the present full pool elevation of Ross Lake because of a meadow with a stand of old-growth Ponderosa pine in it. From a lifetime of looking at forests, he knew that there was something very different and unique about this meadow and the Ponderosa pines of that age and size which wouldn’t have ordinarily grown there. This site was later determined to have possibly been modified and used by Native Americans (Aboriginal Peoples in Canadian lingo) for hundreds of years or more. The refusal to log the area was also an important factor in Ross Dam not being raised. As far as I know, Curley continued on in the same line of work until he retired. I don’t think he was a shrinking violet when it came to cutting timber.  

It is important to note that each of these men came at their given situations from positions of relative security. While their questioning of the status quo had the potential to cost them their jobs, there were plenty of other jobs to be had in the same line of work. I think there is much less room to do such things today.

Not long ago, while talking to a friend, I brought up a story of some Alaska yellow cedars about thirteen hundred years old that were cut on a federal timber sale years ago, long before the Northwest Forest Plan was even conceived, much less implemented. He made the statement that such a thing was a crime. My kneejerk reaction after seeing the economic ravages the Northwest Forest Plan has wrought in our area over the years, was to say that those guys needed jobs. As I thought about it later, the person who had recounted the story to me, a logger himself and the guys who cut those Alaska cedars thought it was a crying shame too.

Of course, in those days as well, there was plenty of work to be had in the woods. I don’t know what their feelings would be about the situation today. The instincts and sentiments to do forestry in much better ways are out there but people need the information and the space created by economic security in order to act on them.

If green certification classes ever became a reality, whatever percentage of the people in them who take the information to heart would be a big step forward in better forestry practices. The people who make timber products are in the best position to know what the tradeoffs are and what is feasible or not when it comes to timber harvest and could have some very valuable input in devising better ways to do things. They are on the front lines of figuring out how to use our planet’s resources wisely. They are the first to feel any impacts, either positive or negative, of resource management practices on the local environment and economy. We are fortunate to live in a country wealthy enough to have resources available to develop models of sustainable or self-sustaining resource use. It would be also be a crying shame not to do this.

The debate between preservation and exploitation of our planet’s resources both stem from the ideology that humans are separate from nature. Preservation states something to the effect that anything humans do is unnatural and bad. Exploitation states that we don’t have to care about how we use resources because we are above it all and this use won’t affect us.

This debate is a dead end and it detracts from the real question, we have to get our resources from this planet, so: How do we get our resources without significantly damaging the planet’s ability to continue to provide those resources or related resources for the future? In other words: Keeping in mind that nothing is truly sustainable, what are our most sustainable options for getting our resources?

While the preservation movement is a natural reaction to the economic systems which advocate turning natural resources into cash as quickly and efficiently as possible, damn the consequences, the two are closely linked. They occupy opposite ends of the same spectrum of ideology that states that humans are separate from Earth and its systems and processes. The one position can’t exist without the other. I also think many preservation efforts are funded by exploitative activity whether this is part of an attempt at mitigation or someone seeking absolution or a tax break. Under this type of ideology, in order to save more, we need to exploit more in other areas.

Preservation strategies are also based on enough of the population being wealthy enough or at least insulated enough from economics involved with land set asides to be able to look at the land without an eye to using its resources. When the population reaches critical mass of people who aren’t in that demographic any more or who don’t care where or how their resources are gotten,  the resources will be gotten here. It would be far better, I think, to have in place a strong culture of people in places like the North Cascades who not only understand the resources they are using but also how to use those resources in the most sustainable, environmentally friendly way possible.

Humans and their activities have been part of the biological processes on Earth for many millennia and there is a lot of evidence that, for much of this time, humans have used any technology available to them to manipulate the environment to favor their survival. In hunter-gatherer societies, much of the largest scale environmental manipulation was probably in the form of burning. Such manipulation undoubtedly had significant ecological effects on other organisms in the environment, favoring certain species over others. Pre-industrial age hunter-gatherers probably didn’t see themselves as separate from nature and they used natural resources in ways more sustainable and more respectful than the industrial age culture that followed.

Until the advent widespread agriculture most people had probably always lived in some sort of balance with natural resources. Agriculture allowed human populations to grow to the point where pressure on natural resources began to become unbalanced in many areas. Even in those days the balance was probably kept pretty close by mortality rates and migration.

The Industrial Age gave humans the technological ability to completely tip this balance and abuse resources to the point of irreparable damage. Many of the economic systems that were part of the Industrial Age incentivized overuse of resources and the Industrial Age created a lot of very specialized jobs that served to disconnect a larger percentage of the human population from the resources that supported its existence.

I would also note that the wealth that Industrial Age created also brought about a lot of things that were very beneficial to humans like better nutrition and modern medicine and a lot of conveniences. With some notable exceptions, the average hunter-gatherer didn’t cause a lot of large scale environmental damage because they lacked the technology and population to do so. Of course, this was the result of people living much harder, and sometimes shorter, lives.

I personally don’t want to give up the benefits of modern technology. So, to my mind, we need to figure out how to create a modern version of the hunter-gatherer resource use that is more balanced and causes a minimum of damage to our resource’s abilities to continue to provide for us while maintaining the benefits of modern technology.

I don’t think that this is a hopeless case. I know many modern people that use resources who also respect them. If they misuse or abuse a resource it is, more often than not, because they don’t understand or realize the damage they are causing or they simply don’t have choice of using a better practice because they are operating within a system that incentivizes overuse. These issues can be addressed at least in part through education and better incentives.   

People here have historically made their living from the land in this place and many continue to do so today. Food is grown, gathered and hunted and products and raw goods like timber and power are made to trade for the things that can’t be produced locally. People have also historically recreated here. This would include some of the hunting, fishing and gathering. And don’t for a minute think that a lot of these folks, probably the overwhelming majority of them, appreciate this place for its beauty and commune with it on some level religiously or spiritually, whether they believe an Almighty God made it or it is all the result of some random process.

Being intimately involved in producing the resources that meet your own and other’s basic human needs I believe encourages an understanding of resources that is more akin to that of the hunter-gatherer than many other members of our modern society. Of course everyone living in a modern society in a developed country is subject to not really understanding where all of their resources come from. All of us to some degree get some of our resources from some nebulous source that we don’t have to, and usually don’t, think about. And everyone living in such a society is also subject to systems that incentivize overuse of resources.

That being said, I think the average resource producer is a little more attuned to where their resources come from. I think it is a much deeper relationship with the land with a deeper understanding on many levels than those who only see it for either its beauty alone or its monetary value alone. The resource producer understands that we need to use the resource which might involve some activities that appear destructive but, since they depend on the resource for their living, most don’t want to see it damaged beyond its capacity to continue to produce.  

Consider how deep a relationship someone has with the land where they live when they carry with them some sort of history of that place, whether it be personal, community, or even a family, with all its legends and stories. And all the while they are using the land to gain sustenance by growing, gathering and hunting food and creating goods to trade, walking in the footsteps of their predecessors, around whom the legends and stories revolve, actually. Of course they might use different technologies than their forebears but it would essentially be the same experience, having the land actually feed you and provide for many of your needs.  This is a great place to start to figure out how to use the resources of our planet in better ways and the people who produce these resources should be a big part of this process.

We can’t preserve out way out of our environmental problems by land set asides. We need to use the resources of this planet to meet our basic human and needs as well as needs that extend beyond the basics. Whether you believe we evolved on this planet or were created here, the fact remains we have nowhere else besides this planet to get resources from. The goal of many preservationists seems to be to strive prohibit resource use in a given area, quite often their own back yard, and, if successful, declare victory. But if we don’t use our local resources, then they will be gotten from somewhere else. Then, when the resources that aren’t in our back yards are used up, those in our back yards will be used.

Well managed forests could not only provide the resources to meet basic human needs, especially where revenues from their production is sorely needed, but also create access gateways into wild areas so that the less physically capable and time strapped members of our society can share them too. They could also provide gateways into outdoor lifestyles for many members of society like they did for me.

Our current system isn’t working well either for rural communities in the Pacific Northwest, the North Cascades or the world. Commodities like timber and lumber, are one of the few things that this place has that has value on world markets and that society will buy without a second thought. People wax extremely poetic about the value of the beauty of the place and of the value of clean air and water and of recreation but these things won’t pay someone living here enough to make a decent living. This place doesn’t exist in some kind of special bubble, where a person can make a living on such things. We live in the same world with an economy that requires money in order to function. I think that solid revenues can be generated by commodities from our public forests without damaging the beauty, clean air and water and some of the activity that produces the timber commodities will actually increase recreational opportunities, forest roads being a good example of this. 

Demand for timber products is being met in forests all over the world that are much more fragile than ours, in countries where corruption is rampant and free speech to stop something that is obviously bad for all but a few is severely curtailed. Ask yourself, would you rather get your resources from your back yard so you can see what is happening and have input into what is going on if you don’t agree with it? Or would you rather get your resources from some anonymous place where who knows what kind of environmental damage is happening or what corrupt hands the money is going to?

The ultimate best case outcome of proper forest management would result in communities where more solid timber jobs and revenues help create a more stable economic base. Many people would have more job opportunities or options whether that was in harvesting timber or making some value added product from that timber to trade for something that can’t be made here or working in service industries that would be supported by the timber revenues generated. Others may work in a tourism industry based on access provided by road infrastructure. I think it is fine for communities to seek funding through grants and other outside sources of money but ultimately I think the best situation is one where people can help themselves rather than be dependent on someone else.

If some of the educational programs I outlined, or similar, better ones, were implemented, many of these people would also know the tree species that they are using from multiple angles. The ecology of different species, where and how each species grew, what grew with them and what other species they depended on and what depended on them in turn basically how it fit in the forest community. They would also know other characteristics of how the wood or wood product handled, its rot resistance etc. And they would understand where it came from and how it got to them and why we are using it. I know of many people in the timber industry who appreciate the natural world as much as anyone else and I think such educational programs would help deepen that appreciation and build a community with a strong incentive to make sure resources are used wisely and properly, all the more so because their livelihoods depend on it.

Timber in the Pacific Northwest is literally the goose that laid the golden egg. It can provide resources indefinitely as long as we don’t try extract them all at once (This assumes climate change won’t alter things so radically that our forests begin to fail wholesale. Of course, if this happens, all bets are off everywhere on the planet anyway).

Not every idea I have put forth here will work. Reality has a way of knocking the shine off ideas and ideals when one actually tries to carry through with them. I am sure there are better, more realistic ideas than mine out there on how to do timber harvest in more environmentally and economically sound ways but we have to start somewhere. As I stated before, there is a strong sentiment in rural communities to use resources wisely. And the type of community I have described where a significant number of people understand the resource from many different angles and are invested in using the resource responsibly is something to strive for.

Recently harvested thinning sale on U.S. Forest Service land on Road 2081. About 20 years ago I worked on several sales near here in timber of a similar size that was about 60 years old at that time (as determined by counting rings in stumps). I have heard that there is evidence that this type of thinning sale  with trees so evenly spaced might not be the best for enhancing many types of wildlife habitat. However, as the forest ages, probably a lot of the structure and gaps will begin to occur in it. The remaining trees should grow faster, resulting in larger diameter timber in a shorter amount of time. This photo is from a previous post, Know Your Forest, Pugh Mountain Trail. 

Thinning sale on Whitechuck Bench where I worked about 22 years ago. This area looked like the one above when we finished logging here. Notice a number of small trees and shrubs are growing in the understory. This helps create a multiple story canopy that provides more habitat for many species. Multiple story canopies are a characteristic of old-growth forests though this is not an old growth forest. It was logged, probably clear cut, about 80 years ago. This photo was used in several previous posts, Farming and the Fragile Forest and Know Your Forest, Pugh Mountain Trail.

Same area as above photo. The yellow/orange X on the Douglas-fir next to me was  painted on prior to harvest to mark this tree to be left. This photo is from a previous post, Know Your Forest, Pugh Mountain Trail. 

Riparian leave strips on private timber land. It is now required to leave strips of timber a certain width along streams of a certain size. The width of the timber strips vary and are determined by the size of the stream and whether there are fish in them or not. The timber helps keep the stream water cool and when it falls into the stream, among other things, it provides habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms and helps store sediment. This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

Select logging in 2010 on property owned by me and my family. I left some of the larger conifer trees for forest structure and future wildlife habitat. For an investment of 74 hours of work, I grossed $8245 on this job. This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

Same area pictured above, spring 2014. This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

Same area picture in previous two photos, spring 2010. This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

Same area pictured above, spring 2014. The shrubs, salmonberry and elderberry, among others will provide food and habitat for wildlife that uses more open areas until the forest grows back here. I have planted red alder (Alnus rubra) back in this area to help serve as a fire break, fix nitrogen and slow the spread of root rots that infest coniferous species. This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

Same area only family land pictured above logged in 2004/2005 and 2008. This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

Same area on family land pictured above logged in the winter of 2004,2005. This particular spot and the one picture in the following photo are more of the gap dynamic timber harvest where gaps and openings are created in the canopy that allow shrubs and understory trees to grow in in clumps that create good wildlife habitat. This wasn't necessarily planned. The harvest focused on red alder and a few individual trees of other species and the result was a series of gaps in the canopy. Many of the larger conifers were not harvested. This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

This photo is from a previous post, Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

This photo and the following one was taken on my place. To my knowledge, this area has been logged at least three times, in the 1930's, 1950's and the last time in the 1980's. I also salvaged a number of windfalls from this area in the early 1990's. As far as I know, most if not all, of this timber harvest in this area was selective, not clear cut.  This photo was used in two previous posts, Know Your Forest, My Forest and Farming and the Fragile Forest. 

This photo was used in two previous posts, Know Your Forest, My Forest and Farming and the Fragile Forest.