Jim Doran, J.D., IBDR

Community Forestry Resources

P.O. Box 888

Twisp, WA  98856

(ph) 509-997-2295

(cell) 509-293-1535

(fax) 509-997-2192

jimdoran@mymethow.com

Collaboration: A Western Rural Revolution

Jim Doran

Community Forestry Resources

P.O. Box 888

Twisp, WA 98856

(509) 997-2295

Jim Doran, J.D., IBDR

Community Forestry Resources

P.O. Box 888

Twisp, WA  98856

(ph) 509-997-2295

(cell) 509-293-1535

(fax) 509-997-2192

jimdoran@mymethow.com

Collaboration: A Western Rural Revolution

© Jim Doran 2007

I. Introduction

This article is about how western rural forested communities will recover from the economic collapse that followed the decades long degradation of the western public forests. The experiences of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition (the Coalition) have begun to prove a new model of “collaborative” public lands management. We have shown that there is indeed common ground that can be found within a broad cross section of individuals and organizations from both the timber industry and the conservation community. That common ground can be summarized in a desire for healthy functioning ecosystems and a vibrant community. For nearly seven years this Coalition has gathered loggers, mill owners, educators, professional foresters, environmentalists, business owners, local governments and citizens at large in an effort to break the deadlock and controversies over public forest management practices. This article will articulate “how” we can create the model of sustainable forest practices on the typical western public forestlands. This article is based upon the real experiences of the Coalition over seven years in the context of the Colville National Forest in the remote northeastern corner of Washington State.

In the dry-site forests of inland west professional forestry requires that after you have harvested the large trees in these forest types the sunlight and water reaches the thousands of seeds and a carpet of seedlings sprout. Within ten years a substantial thinning of as much as eighty percent of these saplings is required. At twenty-five to thirty-five years the now six to eight inch trees that are even then still too crowded for good health and productivity should be thinned; perhaps as much as thirty percent. This basic forestry was not planned for or funded by the Forest Service or required as part of the contracts with the timber companies that harvested the trees from the public forestlands. The result has been the millions of acres of over-stocked small diameter stands that are now prone to fire and disease in our western forests.

II. It Wasn’t Us What Did It

The northwest timber wars were the result of one of the most unethical sociopolitical criticisms that have been raised by urban residents against rural communities throughout the western states. These forest workers, the men and women of our western heritage, were doing their jobs. Many foresters and loggers told their bosses that these practices were short-term and would leave the forests devastated. Many of the bosses relayed their own convictions to the managers and boards of directors and to the Forest Service, itself. Nevertheless, the government order of the day was to cut these trees. If someone had told the logger not to cut within two hundred feet of a stream or to thin only the small deficient trees “Or you are fired!” the logger would have done as he or she was told. The urban mantra that the loggers were the “bad guys” is egocentrically socio-centrically misplaced. The USDA policies for roads and timber harvest were not created in the rural communities. It was the urban business centers, not the rural communities that controlled the flow of capital and the means to conduct the forest harvests. It bears remembering that the western states were settled as resource colonies and we are only now moving towards self-determination and sustainable communities at a very slow rate.

The spark of community forestry in northeastern Washington State was struck after the great Tyee fire of 1994 where 354,000 acres of already managed forestlands burned in catastrophic fires near Lake Chelan. The cost to the government was over $300 million to suppress and put out the fire and to perform minimal restoration of ruined creeks and wetlands. The thought began to germinate that maybe we should spend, say $20 million to thin out these overstocked disease and fire prone stands and not only save $280 million dollars but also create an ecosystem more supportive of wildlife, recreation, forest productivity and hydrologic stability. To accomplish this task we would also employ a sizeable workforce and produce marketable materials and biomass for local electrical generation.

The problem, which is still the operating principle, became clear in 1995 as the Tyee fire was analyzed: the fire suppression funds are almost limitless but the forest restoration funds are very limited. The result is that over the past ten years the economic boost to the rural communities is not in restoration work, of which there is an endless need, but in the momentary fire suppression business. This is hardly a sustainable future.

III. The Tools of Community Forestry

As mentioned above, the first step towards community collaboration is the realization that there is no sense in the distraction of the “us versus them” mentality that dominated the rural counties of northeastern Washington and communities throughout the west since the decline in the timber industries. Blame isn’t going to solve anything. Just asking the question, “What are we going to do now?” in a realistic manner, is the starting point. In one way the small log industry has been laying prone on the floor, arms outstretched to the environmental community saying, “Just tell us how you want it done, and we’ll do it that way.” That put a burden on the environmental community at a time when there was not an established medium for communication between the two factions besides the bureaucratic and legal avenues.

The second step towards creating a collaborative body was the commitment from the participating industry representatives to not log old growth forests. They were simply not on the table. The third premise that allowed attendance from formerly antagonistic “sides” was the commitment to no new extensive road systems.

The prime focus of the Coalition has been on the restoration of the already logged and roaded forestlands that are overstocked with small trees. These are the already managed forestlands. There are at least a hundred thousand acres of these stands within the Colville National Forest that were logged and neglected. There is enough work to keep many dozens of crews busy for several generations just bringing these stands back to a reasonably safe and healthy condition. There are at least one hundred million of these acres in the western states’ inland forests. The potential to create and sustain a vibrant woodworking community in all rural regions of the forested western states has became the vision of the Coalition.

Three other guiding parameters were incorporated into the early discussions. They were, first, what I call the blood oath: “We are not here to devolve back into the timber wars of the past twenty years. You can beat up on each other down at the tavern, but not at this table”. Similarly, “We are here to use our best creative problem solving”. And finally, “This is not an all or nothing proposition. You can disagree about other projects or issues, but when we reach some kind of an agreement in this group, we will honor it”. Rules of behavior were also developed that essentially required civility and an attempt at consensus before voting on issues.

There is another primary reason for the success of the Coalition. There still exists within the Colville National Forest the infrastructure to deal with the small diameter trees that need to be removed from these already managed but neglected stands. In my hometown of Twisp, as in many communities, the capital assets such as the mill, the planer and the kiln were shut down and lost. The workforce was laid-off, and the assets were dismantled and sold and moved elsewhere. With the removal of the assets the “can do” attitude and ability moved away from the community, along with the capital to do anything significant even now when the opportunity in small diameter wood is arising. This is not the case, yet, in the Colville National Forest.

One of the objectives of the Coalition is to solve the political legal and bureaucratic “Gordian knot” of public forest management in order to save the assets that still exist in the Colville area communities. There are people in these communities that know how to do the work that is needed to be done. There are wood workers, operators and mechanics and the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well; money still circulates. The primary asset that has allowed for the survival of these other businesses is the Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc. mill in the city of Colville. The mill works off a HewSaw that can take down to four-inch material producing dimensional lumber. The chips are sold for paper products and the residue is used for electrical generation or hog fuel for the plant. The Vaagen Bros. mill is known as the “Hot-Rod HewSaw” and the plant should be visited by environmentalists and foresters to see the very tool that is needed at the base level in order to accomplish the forest restoration work that is needed.

This, of course, begs the question. How are we going to see these kinds of capital assets ($120 to $160 million) brought back to western rural communities in order to support the restoration work that needs to be done? No capitalist is going to make that kind of an investment, or even thirty percent of that investment, if they cannot see the twenty-five to thirty-five year supply of materials for the machine. Some more conservative communities, usually those where the assets and abilities have left, have given up on the entire prospect and have either adopted a anti-industrial attitude altogether or have opted for tourism and recreation rather than face the responsibility of restoring the previously mismanaged forest stands which would consequently create a sustainable economy for their communities. This article will not enter into the discussion regarding the “family wage job” ability of the tourist industry as a base for the long term health of a community.

The expectation or “hope” of the Coalition is to solve the political, legal and bureaucratic management issues on public lands, in order to create a model of sustainable restoration forestry. Then, and only then, will all of the western forested communities have a realistic opportunity to rebuild an economy based upon forest resources and the spin-off businesses that will provide meaningful and family wage jobs. We can create a new conservation ethic throughout the west while we restore these forest stands. We can, incidentally, promote these restoration activities as a “tourist attraction” if you will.

IV. The Coalition & Our Progress

In 2001 the initial efforts were made to form some sort of “collaborative group” to address forest management issues in the northeastern counties of Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille in Washington State. The approach was to contact individuals within the communities who had an understanding of the issue, who could focus on the already managed small diameter stands and who were willing to solve problems and not simply re-hash them again. People in the industry, in education, in forestry, the economic institutions and conservation organizations were asked to form a loose-knit “group” to see if there was a possibility of laying down the weapons and to address these specific forest and community needs. The health and productivity of the forest and the creation or retention of local jobs was the clearly voiced first guiding principle. As always, these individuals knew other likeminded individuals and the group grew. A similar approach was taken with the environmental community representatives.

An initial outreach effort was done with the Colville National Forest Supervisor, District Rangers and timber and fuels management personnel. The Forest Service had continually been the organization caught in the middle. Both industry and the environmental community had serious differences with the Forest Service. There was skepticism from all parties, but the Forest Service was the least willing to believe that any change would come to the deadlock between industry and the environmental community.

The two opposing sectors, the environmental representatives and the industry representatives, were brought together for a first meeting. All of the clichés about “thirty-seven cent appeals” and “us versus them” and “we want to see something happen on the ground” were voiced by all “sides” in the discussion. The two guiding principles of “no old growth” and “no new roads”, as well as the commitment to “problem solving” and “no fighting” were presented.

The third step was to bring the two private sectors together with the Colville National Forest. Because of the intensity that this issue had held in the community for so many years the attendance at the “combined meetings” was very high. Forest Service, political/governmental, environmental, industry and economic interests were all at the table. Once again the basic parameters and guidelines for the “collaboration” were discussed and each participant was asked to commit to these principles in a process that would address public lands management.

At this point, by now spring of 2002, a Concept Paper was developed along with a Mission, Goals and Objectives in draft form. The documents voiced the agreed upon and frequently restated principals upon which the collaborative effort had begun; i.e., no old growth, no new roads, problem solving and no fighting.

In October of 2002 a discussion was held within the Coalition about our project focus. It was decided through consensus that we would begin our work within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) because we could all agree that the protection of lives and community assets was a high priority. We also understood that the thinning activities within these WUI zones would likely be more intense than elsewhere. This satisfied the environmental community, which was not ready yet to discuss the forest landscape, and pleased the industry interests who would benefit from the more intensive thinning prescriptions.

The October discussions built a great deal of trust between previously warring factions. They had indeed found their first concrete evidence of “common ground”. At this time the discussion naturally progressed to “How do we want it done?” and “What are the acceptable prescriptions?” This in turn led to the logical conclusion that “If we were able to give the Forest Service our agreed upon prescriptions, and if they were honored, then there would likely be no appeal of the project”. This was the precursor to what would later become the main theme of the Coalition’s work with the Forest Service on fuels reduction projects. During this same timeframe the National Stewardship Pilot Projects had begun to run their course and reports on successful and unsuccessful collaboration began to be distributed. Many pilot projects had benefited by the “local knowledge” that had gone into the project design phase. The reports also showed that with authentic community involvement, the projects were not opposed or appealed.

Good intentions often lead to good fortune. A problematic Forest Service project in Stevens County known as the Quartzite Project was nearing its decision by the Colville Forest Supervisor. The Coalition convened an emergency meeting with representatives from all sectors who had been participants in the Coalition. The Forest Service presented its several alternatives and open discussion was held for several hours on the details of each alternative. The outcome of the meeting and the follow-up was that an alternative was created and agreed to by all parties at the table. The decision was made and it was not appealed.

A similar “ad hoc collaboration” occurred on what is called the Deadman Project in Ferry County. This was another project, about 3,500 acres, which contained some units that the environmental community could not support. The new and current Forest Supervisor, Rick Brazell, was completely committed to the idea of the “Coalition problem solving approach” to Forest Service projects. A sub-group of the Coalition and the appropriate Forest Service personnel, including Supervisor Brazell, went out on the ground and developed modifications that all parties have agreed to. These two project collaborations have given a sense of stability and ability to our Coalition. These successes have also proven to the Colville National Forest that our support is genuine.

A third project, the Mount Leona salvage sale, was permitted through an expedited NEPA process under the Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) that constricted comment and appeal deadlines. The environmental community objected more to the “process” that was used than to the substance of the work to be done on the ground. A tactical decision was made by the Coalition to not formally engage on the Mt. Leona litigation that ensued. Informal discussions were had with the litigants, but the survival of the working Coalition was deemed more important to future work than becoming engaged in the battle over the new HFI authorities.

The Mount Leona project further underscored the concept that if the Coalition had input into the Forest Service projects at the earliest possible moment in an authentic dialogue, even before project boundaries were drawn, then we could avoid the process issues caused by the HFI. This concept has rendered the HFI and subsequent Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) as non-problematic to the Coalition. Again, if we have authentic dialogue with the Forest Service and a project is designed with our support, then the constricted appeal timeframes and other process issues of those two laws will not have an impact on our functions.

V. Stewardship Authorities & Community Forestry

The Stewardship Pilot Projects resulted in the adoption of Stewardship Authorities in February 2003 that would be in place through 2016. These authorities have been subsequently modifies in legislation and in policy within the Forest Service. These authorities produced several significant changes to the way that the Forest Service could design, contract and implement fuels reduction and forest restoration projects. There are five key parts that have positively affected the Coalition’s work with the Colville National Forest.

1. The Forest Service can utilize what’s been referred to as the “goods for services” provisions of these authorities. This means that the material removed from the project can be sold and the receipts used to pay for the cost of removal of the material and for the other restoration work within the project. In a forest type such as in the Colville National Forest, if projects are designed optimally, there is enough material to pay for the needed work on the ground in most instances, with funds left over.

2. The local National Forest can keep the “retained receipts” above and beyond the on-the-ground costs of the stewardship project. These funds can be utilized for fuels reduction or restoration work on other stewardship projects within the National Forest. This leads to a budget augmentation for the local Forest. However, Congress has not allowed these “retained receipts” to be applied to project planning and NEPA permitting, two major budgetary items for the Forest Service. The 2006 modifications of the stewardship authorities allows the Forest Service to use retained receipts for NEPA work if the work is contracted out and not applied to Forest Service salaries.

3. The Forest Service may now use “designation by description” or “designation by prescription” techniques that allow for more efficient implementation practices. Qualified contractors can assist the Forest Service in the development of “how, what and where” for the project prescriptions and the qualified contractor can do the work in the field to accomplish the “end results” desired and not have to mark trees or supervise the operator as closely as under prior requirements.

4. Stewardship projects are allowed a ten year contract life. This means that if several projects are staggered over several “ten year periods” within an operating area, we will create the twenty-five to thirty-five year supply that satisfies the amortization needs for capital investment. This is the key to the rebuilding of the economic base within the western forested communities.

5. Stewardship authorities, HFI and HFRA authorities, the National Fire Plan and President Bush’s executive order on “cooperative conservation” all require “community collaboration” for the fuels reduction and forest restoration projects. Collaboration is not defined in the statutes. However, with the leading environmental groups, the local industry representatives and community members, educators, local government and citizens at large at the table as the “collaborative group”, we are confident that we have fulfilled and maybe defined what is meant by “collaboration”.

The collaboration requirement within these several federal laws and regulations actually puts the local communities at the helm of their own destinies for the first time in many years; truly a revolutionary idea. The local community has the congressional authority to bring its ideas for projects to the Forest Service, let alone assert its involvement in the design and implementation of projects that originated entirely within the Forest Service. This is a very creative moment in the recent history of public forestlands management. This places the burden upon our Coalition, or any like it, to use the moment to not only restore the health and fire resistance of the managed and neglected forest stands, but to also create a new sustainable model of community economic vitality. This is the “systemic change” that so many of us have been waiting for. There has not been this legal and administrative change in the way that the Forest Service does business for at least thirty-five years. We are hopeful.

VI. Community Wildfire Protection Plans

The Coalition secured a grant from the National Forest Foundation with matching funds from industry, local businesses and environmental organizations to create the Stevens County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The plan covers more than 400,000 acres. One of the tactics behind the CWPP was to do community outreach and education for the fire plans at the same time that the Forest Service was beginning its scoping on the WUI project adjacent to various private properties. This has created a sense within the local community that not only are “they” going to address the fire threats, but the “neighboring” federal public lands will be treated as well. This “package” has also made the National Fire Plan “defensible space” grant applications more fundable. One implementation grant under National Fire Plan has been awarded in the amount of $212,000 and a second application should receive a high rating because of the local CWPPs.

Currently the Coalition has received funding from the National Forest Foundation and is finalizing the Stevens Countywide CWPP. The purposes for the CWPP are, of course, to create a realistic ground level plan for how to prevent wildfire and how local residents can deal with it if it occurs. Another purpose of the CWPPs is to prioritize areas of treatment upon National Forest lands. Once the “community” prioritizes these areas then the urgency for treatment by the Colville National Forest is multiplied. The result is that the Colville National Forest will be required to address these prioritized areas as quickly as possible.

VII. The Memorandum of Understanding

In late January of 2005 a three day facilitated session was held between the Colville National Forest and the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. The intention of the “collaborative workshop” was to clarify what collaboration means in the context of public lands management and to actually create the legal document that articulates the intentions and the process for collaboration between the community group and the Forest Service on specific management projects. This Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Colville National Forest Supervisor, Rick Brazell, and the Coalition’s President, Lloyd McGee, on July 21, 2005.

The facilitated session with the Coalition and the Forest Service was the “breakthrough” moment in the history of this effort. The Forest Supervisor required all of his Officers to attend this session. This was the first time that all of the Colville National Forest staff was clearly and forcefully directed to cooperate with the problem solving efforts of the collaborative process. It was also an opportunity for all of the participants to build trust with one another in the creation of the MOU.

VIII. The Work Plan & Collaboration

Immediately after the “collaboration workshop” the Forest Service and the Coalition, buoyed by the success of the workshop, began to select fuels reduction and forest restoration projects that both organizations would work together on over the next few years. The result of this effort has been the creation of a Work Plan that includes nineteen projects that will be put into the collaborative process over the next five years.

The Coalition has worked through eleven specific projects by providing the Forest Service with project design suggestions prior to formal scoping in the NEPA process. The Coalition has developed a “Level of Support” matrix that is used to determine the Coalition’s formal position on the project. A written letter for projects is provided to the Forest Service with a precise statement of our “level of support”. If there is less than a high level of support the reasons are supplied in order to give the Forest Service an opportunity to address the concerns.

This process of giving input to the Forest Service on projects at their formative stages has been a welcome change to the old method where the Forest Service invested considerable effort and money into a project before communications with the local community. We are formally engaged in a pre-NEPA collaborative process with the National Forest staff regarding the design, the boundaries and the prescriptions for fuels reduction and forest restoration projects.

The results of this collaborative approach to project planning on the Colville National Forest has resulted in the permitting of projects that cover more than 60,000 acres within the Colville National Forest and that represent the potential for over 80 mmbf of material to be removed from the forest in fuels reduction and forest health prescriptions. It does rankle the Coalition membership that some of these successfully permitted projects are not being implemented but are put “on the shelf” for later years.

An additional Coalition thought has been to regularly review the Colville National Forest’s five-year plan that contains up to thirty-nine projects and provide the Forest with a preliminary “level of support” for all of the projects. This may give the Forest Service an early warning on which projects will likely not gain a high level of support from the Coalition. The intention is to save the Forest Service time, money and energy by a focus on the projects with the highest potential for success.

Today the Coalition Board of Directors includes representatives from industry that represent over $500 million worth of capital infrastructure assets in our local communities. Similarly, the Board includes representatives from the environmental organizations that have been involved in public forest management battles for more than twenty years. The Coalition has matured into a considerable community voice.

IX. Current Issues

1. Coalition Funding: A Community Assistance Program grant was received by the Coalition from the National Forest Foundation in 2002. The Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and the initial Board of Directors was formed. An application for non-profit tax-exempt status with the IRS was filed. A strategic decision was made and has been adhered to since the inception of the organization: the Coalition has been a “project based” organization. This means that we are not struggling on a monthly basis to raise enough “overhead funds” to keep our doors open and our organization staffed. Too many organizations have either folded or become overhead funding oriented instead of fulfilling their original purposes. There has been substantial volunteer energy put into the Coalition’s work and there have been considerable contributions from private industry such as Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Columbia Cedar, 49 Degrees North Ski Basin, the conservation community and from the Title II Resource Advisory Council and additional funding from the National Forest Foundation.

Nevertheless, it has become clear that the entire success of the Forest Service pro-active management of public lands depends upon the “community collaboration” process. It is necessary that this collaborative process be funded. An institutionalized funding stream could be created for collaboration from the “retained receipts” that are generated from a “collaborated” stewardship project. Without the collaboration, there will be no projects and no income to the forest service, let alone a restoration of the public forest lands. A modest amount of funding for an organization such as the Northeast Washington Forest Coalition could be used to “match” other funds and persuade community entities to contribute.

2. Stewardship Projects: Stewardship authorities have been modified in early 2006 to allow “retained receipts” to be used for multi-party monitoring and collaboration facilitation incidental costs. These will assist in the funding of the Coalition’s work that has included project monitoring. There have been further changes to these authorities that allow a portion of the “retained receipts” to be used for project NEPA permitting as long as the work is contracted out. This has yet to be developed on the Colville National Forest. Similarly, the ongoing “incidental” costs of community collaboration can be funded from retained receipts, but not in a proportion that can truly be called a vital support for the process.

3. Biomass Utilization: Within the general Colville area there exists multiple facilities that can utilize small woody material for lumber, for paper and for electrical generation. However, the costs of removal and transportation of the very small material and the un-reliability of a steady supply has caused constant problems for these industries. The Coalition is currently attempting to connect the Colville National Forest with the many “Biomass Utilization Programs” that have recently been formulated through agency and congressional initiatives. The idea is to bring funding to the Colville National Forest and to assist existing businesses that utilize the very small woody material and to encourage further entrepreneurial development

A Woody Biomass utilization Grant was applied for and received by Vaagen Bros. Lumber, inc. for the purpose of bringing a horizontal feed grinder into operation on the Colville National Forest. That machine arrived in the summer of 2006 and has had a positive impact upon the way the Colville National Forest designs its fuels reduction, restoration and timber projects. The Forest is designing projects to optimize the amount of material that can be removed and converted into biomass for electrical generation. The full report on this project will be released sometime in 2008.

4. Clarification of Terms: The Coalition is in the process of bringing expertise to bear on the subject of “Roads”, the “WUI”, “Old Growth” and “Restoration and Sustainable Forestry”. Even though the Coalition has been committed to the premise of “not accessing old growth”, the definition of “old growth” has not been clearly articulated. Similarly, the commitment to “not support extensive new road systems” is not sufficiently well defined to answer pointed questions about project roads. Additionally, the Coalition’s commitment to the WUI zone has several times been put aside for larger landscape restoration project collaboration. One of the goals of the MOU was to formalize a set of prescriptions through “before and after” experiences. That has lead the environmental community away from diameter caps and into a scientific analysis of the current condition that requires a certain removal regimen. That responsibility is being fulfilled by work on the ground and through monitoring and photo records.

XI. Conclusion

It all begins when local people fall in love with their place. They then want to see the communities flourish and the landscape protected. From that beginning ethic grows the responsibility to do what is right for the place; the forest in this case. Once these committed people understand the needs of the forest, they are able to work together to accomplish those needs. Removal of the “drop dead” issues facilitates a beginning. In short order a sense of pride in the “group” and in the “process” develops. The members of this Coalition understand that this generation is faced and accepts the responsibility to fix what was broken. It needs to happen sooner or later, so let’s get on with it.

© Jim Doran 2007

Brief Biography of the Author

Jim Doran is currently the principal of Community Forestry Resources, an independent contracting service designed to assist communities in rebuilding their forest and community health. Jim was the Mayor of Twisp from 1996 to 2000. He has also sat on the Board of Directors of many economic development organizations, conservation organizations and maintains a private law practice in Twisp where he has lived since a child. Jim is married to Gretchen and they have raised three children in one of the best small communities in the world: Twisp, Washington.

Jim Doran, J.D., IBDR

Community Forestry Resources

P.O. Box 888

Twisp, WA  98856

(ph) 509-997-2295

(cell) 509-293-1535

(fax) 509-997-2192

jimdoran@mymethow.com

Appendix I

I. Coalition Building

1. What is a Coalition: Made up of well-defined purposeful/intentional persons, organizations, or businesses that each have an interest in the “thing” (issue) on the table.

2. To form a Coalition the issue has to be well defined: For example: a) The forest landscape is in decay from past practices and is at risk of wildfire destruction; b) The supply of material to the local mills and the jobs in the community are at risk because the reduction of the supply of mill-able material; c) The social fabric is nearing breakdown; d)) The Bush administration threatened the conservation community.

3. To form a Coalition there has to be a solution to the issue or “problem” offered to the participants: For example: a) We know how to thin the forest in a way acceptable to all concerned in order to bring it back to health and productivity; b) The technology and manpower is available; c) The “small log” industry can use the material as an economic driver; d) It is the right thing for the woods and for the community.

4. To form a Coalition you must define “how we are going to work together” instead of against each other. a) the parameters of our involvement in the issue; b) The rules of conduct.

5. To form a Coalition with the highest potential for success you must “front load” the group with people who understand the issue, who are respected in their community, and who are known as “problem solvers”.

6. An independent and objective “Convenor” is needed: E.g. Jim Doran was from a different community altogether, but within the same bioregion. a) Someone who can speak in environmental, logger and in economic development terms. b) Requires many hours face to face or on the phone with participants. c) Constantly re-state the issue, the parameters and the rules. d) Don’t overdo meetings. People are busy.

7. An administrative entity is needed that already has the capability to provide grant administration and budgetary documents. A 501 (c)(3) fiscal agent should be preferred.

8. There must be a high level of cohesion within the group before a specific forest restoration project should be put in front of the group. However, that “high level of cohesion” may be accomplished by putting a “real” project on the table, such as our experience with the Quartzite Project. Careful discernment is necessary before launching into a project. Golas and Objectives and a Concept Paper should be in place, at least.

9. Be “project oriented”. a) Specific well defined action; b) Get participants to join in the work; c) Avoid the money trap; d) Accomplish something.

10. Become “visible” slowly. a) Don’t get on a soap box until you have accomplished something like real work, e.g., wood on the landing.

11. Get ahead of policy changes within the Agencies and hold forums to explain the policy changes to the participants in language they can understand. E.g., “stewardship authorities”.

12. Coalition Building must be formalized: a) Form a board of directors, officers and acknowledge the role of “facilitator or coordinator”. (Not “executive director, as that sounds too high minded at the start); b) Find something to “act” on right away. E.g. Quartzite; c) Prepare draft “concept paper” “mission” and “objectives” and circulate it. (Do not have a “wordsmithing session.) d) Prioritize areas of operation. E.g, The wildland urban interface or the Community Wildfire Protection Plans.

13. Coalition Building must be funded: a) Get money from those who have something to lose or gain. b) Start small. Pay the Facilitator/Coordinator but don’t develop overhead.

14. Push the issue. a) Communicate amongst the participants; b) Provide forceful and continuous demand to the “actors” so that the issue (usually a problem) gets their attention. c) Divide and conquer; d) The “common enemy” builds alliances. E.g., the conservation community and the industry versus the US Forest Service.

15. Tell the truth – over and over. For example: a) The woods need attention; b) We agree on forest restoration; c) We don’t agree on old growth and roads; d) The local ecology, economy and community depends upon us figuring this thing out.

16. Demand Agency responsiveness: a) Take it to the wall, if necessary; b) Find allies in the agency. (We, by good fortune, got a new Supervisor who was with us).

17. Reach out to other Coalition organizations when possible. But don’t get distracted from building your own Coalition.

18. Raise funds that go to Coalition members for their work on your projects. For example, pay Coalition members for work on the CWPPs. (Spread the money around).

© Jim Doran September 2007

Jim Doran, J.D., IBDR

Community Forestry Resources

P.O. Box 888

Twisp, WA  98856

(ph) 509-997-2295

(cell) 509-293-1535

(fax) 509-997-2192

jimdoran@mymethow.com

Appendix II

I. Coalition Maintenance

Below is the Mission, Objectives and Guidelines that have worked well for the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. These are offered as an example.

Mission: To demonstrate the full potential of restoration forestry to enhance forest health, public safety and community economic vitality.

Objectives:

· To design and implement forest restoration and fuels reduction projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to forestry.

· To demonstrate how a diverse coalition of stakeholders can work together to successfully promote restoration forestry and community protection from wildfire.

· To use the projects to educate the public about the ecological and socio-economic benefits of restoration forestry and fuels reduction strategies.

· To develop model forest restoration and fuels reduction projects that can be emulated in other regions of the country.

Operating Guidelines:

The First Principal: Our Coalition operates under the principal that if we have the community of loggers, mill owners, environmentalists, business owners, local governments and citizens at large involved early on in the planning process with the Forest Service, and there is an authentic exchange of ideas during the project design phase, then the Forest Service projects are less likely to be appealed, if at all.

The Two Operational Parameters: First, we are not interested in accessing old growth. Our focus is on the hundreds of thousands of acres that have already been logged once or twice, i.e., the “already managed and roaded forest lands”. Second, we do not support extensive new road systems. In fact we support the elimination of some roads.

The Wildland Urban Interface Commitment: The Coalition has made a decision to proceed with WUI fuels reduction projects first. They are less controversial and the need to protect human life and property is a high priority. We will build trust through these WUI fuels reduction projects and then move towards larger restoration projects in the forest landscape.

Commitment to Problem Solving: We will not allow ourselves to devolve back into the conflicts over forest resource management of the past twenty years. We are not here to fight. We will use our best creative thinking to solve the problems that are preventing forest restoration and fuels reduction projects. If you can’t go along with this commitment to problem solving, then you are not welcome at this table. It is also understood that our “collaborative projects” do not prevent any party from taking different or opposing stands on projects that we have not brought within our circle. This is not an “all or nothing” proposition for any interests; it is an attempt to find common ground.

Collaboration is about working together on the real issues that are preventing progress on projects that will mutually benefit the participants and their interests. Collaboration is about building trust and respect for each other.

Rules of Conduct: The Coalition insists that its members adhere to the following rules of conduct when involved in any aspect of Coalition activities or when it might appear that they are involved in Coalition activities.

Ø We will not resort to disrespectful or confrontational dialogue.

Ø We will not use the Coalition as a forum to “soapbox” or “rant” about one’s interests or position on a topic. This is not meant to squelch discussion.

Ø We will respect and comply with the behavior directions given by the facilitator, including removal from the premises if requested.

Ø We will use a good faith effort to resolve differences through a peaceful process.

“The art of compromise has always been our greatest strength”

Marie Brennan 1998

© Jim Doran September 2005

NORTHEAST WASHINGTON

FORESTRY COALITION

www.NEWCommunityForestry.org

Appendix III

Membership Application

Name: ______________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ______________________________________________

Telephone Number: work: ______________ home:___________________

Cell: _____________ Fax: ____________________

Email Address: ______________________ Website: __________________

Date: ______________ _________________________________

Signature

_________________________________

Print Name

Membership means:

Ø Eligible to be elected to Board of Directors and Officers.

Ø Eligible to be appointed to serve on a committee

Ø Will be placed on the email or other communication list.

Ø May have access to meeting agendas and minutes.

Ø Will be expected to attend meetings regularly.

Ø Will abide by the Coalition’s Rules of Conduct and the Mission, Objectives and Operating Guidelines.

Ø Will receive copies of the Coalition’s Bylaws, Mission, Objectives, Operating Guidelines and Rules of Conduct.

My signature above indicates that I agree with the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition Mission, Objectives & Rules of Conduct that are attached hereto. I have read and accept the Bylaws that are also attached hereto.

NORTHEAST WASHINGTON

FORESTRY COALITION

www.NEWCommunityForestry.org

Appendix IV

Board Membership Application

Name: ______________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ______________________________________________

Telephone Number: work: ______________ home:___________________

Cell: _____________ Fax: _____________________

Email Address: ______________________ Website: __________________

Date: ______________ _________________________________

Signature

_________________________________

Print Name

Please provide a brief biography of yourself that will be used for the Board elections and for the Coalition web-page if you are seated upon the Board of Directors. You will be asked to give a very brief statement as to why you wish to serve on the Board and what resources or interests you bring to the Board at the Coalition’s Annual Meeting.

Revised June 16, 2005

Appendix V

Protocol for determining level of NEWFC support for a project

Background/Context: C-9 of NEWFC’s MOU with the Colville National Forest (CNF) states the following:

“Provide the Forest Service with a written statement articulating the level of support the Coalition has for a project prior to signing decision document.”

The objective of the provision of a written statement is prevent later misunderstandings between the CNF and NEWFC regarding actions that may be taken, both publicly and privately in response to the approval or disapproval of a project.

The objective of this draft NEWFC protocol is to foster a clear understanding of the implications of various levels of support NEWFC may ultimately determine for a given project.

What this protocol does NOT attempt to do is address how the coalition will conduct internal processes leading to a final determination regarding support for a project. It is assumed that the NEWFC will make every effort to achieve full consensus, and that a project may be voted on, tabled, and revisited any number of times before the attempt to reach consensus is superceded by a popular vote.

Board Vote	Support Level	Member commitment
Consensus w/o Reservation (All members vote for approval without recorded reservations)	High	No members (or organizations represented by members) will appeal/litigate or support outside challenges. All members will express support for the project* and work to resolve any issues raised later by non-coalition entities if the opportunity arises.
Consensus w/ Reservation (All members vote for approval but some have their reservations recorded in meeting minutes)	Medium	No members (or organizations represented by members) will appeal/litigate or support outside challenges. Members who had reservations recorded may express those reservations* if the opportunity arises; however, all members agree that any statements expressing reservations about the decision will not be directed at the collaborative process itself.
No Consensus, but majority-vote approval (Some members have such strong reservations that they vote against approval; reasons are recorded in minutes)	Low	Members (or organizations represented by members) reserve right to appeal/litigate or support outside challenges. Members who voted against approval reserve the right to express their reasons for voting against approval* and may actively pursue opportunities to do so; however, all members agree that any statements expressing reservations about the decision will not be directed at the collaborative process itself.
Majority vote disapproval	None	Coalition will inform CNF that the coalition does not support the project and recommend the CNF drop the proposal. All members reserve the right to express their reasons for voting recommendation to drop the proposal* and may actively pursue opportunities to do so; however, all members agree that any statements expressing reservations about the decision will not be directed at the collaborative process itself.

* in media or elsewhere

Produce by David Heflick

NORTHEAST WASHINGTON

FORESTRY COALITION

www.NEWCommunityForestry.org

Lloyd McGee - President

Appendix VI

August 20, 2005

Ranger Sherri Schwenke

Three Rivers District, CNF

255 West 11th

Kettle Falls, WA 99141

509-738-7700

Dear Ranger Schwenke,

Greetings. We wish to inform you that the board of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition has determined a consensus without reservation level of support for the Bangs WUI project.

As you know, the NEWFC board has developed a tiered level-of-support protocol based upon the degree of consensus among board regarding approval of a project on which NEWFC has been collaborating with the CNF. Attached is an explanation of the protocol, which describes the various levels of support that may be determined for a project as well as the implications of each level of support.

We wish to emphasize that our level of support for this project is based on review of the project’s current (and presumably final) unit boundaries, prescriptions, and other parameters. If the CNF makes any substantive changes to the proposal, we ask that NEWFC be made aware of the changes. After considering the changes, NEWFC will submit an updated level-of-support document for the project.

We thank you for the spirit of collaboration you have demonstrated throughout the review and development of this project.

Sincerely,

Lloyd McGee – President

NEW Forestry Coalition

Appendix VII.

Process for Projects on Which CNF and NEW Coalition Will Collaborate: From Initiation to Decision

Time -------------------------à -------------------------à -------------------------à -------------------------à -----------------------à-------------------------à -------------------------à-------------------------à

Colville National Forest

Prepare PIL (Project Initiation Letter) for projects do be documented in EA or EIS, or similar letter for CE projects. Send copy of PIL or letter to Coalition

Inventory (evaluate and develop descriptions of existing condition; compare to desired conditions)

Seek early input from NEW; Invite public to be included in collaboration for project

Provide collaborators with draft unit-specific treatments and other info included in Dave’s unit-description table

List on SOPA; begin scoping; request comments on proposed action (tribes, agencies, public).

Responsible Official determines “scope” of the environmental analysis. (Determines key issues and level of analysis needed for informed decision)

Develop alternatives (if needed); Analyze effects, which may include focused field inventory (sensitive plants, heritage, soils, etc.)

Prepare and sign decision document.

NEW Coalition

Become familiar with project area and units.

Provide early input

Provide input following field trip

Provide CNF with NEWFC’s tentative level of support for proposed project

Provide CNF with written statement indicating the level of support NEWFC has for the proposed action

Collaborative Activity

Field trip

In a timely fashion following field trip (through exchange of notes, phone conversation, etc.) parties jointly identify/clarify both resolved and unresolved issues.

Develop and finalize proposed action based upon data/input from collaborative efforts and field trips; identify and propose mitigation for adverse impacts

Appendix VIII.

Herron Fuels Reduction Project

Proposed Action Unit Treatment Descriptions

Unit No.	Current Conditions	Current Problem	Proposed Treatment and Rationale	Desired Conditions after Treatment	Comments / Caveats
1 (whipfall, underburn)	· Natural, open, grassy meadow with widely-spaced ponderosa pine(PP). · Dry site. Thin soil. Will never make a good tree-growing area. · Southerly exposure. · Lack of disturbance has allowed Douglas-Fir(DF) seedlings and saplings to encroach into the north and east edges of the meadow. · Timber litter and brush accumulating under trees.	· Brush and tree litter is accumulating under some trees, potentially increasing ladder fuels and flame lengths during fire. · Fir regeneration reduces chance of pine regeneration. Pine is more suited for dry sites than fir, and is more fire resistant.	· Whipfall trees <6” encroaching into north and east sides of meadow to reduce ladder fuels under leave trees and reduce meadow encroachment. · Rake needle litter 30" away from leave trees >10 “ DBH to reduce chance of root damage and cat-facing. · Underburn to remove surface fuels, kill brush, and heat-prune lowest limbs.	· Ponderosa pine grassland free of fir seedlings and saplings. Some Ponderosa seedlings occur to replace dying overstory. · Reduced surface fuels around leave trees. · Open, park-like stand structure. · Resultant stands will be resistant to wildfire. Wildfire will stay on the ground and have little effect on tree crowns.
2, 4, 7 (harvest, underburn)	· Stand is predominated by older overstory pine. · Fir regeneration is filling in stand. · Timber litter and brush accumulating under trees. · Past overstory removal in unit 2,4. none in 7. · Lots of mistletoe in unit 7.	· Ingrowth of young Fir seedlings and saplings is hampering regeneration of pine. Stand is slowly converting to a less fire-resilient stand that is not sustainable. Is susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks as well as high mortality from wildfire. · Abundance of ladder fuels (brush, saplings) causing threat of torching and crown fire. High potential of stand-replacing fire. · Lots of mistletoe in unit 7.	· Use conventional, ground-based harvesting to thin stand, leaving the largest and best trees with average spacing 20'-26', favoring fire-resistant pine and larch. · Whipfall fir <6” to reduce ladder fuels and future overstocking. · Rake needle litter 30" away from leave trees within 200' of roads and forest boundary to reduce chance of large trees burning and falling onto roads or across fences. · Pullback slash 6' from around leave trees to reduce chance of excess heat and scorch height around leave trees. · Underburn to remove surface fuels, kill brush, and heat-prune lowest limbs.	· Development of receptive seed bed for better pine regeneration. · Reduced surface fuels around leave trees for less chance of intense wildfire with long flame lengths. · Few ladder fuels under or around leave trees to lessen chance of torching or crown fire. · Open, park-like stand structure with clear spacing between crowns that will resist fire mortality and crown fire.	· Treatment of unit 7 will depend upon successful negotiation of access through old logging road on adjacent private property.
5 (harvest, grapple pile)	· Stand is predominated by larger fir and larch. Thick. · Has a few large pine on south aspects. · Lots of mistletoe and bug-killed fir and larch. · Fir regeneration is filling in stand. · Very thick ninebark · Never been logged.	· Ingrowth of young Fir seedlings and saplings is hampering regeneration of pine. Stand is slowly converting to a less fire-resilient stand that is not sustainable. Is susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks as well as high mortality from wildfire. · Abundance of ladder fuels (brush, saplings) causing threat of torching and crown fire. High potential of stand-replacing fire.	· Use conventional, ground-based harvesting to thin stand, leaving the largest and best trees with average spacing 20'-26', favoring fire-resistant pine and larch. · Whipfall fir <6” to insure ladder fuels will be reduced, and to reduce future overstocking. · Pile slash as it is created with machine "grapple" methods. This will allow disposal in confined area between riparian and forest boundary. · Burn piles in fall when danger of wildfire is minimal.	· Development of receptive seed bed for better pine and larch regeneration. · Reduced surface fuels around leave trees for less chance of intense wildfire with long flamelengths. · Few ladder fuels under or around leave trees to lessen chance of torching or crown fire. ·	· Treatment will depend upon successful negotiation of access through old logging road on adjacent private property.
9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 32 (harvest, grapple pile)	· These stands were heavily logged in the early 1960s. · Stands were planted and thinned, mainly with fir. Even though trees were thinned 10-20 years ago, additional seedlings and saplings are filling in the stand. · Predominant species is fir with a little larch.	· Young fir seedling and sapling regeneration is coming in thick, providing ladder fuels and dense future canopy. Abundance of ladder fuels (brush, saplings) causing threat of torching and crown fire. High potential of stand-replacing fire.	· Use ground-based harvesting equipment to thin trees, seedling and larger, leaving the largest and best trees >7" dbh with average spacing 18' - 24'. · As harvester proceeds, accumulate limbs and tops into small piles suitable for jackpot burning. · Burn slash piles either by pile burning or jackpot burning.	· Stand of reproduction will be thinned to a spacing adequate for growth without dense intermingling of canopy. · Natural reproduction will be removed to lessen ladder fuels and crowding. · Surface fuels created by the thinning will be eliminated.	· The small amount of commercial wood may not offset the costs of thinning and piling.
10, 11, 23, 31, 37 (precommecial thin, handpile)	· This unit as been previously treated in a seedtree harvest followed by a PCT. Overstory PP and DF are in good condition. · Understory has grown in densely with a clumpy distribution averaging 350 tpa (this is too dense for a dry DF site). · Stands were planted and thinned. Additional seedlings and saplings are filling in the stand. · Predominant species is fir with a little larch.	· Young fir seedling and sapling regeneration is coming in thick, providing ladder fuels and dense future canopy. · Abundance of ladder fuels (brush, saplings) causing threat of torching and crown fire. High potential of stand-replacing fire. · Stands occur adjacent to private lands or on slopes that are too steep for machinery.	· Precommercial thin with manual labor with chainsaws. Reduce understory stocking to approximately 170 tpa, leaving PP when possible (approx. 16 foot spacing of US). Distribution will remain somewhat clumpy. · Hand pile activity slash. Burn handpiles. Prune boles to 6 feet.	· Stand will be thinned to a spacing adequate for growth without dense intermingling of canopy. · Natural regeneration will be removed to lessen ladder fuels and crowding. · Surface fuels created by the thinning will be eliminated.	Noncommercial, no probable salvage rights.
18, 30 (harvest, grapple pile)	· Unit 18 and 30 are located in a large stand that was logged down to commercial size (9”), then the US was precommercially thinned to 10x10. · Stand is composed of DF with some WL, PP in OS, mainly DF in US · Distribution is extremely clumpy. · Dry grassland/pp site	· Past harvest favored removal of fire tolerant WL and PP. · Understory is composed mainly of fire intolerant DF with some PP, WL.. · A greater componant of WL and PP would make the stand more survivable after wildfire.	· Use ground-based harvesting equipment to thin trees, seedling and larger, leaving the largest and best trees with average spacing 18' - 24'. · As harvester proceeds, accumulate limbs and tops into small piles suitable for jackpot burning. · Burn slash piles either by pile burning or jackpot burning.	· Stand of reproduction will be thinned to a spacing adequate for growth without dense intermingling of canopy. · Interstitial reproduction will be removed to lessen ladder fuels and crowding. · Surface fuels created by the thinning will be eliminated. · Improve species mix to a higher proportion of fire tolerant WL and PP.	Most of area is noncommercial may be salvage right opp.
3, 6, 19, 20, 33, 36 (whipfall, underburn)	· These stands have widely spaced, fire resistance overstory trees that are being filled in with excessive fir understory trees and brush. · Large overstory leave trees have good fire resistance. · Most of these stands are on steep ground or rocky areas making for poor accessibility.	· Brush and tree litter is accumulating, increasing ladder fuels and flamelengths during fire. · Fir regeneration reduces chance of pine regeneration. Pine is more suited for dry sites than fir, and is more fire resistant. · Ingrowth of young Fir seedlings and saplings is hampering regeneration of pine. Stands are slowly converting to less fire-resilient stands that are not sustainable. Is susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks as well as high mortality from wildfire. · Abundance of ladder fuels (brush, saplings) causing threat of torching and crown fire. Increasing potential of stand-replacing fire. ·	· Whipfall fir <6” to insure ladder fuels will be reduced, and to reduce future overstocking. · Underburn to remove surface fuels, kill brush and unwanted seedlings, and heat-prune lowest limbs.	· Development of receptive seed bed for better pine regeneration. · Reduced surface fuels around leave trees for less chance of intense wildfire with long flamelengths. · Few ladder fuels under or around leave trees to lessen chance of torching or crown fire. · Open, park-like stand structure with clear spacing between crowns that will resist fire mortality and crown fire.
38 (harvest, underburn)	· This stand was heavily logged in the early 1960s. · Stands were planted and thinned, mainly with fir. Even though trees were thinned 10-20 years ago, additional seedlings and saplings are filling in the stand. · Predominant species is fir with a little larch.	· Young fir seedling and sapling regeneration is coming in thick, providing ladder fuels and dense future canopy. Abundance of ladder fuels (brush, saplings) causing threat of torching and crown fire. High potential of stand-replacing fire.	· Use conventional, ground-based harvesting to thin stand, leaving the largest and best trees with average spacing 20'-26', favoring fire-resistant pine and larch. · Whipfall fir <6” to insure ladder fuels will be reduced, and to reduce future overstocking. · Underburn to remove surface fuels, kill brush and unwanted seedlings, and heat-prune lowest limbs.	· Development of receptive seed bed for better pine regeneration. · Reduced surface fuels around leave trees for less chance of intense wildfire with long flamelengths. · Few ladder fuels under or around leave trees to lessen chance of torching or crown fire. · Open, park-like stand structure with clear spacing between crowns that will resist fire mortality and crown fire.
21, 22, 34 (harvest, underburn)	· These stands were heavily logged in the early 1960s. · Stands were planted and thinned, mainly with fir. Even though trees were thinned 10-20 years ago, additional seedlings and saplings are filling in the stand. · Predominant species is fir with a little larch.	· Young fir seedling and sapling regeneration is coming in thick, providing ladder fuels and dense future canopy. Abundance of ladder fuels (brush, saplings) causing threat of torching and crown fire. High potential of stand-replacing fire.	· Use ground-based harvesting equipment to thin trees, seedling and larger, leaving the largest and best trees >7" dbh with average spacing 18' - 24'. · As harvester proceeds, accumulate limbs and tops into small piles suitable for jackpot burning. · Burn slash piles either by pile burning or jackpot burning.	· Stand of reproduction will be thinned to a spacing adequate for growth without dense intermingling of canopy. · Interstitial reproduction will be removed to lessen ladder fuels and crowding. · Surface fuels created by the thinning will be eliminated.