Jim Doran - Executive Director

Policy Issues Re: Community Forestry

October 10, 2005

1. The Danger of Retained Receipts: We should not try to altogether change the restriction against using retained receipts for NEPA and planning because of the “financial black hole” that the NEPA and planning experience has been. There are also many forests that do not have the same amount of usable material that we have on the Colville and such a use of retained receipts would actually hurt these communities, especially if “retained receipts” becomes the alternative to budgeted financing for Forest Service management. In other words, Congress will slash the Forest Service budget and tell the local Forests to fund their projects from retained receipts. This will cause intense pressure to “high grade” the forest to make up the budget loss.

A control on this could be that using retained receipts for NEPA/planning can only be done where the proposed projects will be done through Stewardship authorities and the collaborative process, that there be a limitation of 20% of retained funds used for NEPA/planning and that there be performance standards set. Another consideration to use the Colville National Forest as a pilot with special authorization to show how retained receipts and NEPA/planning can be merged.

2. Priority Funding Where Capacity Exists: A priority for funding for NEPA and planning should be given to those National Forests that have put together an authentic collaborative organization that can work with the Forest Service on the design and implementation of fuels reduction and forest restoration projects. A further priority should be given to projects within communities that have the capital assets to utilize the material removed and to perform the restoration work. Performance requirements for projects done in the collaborative process could be placed upon the local Forest in relation to the funding that they receive for NEPA and planning.

3. Legacy Funding for Forest Management: “Maintenance Trust” should be established that will collect funds and invest them for the long-term maintenance of our National Forests. Something like this was done in the coal fields of Appalachia. We know that the managed forests will need to be thinned at intervals extending more than thirty years into the future. Let’s invest now for what we know will be needed in the future. Many details have to be worked out, but this kind of an approach will prevent the same scenario from happening again on public forests.

4. Funding for Collaboration: A federal commitment to “collaboration funding” needs to be made. Three laws, the Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI), the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and the stewardship authorities all require community collaboration, yet they do not provide any funding for the same. (Un-funded mandate, again.) Collaboration could be funded from retained receipts in forests where there will be retained receipts. I met several people in the Rural Voices association who have interesting ideas on how else could collaboration might be funded.

5. Biomass Utilization Programs: The Colville National Forest has a tremendous need for fuels reduction which equates to the removal of biomass. The local industry has an ability to utilize the small logs and the traditionally “waste material” for wood products, electricity and ancillary uses, such as newsprint, hog fuel, etc. There are several federal biomass utilization programs and pilots being formulated and funded at this time. The Colville National Forest presents an opportunity that needs to be exploited. This boils down to obtaining planning and NEPA funds for the Colville National Forest so that a “pilot biomass project” can proceed to demonstrate biomass/fuels reduction projects. Energy bill subsidies need to be explored, as well.

6. Large Scale Stewardship Projects: The Colville National Forest could plan and permit a large scale stewardship project through the collaborative process if there were an appropriation of the funding needed for planning/NEPA. An example would be 75,000 acres that could be broken down into three pieces with NEPA done on 25,000 acres to begin with and then in two years the NEPA for the second 25,000 acres would be done. Similar for the third piece. The Coalition had discussed organizing this appropriation effort this winter for the 2006 federal budget cycle.

7. Wilderness Acquisition: The conservation Community is interested in the designation of Wilderness for certain already roadless areas within Northeastern Washington. This concept will be part of the NEW Forestry Coalition’s “Colville National Forest Plan” discussions. The very basic idea is to agree upon restoration, management and wilderness blocks within the Colville National Forest. There are many details that would need to be figures out to bring the level of trust to an alliance for all three of these sectors.

8. Stewardship Contracting- Lessons Learned:

A) Small scale stewardship projects have a lot of work and less fiber to be removed. This is a disincentive for mills and operators. From the industry perspective stewardship projects need More (?) volume.

B) A weight scale process would simplify accountability and allow for the use of designation by prescription/description. The truck slips and tonnage provides verifiable accounting of material removed. This will also allow for contract modification if necessary, with known variable; i.e., how much has already been removed. Designation by description will lead to much better projects on the ground.

C) The criteria for past performance, ability to perform, local labor, etc. are good methods to award a contract. The local Collaborative group has the ability to suggest additional criteria. One criteria that the Coalition has considered is a recognition for any contractor who has participated and supported the collaboration process.

D) There needs to be institutionalized funding for collaboration, not just for multi-party project monitoring. If the organization is to play its role, it needs to be funded.

E) Oral bidding would help with the “timber” component of the stewardship project. The “service” portion of the contract bid could be sealed.

F) Sale Administrators should be part of the specific project collaboration process so that they know the background of the project.

G) The politics of stewardship contracts presents a danger. If too many “timber sales” are converted to stewardship projects, the local Forest budget could get drastically cut. (See, number 1 above).

Jim Doran – October 12, 2005