Have you stopped to think about the landscape of the Forest Industry as it relates to the Forest Service? Very few people realize the reality is that much of the industry has written off timber from public lands. For many of these companies, it seems to be counterproductive for our public timberlands to become a significant supply again. Why is that and what is the New Reality of the US Forest Industry?
Over the last 20 years, we have heard of many attempts to create legislation that will improve the management of our National Forests and public lands. There was the Healthy Forest Restoration Act under the Bush administration. It says a lot of good things, but it still fails to address the scale of the problem. There have been other attempts at legislation, but none have made it to law. In my opinion, the reason for this is simple. The language has failed to capture the essence of what the public wants. It either goes too far, and few Democrats support it, or doesn’t go far enough and loses momentum. Continue reading “Westerman Bill”
A to Z Hearing Video
Since publishing the A to Z blog post, readers have been asking how the court appearance actually went. Many of you may know how to find these videos, but in case you didn’t here it is. This is the 34-minute video of the appeal hearing. It was quite interesting to be there in person.
What is the A to Z project? This is a US Forest Service project that is very unique. It’s located on the Colville National Forest in Northeast Washington State.
What makes A to Z Unique?
This project is a forest restoration project that is approximately 54,000 acres of forest land in NE Washington. Most projects on federal land are sold after the Forest Service has conducted the necessary environmental analysis as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This process can take many years to complete for a variety of reasons. In this case the Forest Service sold the project prior to completing the NEPA process. Hence the name, A to Z. Continue reading “A to Z”
Some of the most impressive places on our public lands are the vast and wild backcountry. These snow-capped peaks, high mountain lakes, and untamed landscapes are special to most Americans. Some of these areas deserve the protection of legislated wilderness or national monuments, while others should merely be recognized and managed for their wild characteristics.
Regardless of the type, we should use collaboration to identify these areas that haven’t already been designated. You may wonder why we are going from Active Management in a previous blog post, directly to Backcountry. During collaborative work within the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition we have found that by focusing efforts on the two bookends, the middle section (Conservation Management) shows itself. Continue reading “The Backcountry”
What does active management mean for National Forests? When people hear this or read this for the very first time, there are many different thoughts. For those that are in the Forest Industry, it sounds like a good plan that we should have been following for some time. For those who care mainly about recreation, it can create concerns about how the landscape might change and affect areas they hold dear. Anyone who’s primary concern is for the environment might fear that active management might mean developing or damaging some of the last great places on public lands.
All are valid thoughts and concerns. Experience gained from the Continue reading “Active Management”
I have been meaning to use more video to tell our story. Here’s my first shot at doing that. This is the active management portion of the Era of Megafires presentation that Paul Hessburg with the Pacific Northwest Research Station put together with North40 Productions, both from Wenatchee, Washington. Vaagen Bros contributed much of the raw video.
I was interviewed along with Mike Petersen, Executive Director of The Lands Council. As you will see in the video, Mike and his organization were not supporters of active management during the time known as the “Timber Wars”. However, due to consistent collaboration with other community members in Northeast Washington, there is a new way of managing the Colville National Forest. Mike and I believe that we are getting closer to fixing many of the problems of the past to create a new future for our forests and rural communities that depend on them.
The word “collaboration” is used a great deal these days. If you find yourself in the world of forest management or the US Forest Service, it’s everywhere. So what does it mean how does it work?
The Oxford Dictionary says that collaboration is the action of working with someone to produce or create something. It also says that collaboration can mean traitorous cooperation with an enemy, but for our purposes we’re attempting to operate under the first definition. Simply put, community members, organizations, and other interested parties come together to discuss what is taking place within the forest, specifically the local National Forest. Once a collaborative group is formed, the basic foundation of meetings revolves around land management decisions, which often pertain to local Forest Service lands. This is a good way to coordinate comments from a large segment of the interested and informed public.
So why is collaboration so important? It’s important because the Forest Service needs a way to effectively and systematically communicate with the public and relevant organizations. In the past, the Forest Service would ask the public to comment on a proposed action they wanted to perform. When feedback was collected, conflicting opinions from various groups resulted in ambiguity on what the Forest Service should do. Ultimately, the Forest Service team was tasked with interpreting mixed feedback and making adjustments to proposed projects. In many cases, adjustments were not satisfactory to the groups and individuals commenting on proposals. Unfortunately, this resulted in objections to projects, and in some cases, lawsuits were filed against the Forest Service in attempt to bring projects to a halt. This process was unproductive and frustrating. With collaboration, groups and people from the public with conflicting views are able to meet prior to commenting on Forest Service proposals. This is where they can discuss and settle on what actions they would like to see performed. This allows progress and appeases all parties involved.
In 2003, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act formally paved the way for the use of collaboration. Some groups were already formed, but most groups were still in their infancies. It may have been most important to gain the support of the Forest Service. As a federal organization that had been highly scrutinized, their level of trust with the forest industry, the environmental groups, and every group in between was at an all-time low. These groups needed legitimacy and the Forest Service needed direction. Collaboration became the light at the end of a long tunnel.
Collaboration is a long-term commitment that requires trust, dedication and an understanding that there are no quick fixes. After all, these are forests and they require generational thinking and planning. The first step in collaboration is forming the collaborative group, or coalition. Usually in a given National Forest there exists a core group that already works on forest issues. In the case of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition, the founding group members were Duane Vaagen, second generation owner and president of Vaagen Brothers Lumber and Tim Coleman, founding member and Executive Director of the Kettle Range Conservation Group. The two individuals were on opposing ends of the Timber Wards in the 80’s and 90’s, but chose to convene to determine if there was a willingness to communicate. In 2002 they formed what has become the strong coalition that exists today. Fast forward to 2016 and this group, which has a functioning board and the support of many local businesses, community leaders and elected officials, has successfully collaborated on nearly 40 projects on the Colville National Forest. This coalition is not alone, and there are groups with similar stories and varying levels of success throughout the inter-mountain west.
These groups meet, develop trusting relationships, and establish ground rules and guidelines in order to help the Forest Service identify and manage landscapes. There are still naysayers. Some even believe that collaboration only means traitorous cooperation with an enemy, but the groups still move forward. These groups and their members are hopeful that collaboration starts to work as a funnel for comments and concerns for the collective interest of the forest. Resolving issues ahead of time and working with the Forest Service professionals helps ensure projects have a high degree of success. Each successful project leads to better outcomes and a smoother decision-making process. History will decide whether collaboration is a great success or not, but after having been involved with Forest Service collaboration for 14 years it is my opinion that we’re on the verge of making lasting changes that future generations will be proud of and grateful for.