The Forest Health Collaborative uses consensus to help accelerate the pace of forest restoration in an era of climate change and increased wildfire risk.
Hailed for diversity, and criticized for exclusivity
Two dozen members of the North Central Washington Forest Health Collaborative celebrated the group’s 10th anniversary in May, hailing its effectiveness in accelerating forest-restoration projects through consensus-driven work by its diverse member organizations — from the U.S. Forest Service to environmentalists to loggers.
U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore came from Washington, D.C., to attend the celebration, and praised the group for its diversity, Trout Unlimited Washington State Director Crystal Elliot said.
The collaborative has been lauded for expediting forest restoration by funding studies and educating the public about forest conditions. Yet, despite its diverse membership, the collaborative has also been criticized for giving certain entities a privileged seat at the table, which some say gives them input during the key planning phase of Forest Service projects that affect hundreds of thousands of acres.
These restoration projects typically include thinning, prescribed fire and habitat restoration. But details about what type and size of trees to remove and whether to include commercial logging — and how to define a healthy forest in the first place — are crucial elements of any proposal.
The collaborative was launched 10 years ago, facilitated by the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB), which brought together groups that have traditionally had conflicting — or at least different — interests regarding national forests.
Initial invitations went out to local governments and tribes; groups that support the environment, rivers and fish; and the timber industry. The hope was that, by working together in a consensus-based forum, the collaborative could increase the pace and scale of forest restoration in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in Okanogan and Chelan counties, said Mike Anderson, senior policy analyst for the Washington office of the Wilderness Society. Anderson currently co-chairs the collaborative along with Okanogan County Commissioner Chris Branch.
The UCSRB reached out to about 70 entities with broad interests and ultimately invited about 20 to join, Anderson said.
The collaborative brings together diverse perspectives to help find common ground on complex issues, Methow Valley District Ranger Chris Furr said.
Progress cited
A decade later, members say their efforts are bearing fruit. The collaborative’s first project was the Upper Wenatchee Pilot Project.
Work on the Mission Restoration Project in the Buttermilk and Libby creek watersheds started last year. It was developed with assistance from the collaborative, which hired a consultant to assist with project development. It’s the first project in the Okanogan-Wenatchee to use a landscape-based restoration strategy. The strategy is important because it looks at fire risk across the entire landscape, instead of focusing on land ownership or management, Branch said.
Congress established the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program in 2009 to encourage ecological sustainability and reduce wildfire-management costs. The program is also intended to encourage utilization of restoration by-products to offset treatment costs and benefit rural economies.
There was a great need for active restoration because of major wildfires and the connection to climate change and forest-health issues — “it cried out for collective action,” Anderson said. Moreover, there was a concern that the Forest Service was spending so much money fighting wildfires that they couldn’t do any fire-prevention work, he said.
Before the formation of the collaborative, there was more conflict, but now, people look for shared objectives, such as forest health, less wildfire, and cleaner water, Branch said.
Trout Unlimited has been involved with the collaborative since the beginning. “It’s rare to have such diverse groups working together,” Elliot said.
Trout Unlimited has worked with the Forest Service on many projects, but there were always many hoops to jump through, Elliot said. She was confident that bringing together partners to find shared solutions would make the process more efficient.
This restoration work is vital to make sure these irreplaceable forests are resilient to insects and disease, said Hampton Lumber Collaborative Forestry Manager Anjolene Ngari, who works with forest health collaboratives across the state.
The collaborative’s project workgroup reviews Forest Service proposals to provide comments. Members look for consensus, but they also flag concerns and comment on specifics when they are not in agreement, Ngari said.
The Forest Service takes the lead on setting priorities, but partners work together on shared goals, rather than trying to steer the agency in their direction, Elliot said.
Consultants and groups like the collaborative can pitch projects to the Forest Service. The agency decides whether to pursue them, Ngari said.
Ranger district stretched thin
After two massive fires in the Methow Valley in 2021 — the Cedar Creek and Cub Creek 2 fires — the ranger district had to prioritize post-fire recovery, Furr said.
Because the Cedar Creek Fire had affected a large area within the proposed Twisp Restoration Project (TRP), the district reduced the TRP footprint by 69%. But the district didn’t have the capacity to evaluate the impact of the fire.
The fact that the collaborative could bring in an outside consultant to evaluate those areas “absolutely helped increase the pace on the Midnight Project and got it started faster,” Furr said. The Midnight Project covers the 53,000 acres that were eliminated from the original TRP.
The district had already done a landscape analysis, and the consultant helped determine if those treatments were still needed and if additional treatments would be necessary, Furr said. By subsidizing work the Forest Service would otherwise have to fund internally, collaborative partners create the opportunity for the agency to accomplish more, he said.
The Wilderness Society funded the evaluation by consultant Resilient Forestry, which has worked on the Twisp River watershed for years. The evaluation brought together information the Forest Service can use to develop the proposal, Anderson said. The consultant has worked closely with the ranger district on other projects in the past, including the update of the Okanogan-Wenatchee’s Restoration Strategy, Furr said.
While there’s a lot that an outside group can’t do for the Forest Service, it can help with early analysis in the planning process, Anderson said. “We don’t pretend to step in the shoes of the Forest Service. We’re just providing support and assistance,” he said.
Evaluations by consultants are just one part of what informs a proposed action, Furr said. Ranger district staff look at this information for compliance with relevant laws and policies and do their own fieldwork, Furr said.
The Forest Service hires consultants where possible to expand capacity, but the contracting procedure can be time-consuming, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Public Affairs Officer Victoria Wilkins said. The Central Washington Initiative (a 10-year federal strategy to address forest health and wildfire risk) has provided considerable funding to the Okanogan-Wenatchee, which the forest may be able to put toward consultants, she said.
The collaborative helps not only with evaluation and planning, but also with on-the-ground work. Last year, Trout Unlimited and other collaborative partners replaced culverts with aquatic-friendly passage. That enabled the ranger district to focus on other aquatic-habitat needs, Furr said.
The collaborative has played an important role in convening a broader community conversation by organizing field trips and educational public forums, Methow Valley Citizens Council (MVCC) Executive Director Jasmine Minbashian said. Although that doesn’t mean everyone agrees, it deepens the discourse and helps everyone make better decisions, she said.
MVCC joined the collaborative five years ago. Membership made sense because of the community’s interest in forest health and the history of wildfire in the Methow, Minbashian said.
The collaborative brings together an incredible amount of expertise from people who see these issues from different perspectives, Minbashian said. The most successful conversations among collaborative members have been in the field, where they build relationships and a better understanding of forest conditions, she said.
Questions and criticisms
Despite praise for the collaborative’s ability to bring together groups with different perspectives to improve the actual work on the ground, commercial logging in the first phase of the Mission Project came in for considerable condemnation. Monitoring of the work by MVCC Forest Field Specialist Sam Israel found that the loggers had left fewer trees per acre than outlined in the Forest Service prescription.
The logging was done using a process called designation by prescription, which allows loggers to choose which trees to cut based on a detailed description, instead of having Forest Service staff mark every tree. Israel evaluated five units last fall. In every unit, the number of trees left standing was considerably below the minimum prescription, he said in his monitoring report.
The ranger district used a different monitoring methodology, following a landscape-level approach. Their sampling methods looked at overall implementation, rather than a single point of reference, Furr said.
After concerns were raised about the Mission Project, the collaborative reviewed the situation, which became a learning opportunity that will help with project design so these problems don’t recur, Minbashian said.
It boils down to trust, Minbashian said. One way to incorporate these lessons would be to create demonstration units so that loggers and the public can see what it will look like after work is done, she said.
Exclusive access?
Some individuals and groups contend that, despite the collaborative’s diversity, its members have been granted exclusive access and the ability to influence Forest Service projects, particularly because they’re involved in discussions on planning and evaluation from the beginning.
Ric Bailey, a board member of the North Cascades Conservation Council (NCCC), has been attending the quarterly collaborative meetings remotely for the past three years. While he’s been able to listen, there is usually no opportunity for input or public comment, he said. In recent years, all discussions about timber sales have been conducted in parts of the meeting that are closed to nonmembers, Bailey said.
Bailey, a former logger and a longtime wilderness activist, said he supports the principle of collaboration. But NCCC contends that including only certain groups early in the process violates the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires the Forest Service to solicit input from all interested parties.
Although the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a formal public review of any Forest Service proposal, Bailey contends that the public is commenting on an action that was developed privately by the collaborative. He maintains that there’s almost no chance of making significant changes once the proposal reaches the NEPA process.
The advisory act ensures that citizen involvement in federal decisions is equitable and that no one individual or group has undue influence, according to a Forest Service summary of the act. But there are strict requirements about when FACA applies — a federal agency must establish, utilize or control the advisory group. Under the law, ‘utilize’ has an unusual meaning — an agency “utilizes” a group only when it exercises actual management or control over the group’s operations, according to the summary.
“The collaborative adds to the level of engagement in the planning process. It does not reduce opportunities for engagement by the public,” Furr said. Collaborative meetings aren’t Forest Service meetings — the agency is just one of the participants, he said.
Moreover, the collaborative isn’t set up to seek public comment — it’s a forum for sharing information, Okanogan-Wenatchee Public Information Officer Wilkins said.
Minbashian said she hasn’t seen any preferential treatment in the process, noting that the Forest Service isn’t required to follow suggestions from the collaborative. The Forest Service doesn’t simply rubber-stamp these proposals, Hampton’s Ngari said.
In December, NCCC filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service over the Twisp Restoration Project, alleging that the agency failed to give the public adequate opportunity to comment on the project. The lawsuit also contends that the Forest Service didn’t consider multiple alternatives, as required.
That adversarial stance may have contributed to NCCC’s exclusion from the collaborative. The collaborative has to be able to conduct business without disruption, and members need to be committed to talking through issues and achieving consensus, Anderson said.
Still, Minbashian acknowledged criticism by those who feel left out of the process. It’s a sign that the collaborative needs to find a way to improve dialog, and underscores the need for more public outreach so the Forest Service can hear many different perspectives, she said.
The collaborative isn’t a closed group, and there’s the opportunity for new members. The Methow-based biochar initiative C6 Forest to Farm recently joined the group, Anderson said.
From planning to implementation
Ten years in, it’s too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the collaborative’s work, but this is an exciting time, with the opportunity to observe the transition from planning to implementation, Ngari said.
Some collaborative members are disappointed that they haven’t seen more work on the ground, but they are optimistic about expanding capacity in coming years, Anderson said. Particularly now that the Forest Service has more resources, the collaborative can increase its involvement with planning and monitoring. “We want to be along for the ride,” he said.
“Collaboration is difficult, but it’s worth it,” Furr said. “These are complex issues. We can have divergent views on any subject, but partners put in work to find a middle ground and a workable solution.”
“To reach consensus, it takes a while — it takes patience,” Branch said. “This is a vital landscape, but there’s more heat coming, and lots of uncertainty. We’re doing our best to say ahead of fires and climate change.”
Collaborative finances
Facilitation and operation of the collaborative are currently funded by the Washington Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Building Forest Partnerships grant program, which provided a two-year $50,000 grant, said collaborative co-chair Mike Anderson, the senior policy analyst for the Washington office of the Wilderness Society.
In the past, the collaborative has received financial backing for facilitation and coordination from the Community Foundation of North Central Washington. The group also received $65,000 in grants from DNR.
In 2022, the North Central Washington collaborative was awarded $1.4 million through the federal Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, with the potential for up to $30 million over 10 years, according to the U.S. Forest Service.
The North Central Washington collaborative has been particularly successful in hiring specialists. Over the past decade, the collaborative has gotten millions of dollars in grants and other funding to support capacity, such as for survey work and road engineers, and to provide data to the Forest Service, Hampton Lumber Collaborative Forestry Manager Anjolene Ngari said. Without this support, some projects might not have gone forward, because the Forest Service has limited funding, she said.
Many collaborative members independently fund a wide range of restoration projects, public outreach, and scientific studies that support the collaborative’s overall goals. These member activities add up to millions of dollars, although the collaborative doesn’t track everyone’s activities and budgets, Anderson said.
Collaborative members
• American Forest Resource Council
• Boise Cascade
• C6 Forest to Farm
• Cascade Fisheries
• Cascadia Conservation District
• Chelan County
• Chelan-Douglas Land Trust
• Chumstick Wildfire Stewardship Coalition
• Conservation Northwest
• Hampton Lumber
• Lake Wenatchee Fire Adapted Communities
• Methow Valley Citizens Council
• Okanogan Conservation District
• Okanogan County
• The Nature Conservancy
• The Wilderness Society
• Trout Unlimited
• U.S. Forest Service – Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (ex officio participant)
• Vaagen Brothers Lumber
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Washington Department of Natural Resources
• Washington Prescribed Fire Council
• Yakama Nation
