Wilderness Study Areas

Home , Gallatin National Forest, Helena National Forest, Kootenai National Forest, Lolo National Forest

12/23/2019 Environmental Quality Council Joe Kolman

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS:

EFFORTS OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

OVERVIEW

Senate Joint Resolution No. 30 requests the EQC learn about different stakeholder working groups related to wilderness study areas. The resolution also notes that “Montanans have a long history of working together to find common ground on contentious issues related to natural resource management and planning.”

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Documents from different sources provide some background on collaborative efforts of stakeholder groups to address concerns related to National Forest lands in Montana, which includes certain wilderness study areas managed by the Forest Service. “MONTANANS HAVE A The Montana Forest LONG HISTORY OF WORKING Collaboration Network TOGETHER TO FIND is an “an independent organization of COMMON GROUND ON volunteers providing CONTENTIOUS ISSUES information and RELATED TO NATURAL services to individuals RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and groups across the state of Montana that AND PLANNING.” –SJR30 support the management and protection of natural resources. The mission of the organization is to assist collaboration in forest and grassland restoration, conservation, and resource utilization for the benefit of all.”

Sponsors include the Montana Wood Products Association, federal land management agencies, the Wilderness Society, the Society of American Foresters, and the Wilderness Association, among others. The 2019 Annual Report includes an overview of stakeholder efforts.

12/23/2019 Wilderness Study Areas: Efforts of Stakeholder Groups Environmental Quality Council Joe Kolman

The Wilderness Society provided two related documents. The group compiled a summary of current collaboration efforts in the state (which are explained more in depth in the Collaboration Network report). The other document, Collaboration at a Crossroads, includes case studies of collaboration in the state.

PANELISTS

EQC staff consulted with Julia Altemus of the Montana Wood Products Association, Noah Marion of the Montana Wilderness Association, and others regarding panelists for the January EQC meeting. They suggested the following panelists who agreed to address the Council and answer questions. All are involved with at least one of the stakeholder collaboration efforts identified in the background documents.

Name Affiliation Background Brian Kahn Artemis Common Ground Facilitator/attorney Tony Colter Sun Mountain Lumber Logging industry Barb Cestero The Wilderness Society Conservationist Russ Ehnes Independent Motorized recreation activist Ben Horan MTB Missoula Mountain bike activist Cl0099 9357JKXB.docx

Collaboration at a Crossroads

Th e future of community-based collaboration around National Forest System Lands in Montana December 2014 Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary...... 2-3

II. Introduction to the Collaboration at a Crossroads Report...... 4-5

III. Map: Community-Based Collaboratives on National Forest System Lands in Montana...... 6-7 . IV. Case Study of Collaboration in Montana: Blackfoot Challenge...... 8-9

V. Featured Montana Collaboratives

Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition...... 10-11 Th ree Rivers Challenge...... 12-13 Whitefi sh Range Partnership...... 14-15 Lolo Restoration Committ ee...... 16-17 Southwestern Crown Collaborative...... 18-19 Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project...... 20-21 Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front...... 22-23 Lincoln Restoration Committ ee...... 24-25 Montana Forest Restoration Committ ee...... 26-27 Elkhorn Restoration Committ ee...... 28-29 Bitt erroot Restoration Committ ee...... 30-31 Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group...... 32-33 Gravelly Landscape Collaborative...... 34-35 Gallatin Community Collaborative...... 36-37

VI. Conclusion...... 38

Front cover photo credits (top left to bott om right): Courtesy of the Montana Forest Restoration Committ ee, Photo by U.S. Forest Service, Photo by starrett artists.com, Photo by starrett artists.com

Julia Elkin, MS Candidate at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, compiled and designed this report on behalf of The Wilderness Society.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 1 Executive Summary For more than a decade, Montanans from all walks of life have come together to successfully tackle natural resource issues, strengthening communities and economies along the way. But today, this legacy is threatened without support from Congress, the Forest Service, and local citizens. This report tells the stories of 15 collaborative groups working together to improve national forest management for the beneﬁ t of all, and describes the critical support needed for continued success as natural resource management issues intensify.

Montana’s forest landscapes face increasing pressure from severe wildfi res, climate change, shifting economies, weed infestations, and expanding recreational use. Citizen leaders across the state—ranchers, loggers, land managers, local business leaders, conservationists, equestrians, hunters, anglers, and motorized and non-motorized recreationists—are fi nding common ground and collaboratively developing place-based solutions that tackle diffi cult natural resource management issues such as forestry, public lands grazing, recreation use, land protection and water resource management.

Collaboration is an important tool that can help achieve shared resource management and conservation goals on the ground. It fosters relationships, identiﬁ es common ground and when coupled with adequate funding, resources and support, may deliver more achievements on the ground than we are currently getting.

Despite Montanans’ signiﬁ cant investment of time and energy getting past ideological positions and developing pragmatic solutions, many of these efforts have struggled to secure congressional support and strong, timely and consistent action by the Forest Service. All too often, Congress and the Forest Service are unable or unwilling to fully implement collaborative initiatives from lack of resources or a lack of consistent leadership.

Without on-the-ground results, the collaborative energy that has preserved Montanans’ special places and way of life might dissipate. Montana needs leadership at all levels to ensure the success of the locally-grown collaborative efforts.

Montana’s political leadership can:

• Support legislation in Congress that advances collaborative efforts. Congress needs to recognize the importance of collaboratively-developed solutions and ensure that these efforts receive top priority in legislation while creating new incentives for collaborative work.

• Increase the proportion of Forest Service funding that is dedicated to implementing collaboratively- developed solutions and prioritize these efforts for implementation. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program has delivered huge beneﬁ ts to Montana through the Southwestern Crown Collaborative. Increased funding would enable other Montana collaborative efforts to ﬂ ourish as well.

• Improve compliance requirements for collaboratively-developed projects. Some collaboratively-developed projects are not implemented because of the time and money it takes to analyze them. Improving the analysis process could help ensure that collaborative projects are implemented in a timely manner. Photo by Anne Dahl, Swan Ecosystem Center

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 2 The Forest Service can:

• Increase partnerships with, and embrace the implementation of, collaborative efforts. Broadly supported solutions can help the agency move past gridlock and implement projects on-theground.

• Increase the amount of funding for implementing local solutions and prioritize these efforts.

• Provide additional resources to collaborative groups to help them fulﬁ ll their mission. Local groups need a stable stream of funding to increase capacity, expand partnerships, conduct research, and build trust before tangible outcomes can happen.

Citizens can:

• Support local collaborative forest management efforts on the ground.

• Advocate that our elected ofﬁ cials support collaboratively-developed proposals and encourage our congressional delegation to recognize the importance of collaboratively-developed solutions and ensure that these efforts receive top priority in legislation.

Collaboration ensures local voices are heard, improves processes with the Forest Service and Congress to get projects approved and moving more quickly, and leads to solutions that are supported by local citizens and best serve the unique needs of their landscapes. These projects strengthen communities, expand forest restoration, increase recreation access, and get Montanans back to work. These collaborative efforts serve as a model for other parts of the country and other public lands resource planning issues, and preserve both iconic places and Montanans’ legacy of working together for the future.

Photo by starrettartists.com

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 3 Introduction Collaboration: What’s in it for Montana? “When you’ve seen one collaborative, you’ve seen … one collaborative.” —Dan Clark, MSU Local Government Center Collaboration has become a buzzword in natural resource management across the country, but ask 30 Montanans how they defi ne collaboration and you’ll receive 30 different answers. Collaboration is an adaptive, interest-based problem solving approach rather than a one-size-fi ts-all prescribed method. So while there is no single defi nition of collaboration, several key elements emerge in successful collaborative efforts:

• Collaboration brings diverse stakeholders together to address a shared problem • Collaboration builds relationships and trust between individuals and groups • Collaboration strives for mutually agreeable solutions that serve all stakeholders’ interests

This third point is key. Successful collaborative efforts result in each stakeholder being satisﬁ ed that they are no worse off—and usually much better off— than they would be under the status quo. This does not mean that everyone engaged in a collaborative effort gets everything they want—most stakeholders rarely do; that is not the goal of collaboration. Rather, stakeholders get enough of what they want to make collaboration worthwhile, as doing nothing usually results in a status quo that does not meet anyone’s needs. Collaboration requires developing deep respect and understanding of others’ values and needs in the landscape; participants actively support every other participant in getting what they need.

Common goals of collaboration include developing understanding and mutual respect of all parties’ interests, creating the opportunity to identify areas of agreement, and implementing widely supported, durable solutions to shared problems. In short, collaboration means people working with people to solve problems.

Increasing adoption of the collaborative model for problem solving reﬂ ects a shift in the tone of natural resource conversations over the past several decades, as interest groups move beyond their entrenched positions to recognize the possible gains from cooperative engagement with other interests. While still recognizing differences, the collaborative conversation focuses largely on common ground.

Collaboration at a Crossroads

Photos (from left to right) by David Madison, Gloria Flora, Jared White Collaboration in Montana Montana has a long history of citizens successfully collaborating on natural resource issues, and many Montanans seek to expand that legacy and promote the adoption of collaborative solutions as natural resource management issues become ever more pressing.

As Montana’s forest landscapes face frequent high-severity wildﬁ res, climate change, shifting economies, and increasing pressure for development and expanded recreational use, stakeholders from all walks of life desire to protect the resiliency of these iconic landscapes and the communities that they sustain. Detailed discussions of local landscapes are allowing citizens to move beyond old antagonisms, recognize areas of agreement, and strive for the mutual gains that better provide for their communities’ futures.

Collaboration is a tool to guide these discussions of Montana’s future, an opportunity to consider the needs and interests of the timber sector, conservationists, motorized and non-motorized recreationists, hunters, anglers, local business leaders, land managers, and others looking forward at what kinds of landscapes and communities they hope to sustain and promote. It is a tool for building true made-in-Montana solutions—solutions that are supported by citizens and best serve the unique needs of their landscapes. Collaboration at a Crossroads | 4 As local stakeholders continue adopting a collaborative approach, it is important to consider the impact and experiences of existing collaborative efforts. More than 40 collaborative groups currently operate in Montana, building dialogue and cooperative action between state and federal land managers, ecologists, industrial interests, conservationists, and others. This report provides a snapshot of current community-based collaboration occurring in Montana, focusing speciﬁ cally on citizen-led collaborative efforts that address the management of National Forest lands.

The 15 collaborative efforts featured in this report are all community-based approaches to improving national forest management for the benefi t of all interested parties. These efforts all include diverse memberships refl ecting the full spectrum of interests, from ranchers, loggers, fi re managers, and county commissioners to conservationists, equestrians, ecologists, snowmobilers, wilderness advocates, and sportsmen.

The following snapshots of the histories, goals, successes, and challenges of these efforts provide a sense of the potential impacts, obstacles and needs facing collaboration around national forest management in Montana. The successes highlight on-the-ground results and the challenges shine light on the limitations of collaboration and needed support. Each snapshot concludes with Next Steps and Assistance Needed, road signs on the future of these groups and the support necessary to promote collaborative, mutually agreeable outcomes.

Photo by Steven Gnam Photography

With thanks to the stakeholder Wayne Hedman, Ravalli County RAC Stacy Bragg, Backcountry Horsemen, ORV interviewees whose ﬁ rsthand accounts Kirk Thompson, citizen-at-large Barb Cestero, Greater Yellowstone Coalition of these collaborative groups made this Al Christopherson, citizen-at-large Bruce Farling, Montana Trout Unlimited report possible: Dennis Milburn, citizen-at-large Mark Petroni, sportsman Michael Jamison, National Parks Tony Colter. Sun Mountain Lumber Gordy Sanders, Pyramid Mountain Lumber Conservation Association Gabe Furshong, Montana Wilderness Dale Harris, Great Burn Study Group Noah Bodman, Flathead Fat Tires Assoc. Gary Burnett, Blackfoot Challenge Marnie Criley, Watershed Consulting, LLC Robyn King, Yaak Valley Forest Council Bill Cyr, Montana DNRC Paul McKenzie, FH Stoltze Land and Jerry Wandler. Troy Snowmobile Club Jake Kreilick, WildWest Institute Lumber Joe Perry, farmer Matt Arno, Blackfoot Challenge Ed Levert, Lincoln County Fire Safe Council Gene Sentz. Friends of the Rocky Mtn Front Chris Bryant, The Nature Conservancy Joe Josephson, Greater Yellowstone Roger Marshall, Swan Ecosystem Center Chelsea McIver, citizen-at-large Coalition Bill Cunningham, licensed outﬁ tter Adam Rissien, Wildlands CPR Steve Caldwell, citizen-at-large

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 5 2 3 4

7 6 5 9 1

10 11

13 14 15 -

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 6 Community-Based Collaboratives on National Forest System Lands in Montana

National Forest System Lands managed by U.S. Forest Service

Community-based collaborative

**size of star does not reﬂ ect geographic scale of engagement

1. Blackfoot Challenge 2. Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition 3. Three Rivers Challenge 4. Whiteﬁ sh Range Partnership 5. Lolo Restoration Committee 6. Southwestern Crown Collaborative 7. Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project 8. Coalition to Protect Rocky Mountain Front 9. Lincoln Restoration Committee 10. Montana Forest Restoration Committee 11. Elkhorn Restoration Committee Noah Bodman 12. Bitterroot Restoration Committee Board Member, Flathead Fat Tires 13. Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group Whiteﬁ sh, MT 14. Gravelly Landscape Collaborative 15. Gallatin Community Collaborative

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 7 Blackfoot Challenge | Helena National Forest, Lolo National Forest

History Photo by Rick Graetz The Blackfoot Challenge, a nationally recognized model protection of the rural way of life, and considered how to of natural resource collaboration, evolved from decades make the existing network of public-private partnerships of relationship building between private landowners responsive to that and public land managers in the Blackfoot Valley. In the concern. 1970s, these groups began working together on river access issues, recognizing the need to move beyond Thus it was that the old confl icts and cooperatively fi nd mutually benefi cial Blackfoot Challenge solutions. Through such efforts, an informal Zone of officially formed as a Agreement gradually emerged, identifying where private nonprofit organization land owners and public agencies were in agreement in 1993 in order to and could work together toward shared natural resource amplify existing efforts in innovative land management protection objectives. and public-private conservation partnerships. In 1994 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Cooperative While these efforts improved some conditions in the Agreement with the Blackfoot Challenge, and in 2001 Blackfoot Valley, in 1992 American Rivers listed the affirmed a Partnership Agreement with Montana Blackfoot River as one of the country’s 10 most Department of Environmental Quality. endangered rivers. This proved a catalyzing moment as the local community began voicing concerns and ideas Goals during a series of town hall meetings. The landowners The Blackfoot Challenge coordinates efforts to and public agencies long collaborating around the conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural Blackfoot River listened to the local input, heard the way of life in the Blackfoot Watershed for present and themes of concern around resource conservation and future generations.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 8 Successes Next Steps 2013 marked 20 years of successful cooperative The Blackfoot Challenge continues to develop partnership partnership efforts under the Blackfoot Challenge. In that opportunities for conservation of natural resources and time, the group has grown to include the participation the rural way of life in the Blackfoot Watershed. With of private landowners, federal agency personnel, state the formation of an Economics Workgroup in 2013, land managers, local government ofﬁ cials, and corporate the Blackfoot Challenge seeks to address the ever- landowners. increasing need to develop sustainable, diverse economic opportunities that both sustain the region’s natural In 2013 alone, the Blackfoot Challenge accomplished: resources and deliver income to provide for the region’s • over 15,000 acres of noxious weed treatment future. • 400 acres of forest fuels treatment • 2,100 hours of livestock monitoring Economic questions also carry over to considering the • 18 livestock fencing systems installed future of water quality and quantity in Montana, an • 1,200 acres placed under irrigation scheduling issue state agencies and the Blackfoot Challenge are • 32 million gallons of water conserved through increasingly exploring. cooperative Blackfoot drought response • Best Management Practices implemented on over 70 miles of roads “How does conservation deliver economics? That’s • 3,230 individuals reached through education what we’re really asking now, what’s the economics of and outreach efforts and events conservation. It’s about developing a stewardship economy. Long term, the only way you’re going to Challenges have good strong economics is stewarding those The Blackfoot Challenge remains a viable collaborative natural resources in a sustainable way that sustains the entity by maintaining neutrality on divisive issues, but resource and delivers income.” remaining neutral can prove difﬁ cult and at times frustrate —Gary Burnett outside parties as values across the community may lead Executive Director, Blackfoot Challenge to estrangement over heated topics.

While the Blackfoot Challenge is outcome-oriented, it Assistance Needed requires a strong and often lengthy process to gather The Blackfoot Challenge seeks to build relationships with partners, approach issues inclusively, and build trust. economic partners to help guide exploration of both how These necessary components of strong collaboration to shore up and increase net returns of existing local require ongoing funding which can be difﬁ cult to sustain economics as well as how to bring in new business as well as buy-in from parties who may not recognize the development that serves the community and the value of so much process up front until they are closer to landscape. Building those relationships requires an seeing the outcomes delivered. increase in organizational capacity.

Executive Board Members: Directors: Staff: Jim Stone, Rolling Stone Ranch Brent Anderson, Conifer Logging Gary Burnett, Executive Director Denny Iverson, Iverson Ranch Patrick Bannister, Potomac Landowner Matt Arno, Forester David Mannix, Mannix Brothers Ranch Patti Bartlett, Seeley Lake Elementary Traci Bignell, Finance and Grants Chris Bryant, The Nature Conservancy Molly Brown, Range Rider Board Partners: Andy Erickson, E Bar L Guest Ranch Deb Dillree, Ofﬁ ce Administrator Tim Love, U.S. Forest Service Racene Friede, Ovando Landowner Eric Graham, Range Rider Randy Gazda, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service George Hirschenberger, Retired Bureau of Karen Laitala, Weeds Craig Engelhard, Natural Resources Land Management Jennifer Schoonen, Water Steward Conservation Service Todd Johnson, Pyramid Mountain Lumber Sara Schmidt, Outreach and Education Joe Ashor, Bureau of Land Management Tony Liane, Montana Department of Natural Brad Weltzien, Land Steward Amber Kamps, U.S. Forest Service Resources and Conservation Seth Wilson, Wildlife Randy Arnold, Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks Jeff McNally, Ovando Landowner Joel Nelson, Plum Creek Timber Company Harry Poett, Ovando Landowner

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 9 Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition | Kootenai National Forest

Photo by Kootenai National Forest History Goals This collaborative began out of the efforts of Paul Since 2006, the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition’s Rumelhart, a local citizen and employee of the Kootenai goal has evolved from a focus on fuel-reduction in the River Development Council, who saw potential in wildland-urban collaboration and contacted the Kootenai National interface to include Forest Supervisor to assess whether such an approach collaboration on could work on the Kootenai National Forest. An initial restoration, timber, meeting in February 2006, organized by Mr. Rumelhart wilderness, and brought diverse groups and individuals together to economic and ecosystem discuss fi nding a process for fuel reduction projects in sustainability on and the Kootenai National Forest. Close to 40 individuals around the Kootenai from diverse interests attended that fi rst meeting: fi re National Forest. specialists, mill owners, environmental groups, loggers, small business owners, elected offi cials, educators, economic development directors, natural resource Successes Thus far, the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition has specialists, and local citizens. successfully completed two consensus-based fuels By April 2006, 57 members had signed up and agreed reduction projects with the Forest Service. These to organize the effort as a non-profi t organization projects promoted community wildfi re protection and focused on fi nding common ground and building trust incorporated wildlife corridors on a total of 1,866 acres among user groups in order to accomplish fuel reduction while producing 14.5 million board feet of timber. projects on the Kootenai National Forest. The Kootenai Eight of the 15 projects for which the collaborative Forest Stakeholders Coalition maintains an executive has supported development have been completed, board, general board, and subcommittees. Four regional producing 28.7 million board feet of timber. Six of those working groups on the Eureka Fortine, Cabinet, Three eight projects were fuel reduction project timber sales. Rivers, and Libby Districts support forest management An additional 14.6 million board feet are anticipated to projects at the district level. come from sales not yet fi nished.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 10 Challenges Next Steps The strength of collaboration with the Forest Service in Over the past several years, the Coalition has been each of the four districts of the Kootenai National Forest developing silvicultural guidelines for a Common Ground has varied with changes in agency personnel. This has document that will identify existing areas of agreement made it challenging to develop a shared understanding among Coalition members. The eventual publication of and process within the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders such a Common Ground document, which will include Coalition for how to collaborate with the Forest Service silvicultural, wilderness, and recreation guidelines, is on restoration projects. intended to create more efﬁ cient communication between the Coalition and the Forest Service during Varied engagement by agency personnel and project development. leadership priorities along with the slow pace of project implementation have contributed to collaboration The Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition remains fatigue among some of the Coalition’s volunteer involved with multiple Forest Service projects. It has stakeholders. Without consistency or guidance on how given full support to the Forest Service for an upcoming to collaboratively engage with the Forest Service, it has project that will improve big game habitat, restore been difﬁ cult for the collaborative to utilize their energy grizzly bear forage, and increase huckleberry crop by effectively or have assurance their invested efforts will mechanically treating 1,035 acres, producing 9 million lead to results. board feet of lumber.

“You’ve got to get the biggest critic and biggest Assistance Needed supporter on the same team. You can’t get The Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition would beneﬁ t any support from either side if you have a from clearer Forest Service guidance on the role homogenous group collaborating; other groups collaboration can play in the Forest Service’s processes. will not support an effort if they think their That guidance for supporting collaboration could concerns are not being addressed…you’ve got come from top management down to the rest of the to have a lot of patience and the right cast organization. of characters, people that are going to carry forth support to the rest of the environmental The Coalition also seeks policy direction to decision community and timber industry (the two makers that it’s OK to work with collaborative groups extremes that we’ve had). I’m trying to see this and capture their concerns in alternatives. There is a desire for policy to assist in maintaining the integrity collaboration take place and I’m trying to keep of collaborative recommendations through the Forest both those interests involved.” Service’s processes. - Ed Levert Lincoln County Fire Planner

Members: Individuals participating in the Cabinet Resources Group State Senator Chas Vincent Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition Troy Snowmobile Club County Foresters cover a wide array of interests and formal Idaho Forest Group Montana Department of Natural Resources organizations: Stoltze Lumber Troy School District County Commissioners Kootenai River Development Council Yaak Valley Forest Council Montana Wilderness Association Vaagen Brothers Mill Eureka Rural Development Partnership Friends of Scotchman Peak The Lands Council

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 11 Th ree Rivers Challenge | Kootenai National Forest

Photo courtesy of Yaak Valley Forest Council History Goals In 2005, as forest planning began on the Kootenai The Three Rivers Challenge identifi ed areas of agreement National Forest, the Forest Service sought input from among stakeholders in hopes of moving the Forest diverse public stakeholders. As motorized, non- Service and local community toward active forest motorized, and wilderness groups identified their management, securing interests, the Yaak Valley Forest Council (a non-profit motorized and non- community organization based in Troy, Montana since motorized recreation 1997) saw an opportunity to focus such efforts into a opportunities, and more structured collaborative conversation. The council acquiring federal land worked with all parties to capture management ideas, protections on the boundaries, and visions for the future of the Kootenai Three Rivers District of the Kootenai National National Forest’s Three Rivers District on a shared Forest. map. This collaborative effort became the Three Rivers Challenge. Successes The Three Rivers Challenge produced a land Ultimately, the forest planning process was stymied management proposal for the Three Rivers District of by grizzly bear concerns, leaving the 1987 Forest the Kootenai National Forest that included specifi c Plan in place on the Kootenai National Forest. But recommendations on wilderness conservation, special the local stakeholders’ ability to build agreement on management areas for motorized and non-motorized management of the landscape marked a considerable recreation, and increased timber harvest. success. The Three Rivers Challenge ultimately agreed upon areas to prioritize for timber harvest, wilderness, The collaborative seeks Congressional support for key and snowmobile use. elements of their proposal as one of three collaboratively developed community proposals comprising the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, fi rst introduced into Congress by Senator Tester in July 2009.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 12 On the Three Rivers District, the Forest Jobs and Challenges Recreation Act would: The legislation that would implement the Three Rivers • Follow U.S. Forest Service plan for where Challenge vision has stalled in Congress, leaving many timber harvest can occur. collaborative members frustrated that their vision remains • Mandate agency harvest an average of at unrealized. least 3,000 acres per year as part of a series of broader restoration projects of at least Further, translating a collaborative agreement to 30,000 acres. legislation, that changes as it moves through Congress, • Create the Three Rivers Special can lead to concerns among some collaborative members Management Area, which encompasses that the original vision of the collaborative is not fully separate motorized and non-motorized being implemented. areas. • Direct the Forest Service to conduct a study of potential ATV routes and implement agreed upon routes. Next Steps and Assistance Needed • Designate 29,500 acres wilderness at While the Three Rivers Challenge has not formally Roderick Mountain dissolved, the group no longer holds regular meetings. Much of the collaborative energy and relationship “We know what ﬁ ghting gets us. Lincoln building that underpinned the Three Rivers Challenge has County no longer has any mills and we have no gone into the development of the successful Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition. protected wilderness in the Yaak. Fighting all these years hasn’t realized any of our values; The majority of Three Rivers Challenge members it has not given us any certainties. So let’s try continue to stand behind the Forest Jobs and Recreation the opposite of that and see what that does Act, whose passage and implementation is needed to for us. We are committed because we want to see their collaboratively developed local vision for land help our community rise up.” management realized. —Robyn King Yaak Valley Forest Council

Supporters: This list includes the names Brady Selle,Troy School District Robyn King, RAC member of those individuals who signed on to the Jerry Wandler, Troy Snowmobile Club Yaak Valley Forest Council original proposal for the Three Rivers District Donna O’Neill, Libby Snowcats Bill Martin, RAC member included in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Joel Candler, Libby Ridgeriders Cabinet Resources Group Act: Tim Linehan, RAC member, Linehan Rick Bass, Yaak Valley Forest Council Outﬁ tting Company Tim Baker, Montana Wilderness Assoc. Doug Chapel, Chapel Cedar Works Don Clark, President, Libby Rod Bruce Farling, Montana Trout Unlimited Tom Horelick, Logger and Gun Club Paul Shively, Sierra Club Wayne Hirst, RAC member, Ben Long, Backcountry Hunters and Montana Chapter stewardship contractor Anglers, Montana Chapter Jerry Nichols, Sierra Club Kurt Rayson, Troy Logger Steve Garrett, RAC member and Montana Chapter Loren Rose, Pyramid Lumber Troy businessman Tom France, National Wildlife Foundation Gordy Sanders, Pyramid Lumber Ralph Stever, Troy Fine Arts Dale Harris, Great Burn Study Group Jeremy O’Day, Yaak small mill owner Lee Disney, RAC member Marnie Criley, Restore Montana Steve Straley, Troy Fire Department HooDoo Pellets Katie Duel, Yellowstone to Yukon John Konzen, Healthy Communities Gary Huntsberger, RAC member Cabinet Yaak Coalition Initiative, Commissioner Sandy Matheny, Healthy Communities Eric Love, Trust for Public Land Governor Brian Schweitzer Initiative, county facilitator Doug Ferrell, Friends of Scotchman’s Peak Paul Rummelhart, Kootenai River Jim Siefert, Troy businessman Scott Daily, Southern Purcell Restoration Development Vince Godby, Shelter Designs Pat Pezzelle, Flathead Community Amy Chadwick, Watershed Restoration College Consultants Eileen Carney, RAC member, Education

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 13 Whitefi sh Range Partnership | Flathead National Forest

Photo by Steven Gnam Photography History Formation of the Whitefi sh Range Partnership (WRP) in 13-month period, with September 2012 was catalyzed by several individuals recommendations with longtime ties to the region. They recognized an to the Forest Service opportunity to positively impact the ecological and strategically timed to economic future of their region through a pending forest coincide with the start plan revision process on the Flathead National Forest. of the Flathead National These individuals approached the U.S. Forest Service, Forest’s forest plan and after receiving a welcome from the agency, they revision process. engaged a wider group of regional stakeholders about developing a shared community vision of the landscape’s The diverse group defi ned a broad and inclusive set of future. goals for their consensus-based effort, grounded in U.S. Forest Service forest planning categories. Working by Twenty nine local individuals from across the land-use consensus on these goals meant each member of the spectrum—including motorized and non-motorized partnership would support: recreation, hunting and angling, outfi tting, conservation, • Providing for multiple-use values including logging, business, landowners, and sportsmen—agreed motorized and non-motorized recreation, to come to the table, and under the neutral facilitation of sustainable forestry, wild land restoration, former Montana Secretary of State Bob Brown, the hunting, fi shing, and backcountry solitude Whitefi sh Range Partnership offi cially began. • Promoting clean water, connected wildlife habitat, and robust fi sheries Goals • Delineating areas for wilderness designations The partnership’s chief goal was to discuss and reach • Ensuring the economic vitality of local agreement on national forest land use issues over a communities

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 14 Successes Over a 13-month process, the WRP achieved 100 percent appropriate federal channels: wilderness designations consensus on more than a dozen recommendations, and Wild & Scenic River recommendations must be presented to the Flathead National Forest supervisor in approved by Congress, and specifi c land-use and their fi nal Whitefi sh Range Partnership Agreement. These travel plan recommendations must be approved and included, but were not limited to: increasing suitable implemented by the Forest Service. timber base by 52 percent, recommending 85,000 acres for federal land protections, accommodating new mountain bike trails, expanding potential snowmobile Next Steps and Assistance Needed The recent formation of a Whitefi sh Face Working opportunities, proposing a wildland-urban interface buffer Group (under the auspices of the partnership) allows for wildfi re management, and framing recommendations stakeholders to move forward with the relationship- around administrative withdrawal (subject to valid existing building and planning aspects of the Whitefi sh Range rights) of mineral leasing and geothermal leasing on Partnership, ensuring follow-through on recommended, federal lands in the Whitefi sh Range. on-the-ground, project-level work of seasonal recreation access, mountain bike trail construction, wildland-urban Challenges interface fi re management, water supply protection, and Over the course of the collaboration, participants’ other issues. The Forest Service continues to support this different knowledge bases on national forest planning independent work through a grant providing matching presented an obstacle, creating the need for education funds. on the scope of public input to the forest planning process. Constituencies new to collaboration had to “In terms of successes I guess I’d say it’s too early learn how collaboration works, and lacked resources and to judge; there is a success in that we had a con- knowledge available to those interest groups with more sensus and put together the agreement but the collaboration experience. Whitefi sh Range Partnership is not a full success until the Forest Service adopts what we recom- While the WRP combines land management mended and implements the vision we had. It’s recommendations (such as wilderness areas) and project- level recommendations (such as sites for new mountain success in the short term but I would judge the biking trails), the Forest Service reviews these two levels success of the group in the long term in the effect separately, creating a potential disconnect from the it ultimately has.” collaborative’s consensus-based recommendations. This - Noah Bodman poses a challenge to those interests most affected by Flathead Fat Tires project-level implementation. In recent months, the However, the careful balance of local management and partnership has reconvened to make NEPA-level project wilderness recommendations in the WRP’s Agreement recommendations that are consistent with its established means this collaborative community vision can only planning recommendations, thus bridging the two levels be fully realized through efforts by both Montana’s of input and extending the lifespan of the partnership. Congressional delegation (to secure the recommended land designations) and by the Forest Service (to Ultimately, the greatest challenge the WRP’s planning incorporate the collaborative’s recommendations in their recommendations face is in achieving adoption by forest plan.)

Members: Leonard Gray, Confederated Salish & Paul McKenzie, Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. Bob Brown, Chairman Kootenai Tribes Cecily McNeil, North Fork Compact Rick Anderson, Motorized Recreation Greg Gunderson, Forestoration, Inc. Chester Powell, Winter Sports, Inc. Francis Auld, Confederated Salish & John Frederick, North Fork Debo Powers, North Fork Landowners Kootenai Tribes Preservation Assoc. Assoc. Noah Bodman, Flathead Fat Tires Dave Hadden, Headwaters Montana Amy Robinson, Montana Wilderness Assoc. Chas Cartwright, citizen John Hanson, Montana Logging Greg Schatz, Backcountry Horsemen Allen Chrisman North Fork Compact Association Roger Sherman, The Sustainability Fund Flannery Coates, Owner, Polebridge Annemarie Herrod, North Fork Landowner Larry Timchak, Flathead Trout Unlimited Mercantile Robert Holman, Flathead Snowmobile Steve Thompson, WhitePish Legacy Partners Cris Coughlin, MT Raft & Glacier Assoc.Michael Jamison, National Parks Frank Vitale, Back Country Hunters and Wilderness Guides Conservation Association Anglers Bill Dakin, Columbia Falls Realtor Sarah Lundstrum, National Parks Bill Walker, North Fork Preservation Assoc. Tom Edwards, North Fork Compact Conservation Association Larry Wilson, North Fork Landowner

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 15 Lolo Restoration Committ ee | Lolo National Forest

Phoro by starrettartists.com

History The Montana Forest Restoration Committee originally Lolo Restoration Committee, though other districts have aimed to create forest-level committees on every yet to explicitly address the Principles. national forest in Montana that would develop and guide restoration work based on the committee’s Restoration Some committee members actively reach out to Principles.The Lolo National Forest was selected as one individuals and groups who choose not to participate in of the fi rst areas for implementation due to the extensive collaboration, eliciting additional voices’, comments, and restoration opportunities and strong relationships concerns in a constructive manner. between the committee, local stakeholders, and Lolo National Forest staff. Members of the Lolo Restoration Committee, through fi eld work with local high school students, were Members of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee instrumental in testing reached out to key stakeholders from around the region the recently developed to build a diverse workgroup who shared a desire to Rapid Forest Assessment, improve forest conditions through collaboration. By a fi eld monitoring October 2007, this workgroup had offi cially formed as the protocol created by non- Lolo Restoration Committee. Forest Service ecologists engaged on two different Collaborative Forest Goals Landscape Restoration Program projects. The Lolo Restoration Committee’s goal is to implement the Montana Forest Restoration Committee’s Restoration While the Lolo Restoration Committee has developed Principles in the Lolo National Forest. over a half- dozen consensus-based restoration projects for the Lolo National Forest, only two have been seen Successes through to contract since 2007: South Fork Fish Creek Many members of the Lolo Restoration Committee Project, a 675-acre fuels reduction and forest restoration consider the relationships built through this effort as project, and Auggie Creek, a 965-acre fuels reduction the main success. The Restoration Principles have been project. By the time the Forest Service opened the included by the Seeley Ranger District in project scoping Auggie Creek project to contract, it had become a notices, providing common ground for comments by the traditional timber sale rather than a restoration project.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 16 On the South Fork Fish Creek project, the Lolo from initial design to post-implementation monitoring, Restoration Committee’s close involvement in monitoring it is rare that an agency staff member is in the position contract implementation led the committee to object to do the same, and that lack of continuity compounds to treatments occurring on a unit within the project. the diffi culty of collaboration. In the 4-5 years it can take Subsequent meetings with the Lolo National Forest to complete a project, line offi cers and the NEPA team and Forest Supervisor on that issue led the committee may work closely with the collaborative early on, but the to develop an implementation monitoring checklist completed NEPA document then moves to other agency staff, for use on future projects. The committee learned leadership changes, and existing understanding between the the importance of tracking which of their project collaborative and agency is lost and must be rebuilt. recommendations were included in the project Decision Notice and if the agency addressed the key NEPA issues Next Steps through the mitigation measures found in the contract. The Lolo Restoration Committee remains dedicated to its efforts and continuing good relationships with agency staff All others projects developed by the Lolo Restoration on the Lolo National Forest. For example, the committee Committee have remained in planning, been delayed by continues monitoring vegetative treatments on the litigation, or been stalled due to changing Forest Service South Fork Fish Creek project to determine the extent of priorities. implemented treatments’ restorative benefi ts.

Challenges There is hope that several projects long in the planning Slow progress on projects has been the Lolo Restoration phase will go into implementation later this year, Committee’s greatest challenge. For example, the whereupon the committee will provide robust and committee energetically engaged with the Center consistent monitoring of contracts. Horse Landscape Restoration Project, a portion of the Southwestern Crown Collaborative Forest Landscape “The greatest success of the committee has been to Restoration Program (CFLRP) project that would have get stakeholder groups to get to know each other included commercial and non-commercial tree cutting, and create interpersonal relationships and trust... prescribed ﬁ re, and other management on over 16,000 It’s always every single time about relationships and acres. The Forest Service initiated the project in 2012 but that’s been by and far the greatest accomplishment the group still awaits an environmental impact statement, of the Lolo Restoration Committee.” which is at least another year from completion. —Lolo Restoration Committee member

Similarly, the Lolo Restoration Committee conducted Assistance Needed signiﬁ cant community outreach and generated support Funding on top of CFLRP to support local collaboratives for the Marshall Woods Project only to see the project put would enhance capacity of this and other restoration on hold due to shifting Forest Service priorities and lack committees. Such funding would help enhance of ﬁ nancial opportunity. organizational and leadership capacity on the committee.

This lack of timely response by the agency has lead to a Shifts in the Forest Service allowing staff to sustain longer- decline in membership as well as decreased engagement term relationships with collaboratives, or the creation of a from current members. As participation has declined, the Forest Service liaison who could follow projects from start committee has lost the support of members whose presence to ﬁ nish, could help create an institutional space more as paid staff from outside organizations added capacity conducive to productive collaboration. Institutionally-based necessary to sustaining this otherwise volunteer effort. incentives for completion of collaboratively developed projects might also help generate more on the ground While the Lolo Restoration Committee follows projects results out of these collaborative efforts.

Members: While individual Committee Chelsea McIver, citizen-at-large Charlie Sells, citizen-at large members may have commercial, multiple- Megan Birzell, The Wilderness Society Beverly Dupree, Great Burn Study Group use, or conservation interests, all members Chris Bryant, The Nature Conservancy Dylan Brown, Pyramid Lumber bring a particular perspective to the table Jim Burchﬁ eld, University of Montana Jake Kreilick, Wildwest Institute rather than represent an ofﬁ cial position for Matt Arno, Blackfoot Challenge Aaron Olsen, citizen-at-large an organization or group. Len Broberg, Sierra Club Neil Sampson-DNRC

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 17 Southwestern Crown Collaborative | Lolo and Flathead National Forests

Photo by Lolo National Forest History Goals The Southwestern Crown of the Continent, a key The SWCC implements and monitors fuel reduction and ecological landscape, has long been part of restoration ecological restoration projects within the context of a efforts from numerous collaboratives including the landscape-scale strategy, Montana Forest Restoration Committee, Lincoln and Lolo supporting the full array Restoration committees, Swan Forest Stewardship of ecosystem services Committee, Fuels and Weeds Mitigation Task Forces, and economic and Crown of the Continent Initiative, and the Multi-Agency social beneﬁ ts in the Integrated Restoration Strategy. Southwestern Crown region. With the development of the federally funded Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program Successes As of the end of 2013, the Collaborative had accomplished: (CFLRP) to fund implementation of landscape-scale • 35,719 acres of terrestrial and aquatic invasive treatments restoration projects on National Forest System lands, • 9,782 acres of fuel reduction in the wild-urban interface stakeholders recognized the opportunity to amplify the • 6,450 acres of vegetation restoration outside of the collaborative network’s efforts and secure dedicated wild-urban interface project implementation funding across three national • 74,549 ccf of commercial products produced forests. • 25,853 acres of wildlife habitat restored or enhanced • 79 miles of streams restored Individuals from across these groups, as well as personnel • 206 miles of road best management practice/ from the Forest Service, formed the Southwestern maintenance Crown Collaborative (SWCC), which applied for and was • 30 stream crossing structures improved selected in 2010 as one of 10 forest landscape restoration • 1,338 miles of trails maintained or improved projects nationwide to receive the 10-year cycle of federal • 49 trailheads and campgrounds maintained or implementation funding under the CFLRP. The SWCC improved. engages in restoration efforts on those National Forest System lands that comprise over half of the 1.5-million- In 2013, work associated with the efforts of the SWCC acre Southwestern Crown of the Continent, a subregion created or maintained 162 full and part time jobs and of the 10-million-acre Crown of the Continent ecosystem. contributed an estimated $5 million in labor income.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 18 Challenges Assistance Needed Sustaining state agency and volunteer engagement in the Dedicated funding opportunities to support the collaborative has proved challenging. State agency capacity of collaborative groups would help the SWCC participation has declined since the early years of the overcome some of their current capacity constraints collaboration due to workloads and limited staff and would ultimately increase the pace and scale of availability. restoration activities accomplished on the ground. Supporting member organizations and individuals with The collaborative’s Collaborative Forest Landscape compensation for travel, meeting time, and coordinating Restoration Project funding, while signifi cant, is spent group logistics would help sustain collaborative member almost entirely on implementation and monitoring, with engagement over the long term. little left to support partner capacity; currently there are limited options in Montana for fi nding dedicated Promoting a more visible profi le for the Southwestern funding to support staff time to engage in collaboratively Crown Collaborative’s successes to date may incentivize developed projects. continued stakeholder engagement and bring the energy of more county and state agencies into the collaborative, As CFLRP funding is dedicated to project strengthening and diversifying the development of future implementation, this leaves the Forest service without projects by this group. necessary funding to complete the NEPA process. This funding gap has created a major bottleneck in efforts Creating a formal avenue by which the Forest Service under the Southwestern Crown Collaborative. could work with collaborative groups to do more effi cient NEPA analysis would help defray the high costs around “It’s exciting to have all these different entities project planning and analysis. engage in the monitoring aspect of the effort. A subset of that is doing socioeconomic monitoring, looking at how these projects benefi t local communities, local workforce, and local wood products and restoration businesses. That analysis is super important to us. Unlike some areas of the West, we still have some wood products industries and that is a real key to our success”

- Marnie Criley Watershed Consulting LLC Next Steps With ﬁ ve years of federal funding remaining, the SWCC continues moving forward on projects that support landscape-scale restoration goals.

Photo by Lolo National Forest Members: The Southwestern Crown Debbie Austin, citizen-at-large Melanie Parker, Northwest Commections Collaborative’s voting membership currently Gabriel Furshong, Montana Wilderness Assoc. Mitch Doherty, Missoula County Community includes the following individuals: Gary Burnett, Blackfoot Challenge and Planning Services Department Jim Burchﬁ eld, University of Montana Rich Kehr, U.S. Forest Service A mber Kamps, U.S. Forest Service Joe Kerkvliet, citizen-at-large Roger Marshall, Swan Ecosystem Center Anne Dahl, citizen-at-large Jon Hauﬂ er, Ecosystem Mgmt Research Institute Sandy Mack, U.S. Forest Service Cara Nelson, University of Montana Keith Stockman, U.S. Forest Service Tim Love, U.S. Forest Service Chip Weber, U.S. Forest Service Bill Avey, U.S. Forest Service Travis Belote, The Wilderness Society Cory Davis, University of Montana Marnie Criley, citizen-at-large Craig Rawlings, Forest Business Network Jordan Reeves, The Wilderness Society

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 19 Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project | Lolo National Forest

Photo by Jeff Fox History In 2005, wilderness advocates and snowmobilers who had Working Group led to the Blackfoot Clearwater been at loggerheads over land use priorities in the Seeley Stewardship Project, a locally grown, made-in-Montana Lake Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest decided landscape-scale legislative proposal to be taken to the to sit down and talk about their interests in the landscape. state’s Congressional delegation. Through that conversation, the groups found a mutually agreeable land management solution. Working with the Goals Forest Service, these interest groups formalized their The Blackfoot solution into a successful forest plan amendment that Clearwater recommended wilderness for important mountain goat Stewardship Project habitat in the headwaters of the Clearwater River and promotes cooperative created new snowmobile opportunities near Lake Elsina. public-private stewardship across a This successful local collaboration ignited a broader landscape area, conversation around the possibilities of collaboration addressing restoration anddifhi’ protection of the region’s during the Lolo National Forest’s anticipated forest plan forests in a manner that promotes recreation opportunities, revision. These stakeholder groups and Pyramid Lumber conservation interests, and the local economy. began to consider the possibility of developing a much larger shared vision for land management and economic growth in the lower Blackfoot Valley. The Blackfoot Successes Challenge, a nationally recognized collaborative group in By fostering an open and committed cross-interest the region, helped facilitate this dialogue, which began as conversation, this collaborative found areas of agreement the Blackfoot Clearwater Working Group. that served a wide range of perspectives, needs and interests. The Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project As the effort grew and the community’s desires to see produced a locally supported, four-part legislative proposal active forest management, economic development, and that included: funding for stewardship contracting on the federal land protections on this landscape emerged, Seeley Lake Ranger District and Blackfoot Community it became clear that a tenable proposal would include Conservation Area, support for development of a biomass issues such as wilderness designation, which require cogeneration facility, permanent protection for 87,000 federal legislation. Thus, the Blackfoot Clearwater acres of recommended wilderness on the Lolo National

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 20 Forest, and expanded snowmobile opportunities between Challenges Seeley Lake and Lincoln. With the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in its 3rd Congressional session, the Blackfoot Clearwater The collaborative achieved its goal of creating restoration Stewardship Project has had to invest a great deal of funding opportunities through enactment of the energy and resources into sustaining support for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program in legislation. 2009, and inclusion of the Seeley Lake Ranger District under that Program in 2010 as part of the Southwestern In this timespan, the group has also had to be attentive Crown Collaborative. to new interests taking root in the region in recent years, particularly the emergence of an organized mountain “We picked the location with the greatest bike presence in the area. Including new groups in opportunity for success and bounced it off of long-standing collaborative conversations about local congressional folks; here’s an opportunity to management has been a challenge met thus far by actually crack the nut and do something that sustained engagement on the part of this collaborative. then becomes a model of how you could do similar place-based efforts in other locations … Next Steps and Assistance Needed Nobody had done anything for 20 years, and I The collaborative’s members maintain their relationships think it planted the seed and actually started this and are engaged in an ongoing conversation about how dialogue of beneﬁ ts for a variety of interests on a to continue to support forest management efforts in the national forest landscape.” Blackfoot and Clearwater valleys in the 114th Congress beginning in 2015. - Gordy Sanders Pyramid Mountain Lumber

The collaborative sought Congressional support for the other elements of their proposal, which were ultimately included in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, ﬁ rst introduced by Senator Jon Tester in 2009. On the Lolo National Forest, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would designate 87,000 acres of new wilderness and establish a new winter motorized recreation area for snowmobiling in accordance with the vision of the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project, and allow the Lolo National Forest Plan to determine where timber harvest could occur.

Membership of the original Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Proposal Alternative Energy Resources Organization Blackfoot Clearwater Working Group: grew beyond the original working group, Missoula Area Economic Development Corp. and engages wide-ranging support from Montana Community Development Corporation Al Christophersen, Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation individuals and organizations: Missoula County Commission Bob Ekey, The Wilderness Society Powell County Commission Ron Ogden, Seeley Lake Driftriders Clearwater Resource Council Lewis and Clark County Commission Snowmobile Club Back Country Horsemen of Missoula Seeley Lake Community Council John Gatchell, Montana Wilderness Association Back Country Horsemen of Montana Seeley Lake Rural Fire District Hank Goetz, Blackfoot Community Project Professional Wilderness Outﬁ tters Association Seeley-Swan Fuels Mitigation Task Force Jack Rich, Rich Ranch Outﬁ tting Montana Wilderness Association Pyramid Mountain Lumber and Guest Ranch The Wilderness Society The Ovando Snowmobile Club Gordy Sanders, Pyramid Lumber Sustainable Obtainable Solutions The Seeley Lake Driftriders Snowmobile Club Jim Stone, Rolling Stone Ranch Greg Gilchrist, Lake Upsata Guest Ranch The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 21 Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front | Lewis and Clark National Forest

Photo by Gene Sentz History Goals The Rocky Mountain Front is a landscape with The central goal of the Coalition is “to keep the Front just contrasting legacies of conservation-minded public and the way it is now,” private lands management and recurring threats from oil, preserving a rural gas, and mineral development. The Coalition to Protect Montana way of life for the Rocky Mountain Front (the Coalition) took shape over current and future kitchen table conversations in the early 2000s. While generations. The group carrying over energy from the Friends of the Rocky stands against oil, gas, Mountain Front group, which had been active in the and mineral development area since the 1970s, the conversation grew to involve a on the federal public widening group of stakeholders and issues. lands of the Rocky Mountain Front managed by the U.S. Forest Service and In 2006, this locally grown Coalition successfully the Bureau of Land Management while seeking to secure worked with Senators Conrad Burns and Max Baucus a conservation package including wilderness designations to develop a legislative solution to halt new federal oil for protection of high- quality wildlife habitat, and assure and gas leasing on the Front and allow for the voluntary continued access for current uses (motorized access, retirement of existing energy leases. The Coalition also hunting, ﬁ shing, grazing, water recreation) as well as effectively engaged in several travel planning processes protection of Front citizens’ livelihoods. To these ends, on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Since 2006, the Coalition seeks legislative protections through the the Coalition has continued serving as a diverse and Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, a bill introduced by prominent local voice with a landscape-level vision for former Senator Baucus and sponsored by Senator Tester public lands of the Front. and Senator Walsh.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 22 Successes “Conservatism and conservation are both based By creating a group process where everyone has a on the same word: conserve. I think that in chance to have their say, the Coalition has found forming a collaborative group we’ve worked compromise along a wide ideological spectrum. The with both the politically conservative and the provisions of S364, The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage politically liberal, but the one issue all of us agree Act, refl ect the Coalition’s consensus agreements to: on: that this is a very special place, one of the • Establish a 208,000 acre Conservation Management most special in all of North America, and we ought Area on existing federal lands to put something together to keep it that way. • Add 67,000 acres to existing wilderness areas in the region You’ve got to work with a lot of different political • Require the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a factions, and if you can stay on the issue you can noxious weed management strategy on the Rocky fi nd a lot of agreement.” Mountain Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark - Gene Sentz National Forest and coordinate with the Bureau of Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front Land Management • Provide surety to grazing permittees that their ability to continue grazing on public lands will not be Next Steps and Assistance Needed adversely impacted by the provisions of the bill As a volunteer-based effort, the Coalition to Protect • Improve non-motorized recreation trail opportunities the Rocky Mountain Front is focused on keeping itself going on the ground in Montana and keeping its current in non-wilderness areas legislative proposal alive in Congress. The group needs support for basic administrative functions and continued Challenges assistance from organizations with logistical and political While the Coalition involves a wide range of savvy. In the big picture though, the Coalition’s next stakeholders, pockets of anti-government sentiment step is to secure continued support from the Montana have challenged the Coalition’s efforts to engage in the congressional delegation for the Rocky Mountain Front federal political process. The group has faced resource Heritage Act, and for their Congressmen to secure its limitations as a volunteer organization trying to stay passage during this legislative session. relevant on Capitol Hill, and the Congressional freeze- up on federal lands designation legislation presents a signifi cant obstacle to the federal land protections the Coalition seeks.

Supporters and Endorsements: Defenders of Wildlife Kenetrek Boots (Bozeman) Sportsmen Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front Lewis and Clark Retired Educators Assoc. (Helena) Anaconda Sportsmen’s Club Five Valleys Chapter of the Audubon Society Mark Seacat, Principal, Seacat Creative (Bozeman) Backcountry Horsemen of Montana Great Bear Foundation Montana Outfi tters and Guides Association (MOGA) Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, National Last Chance Chapter of the Audubon Society Montana River Outfi tters, LLC (Great Falls) Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Montana Montana Conservation Voters Morning Light Coffee Roasters (Great Falls) National Big Sky Upland Bird Association Montana River Action Mystery Ranch Outdoor Gear (Bozeman) East Slope Backcountry Horsemen Montana Wilderness Association Professional Wilderness Outfi tters Assoc. (PWOA) Great Falls Archers National Parks Conservation Association Randy Newberg, Host, On Your Own Adventures Helena Hunters and Anglers Association National Wildlife Federation Seven Lazy P Guest Ranch (Choteau) Hellgate Hunters and Anglers Sustainable Obtainable Solutions Simms Fishing Products (Bozeman) Last Chance Backcountry Horsemen Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Sitka Outdoor Gear (Bozeman) Laurel Rod & Gun Club The Wilderness Society Stoneydale Press Publishing Co. (Bitterroot Valley) Libby Rod and Gun Club The Wildlife Society, Montana Chapter Sweetgrass Rods (Twin Bridges) Montana Bowhunter’s Association Upper Missouri Breaks Chapter of Audubon Society Tony Bynum, Professional Photographer Montana Sportsmen Alliance Yellowstone Valley Chapter of Audubon Society The Front Brewery (Great Falls) Montana Wildlife Federation The Trailhead Outdoor Equipment (Missoula) ORION, The Hunter’s Institute Bicyclists Trapper Badovinac, Author & Professional Photogr. Pat Barnes Missouri River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Helena Bicycle Club Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association Great Falls Bike Club 25+ Local, State, and Federal staff including: Russell Country Backcountry Horsemen International Mountain Bikers Association Gene Terland, former State Director, BLM Safari Club International, Great Falls Chapter Montana Mountain Bikers Association Larry Hamilton, former State Director, BLM Traditional Bowhunters of Montana Jack Ward Thomas, former Chief of USFS Trout Unlimited, Montana Chapter Businesses and Professional Associations Michael Dombeck, former Chief of the USFS Trout Unlimited, National A Hooker’s Gallery (Great Falls) Dale Bosworth, former Chief of the USFS Wild Sheep Foundation, National Crary Outfi tting (Hunting/Outfi tting, Choteau) Gloria Flora, former Lewis and Clark NF Supervisor Wild Sheep Foundation, Montana Chapter Dick’s RV Park (Great Falls) Montana FWP Commission (passed unanimously) Dropstone Outfi tting, (Choteau) Conservation and Wildlife Headhunters Fly Shop & Guide Service (Great Falls) American Rivers Helena Outdoor Club

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 23 Lincoln Restoration Committ ee | Helena National Forest

Photo by Travis Belote

History Goals Seeking to establish restoration committees on Using the Montana National Forests across Montana, the Montana Forest Forest Restoration Committee’s Restoration Restoration Committee identifi ed National Forests and Principles, the Lincoln Ranger Districts willing and interested in trying a more Restoration Committee collaborative approach to developing forest restoration develops and promotes projects. The Lincoln Ranger District on the Helena citizen-generated National Forest was one such area, offering both a restoration projects within the Lincoln Ranger District of manageable scale and the mix of collaboratively minded the Helena National Forest. agency personnel and private stakeholders. Successes The Lincoln Restoration Committee developed its fi rst Montana Forest Restoration Committee co-chair consensus-based collaborative project, the 2,289-acre Gordy Sanders was instrumental in seeking out those Stonewall Vegetation Project, in just six months. The collaboratively minded individuals in the Lincoln region Committee has also developed the Dalton Mountain who would bring diverse values to the table. Through Project, designing about 2,000 acres of watershed Gordy’s efforts approaching a wide range of stakeholders, restoration and adaptive management project treatments the committee gradually came together and offi cially within a 40,000-acre planning area. formed under an independent charter in September of 2008 with membership drawn from the conservation Along with project development, the committee has dedicated a great deal of energy to productive community, local citizens, timber industry, and recreation engagement with the Forest Service’s Blackfoot Travel along with state and federal agency technical advisors. Plan (Non-winter) process.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 24 Challenges While the collaborative enjoys a good relationship with In order to make Dalton Mountain Project implementation the Forest Service, it remains difﬁ cult at times to assure possible, the Lincoln Restoration Committee is currently that requests by the collaborative for data layers or other engaged with the Blackfoot Travel Plan (Non-winter) information receive timely responses by local agency process to ensure on-the-ground management experts. And that challenge highlights the lack of opportunities for these future restoration efforts. agreement on the role of this collaborative; some parties seem to view the collaborative as simply a channel of The committee is positioned to engage in monitoring for increased communication while at the other extreme any projects that go to bid or implementation. some seem to view it as a tool to support existing work. Assistance Needed “Starting a new group, you’re ready for a sprint and it Collaborative engagement with the Forest Service would becomes a marathon and you weren’t ready for a be enhanced by a clearer agency approach to who in marathon. So we learned you should go in to it knowing the agency engages with collaboratives and in what it will be a long process. I’ve enjoyed the process, and capacity. Formal agency buy in to collaborative efforts been frustrated too with the pace. But when there’s would streamline the project development and review eventually successes happening then I think it will be processes. worth it.” - Bill Cyr Montana DNRC

The slow pace of existing NEPA processes presents another challenge. For example, despite widespread public support, the Stonewall Vegetation Project, which was developed in 2009, still has not gone to contract. The years of delay are not due to litigation; rather, it is being held up by the time-consuming Forest Service analysis and approval process coupled with limited resources. While the restoration committee is poised to assist overtaxed Forest Service staff with ﬁ eld based forest assessments, such an approach is not formally recognized by the agency, which continues to produce exhaustive technical assessments that are less translatable to timely management decision making. Next Steps Participation and sense of purpose on the Lincoln Restoration Committee remain strong. In spite of the slow pace of agency review processes, the Lincoln Restoration Committee stands by the Stonewall and Dalton Mountain projects. Photo by starrettartists.com Members: While individual committee Gary Burnett, Co-Chair, Blackfoot Challenge Becky Garland, Citizen Conservationist members may have commercial, multiple- KD Feeback, Co-Chair, Helena Attorney Bill Cyr, Montana Department of Natural use, or conservation interests, all members Brent Anderson, Conifer Logging Resources & Conservation/Rural Fire bring a particular perspective to the table Jordan Reeves, The Wilderness Society John Goroch, Newmont Mining Corp.Z rather than represent an ofﬁ cial position for Dylan Brown, Pyramid Mountain Lumber Jay Kolbe, MT Fish, Wildlife an organization or group. Jerry Cain, Landowner Ken Pearson, Pyramid Mountain Lumber Dwight Crawford, Sun Mountain Lumber

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 25 Montana Forest Restoration Committee | National Forest System Lands in Montana

Photo courtesy of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee History The Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) was Defi ning a “Zone of conceived out of shared frustration at the litigious and Agreement” (specifi cs on confl ict-laden atmosphere around management of which all parties agree Montana’s National Forest System lands and a desire to and are willing to move fi nd common ground among longtime adversaries on forward) allows the MFRC to forest restoration opportunities. identify opportunities where controversy, delays, and When lawsuits were fi led on the East Fork Project in litigation can be set aside the Darby Ranger District of the Bitterroot National and on-the-ground work gets accomplished. This Zone of Forest, the Forest Service reached out to a professional Agreement helped the MFRC distill its collective expertise facilitator for assistance. The facilitator brought nine key into 13 scientifi cally supported forest restoration principles stakeholders from across Montana industry, conservation, to guide on-the-ground projects. the Forest Service, the state, and the non-profi t sector together for facilitated discussion in August 2006 Goals on what might be done. The group identifi ed forest All 13 of the restoration principles support the central goal restoration as the common ground and decided to invite of ensuring that restoration be conducted to accelerate the additional participants to the table. recovery of ecological processes and to enhance societal and economic well-being, and that restoration involves By August 2007, the group had grown to include over 30 monitoring and adaptive management. members from logging, conservation, state government, the Forest Service, motorized users, outfi tters, and Successes others. This balance of diverse interests guides much Using a consensus-based process, the MFRC has integrated of the conversation around restoration of Montana’s science with community participation on local restoration National Forest System lands by working with the Forest projects through four locally led forest restoration Service to implement scientifi cally sound restoration committees. These local restoration committees put the 13 projects in a timely manner. principles into practice on three Montana National Forests.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 26 The Montana Forest Restoration Committee has achieved While some members point to an observed decline in recognition at the state and national levels for its litigation on national forests that engaged in MFRC successful relationship-building around place-based forest efforts, some stakeholders declining to engage in restoration. By fi nding room for productive dialogue and collaborative conversation means litigation remains a action on complex issues, the MFRC has served as a barrier to implementation of restoration projects. learning opportunity and catalyst for other collaborative restoration efforts including the national Collaborative Next Steps Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Southwest The MFRC will continue strengthening its partnerships Crown Collaborative. throughout the state while looking for opportunities to grow and get meaningful work done on the ground. It will “It’s always about being place-based; the folks from continue to offer webinars, fi eld trips, guidance documents there have to be engaged and have to want to make it and educational opportunities to members and the public. work.” - Gordy Sanders Pyramid Mountain Lumber As the MFRC further promotes collaborative forest restoration projects in Montana, it must continue striving to Publication of the MFRC’s Restoring Montana’s National exhibit balanced and committed responsiveness to the full Forest System Lands resource has brought the group’s 13 spectrum of interests at the table. restoration principles to a broad audience across Montana, and a series of appendices developed by the group provides timely content additions. Additionally, the group Assistance Needed has developed monitoring protocols for project As with many collaboratives, capacity remains a need as implementation on national forests. all MFRC members are volunteers. Additional assistance needed varies between each forest-level restoration Challenges committee, including facilitation expenses, meeting space, Restoration work on national forests requires capacity and and stipends for travel and fi eld trips. commitment from the Forest Service. While the MFRC maintains a positive relationship with the agency, turnover Mechanisms to promote the Forest Service’s prioritization of agency line offi cers can make it diffi cult to develop the of collaboratively developed projects would help with long-term relationships that are vital to collaboration. member retention and promote a greater sense of accomplishment and purpose in meeting. The slow pace of project implementation poses an ongoing frustration. Collaborative members face the challenge of developing realistic expectations of project timelines as well as fi nding ways to pursue smaller projects and activities that sustain a sense of accomplishment while waiting for larger projects to go through the NEPA process.

While individual committee members Full MFRC Membership Rick Franke, Sun Mountain Lumber may have commercial, multiple-use, or Brian Kahn, Artemis Common Ground Chip Weber, U.S. Forest Service conservation interests, all members bring Dan Thompson, Ravalli County Off Road Bill Avey, U.S. Forest Service a particular perspective to the table rather Users KD Feeback, Attorney than represent an ofﬁ cial position for an Julie King, U.S. Forest Service Caroline Byrd, Greater Yellowstone Coalition organization. Julia Riber, U.S. Forest Service Jack Rich, Rich Ranches Mark Vander Meer, VanWild Julia Altemus, Montana Wood Products Assoc. MFRC Steering Committee Orville Daniels, citizen-at-large Gary Burnett, Blackfoot Challenge Gordy Sanders, Pyramid Mountain Lumber Tom Williams, rancher Gordy Sanders, Pyramid Mountain Lumber Julia Altemus, Montana Wood Products Assoc. Dennis Milburn, citizen-at-large Chuck Roady, FH Stoltze Land & Lumber Al Christophersen/Tom Williams, Al Christophersen, citizen-at-large Mary Mitsos, National Forest Foundation Elkhorn RC Co-Chairs John Gatchell, Montana Wilderness Assoc. Matt Arno, Blackfoot Challenge Gary Burnett/KD Feeback, Bill Geer, Theodore Roozevelt Conservation Bob Harrington, Montana DNRC State Forester Lincolm RC Co-Chair Partnership Tim Garcia, U.S. Forest Service Matt Arno, Lolo RC Chair Jake Kreilick, Wild West Institute Bitterroot RC Chair Tim Love, U.S. Forest Service Bob Harrington, State Forester Tim Ryan, EthnoTech Mary Mitsos, National Forest Foundation Chuck Roady, FH Stoltze Land & Lumber

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 27 Elkhorn Restoration Committ ee | Elkhorn Cooperative Management Area

Photo by U.S. Forest Service History In 2001, the Elkhorn Working Group was formed as a citi- charter, code of conduct, zen advisory group to the Forest Service, Bureau of Land consensus agreement, Management, and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks on adopted the Montana elk and livestock management in the Elkhorn Mountains. Forest Restoration Gradually, a subcommittee made up of members within Committee’s 13 the Elkhorn Working Group and other interested citizens Restoration Principles, formed around an interest in developing citizen-generat- and became the ed restoration efforts in the Elkhorn region. independent Elkhorn Restoration Committee. With the Elkhorn Working Group focused on policy issues, the subcommittee’s project level interest in restoration needed a different opportunity space. In Goals 2010, members of this subcommittee and interested The Elkhorn Restoration Committee promotes resilient and locals approached the agencies and other stakeholders naturally functioning ecosystems in the Elkhorn Mountains about the potential for forming a restoration committee through collaborative restoration efforts in the Elkhorn to design and support collaborative restoration Cooperative Management Area, which includes Forest projects on both public and private lands in the Elkhorn Service, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State lands, landscape, an area where the Forest Service had been and private lands. This area includes the only designated largely inactive and struggled with the same project for Wildlife Management Unit in the entire National Forest over 10 years. System, as well as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern on Bureau of Land Management lands. The core group of diverse people that came together around the idea of restoration saw the leadership and Successes support offered by the Montana Forest Restoration Instead of diving straight into project design, the Elkhorn Committee as an opportunity to engage more actively Restoration Committee found success in developing a on projects. By 2011, the local group had agreed to a science-based protocol for determining restoration shared vision for the Elkhorn landscape, put together a objectives by using Forest Service data and best available

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 28 science. While the Forest Service did not drive or guide in the Elkhorn region, there is still awareness of what can the group’s data assessment, their technical expertise happen when a collaborative works closely with an and responsiveness allowed this restoration committee agency, invests time and effort, only to lose agency to review and assess existing data. The result is site- support for a project due to litigation from the handful specifi c ecological understanding that will inform the of objectors who have declined to participate in the development of future restoration projects. collaborative or conversation. This has not come to pass on the Elkhorns, but there is attention to trying to avoid The Elkhorn Restoration Committee’s landscape analysis this challenge by being as inclusive and transparent as is truly unique: it brings ecological restoration science possible in their process. to a layperson level, is cost-effective by utilizing existing agency resources, and has been adopted by both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management Next Steps The Elkhorn Restoration Committee is currently for use in the Elkhorn Wildlife Management Unit. expanding its Information, Involve and Educate Strategy The analysis can also be applied to private lands if a outreach efforts. By speaking with diverse interest landowner is interested in restoration treatments. groups and the public, the committee hopes to generate thoughtful feedback and support necessary for eventual “Everybody came to this committee to get good project development and implementation. scientifi cally backed restoration work done on the ground... That’s what we’ve hung our success on and Also, the committee is applying its assessment protocols what will cause us to go away if it doesn’t get done. to the Forest Service’s newest data sets, completing a full Congress has to say if we want our National Forest assessment of the Elkhorn Cooperative Management Unit by landowner and landscape to identify for the agencies system to function. There’s got to be a system where and the public what needs to be done to get the you have to come to the table to positively contribute, mountain range back into a more fi re resilient condition. not just not participate and litigate and say nothing’s going to work and throw it all out.” Pursuing restoration projects on private lands will help - Al Christophersen the Elkhorn Restoration Committee start generating Elkhorn Restoration Committee co-chair success, showing its results, and developing momentum for restoration without getting bogged down at the get-go by the challenges, including time-consuming and The Elkhorn Restoration Committee has used their expensive analyses as well as the threat of litigation, that landscape analysis method to generate recommendations jeopardize public lands management projects. to the Forest Service on future treatments for 20,000 acres of the Crow Creek drainage, where an Environmental Impact Statement is due to begin this Assistance Needed fall. The Bureau of Land Management has adopted the Funding will be a key element of seeing projects committee’s landscape analysis method to guide their implemented and effectively monitored, whether on 10-year planning process on the Iron Mask region of the private ranchlands or public forests. Elkhorns, and the committee will provide feedback to them throughout that process based on the shared lens At the state level, the Elkorn Restoration Committee of the landscape analysis. A mastication demonstration seeks awareness of the group’s existence and recognition area has been set up and fi eld trips are ongoing. The of the spectrum of issues they are collaboratively Elkhorn Restoration Committee has developed a public addressing. Information, Involve, and Educate Strategy that is in its early phases of implementation. The committee hopes that Congress will fi nd ways to manage litigation so that the Forest Service is able to move beyond the gridlock and invest its resources in on- Challenges the-ground restoration projects. While the Elkhorn Restoration Committee has a positive working relationship with the state and federal agencies

Members: This committee is composed As all members share an interest in wildlife, Lois Olsen of local citizens with diverse interests ecosystem function, sound ecology, and Karole Lee all centered on the Elkhorn Mountains: community economics, participants are Mike Sedlock hunters, anglers, ranchers, backcountry not listed with additional interest group Steve Marks horsemen, wildlife enthusiasts, woods affi liations. Mike Vashro workers, landowners, motorized Tom Williams Gail Vennes recreationists, fi sheries, forest and fi re Doug Abelin Brian Kimpton management, backcountry and wilderness Anne Carlson Brian Kahn values, local businesses, and local Al Christophersen Franklin Slifka government. Dennis Milburn

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 29 Bitt erroot Restoration Committ ee | Bitterroot National Forest

Photo by starrettartists.com History Since the timber wars of the 1970s and 1980s, the Goals The Bitterroot Restoration Committee’s goal is to Bitterroot has been a landscape steeped in conﬂ ict, implement the Montana where disputes over forest management and the closing Forest Restoration of local sawmills created deep divisions between local Committee’s Restoration conservationists and timber interests. It was in this Principles through context that the Montana Forest Restoration Committee developing on-the- had the ambitious goal of introducing the collaborative ground projects in the forest management model. They hoped that a new form Bitterroot National of dialogue might foster more open communication Forest. between timber interests, the conservation community, and the Forest Service. Successes The Bitterroot Restoration Committee’s major success Members of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee has been in cultivating an ongoing civil dialogue across a approached collaboratively minded individuals in the spectrum of interest groups, who previously stood deeply region, particularly from within the timber and conservation divided, and improving communication with the Forest communities, about the idea of forming a local committee Service. Since the founding of the Bitterroot Restoration to discuss restoration opportunities on the landscape. Committee, there have been no appeals or litigation By November 2007, under professional facilitation, 17 of timber sales on the Bitterroot National Forest by any individuals from across the spectrum of interests had conservation groups. formed the Bitterroot Restoration Committee.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 30 The fi rst project the Committee designed was Darby themselves. As an example, the Shirley Mountain (a Lumber Lands, where in 2008, committee members 325-acre ponderosa pine restoration project) achieved drafted a Zone of Agreement (specifi cs on which all consensus but was dropped by the Forest Service due to parties agree and are willing to move forward on) for how the weak timber economics of the project. to restore key areas and promote ecologically sustainable recreational opportunities. The Forest Service used those In the past several years there has been a great deal of recommendations, as well as their own evaluations, to turnover in Committee membership for a variety of draft an initial proposed action. By 2013, the Forest reasons. The result has been diffi culty maintaining Service was completing on-the-ground analysis. Seeking continuity and energy in work group efforts. manageable gains, the Committee commented on the Forest Service’s draft proposal and focused on 640 acres for specifi c restoration recommendations. The project Next Steps is currently waiting for a fi nal Environmental Analysis The Bitterroot Restoration Committee continues to decision. develop local project proposals and support their existing proposals that are under Forest Service review. By The Bitterroot Restoration Committee also submitted sustaining simultaneous involvement in multiple projects, recommendations on existing Forest Service projects, the committee hopes to maintain momentum in spite of such as Three Saddles, a proposed 2,000-acre project the start-stop nature of the agency’s review processes. including commercial timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, prescribed burning, and road decommissioning. After Three Saddles withstood an appeal by motorized “I was watching our community, which had recreation, restoration elements remain and this project is upwards of two major sawmills and a minor one now out for bidding. reduced to no mills. It was at an intense and The Forest Service’s current consideration of future bitter time. It is certainly something to see the environmental analysis for a formal Westside Forest formation of Bitterroot Restoration Committee Project, a several thousand acre wildland-urban interface where you have all these diverse interests at the fuels reduction effort, came out of discussions initiated by table discussing, and eventually discussing in a the Bitterroot Restoration Committee. very civil fashion. The civility that has come out of the Restoration Committee is far and away the Challenges most important thing … You can’t say everything While the Bitterroot Restoration Committee follows the has worked out perfectly, but there has been a lot Montana Forest Restoration Committee’s 13 restoration of improvement.” principles, the Forest Service’s lack of formal agency —Wayne Hedman guidelines on restoration contributes to ongoing tension Ravalli County RAC between a more traditional forest products-driven perception of restoration and a stricter conservation ecology perception of restoration. Assistance Needed There is a need for increased funding to the agency to Lack of funding within the Forest Service presents a increase staff capacity, support project analysis, and allow major challenge, as restoration activities rarely pay for for implementation of restoration activities.

Members: While individual committee Marcia Hogan, Facilitator Van Keele, Friends of the Bitterroot members may have commercial, multiple-use, Jeremy Amberson, Integrated Ecological Dyrk Krueger, Enhanced Forest Management or conservation interests, all members bring a Restoration, LLC Paul Moore, Montana DNRC particular perspective to the table rather than Chris Clancy, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Laura Merrill, citizen-at-large represent an ofﬁ cial position for an organization Wayne Hedman, Ravalli County RAC Ron Porter, Porterbilt or group. Ralph Johnson, citizen-at-large Kirk Thompson, citizen-at-large

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 31 Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group | Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Photo courtesy of Karen DiBari History The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group is currently member Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group offi cially the only forest-wide collaborative on the Beaverhead- formed in October 2011. Deerlodge National Forest, but collaboration is not new in this part of Montana. Back in 2005, mutual dissatisfaction with a revised forest plan brought timber Goals The Beaverhead- interests and conservation advocates together to create Deerlodge Working an alternative Forest Plan proposal. While their submitted Group seeks to develop alternative was not adopted by the Forest Service, the agreement around priority groups’ desire to positively inform management decisions areas and approaches on their local national forest continued. for restoration on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and to help Discussions over the next several years highlighted to some involved the need for a citizen-based advisory facilitate timely completion of projects at the local level. group in place on the forest, a group that would function entirely separately from legislative efforts such as the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA). In 2011, with Successes FJRA stalling out in Congress, timber and conservation The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group has spent interests that included both opponents and supporters two years developing their collaborative process and of FJRA once again began discussing how to get active working to fi nd areas of shared understanding on key forest management happening on the Beaverhead- ecological issues in the landscape. Through meetings Deerlodge National Forest. The National Forest and consultation with the Forest Service, Ecosystem Foundation agreed to convene and facilitate a small Research Group, and others, the working group continues group conversation about forming a community based to build areas of agreement on how to proceed with collaborative on the forest. This small group organized forest management issues, particularly on the specifi cs and invited a broad cross section of interests and users to of lodgepole pine and landscape restoration. Arriving join a working group. It was out of this effort that the 15- at a shared understanding of problems as well as a

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 32 shared desire for timely solutions has been a success Next Steps and Assistance Needed for this group. They have assisted the Forest Service in Having built a strong collaborative, the Beaverhead- developing a decision process for projects in key fi sh Deerlodge is developing projects for implementation, watersheds and are poised to start developing proposals which will require impact analysis and implementation by for local on-the-ground projects, possibly including a the Forest Service. With the region’s agency staff currently small parcel within former Forest Service efforts in the spread thin, there is concern that collaborative energy Boulder Project area as well as fi sheries restoration might gradually dissipate if there is a sustained lack of on- opportunities around Selway Meadows. theground results. This collaboration will not bear fruit unless Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest funding Challenges and Forest Service staff capacity increase. Stakeholder diversity is a major strength for this collaborative, and yet differing backgrounds initially presented an obstacle to fi nding shared understanding for forest management. It required a great deal of the collaborative’s time and energy to develop shared areas of agreement though group learning.

“We’re all able to come to a common understanding of how to go forward on management of forests. We came to agreement on lodgepole pine restoration work that needs to be done. We all want to see more work done on the forest...and having a shared problem is itself a success.” —Tony Colter Sun Mountain Lumber

Other challenges to this collaborative are the budgetary and stafﬁ ng cuts that have occurred over the past 20 years on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. These capacity limitations threaten the feasibility of implementing future projects proposed by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group, and the frequency of litigation on the forest further stymies project efforts and drains Forest Service resources.

Photo courtesy of Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Membership: The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Barb Cestero, Greater Yellowstone Coalition Paul Olsen, Trout Unlimited Group is a citizen-based committee of Tony Colter, Sun Mountain Lumber Ciche Pitcher, forest permittee, Discovery Ski people who represent key interests, Tom Rice, citizen-at-large, Beaverhead Sam Samson, citizen-at-large geographic balance, and knowledge of County Commissioner Rick Sandru, agriculture and multiple uses the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National For- Maureen Connor, citizen-at-large Dave Schulz, Madison County Commissioner est. Members represent timber, county Chris Marchion, Montana Wildlife Federation, Mark Thompson, motorized recreation; mining commissioners, agriculture/ranching, and Anaconda Sportsmen’s Club Joe Willauer, fi shing guide non-motorized and motorized recreation, Peter Nelson, Defenders of Wildlife Leonard Wortman, Jefferson County conservation, hunting and fi shing, outfi t- Commissioner ters/guides, and citizen interests:

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 33 Gravelly Landscape Collaborative | Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Photo courtesy of Barb Cestero

History For more than eight years, conservation leaders, timber Management and Department of Natural Resource and interests, the Forest Service, ranchers, and others have Conservation lands. engaged in discussions on how to improve management of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest through Goals cooperative efforts. Through these discussions and a The Gravelly Landscape series of fi eld trips, the idea of forming a collaborative to Collaborative aims to use develop restoration projects for improving the health of best available science the Gravelly landscape gained traction. and local expertise to develop and advance In May of 2012, conservation leaders and local projects to benefi t forests, landowners invited more than 50 individuals from diverse fi sh, rangelands, wildlife backgrounds to a group meeting where they asked habitat, recreational values and local communities of the whether there was interest in forming a collaborative Gravelly. to move restoration forward on the landscape. The full group said yes and a subset volunteered to form a The collaborative aims to develop and implement a working group, thus beginning the Gravelly Landscape suite of projects on the landscape scale, recognizing Collaborative (GLC), named for the Gravelly Landscape, that combining many smaller projects (such as removing much of which falls within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge conifer encroaching on rangelands, restoring native fi sh National Forest. The GLC is a professionally facilitated, populations, or salvaging timber from pine beetle kill) consensus-based group where membership is kept very into one cohesive, consensus-based proposal increases open and informal. the social value and technical effi ciency of generating on the ground results. The GLC looked at the Gravelly Landscape to determine where there was the most potential opportunity on the Successes Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest for developing As a relatively new group, the GLC has not yet landscape-scale projects that could generate maximum implemented any projects, but it has engaged local ecological and societal benefi ts, and settled on the stakeholder groups in developing a matrix of potential Greenhorn Focus Area of the Gravelly Landscape. management activities at the landscape scale, and is Located in the northern end of the National Forest, working to generate broad support for moving into this area connects Forest Service with Bureau of Land project- level efforts over the next several years.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 34 Challenges “There is more social value and it’s more effi cient Funds from the state and seed money from the Forest to be sewing activities together on the same Service’s private forestry program helped this landscape. The reason I think it’s not benefi cial collaborative through its formative years, but budget cuts for this collaborative approach to work on the and limited staff capacity on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge small project scale is when you do it piecemeal National Forest present obstacles to future project implementation. The immediate challenge the Gravelly you don’t have people buying into each other’ Landscape Collaborative faces is securing commitment interests. In piecemeal work, people don’t learn from the Forest Service to devote the resources neces- what each other’s interests are or what the sary to undertake the National Environmental Policy Act tradeoffs are for each other’s interests” (NEPA) analysis required for implementation of collabora- - Bruce Farling tively developed projects. Montana Trout Unlimited Five landscape-level projects within the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest are currently on hold due to litigation, and some within the environmental community do not support a collaborative approach to federal land management, leading to a continued risk of additional litigation. Next Steps The GLC will continue developing their landscape-scale proposal for the Greenhorn Focus Area of the Beaver- head Deerlodge National Forest and eliciting feedback across the community. While the group is poised to engage in fi eld data collection (vegetation work, road inventory, sediment monitoring, etc.) they are holding off on such work until they have received more concrete support from the agency.

“Our biggest success has been bringing a lot of diverse players together in looking towards a common goal of bettering the landscape of Greenhorns whether for ﬁ sheries, wildlife habitat, forest health, or other aspects. This has been an organized attempt with very diverse interests to see what we could improve and do better”

- Mark Petroni sportsman and retired U.S. Forest Service Assistance Needed While the GLC currently seeks technical and ﬁ nancial resources for conducting landscape analysis, their chief concern is securing a commitment from the Forest Service that their projects are placed in the queue for timely review and analysis.

Photo courtesy of Barb Cestero Members: Bruce Farling, MT Trout Unlimited Barb John Anderson, rancher Nathan Korb, The Nature Conservancy Cestero, Greater Yellowstone Coalition Sue Mark Petroni, sportsman, retired district ranger Kris Inman, Wildlife Conservation Society Heald, resident, retired district ranger Joe John Crumley, cattleman, president of Madison Steve Flynn, Sun Moutain Lumber Helle, sheep grazing permittee in Gravellys Valley Ranchlands Group Aaron Paulson, Snowcrest Ranch Manager Dan Crismore, Ruby Valley sportsman

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 35 Gallatin Community Collaborative | Custer Gallatin National Forest

Photo by Anne Rockhold History Momentum for the formation of the Gallatin Community membership. After a series of fi ve community meetings Collaborative came out of a 2011 court ruling that the in October, the fi rst full Gallatin Community Collaborative Forest Service’s 2006 Travel Plan Decision for the Hyalite meeting was held in Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area of the November of 2013. Gallatin National Forest did not adequately protect the area’s wilderness character according to the 1977 Montana Goal Wilderness Study Act. Following that ruling, the Forest The purpose of the Service convened a community meeting in Bozeman in Gallatin Community February of 2012 to assess whether there was suffi cient Collaborative is to local interest in a citizen-led collaborative forming to gather community input engage on planning for the Wilderness Study Area. At of diverse perspectives that meeting, 86 percent of the more than 400 attendees in a collaborative process that works toward a broad, responded “yes” to a clicker poll asking “do you feel the adaptive, and durable resolution of agreed-upon public timing is right to engage in a collaborative effort.” Support lands issues around the Custer Gallatin National Forest. for forming a local collaborative was overwhelming, but enthusiasm was matched by signifi cant and longstanding Successes distrust between interest groups. The Gallation Community Collaborative has developed into a unique and highly inclusive community The Forest Service asked Montana State University’s collaborative, and it has come a long way in establishing Local Government Center to guide the fl edgling effort. respectful listening and communication among its 204 The Local Government Center convened an Exploratory listed members. The past six months of sustained Committee of 15 diverse local individuals to develop high-energy engagement from participants across the recommendations on how to proceed. That committee recreation spectrum is a considerable success. While this spent a year assessing the potential for a community group has yet to address substantive issues, it has passed collaborative and laying groundwork for an inclusive, bylaws and has begun to develop a list of public lands transparent process with an open, self-selecting issues to resolve by consensus.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 36 The group has set a provisional December 2015 deadline Next Steps to complete and submit its recommendations to the The Gallatin Community Collaborative is ready to start Forest Service, coinciding with the anticipated beginning diving into substantive issues and map-based discussions of required Travel Plan Management for the Hyalite of the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study area and the Area. As the group transitions into identifying speciﬁ c Forest Plan revision on the Custer-Gallatin National issues and exploring options, it is contracting a new Forest. professional facilitator who will provide consistent assistance for the “I came into this collaborative feeling it needed duration of the effort. to be community-based and accessible to everybody at multiple levels... If you make the Looking to the future, some members see the Gallatin process community- based it will make it better Community Collaborative as an effort that could continue moving forward after 2015 on other public lands resource for Congressionals and Forest Service and give planning issues. people the opportunity to get in, make comments, and feel they are part of the process.” A success on the travel plan revision process could set —Stacy Bragg the stage for future community collaborative work on backcountry horseman, motorized recreation, management of the Custer-Gallatin National Forest, 5th generation Montanan including development of the forest plan revision.

Challenges Assistance Needed So far the Gallatin Community Collaborative’s broad, In the near future, the Gallatin Community Collaborative membership has proven very inclusive and accessible, needs to continue fundraising to sustain its process. but made it challenging to foster the communicative They have $41,000 of funding in place for meeting and relationships, trust, and deﬁ ned geographic scope that facilitation costs over the next 12 months but anticipate can emerge from a smaller, more focused effort. Without needing another $15,000 to reach their provisional committed relationship building across interest groups, deadline of December 2015. old antagonistic perceptions between groups and individuals may continue to pose a signiﬁ cant hurdle. Down the road, the Gallatin Community Collaborative’s recommendations for travel planning on the Wilderness In a collaborative this large and diverse, facilitation and a Study Area will rely on the Forest Service’s response strong emphasis on process are vital. However, the major and potentially Congressional action if group time commitment that was required of participants by the recommendations involve altering legal designations of facilitation style early on as well as slowness in getting to federal lands. issues deterred some stakeholders from staying involved during those key learning stages.

As more stakeholders return to the table for issue based discussions, there will be a challenge in building productive conversation among all participants, both those who engaged in group learning and those who did not or were unable to.

Membership: The Gallatin Community While these individuals have been grandfa- The collaborative’s Governance Commit- Collaborative’s current membership list in- thered in as members, the group’s bylaws tee expects that the memebrship list will cludes all individuals that have registered or state that if a member misses two consecu- dwindle signiﬁ cantly to 30-50 regularly put their name on the sign in sheet at a full tive meetings of the GCC they are no longer active Members plus a handful of other GCC meeting since November 2013. considered a “full participating member”. individuals that attend periodically.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 37 Conclusion

Photo by Jared White

Montanans are working together more closely than ever to improve forest management, strengthen communities and economies, and conserve habitat. But without additional action from Congress, the Forest Service, and local citizens, these collaborative efforts may be stymied, throwing Montana back to the days of gridlock in the woods.

Montana’s ever-changing forest landscapes need our attention and citizen leaders across the state have worked hard to ﬁ nding common ground by developing place-based solutions to forest management issues that have vexed the state for decades.

Despite these solutions, however, many of these efforts have struggled to secure the support of Congress and the Forest Service. Without this support, or in the face of divisive, top-down proposals, these collaborative efforts may wither on the vine and the collaborative energy that has preserved Montanans’ special places and way of life might dissipate.

Montana needs leadership at all levels to ensure the success of the made-in-Montana collaborative efforts. We hope this report serves as a call to action to ensure that our state’s leadership will step up to the plate to advance these collaborative efforts for the beneﬁ ts of all Montanans.

Collaboration at a Crossroads | 38

MFCN Charter The Montana Forest Collaboration Network (MFCN) is an independent organization of volunteers providing information and services to individuals and groups across the state of Montana that support the management and protection of natural resources. The mission of the organization is to assist collaboration in forest and grassland restoration, conservation, and resource utilization for the benefit of all.

Participation in the MFCN is open to all who aim to make progress in the management and protection of natural resources in the state of Montana. Since a particular interest of the MFCN is assistance to community-based collaborative groups working on natural resource issues, members of these collaborative groups form a core constituency of the MFCN. In addition, employees of federal land management agencies may also be involved in the MFCN, but they will be considered ex-officio, non-voting participants in the MFCN. However, any citizen may utilize the services of the MFCN and become involved in its operations. Principles

Collaborative processes can advance the realization of public interests across the full range of land ownerships and natural resource settings.

Collaborative processes across Montana operate independently based on community interests and locally driven issues.

The MFCN encourages the autonomy of all collaborative groups and celebrates the diversity of practice across collaborative groups.

The MFCN promotes meaningful, respectful, civic dialogue on natural resource issues.

Transparency and inclusion will be hallmarks of the operations of the MFCN.

What’s Inside?

Letter from the Chair………………… 2 Letters of Support……………………… 2 Participant Groups/Map……………… 6 Member Reports ……………………….…. 7 Photo Credits………………………………… 16 Coordinator’s Report ……….………… 17 Financials …..…………………………….….… 18 Sponsors…..…………………………………..… 18 Letter from the Chair Gordy Sanders, MFCN Chair Thanks to all of you who have participated in collaboratives and collaborative processes to create this ground swell of support for collaboration across Montana and across the Nation. Folks are gradually coming to realize the incredible potential collaboration offers to resolve differences, find common ground and to deliver a variety of benefits for our treasured forests and grasslands. Through the Montana Forest Collaboration Network we continue to build a bigger middle of common thinking while stretching to resolve tough issues. We provide continued access to science based and factual information on pertinent topics through our website, facebook and dashboard issue papers.

Looking forward, our 4th Annual Meeting on “Shared Stewardship/Forests in Focus/Good Neighbor Authority/ Collaborative Engagement” offers a tremendous opportunity to hear visionary and insightful speakers during today’s climate of streamlining processes, focused end results and benefits of stewardship. We’ll also be introduced to the discussion about Montana’s Forest Action Council and the intent of the Montana Forest Action Plan with an update on its purpose, process and its potential to deliver benefits to those most interested in Montana’s forest lands. Next year’s joint meeting with the Montana Watershed Coordination Council in October 2020 in Butte is well underway led by our very talented Coordinator, Tim Love with the assistance of administrator, Debra Parker Foley. Both working part time to deliver professional and effective results. Montana is made up of very diverse landscapes, diverse folks with diverse values, interests, perceptions and certainly opinions, yet we are one Montana and collaboration is the umbrella that best reflects our ability to work together on good stewardship of our forests and grasslands for the benefit of all. Letters of Support Governor Steve Bullock

Improving the health and resilience of Montana’s forests continues to be among my highest priorities. I am grateful and invigorated by the leadership and effort of so many across the state working in partnership to restore our forests for the benefit of wildlife and fisheries species, watersheds, recreation, community wildfire protection, and local forest products and tourism economies. The Montana Forest Collaboration Network and its 23 affiliated groups are increasingly making a difference across the state’s landscapes. The groups are working side by side with local, state, tribal, and federal governments and local communities to design and implement projects that are improving forest health and decreasing wildfire risk. The positive results of your hard work are showing on the landscapes surrounding our communities. Because of you, we increasingly have more acres of resilient forests, a better understanding of our forest conditions, and an even greater understanding and appreciation of one another’s values. Yet we have a lot more work to do to even begin to address some of the more pressing issues. Over the past 10 years, nearly half of Montana’s forests have experienced epidemic proportions of insect infestations and disease, nearly 85% of forested acres are at elevated risk of wildfire, our fire seasons are 40 days longer than they were 30 years ago, and the average number of acres burned by wildfire per year has increased 15-fold over the past 20 years. And with current climate change trends, conditions will only become increasingly challenging. We need to be working together now, more than ever, in bigger and better ways.

Under my most recent Montana forestry initiative Forests in Focus 2.0: A Cross-Boundary Collaborative Approach, I’m calling on partners to take action together in more creative and intentional ways to address wildland fire risk and forest health issues across boundaries and at larger scales. We are expanding our efforts under Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) to bring additional capacity to all seven national forests throughout the state as well as to the Bureau of Land Management. Under GNA, we are helping our federal partners increase their program of work and as we continue to grow this partnership, we plan to focus on priority areas important to local communities and collaboratives. Additionally, I have formed, via Executive Order, the Montana Forest Action Advisory Council to bring many cooperators, agencies, and tribal nations together to develop a statewide plan of action to address the highest priorities for our forests when it comes 2 to wildfire risk and forest health. The Montana Forest Action Plan will include a statewide assessment of forest conditions, identify priority areas for treatments, and propose cross-boundary solutions to accomplish landscape-scale forest restoration. Many members on the Council are seasoned collaborators from groups affiliated with the Montana Forest Collaborative Network. We will be asking those members as well as the principal representative from the Network appointed to the Council to help us best engage all of you throughout the development of this process. We are relying on your participation and the leadership of Council members to develop a plan that emphasizes broader action across boundaries, finds creative ways to expand our joint capacity to accomplish shared objectives, and further supports and brings benefits to localized collaborative work across the state.

Through GNA, the Forest Action Plan and other efforts in Forests in Focus 2.0, I am asking the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division to take a lead role in convening multiple partners to jointly identify goals and targeted investments, to ensure that our actions are better coordinated in both the planning and implementation stages, to ensure that resources are shared to the extent practicably, and to jointly track and celebrate our successes. It is time for us to align our knowledge, resources, and efforts to accomplish greater results on the ground.

This all-lands, all-hands partnership approach to restoring healthy forests in Montana is working in many places. We have proven we have the experience, focus, and determination to succeed in our efforts going forward. Healthy forests, protected communities, vibrant economies, and stronger partnerships will be our legacy through this vision and effort. Thank you for your good work and for your continued commitment to Montana’s forests and the communities that rely on them.

Leanne M. Marten, Regional Forester

The Montana Forest Collaborative Network (MFCN) has an important role in our efforts to think, plan and act in a more coordinated effort to achieve cross- boundary work. I would like to thank MFCN for the assistance they have provided to collaborative groups on organizational effectiveness and the suite of new briefing papers on topics of interest, such as the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA). MFCN’s 2018 workshop offered an important opportunity to advance dialogue between federal, state and collaborative partners on how we can better tell our story of active management and collaboration in Montana.

The vision and principles of Forest in Focus 2.0 and Shared Stewardship emphasize working together to accomplish landscape-scale treatments in priority areas that make a meaningful difference in and around Montana communities. The Northern Region is committed to working with collaboratives as we engage in Shared Stewardship with the State, Tribes, and other stakeholders to address our most pressing needs in forest health and wildfire risk across Montana. We look forward to our continues partnership with MFCN and the 2019 workshop on Shared Stewardship and GNA. 3 Katie Stevens, BLM MT District ManageR

When I started in early April 2019 in my new position as the BLM Western Montana District Manager, the Montana Forest Collaboration Network (MFCN) and its members and staff were high on my list of effective partnerships to learn about and people to meet. Fast forwarding almost 20 years from the National Fire Plan, we have learned that we need collaborative, coordinated effort from agencies, private landowners, and state and local governments if we're to be successful with protecting our wildland urban interface and managing our timber stands. Our regional timber industry is also essential in our ability to reduce fuels and improve wildlife habitat on lands we manage, and having mills and niche industries up and working gives us the flexibility we need to create desired conditions on the public lands. As I've learned more about the partnerships and people involved in MFCN, I am so impressed by the pragmatic, positive focus that members bring to the table. People are interested in solving problems and getting work done on the ground, and I'm convinced that we not only get the work done, but get it done better than we would have if it were possible to work on our own. I look forward to continuing to work with MFCN. Tom Watson, NRCS State Conservationist

In fiscal year 2019 (FY19), Montana NRCS began the transition to a focused approach to implementing conservation, referred to as Montana Focused Conservation (MFC). Rather than funding conservation through random acts, Montana NRCS will focus Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funds in targeted areas to achieve clearly defined natural resource outcomes as identified by our local partners through the locally-led process. The Montana Forest Collaboration Network (MFCN) mission fits seamlessly into MFC, and I believe local collaboratives will be an essential partner in the locally-led process moving forward. Montana NRCS is excited to continue working collaboratively to address forest health and wildfire risk on private lands in Montana, while also engaging in cross-boundary efforts such as the Joint Chiefs’ Landscape Restoration Partnership. Montana NRCS is poised to be a key partner in the shared stewardship of the vast forest resources in Montana, and we look forward to working with the forest collaboratives and other partners to move the needle on forest health and wildfire risk. Scott Laird, MT Representative, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

The issues that surround the management of our natural resources is getting more and more complex. Collaboration is a way to bring all interests together to learn about the issues that face us and our natural resources as well learn and gain respect for other people and their opinions. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) believes in finding bipartisan solutions to move conservation issues forward. That is why we support the Montana Forest Collaboration Network (MFCN) and its efforts to improve cooperative natural resource management processes and find results that are built on consensus and local input. The MFCN mission, which is to assist collaboration in forest and grassland restoration, conservation and resource utilization for the benefit of all, will ensure that there is consensus, understanding and a balance of representation from all interest groups as we move forward with complex conservation and restoration projects that improve our resources for the future and support local communities. The MFCN plays an important role in providing support to local collaborative groups, with members from all walks of life, who are working hard on issues in their own back yard to find broad based solutions. TRCP is grateful to be a part of this effort.

4 Brian Kahn, Artemis Common Ground

Collaboration and Common Ground: Demagogues and Fear

Fear is a natural and intensely potent reaction -- our mind and body’s response to perceived threat. It raises our blood pressure and intensifies adrenaline flow. Fear often produces anger, making it hard to think clearly.

Constant change in modern life breeds simmering anxiety: Am I, my values, my way of life obsolete?? If they’re at risk, who’s to blame? Technology leads to specialization, creating separate groups that see the world differently – “parts of the elephant” each wants to believe is the whole. The disagreement easily leads to the conviction that “those people” are wrong!

Depending on the nature of the issue results can range from low-key tension to full-scale war. Groups may live for decades, tolerating the tension. In 1982, a friend attended Yugoslavia’s winter Olympics. Speaking Serbian and Croatian, he stayed two weeks. In bars and on the streets, at an interfaith Muslim/Christian marriage, he sensed no hint of ethnic or religious tension.

A decade later he was back, reporting on the Kosovo war and saw the bodies of murdered children, killed because of a mother’s headscarf. How such horror could suddenly explode? “The ancient tension had to be under the surface, dormant embers,” he said. “Then the economy tanked, Yugoslavia splintered, and the demagogues fanned the flames of hate.” It rang true. Hitler blamed Jews for Germany’s WWI defeat; he made no headway for 8 years, but when the Great Depression hit the lies took hold and he seized power. It’s amazing but true that collaboration—the disciplined human search for common ground--has the power to change that, to break the spiral of animosity.

Ranchers, timber folks, conservationists, environmentalists and public agency staff, begin the process sitting at the table, looking the “opponent” in the eye, watching her or him speak, listening to the words, intuitively testing for human integrity. And when people see and feel that integrity something profound happens: We sense a basic human bond. Our guards begin to lower, minds and then hearts open at the glimmering of potential common ground. With focus and discipline over time, the primal bond dissipates fear and anger and clears the mind, enabling us to see new aspects of the elephant--both theirs and ours, and how, just maybe, they might function together for the good of all.

Some years ago a group of men came together from farms, towns and cities, from north and south, from rival regions. Some owned human slaves and some hated slavery, radical progressives sat with liberals and rock-ribbed conservatives. Some depended on foreign trade, others on agriculture or building domestic industry. Men of different denominations, theists and atheists… They worked hard and collaboratively for some time. And in 1789 produced the Constitution of the United States of America.

207 years later I sat with 6 ranchers at the Crumley’s kitchen table in McAllister, Montana. The newly-formed Madison Valley Ranchlands Group had invited 2 guests, a wildlife biologist and a Forest Service district ranger. There was tension in the room as introductions were made. One rancher began, “Let’s talk elk.” Backs stiffened as we all saw the public’s elk hammering ranchers’ haystacks. A long pause. Then rancher Lynne Owens said, “Let’s not talk elk. We won’t agree on elk. Let’s find something we might agree on and talk about that. Then in two years we’ll talk about elk.” They’re still talking, and getting good things done.

From Dillon to Plentywood, from Helena to Washington, D.C., there are folks who want to work to find common ground, and also demagogues who seek power by driving us apart. The Founders gave us the tools to choose.

5 MFCN Participant Groups

23 12 22

1 18 20 4 5 19 15 14 3 13 9 10 7 2 8 21 17 1 6 16

1. Beaverhead-Deerlodge 13. Lincoln Restoration Working Group Committee 2. Bitterroot Restoration 14. Lolo Restoration Committee Committee 15. Mineral County Resource 3. Blackfoot Challenge Coalition 4. Blackfoot/Clearwater 16. Montana Forest Owners Stewardship Association (MFOA) 5. Clearwater Resource 17. Ravalli County Council Collaborative 6. Custer-Gallatin Working 18. Sanders County Group Collaborative Committee 7. Elkhorn Restoration 19. Southwestern Crown Committee Collaborative (SWCC) 8. Elkhorn Working Group 20. Swan Valley Connections 9. Great Burn Study Group 21. Ten Mile/South Helena 10. Heart of the Rockies Collaborative Committee Initiative 22. Whitefish Range 11. High Divide Collaborative Partnership 12. Kootenai Forest 23. Yaak Valley Forest Council Stakeholder Coalition 6 Member Reports Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group (BDWG) started in 2011 to bring diverse interests together to develop agreement around priorities and approaches for project work and increase the pace and scale of restoration on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF). The BDWG is a collaborative with members that represent a diversity of interest, geographies, and knowledge of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF). Members represent timber industry, county government, agriculture, quiet and motorized recreation, conservation, mining, hunting and fishing, permittee, economic development, and citizen-at-large interests. Members of the BDWG work to develop common understanding of issues among diverse stakeholders and serve as a bridge to broader constituencies with interests in the (BDNF). Members work to resolve forest-level issues in a manner that results in more restoration work getting done on the ground and in a way that achieves ecological objectives and community benefits. In the last year, the BDWG has developed a shared understanding of the: •Region 1 objections process •Economic impact of BDNF activities •BDNF’s Integrated Resource Strategy process •Possible routes for Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide grizzly bear populations to intermingle 1 •BDNF’s 5-year timber management plan •BDNF, Custer Gallatin, and Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest’s new POD In the last year, the BDWG has worked to: •On-board new BDNF staff including the Forest Supervisor, Deputy Forest Supervisor, and Range, Recreation, and Partnerships Staff Officer •Update the information BDWG uses to identify priority landscapes for restoration •Consider applying to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) 2 •Secure facilitation and coordination funding from Jefferson County, Sun Mountain Lumber, Madison County, Anaconda Sportsmen, and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation •Approve four new members •Stand up the Jefferson County, Projects, and CFLRP Subcommittees •Address range permittee issues with falling beetle-killed lodgepole

•Understand the lessons learned from Montana’s first Good Neighbor Authority project, the Boulder 3 Lowlands Vegetation project •Understand the management history and implications of releasing Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) on the BDNF •Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of project design and implementation •Outreach to fill seats on the Southwest Montana and Tri-County Resource Advisory Councils (RAC) The BDWG will continue to work side-by-side with agency partners to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of on-theground work and the BDNF and will continue to advocate for increases in the BDNF’s capacity. Bitterroot Restoration Committee

The Bitterroot Restoration Committee (BRC) is in a process of transition that could change the way that we work with the Forest Service in the future. A number of our long-time members have left the collaborative for various reasons; Ravalli County has established its own collaborative, with members appointed by the county commissioners; and the Bitterroot National Forest has had some significant changes in leadership. Each of these changes has provided incentive for the BRC to reevaluate how we operate and set priorities, in order to work in the most efficient and effective manner. During the past year we have provided input, comments, and recommendations on a number of Forest Service projects, including Three 7 Saddle, Westside, and Gold Butterfly. The Bitterroot Forest has been very helpful by making their subject area specialists available to help us better understand Forest Service procedures, methodologies, and prescriptions for management. The subject areas included old growth management, silvicultural prescriptions for ecological restoration, and the implications of insects and disease on forest stands. In addition, we are currently working on a large-scale restoration proposal (Mud Creek) on the West Fork Ranger District. This is a complex project that covers a variety of issues, such as forest health; mitigation of wildfire risk to private property in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI); protection and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and watershed values; and restoration of heavily roaded lands that were extensively terraced in the 50’s and 60’s. Mud Creek differs from other projects in that the Forest Service has sought our input at the very earliest stages of project development. Our committee attended a field trip on the project last fall, and members were able to provide comments that were used to develop the “Purpose and Need” for the restoration proposal. We hope that this early involvement will reduce the need for recommending significant changes to project alternatives as the project moves forward. Another first for our Committee is our involvement in the Three Mile project. This is a “Good Neighbor Authority” (GNA) project involving Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) and Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) on FWP’s Three Mile Game Range and the Stevensville Ranger District. This project will permit the Forest Service to treat isolated FS parcels within the Game Range in conjunction with DNRC and FWP. By using GNA in conjunction with a project proposed by FWP, the Forest Service will be able to restore timber stands that would otherwise be uneconomical to treat. With great assistance from MFCN’s Jim Burchfield, Tim Love, and Gordy Sanders, the BRC held a committee retreat in Hamilton on June 24th. The session helped new members understand the history of the MFCN and BRC and then focused on the future of the committee. We discussed our individual definitions of restoration and expectations of the BRC, our hopes for the future of the committee, and our ideas for working more effectively as a collaborative. We identified subcommittees to work on position statements or principles that will guide our input on Forest Service proposals. We all left the retreat with a high degree of enthusiasm and are committed to making significant headway on these items in the coming year. We will report on our success next year. Blackfoot Challenge

The mission of the Blackfoot Challenge is to coordinate efforts to conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life in the Blackfoot Watershed for present generations. At our core, we are a process. Established in 1993 (though building on the strength of partnerships that date back to the mid-1970s), our ethos has always been about recognizing that if we approach conflict by focusing on what we all want to achieve – not what divides us – we can be effective. We bring people together, facilitate respectful conversations focused on shared values, and build trust. By following this approach for the last 26 years, we have been able to deliver responses to community needs that stand the test of time. By committee and program area, our outcomes in 2018 include: BLACKFOOT COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA: 60 acres of open pine grassland restored to historic conditions. CONSERVATION STRATEGIES: Hosted a Ranch Estate and Succession Planning Workshop in Helmville in November, with more than 40 residents and partners in attendance. EDUCATION: Rotating naturalist speaker series included presentations on bear biology and safety, pollinators, beavers, and osprey, and reached over 200 students. FORESTRY: Coordinated 415 acres of hazardous fuel reduction around homes to improve forest and community resilience to wildfire. LAND STEWARDSHIP: Provided 50 landowners with property-specific stewardship recommendations. RURAL SUSTAINABILITY: Coordinated the development of Envision Lincoln, a community-led plan for enhancing Lincoln’s social and economic priorities. 4 SWANS: Six trumpeter swan nests fledged 11 cygnets. WATER: Coordinated a “shared giving” approach to drought response, involving 90 landowner water conservation plans, reaching thousands of visiting floaters and anglers, and sustaining habitat for native trout. WILDLIFE: Over 90% of central watershed ranchers participating in carcass pick-up program during calving season to reduce carnivore attraction. VEGETATION: 165 acres treated across fence lines; 30 miles of Blackfoot River shoreline treated; and 2,500 acres of weed species inventoried. 5 8 Blackfoot/Clearwater Stewardship

In June 2019, Senator Tester stood on the banks of the Blackfoot River to announce reintroduction of the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act (BCSA), the result of a 13-year collaborative effort on the Seeley Lake Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest. This reintroduction built on momentum created by BCSP steering committee outreach to emphasize the legislation’s protection of the ecological health of the iconic and important Blackfoot watershed. A five-minute film, Hallowed Waters: The Legacy and Lifeblood of the Big Blackfoot, released in February 2019 featured biologists, local business owners, and community members sharing this message. Success for the BCSA in this session of Congress is predicated on bipartisan support from our Congressional delegation and on the support of our fellow collaboratives around the state. The BCSP steering committee continues to work to cut through divisive politics in calling on our entire Delegation to focus on what is best for our rural landscapes and communities. The BCSP is currently asking Congressman Gianforte to introduce a companion bill to the BCSA in the House of Representatives and asking Senator Daines to support the BCSA in the Senate and we strongly encourage or fellow collaboratives around the state to contact our Congressional delegation to ask them to advance this bill. Passage of the BCSA will be a significant milestone for the project and for all collaboratives across Montana, achieving the conservation outcomes that have been goals since the collaboration’s inception and proving that collaboration can deliver durable outcomes that benefit all interests. The BCSP also continues to pursue non-legislative outcomes as well in the areas of ecological restoration and recreation. 6 Clearwater Resource Council

The Clearwater Resource Council (CRC) in Seeley Lake, MT works to engage the community and facilitate efforts that will enhance, conserve, sustain, and protect the natural resources and rural lifestyle of the Clearwater Watershed for present and future generations. CRC partners with many other agencies and organizations to fulfill its mission. CRC has led the Seeley Swan Fuels Mitigation Task force for the past 15 years. This collaborative group focuses on coordinating fuel mitigation efforts on public and private lands in the Clearwater and Swan Valleys, and helps promote outreach to the public on making our communities more fire safe. It includes representatives from two Districts of the USFS, two units of DNRC, local fire departments, Missoula County, Swan Valley Connections, and local homeowner associations. CRC has been a leading organization in the Southwest Crown of the Continent Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project. This project is now in its 10th year, and has worked with the USFS to implement numerous restoration and conservation projects. It has included a comprehensive monitoring program. CRC has helped support the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project which is a collaborative effort to promote stewardship in the Seeley Lake District of the USFS. Both of these groups have been very active over the past year. Locally, CRC has led diverse aquatic programs with monitoring of lake water quality through our volunteer Adopt-a- Lake program, monitoring of stream water quality through our volunteer Adopt-a-Stream program, and our work on monitoring and protecting lakes from aquatic invasive species. In 2019 CRC has launched a new initiative called the Clearwater Lakes Alliance which targets individual lakes within the Valley and engages local lakeshore owners in proactively addressing potential threats to their lakes. Our Students-in-Action program engages local 7 school students in field projects related to stream ecology and monitoring. CRC also manages a local initiative to prioritize needed trail maintenance and development opportunities. We also administer a funding program to assist private landowners with fuel mitigation work. Finally, we have an active public engagement program that brings in a diverse set of speakers to make presentations to the public about natural resource management and related topics.

8 9 Custer-Gallatin Working Group

The CGWG continues to be active in the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project, the Smith Shields Forest Health Project, the North Bridgers Forest Health project, and the Custer Gallatin National Forest Plan Revision. Following is a summary of key activities and priorities of the Working Group: North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project: The CGWG filed a Declaration of Harm to support the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project in a 2018 lawsuit filed by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystem Council. The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction in August 2018. The CGWG continues to monitor this project. Smith Shields Forest Health Project: The CGWG also filed a Declaration of Harm to support the Smith Shields Project in litigation filed by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystem Council. This project received the go ahead from the U.S. District Court in August 2018 and work is underway to implement this project. The Forest Plan Revision: In March 2018, the CGWG provided scoping comments on the desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the Proposed Action. This past spring, the CGWG provided comments on the Draft EIS for the Forest Plan Revision. The committee met for well over 20 hours in hard face to face discussion and countless hours of personal time comparing the CGWG comments on the proposed action with the draft EIS. We did not address the issues of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers where there was little chance to reach consensus. North Bridgers Forest Health Project: The CGWG North Bridger forest health project committee hosted one public meeting and at least two field trips to help involve the public in the development of this project. The CGWG published a guest editorial supporting the project in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle in September 2018. Litigation was filed against this project in June 2019. Red Lodge Mountain and Moonlight Basin Waste to Warmth Energy Projects: The CGWG submitted letters of support for proposals by both Red Lodge Mountain and Moonlight Basin ski areas for the development of biofuels heating sources that would primarily utilize fuels off of their own property and may also utilize slash and other biofuel debris from the CGNF that would otherwise be burned in slash piles. This type of project provides economic opportunity, reduces air pollution and provides for a renewable resource for heating of the ski area facilities. The CGWG is carefully considering our capacity for taking on additional projects considering both membership capacity for additional work load as well as funding for the CGWG. The CGWG has received funding through the DNRC in the amount of $7500 that will provide for administration of the CGWG. The CGWG will utilize this funding to continue its collaboration on projects with the Custer Gallatin National Forest. Elkhorn Restoration Committee

This is the last Annual Report to be issued by the Elkhorn Restoration Committee. As times change and issues, people and priorities change then so must the local collaboratives that work on and with the public land management agencies and private land owners. The members of the Elkhorn Restoration Committee have determined that they must evolve and have changed their landscape focus to include a larger footprint that will engage people, resources and agency priorities better. The committee will now focus on the Big Belts Mountain landscape, the Elkhorn Mountains and the Divide (all lands from Interstate 15 westward to the Salty Dog State lands area) landscape. The committee is now the Big Elk Divide Restoration Committee (BEDRC) acknowledging each landscape in the new committee’s name. The BEDRC looks forward to working with all the agency and private land partners in the expanded area just as we have in the Elkhorns. We will be looking forward to expanding our membership to reflect this diverse landscape and involvement. During the past year ERC has reviewed the Draft Revision of the Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest Plan, prepared and debated our findings and have formally submitted our collaboratively reached final comments. We look forward to the next phase. Our joint Monitoring Committee with the Elkhorn Working Group submitted a letter to the Forest requesting recognition of the importance of monitoring to be part of the revised Forest Plan. ERC has attended a couple of field trip looking at some industrial forest management by Marks Lumber and private land thinning and fuel treatments conducted through NRCS programs. ERC involvement with the BLM continues and with ERC supporting efforts to get through a Supplemental EA on the Indian Creek Forage Reserve project. The Forest Service decision on Johnny Crow was affirmed in District Court, in which ERC and several other parties filed as Amicus members. That court decision has now been appealed to the 9th District court. We will be engaging in followup with that court case. The ERC has been deeply involved in the on-going debates, discussions and comments to the Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest dealing with non-motorized trails and use within the Elkhorn Mountains and the Cooperative Wildlife Management Area.

10 Heart of the Rockies Initiative

Through the generous support of a private family foundation, we were able to deliver $113,000 in April to our land trust members through a competitive grant program. These funds will help support 13 different projects across our service area. In May we held our partnership meeting in the Upper Green River Valley of Wyoming. We heard from a great panel on the long history of partnerships in the Upper Green that is the core of successful land protection and stewardship work in the region. We also learned about current migration research in the state, and were able to see some of those key migration paths on a field tour. During the meeting the HOTR staff provided updates on the developing landscape campaign, and had a productive conversation on how to move forward. We were thrilled to approve applications for three new land trusts to join the partnership this Spring: Bear River Land Conservancy (Logan, Utah) works in the Bear River watershed on the southern terminus of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem which provides and irreplaceable link to the Southern Rockies of

Utah and Colorado. Land Trust of the Treasure Valley (Boise, ID) serves some of the fastest growing cities 9 and counties in Idaho and hopes to expand the pace of land protection, continue trail work and broaden their base of supporters. Payette Land Trust (McCall, ID) operates in four counties of West Central Idaho to promote a community ethic that values and conserves its working agricultural and timber lands in balance with thoughtful development. Heart of the Rockies is also happy to announce two newly elected board members: Chris Bryant, the Western Montana Lands Program Director for The Nature Conservancy, and Dave Hillary, Director of Corporate Development & Strategic Partnerships at the Canadian Wildlife Federation. As an organization we want to become more inclusive and help our partners do the same. We have started by mentoring two interns over the summer from the Doris Duke 10 Conservation Scholars Program, committed to increasing the racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the conservation field. Madeleine Gefke and Isabella Johnson will spend time learning about our partnership and land trust work, meeting with conservation practitioners, and doing field work with some of our partners to measure gene flow across migration corridors. We have also been invited to send a staff member to attend Hewlett Foundation’s Inclusive Community workshop this Fall to learn best practices in building indigenous partnerships and advancing shared priorities.

High Divide Collaborative 11

The High Divide Collaborative was born out of an opportunity to bring Land and Water Conservation funding into the landscape. In 2016 and 2017 the collaborative successfully secured $30 million in LWCF funds and to date, partners have conserved over 2,300 acres, with additional projects expected to close in the near future. With money secured, the High Divide Collaborative is now determining what to focus on next. In 2019 we hired a new staff member to support partner participation by coordinating meetings, creating agendas, taking notes, and organizing events. The collaborative is home to a new Forestry and Fire Working Group which is currently focused on aspen community resilience and health in the High Divide. There is also interest and potential in starting another working group centered around ecological connectivity. We hope that these working groups will be just one of the tools leading to actionable projects in the High Divide. We had a great turn out in April for our 2019 High Divide Collaborative Workshop. More than 100 people came together in Idaho Falls to share and learn about aspen communities, the intersection of working lands/water management/sagebrush habitat, and ecological connectivity in the High Divide. The rotating conversation session allowed for smaller, more personal conversations about connectivity topics and tools that impact our region and inform our work. Our panelists sparked some great discussion surrounding partnerships in sagebrush country, and working lands. Paul Rogers from the Western Aspen Alliance filled us in on the important role that aspen plays both ecologically and socially in the High Divide. The breakout sessions on the last day were great primers for advancing action in the collaborative around capacity building, ecological connectivity, the Farms and Fish project from the Upper Snake, and aspen restoration. 11 Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition

Recently, the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition (KFSC) has been focused on improving our engagement with the Kootenai National Forest (KNF) during their time of transition, collaborating around three forest management projects, and beginning to engage more deeply on recreation issues. The KNF is in the process of appointing a new Forest Supervisor, while also revising their five year strategic plan. During this time of transition, the KFSC has been actively working with KNF leadership, including the interim Forest Supervisor, to ensure that opportunities to collaborate around and employ policy tools to projects will remain a priority in their restructuring process. Right now we see an opportunity to improve communication with the Forest Service and clarify our methods of engaging with each District. We will be discussing these changes in more detail when a new permanent forest supervisor is hired. Currently, three localized KFSC teams are engaged on three separate projects across the Forest. KFSC team members a field trip to the Ripley Project on the Libby District in May. On the Three Rivers District, the KFSC team has put our collaborative principles to the test with the Black Ram project. It presents challenging issues around grizzly core habitat, protected areas, and vegetative management. We have been engaged in the scoping process and we are prepared to submit a cohesive comment letter once the EA comes out. On the Cabinet District, we have been involved in the development of the Purple Marten project since the beginning. Project goals include improving forest health, wildlife habitat, and fuels reduction, and creating some additional recreation opportunities by utilizing HFRA provisions. Some issues regarding motorized designations of trails have been controversial in the community and resolution will be up to the deciding officer. The KFSC is also entering a new collaborative space by engaging on recreation-specific projects. KFSC members have been participating in a new grassroots group of recreational users called the Libby Outdoor Recreation Association, which is exploring opportunities for local trail connectivity. We are also working on the Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT). The PNT is a National Scenic Trail that was established in 2009 with little input or collaborative involvement from local communities. The current route presents impacts to wildlife particularly grizzly habitat, timber projects, cultural resources and it does not offer the best possible experience for those hiking it. Last winter, the board voted to create a committee to examine the issue and suggest a course of action to the board. The KFSC supports a broad, community- based collaborative process and analysis to consider a better alternative for the PNT on the KNF. Lincoln Restoration Committee

Formed in 2008, the Lincoln Restoration Committee has involved participation from local fire managers, conservationists, logging interests, recreationists, businesses, and sportsmen from the Lincoln Valley. While initially formed with a specific focus on forest restoration projects on the Lincoln Ranger District, the scope of the LRC has broadened to include emphases on community and economic development, outdoor recreation, and conservation, among other things. LRC members have catalyzed a number of successful off-shoot efforts for Lincoln in recent years including a vegetation management group focused on noxious weed eradication; Envision Lincoln, an effort focused on Lincoln’s economic future; and the Upper Blackfoot Working Group, a collaborative promoting a landscape vision for the Lincoln Valley via the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan Revision and eventual federal legislation. Having invested several years of collaborative engagement in the Upper Blackfoot Non-Winter Travel Plan, the LRC and offshoot groups are now partnering with the Lincoln Ranger District to implement the plan and help new recreation opportunities benefit the community of Lincoln. LRC members and other partners supported the Lincoln RD in 2018 in a successful application for a $100,000 Recreational Trails Program Grant to build new mountain bike and ATV trails. This Beaver Creek Trails system is currently under construction in the Lincoln Valley while collaborative partners are working with the Lincoln RD to inventory and market new trail opportunities for the general public. The completion of a Lincoln community trails plan in 2018 by off-shoot group Envision Lincoln has led LRC and community members to focus in 2019 on implementing top priority community trails, with a long-term vision of providing trail connectivity between the community and its nearby national forest trail system. Recent years have seen delays in progress on implementing forest restoration projects on the Lincoln RD, including the mid-2019 lawsuit filed against the Willow Creek Restoration Project. While these developments play out in court, LRC and partner groups in Lincoln continue to focus on advancing projects related to trails, recreation, and economic development. Years of collaboration and recent successes in these areas led Governor Bullock to select Lincoln in late 2018 as one of six Montana partner communities for his Main Street Montana Rural Partners program. LRC members and community partners are working together with the Main Street program to catalyze and advance community priorities in 2019. 12 Lolo Restoration Committee

The Lolo Restoration Committee continued its focus in 2019 on the realization of the Wildfire Cohesive Strategy in the Missoula valley. In coordination with the efforts of the Missoula County Cohesive Strategy Work Group and the Missoula Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest, the group considered methods to engage local landowners in neighborhoods around Missoula to adopt practices that would help create a Wildfire Adapted Missoula. Based on existing relationships with landowners in the Pattee Canyon area, as well as the approved Pattee Maintenance Project on National Forest lands in upper Pattee Canyon, the LRC began working with the Pattee Canyon Landowners Association to discern potential opportunities and barriers to reducing wildfire risk to property owners. Already substantial assistance to landowners in this area has been provided via the Bitterroot RC&D’s Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program, and the Lolo Restoration Committee will attempt to link nearby properties to generate larger core areas of treated forests. A major step forward was realized when the Missoula Ranger District and the Missoula Office of the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) was awarded one of the nation’s few major conservation grants under the nationally competitive Joint Chiefs Proposals. The Lolo Restoration Committee had helped develop and support this successful “Wildfire Adapted Missoula” initiative. For the next three years there will be substantial new funds available to the two local, federal offices to treat fuels, explore biomass utilization options, and conduct pre-commercial and commercial thinning projects in the landscape surrounding Missoula. The Lolo Restoration Committee also continues to monitor the results of the Marshall-Woods project on the Missoula Ranger District, where the one set of commercial harvest units designed within the project were treated and burned in early 2019. Post treatment field trips helped community members observe the potential for fuel reduction programs to occur even close to a major urban center. Mineral County Resource Coalition

We want to thank the Montana Forest Collaborative Network (MFCN) for all the support they provide to the Collaboratives across Montana and for providing us with the opportunity to share our story and hear the stories from other Montana Collaboratives. The Mineral County Resource Coalition (MCRC), formerly known as the Mineral County Resource Advisory Group (MCRAG), was formed in 2002 with a specific mission to advise the Mineral County Commissioners on forest-related issues within Mineral County. While maintaining this emphasis on Mineral County, the MCRC recognized the need to broaden the diversity of interests within our membership and expand the scope of work we do. Recognizing the socioeconomic ties we have across State, County and Forest boundaries, the MCRC now actively engages in many projects across most of Western Montana and portions of Eastern Idaho. In 2017 the MCRC established two subcommittees, one to work on improving recreational opportunities within Mineral County and another to deal with vegetation and timber related issues. We have three agencies that regularly attend our monthly meetings, the Lolo National Forest, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and Montana Department of and Fish Wildlife and Parks. Working with these agency partners, our subcommittees have successfully added several projects to the program of work. One of these projects was the Murphy Creek Project on the Superior District of the Lolo. Initiated by the MCRC in 2016, the Murphy Creek Project is an integrated stewardship project located between St. Regis and Superior just one mile off I-90. In addition to providing logs to our local sawmills, the vision for this project included the construction of 3.5 miles of non-motorized trails, interpretive signs, parking areas, restroom facilities, benches, and picnic tables. With the timber harvest now completed on the project, the Forest Service applied for an RTP grant to complete the remaining work. The grant request was for $94,000 with $54,000 being rewarded. These funds will be used to complete the Trail and parking area. The MCRC worked with the Forest Service to help secure over $6,000 in matching funds required to be eligible to receive the grant. Another grant will be requested next year to complete the work. We have two primary challenges: 1) improving the economic conditions in Mineral County, and 2) the development of a GNA program on the Lolo National Forest. We continue to support the Secure Rural Schools program while working to increase the pace and scale of vegetation management on our National Forests to increase the funds available through PILT and the 25% Fund. The staff on the Lolo National Forest continues to work to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration. Developing an active GNA program on the Lolo National Forest is essential to the success of the forests restoration program.

13 Montana Forest Owners Association (MFOA)

MFOA is a 24 year old Montana non-profit corporation. Its sole purpose is to support Montana’s non-industrial private forest landowners (NIPFLs). While being a voice for forest owners, MFOA carries out its mission in a collaborative spirit. All sides to an issue must be considered in order for action to be effective and respected. MFOA continually monitors and attends events on the local, state, and national level relevant to forest owners. In the recent past MFOA busied itself around the 2019 Montana legislative session, culminating in testifying before House and Senate Committees. These activities included supporting the Good Neighbor Authority which was led by MFCN and Tim Love. MFOA also supported and participated in the March Forestry Mini-College sponsored by MSU Extension Forestry, and the April annual Forest Landowner Conference in Butte sponsored by the Forest Stewardship Foundation and Northwest Management, Inc. MFOA also supported collaboration of private forest owners and the firefighting establishment during fire suppression. MOFA thanks and acknowledges the efforts and success of MFCN and its team Tim Love and Debra Parker Foley.

Ravalli County Collaborative

The Ravalli County Collaborative (RCC) was established in 2017 with the membership appointed by the Ravalli County Commissioners. Currently there are 14 members including 1 county commissioner. During the past 2 years the collaborative's primary emphasis has been building collaborative relationships; developing operating procedures; educating itself on important national forest resource issues; and, commenting early in the development of forest service project proposals. Currently ideas are being considered to develop operating procedures which may increase efficiency and effectiveness for responding to numerous forest service projects which are anticipated to be announced for the Bitterroot National Forest. Such procedures would require important resource issues to be considered at the project and forest level thereby allowing collaborative input on forest service projects to meld project and forest level thinking. Furthermore, forest level issue position statements may provide greater efficiency and effectiveness in reviewing multiple forest service projects and also be helpful in preparing the collaborative for the upcoming Bitterroot National Forest plan revision. Finally, the RCC remains enthusiastic and optimistic about collaboration as an effective method for providing local community thinking into forest service decision making. Sanders County Collaborative Committee

The Sanders County Collaborative kicked off the start of our 3rd year this January and we’re very proud of some of the work we’ve been able to accomplish. Our group was started to help improve the economic conditions of Sanders County by providing public input on some of the projects and to find more constructive ways to work with our local agency partners to help increase the pace and scale of forest restoration. One of the projects we are very proud of as a group, is the Swamp Eddy Project. The Forest was in the final stages of developing the preferred alternative for the Swamp Eddy Project when the Sheep Gap fire burned through the center of the project area in 2017. Working collaboratively with the Forest, we were able to get the unburned portions of this project back on the program of work and increase the area identified for management by 450 acres. We believe this was a really good step in the right direction for our group moving forward and we look forward to seeing a signed decision in the near future. Like any collaborative, we encourage healthy discussion on the diverse issues that affect our rural communities. In order to facilitate these discussions and ensure key issues are being fully addressed, we will continue to work to improve the diversify our membership. This year, we’re looking to build on our past successes. We have plans to begin working to develop some timber projects using the Good Neighbor Authority, and Categorical Exclusions, along with looking at long term, wide scoped integrated restoration projects that include increased recreational opportunities, improved wildlife habitat, fisheries and water sheds, and timber production on the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District. Our group is small, but we believe that as we continue to see some positive results with our projects, more support will come our way. 14 Southwestern Crown Collaborative (SWCC)

The Southwestern Crown Collaborative (SWCC) celebrated its tenth year in 2018 and entered into the final year of funding (FY2019) from the USFS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. We plan to apply for an extension of CFLRP funding to complete restoration projects that were slowed in planning or litigation and to continue vital monitoring projects. The Collaborative currently has 16 voting members representing 11 different entities. Many other people are involved in the SWCC monitoring program or involved in other ways. In 2018, several projects finally came to fruition including the Stonewall Creek mine rehabilitation project on the Helena-Lewis & Clark NF and prescribed burning of the Colt Summit project on the Lolo NF. Post-fire rehabilitation and salvage planning consumed considerable Forest Service staff time in 2018, particularly on the Seeley Lake RD. The SWCC also continued to participate in the planning of the Mid-Swan Landscape Restoration and Wildland Urban Interface Project (274,000 acres) on the Flathead NF with multiple field trips and input exchanges. A draft EIS for this project is expected in the fall of 2019. The SWCC monitoring program continued to make exciting strides in the past year. We implemented a scientific mail/online survey asking questions about forest management from community members in our landscape in 2018. We are currently analyzing the results and discussing what it means to managers. Using citizen scientists, we continued monitoring turbidity, flow, and temperatures of local streams, including those affected by the Rice Ridge Fire of 2017. Through this work, we estimate that 862 hours were contributed by 40 students and 67 community members. We also re-inventoried roads in watersheds burned at moderate and high severity, including jammer roads and stream crossings, and compared them to control roads outside the fire perimeter. Data from our meso-carnivore monitoring project continued to be used by several agencies because it is one of the most comprehensive datasets for these rare species. The USFWS used our data as important components of their wolverine and lynx status reviews in the past few years. We have also been working closely with the R1 office and Rocky Mountain Research Station while they develop a regional meso-carnivore monitoring strategy. Information for all of our monitoring projects can be found at: https://www.swcrown.org.

Swan Valley Connections

Swan Valley Connections (SVC) is a conservation and education non-profit based out of Condon, MT. SVC works with the various partners in the area to connect people with this extraordinary landscape as well as coexist with the wildlife that inhabit the Swan Valley. This includes everything from visitor services to wetland restoration to helping private landowners secure grizzly bear attractants. What makes SVC unique is our two accredited college field semester programs: Wildlife in the West (spring), and Landscapes and Livelihoods (fall). Students learn about the various challenges of living with and managing wildlife and people in northwest MT and with how people live and adapt to living in rural Montana. One important aspect of Landscapes and Livelihoods is the Forest and Communities section which focuses on students learning about the local ecology, fire history, and forest management history of the area. Students visit forest practitioners as well as tour the local forest products industry. This ties into SVC’s continued effort to assist private landowners with their questions and concerns around managing their forest and wildfire resilience. SVC’s forest stewardship program offers cost-share assistance with the help of grant funds from the US. Forest Service and Montana DNRC, which can help landowners reduce the cost of forest thinning and wildfire risk reduction projects. At the same time, landowners can employ local contractors providing valuable jobs and wood products to local mills in Seeley Lake, Bonner, and Columbia Falls. These wildfire risk reduction projects on private land directly complement adjacent forest management and forest thinning on Forest Service and State lands in the Swan Valley. For the Swan Valley to become a fire adapted community, it will take continued effort by many partners and local landowners, and SVC is committed to helping in that effort. To learn more about SVC visit https://www.swanvalleyconnections.org/. 15

14 12 13 15 Ten Mile/South Helena Collaborative Committee

The Ten Mile / S Helena Forest Collaborative (TSH) was formed by resolution of the City of Helena in July 2014, and renewed in January 2018. The Ten Mile/South Helena forested area is just south and west of Helena. It consists of over 60,000 acres of USFS/BLM/WUI lands. It includes Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDT), two IRA’s (Jericho Mtn and Lazyman Gulch), and Ten Mile Creek, which is one source of the City of Helena’s fresh drinking water. The City of Helena formed the “collaborative to consider management opportunities in the Tenmile Watershed and the City of Helena’s wildland urban interface (WUI) for mitigation of fire risk and to reduce the potential for damage to the City’s public water supply infrastructure”. The TSH Collaborative consists of 11 diverse background members from all land/water/forest/users interests points. We have met over 40 times since 2014 to discuss the USFS Ten Mile / South Helena Project that ultimately lead to a ROD published on December 19, 2018. This ROD is under litigation by 3-entity’s, but with no injunction in place, the FS is preparing timber sales and fuel mitigation’s outside of the two IRA’s. The project calls for thinning, logging, and burning on more than 17,500 acres within the project area south/west of Helena. Goals of the project include “mitigating wildfire, improving firefighter safety and protecting city water infrastructure”. The TSH Collaborative also put in comments to the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest Plan renewal. Specifically the Ten Mile / South Helena geographic area. With the two big projects comment periods over the TSH Forest Collaborative is switching modes into a monitoring and assisting the FS on their proposed timber sales and fuels mitigation programs to promote fire safety and protect the Ten Mile watershed.

18 23

17 16 Photo Credits

1.Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group 15.. Mineral County Sunrise Salvage Project 2. Beaverhead-Deerlodge Working Group 16. Chris Boyer http://cfboyer.com/ 3. Southwestern Crown Collaborative - Some of the mine 17. Mineral County Resource Coalition tailings removed during Stonewall Creek restoration project. 18.. Lincoln Restoration Committee off-shoot Upper Blackfoot 4. Elaine Caton – Education (Blackfoot Challenge) Working Group presents collaborative proposal for Lincoln 5. Heart of the Rockies Initiative Ranger District at May 2019 public meeting in Lincoln. 6. Michael Whitfield – Cattle 19.. Marks Ranch lands in the back ground of current BLM fire 7. Heart of the Rockies Initiative mitigation-restoration, treated by Marks Lumber, 2018. 8. Heart of the Rockies Initiative 20.. Southwestern Crown Collaborative - Prescribed 9.. Southwestern Crown Collaborative - Stonewall Creek understory burning in the Colt Summit Vegetation Project (Lincoln District, Helena-Lewis & Clark NF) mine rehabilitation 2018. restoration 21. Chris Boyer http://cfboyer.com/ 10. Heart of the Rockies Initiative 22.. BLM fire mitigation-restoration post treatment 2018, 11. Bitterroot Restoration Committee work done the winter of 2016 by Marks Lumber. 12 MFOA President Mike Christianson and Hillary Hutchison, 23. High Divide Collaborative winner of MFOA’s fourth annual Stihl chainsaw raffle. 24. High Divide Collaborative 13 Mineral County Resource Coalition 25. Stephen Beaumont – Blackfoot River (Blackfoot 14. Lincoln Restoration Committee members discuss Challenge) 16 recreational trail opportunities on Lincoln Ranger District. Coordinator’s Report Tim Love, MFCN Coordinator

Many people ask me if collaborative groups in Montana are making a difference. I simply answer, yes. To be sure, collaborative groups face many challenges: garnering participants with diverse interests, confronting differences of opinions and strong personalities with different expectations for outcomes, and when these take too long, fatigue. Sometimes people forget to leave their “swords” at the door. But such is the hard work of democracy & collaboration. The work isn’t for the faint of heart. I think it’s important, on occasion for groups to review their By-Laws, Mission Statements, Goals, Guiding Principles and Member Responsibilities. This can help everyone keeps things in perspective as they work with each other to craft thoughtful recommendations to agency leaders regarding projects and plans.

This MFCN Annual Report highlights Member Reports so network participants can read and learn from each other. The work reflected in the respective Member Reports answers the question asked about collaboration making a difference. Yes, collaborative groups in Montana are making a difference. As the saying goes; “the world is run by those who show up”. So please continue to show up because it matters.

MFCN sponsored two excellent workshops in 2018. In March we participated in a joint workshop in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, “Thriving Resilient Landscapes Communities: Achieving a Collaborative Vision of the Future.” In November in Kalispell our Montana workshop was “Telling the Collaborative Story” to help individual collaborative’s tell their story in a meaningful way. We’ve designed the 2019 Workshop to help collaborative groups better understand how to engage with the Shared Stewardship and the Forests in Focus initiatives. We are planning a Joint Workshop with the Montana Watershed Coordination Council for October 14-16, 2020 at the Clarion Copper King Hotel in Butte. Please mark this on your calendar because it will be an outstanding event. Thanks for all you do for collaboration in Montana!

As the saying goes; “the world is run by those who show up”. So please continue to show up because it matters.

17 Financials July 2018-June 2019 Expenses Supplies - $99.51 Meeting Expense - $976.75 Contractors - $36,442.48 Project Cost - $2973.50 Event - $6162.13 Administrative Costs - $1782.01 Indirect - $7427.34 Income Total: 55,863.72 Corporate - $1200 Foundation - $2000 Individual - $852.62 Federal/State - $50,916.67

Total: 54,969.29