Ravalli County interviews John Macille for natural‑resource collaborative; focus stays on forest projects and fuel reduction

Ravalli County commissioners interviewed John Macille on April 21 as part of the county’s process to fill a seat on a local resource collaborative that has focused primarily on projects affecting the U.S. Forest Service.

The collaborative was created to provide a forum for local stakeholders to review and, where possible, refine Forest Service projects before they advance, commissioners said during the interview. Commissioners noted the Forest Service owns the largest share of land in the county and that many of the recent collaborative efforts have concerned wildfire risk and litigation over forest projects.

Macille, who said he is retired and has 35 years’ experience in parks and open‑space management, told commissioners that experience working from front‑line duties through department management would be useful in a resource collaborative. “I spent 35 years in parks and open space,” he said. “My education is…a BS degree in parks administration with an emphasis on resource management.” He also described experience with zero‑based budgeting and supervising crews and said he had worked with interagency partners on resource issues and fire‑related responses.

Macille described seeing heavy fuel loads on local forested trails and canyons during recent hikes. “Walking up that canyon…there’s so much fuel load. It’s incredible,” he said, adding that shaded fuel breaks, pile burning and coordinated removal of snags can reduce risk. He also cited examples from other parts of the Sierra Nevada and collaborative projects that used local workforce programs.

Commissioners and staff outlined why the collaborative has emphasized national‑forest projects: the Forest Service owns a large portion of land in the county, wildfire risk is high in the Bitterroot Valley, and recent projects have faced litigation. Commissioners said the collaborative’s mission was deliberately written by the group and has not been narrowly prescribed by the board; they stressed the collaborative has autonomy to select which projects to review while warning against “mission creep” into areas already covered by other advisory boards (for example, planning, open lands or right‑to‑farm boards).

Macille said he can meet the time requirements for the collaborative and that he uses email and online meeting platforms. He told commissioners he had not been heavily involved in local boards since moving to the valley three years ago but previously served on a water district board and on Rotary, and said he has experience working with diverse viewpoints to reach operational decisions.

The interview included questions about whether the collaborative should strictly focus on national‑forest projects or take a broader cross‑boundary view that includes private landowner practices and wildlife concerns. Commissioners said the initial intent emphasized the Forest Service because of land ownership and litigation risk, but they did not impose strict prohibitions on the collaborative taking up other resource issues so long as it avoids duplicating the roles of existing boards.

The board did not take a formal appointment vote during the April 21 meeting; the item was an interview and discussion of the candidate’s qualifications and the collaborative’s scope.