A Practical Guide for Collaborative Efforts

In Public Forest Management

By: Jim Doran

P.O. Box 888

Twisp, WA 98856

509-997-2295

jimdoran@mymethow.com

© Jim Doran August 2005

A Practical Guide for Collaborative Efforts

In Public Forest Management

Introduction

The expectation or “hope” of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition (the Coalition) was to solve the political, legal and bureaucratic management issues on public lands, in order to create the model of sustainable restoration forestry. It was believed, and still is that then, and only then, will all of the western forested communities have a realistic opportunity to rebuild an economy based upon forest resources and the spin-off businesses that will provide meaningful and family wage jobs. We can create a new conservation ethic throughout the west while we restore these forest stands.

Every situation, community, landscape and group dynamic is unique. This “guide” is meant only as an example of how one community in one specific region dealt with the forest resource management issues within its own unique group dynamic. It is being shared only because of the great successes that we have realized through our efforts guided by these principals.

1. Community forestry begins with where we are at this moment. What is the real world situation that we are dealing with right now and what are the governing principles that have us locked into this reality? Community forestry is foremost about discovering the solutions to these magnificent problems that we face. We are not naïve about the tensions and conflict of the past twenty years; we simply would rather take a path of “creative conflict’ that solves the problems rather than defers them to another time.

2. We could spend several millions of dollars to thin overstocked, disease and fire prone stands and not only save hundreds of millions of dollars but also create an ecosystem more supportive of wildlife, recreation, forest productivity and hydrologic stability, not to mention the human economic vitality created in the course of the work.

3. Blame isn’t going to solve anything. The first step towards community collaboration is the realization that there is no sense in the “us versus them” mentality that dominated the rural counties of northeastern Washington and communities throughout the west since the decline in the timber industries.

4. The second step towards creating a collaborative body was the commitment to not log old growth forests. They were simply not on the table.

5. The third premise that allowed attendance from formerly antagonistic “sides” was the commitment to no new extensive road systems.

6. The prime focus of the Colville Community Forestry Coalition, as it was called then, was on the restoration of the already logged and roaded forestlands that were overstocked with small trees. These are the already managed forestlands.

7. Three other guiding parameters were incorporated into the early discussions. They were, “We are not here to devolve back into the timber wars of the past twenty years. “You can beat up on each other down at the tavern, but not at this table”. Similarly, “We are here to use our best creative problem solving”. And finally, “This is not an all or nothing proposition. You can disagree about other projects or issues, but when we reach some kind of an agreement in this group, we will honor it”. Rules of behavior were also developed that essentially required civility and an attempt at consensus before voting on issues.

8. There is another primary reason for the success of the Coalition. There still exists within the Colville National Forest the infrastructure to deal with the small diameter trees that need to be removed from these already managed but neglected stands. When people have something to lose they are more willing to negotiate.

9. The approach was to contact individuals within the communities who had an understanding of the issue, who could focus on the already managed small diameter stands and who were willing to solve problems and not simply re-hash them again. People in the industry, in education, in forestry, the economic institutions and conservation organizations were asked to form a loose-knit “group” to see if there was a possibility of laying down the weapons and to address these specific forest and community needs.

10. A similar initial outreach effort was done with the Colville National Forest Supervisor, District Rangers and timber and fuels management personnel.

11. The two opposing private sectors, the environmental representatives and the industry representatives, were brought together for a first meeting. The two guiding principles of “no old growth” and “no new roads”, as well as the commitment to “problem solving” and “no fighting” were presented. A discussion of the goals and objectives was had and all attendees were given a chance to speak their mind.

12. The next step was to bring the two private sectors together with the Colville National Forest. Because of the intensity that this issue had held in the community for so many years the attendance at the “combined meetings” was very high. Forest Service, political/governmental, environmental, industry and economic interests were all at the table. The basic parameters and guidelines for the “collaboration” were discussed and each participant was asked to commit to these principles in a process that would address public lands management.

13. A Concept Paper was developed along with a Mission, Goals and Objectives in draft form. These were circulated by email or regular mail amongst the participants for comments and refinement. We did not conduct an intensive meeting to formulate the outline of the Mission, Goals and Objectives. The first draft was created through a small group that had been instrumental in developing these principles in my work on the Small Diameter Wood Initiative. The documents voiced the agreed upon and frequently restated principals upon which the collaborative effort had begun; i.e., no old growth, no new roads, problem solving and no fighting.

14. Meetings and email conversations led to a sense of ownership by the participants. (Note: A good deal of interchange occurred via email and phone conversations with a purposeful intention to not demand meetings unless necessary.)

15. Also in October of 2002 a discussion was held within the Coalition about our project focus. It was decided through consensus that we would begin our work within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) because we could all agree that the protection of lives and community assets was a high priority.

16. The October discussions built a great deal of trust between previously warring factions. They had indeed found their first concrete evidence of “common ground”. At this time the discussion naturally progressed to “How do we want it done?” and “What are the acceptable prescriptions?” This in turn led to the logical conclusion that “If we were able to give the Forest Service our agreed upon prescriptions, and if they were honored, then there would likely be no appeal of the project”.

17. A problematic Forest Service project in Stevens County known as the 5,000 acre Quartzite Project was nearing its decision by the Colville Forest Supervisor. The project was headed for an appeal since the preferred alternative was not supported by the environmental community. The Coalition convened an emergency meeting with representatives from all sectors who had been participants in the Coalition. The Forest Service presented its several alternatives and open discussion was held for several hours on the details of each alternative. The outcome of the meeting and the follow-up was that an alternative was created and agreed to by all parties at the table. The decision was made and it was not appealed.

18. A similar “ad hoc collaboration” occurred on what is called the Deadman Project in Ferry County. This was a 3,500 acres project that contained some units that the environmental community could not support. A sub-group of the Coalition including Supervisor Brazell, went out on the ground and developed modifications that all parties have agreed to. These two project collaborations have given a sense of stability and ability to our Coalition. These successes have also proven to the Colville National Forest that our support is genuine.

19. A third project, the Mount Leona salvage sale, was permitted through an expedited NEPA process under the Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) that constricted comment and appeal deadlines. The environmental community objected more to the “process” that was used than to the substance of the work to be done on the ground. A tactical decision was made by the Coalition to not formally engage on the Mt. Leona litigation that ensued. Informal discussions were had with the litigants, but the survival of the working Coalition was deemed more important to future work than becoming engaged in the battle over the new HFI authorities.

20. The Mount Leona project further underscored the concept that if the Coalition had input into the Forest Service projects at the earliest possible moment in an authentic dialogue, even before project boundaries were drawn, then we could avoid the process issues caused by the HFI. This concept has rendered the HFI and subsequent Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) as non-problematic to the Coalition. Again, if we have authentic dialogue with the Forest Service and a project is designed with our support, then the constricted appeal timeframes and other process issues of those two laws will not have an impact on our functions.

21. The Stewardship Pilot Projects resulted in the adoption of Stewardship Authorities in February 2003. These authorities produced several significant changes to the way that the Forest Service could design, contract and implement fuels reduction and forest restoration projects.

a) The Forest Service can utilize what’s been referred to as the “goods for services” provisions of these authorities.

b) The local National Forest can keep the receipts above and beyond the on-the-ground costs of the stewardship project.

c) The Forest Service may now use “designation by description” or “designation by prescription” which allows for more efficient implementation practices.

d) Stewardship projects are allowed a ten year contract life.

e) Stewardship authorities, HFI and HFRA authorities, require “community collaboration” for the fuels reduction projects.

22. The local community has the congressional authority to bring its ideas for projects to the Forest Service, let alone assert its involvement in the design and implementation of projects that originated entirely within the Forest Service. This is a very creative moment in the recent history of public forestlands management.

23. The Coalition took on two Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). One of the tactics behind these two CWPPs was to do community outreach and education for the fire plans at the same time that the Forest Service was beginning its scoping on its WUI project adjacent to the private property. This has created a sense within the local community that not only are the locals going to address the fire threats, but the “neighboring” federal public lands will be treated as well. This “package” has also made the National Fire Plan “defensible space” grant applications more fundable.

24. The purposes for the CWPP are, of course, to create a realistic ground level plan for how to prevent wildfire and how local residents can deal with one if it occurs. Another purpose of the CWPPs is to prioritize areas of treatment upon National Forest lands. Once the “community” prioritizes these areas then the urgency for treatment by the Colville National Forest is multiplied.

25. In January of 2005 a three day facilitated session was held between the Colville National Forest and the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. The intention of the “collaborative workshop” was to clarify what collaboration means in the context of public lands management and to actually create the legal document that articulates the intentions and the process for collaboration between the community group and the Forest Service on specific management projects. This Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Colville National Forest Supervisor and the Coalition’s President on July 21, 2005.

26. After the “collaboration workshop” the Forest Service and the Coalition began to select fuels reduction and forest restoration projects that both organizations would work together on over the next few years. The result of this effort has been the creation of a Work Plan that includes nineteen projects that will be put into the collaborative process over the next two and a half years.

27. The Coalition has already worked through two specific projects and provided the Forest Service with project design suggestions and concerns prior to formal scoping in the NEPA process. The Coalition has developed a “Level of Support” matrix that is used to determine the Coalition’s formal position on the project at that particular moment. A written letter for projects is provided to the Forest Service with a precise statement of our “level of support”. If there is less than a high level of support the reasons are supplied in order to give the Forest Service an opportunity to address the concerns.

28. An additional thought has been to review the Colville National Forest’s five-year plan that contains thirty-nine projects and provide the Forest with a preliminary “level of support” for all of the projects. This may give the Forest Service an early warning on which projects will likely not gain a high level of support from the Coalition. The intention is to save the Forest Service time, money and energy by a focus on the projects with the highest potential for success.

29. A strategic decision was made and has been adhered to since the inception of the organization: the Coalition has been a “project based” organization. This means that we are not struggling on a monthly basis to raise enough “overhead funds” to keep our doors open and our organization staffed. Too many organizations have either folded or become overhead funding oriented instead of fulfilling their original purposes. The Coalition is working to develop that permanent operating budget but in the meantime the “project basis” has allowed effective involvement without undue stress over funding.

30. Stewardship authorities are expected to be modified in 2005 to allow “retained receipts” to be used for multi-party monitoring. That will assist in the funding of the Coalition’s work that has included project monitoring. The Coalition would like to see further changes to these authorities that would allow some of the “retained receipts” to be used for project NEPA permitting and for the ongoing costs of community collaboration.

31. The Coalition has become involved with the regional policy group convened by Sustainable Northwest. Policy items, such as the use of “retained receipts”, are on the tactical work plan at a policy level with other regional organizations such as Sustainable Northwest’s policy group. The Coalition supports these efforts.

32. The Coalition is currently attempting to connect the Colville National Forest with the many “Biomass Utilization Programs” that have recently been formulated through agency and congressional initiatives. The idea is to bring NEPA funding to the Colville National Forest and to assist existing businesses that utilize the very small woody material and to encourage further entrepreneurial development.

33. The Coalition has intended to bring scientific knowledge to bear on four different topics to help clarify our commitments and to prevent conflict.

i. Even though the Coalition has been committed to the premise of “not accessing old growth”, the definition of “old growth” has not been clearly articulated.

ii. Similarly, the commitment to “not support extensive new road systems” is not sufficiently well defined to answer pointed questions about project roads.

iii. Additionally, the Coalition’s commitment to the WUI zone has several times been put aside for larger landscape project collaboration. The Coalition needs to develop the scientific standards for “variable density thinning” in the general forest types that we have in the Colville National Forest.

iv. Finally, since “salvage logging” is back on the table nationally the Coalition intends to convene a forum to discuss what are acceptable salvage practices.

Conclusion

It all begins when local people fall in love with their place. They then want to see the communities flourish and the landscape protected. From that beginning ethic grows the responsibility to do what is right for the place; the forest in this case. Once these committed people understand the needs of the forest, they are able to work together to accomplish those needs. Removal of the “drop dead” issues facilitates a beginning. In short order a sense of pride in the “group” and in the “process” develops. The members of this Coalition understand that this generation is faced and accepts the responsibility to fix what was broken. It needs to happen sooner or later, so let’s get on with it.

Brief Biography of the Author

Jim Doran is currently the Executive Director of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. He was the Mayor of Twisp from 1996 to 2000. He has also sat on the Board of Directors of many economic development organizations, conservation organizations and also has a private law practice in Twisp where he has lived since a child. Jim is married to Gretchen and they have raised three children in one of the best small communities in the world: Twisp. © Jim Doran August 2005

A Practical Guide to Collaboration

Appendix I

I. Coalition Building

1. What is a Coalition: Made up of well-defined purposeful/intentional persons, organizations, or businesses that each have an interest in the “thing” (issue) on the table.

2. To form a Coalition the issue has to be well defined: For example: a) The forest landscape is in decay from past practices and is at risk of wildfire destruction; b) The supply of material to the local mills and the jobs in the community are at risk because the reduction of the supply of mill-able material; c) The social fabric is nearing breakdown; d)) The Bush administration threatened the conservation community.

3. To form a Coalition there has to be a solution to the issue or “problem” offered to the participants: For example: a) We know how to thin the forest in a way acceptable to all concerned in order to bring it back to health and productivity; b) The technology and manpower is available; c) The “small log” industry can use the material as an economic driver; d) It is the right thing for the woods and for the community.

4. To form a Coalition you must define “how we are going to work together” instead of against each other. a) the parameters of our involvement in the issue; b) The rules of conduct.

5. To form a Coalition with the highest potential for success you must “front load” the group with people who understand the issue, who are respected in their community, and who are known as “problem solvers”.

6. An independent and objective “Convenor” is needed: E.g. Jim Doran was from a different community altogether, but within the same bioregion. a) Someone who can speak in environmental, logger and in economic development terms. b) Requires many hours face to face or on the phone with participants. c) Constantly re-state the issue, the parameters and the rules. d) Don’t overdo meetings. People are busy.

7. An administrative entity is needed that already has the capability to provide grant administration and budgetary documents. A 501 (c)(3) fiscal agent should be preferred.

8. There must be a high level of cohesion within the group before a specific forest restoration project should be put in front of the group. However, that “high level of cohesion” may be accomplished by putting a “real” project on the table, such as our experience with the Quartzite Project. Careful discernment is necessary before launching into a project. Golas and Objectives and a Concept Paper should be in place, at least.

9. Be “project oriented”. a) Specific well defined action; b) Get participants to join in the work; c) Avoid the money trap; d) Accomplish something.

10. Become “visible” slowly. a) Don’t get on a soap box until you have accomplished something like real work, e.g., wood on the landing.

11. Get ahead of policy changes within the Agencies and hold forums to explain the policy changes to the participants in language they can understand. E.g., “stewardship authorities”.

12. Coalition Building must be formalized: a) Form a board of directors, officers and acknowledge the role of “facilitator or coordinator”. (Not “executive director, as that sounds too high minded at the start); b) Find something to “act” on right away. E.g. Quartzite; c) Prepare draft “concept paper” “mission” and “objectives” and circulate it. (Do not have a “wordsmithing session.) d) Prioritize areas of operation. E.g, The wildland urban interface or the Community Wildfire Protection Plans.

13. Coalition Building must be funded: a) Get money from those who have something to lose or gain. b) Start small. Pay the Facilitator/Coordinator but don’t develop overhead.

14. Push the issue. a) Communicate amongst the participants; b) Provide forceful and continuous demand to the “actors” so that the issue (usually a problem) gets their attention. c) Divide and conquer; d) The “common enemy” builds alliances. E.g., the conservation community and the industry versus the US Forest Service.

15. Tell the truth – over and over. For example: a) The woods need attention; b) We agree on forest restoration; c) We don’t agree on old growth and roads; d) The local ecology, economy and community depends upon us figuring this thing out.

16. Demand Agency responsiveness: a) Take it to the wall, if necessary; b) Find allies in the agency. (We, by good fortune, got a new Supervisor who was with us).

17. Reach out to other Coalition organizations when possible. But don’t get distracted from building your own Coalition.

18. Raise funds that go to Coalition members for their work on your projects. For example, pay Coalition members for work on the CWPPs. (Spread the money around).

© Jim Doran September 2005

Jim Doran, J.D., IBDR

Community Forestry Resources

P.O. Box 888

Twisp, WA  98856

(ph) 509-997-2295

(cell) 509-293-1535

(fax) 509-997-2192

jimdoran@mymethow.com

A Practical Guide to Collaboration

Appendix II

I. Coalition Maintenance

Below is the Mission, Objectives and Guidelines that have worked well for the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. These are offered as an example.

Mission: To demonstrate the full potential of restoration forestry to enhance forest health, public safety and community economic vitality.

Objectives:

· To design and implement forest restoration and fuels reduction projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to forestry.

· To demonstrate how a diverse coalition of stakeholders can work together to successfully promote restoration forestry and community protection from wildfire.

· To use the projects to educate the public about the ecological and socio-economic benefits of restoration forestry and fuels reduction strategies.

· To develop model forest restoration and fuels reduction projects that can be emulated in other regions of the country.

Operating Guidelines:

The First Principal: Our Coalition operates under the principal that if we have the community of loggers, mill owners, environmentalists, business owners, local governments and citizens at large involved early on in the planning process with the Forest Service, and there is an authentic exchange of ideas during the project design phase, then the Forest Service projects are less likely to be appealed, if at all.

The Two Operational Parameters: First, we are not interested in accessing old growth. Our focus is on the hundreds of thousands of acres that have already been logged once or twice, i.e., the “already managed and roaded forest lands”. Second, we do not support extensive new road systems. In fact we support the elimination of some roads.

The Wildland Urban Interface Commitment: The Coalition has made a decision to proceed with WUI fuels reduction projects first. They are less controversial and the need to protect human life and property is a high priority. We will build trust through these WUI fuels reduction projects and then move towards larger restoration projects in the forest landscape.

Commitment to Problem Solving: We will not allow ourselves to devolve back into the conflicts over forest resource management of the past twenty years. We are not here to fight. We will use our best creative thinking to solve the problems that are preventing forest restoration and fuels reduction projects. If you can’t go along with this commitment to problem solving, then you are not welcome at this table. It is also understood that our “collaborative projects” do not prevent any party from taking different or opposing stands on projects that we have not brought within our circle. This is not an “all or nothing” proposition for any interests; it is an attempt to find common ground.

Collaboration is about working together on the real issues that are preventing progress on projects that will mutually benefit the participants and their interests. Collaboration is about building trust and respect for each other.

Rules of Conduct: The Coalition insists that its members adhere to the following rules of conduct when involved in any aspect of Coalition activities or when it might appear that they are involved in Coalition activities.

Ø We will not resort to disrespectful or confrontational dialogue.

Ø We will not use the Coalition as a forum to “soapbox” or “rant” about one’s interests or position on a topic. This is not meant to squelch discussion.

Ø We will respect and comply with the behavior directions given by the facilitator, including removal from the premises if requested.

Ø We will use a good faith effort to resolve differences through a peaceful process.

“The art of compromise has always been our greatest strength”

Marie Brennan 1998

© Jim Doran September 2005

NORTHEAST WASHINGTON

FORESTRY COALITION

www.NEWCommunityForestry.org

Appendix III

Membership Application

Name: ______________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ______________________________________________

Telephone Number: work: ______________ home:___________________

Cell: _____________ Fax: ____________________

Email Address: ______________________ Website: __________________

Date: ______________ _________________________________

Signature

_________________________________

Print Name

Membership means:

Ø Eligible to be elected to Board of Directors and Officers.

Ø Eligible to be appointed to serve on a committee

Ø Will be placed on the email or other communication list.

Ø May have access to meeting agendas and minutes.

Ø Will be expected to attend meetings regularly.

Ø Will abide by the Coalition’s Rules of Conduct and the Mission, Objectives and Operating Guidelines.

Ø Will receive copies of the Coalition’s Bylaws, Mission, Objectives, Operating Guidelines and Rules of Conduct.

My signature above indicates that I agree with the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition Mission, Objectives & Rules of Conduct that are attached hereto. I have read and accept the Bylaws that are also attached hereto.

NORTHEAST WASHINGTON

FORESTRY COALITION

www.NEWCommunityForestry.org

Appendix IV

Board Membership Application

Name: ______________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ______________________________________________

Telephone Number: work: ______________ home:___________________

Cell: _____________ Fax: _____________________

Email Address: ______________________ Website: __________________

Date: ______________ _________________________________

Signature

_________________________________

Print Name

Please provide a brief biography of yourself that will be used for the Board elections and for the Coalition web-page if you are seated upon the Board of Directors. You will be asked to give a very brief statement as to why you wish to serve on the Board and what resources or interests you bring to the Board at the Coalition’s Annual Meeting.

Revised June 16, 2005

Appendix V

Protocol for determining level of NEWFC support for a project

Background/Context: C-9 of NEWFC’s MOU with the Colville National Forest (CNF) states the following:

“Provide the Forest Service with a written statement articulating the level of support the Coalition has for a project prior to signing decision document.”

The objective of the provision of a written statement is prevent later misunderstandings between the CNF and NEWFC regarding actions that may be taken, both publicly and privately in response to the approval or disapproval of a project.

The objective of this draft NEWFC protocol is to foster a clear understanding of the implications of various levels of support NEWFC may ultimately determine for a given project.

What this protocol does NOT attempt to do is address how the coalition will conduct internal processes leading to a final determination regarding support for a project. It is assumed that the NEWFC will make every effort to achieve full consensus, and that a project may be voted on, tabled, and revisited any number of times before the attempt to reach consensus is superceded by a popular vote.

Board Vote	Support Level	Member commitment
Consensus w/o Reservation (All members vote for approval without recorded reservations)	High	No members (or organizations represented by members) will appeal/litigate or support outside challenges. All members will express support for the project* and work to resolve any issues raised later by non-coalition entities if the opportunity arises.
Consensus w/ Reservation (All members vote for approval but some have their reservations recorded in meeting minutes)	Medium	No members (or organizations represented by members) will appeal/litigate or support outside challenges. Members who had reservations recorded may express those reservations* if the opportunity arises; however, all members agree that any statements expressing reservations about the decision will not be directed at the collaborative process itself.
No Consensus, but majority-vote approval (Some members have such strong reservations that they vote against approval; reasons are recorded in minutes)	Low	Members (or organizations represented by members) reserve right to appeal/litigate or support outside challenges. Members who voted against approval reserve the right to express their reasons for voting against approval* and may actively pursue opportunities to do so; however, all members agree that any statements expressing reservations about the decision will not be directed at the collaborative process itself.
Majority vote disapproval	None	Coalition will inform CNF that the coalition does not support the project and recommend the CNF drop the proposal. All members reserve the right to express their reasons for voting recommendation to drop the proposal* and may actively pursue opportunities to do so; however, all members agree that any statements expressing reservations about the decision will not be directed at the collaborative process itself.

* in media or elsewhere

Produce by David Heflick

NORTHEAST WASHINGTON

FORESTRY COALITION

www.NEWCommunityForestry.org

Lloyd McGee - President

Appendix VI

August 20, 2005

Ranger Sherri Schwenke

Three Rivers District, CNF

255 West 11th

Kettle Falls, WA 99141

509-738-7700

Dear Ranger Schwenke,

Greetings. We wish to inform you that the board of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition has determined a consensus without reservation level of support for the Bangs WUI project.

As you know, the NEWFC board has developed a tiered level-of-support protocol based upon the degree of consensus among board regarding approval of a project on which NEWFC has been collaborating with the CNF. Attached is an explanation of the protocol, which describes the various levels of support that may be determined for a project as well as the implications of each level of support.

We wish to emphasize that our level of support for this project is based on review of the project’s current (and presumably final) unit boundaries, prescriptions, and other parameters. If the CNF makes any substantive changes to the proposal, we ask that NEWFC be made aware of the changes. After considering the changes, NEWFC will submit an updated level-of-support document for the project.

We thank you for the spirit of collaboration you have demonstrated throughout the review and development of this project.

Sincerely,

Lloyd McGee – President

NEW Forestry Coalition