A Systematic Assessment of
Collaborative Resource Management Partnerships
by
Christine W. Coughlin
Merrick L. Hoben
Dirk W. Manskopf
Shannon W. Quesada
A project submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science
in Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
School of Natural Resources and Environment
August 1999
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Julia Wondolleck
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work could not have been completed without the assistance of many people. First and
foremost, we would like to thank Dr. Julia Wondolleck for her thoughtful guidance and
endurance throughout our struggles with this project. Without her input, this project would
certainly not have taken shape the way that it has.
Next, we would like to thank Paul DeMorgan of The Keystone Center and Todd Barker of
the Meridian Institute for their valuable perspectives, personal guidance, as well as support of
our presentation a the 1999 SPIDR Environmental and Public Policy Conference in
Keystone, Colorado.
In addition, we owe a great deal of thanks to the Rackham School of Graduate Studies and
the Weyerhaeuser Corporation whose generous financial assistance enhanced the reach of our
work.
We would also like to thank all of our interviewees for taking time from their busy schedules
to discuss their experiences in the collaborative process---particularly those individuals from
our case studies whose contributions comprise the marrow of our findings.
Finally, we would like to extend our warmest appreciation to our parents and loved ones for
their unwavering support throughout this long process. We could not have done this without
you.
ABSTRACT
Collaborative Resource Management Partnerships are initiatives in which diverse
stakeholders work together to address natural resource management issues. An increasing
number of communities are looking toward collaboration as an alternative to traditional
resource management problem solving. Yet, the range and variation of these initiatives is
inadequately understood. This study describes the landscape of collaborative partnerships in
the United States, highlighting ten in-depth case studies. Over one and a half years, a
database of over 450 collaborative resource partnerships was established. Through the
creation of a mapping framework, the range and variation of collaborative activity was then
documented with regard to groups' origin, issues, organization, process and outcomes. By
selecting a subset of ten partnerships, we also conducted interviews to assess the common
challenges facing collaborative initiatives and the strategies adopted to manage them.
Contrary to assumptions in the literature, we found that collaborative partnerships are
variable, dynamic and evolving. Groups consistently access the wider community in search
of feedback, advice and expertise, addressing a variety of challenges through innovative
strategies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Part 1: Background and Literature Review
Chapter 1: Introduction: The Growth of Collaborative Resource Partnerships in the U.S.
Chapter 2: Methodology
Chapter 3: Critiques of Collaboration: The Issues behind the Controversy
Chapter 4: Dimensions of Variation: Mapping the Terrain
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
Part 2: Case Studies
Chapter 5: Animas River Stakeholders Group
Chapter 6: Blackfoot Challenge
Chapter 7: Clark County Habitat Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 8: Darby Partnership
Chapter 9: McKenzie Watershed Council
Chapter 10: Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
Chapter 11: Northwest Resource Advisory Council
Chapter 12: Owl Mountain Partnership
Chapter 13: Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
Chapter 14: Three-Quarter Circle Ranch Coordinated Resource Management Group
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
Part 3: Analysis and Conclusions
Chapter 15: Why Collaboration and Alternatives
Chapter 16: Outcomes
Chapter 17: Ensuring Representation
Chapter 18: Accommodating Diverse Interests
Chapter 19: Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Chapter 20: Dealing with the Scientific Dimensions of Issues
Chapter 21: Conclusions
15-1
16-1
17-1
18-1
19-1
20-1
21-1
Figures
Figure 2-1: Flow Diagram of Tasks and Products
2-10
Appendices
Appendix 2-1: Collaborative Partnership Brief
Appendix 2-2: Interview Questions
2-11
2-13
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A New Phenomenon?
Out of the progressive field of environmental conflict management, a new genre of
collaboration is currently breeding controversy in the environmental arena. Collaborative
resource management partnerships (collaborative partnerships) are initiatives in which
diverse stakeholders work together to address the management of natural resources. These
groups, which include watershed councils, Coordinated Resource Management processes
(CRMs), and sustainable community initiatives, among others, have stimulated a lively, if not
contentious debate about the role of direct citizen involvement in environmental planning and
management. Using processes that promote problem-solving and focus on individual interests
and shared concerns, collaborative partnerships are taking root across the United States
addressing issues as varied as watershed management, riparian restoration, forest
management, endangered species recovery, and grazing management (Jones 1996, McClellan
1996).
In the West, collaborative partnerships have proliferated in the last ten years. Oregon alone
now has 88 watershed councils recognized by the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board
(GWEB, 1999). CRM, a little known landowner cooperation process born in the early 1950s
has exploded in recent years to become a popular consensus based resource problem-solving
tool, with hundreds of efforts and variations nation-wide (Kruse, 1998). In Gunnison,
Colorado a model for collaboration between ranchers, agencies and environmentalists
expanded into the Bureau of Land Management’s Resource Advisory Council (RAC)
program---with RACs in each of the 24 western states. The growth and success of a few local
partnerships are influencing national policies. Responding to grassroots models, the Clinton
administration has advocated collaboration as the key to the reinvention of government
decision-making, in turn generating more partnership activity.
While the increase of collaborative approaches to environmental decision-making seems to
mark new territory for public and private land management, some argue that collaborative
problem solving and decision-making is in fact nothing new. In Principles of Political
Economy, John Stewart Mills wrote, “It is hardly possible to overrate the value…of placing
human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought
and action unlike those with which they are familiar…Such communication has always been,
and is peculiarly in this present age, one of the primary sources of progress” (Mills, 1848).
Modern day partnerships are indeed reminiscent of the New England Town Meetings---with
people of different backgrounds, values and views gathering to work through community
decisions.
For some federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, the collaborative groups that
are springing up throughout the West might be seen as an expansion of the way landowners
and agency officials have always dealt with each other (Bryan, 1999). T. Wright Dickinson,
County Commissioner and rancher from Moffat County, Colorado, speaking about the
Introduction
1-1
Resource Advisory Council model, states, “These ideas of getting diverse stakeholders
together to deal with natural resource issues go back to 1934 when the BLM was created”
(Dickinson, 1999).
Although the process may be familiar, the nature of the settings, origins, issues, organization,
participants and outcomes in which collaboration is being applied have changed in many
ways. The sheer number and diversity of these groups and their possible impacts on local
communities, the environment and environmental policy warrants closer investigation.
Origins of Collaboration
As with any social movement or paradigm shift, it is difficult to establish a single source or
reason for the growth of partnerships. The impetus for collaborative problem solving derives
from many realms, including national and international policies, resource scarcity and
environmental crises, and demographic shifts. People are beginning to frame environmental
issues differently, blurring the battle lines as industry attempts to “green” its practices and
environmentalists consider social and economic issues.
Certainly the increasing global interest in “sustainability” has influenced domestic support for
initiatives that integrate environmental, social and economic concerns. Internationally, a
sense of crisis and the realization that countries could no longer keep or solve environmental
problems solely within their borders led to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The
Agenda 21 commitments focus on sustainable development which “requires us to
conceptualize problems and solutions differently . . . to think more creatively and
collaboratively about solutions. Instead of thinking about an environmental problem strictly
in terms of environmental solutions, sustainable development forces us to design and
implement a solution that also furthers economic and social goals” (Dernbach, 1997:10507).
These concepts are also the essence of most collaborative partnerships.
Stakeholder negotiation is increasingly used as a way to resolve environmental conflict. In
the 1960s and 1970s, the modern day environmental movement was born out of conflict
between diverse interests, including environmentalists, industry, policy-makers and
managers. In the 1980s, however, the field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) grew with
the objective of resolving disputes with less cost and time than courtroom processes
(Susskind 1980). Grant-making foundations like the Ford Foundation and the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation began supporting the promotion of ADR shortly after (Bingham
and Haygood, 1984). In 1990, with the passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act
(P.L. 101-552) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (P.L. 101-648) (Plater et al 1992), many
government agencies also began to look to ADR as a means of handling internal and external
conflicts (Susskind et al 1993). Several organizations like RESOLVE, the Keystone Center,
and the Center for Dispute Resolution now provide professional mediation assistance in
support of environmental dispute resolution. In 1998, Congress created and appropriated
funds for the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, an extension of the Morris K.
Udall Foundation to promote mediation as an alternative to litigation (H.R 3042) (New York
Times, 1998). In the 1990s the principles of ADR have transmuted into an on-going adaptive
Introduction
1-2
process, applying the experience gained in one-time negotiations to community-based
problem solving.
The increase of collaborative groups in the west can certainly be attributed to the rapidly
changing demography of rural communities. Many western communities historically
dependent on resource extraction are watching urban dwellers relocate to rural towns in
search of a different lifestyle and access to recreational opportunities. Computers and the
Internet have changed the way we work, dissolving the economy's geographical bounds.
These newcomers see the land in a vastly different way. Comparing the West as recently as
40 years ago, rancher T. Wright Dickenson remarks, "Diversity at that time was cattle and
sheepmen, not the broad diverse interests using the public lands today" (Dickenson, 1999).
Most participants and proponents of collaborative partnership models also cite the failure of
traditional decision-making processes as a primary motivation for the collaboration
movement (Erickson, 1998; Wondolleck et al, 1994). Many see the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) model for citizen participation as adversarial in nature, instigating
litigation and protracted court battles without “mobilizing the understanding, trust, and
capabilities needed for effective action” (Wondolleck et al, 1994). Former environmental
advocate and now mediator Todd Bryan, commenting on the traditional adversarial path to
environmental protection, says, “I fought a lot of battles and I won many of them, but I don’t
ever remember changing anyone’s mind” (Bryan, 1999). Review and comment procedures
are not creative processes and may fail “to deal with the full set of issues that contribute to
the …problem at hand” (Wondolleck et al, 1994). Frustration with the NEPA participation
model has influenced both agency and citizen initiatives to change the definition of
participation in environmental decision-making. Along with the shortcomings of the process,
some feel that “almost all of the “easy” gains [for the environment] have been made. What’s
left are small and costly gains” (Mohin, 1997). Gridlock often characterizes the initiation of a
collaborative approach to dealing with issues formerly dealt with in administrative hearings
and the courts.
Frustration also stems from existing state and federal agencies originally designed for single
interest management strategies. Increasingly, scientists and managers are realizing that few
environmental problems fit neatly within agencies' jurisdictional boundaries. Although
solving those problems requires coordination, as former EPA Administrator William
Ruckelhaus pointed out, environmental laws were written "to stand alone, instead of directing
agencies to search for the best combination of policies to benefit the environment” (1993 in
Mohin).
The Clinton Administration has advocated collaborative approaches to environmental
problem solving in a variety of ways. The emphasis on innovative public – private
partnerships highlighted in Reinventing Government (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) forms the
basis of many current policies. The Council on Environmental Quality, the President’s chief
advising body on environmental policy, based the Reinventing NEPA program on “the belief
that collaboration, information sharing, and flexibility are the key to effective and responsive
government” (McGinty, 1997). President Clinton himself lauded former CEQ chairwoman
Introduction
1-3
Kathleen McGinty’s efforts to “promote collaboration over conflict, and to demonstrate that a
healthy economy and a healthy environment not only are compatible, but are inextricably
linked” (Clinton, 1998). Behind the oratory lies a fundamental shift in political values
regarding the use of public lands. Increasingly, the value of recreation, wildlife habitat, and
clean water surpass the value of traditional extractive uses for the land (Pendery, 1997).
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt’s celebration of success stories around the country
have brought several unique initiatives into the public eye.
Traditional resource management jurisdictions are also beginning to evolve into landscape,
ecosystem, or watershed boundaries, encouraging multi-stakeholder collaboration. In 1997 on
the 25th
Introduction
1-4
At the "Environmental Summit on the West" in late 1998, the Western Governor's
Association espoused a new doctrine called "Enlibra", meaning "moving toward balance"
(Greenwire, 1998). The doctrine, developed by Governors Kitzhaber of Oregon and Leavitt
of Utah, promotes "collaboration [and] local decision-making" (Brinckman in Greenwire,
1998).
Some of these policies have trickled down to the federal land management agencies
responsible for how natural resources are managed across the country. It is important to note,
however, that paper policies may not reflect support for collaborative efforts in the field. In
fact, as Don Snow of the Northern Lights Institute points out, "A century of law, policy, and
custom has insulated federal land managers from sharing much power with local citizens. It
may take a substantial shift in policy to change this fundamental power relationship between
federal decision makers and local, or collaborative, conservationists" (1998). Agencies like
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the USDA-Forest Service (USDA-FS), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are, however, initiating some programs that support
collaborative partnerships. Some of those initiatives are summarized below.
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM’s Coordinated Resource Management Planning process (CRM or CRMP) was
developed in the 1940’s and has been adopted by many newer collaborative groups,
particularly to address grazing or watershed issues. In 1994, the agency's Rangeland Reform
initiative was based on ecosystem management principles, which promote a holistic approach
that incorporates both ecological as well as socio-economic concerns. With reform,
Ecosystem Management became a BLM agency commitment (Pendery, 1997). In the
agency’s 1997 Annual Report, collaborative management is stated as a Blueprint Goal. The
BLM is “dedicated to understanding socio-economic and environmental trends, being more
inclusive in its decision-making and implementing appropriate on the ground activities
(BLM, 1997). The goals also state: “The BLM is committed to building effective partnerships
that will accomplish three interrelated goals: (1) Improve understanding of environmental,
social and economic conditions and trends (2) Promote community-based planning and (3)
Expand partnerships to implement on the ground activities “(BLM, 1997).
Strategies include the development of a network of natural resource ADR consultants in all
BLM states (BLM, 1998) and a new training focus. Regional offices are beginning to provide
training in ADR and collaboration for their field staff (Bryan, 1999). The BLM Partnership
Series workshops are a series of classes designed to help BLM employees learn to identify
and work with human and cultural resources within a community. The goal is for staff to
apply this knowledge to planning and collaborative-decision making in order to enhance the
landscape and promote healthy communities (BLM National Training Center).
A primary effort of the agency to support collaborative processes is the creation of formal
Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) in 24 western states. In each state, the governor
appoints diverse stakeholders to the council, which uses consensus decision-making to
address issues related to rangeland management (BLM, 1998).
Introduction
1-5
USDA-Forest Service
In 1992 the Forest Service began a dialogue which focused on the understanding that
"decisions made through collaboration with local communities are built with broader
knowledge and experience and are more likely to be implemented" (USDA FS, 1999). As
part of this dialogue, Chief Dombeck stated, “Our goal is to increase the Forest Service’s
capacity and desire to collaborate with all forest users, owners and interests as a way to
improve relationships and resource stewardship” (Dombeck in USDA FS, 1997). In 1997, a
collaborative stewardship team was appointed to look at the capacity of the Forest Service to
implement collaborative approaches.
One example of the Forest Service’s initiative to support collaboration is the Sustainable
Forests Roundtable, a multi-stakeholder forum for sharing information and perspectives that
enable better decision-making regarding sustainable forest practices. The Forest Service has
also published brochures and web pages describing the agency’s intent to sponsor resource
stewardship and conservation partnerships on an area-wide or watershed basis. (USDA FS
(2), 1999). Regional offices have developed internal documents framing a commitment to
“collaborative planning” and “agency/stakeholder partnerships” (Northern Region USDA-FS,
1997).
Environmental Protection Agency
Although the EPA is primarily a regulatory agency rather than a management agency, there
are several programs that reflect the agency’s support of collaborative initiatives. One of the
most expansive and somewhat nebulous programs is community-based environmental
protection (CBEP). Community-based environmental protection is “a framework for
identifying and solving environmental problems by setting priorities and forging solutions
through an open inclusive process driven by places and the people who live in them” (EPA
(1), 1999). Through this program, regional offices work to recognize, highlight and support
community efforts to protect the environment.
The National Estuaries Program also includes multi-stakeholder committees for each of the
estuaries in the program. These committees, which involve landowners, interest groups, and
others, work collaboratively with the EPA to oversee restoration and management efforts
(EPA(2), 1999).
A third example of an EPA direct program is Brownfields Redevelopment. Starting in 1993
the Clinton Administration provided seed money and recognized model communities
working to redevelop inner city brownfields. Model Brownfields projects are collaborative in
nature, involving residents, businesses, community leaders, investors, lenders and developers
(The White House, 1997).
Introduction
1-6
Categories of Collaborative Initiatives
Collaborative partnerships often fall into several familiar categories. Although our research
showed that partnerships neither fit easily into these categories, nor do familiar labels capture
the range of partnerships that exist, it is useful to briefly summarize the categories of natural
resource management that include collaboration among diverse stakeholders as a part of their
process.
Sustainable Communities
More a movement than a definable program, sustainable communities initiatives are example
of communities both small and large that attempt to define and procure a sustainable future,
in terms of economic, social and environmental health. The Sustainable Communities
Network serves to link these initiatives across the country (www.sustainable.org). The
National Town Meeting Program, which focuses on sustainable communities efforts, intends
“to engage all Americans in charting a course for prosperity in the years ahead” to “maintain
good communities, protect the environment, spend public resources wisely and achieve
growth efficiently” being developed at the local community and business level (Sustainable
America, 1999).
Ecosystem Management
Ecosystem Management (EM) is a label that has been applied to many different kinds of
landscape scale management projects that emphasize a holistic perspective on ecosystem
relations, long term planning, establishment of collaborative relationships among
stakeholders, the need to protect the environment while providing for the sustainability of
local economies (Yaffee et al, 1996; Keystone Center, 1996). Some EM initiatives are
primarily large-scale agency managed projects while others involve citizens (Burchfield
1998, Yaffee et al, 1996). Collaboration in ecosystem management often means
collaboration between agencies, not necessarily between all stakeholders, nor on a
community level. There are over 500 EM projects in the country (Yaffee et al, 1996).
Watershed Initiatives
Many collaborative efforts organize around watershed boundaries or focus on water issues.
While managing natural resources within natural drainage basins is not a new idea for either
the U.S. or Europe, the sudden interest in the U.S. in the "watershed ideal" is new (Getches,
1998). The interest in watershed management in part relates to the changing demography of
the West, which is no longer predominantly rural. Although 90% of people in Pacific states
live in urban areas and 65% of Rocky Mountain states’ population is urban, irrigated
agriculture still uses the most water. Increasing support for instream values is forcing a
change in the way federal water institutions manage western water (Bell, 1997). In a report to
the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, Craig Bell notes that "Legal and
political gridlock is forcing varied interests to come together and work out their differences
and find grounds for mutually beneficially relationships" (1997). Watershed boundaries are
Introduction
1-7
increasingly used as way to integrate management and protection, and to coordinate water
policies.
Several states support watershed based approaches to natural resource management. For
example, the Oregon legislature passed the Oregon Plan to address endangered fish habitat
restoration throughout the state by the formation of local watershed councils. In
Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs is reorganizing the state’s
resource management plans to conform to watershed boundaries (Armstrong, 1999). In North
Carolina, the legislature recently approved a statewide river assessment project that is
focused on the state’s major river basins.
Coordinated Resource Management
Coordinated Resource Management is a process that originated in the early 1950’s in the Soil
Conservation Service. It has evolved over the last five decades to become a popular tool that
allows for direct participation of all stakeholders concerned with natural resource
management in a given planning area (Society for Range Management, 1997). Sanctioned by
a Memorandum of Understanding between the Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of Land
Management, USDA Forest Service, and Cooperative Extension Service, the CRM concept
has been widely adopted and modified beyond its initial agency initiated sphere. CRM serves
as a general yet adaptable set of guidelines for inter-agency cooperation and consensus based
decision-making among stakeholders (Philippi, 1998). Although no one knows the exact
number, there are hundreds of CRM initiatives across the country.
Habitat Conservation Planning Processes
Habitat Conservation Planning processes (HCPs) arose from the amended section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Endangered Species Act, which allows for incidental take of an endangered species
given the approval of a conservation plan (USFWS, 1999). The HCP process is described as
“a program that, at its best, can integrate development activities with endangered species
conservation, provide a framework for broad-based conservation planning, and foster a
climate of cooperation between the public and private sectors” (USFWS, 1999). Although
most HCPs are the result of negotiations between a single landowner and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, some involve multi-party collaborative efforts. The process is accelerating
rapidly, with over 225 HCPs throughout the country (Anderson et al, 1998).
Why this project?
Given the range and diversity of collaborative programs and initiatives that include multiparty collaborative processes to manage natural resources, it is difficult to understand the
landscape. There are no clear maps to help people understand what is happening across the
U.S. Familiar categories like ecosystem management and watershed councils include great
variation within the kinds of groups falling under each label. Also, the lines are blurred, and
many groups that do not fit neatly merely fall through the cracks. It is no wonder people are
confused and that a few groups that make it into the news become models of both what to
Introduction
1-8
expect, as well as what to criticize or to support. There is a need to describe the landscape of
collaborative partnerships, clearly defining the differences and similarities between the many
groups that exist in order to better inform the current debate about these processes. Exploring
how individual partnerships work together on the ground to manage natural resources can
illuminate the real challenges and opportunities that these "nascent experiments at civility"
(Ken Cairn, 1997) confront.
Goals and Objectives
From this project, we expect to gain an understanding of the range and variation in structure,
objectives, and outcomes of collaborative resource partnerships in the U.S.; positive and
negative critiques of these partnerships, and the opportunities and challenges facing
collaborative initiatives. Through interviews and case analyses, we will discern how these
partnerships capitalize on opportunities and overcome barriers to meeting the standards and
criteria of concerned observers.
We will review the literature and interview a broad range of key participating and nonparticipating stakeholders in collaborative partnerships in order to:
1) Describe the range and variation of Collaborative Partnership initiatives
In order to visually represent the range, variation and scope of collaborative partnerships we
will create a map to describe collaborative partnerships according to characteristics such as:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Location
Issues
Participants
Outcomes
Decision authority
Connection to existing procedures
Elements of process structure
Scientific basis for planning, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring
Level of support / opposition
Level of experience / knowledge
Funding
Time frame (when initiated / meeting frequency)
Scale of projects
Land ownership
Introduction
1-9
2) Examine the issues raised in both positive and negative critiques of collaborative
partnerships.
We will identify and describe the positive and negative critiques surrounding collaborative
partnerships. This information will be used to generate hypotheses regarding the criteria used
by stakeholders to determine acceptable versus unacceptable collaborative partnership
processes.
3) Illustrate and analyze what role these varied perceptions of the collaborative partnership
process play in select case studies.
Within the range of collaborative partnerships, we will select and develop 10 in-depth case
studies that exemplify the findings of our research.
Sources
Anderson, Jeremy et al, Public Participation in Habitat Conservation Planning Processes,
University of Michigan Masters Project, School of Natural Resources and Environment,
1998.
Applegate, John S., “Beyond the Usual Suspects: The Use of Citizens Advisory Boards in
Environmental Decision-Making”, Indiana Law Journal, Summer 1998.
Armstrong, Christine, Program Planner, Massachusetts Watershed Initiative, Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, personal communication, 2/7/99.
Bell, Craig, "Water in the West Today: A States' Perspective", Report to the Western Water
Policy Review Advisory Commission, July 1997.
Bingham, Gail and Leah V. Haygood, “Environmental Dispute Resolution: The First Ten
Years”, The Arbitration Journal, Vol. 41, No.4, December 1986.
Bryan, Todd, Professional Environmental Mediator, personal communication, 3/18/99.
Bureau of Land Management (1), “Annual Report 1997 – Blueprint Goal: Promote
Collaborative Management”, http://www.blm.gov/narsc/blmannual/promote.html, 2/8/99.
Bureau of Land Management (2), "ADR in BLM: Using Alternative Dispute Resolution to
Prevent and Resolve Conflicts in Natural Resource Management", brochure, 1998.
Bureau of Land Management National Training Center, The Partnership Series: The Way to
Work, brochure (www.ntc.blm.gov/partner).
Clinton, William J., Statement nominating George T. Frampton as Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality, October 30, 1998.
Introduction
1-10
Dernbach, John and the Widener University Law School Seminar on Law and Sustainability,
“U.S. Adherence to Its Agenda 21 Commitments: A Five-Year Review”, The Environmental
Law Reporter, Vol. XXVII, No. 10, October 1997.
EPA, Community-based environmental protection website abstract:
http://earth1.epa.gov/earth100/records/cbep.html, also see:
http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/, 5/20/99
EPA, National Estuaries Program website: http://www.epa.gov/nep/, 5/20/99
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, website: "Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs: Director of Watershed Management"
http://www.treelink.org/jobtalk/messages/13.htm, 3/13/99.
Executive Office of the President: Council on Environmental Quality / Office of
Environmental Quality, "Budget Justification, Fiscal Year 2000”, February 1, 1999.
Getches, David, "Some Irreverent Questions About Watershed Based Efforts", Chronicle of
Community, Northern Lights Institute,
Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board, “Locally Organized Watershed Councils in
Oregon,” http://www.4sos.org/homepage/whoweare/gweb_wscs.html, 3/19/99.
Greenwire, "Western Governors: Enlibra Touted as Pro-Environmental Doctrine," 12/7/98.
KenCairn, Brett, "The Partnership Phenomenon," The Chronicle of Community, Spring 1997,
Vol.1, No. 3
Kruse, Carol, CRM Specialist, Wyoming Department of Natural Resources, personal
communication, 2/99.
McGinty, Kathleen, “Memorandum to Interested Parties: NEPA Reinvention, Executive
Office of the President”, Council on Environmental Quality, November 23, 1997.
Mohin, Timothy J., “The Alternative Compliance Model: A Bridge to the Future of
Environmental Management”, The Environmental Law Reporter, Vol. XXVII. No. 7, July
1997.
Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, “A Framework for Collaborative Stewardship in the
Northern Region USDA-Forest Service, Working Draft, 1/23/97.
Ollinger, Todd, “Comment: Public Rangeland Reform: New Prospectus for Collaboration
and Local Control Using the Resource Advisory Councils”, University of Colorado Law
Review, Spring 1998.
Introduction
1-11
Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit
is Transforming the Public Sector, Adison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc, Reading, MA,
1992.
Pendery, Bruce, “Reforming Livestock Grazing on the Public Domain: Ecosystem
Management-Based Standards and Guidelines Blaze a New Path for Range Management”,
Environmental Law: Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College, Summer
1997.
The New York Times, “Institute to Mediate Disputes on Environment”, The New York
Times on the Web, www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news /national/environment-mediate.html,
June 15, 1998.
Philippi, Dennis, Department of Natural Resources, Bozeman, Montana, Personal
communication, 10/98.
Snow, Don, "Collaboration: Threat or Menace?" Conference Opening Address at the Public
Land Law Review, University of Montana School of Law, Annual Conference, April 16,
1998.
Society for Range Management, “Coordinated Resource Management Guidelines”, June
1993.
Sustainable America, “The Program: National Town Meeting Program”
http://www.sustainableamerica.org/program/default.cfm, 3/15/99.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Clinton Administration Expands
Commitment to Brownfields Redevelopment”, http://www.pub.whithouse.gov/uri…/oma.eop.gov.us/1997/5/13/5.text.1, May 13, 1997.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Clinton’s Clean Water Initiative”,
www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri…//oma.eop.gov.us/1998/3/2/9.text.1, February 19, 1998.
US Department of the Interior / USDA-Forest Service, “Adaptive Management Areas: 1996
Success Stories: Managing to Learn and Learning to Manage”, full-size booklet, 1996.
US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Managment, "Partners across the West:
Resource Advisory Councils", Brochure, 2/20/98.
USDA Forest Service (1), “Collaborative Planning and Stewardship”,
http://svinet2.fs.fed.us:80/forum/nepa/colweb.htm, 2/21/99.
USDA Forest Service (2), "A Legacy of Hope: Managing America's Natural Resources in the
21st Century", brochure, FS-646, April, 1999.
Introduction
1-12
US Fish and Wildlife Service, “The Habitat Conservation Plan Approach”, web page:
www.fws.gov/r9endspp/hcpapp.html, 2/1/99.
Wondolleck, Julia et al, “A Conflict Management Perspective: Applying the Principles of
Alternative Dispute Resolution” in Endangered Species Recovery: Finding the Lessons,
Improving the Process, Island Press, 1994.
Introduction
1-13
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
Overview
This chapter describes the research path we used to conduct a systematic analysis of
collaborative resource partnerships in the United States. As described in Chapter 1, our core
objectives were to:
!
!
!
Review supportive and critical perspectives of collaborative approaches to natural
resource management;
Describe the current range and variation of collaborative activity in the United States;
and
Explore how participants in specific cases respond to challenges and opportunities
present in collaborative resource management efforts.
To achieve these objectives, six research phases, diagrammed in Figure 2-1, were followed.
Each phase correlates with development of one or more chapters of this project (see diagram
page 2-9):
1) Reviewing current literature about collaboration;
2) Identifying and developing a collaborative partnership database;
3) Developing a framework for analysis;
4) Selecting cases for in-depth study;
5) Conducting interviews; and
6) Performing cross-case analysis.
Progress with each phase was supplemented by:
!
!
Website development to disseminate and to gather information <www.
umich.edu/~crpgroup> and;
Presentations at the following conferences to further develop and acquire case-study
information:
♦
♦
♦
Building Capacity in Environmental Community-based Watershed Projects -- Peer to
Peer Learning, Skamania, Washington, February 7-10, 1999;
The Society for Range Management Annual Conference, Omaha, Nebraska - Report
on Coordinated Resource Management activity, February 23-24, 1999; and
The Society for Public Policy and Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) Mid-year Conference
for the Environmental and Public Policy Sector, Keystone, Colorado, May 13-15,
1999.
Methodology
2-1
RESEARCH PHASES
Introduction
The following description of research phases details what became a one and half year
evolving effort to understand and describe collaborative activity. Therefore, it is important to
note that our objectives necessitated overlap in nearly all research steps. This description
serves to explain why we took the steps we did, the thought processes behind it, and final
products.
Phase 1: Reviewing Current Literature About Collaborative Activity
Reviewing the literature on collaborative activity was the first step in determining how those
involved in the natural resource management field currently think about collaboration and
why. In addition, we knew that, to credibly assess the range of collaborative activity, it was
essential to understand the driving forces behind the growing number of collaborative
partnerships. Indeed, this phase guided our thinking, providing a clear view of where gaps in
knowledge about collaborative activity existed. Consequently, information gathered from the
literature also helped frame the need for a broader systematic assessment of collaboration.
During the initial six months of research (6/98 - 12/98), over 600 different sources of
information were investigated, including academic and professional journals, web sites,
popular press, previous case study reports, and government documents. Specifically, we used
the following topic areas to access information related to collaborative activity:
!
!
!
!
!
Environmental conflict resolution
Alternative dispute resolution in environmental conflicts
Positive and critical perspectives of collaboration in resource management
Collaborative approaches in natural resource decision-making
Case histories of well known collaborative partnerships
This step contributed to development of the first three chapters of our work:
Chapter 1: Background
Extensive literature review provided the information needed to create a descriptive history of
collaborative efforts, detailing interest-based organizational activity and agency operations in
the United States. It also helped to explain why there is confusion about the collaborative
process and, moreover, why it is important to begin trying to understand the landscape of
collaboration.
Chapter 2: Critiques of Collaboration
Understanding the literature also provided insight into the broad critiques, both supportive
and negative, of collaboration. As such, this chapter became a review of the supportive and
Methodology 2-2
Chapter 4: Mapping the Terrain
Finally, viewing the literature enriched our understanding of the many and varied Dimensions
of collaborative activity. Consequently, we developed over thirty continuums to represent the
variation we observed in collaborative initiatives across the country. We then used this
chapter to describe the dimensions of collaboration in resource management, highlighting
how groups differ along a single continuum as well as between different categories.
Phase 2: Identifying and Developing a Collaborative Partnership Database
Once we had defined what was being said about collaboration, our next step was to determine
what was actually being done on the ground. We did this by building a large database of case
information including groups from all parts of the spectrum; whether formal or informal; ad
hoc or institutionalized; large or small; time limited or ongoing. To avoid overlooking parts
of this landscape, it was necessary to initially frame collaboration in a purposefully broad
manner. Therefore, for research purposes, we defined collaborative partnerships as:
Groups of people from varied organizations or interests working together on natural
resource management issues.
With this definition in hand, we set out to:
1) Review compilations of collaborative initiatives; and
2) Contact individuals and organizations in the field to learn about additional cases.
Reports tapped for cases included, but were not limited to:
!
Balancing Public Trust and Private Interest: An Investigation of Public Participation in
Habitat Conservation Planning. Masters Project, University of Michigan's School of
Natural Resources and Environment. Dr. Steven L. Yaffee et. al. May 1998.
!
Building Bridges Across Agency Boundaries: In Search of Excellence in the United States
Forest Service. Dr. Julia M. Wondolleck and Dr. Steven L. Yaffee, July 15, 1994.
!
Coordinated Resource Management: Guidelines for All Who Participate. Rex Cleary and
Dennis Phillipi, Society of Range Management, 1st Edition, 1993.
!
Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. Dr.
Steven L. Yaffee et. al. Island Press and The Wilderness Society, 1996.
!
The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management, Final Report. The
Keystone Center, Colorado, October 1996.
!
The Watershed Source Book: Watershed-Based Solutions to Natural Resource Problem.
University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center.
Methodology
2-3
The World Wide Web was also useful for examining the state of upcoming groups, many of
which posted descriptions of their work. We contacted hundreds of organizations this way
and accessed a variety of list servers. In total, approximately 1,000 individuals were reached,
including federal and state land agencies, countless professional dispute resolution
organizations, and every office of The Nature Conservancy in the United States. Indeed,
maximizing the level of personal communication with individuals in the natural resource
management field was key to capturing groups previously unstudied.
In total, this process allowed us to build a database of over 450 collaborative partnerships.
For each, an information form was developed (called a Collaborative Partnership Brief or CP
Brief --see Appendix 2-2). These forms---highlighting information such as the initiator of the
partnership, funding source, outcomes, and contacts---illuminated the broad variation of
collaborative partnerships that was appearing. The database also formed the pool we later
used to illustrate the dimensions of collaboration (see Chapter 4 - Mapping the Terrain) and
to select cases for in-depth study described in Phase 4.
Phase 3: Developing a Framework for Analysis
After establishing this database, a framework was needed to make sense of the broad range of
collaborative efforts that are occurring. Though we initially attempted to neatly divide
groups into the descriptive boxes often found in the literature---such as Ecosystem
Management groups, Watershed Initiatives, Sustainable Community initiatives and
Collaborative Resource Management Partnerships---it soon became evident that there were
many distinguishing as well as unifying characteristics among groups, suggesting a more
complex relationship. In response to this confusion, we developed a conceptual framework
that captures and make sense of the many dimensions along which collaborative groups vary.
More than 30 descriptive continuums were identified describing the range and variation we
observed among hundreds of collaborative groups found in both the literature and our
partnership database.
Development of interview questions for in-depth cases
The second stage of the analysis framework was development of interview questions for case
studies. Interviews allowed us to empirically assess how groups managed the common
challenges and opportunities present in collaborative partnerships. Because of our interest in
the controversial aspects of collaboration, interview questions were based on the critical
perspectives of collaborative partnerships identified in the Critiques Chapter.
Methodology
2-4
These challenges, described in Appendix 2-2 and detailed in Analysis Chapters 15-20,
include:
!
!
!
!
Ensuring stakeholder representation;
Accommodating diverse interests;
Dealing with scientific dimensions of natural resource management; and
Accommodating diverse capabilities
Interview process
Interview questions were divided into two parts. Questions in Part 1 further probed
background knowledge on each group, such as the origin of the group and its organizational
structure (See Appendix 2-2 for full text) to give a sense of a group's evolution and
outcomes. In Part 2, participants were asked describe how their group dealt with the common
challenges to collaborative processes and what specific strategies they used to manage them.
The result was 10 in-depth case studies describing the evolutionary nature of particular
collaborative processes, the challenges they face and the strategies they use to address these
challenges (Chapters 5-14).
Phase 4: Selecting Cases for In-depth Study
Along with establishing a framework with which to examine variation of partnerships, we
also faced the daunting task of choosing a subset of cases (10) that exemplified the variation
we were observing among groups as well as the acute challenges they face. To narrow the
selection pool, a second definition of collaborative partnerships was applied involving four
criteria:
!
!
!
!
Diverse representation and citizen involvement
Consistent management activity
Focus on problem-solving
Minimum three -year existence
Diverse representation and citizen involvement
Qualifying cases needed to involve stakeholders representing diverse perspectives on the
resource issue at hand. For this criteria, we considered both the number and type of
perspectives present in the decision making process, prioritizing groups whose participants
identified themselves as representatives of three or more of the following interests:
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Environmentalists
Business representatives
Agency personnel
Citizens
Landowners
In particular, we wanted cases to have direct citizen involvement, not consisting only of
agencies, government, and formal organization representatives. This helped focus case
Methodology
2-5
studies away from more formalized processes toward the phenomena of increasing public
participation in resource management.
Consistent management activity
Consistent management activity meant considering only those partnerships deliberating on
and proposing changes to resource conditions (e.g. watershed management or rangeland
improvement). Comparatively, advisory councils, typically engaged only in information
exchange, did not qualify.
Focus on problem-solving
Selecting groups with a long-term on focus problem-solving eliminated partnerships that did
not go beyond one-time dispute resolution. Specifically, we were interested in examining
initiatives with long-term investment in resolving resource management issues.
Minimum three-year existence
Finally, a minimum of three years experience for groups improved the possibility that case
study partnerships had significant experience working in collaborative processes. This time
period was based on empirical evidence and personal communication from case participants
indicating the establishment of goals, objectives, and organizational framework typically
required 1-2 years.
Combining these four criteria, our case-study definition of collaborative partnerships read as
follows:
Groups composed of diverse stakeholders and unlike perspectives that involve citizens at a
community level, actively addressing natural resource issues and focused on problemsolving.
This case selection parameter reduced our database pool by 75%, from over 450 collaborative
partnerships to 112. Within this new subset, we identified groups reflecting the range and
variation we had mapped in the 'Dimensions’ section. Further background interviews were
then conducted to verify information and availability of group members for interview.
Finally, selected cases were compared between research team members, with short
descriptions of each case scrutinized during meetings against the four criteria.
Given time limitations for case development, the 10 cases chosen were:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Animas River Stakeholder Group, Colorado
Blackfoot Challenge, Montana
The Clark County Habitat Conservation Planning Process, Nevada
Darby Partnership, Darby Creek Watershed, Ohio
The McKenzie Watershed Council, McKenzie Watershed, Oregon
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Maryland and Delaware
Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council, Colorado
Owl Mountain Partnership, Colorado
Methodology
2-6
!
!
Three-Quarter Circle Ranch Coordinated Resource Management Group, Wyoming
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Planning Council, Scott River,
California
These cases comprise Chapters 5-14 of our report.
Phase 5: Conducting Phone Interviews
With partnerships selected, phone interviewing comprised the information-gathering phase of
each case. Our purpose was to give a "spotlight" look at the nature of collaborative activity
across the country, providing descriptions of what collaborative activity looks like, how it
functions, and the challenges it faces under specific circumstances.
The first step in this process was to develop additional background knowledge about each
case partnership to tailor questions to specific cases and more rapidly cover the background
questions in Part 1 of the interview. We then contacted group participants matching the
range of perspectives we wanted to capture in each group. When possible, this included an
environmentalist, small business or industry representative, agency personnel, and citizen and
/ or landowner. The interviewer also spoke to at least one individual outside of the
partnership to obtain external opinion on the partnership and determine why, if relevant, they
had abstained from participation.
In all, between seven and twelve interviews, each lasting approximately one hour, were
conducted and transcribed for each case. Conversations generally followed an open dialogue
guided by interview questions in which participants described challenges and strategies of
their partnership in detail. On several occasions, second calls were necessary to clarify points.
Phase 6: Cross-case Analysis
The cross-case analysis represented the final phase of research. Given the wide variation
among collaborative processes, prescriptive advice for collaborative efforts was deemed
inappropriate. Rather, analysis of partnerships identified cross-case themes in regard to
challenges, strategies and opportunities existing in each group. Analysis also paralleled four
main challenges to collaboration imbedded in the Critiques. It also compares the range of
outcomes found in the ten in-depth cases and reason participants chose to be involved in
collaborative processes. The focus of each analysis section is as follows:
!
Chapter 15: Why Collaboration and Alternatives
There are always a variety of different ways to try and solve a problem or encourage action or
decisions by others. Participating in public hearings, appealing agency decisions, and filing
lawsuits are certainly some options that have been frequently used. Multi-party collaboration
is another option. Why did the participants in the case study groups choose to collaborate
rather than pursuing other avenues for addressing their interests? What do they believe
would have happened with the issues of concern had the collaborative group not formed?
Methodology
2-7
!
Chapter 16: Outcomes
The dimensions highlighted in Chapter 4 illustrate that there are wide-ranging objectives and
goals evidenced across collaborative groups. What specifically has been accomplished by the
case study groups? What do participants believe to be the most important achievement of
their effort?
!
Chapter 17: Ensuring Stakeholder Representation
One challenge that collaborative groups encounter is achieving sufficient representation of
those individuals and groups who will likely be affected by the group's decisions. This is a
two-edged sword. The more interests that are represented, the more complete the information
and knowledge about the issues at stake; at the same time, the more people that are involved,
the more difficult it can be to manage discussions and reach decisions. What specific
challenges did the case study groups face in ensuring representation? How did they deal with
these challenges?
!
Chapter 18: Accommodating Diverse Interests
The diverse representation that makes collaborative groups unique presents both
opportunities as well as challenges. On one hand, "two heads are better than one" and having
diverse perspectives at the table can lead to more innovative solutions that are better tuned to
the specifics of the problems being addressed. This diverse representation can also lead to a
more broad-based and thorough understanding of the issues at stake. At the same time, to
accommodate many different stakeholders requires that comprises must be made. What
specific challenges did the case study groups face in accommodating the diverse interests in
their partnerships? How did they deal with these challenges?
!
Chapter 19: Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Another inherent challenge to collaborative initiatives is that people bring varying levels of
knowledge, skills, power and resources to the table. What specific challenges did the case
study groups face in accommodating the inevitable differences in influence, resources and
skills between the involved parties? How did they deal with these challenges?
!
Chapter 20: Dealing with Scientific Issues
Many environmental problems and natural resource management issues are both scientifically
complex and involve elements of risk and uncertainty. An additional challenge for
collaborative groups is to meet the diverse needs and concerns of those involved but, at the
same time, to do so in a way that is scientifically sound and credible. What specific
challenges did the case study groups face in dealing with the scientific dimensions of the
issues of concern to them? How did they deal with these challenges?
Methodology
2-8
Finally, our Conclusions (Chapter 21) provide a summary of major findings from each
analysis chapter. We also recount the core lessons about the nature of collaborative activity in
the United States gleaned from the research phases of this document.
Methodology
2-9
Figure 2-1. Flow diagram of tasks and products
TASKS
PRODUCTS
Chapter One:
Introduction and
Literature Review
Reviewing
current literature
Chapter Three:
Critiques of
Collaboration
Identifying and
developing a
collaborative
partnership database
Chapter Four:
Mapping the Terrain
Developing a
framework to
evaluate cases
Selecting cases
for in-depth
analysis
In-depth Case
Studies
Phone
Interviews
Analysis of Case
Studies
Analysis of
case studies
Conclusions
Methodology
2-10
Appendix 2-1: CP Brief
Location:
Environmental
issues:
Scale:
Land ownership
Initiator
Participants
• number
• representation,
• paid / volunteer
• likes / unlikes
Process structure
• open / closed
• facilitation
• decision rule
• connection to
existing
procedures
• formality
• other
Time Frame:
• when initiated
• ongoing?
• meeting
schedule
Funding Source:
Scientific basis
for planning,
implementing and
monitoring:
Decision
authority:
Methodology
2-11
Appendix 2-1 CP Brief (continued)
Outcomes:
Level of support /
opposition:
Other comments
(include
characteristics not
mentioned above)
Sources
Contacts
Methodology
2-12
Appendix 2-2. Interview questions
PART I. BACKGROUND
Introduction
!
!
What is the full name of your partnership, and can you spell it for me?
How would you describe your position in this partnership?
Origin of Partnership
!
!
!
Who and/or what initiated the partnership?
Why was the partnership initiated?
When was the partnership initiated?
Issues Information
!
!
!
!
!
What natural resource issues is the partnership concerned with?
How visible were these issues prior to the partnership formation? How were they dealt
with before the creation of the partnership?
Is the area of interest primarily public or private lands (give percentages of ownership)?
How large is the geographic area the partnership decisions would affect?
How far do members travel to participate in partnership activities?
Organizational Information
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Who are the members of the partnership and whom do they represent?
Does the partnership have a relationship with agencies responsible for the resource? If
so, please describe.
Why did members chose to participate?
What were principle goals of the partnership at the beginning? Have they changed?
How did the partnership establish its goals?
Is there a formal mission statement? What is it?
How is the partnership funded?
Process Information
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
How often does the partnership meet? Where?
How did the partnership choose to meet on this schedule?
How does the partnership make decisions (e.g. How did the partnership establish its
goals? consensus or majority rule)?
Does a facilitator assist in the process?
Does the partnership have any formal decision-making authority?
How much time do you invest in this partnership?
How does this compare to the time others invest?
Methodology
2-13
Outcomes
!
!
What kind of projects has the partnership accomplished?
What would you say has been the greatest accomplishment of the partnership?
PART II. CHALLENGES, STRATEGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Choosing to Collaborate
STATEMENT:
There are always a variety of different ways to try to solve a problem or encourage action or
decisions by others. Participating in public hearings, appealing agency decisions, filing
lawsuits are certainly some options that have been frequently used. Multi-part collaboration is
another option.
QUESTIONS:
Why did you choose to collaborate in this case?
What other options did you have? If the collaborative group would not have formed, what
could you have done to address your concerns/problem?
Who, legally, or administratively, was "in charge" and why were they not able to deal
effectively with the situation?
What do you think would have happened with these issues/problems if the collaborative
group had not formed?
Weighing what the group has accomplished versus what likely would have occurred
otherwise, what do you think are the most important achievements of the collaborative
group?
How would you describe the role of the collaborative partnership relative to that of the
responsible agencies?
What advice would you have with regards to the role a collaborative group should play and
its relationship to official agencies?
Ensuring Representation
STATEMENT:
One challenge that collaborative groups encounter is achieving sufficient representation of
those individuals and groups who will likely be affected by the group’s decisions. This is a
two-edged sword. The more interests that are represented, the more complete the information
and knowledge about the issues at stake; at the same time, the more people that are involved,
the more difficult it can be to manage discussions and reach decisions.
QUESTIONS:
How did your group select participants?
Were concerns ever raised about the lack of representation of any particular group or interest?
Methodology
2-14
In hindsight, do you feel that there were some interests that should have been involved but
weren’t?
What advice would you give others about how to deal with this challenge of ensuring
adequate and fair representation within a manageable process?
Local/National Tension
(NOTE: If this is an issue, it will likely be raised in responses to the above question. If it is
not discussed then, however, you should directly raise it, if the group deals with public land.)
STATEMENT:
Most collaborative groups coalesce out of a shared concern for an aspect of the environment
that directly affects their lives in some way. Because many groups are located in out-of-theway places, focused on specific resource base, representatives of regional or national groups
find it difficult to participate, or even be aware of the group’s discussions and decisions.
Some criticize collaborative groups that are looking at issues dealing with public lands
because they fear that local interests will dominate at the expense of broader national or state
interests.
QUESTIONS:
Did this local/national tension become apparent in your group?
How did you deal with it?
In hindsight, what would you have done differently?
What advice would you give to others about how to deal with this challenge?
Accommodating Diverse Interests
STATEMENT:
The diverse representation that makes collaborative groups unique presents both
opportunities as well as challenges. On the one hand, "two heads are better than one" and
having diverse perspectives at the table can lead to more innovative solutions that are better
tuned to the specifics of the problems being addressed. This diverse representation can also
lead to a more broad-based and thorough understanding of the issues at stake. At the same
time, this diversity poses inevitable challenges. To accommodate many different
stakeholders sometimes requires that compromise. Some fear that compromises lead to
“lowest common denominator solutions” that are less desirable than what otherwise might
have been decided.
QUESTION:
Has your group confronted this two-edged sword?
What have been the positive aspects of a group comprised of diverse interests?
What challenges have been encountered?
In what ways do you think it may have improved the decisions that you have made?
In what ways do you think it may have diminished decisions?
Methodology
2-15
What advice would you give to others about how to maximize the positive aspects of
representation by multiple stakeholders while minimizing the shortcomings?
Dealing with Scientific Issues
STATEMENT:
Many environmental problems and natural resource management issues are both scientifically
complex and involve elements of risk and uncertainty. An additional challenge for
collaborative groups is to meet the diverse needs and concerns of those involved but, at the
same time, to do so in a way that is scientifically sound and credible.
QUESTION:
How did your group deal with the scientific dimensions of the involved issues?
How did you obtain scientific advice and expertise when it was needed?
Did some representatives have the necessary scientific background? Consultants? University
involvement? Agency expertise?
What actions did your group take to ensure that decisions were in compliance with federal
and state environmental laws and regulations?
In hindsight, would you have dealt with this issue in a different way?
What advice would you give to others about how to deal with this challenge?
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
STATEMENT:
One inherent challenge to collaborative initiatives is that people bring varying levels of
knowledge, skills, power and resources to the table. Some people fear that collaborative
processes may lead to unfair or inequitable attention to some interests given inevitable
differences in power, resources and skills between the parties.
QUESTIONS:
Was this a challenge that you or your group encountered?
How did you deal with the reality that people do come to the table with different levels of
power, resources and skills?
Now having the benefit of hindsight, what do you wish you had done differently?
What advice would you give to others about how to deal with this challenge?
Additional Insights Particular to this Case (Last Remarks)
Are there any other issues or thoughts about your partnership group that you think are
important or useful for our project to know about?
Methodology
2-16
CHAPTER 3: CRITIQUES OF COLLABORATION
Although many individuals, organizations and agencies involved in the natural resource
management field support increased public participation, the ascent of community-based
collaborative partnerships raises important questions about the appropriate roles of citizens,
agencies, industries and interest groups in environmental decision-making. Controversy over
the widespread growth of local partnerships has sparked a national debate amongst supporters
and critics of these processes. Regional periodicals like The Chronicle of Community and
High Country News are forums for diverse perspectives on the issues at stake. Articles in
The New York Times and The Washington Post have brought national attention to
community-based collaboration, while the Internet facilitates the rapid exchange of opinions.
The spotlight on the Quincy Library Group (QLG) legislation, the Forest Health and
Economic Recovery Act (S 1028), has polarized the debate over the legitimacy of
collaborative processes, and much of the dialogue centers on thchanfe of3A(- prfhile ex)-109(ample.f)]TJT*-
Critiques of Collaboration
3-1
Watershed, 1998), and both government agencies and private organizations support the
watershed framework for natural resource management. Although not all watershed
initiatives are collaborative (indeed many local councils are instead moderate environmental
organizations), among collaborative partnerships, the watershed approach is widespread.
Criticism of collaboration largely limits itself to the western states, where public land issues
intertwine with management of private lands.
Innovative Solutions
Many believe collaboration produces more creative and adaptive solutions to complex natural
resource management problems (Wondolleck, 1996; Yaffee, 1998). Even for public land
management, involving stakeholders can produce innovative approaches to public lands
management (Brick, 1998). Advocates of collaboration contend that ecosystem issues are
local by definition and cannot be resolved with top-down solutions from federal agencies in
Washington (Sadler, 1994; Dewitt, 1994). Top down management follows routine strategies
and may not consider the range of possible solutions.
In contrast, cooperation between stakeholders can “overcome the inherent fragmentation in
our society between multiple agencies, levels of government, public and private sectors,
diverse interest groups, and different disciplines and value structures (Yaffee, 1998). Inkpen
suggests that decision-making can be improved by the new knowledge created within a
collaborative initiative (Inkpen in Yaffee et al, 1995). With more issues and perspectives on
the table, groups can combine management strategies in new ways or imagine new ways to
solve problems. Brick avows that “Experimentation on the periphery” is a prime way to
promote flexibility and creativity (Brick, 1998).
Problem Solving and Effective Results
Dewitt labels this new model of governance “civic environmentalism” (Dewitt, 1994). He
emphasizes that new kinds of environmental challenges, such as nonpoint pollution, pollution
prevention, and ecosystem management can only be addressed through collaboration among
the various actors (Dewitt, 1994). In these cases, he asserts, federal regulation is neither as
effective nor sufficient to solve the problems (Dewitt, 1994). Even elected officials and
agency representatives have become aware that without the backing of local communities,
decisions made will not be as potent or taken as seriously as those that have included
citizens’ input throughout the process (Thomas, 1998).
Proponents of collaborative partnerships claim that they produce the most effective results in
the long term (Propst, 1997). They maintain that involving stakeholders in planning,
implementation and monitoring of management projects encourages ownership by all
participants, which in turn facilitates implementation. Supporters insist that the traditional
top-down decision-making processes, on the other hand, have never worked (Erickson,
1998). Decision-making that doesn’t include stakeholder concerns is seen as leading to
stalemate and frustration, common catalysts for collaborative alternatives (Van de Wetering,
1998; Yaffee et al, 1997).
Critiques of Collaboration
3-2
It is argued that incremental successes, implemented step by step through a collaborative
process, are often more permanent (France, 1998). Although partnerships should not be
expected to solve all problems or radically change public lands management, they may
contribute substantially to implementable solutions (Brick, 1998). According to Selin and
Chavez (1995 in Yaffee et al, 1997) “collaborative designs can be a powerful tool for
resolving conflict and advancing a shared vision of how a resource should be managed”.
Collaboration can provide a gauge of what is politically possible to achieve (Brick, 1998).
Supporters testify that collaboration encourages participants to focus on their personal role in
the management of a resource and the search for solutions, rather than pointing fingers
(Yaffee et al, 1997; Erickson, 1998). For example, ranchers in the Blackfoot Challenge in
central Montana have taken the responsibility to rectify the impacts their land management
practices have had on watershed health. Their leadership serves as a model for others in the
community and has resulted in substantial on the ground improvements (Erickson, 1998).
Since private forest landowners own 73% of the nation’s forest (358 million acres), the
quality of private land management can have a significant impact on the nation’s natural
resources (Zeller, 1997). Zeller contends that this pattern of land ownership is yet another
reason to promote collaborative initiatives that involve both private and public land owners in
natural resource management decision-making (Zeller, 1997).
Community Sustainability
Collaborative processes can build trust between parties, a necessary condition for problemsolving to occur (Gieben, 1995). The benefits for communities and ecosystems are mutual,
according to many participants. Collaboration helps communities relearn lessons of
“tolerance, commitment, persistence and inclusiveness” (KenCairn, 1998). Partnership
participants claim that one of the most important benefits of the process was connecting
people within a community (APPLEGATE VIDEO). Supporters allege that until people talk
to each other, neither understanding nor problem solving can occur; personal relationships
and dialogue are vital. New relationships can “ defuse future conflicts and promote future
bridging (Yaffee et al, 1997). Yaffee and Wondolleck (1995) have dubbed these information
and relationship networks “knowledge pools and relationsheds”, both essential elements of
collaborative initiatives. Solomon asserts that “If you have not established yourself with
someone, you have lost the opportunity to influence him” (Solomon, 1996). Broader
influence can remove the barriers to stewardship (KenCairn, 1998). Not only might
ecological restoration and sound management protect the “ecological capital” of rural
communities, but according to one participant, “community success and pride will protect
more habitat than any law we could write” (Michael Jackson quoted in Hamilton, 1993).
Many believe that sustainability goes hand in hand with collaboration. Neither the traditional
environmental movement (Brick, 1998) nor federal land management agencies (Zeller, 1997)
are organized to address the concerns of rural communities, where economic welfare and the
health of the environment are highly interconnected. According to supporters, partnerships
Critiques of Collaboration
3-3
can demonstrate that environmental preservation does not have to conflict with jobs in rural
communities (Brick, 1998).
Expanding the Tool Box
According to most proponents, collaboration can and should happen within a strong
framework of national laws. They are convinced that collaboration does not negate the need
for strong national policy and environmental laws; it is a way to implement solutions. . A
challenge to partnerships is to explain how their work can be integrated into national policy
(Brick, 1998). According to Tom France of the National Wildlife Federation’s Northern
Rockies Natural Resource Center, a participant in the process that developed a Citizen
Management Plan for the reintroduction of Grizzly Bears into the Selway-Bitterroot, the
question was never whether to comply with the Endangered Species Act, but how (France,
1998). Environmentalists who support collaborative efforts agree that it is important to have a
big toolbox. Participating in a collaborative group does not mean abandoning other
strategies. Lobbying and litigation remain powerful tools to uphold national environmental
standards in situations where a local initiative threatens to circumvent the law (France, 1998;
Brick, 1998; Rasker, 1998).
Critical Perspectives
Collaborative partnerships are also harshly criticized. Many national environmental groups
have refused to participate in several high profile partnerships, while others raise important
questions that have gone unanswered (McCloskey, 1996). Concerns range from
condemnation of alternative dispute resolution as a tactic to delegitimize conflict and co-opt
environmental advocates (Britell 1997, Modavi 1996), to uncertainty over local control of
national resources and the scientific soundness of negotiated agreements. Legislative support
for the proposals of at least two groups (located in Quincy and Tuolumne County, California)
have heightened fears that local efforts will pre-empt national interests, bypassing
environmental safeguards and the opportunity for non-participant’s review and comment
along the way (Duane, 1997; Cockburn, 1993; Blumberg, 1998 ).
At the heart of the matter is the precedent set by administrative and popular support for a
process that has wide variation and no accepted standards for structure, functioning, or
evaluation of outcomes (Huber, 1997). Simply put, these processes raise many questions for
organizations that have been long active in normal governmental processes and who are
uncertain about their role and capacity in this alternative forum. Concerns have been
heightened by the passage of the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic
Stability Act of 1997 (July) in the House by a vote of 429-1 (U.S. House of Representatives,
Herger 1997).
Critiques of Collaboration
3-4
Co-optation
One of the most common criticisms of collaborative initiatives is that they result in the cooptation of environmental interests. Because of power imbalances and a lack of formal
negotiation training, it is argued that environmental representatives cannot adequately defend
their interests when faced with industry representatives (Britell, 1997; Moldavi, 1996;
Coggins, 1998). Financially vested representation might skew the debate and thus the
outcomes of a collaborative process. In fact, critics claim, government and industry use the
term collaboration as a euphemism for a sell-out of environmental goals (Cockburn, 1993).
Local Control Compromises Federal Laws
Critics are especially concerned about local ad-hoc groups working collaboratively on issues
dealing with Federal lands. While much of the debate centers specifically on the QLG,
concerns about the legitimacy of local control over national resources permeate the literature.
Legally, local interests have no more right to comment on, much less decide the fate of
federal lands, merely because they happen to live in proximity (Blumberg, 1998). Federal
environmental legislation ensures the systematic management of national resources according
to baseline standards. It is believed that local collaborative partnerships can dilute those
standards and threaten hard won national laws like NEPA and NFMA (Blumberg, 1998).
Some critics even claim that the USFS wants to replace NEPA with collaboration (Holmer
and Davitt, 1998). Relying on local collaboration to devise solutions to natural resource
management problems is said to be an “abdication of legal responsibilities” (Coggins, 1998).
If everyone collaborates and reaches a compromise, strong national environmental goals will
be harder to achieve (Coggins, 1998; Wuerthner, 1998).
Lowest Common Denominator Solutions
Critics assert that collaborative groups can not produce the best decisions for environmental
protection, because only lowest common denominator solutions survive (McCloskey, 1996).
They argue that there is no win-win solution, but rather a distribution of the losses (Coggins,
1998). Groups might not work with the full range of options on the table, because not all
voices are represented. Without adequate representation of environmental concerns, groups
may not question other impacts or future consequences of decisions. Wuerthner (1998) calls
partnerships “patch-up, fix-up, half-way” solutions. A common assumption is that
recommendations and decisions of citizen-dominated partnerships are not science-based
implementation of national laws (McCloskey, 1996; Letter to Committee of Scientists, 1998).
Complacency
Since most people do not like conflict, they buy into the idea of collaborative partnerships. If
people are convinced that compromise achieved through collaboration produces the best
solutions, it may reduce the incentive to look for other alternatives. There may be more
politically difficult solutions that are better for the environment that are not considered.
Collaborative groups provide a safe alternative to crisis by holding off an inevitable crash
Critiques of Collaboration
3-5
(Wuerthner, 1998). For example, according to environmental activist George Wuerthner, the
Northern Forest Council in Maine maintains the logging industry’s image of a sustainable
working forest and thus the public’s confidence in a workable solution, even though the
economy is failing and companies are not reinvesting in mills. Compromise can avoid the
search for long-term solutions (Wuerthner, 1998). It may also inhibit the mobilization of
voices of opposition (Moldavi, 1997). In the west, critics are convinced that collaborative
groups serve to protect the status quo from modern reality and prolong unjustifiable subsidies
and preferences (Coggins, 1998; Wuerthner, 1998).
Representation
Another issue is that of adequate representation of legitimate stakeholders, particularly those
who represent national environmental concerns. The vast landscape of the west often makes
it impossible for an environmental organization with an interest in an entire region to
participate in every collaborative effort that appears. Indeed, collaborative efforts are very
time-consuming processes, and local citizens complain that they are disadvantaged in their
capacity to maintain a high level of participation. In addition, some communities simply are
not particularly diverse in their perspectives. Smaller community groups may represent a
cross section of the community, yet represent a tiny percentage of nationwide views. These
local groups are generally applauded for their initiative as long as their decisions affect only
private not public land.
Some groups like the Willapa Bay intentionally exclude environmentalists to avoid divisive
opinions (Colorado Natural Resources Law Center, 1996). Although most partnerships claim
to have diverse representation, critics disagree. Dissenting views may not be invited to
participate in closed processes. The environmental representatives are usually more
“moderate” (Wuerthner, 1996) or “tractable and malleable” (Britell, 1997) or they may have
other financial interests. If a minority environmental voice is present, they may fear being
outvoted or pressured to go along with the majority opinion, especially when that majority is
more powerful.
Irreconcilable Values
For collaboration to work, participants have to be able to define a common end goal.
Therefore, many issues are not susceptible to unanimous agreement. Often, values differ
irreconcilably (Coggins, 1998; Wuerthner, 1998) and it is impossible to get past
philosophical differences. Critics claim that partnerships tend to self-select for “like”
perspectives (Sommarstrom, 1998), since stakeholders with more radical viewpoints may be
unwilling to redefine their ultimate goals in the context of a common group goal. Critics also
feel that if groups choose only "likes," they fall short of what defines a collaborative group
(Sommarstrom, 1998). Even supporters of collaboration admit that it may be inappropriate
or not feasible for some volatile environmental issues like endangered species listings or
wilderness area designation where the outcome must be all or nothing (Van de Wetering,
1998).
Critiques of Collaboration
3-6
Precedent
Collaborative efforts are being held up as paradigms: solutions that can be applied to the
whole landscape. However, a particular process may be successful because of a unique set of
circumstances. Success is proclaimed under limited qualifications (Wuerthner, 1998). For
example, the Applegate Partnership had the advantage of strong local environmental
organizations with resources and well-qualified professionals (Britell, 1997). Success should
not be extrapolated to call for national policy mandates for collaboration because of a few
poster children. Scale is also important: something that works on a small scale will not
necessarily work if expanded to a larger arena.
Authority
The question of authority is also raised. Partnership agreements are believed to be inherently
unenforceable (Coggins, 1998). Environmentalist representatives are unable to commit the
public or the environmental community to a course of action (Britell, 1997). The interest
groups that they represent may not have the internal cohesion necessary for a particular
member to be able to represent the organization’s viewpoint in a collaborative process
(Yaffee et al, 1997).
Conclusion
This review of the supportive and critical perspectives on collaborative initiatives raises
several key questions for our research team. Can partnerships be described globally or even
compared to one another fairly? What characteristics do partnerships have that might
differentiate them? How can we describe the range and variation of collaborative partnerships
to truly understand what collaborative resource management looks like?
The following section, Chapter 4 - Mapping the Terrain, attempts to answer some of those
questions, painting a broad picture of the collaborative landscape. Our intention is to provide
a more comprehensive perspective on the varied forms and characteristics of collaboration
than that currently portrayed in the literature.
Critiques of Collaboration
3-7
Sources
Amy, Douglas J., “The Politics of Environmental Mediation,” Ecology Law Quarterly, v. 11
n. 1 (1983): 332 - 350.
Arnstein, S. R., “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal American Institute Planners 217
(1969); see also Larry W. Canter, Environmental Impact Assessment 590-91 (2d ed. 1996).
Arrandale, Tom, “Conservation by Consensus,” Environment, July 1997: 68.
Blumberg, Louis and Darrell.Knuffke, “Count Us Out: Why The Wilderness Society
Opposed the Quincy Library Group Legislation,” Chronicle of Community,
Britell, Jim, “The Myth of ‘Win-Win,’” web article,
http://www.qlg.org/public_html/Perspectives/winwin.htm, 9/15/97
Britell, Jim, “Partnerships, Roundtables and Quincy-type Groups are Bad Ideas that Cannot
Resolve Environmental Conflicts,” web article,
http://www.harborside.com/home/j/jbritell/welcome.htm, 12/30/97.
Britell, Jim, “Can Consensus Processes Resolve Environmental Conflicts?,” web article,
http://www.harborside.com/home/j/jbritell/use/use10.html, 3/3/98.
Britell, Jim, “When You Must Negotiate: Field Notes for Forest Activists,” Forest Watch.
May 1991: 4-24.
Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, “Keys Common to Successful
Collaboration,” Western Governors Association Handout, Draft Document, 1/7/98.
Brick, Phil, “Of Imposters, Optimists, and Kings: Finding a political niche for collaborative
conservation,” The Chronicle of Community, Winter 1998, v. 2 n. 2.
California Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) Technical Advisory
Council, “A Local Approach,” CRMP Handbook, June 1996.
The Chronicle of Community, “A Conversation with Luther Propst,” v. 1, n. 3, Spring 1997.
Cockburn, Alexander, “Bruce Babbitt, Compromised by Compromise: While the media
lionize him, he’s selling out the environment,” The Washington Post National Weekly
Edition, September 6-12, 1993.
Coggins, George Cameron, “Of Californicators, Quislings and Crazies: Some perils of
devolved collaboration,” The Chronicle of Community, v. 2, n. 2, Winter 1998.
Critiques of Collaboration
3-8
Crowfoot, James E and Julia M. Wondolleck, Environmental Disputes: Community
Involvement in Conflict Resolution, Washington, D.C., Island Press, 1990.
Detroit Free Press, “Rouge Cleanup: Communities Must Keep the Momentum Going,” In
Our Opinion, Feb. 9, 1998.
Dewitt, John, “Civic Environmentalism,” Issues in Science and Technology, v.10 n.4 (1994):
30.
Duane, Timothy P., “Community Participation in Ecosystem Management,” Ecology Law
Quarterly, Boalt Hall School of Law – University of California, Berkeley, Vol. 24. No. 4
(1997).
Dukes, Frank, “Public Conflict Resolution: A Transformative Approach,” Negotiation
Journal, January 1993: 45-57.
Erickson, Lill, Director, Corporation for the Northern Rockies, Personal communication,
11/2/98.
EPA “Surf Your Watershed” web page, www.epa.gov/surf/surf98/about.html, 11/7/98.
Fisher, Roger and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981.
Fisher, Roger and Scott Brown, Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988.
France, Tom, National Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center.
Telephone Interview, October 14, 1998.
Getches, David. Some Irreverent Questions about Watershed-Based Efforts. The Chronicle
of Community. Spring 1998: Vol.2, No. 3.
Gieben, Helmut. The Misplaced Search for Objectivity in Resource Management.
Watershed Management Council Newsletter. Summer 1995. Vol. 6 No. 3.
Golten, Robert J. Mediation: A “Sellout” for Conservation Advocates, or a Bargain? The
Environmental Professional. Persamon Press, 1980. Vol. 2, pp. 62-66.
.
Hamilton, Joan. Streams of Hope: A Recession brings pain, but also renewal, to Plumas
County, California. Sierra. September / October 1993.
Hayes, Samuel P. The Politics of Neutralization. Beauty, Health and Permanence:
Environmental Politics in the U.S. 1955-1985. Cambridge University Press, 1987. p. 415422.
Critiques of Collaboration
3-9
Herger, Wally. Victory For Quincy Library Bill. Congressional Press Release. July 9, 1997.
Huber, Joy. Washington State Non-Governmental Organization Statewide Overview: The
Citizens Watershed Movement in Washington State. Watershed Management Council
Networker. Fall 1997. Vol. 7 No. 3 pp. 14-17.
Innes, Judith E. “Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive
Planning Ideal,” Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 460 n. 62, 1996.
Jones, Lisa, “Howdy Neighbor! - As a last resort, Westerners starting talking to each other,”
High Country News, v. 28 n. 9., May 13, 1996: 6-8
Katzeff, Paul, “Governors electing more mediation: ‘Old-style decision-making has to
disappear’,” Consensus, n. 38, April 1998.
KenCairn, Brett, “The Partnership Phenomenon,” The Chronicle of Community, v. 1, n. 3,
Spring 1997.
The Keystone Center, “The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management,”
Final Report, October 1996.
Khor, Karen, “Cost-Savings propel proliferation of states’ conflict-resolution programs”
Consensus, MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, n. 27, July 1995.
McClellan, Michelle, “A Sampling of the WLA’s Collaboration Efforts,” High Country
News, v. 28 n. 9, May 13, 1996: 15
McCloskey, Mike, “The Skeptic: Collaboration Has its Limits,” High Country News, v. 28
n. 9, May 13, 1996: 7.
Mazza, Patrick, “Cooptation or Constructive Engagement? Quincy Library Group’s Effort to
Bring Together Loggers and Environmentalists Under Fire,” Cascadia Planet, August 20,
1997, http://www.tnews.com/text/quincy_library.html, accessed 3/3/98.
Modavi, Neghin, “Mediation of Environmental Conflicts in Hawaii: Win-Win or Cooptation?,” Sociological Perspectives, v. 39, n. 2: 301-316.
Ozawa, Connie, Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy-Making,
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Ch. 3 “Consensus-based Approaches to Handling
Science,” 45-77.
Plater, Zygmunt J.B.; Abrams, Robert H.; and William Goldfarb, Environmental Law and
Policy: Nature, Law and Society, West Publishing Company, 1992: 979-996.
Critiques of Collaboration
3-10
Rasker, Ray, Sonoran Institute,Personal communication, November 6, 1998.
River Network, River Voices, Fall 1997, v. 8 n. 3.
Selin, Steve and Deborah Chavez, “Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental
Planning and Management,” Environmental Management, 2 (1995): 189-195.
Susskind, Lawrence E., Babbit, Eileen F. and Phyllis N. Seagal, “In Practice: When ADR
Becomes the Law: A Review of Federal Practice,” Negotiation Journal, January 1993: 59-75.
Susskind, Lawrence E. and Alan Weinstein, “Toward a Theory of Environmental Dispute
Resolution,” Environmental Affairs, v. 9, (C1980): 311-356.
Van de Wetering, Sarah, Assistant Editor, Chronicle of Community, Personal
communication, Missoula, MT, August 17, 1998.
Wuerthner, George, free-lance writer/photographer and environmental activist, Personal
communication, October 14, 1998.
Wondolleck, Julia M.; Manring, Nancy J.; and James E. Crowfoot, “Teetering at the Top of
the Ladder: The Experience of Citizen Group Participants in Alternative Dispute Resolution
Processes,” Sociological Perspectives, v. 39 n. 2 (1996): 249-162.
Wondolleck, Julia M. and Steven L.Yaffee, Building Bridges Across Agency Boundaries: In
Search of Excellence in the U.S. Forest Service (Ann Arbor, MI: School of Natural
Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan, 1994), a report to the USDAForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Yaffee, Steven, in Stewardship Across Boundaries, ed. By Richard Knight and Peter Landres,
Washington, D.C., Island Press, 1998, “Cooperation: A Strategy for Achieving Stewardship
Across Boundaries.”
Yaffee, Steven and Julia Wondolleck, “Building Knowledge Pools and Relationsheds,”
Journal of Forestry, 93(5), (1995): 60.
Yaffee, Steven L.; Phillips, Ali F.; Frentz, Irene C.; Hardy, Paul W.; Maleki, Sussanne M.;
and Barbara E Thorpe, Ecosystem Management in the United States – An Assessment of
Current Experience, Island Press/The Wilderness Society, 1996.
Yaffee, Steven, Julia Wondolleck and Steven Lippman, “Factors that Promote and Constrain
Bridging: A Summary and Analysis of the Literature,” a research report submitted to the
USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1997.
Zeller, Marty, “Common Ground: Community-Based Conservation of Natural Resources,”
Denver: Conservation Partners, 1997.
Critiques of Collaboration
3-11
CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRAIN
I. INTRODUCTION
Natural resource collaborative initiatives are varied and diverse by nature. With growing
administrative and popular support for increased citizen participation in decision-making,
agencies, community and non-profit organizations, local governments and individuals are
creating new ways of managing natural resources. Partnerships involve different people and
groups, have different goals, organizational structures and operating procedures. Sometimes
they are the result of government programs, projects or policies such as ecosystem
management or the Bureau of Land Management's Resource Advisory Councils. They often
represent innovation adapted to local situations and have unique characteristics. In the words
of one Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) chair, “CRMs are like snowflakes; no two
are alike” (Weter, 1999). The same may be said of watershed councils, sustainable
community initiatives, habitat conservation planning processes, ecosystem management
projects, land trust planning projects and other collaborative partnerships.
The objective of this chapter is to describe the landscape of natural resource collaborative
partnerships. Without judging effectiveness or suggesting appropriate characteristics, we
hope to depict the range and variation of some of the collaborative initiatives throughout the
country.
In order to understand a landscape, it is useful to map the terrain, charting prominent
landmarks and significant variation. In examining over 450 cases of environmental
collaborative efforts, we identified some of the dimensions along which partnerships vary. A
collaborative partnership as portrayed on this map is defined as an association of individuals
or organizations working together to solve environmental problems within a defined
geographic boundary. These may include groups that do not fit everyone’s criteria or model
of collaborative groups. While we certainly want to avoid adding to the confusion, it seems
essential to include the spectrum of different groups in order to provide a synopsis of some
differentiating characteristics. Therefore, we have included case examples in this chapter that
fall outside of the specific kind of partnership that will be analyzed in the in-depth case
studies.
Partnerships can vary in terms of the nature of their origin, issues, organizational structure,
process and outcomes. Within each of these broad categories, we have outlined a series of
inter-linked dimensions. Neither the categories nor the dimensions should be seen as sealed
boxes, but rather pathways to aid navigation across a complex terrain.
Mapping the Terrain
4-1
II. ORIGIN
Collaborative partnerships vary according to the range of issues and forces that prompt their
formation. The socio-historical environment in which a partnership originates often sets the
stage for the nature of the group. Both the level of conflict and sense of urgency create a
range of climates for collaboration. The partnership initiator may influence the mission and
structure of the group, its process and outcomes. Driven individuals are often paramount to
formation of a collaborative initiative. Government agency programs that emphasize
collaboration and citizen input may provide the framework and funding, but ultimately both
the creation and sustainability of a group depends on the dedication of the people involved.
Dimensions in this section attempt to chart various aspects of partnership origins such as
their:
!
!
!
Trigger
Initiator
Timing
Trigger
Future crisis
Crisis
Impasse
Legislation
The formation of collaborative processes can be traced back to a particular trigger or set of
triggers. A trigger is the catalyst for the creation of the group. It may be as organic as an
individual’s concern over the future or current degradation of a resource, or as
institutionalized as a federal mandate. Deadlock refers to the common situation when conflict
between opposing interests halts decision making or action. No one stakeholder can
influence outcomes without involving other concerned parties. Often, triggers work
concurrently to motivate a shift in policy towards a collaborative approach.
In Montana, the Blackfoot Challenge (see chapter 6) formed in order to ward off the future
crisis that citizens foresaw in their valley. Similar to many small towns in the West,
residents of the valley began to see an influx of new people with new ideas. Agencies
responsible for managing valley resources each had their own agendas and no one was
looking at the larger picture. In order to coordinate efforts and avoid any future crises, a few
local visionaries convened a forum to get all of these interests together.
Many partnerships are less proactive, forming only after the problem has already become a
crisis issue demanding immediately attention. For example, the Coeur d’Alene watershed in
Idaho suffered from severe heavy metal contamination, erosion, sedimentation, thermal and
nutrient pollution. This resource crisis was caused by mismanagement of the traditional
industries of the areas: mining, timber, grazing, and farming. Degradation of the watershed
triggered a collaborative approach when it began affecting that same resource base. Instead
of a Superfund approach, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Coeur d’Alene tribe decided to unite other stakeholders to
Mapping the Terrain
4-2
create a management plan and conduct small-scale clean-up projects (University of Colorado
NRLC, 1996: 2-11).
A crisis can often lead to conflict over how the problem should be solved. Impasse between
stakeholders can also trigger a collaborative initiative. For instance, the Clark Fork River in
Montana was designated a Superfund site when arsenic was discovered in the river in 1981.
After years of court battles over jurisdiction and financial responsibility, the Clark Fork
Basin Committee formed to focus instead on a basin management plan that would address the
concerns of all stakeholders regarding both water quality and quantity (Snow, 1996).
On the far end of the continuum, the Minnesota Forest Resource Council, formed in 1995 by
the Sustainable Forest Resource Act, illustrates a legislative trigger. This state legislation
mandated the Governor to appoint thirteen representatives of various interest groups to lead
current and future state forestland policies (www.frc.state.mn.us). On the other side of the
country, the Washington State legislature passed the Nisqually River Management Plan in
1987. The legislation created the Nisqually River Council, an inter-agency body that
coordinates the implementation of the plan and oversees land management decision-making
within the river basin (EPA, 1994:119).
Initiator
Citizen
Local Gov.
Community Group
Non-profit
Industry
Gov. Agency
Related to the trigger (what initiates) is the issue of who initiates the partnership. The
continuum for the initiator illustrates an increasing level of power or resources. An
individual citizen represents one endpoint and a government agency the other. The exact
position on the continuum will vary depending on location and the nature of the initiator.
Some local governments are more powerful than an industry; a non-profit may have more,
equal, or less power than other entities depending on its size, membership, age and resources.
The Malpai Borderlands Initiative exemplifies a citizen-initiated partnership. Local ranchers
and private landowners from the Arizona and New Mexico border started this collaborative
partnership that now involves local, state and federal agencies, The Nature Conservancy and
the University of Arizona, among others. The founders were concerned with the loss of
unfragmented open space, productive grasslands and ecological diversity in the region
(Yaffee et al, 1996:183). Citizens also initiated the Blackfoot Challenge near Missoula,
Montana in order to create a forum through which to coordinate the management of the
Blackfoot River basin (see Chapter 6). Landowners were particularly interested in
maintaining local control over management strategies in the valley (Lindbergh, 1999).
The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) represents a community-based planning
and organizing entity in the Roxbury / North Dorchester area of Boston. Formed in 1984,
businesses, churches, ethnic groups, and non-profit organizations came together to revive
Mapping the Terrain
4-3
their neighborhood that was nearly devasted by arson, disinvestment, and neglect. There
purpose is to organize and empower residents of the area to create a safe and economically
thriving region (http://www.dsni.org/).
The Sonoran Institute, a non-profit organization, has also initiated several collaborative
initiatives (http://www.sonoran.org/si/index.html). It is dedicated to promoting communitybased strategies that preserve the ecological integrity of protected lands while meeting the
economic aspirations of adjoining landowners and communities. One example is the planning
process in Red Lodge, Montana that resulted in the formation of the Beartooth Front
Community Forum. The Forum plans and implements a variety of projects to maintain the
community’s environmental, social and economic sustainability.
Trout Unlimited (TU), a national non-profit organization with local chapters throughout the
U.S, has initiated collaborative partnerships focused on river and watershed resources. In
southwest Wisconsin, Trout Unlimited applied the Home Rivers Initiative model to an
“integrated ecosystem management” project for the Kickapoo River watershed. TU
coordinates a diverse team of agencies, sports clubs, conservation groups, business interests
and other individuals and groups on a local coordinating committee that works with TU to
oversee project activities (Hewitt and Born, 1998).
An example of a local government initiated partnership is the Solid Waste Planning
Committee, created by the Washtenaw County Department of Environment and
Infrastructure in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The committee, comprised of diverse interests, was
established to comply with Michigan’s 1994 Natural Resource and Environmental Protection
Act (www.co.washtenaw.mi.us/depts/eis/swpc).
There are several examples of industry initiated collaborative planning or assessment efforts.
The Weyerhaeuser Corporation took the lead in Washington State to conduct watershed
analyses addressing multiple concerns for all of their land holdings. The company has
voluntarily expanded the program to Oregon, California and Idaho (Blackmore, 1999). In
North Carolina, Weyerhaeuser and the Environmental Defense Fund jointly initiated a
process to develop a long-term management plan for the Parker Tract, a 100,000-acre coastal
plain forest owned by Weyerhaeuser. The partnership, similar to those initiated by the
Nature Conservancy or other land trusts, proposes to maintain the ecological integrity of the
property while continuing to yield sufficient economic profit (http://www.activemediaguide.com/profile_weyerhr.htm).
Land management agencies along with the EPA are increasingly looking to collaboration as
a way to achieve their goals. On the mid-Atlantic coast, the EPA and state agencies created
the Chesapeake Bay Program to manage a number of issues affecting the bay and its larger
watershed. Since land is mostly private, agencies encouraged landowners, environmentalists
and other citizens to participate in the program (Yaffee et al, 1996: 113).
Mapping the Terrain
4-4
Timing
Proactive
Reactive
Partnerships also differ with respect to the timing of formation relative to the state of the
resource. Some collaborative groups form proactively in anticipation of a perceived future
threat to a valued resource. The group may also be established in response to problems
experienced in other communities. More common are those groups that are initiated in
reaction to an apparent problem, or when a crisis situation is evident.
The Willapa ecosystem in southwestern Washington State includes productive forests and
encompasses one of the cleanest, most productive estuaries in the continental United States.
The Willapa Alliance, a partnership of diverse interests formed to address the need for a
sustainable development plan to proactively “enhance the diversity, productivity and health
of Willapa’s unique environment, to promote sustainable economic development, and to
expand the choices available to the people who live here” (Zeller, 1997, p.11). Another
example of a proactive group is the Beartooth Front Community Forum in Red Lodge,
Montana. Red Lodge, a gateway to Yellowstone National Park, has seen increased tourism
and anticipates future changes in its socioeconomic base. Residents of Beartooth initiated the
Forum in order to identify potential threats to the community and develop a vision for the
future (Concern / Community SRI, 1998).
In contrast, all Habitat Conservation Planning processes (HCP) start because of reaction to
actual or future endangered species listings under the Endangered Species Act. The Volusia
County HCP was also spurred on by a citizen lawsuit over impacts and to avert the takings of
five species of sea turtle in Volusia County, Florida. All five species are listed as threatened
or endangered. The HCP proposes to minimize threats to the species by involving
stakeholders in the planning process (www.ncedr.org/casestudies/hcp/volusia.html).
III. ISSUE
By opening the door to participation from diverse interests, collaborative partnerships
address a comprehensive range of issues. Mission and scope both affect the nature of issues.
Some partnerships retain a very narrow focus, while others integrate the myriad social,
economic and ecological factors that influence the health of a community. Land ownership
can affect the kinds of issues dealt with and raise questions about the party ultimately
responsible for the resource at stake. Issues may be scientifically or socially complex,
emerging or at crisis stage, and variable in terms of visibility to the community at large.
Some of the dimensions of issue are:
!
!
!
!
!
!
Focus
Number
Land ownership
Resource responsibility
Scientific complexity
Stage
Mapping the Terrain
4-5
!
Visibility
Focus
Ecological
Socio-economic
Collaborative partnerships address issues that range along a continuum of solely ecological to
primarily social concerns related to resource management. Yet, when diverse stakeholders
are involved, most collaborative partnerships consider both social and ecological issues.
Moreover, groups vary according to emphasis placed on these social or environmental
concerns.
The Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Planning process in Wisconsin is an
example of a partnership dealing primarily with ecological issues, namely the management
of disturbance-dependent habitat. The committee is particularly concerned with monitoring
the existence of wild lupine, Lupinus perrems, which provides food for the butterfly’s larval
stage (Yaffee et al, 1996:169).
In contrast, the Sustainable Development Task Force of Northhampton County, Virginia,
created to address the challenges produced by a declining population and economic upheaval
in the seafood and agricultural industries, portrays a partnership with dominant socioeconomic interests. The Task Force proposes to protect and enhance the county’s natural
assets in order to encourage the development of “heritage tourism” which members hope will
“improve the quality of life of the county’s people and retain its young people as they enter
the work force.” Although land stewardship is an objective, the primary purpose of the
partnership is socio-economic sustainability (EPA, 1997: p.3-23).
The Ponderosa Pine Partnership in Montezuma County, Colorado illustrates the marriage of
ecological and socio-economic concerns most common in collaborative initiatives. The
partnership joins the San Juan-Rio Grande National Forest, Montezuma County, Fort Lewis
College, environmental organizations, Colorado State Forest Service, The CO Division of
Wildlife and local timber industries. Both economic and ecological goals are addressed “in a
way that furthers both.” Combining the interests of its stakeholders, the partnership promotes
harvesting small diameter trees from unhealthy mid-elevation ponderosa pine stands in order
to restore the forest and support the struggling local timber industry (Shelly, 1999).
Number of Issues
Few
Many
Related to scientific complexity, is the sheer number of issues the collaborative group
attempts to address. These may include both ecological and social / economic issues. For
example, a CRM may focus only on establishing best management practices for grazing on
public and private rangeland. On the other hand, most sustainable community initiatives
Mapping the Terrain
4-6
address a much wider range of issues, including pollution prevention, watershed health,
economic development, urban revitalization, and youth development.
In west central Montana, the Devil’s Kitchen Management Team concentrates on a limited
number of issues. The partnership unites ranchers, federal and state agencies, sportsmen and
outfitters in an effort to address conflict between increasing elk herds and cattle ranching on
lands surrounding the Gates of the Mountains Wilderness Area. Although the team is looking
at expanding the range of issues they address, the primary focus of the group is directly
related to impacts of wild and domestic grazing (Zeller, 1997).
The Kiowa Grasslands Integrated Resource Management Program in New Mexico is another
example of a group focused on limited issues. This program is a product of collaboration
between the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and several local ranchers. They
convened to work together in developing a coordinated integrated management plan to help
ranchers (who operated on private and public land and were interested in improving
environmental quality) to manage their land as a single operating unit (Wondolleck and
Yaffee, 1994).
The Los Angeles / San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council formed precisely because of the
realization that single-issue flood control projects did not address the range of issues and
problems facing the communities of the Los Angeles Basin. The council plans to develop a
multi-purpose watershed plan that addresses a multitude of connected issues: water
conservation and storage, recreation, wildlife corridors and neighborhood enhancement
(www.r5.fs.fed.us/forestmana…html/collaborativeleadership.html, 3/1/99). Multi-issue
approaches are common to many watershed councils, especially those in urban areas.
Like numerous sustainable community initiatives, Sustainable Racine in Wisconsin addresses
many issues of concern to the community leaders who make up its board. The broad range of
issues include water quality, land use and open space planning, education, downtown and
neighborhood redevelopment, transportation, economic opportunities, civic engagement and
culture and arts, among others (Thomas, 1999).
Land Ownership
Private
Public
Resources addressed by collaborative partnerships can also be mapped on a continuum of
land ownership, from private land issues to resources located on purely public lands.
Reflecting land ownership patterns across the U.S., many western collaborative groups focus
more on public resources whereas eastern groups have a greater proportion of private
resources at stake (Yaffee et al, 1996). On the other end of the continuum sustainable
communities, Habitat Conservation Planning processes, and eastern watershed councils
encompass mostly private lands.
Mapping the Terrain
4-7
In northeastern Ohio for example, the Fish Creek Watershed Project encompasses 70,400
acres of private agriculture land in an effort to protect habitat for fresh water mussels via
improving water quality. The Indiana DNR, the Ohio DNR, USFS, and The Nature
Conservancy are working together to decrease run-off and subsequent siltation of the creek.
Collaborative partnerships that focus on public land management are often in a very different
league. Institutionalized groups like the BLM’s Resource Advisory Councils only deal with
issues related to management on BLM lands. Other partnerships that deal with public lands
may be very organic and particular to one community. For example, the Tonasket Citizens
Council in Washington State brought together diverse interests in the community to discuss
management of the Okanogan National Forest. The council not only improved understanding
of issues and concerns within the community, but provided advice and guidance for the
Tonasket Ranger District’s forest management decisions (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 1994).
The Quincy Library Group also focuses solely on management of lands contained in the
Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe National Forests.
The Blue Ridge/ Berryessa Natural Area Partnership proposes to “cooperatively manage and
enhance the Blue Ridge / Berryessa Natural Area,” which encompasses both public (BLM,
Bureau of Reclamation, California State) and private lands. The partnership is a newly
formed initiative involving the BLM, California state agencies, the University of California,
Napa County, six land trusts, a mining company, and three ranches in the collaborative
management of 300,000 acres of natural, agricultural and recreational land in the Cache and
Putah Creek watersheds in Napa County, California (BRBNAP, 1998).
Another example of a mixed land ownership partnership is the Bridge Creek Coordinated
Resource Management Planning Group (CRMP) in north central Oregon. In this case, the
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, the Issac Walton League and seventeen private
ranchers work together to manage 109,000 acres of USFS land and 89,000 acres of private
property to improve grazing land, control weeds, and enhance stream conditions
(http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/wpi/ProjectDescription.asp).
Responsibility
Multiple levels of responsibility
Single agency / group
The dimension of responsibility describes the range of parties responsible for dealing with
the group's issue or problem of concern. Collaboration can occur when the responsibility for
the resource or issue clearly belongs to one entity, or where multiple parties are responsible
for an issue or set of issues.
Following the model of a collaborative initiative in Gunnison, Colorado the Bureau of Land
Management created its 24 Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) in 1995 to provide
management advice for BLM lands. Each RAC is sanctioned by the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) and made up of twelve to fifteen diverse stakeholders appointed by
Mapping the Terrain
4-8
the Secretary of the Interior from individuals nominated by the public and state governors
(http://npr.gov/library/nprct/annrpt/vp-rpt96/secret4/environ4.html). RACs address only
issues directly related to BLM land management.
In the Applegate watershed, as in many watersheds, multiple agencies are responsible for
separate parcels of land. The USDA Forest Service manages the national forest lands, the
BLM manages other pieces, and individual landowners, ranchers and farmers manage their
respective properties, yet no one organization is responsible for the watershed as a whole.
The Applegate Partnership formed to fill this void, serving as a model for many other
collaborative watershed initiatives in the west.
Similarly, because watershed planning does not fit neatly within the bounds of the city or any
one government entity, the Cross Lake Watershed Citizens Advisory Committee was
established by the mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana to “objectively and fairly analyze
watershed issues which may affect multiple jurisdictions.” While other agencies maintain
authority over specific activities or areas within the watershed, the committee is responsible
for the protection of the watershed as a whole (www.crosslakela.com/commitee.html).
Scientific complexity
Low
High
Scientific complexity is one of the most difficult dimensions to measure. The level of
uncertainty often defines the scientific complexity of an issue, as does the amount of
available knowledge about the issue at hand. Certain resource management issues are by
nature more complex than others. For example, endangered species habitat management is
highly scientifically complex while land use planning to control urban sprawl is less
scientifically than socially complex.
The San Diego Multi-species HCP demonstrates a high level of scientific complexity. The
HCP committee serves as an umbrella for nine sub-area plans and covers 85 listed and
unlisted species. Moreover, individual HCPs were developed to preserve autonomy of
mulitiple jurisdictions while maintaining coverage and permitting benefits of the larger
regional plan (http://www.ncedr.org/casestudies/hcp/sandiego.htm).
In contrast, though the development of the national forest recreation plan in the St.
Petersburg Ranger District in Alaska involved stakeholders with significant value
differences, the collaborative process dealt with very low scientific complexity.
The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance (Chapter 10) is another example of a group that primarily
deals with issues that are low in scientific complexity such as land-use planning, boat traffic
studies, water quality monitoring, and general information sharing. However, the group is
now beginning to explore the cause of rising levels of pfiesteria and coliform bacteria in the
watershed - a more scientifically complex task.
Mapping the Terrain
4-9
Stage
Emerging
Crisis
Issue stage refers to the state of the issue at the time the partnership forms. Issues may be
emergent, or newly recognized by the community. This end of the continuum usually
correlates to proactive timing. Crisis issues are those which are already causing severe
environmental degradation, economic decline, or human health repercussions.
Emerging issues are apparent in the case of the McKenzie Watershed Council (see Chapter
9). Although the McKenzie River boasts extremely high water quality, population growth
and increasing development were beginning to impact the river. The watershed council
formed to address these impacts as they surface.
Again, the Clark Fork Basin Committee is useful to exemplify a group reacting to crisis
issue. When arsenic was discovered in the water and Superfund designation ensued, people
realized they had to come together to address water quality in the region (Snow, 1996).
Visibility
Low
High
While many natural resource management issues are controversial, some attract more
attention and create more conflict than others. Issue visibility refers to the number of people
who were aware of the problem before the formation of a collaborative partnership.
The Quinn River Riparian Improvement and Demonstration Project in the remote Humboldt
National Forest of Nevada exemplifies a low visibility issue. In this case, excessive grazing
was contributing to erosion and thermal pollution problems that were little known before
Forest Service personnel met with local ranchers in 1989 to tackle the problem (Wondolleck
and Yaffee, 1994).
The Citizen Management Committee of central Idaho and western Montana illustrates a
group dealing with a highly visible issue: grizzly bear reintroduction in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem. The controversy surrounding the issue has so far impeded the implementation of
the committee’s recovery plan (www.nwf.org/endangered/grizzly/bear.html, France, 1998).
Mapping the Terrain
4-10
IV. ORGANIZATION
Although collaborative processes may be only part of the larger mission of an organization,
here we define “organization” as that of the collaborative partnership itself. For example, the
Soil and Water Conservation District may manage several resource management projects,
one of which is a collaborative process involving landowners, federal agencies and local
businesses. When describing the variation in organizational structures, we are focusing on the
characteristics of the collaborative group, not that of the parent organization.
Dimensions of organization include:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Mission
Objective
Structure
Link to existing authority
Funding source
Resource stability
Decision authority
Membership
Geographic scale
Visibility
Life span
Duration
Mission
Economic Sustainability
Ecological Sustainability
A defining characteristic of collaborative groups is their mission. Mission refers to the
ultimate purpose of the partnership. Some groups form because of economic crisis or
stagnation, job exodus, or a changing economic base. The primary purpose of these
partnerships, although environmental issues are part of their foundation, is to maintain a
healthy economy. On the other end of the scale are groups primarily concerned with
ecological health, with limited interest in economic issues.
Most of the groups in the Sustainable Communities Network (SCN), for example, focus
primarily on economic sustainability. SCN, which has documented case studies of
community-based groups from all fifty states working to ensure sustainable growth, links
people to both resources and other groups (www.sustainable.org).
In the Santa Rosa Mountains in Nevada, the Humboldt County Riparian Coalition illustrates
a partnership concerned primarily with ecological sustainability. The group involved
ranchers, the BLM, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and the Forest Service in an effort to
define and demonstrate sound riparian management practices along the Quinn River.
Mapping the Terrain
4-11
Although ranchers have also seen economic benefits of the project in terms of healthier
cattle, the Coalition’s mission was to restore the river to “blue ribbon status” (Wondolleck
and Yaffee, 1994).
Most common are partnerships that fall in the middle of the range, with a mission that
includes both economic and ecological sustainability. In the Swan River Valley in
northwest Montana, for instance, citizens formed an ad hoc committee as a result of
community division over socio-economic and environmental changes. In order to deal with
the most pressing issue, the declining timber economy, the committee had to address all
facets of the community. Outcomes included an economic diversification plan and land
management recommendations for non-industrial private landowners (Cestero, 1999:39).
Objective
Education
Information Exchange
Assessment and Planning
Monitoring
Action
Linked to mission are the specific objectives of the partnership. While groups fall generally
into categories along this range, it is not meant to represent mutually exclusive objectives.
Indeed, partnerships that aim for specific on-the-ground projects or policy changes often
include information exchange and planning as precursor objectives. There are however,
partnerships that fall at other points on the range and do not ever propose the implementation
of concrete action.
The Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management unites public and private
landowners in the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan in a forum for information
exchange. The partnership is comprised of the Michigan DNR, NPS, TNC, USFWS, USDA
Forest Service, and Champion International and Mead Corporations. The partnership does
not engage in land management planning, nor does it attempt to force changes on individual
participants. Rather, the focus of the group is to provide an open forum for discussion of
common issues, the exchange of ideas, and to act as a catalyst for voluntary change
(Williams and Ellefson, 1996).
Similarly, when the Canyon Country Partnership was formed in southeast Utah in 1994, the
purpose of the group was to resolve issues among diverse stakeholders by consensus.
However, after struggling with polarization around contentious issues, the partnership has
evolved into a forum for information exchange rather than a problem-solving group
(www.nbs.nau.edu/Forum/Sourcebooks/canyon-country.html).
Some watershed councils, like the Upper Stony Creek Watershed Project, focus on
education in hopes of addressing the necessary changes in behavior that accompany
watershed improvement. The primary issue in this watershed is that of livestock
management. The group realized that in order to change management, there had to be
changes in human behavior so they built in an educational component that provides for
Mapping the Terrain
4-12
annual workshops, demonstration exercises, guest speakers and other educational instruction
for the landowners. Attendance at the educational sessions is required for eligibility for
certain cost share management practices (http://www.brsf.org/nafec/wc_a.htm#7b2 from the
H.S.U. web site, "Upper Stony Creek, CA").
Assessment and Planning: In 1998, the Board of County Commissioners of Gaston County,
North Carolina initiated a broad based citizen advisory group to conduct a strategic planning
process. The Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC), made up of representatives
of the county’s municipalities, businesses, industries, environmental organizations, county
boards and agencies, and citizens at large, examines the state of natural resources in the
county, reviews environmental concerns and makes recommendations to the Board of
Commissioners. The Commission, assisted by the NC Cooperative Extension Service,
evaluated surface water groundwater and air quality and commissioned a survey of county
residents. Although the Commission does not implement any projects, it continues to monitor
air and water quality and to update the assessment (www.bae.ncsu.edu/bae/program/
ension/publicat/arep/stratpln.html).
Monitoring: In Badger Creek, Colorado, an MOU was signed in 1981 and collection of
monitoring data became the emphasis for federal groups (http://www.nbs.nau.edu/
CPO/Forum/Sourcebooks/bcwm.html). Monitoring of vegetation, sediment loads, stream
channel morphology, weather and climate, and wildlife numbers and habitat are all done by
professionals, with inclusion and assistance from nonprofessional individuals and interest
groups. Most management actions are based on the analysis of previous management efforts
on both public and private lands (http://www.brsf.org/nafec/wc_a.htm#7b2).
Action: In 1993 in Norfolk, Virginia, the Elizabeth River Project formed because of the
interest of four concerned citizens in improving the quality of the Elizabeth River. Although
the project’s mission includes creating a partnership and raising appreciation of the river’s
assets, the primary goal is action “to restore the Elizabeth River system to the highest
practical level of environmental quality.” The project plans to “increase vegetated buffers,
wetland acreage and forested areas . . . implement habitat enhancement programs . . . reduce
sediment contamination in the Elizabeth River . . . and remove abandoned vessels and
pilings” (Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making, 1998: p.34).
Structure
Bylaws/charter
Ad-hoc / Informal
Formal
Committees w/functions
Collaborative partnerships are organized differently and range from informal loosely
organized groups to highly structured organizations. A group with informal organizational
structure has no written bylaws or charter, no paid staff and the coordination of group
activities is ad-hoc. On the other end of the scale are formally organized groups with legal
status, paid coordinators, and complex division of tasks.
Mapping the Terrain
4-13
The Swan Citizen’s Ad hoc Committee is an example of an ad-hoc group that is informally
structured with no bylaws, dues or official membership. The committee is a loose
association of interested individuals, run and maintained by the core group of permanent
valley residents who initiated the effort (Cestero, 1999: 39).
Many partnerships in the formative stage or in a process of evolution, have not yet developed
a more formal division of tasks, but do have a charter stating the partnership members,
goals, and by-laws. The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance in Maryland and Delaware functions
according to their by-laws. Besides the Board of Directors, which sets policy for the group,
general members are not assigned specific tasks. Members are encouraged to attend
meetings to share information and to educate themselves (see Chapter 10).
Other partnerships are organized with committees that carry out different tasks. The Henry’s
Fork Watershed Council, for example, divides itself into three subgroups: the Citizen’s
Group, the Technical Team, and the Agency Roundtable. The Citizen’s Group (business,
conservation, and community interests) reviews proposals and then decides which proposals
will meet local needs. The Technical Team coordinates and oversees research efforts and
helps integrate research findings into Council decisions. The Agency Roundtable is
comprised of twenty government entities with management and regulatory jurisdiction in the
basin.
In Juneau, Alaska, the Mendenhall Watershed Partnership also functions through five active
subcommittees, including public education, community development, storm water
management, restoration, and funding and organization (Mendenhall Watershed Partnership,
1999; Hanna, 1999).
Compared to newer partnerships, the Merrimack River Watershed Council in Massachusetts,
formed in 1976, is one of the oldest and also most formal collaborative partnerships. It has
evolved from an ad-hoc citizens advocacy group in the seventies to a 501(c) 3 non-profit
organization with a diverse board. Board members represent environmental, business, citizen
and community interests. Both its age and size (the watershed of interest covers 5,010 square
miles) have led to the creation of a well-established organization (Laffin, 1999).
Link to Existing Authority
Two separate continuums illustrate the nature of linkages to existing authorities.
Weak
Formal bind
The first continuum describes the existence and strength of the link between the partnership
and the agency or agencies with responsibility for managing the resource of interest. At the
far left are groups with only a weak connection to existing authority. The work of the group
is independent of agency decision-making processes, there are no agency participants and
only limited communication between the collaborative and other authorities. Formally bound
Mapping the Terrain
4-14
groups have a legally recognized link to the decision-making authority. Examples of formally
bound groups are the BLM’s Resource Advisory Councils or other groups chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Quincy Library Group is an example of a partnership with weak links to existing
authority. The group, which developed a forest management plan for the Plumas, Lassen, and
Tahoe National Forests, is ad-hoc and had limited involvement of the USFS in plan
development.
In contrast, the BLM’s Resource Advisory Councils illustrate the nature of a formal bind to
a resource management agency. RACs are convened, facilitated and funded by the BLM and
sanctioned under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Although the BLM representative
does not actively participate as a group member, the agency must consider the
recommendations contributed by the RAC. RAC members can appeal agency management
decisions directly to the Secretary of the Interior.
Formal representation
Informal representation
Complex links
The second aspect of this dimension describes the nature of the link. Understanding the links
to authority is similar to understanding the way the responsible agency participates in the
collaborative process. Representation and resources are two linking elements.
Informal representation refers to agency personnel who become group members primarily
out of a personal interest rather than solely to fulfill a professional duty. Their input is
generally looked upon by members as one of purely scientific expertise unencumbered by
stigma that can arise from representing a government agency. In the Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance, for instance, a member of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources clearly
chooses to be a part of the collaborative process because she cares about the watershed and
feels she can help others make sound decisions. She just happens to also be an agency
representative, and if anything, her title as Watershed Protection Specialist gives her added
credibility among group members.
Formal representation refers to agency personnel who officially represent the agencies in the
collaborative process. Often they are appointed to participate as part of their job duties. Their
participation may be as a member of the decision-making group (executive committee, board,
etc.) or as a member of a technical committee that advises the collaborative group on
scientific issues. The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership in Arizona involves official
representatives of the BLM, AZ Fish and Game Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Mapping the Terrain
4-15
On the far end of the scale are groups with complex links to agencies. These links are
usually developed through available funding sources, like the Governor’s Watershed
Enhancement Board in Oregon, section 319 of the Clean Water Act, or the EPA’s
Community Based Environmental Protection program (www.epa.gov/ecocommunity).
Agencies with access to funding may initiate a collaborative group or be able to allocate
resources to an existing process. Support may also include managing funds, or providing a
facilitator or office space. The most formal link that exists is when an agency initiates and
leads the collaborative process. Some of the National Estuary Programs (www.epa.gov/nep)
like the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program in Louisiana include multistakeholder committees. The EPA and the state of Louisiana coordinate both the program and
stakeholder participation in planning and decision-making.
Source of Funding
Public
Private
Collaborative groups receive funding from a number of sources. Funds may come from
private sources, public sources or a combination of the two.
State legislatures are one source of public funding for collaborative initiatives. Oregon’s
Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) provides funding to certified watershed
councils throughout the state. As a state mandated interagency coordinating body, the
Nisqually Watershed Council in Washington State also receives funding from the legislature
(University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law Center, 1996). The EPA also provides
funding for partnerships through the National Estuaries Program, the Community-Based
Environmental Protection program, the Clean Water Act, and other sources. Public funding
may also include local funds provided by county, city or state governments. For example, the
Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program, which involves stakeholders on five
committees, received start-up funding from the EPA for the first four years, and now depends
on state funding for the remainder of the 20-40 year program (Yaffee et al, 1996: 125).
Private funding sources include foundations, non-profit organizations, business donations
and member dues. The Cannon River Watershed Partnership, for instance, receives the
majority of its funding from private sources, including The Nature Conservancy, The
McKnight Foundation, local businesses, conservation and sportsmen’s clubs, and
membership dues. Often, one organization provides start-up funding. The Sonoran Institute, a
non-profit organization , supplied initial funding for the San Rafael Valley Land Trust in
Santa Cruz County, Arizona. The partnership, initiated and facilitated by the Sonoran
Institute, involves ranchers, the USFS and the Sonoran Institute in rangeland management on
private land in the San Rafael Valley.
Once again, most collaborative partnerships fall in the center of this dimension. Partnerships
mention funding as one of the primary challenges to collaborative resource management.
Therefore, funding often comes from diverse sources, including federal and foundation
grants, locally raised funds, business partnerships, and in-kind support from agencies or nonprofit organizations. The Blackfoot Challenge is an example of a group seeking both private
Mapping the Terrain
4-16
and public funding. The Challenge receives financial resources from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife’s Partners of Wildlife Program, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants
Forever. BLM provides in-kind support such as office materials as well as a cash grant. The
Challenge actively pursues private funds as well.
Resource Stability
Unstable / Sporadic
Stable / Long-term
Resource stability among partnerships also differs. On one end of the spectrum are groups
with limited or sporadic funding and / or in-kind support. Available resources are often
allocated to actively seek new funding sources. These groups may have an abundance of
resources at a particular point in time, but no guarantee of continuity. On the other hand,
some partnerships secure long-term funding or support through government programs like
the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board.
San Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition San Miguel in Telluride, Colorado, is
an example of a group with unstable funding sources. To maintain its function, all Coalition
members contribute financial resources for meetings and projects. Additionally, the group
has received some small grants. The River Ranger is employed through the US Forest
Service, but all other members donate funds as well. Even with current contributions,
obtaining outside funding has been a challenge to the group (http://www.brsf.org/nafec/
wc_3.htm#11).
Collaborative groups with formal ties to a government program like the National Estuaries
Program, or formal advisory committees tend to have more stable, long-term funding
sources. State legislation can also influence financial stability. Oregon is a case in point. The
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board was created by the state legislature to provide
guidelines and financial support to watershed councils throughout the state.
Decision Authority
Advisory
None
Action (planning /assessment/implementation, monitoring)
Collaborative groups have diverse roles in resource management decision-making. Decision
authority refers to the impact that a collaborative group’s conclusions and recommendations
can have on formal decisions affecting the resource. Groups whose primary purpose is
information exchange usually have no decision-making authority, although they may serve as
the impetus for projects implemented by individual member organizations. When focused on
public lands, adhoc processes with no links to existing authority usually have no decision
authority.
Mapping the Terrain
4-17
Some groups have formal advisory authority as described in the section on linkages. The
advice and recommendations of a sanctioned advisory committee can have a significant
impact on the management decisions made by an agency. Other groups make decisions that
lead to action, for example, the development of a plan or a restoration project that will be
implemented by the group itself or an agency.
The Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management is a group with no
decision authority. The partnership describes itself as “fundamentally opposed to handing
out management directives to its members” (Williams and Ellefson, 1996). Ace Basin Task
Force Partnership in the southeast region of South Carolina, provides another example of a
group with no decision authority. Ace Basin Partnership is a "non-voting, very informal
entity for sharing information and acts as a collective voice at times" (Hamilton, 1999).
Resource Advisory Councils illustrate groups with advisory decision authority. RACs,
sanctioned under FACA, provide management advice to the BLM on range land issues. Their
decisions do not result in automatic incorporation into management policy or action, but they
are treated as a legitimate voice that influences the agency’s decisions. CRM groups also
serve in an advisory role. Close ties to agency representatives make it improbable that an
agency would go against a consensus decision produced in a CRM forum. There are also
many other committees that serve an advisory role to a specific agency. For instance, the
Ridgecrest Resource Area Steering Committee in California was created “to help the Bureau
of Land Management determine good land use decisions by incorporating public input from
day 1. To provide a forum for user groups and to obtain consensus on resource conservation
planning” (http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/wpi/ProjectDescription.asp?ProjectPK=304, 98).
The Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group is made up of 21 formal
participant organizations (agencies, local governments, landowner associations, etc) and
other non-formal participants (community groups, private consultants, county agencies, etc)
from Plumas County, California. The partnership makes decisions that result in on-theground project implementation. For example, the CRM group has demonstrated innovative
stream restoration techniques such as meadow rewatering, check dam building, and fish
ladders (U of CO NRLC, 1996).
Membership
Invited Voluntary
Voluntary / Informal
Appointed / Formal
The membership dimension defines the ways collaborative groups determine who comprises
the group and how they became involved. Members are those participants who contribute to
the decision-making process. Groups with voluntary informal membership are open to
everyone with an interest. People participate of their own accord and anyone who attends a
meeting is considered a member. Formal membership refers to groups whose members are
Mapping the Terrain
4-18
appointed because they represent a particular viewpoint. All RACs have formal membership.
In between the two extremes are groups who have invited particular stakeholders to
participate because of the interest groups they speak for. It is important to distinguish
between people who represent a particular constituent group in the partnership, and those that
participate as individuals with a set of interests and concerns.
In Montana, the Muddy Creek Project Task Force is an informal group that is open to anyone
who wants to participate. All local residents were invited to participate, and participation is
voluntary (University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center, 1996). Another Montana
partnership, the Blackfoot Challenge, keeps participation in the partnership very informal.
Anyone who comes to a meeting is considered a member and can participate in decisionmaking (Lindbergh, 1999). The Applegate Partnership bases part of their success on the
distinction between “participatory rather than representative democracy” (Cestero, 1999).
Partnership members may hold some of the same views as their interest group, but do not
represent them in any formal sense.
HCPs generally invite participants, but the stakeholder role is voluntary. The Karner Blue
Butterfly HCP illustrates this process. The McKenzie River Watershed Council also has a
more formal membership structure. Council participants represent organizations or agencies
that are formal partners of the council. Partners are invited to participate because of the
community of interest they represent, and there are explicit rules outlining the process by
which new partners can be added to the council. Partners name alternates who will attend
meetings and represent their interests in the case of an absence.
(www.pond.net/~mwc/backgrnd.htm#groundrules).
In contrast, the Mississippi Headwaters Board Advisory Committee in Minnesota is
composed of formally appointed members. Each of the eight counties with commissioners
on the Headwaters Board appoints a citizen and a technical representative to the advisory
committee. Citizens may also apply to participate as “at-large” members. The Board, which
has regulatory authority over the river corridor, selects the at-large members to represent the
diversity of interests in the river corridor. The committee has included members representing
timber company interests, environmental organizations, realtors, Northern State Power, and
local associations. The committee has a formal role in reviewing Board proposals,
developing work plans, and bringing issues and ideas to the Board for consideration (Eclov,
1999).
Geographical Scale
City / county
Neighborhood
State / region
Multi-county
Multi-state
Geographic scale refers to how the partnership defines its boundaries of concern. This
dimension differs from the geopolitical scale of the outcomes (p.27) in that it is an
Mapping the Terrain
4-19
organizational characteristic. The group is made up of members who are associated with a
particular place within geographic bounds. All participants may be affiliated with one
neighborhood or the partnership may unite members of diverse locales across a more
extensive area (e.g. a macro-watershed).
The Nos Quedamos committee represents a broad-based grassroots coalition of residents, city
officials, businesses and others concerned about the future of the Melrose Commons
neighborhood east of Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, New York. Now a non-profit
organization, Nos Quedamos brings the concerns of the mostly Latino and African American
community into the urban renewal planning process. Neighborhood sustainability issues
include creating open spaces, water recapture and recycling, green housing development, and
public transportation (www.sustainable.org/casetudies/newyork/NY _epa_ nosquedamos
.html).
A group that defines its geographic bounds as those of a city is the Chattanooga Institute for
Sustainable Development. Recognized as a model sustainable communities initiative, the
Institute unites business, community and government leaders in the effort to make
Chattanooga, Tennessee the “most sustainable city in America” (http://emagazine.com/
march-april_1998/0398curr_chattanooga.html).
The Darby Partnership in central Ohio exemplifies a multi-county group. This partnership
works with the six county Darby Creek watershed (Smith, 1999). This group also involves
members from local, state and federal agencies, citizens, as well several non-governmental
organizations.
The Karner Blue Butterfly HCP exemplifies a state or regional collaborative effort.
Involving 27 private and public land stakeholders consisting of primarily of agencies, timber
companies and resident landowners in Wisconsin, the HCP formed a successful state-wide
conservation plan for the federally listed Karner blue butterfly (http://www.ncedr .org/
casestudies /hcp/karner.htm).
The Tri-State Implementation Council oversees, revises and educates the public about the
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille watershed. This multi-state effort addresses 26,000 square miles in
northern Idaho, northeastern Washington and western Montana (Concern, 1998).
Age
Emergent
Established
The age of the partnership is a critical factor that relates to many other dimensions. Because
of the dynamic nature of collaborative groups, emergent groups differ greatly from those that
are well established.
Mapping the Terrain
4-20
The Long Tom Watershed Council in Eugene, Oregon is one example of the dozens of new
watershed councils that have formed as a result of the state legislation creating the
Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board and the funding sources it provides. Emergent
groups like the Long Tom have the opportunity to incorporate many of the lessons learned
from other partnerships (Erickson, 1998).
On the other hand, The Modoc-Washaw Experimental Stewardship Program covering 2.2
million acres of predominantly public land in northeast California and northwest Nevada is
quite established. Authorized by Congress through the Bureau of Land Management in
1979, the program involves 29 rancher permittees on public lands along with agencies in
grazing and wildlife improvement strategies (Cleary, 1998).
Duration
Short-lived
Long-term
Another aspect of age is the proposed duration of the partnership. Collaborative groups may
have short-term goals, such as the development of a land management plan. After the plan is
finished, many partnerships shift to an information-sharing network or dissipate altogether.
Others form with long-term goals that require on-going management. These partnerships are
organizationally more complex and dynamic through time.
Short-term collaborative partnerships are common in the planning realm. For example, in
Washtenaw County, Michigan, the Solid Waste Planning Committee was created with the
specific goal of updating the solid waste management plan for the county. A broad base of
stakeholders joined together for the short-term task of developing the plan. Once the plan is
finished, the committee will disband.
The Connecticut River Joint Commission is one of the oldest collaborative resource
management groups in the country, providing an example of a long-term partnership. The
commission has overseen watershed management issues in the Connecticut River Basin since
1974. Groups that form to deal with long-term issues like watershed management or
ecosystem management usually evolve significantly. While the Connecticut River
partnership began as an advocacy organization, in the 1990’s the organization has
consciously diversified its board of directors to represent a wide range of stakeholders and
focus on collaborative problem solving.
The Vermont Forest Resource Advisory Council provides an example of a diverse
collaborative group that functions only as needed. The council was mandated by the
Vermont state legislature to address policy issues relating to forest sustainability, aerial
spraying, clear cutting, and rural economic development. In the mid 1990s, the council came
together to collaborate on a statewide plan. They produced their last report in 1997 and will
disperse until needed again.
Mapping the Terrain
4-21
Visibility
Low
High
A partnership may have high or low visibility, either within the community, a larger regional
or even national scale. Visibility refers to the number of people outside the partnership who
know it exists and what it does. Some factors that affect visibility include media coverage
and political support or opposition.
An example of a low visibility group is the White Pine CRM initiative in east central
Nevada. Composed of a 21 member steering committee of mostly agency personnel and
ranchers, the group is steadily working since 1992 at developing elk management, cattle
grazing strategy and urban development plans on that encompass remote public lands
(http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/wpi/ProjectDescription.asp).
The Quincy Library Group, on the other hand, represents a high visibility group. Begun by
members of the town of Quincy to enhance forestry practices in the Tahoe, Lassen, and
Plumas National Forests in northern California, the group gained the spotlight when it went
to Congress to turn its forest plan into successful legislation in 1998
(http://www.qlg.org/public_html/contents/chron.htm).
Mapping the Terrain
4-22
V. PROCESS
When examining the nature of the process, we refer to what actually happens at the table.
How do participants voice concerns, make decisions and act within the collaborative
construct? The dimensions explored here include:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Decision rule
Facilitation
Transparency
Frequency of meetings
Representation
Agency involvement
Personal investment
Decision Rule
Consensus if possible, then majority
Majority rule
Consensus
Although collaborative partnerships are commonly referred to as “consensus groups," the
decision-rule used within groups is not always based on a consensus approach. A decision
rule of pure consensus requires all participants to agree to a decision before any action is
taken. Decisions may also be made by majority rule.
By their rules, all Coordinated Resource Management planning processes are consensusbased. Many other groups define their decision-rule as consensus, with varying levels of
detail in the definition. For example, the McKenzie River Watershed Council recognizes five
levels of consensus ranging from “wholeheartedly agree” to “serious concerns, but can live
with the decision” (www.pond.net/~mwc/backgrnd.htm#groundrules). The Tensas Basin
Technical Steering Committee also makes decisions by consensus, with any one member
holding veto power. The Louisiana committee is made up of nineteen members representing
a cross-section of basin interests. The committee works to develop model demonstration
projects that meet the concerns of both farmers and conservationists. Participants include the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the local Levee District, The Nature Conservancy, six
farmers, the Louisiana Dept of Agriculture and Forestry and others (EPA1, 1998).
Majority Rule: The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, a bi-state effort in Maryland and
Delaware, uses an absolute majority rule to make decisions. An absolute majority is a simple
majority of yeas and neas. When a quorum is present, an absolute majority of the voting
members present decide any matter voted on by the members (NWA, 1998).
Mapping the Terrain
4-23
Mixed: The Northwest Resource Advisory Council in Colorado (see in-depth case study),
although it strives for consensus, a decision rule system is set up where the group only needs
a 3/5 ratio from each of the three membership categories to pass a resolution.
Decision-makers
Members at large
Executive board
Another important distinction illustrated in the above continuum is variation in the decisionmaking entity. Given the highly varied organizational structures of partnerships, the
decision-making body also varies. Some partnerships give voice and vote to all members.
Others delegate ultimate decision-making authority to an executive committee or board.
Within either body, the decision rule may be consensus or majority or a combination.
The Scott River Watershed CRMP Council, for example, (Chapter 13) demands that all
members at large vote on decisions (which the exception of agency personnel). Focused on
the protection of salmon habitat, the group believes the landowner-based nature of protection
necessitates voting power for all stakeholders (http://watershed.org/ wmchome/ news/win
_91/coop_plan.html).
The Owl Mountain Partnership (Chapter 12), in Jackson County, Colorado, is composed of
general membership as well as a steering committee. The steering committee acts as the
group's decision-maker. This committee is composed primarily of ranchers, an environmental
representative, and agency personnel, and serves as the governing body to establish goals and
objectives as well as make any formal recommendations and/or decisions (Porter, 1999).
The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance (Chapter 10), an example of a collaborative group in
which the Board of Directors sets the policies of the group and has ultimate decision-making
authority. Members are given opportunity to share information and voice concerns, but it is
the Board of Directors that determines what stance or direction the Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance will take on a particular issue (Frech, 1999).
Facilitation
Unassisted
Assisted
Decision-making process may be either assisted by a neutral facilitator or unassisted / selffacilitated.
Unassisted: The Double H Ranch CRM in Ten Sleep Wyoming represents a small livestock
forage improvement partnership that has met informally since 1992. Consisting of a mere
Mapping the Terrain
4-24
ten participants from state agencies along with ranchers, the group has never seen the need to
run meetings with professional facilitator (Weeter, 1998).
Assisted: In comparison, the Clark County HCP process (Chapter 7) has used a highly
skilled facilitator for nearly nine years. Aimed at protecting the habitat of the Desert Tortoise
through conservation of public lands, multiple stakeholder interest accompanied by heated
feelings over the issue of public land access and protection have made facilitation of
meetings a necessity (www.ncedr.org/casestudies/hcp/clark.htm).
Finally, many partnerships begin with assistance from a neutral facilitator, but then continue
on their own once established. The Animas River Stakeholders Group (Chapter 5), for
instance, was formed in 1994 when the Colorado Center for Environmental Management was
asked by the Colorado Department of Health to help organize interested parties to address
metal contamination in the Animas Valley, a historic mining community. Once the group
gained momentum, internal members replaced the outside facilitator on a voluntary basis
(Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation,1999).
Transparency
Closed
Open
Collaborative decision-making also varies in the degree to which the process is open or
closed. In an open process, the non-participating public has access to the decisions made and
information exchanged at the table. Participation may be closed yet the process remains
open. For example, a FACA chartered advisory committee may limit participation to chosen
stakeholders, but by law must be fully open to the public.
In the Blackfoot Challenge (Chapter 6), meetings are entirely open to the larger public. All
stakeholders in the Blackfoot Valley are encouraged to become part of the process and
different conduits for communication announcing meetings and projects are used to recruit as
many people as possible. Participants in the Blackfoot Challenge do not want residents to
feel that resource decisions are being made for them.
The San Miguel River Coalition, based in Telluride, Colorado, feels that to keep the group
focused and collaborative in nature, meetings should be closed to the public. Coalition
members include the BLM, the USFS, San Miguel County, the Town of Telluride, Telluride
Mountain Village Metro District, The Nature Conservancy, and representatives from the
private sector (Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation, 1999).
Mapping the Terrain
4-25
Frequency of meetings
Monthly
Biannually
Biweekly
Meeting frequency varies not only from partnership to partnership, but also within
partnerships. Organizationally complex groups with committee functions may meet only
twice a year as a whole group. However the working committees or executive committee
meet monthly. Groups may also meet as needed given the nature of current projects. Other
groups find it necessary to meet regularly and often. The culture of the group also affects
meetings. For example, groups that include ranchers meet during down times such as early
winter and avoid meeting during calving season.
The Applegate Partnership in Southwestern Oregon convenes biweekly. Participants feel
that the frequency of these meetings is fundamental to maintaining the forward momentum of
the group. At one point, the group tried meeting once a month but many participants felt that
this was too infrequent so they switched back to the original plan of biweekly meetings
(Shipley, 1999).
The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance (Chapter 10) meets monthly. The Board of Directors
meetings and the general membership meetings both meet on the same day, at the same
location (the Greater Salisbury Building in Salisbury, Maryland), but at different times. The
President of the Board of Directors runs both meetings (Frech, 1999).
Chicago Wilderness is a regional partnership of 76 public and private organizations that have
joined forces to protect the remaining natural areas in the greater Chicago region. The
membership meets bi-annually at the Congress of Chicago Wilderness and has the ability to
propose and vote on resolutions (Chicago Wilderness, 1999).
As needed/irregularly: Finally, the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM (Chapter 14) has an
irregular meeting schedule. Though the group met once a month for the first two years when
establishing its goals an objectives for increasing biodiversity and economic growth, the busy
lives of its partners does not permit regular meetings, particularly during calving season. As
such, the group continues to meet only a few times a year as needed to address new issues as
they arise.
Mapping the Terrain
4-26
Representation
Homogeneous
Heterogeneous
Representation denotes the composition of stakeholders participating in the process. While
the term “collaboration” infers the alliance of distinct individuals (or organizations) working
towards a common goal, groups vary in terms of the diversity of perspectives represented.
Homogeneous groups include only participants with overlapping or shared viewpoints on the
issue at hand and may even exclude some stakeholders from the process. Heterogeneous
groups on the other hand, are very diverse, including all interested stakeholders. There are, of
course, many partnerships that fall in between.
In Rice County, Minnesota, the Big Woods Project formed in 1992 as a collaborative
partnership to save remaining remnants of the Big Woods ecosystem. Although partners
come from diverse backgrounds, they have relatively homogeneous ideals and perspectives
regarding the importance of preservation. Members include several environmental citizen
groups, the Minnesota DNR, local government, the Nature Conservancy, the Cannon River
Watershed Partnership, and the River Bend Nature Center, among others (www.dnr.state.mn.
us/ebm/ebm_works/bigwood1.htm). There are no participants with conflicting viewpoints
involved on the steering committee (Canon, 1999).
In contrast, the participants in the Henry’s Fork Watershed Council in Ashton, Idaho are a
heterogeneous group, including environmental, business, tribal, and agricultural interests.
Once bitter adversaries, the participants came together to collaborate over sedimentation,
irrigation, grazing and trout habitat (among other issues) (University of Colorado Natural
Resources Law Center, 1996).
Agency Involvement
None
Significant
Agency involvement describes the extent to which representatives of government agencies
(local, state or federal) participate in the collaborative process. The role agencies play can
vary from non-existent to significant. Groups that act completely autonomously with no
agency participation fall on one end of the scale. Partnerships with significant agency
participation include those initiated by agencies such as RACs or HCPs. Groups at this end
often receive funding or other support from an agency, and include formal agency
representation in the decision-making process.
The Quincy Library Group again illustrates a group with little or no agency involvement.
Initiated in 1992, the group has been recognized for not incorporating the Forest Service
Mapping the Terrain
4-27
Unassisted: The Double H Ranch CRM in Ten Sleep Wyoming represents a small livestock
forage improvement partnership that has met informally since 1992. Consisting of a mere
ten participants from state agencies along with ranchers, the group has never seen the need to
run meetings with professional facilitator (Weeter, 1998).
Assisted: In comparison, the Clark County HCP process (Chapter 7) has used a highly
skilled facilitator for nearly nine years. Aimed at protecting the habitat of the Desert Tortoise
through conservation of public lands, multiple stakeholder interest accompanied by heated
feelings over the issue of public land access and protection have made facilitation of
meetings a necessity (www.ncedr.org/casestudies/hcp/clark.htm).
Finally, many partnerships begin with assistance from a neutral facilitator, but then continue
on their own once established. The Animas River Stakeholders Group (Chapter 5), for
instance, was formed in 1994 when the Colorado Center for Environmental Management was
asked by the Colorado Department of Health to help organize interested parties to address
metal contamination in the Animas Valley, a historic mining community. Once the group
gained momentum, internal members replaced the outside facilitator on a voluntary basis
(Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation,1999).
Transparency
Collaborative decision-making also varies in the degree to which the process is open or
closed. In an open process, the non-participating public has access to the decisions made and
information exchanged at the table. Participation may be closed yet the process remains
open. For example, a FACA chartered advisory committee may limit participation to chosen
stakeholders, but by law must be fully open to the public.
In the Blackfoot Challenge (Chapter 6), meetings are entirely open to the larger public. All
stakeholders in the Blackfoot Valley are encouraged to become part of the process and
different conduits for communication announcing meetings and projects are used to recruit as
many people as possible. Participants in the Blackfoot Challenge do not want residents to
feel that resource decisions are being made for them.
The San Miguel River Coalition, based in Telluride, Colorado, feels that to keep the group
focused and collaborative in nature, meetings should be closed to the public. Coalition
members include the BLM, the USFS, San Miguel County, the Town of Telluride, Telluride
Mountain Village Metro District, The Nature Conservancy, and representatives from the
private sector (Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation, 1999).
Range and Variation 4-28
a day of work to participate. Meetings over the Desert Tortoise HCP lasted up to 12 hours at
a time. Despite the level of investment required, almost all of the stakeholders have
participated continuously since the process started ten years ago (Selzer, 1999).
VI. OUTCOMES
Collaborative partnerships result in a variety of outcomes. Outcomes may be concrete
projects directly affecting the resource, or they may be abstract impacts such as education,
social cohesion, or relationship building. Some of the dimensions of partnership outcomes
are:
! Geopolitical impact
!
!
Social impact
Products
Geopolitical Impact
County / Micro watershed
Local
National
Regional /Macro-Watershed
An important dimension of outcomes is their geopolitical impact. Some collaborative
partnerships have impacts on a limited political boundary, such as a neighborhood or town.
Others can have national impacts, if they result in the passing of legislation or a change in
national policy. In between are initiatives that impact resource management on a micro or
macro-watershed scale, and those that have statewide impacts.
Local: The Beartooth Front Community Forum, represents a local effort by the town of Red
Lodge, Montana near Yellowstone. To control increasing urban growth and protect openspace, the group has worked since the early 1990s to conduct regional water quality
monitoring, develop a city growth master plan, and promote affordable housing development.
(Beartooth Front Community Forum, 1996).
Micro-watershed: Several watershed initiatives have associated sub-basin groups that
address and affect a much smaller geographic area. For example, the Mohawk Sub-Basin
group is a community-based effort associated with the McKenzie Watershed Council in
Oregon (see chapter 5). The Mohawk Group addresses issues related to a micro-watershed
within the McKenzie River basin. Decisions made within the group, including
implementation of on-the-ground restoration projects, affect only the sub-basin.
Although the proposed “Citizens Management Alternative” for grizzly bear reintroduction in
the Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem is still working its way through the NEPA process, if
adopted, it would impact a wilderness region of nearly 4 million acres. The plan, drafted by a
Mapping the Terrain
4-29
coalition of environmental and timber interests, proposes a Citizens’ Management
Committee that would co-manage bear reintroduction along with the Fish and Wildlife
Service in the Selway-Bitterroot region along the Idaho/ Montana border (France, 1998;
Cestero, 1999; Kenworthy, 1997).
National: EPA Negotiated Rule-making processes are a good example of collaborative
processes that result in outcomes having a national impact. Involving diverse stakeholders in
deliberating the reach and content of regulating and implementing federal environmental
laws, the recommendations emerging from these processes become proposed rules that will
be applied nationwide.
Social Impact
Negative
Positive
Collaborative partnerships often have a significant impact on their communities. Social
impact is one primary outcome, and it may be positive or negative. Most partnerships report
positive social impacts such as increased understanding, communication, trust and cohesion
among stakeholders. However some groups may cause increased division, conflict and
distrust in the community. Characteristics of group organization, process, and representation
influence where a particular group falls on this spectrum.
An example of negative social impact can be seen in the case of the Sitka, Alaska
“Sustainable Communities Initiative.” In 1993, Sitka townspeople, fishermen, loggers and
Native Americans joined together to confront the economic crisis caused when the
community’s largest employer, the Alaska Pulp Plant, closed. The Sitka initiative addressed
concerns that new economic development should be environmentally sound. The group
brought a referendum to local elections calling for sustainable logging practices and an end to
clear-cutting. The measure failed twice and heightened conflict between citizens and the
timber industry that had not been involved in the process and felt that outside environmental
interests had influenced the ballot process.
In contrast, participants in the Dry Creek Basin Resource Management Committee in
Norwood, Colorado note the positive social impacts the committee has had on the
community. The process has improved interpersonal relationships and enhanced trust,
education and community building. Networks formed between residents and agency
representatives expand beyond the bounds of the committee to benefit other projects
(http://www.endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/wpi/ProjectDescription).
Members of the Swan Citizens’ Ad-hoc Committee in the Swan Valley of northwestern
Montana also cite the positive social impacts resulting from the committee’s work.
Collaboration builds “the community’s capacity to deal with change,” as well as reducing
polarization and creating a forum for information exchange (Cestero, 1999).
Mapping the Terrain
4-30
Products
Intangible
Tangible
Specific outcomes may vary and often change through time. Thus, this particular dimension
is represented on a dynamic continuum. Outcomes range from intangible to tangible
products. An example of an intangible product of collaborative initiatives is the creation of a
network of stakeholders for information exchange. Tangible products include on-the-ground
projects like streambed restoration or the implementation of an alternative management plan
for a forest or other resource. In the center of the continuum fall partnerships that develop a
plan, but do not implement it. Many collaborative groups form in order to develop a plan to
be implemented by a separate resource management agency. One product does not preclude
another; instead a partnership must often develop a network and some type of plan before
achieving on the ground change.
The Chattooga River Watershed Coalition, is an affiliation of organizations and agencies
with an interest in the health of the Chattooga River in Georgia. The Coalition's primary
outcome is the creation of an information-sharing network (Chattooga River Watershed
Coalition, 1997).
On the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in east-central Arizona, a diverse team
of community members, Tribal Council and administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
other affected federal, state, and local agencies joined together to develop a Strategic Plan
that addresses a complex range of issues, including the sustainable use of the tribe's natural
resources. Through an on-going series of workshops, participants continue to address issues
and identify strategies (Philbin, 1998).
Since its inception in 1991, Owl Mountain Partnership (Chapter 12) has focused much of its
time on completing projects. Projects include a vegetative inventory, sagebrush treatment,
realigning fences, soil studies and irrigation projects (Porter, 1999). Currently Owl Mountain
Partnership is going through changes that many believe will lead them to more of a policybased partnership with less of a focus on on-the-ground projects.
Mapping the Terrain
4-31
VII. CONCLUSION
Given the diversity of collaborative activity across the country, it is difficult to make
assumptions about the decision-making of individual partnerships without examining them in
more depth. Often the critiques of these intiatives assume that what happens in one situation
can be extrapolated to other collaborative efforts. With what we had learned about their range
and variation, we knew that while partnerships must certainly face numerous challenges, the
nature of those challenges and the strategies used to deal with them must certainly vary from
case to case. In the interest of exploring a few select cases1 in more depth, we conducted indepth interviews with participants and affected observers in ten partnerships.
Our understanding of the common critiques of collaboration2 informed the development of
interview questions that explored challenges and opportunities that partnerships face, and
investigated the strategies used by both individuals and the group to overcome these
challenges.
1
2
See Chapter 2: Methodology for clarification of case selection criteria
See Chapter 3: Critiques of Collaboration
Mapping the Terrain
4-32
Sources
Beartooth Front Community Forum (BFCF) Steering Committee. "The Red Lodge Planning
Process: A History and Major Lessons by the Beartooth Front Community Forum Steering
Committee," Prepared for the Corporation for the Northern Rockies, March 1999.
Blackmore, Barb, Planning forester for the Willamette Region, Weyerhaeuser Corporation,
Personal Communication, 3/24/99.
Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation, "Monitoring and Evaluation of Selected Rural
Watershed Councils in the Continental United States," world wide web document,
http://www.webmerchants.com/brsf/nafec/default.htm, 1/24/99.
Canon, Neal, Chairman, Steering Committee, Big Woods Project, Personal communication,
3/1/99.
Canyon Country Partnership, www.nbs.nau.edu/Forum/Sourcebooks/canyon-country.html;
7/24/98.
Cestero, Barb and The Sonoran Institute, "Beyond the Hundredth Meeting: A Field Guide to
Collaborative Conservation on the West's Public Lands," Sonoran Institute document in
press, 3/99.
Chattooga River Watershed Coalition, Clayton, GA, newsletter, 1998.
Chicago Wilderness, Information Sheet, February 1999.
Cleary, Rex. Certified range management consultant, Society for Range Management,
Personal Communication, 12/3/98
Concern, Inc, "Sustainability in Action,"1998.
Devlin, Teri, member of Darby Partnership and representative from The Nature
Conservancy, personal communication, 3/25/99.
Eclov, Theresa, Office Manager, Mississippi Headwaters Board, personal communication,
3/4/99.
Environmental Protection Agency, Community-based environmental protection website
abstract: http://earth1.epa.gov/earth100/records/cbep.html, also see:
http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/, 5/20/99
Environmental Protection Agency, National Estuaries Program website:
http://www.epa.gov/nep/, 5/20/99
Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board, “Locally Organized Watershed Councils in
Oregon,” http://www.4sos.org/homepage/whoweare/gweb_wscs.html, 3/19/99.
Mapping the Terrain
4-33
Hamilton, Joe, Manager of Low Country Initiative, Ducks Unlimited and member of Ace
Basin Task Force, personal communication, 2/22/99.
Hanna, David, co-founder, Mendenhall Watershed Council, personal communication, 2/6/99.
Hewitt, Laura and Stephen Born, "The Role of Nonprofit Organizations in Coordinating
Integrated Watershed Conservation Effortrs: Trout Unlimited in Wisconsin's Kickapoo
Valley," unpublished manuscript, TU-Kickapoo Project, c/o CCED 1327 University Ave.,
Madison, WI 53715.
Laffin, Curt, Merrimack River Watershed Council, personal communication, 2/99.
Mendenhall Watershed Partnership, Water Ways (Newsletter), Winter Issue, 1998-1999.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Clay County Beach Ridges Forum for Gravel
Mining and Prairie Protection, Final Report, 1997.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, "By-laws of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance," Tyaskin:
April 1998.
Philbin, J., Pheonix Area Office, Forestry, case summary faxed to Carolyn Bye, BLM,
1/8/98.
Porter, Stephen, Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife and member of Owl
Mountain Partnership Steering Committee, personal communication, 2/29/99.
Selzer, Paul. Facilitator, Clark County HCP process, personal communication, January, 1999.
Shelly, Steve, “Making a Difference on the Ground," Chronicle of Community, Vol. 3, No.,
Autumn 1998, pp. 37-39.
Smith, Mark, Ohio EPA and member of Darby Partnership, personal communication,
3/15/99.
Snow, Don, "River Story: A New Chapter for Montana's Clark Fork," Chronicle of
Community, Autumn 1996, v. 1 n.1: 17-25.
The Keystone Center, The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management,
Final Report, October 1996.
Thomas, Ron, Sustainable Racine Executive Director, personal communication, 3/1/99.
U.S. EPA, Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting
Ecosystems and Communities, 1997, Washington, D.C.
Mapping the Terrain
4-34
U.S. EPA, Institutional Frameworks for Watershed Management Programs: Profiles and
Analysis of Selected Programs, prepared by River Federation, Silver Spring, MD, 1994.
University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center, Watershed Source Book: WatershedBased Solutions to Natural Resource Problems, 1996.
Weeter, Bob. Rancher owner, Double H Ranch, Ten Sleep, Wyoming, personal
communication, December 1999, ([email protected]).
Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making, Making the Difference: Five Risk
Management Case Studies, Phase II Comparative Risk Projects, 1998.
Williams, Ellen and Paul Ellefson, “Natural Resource Partnerships: Factors Leading to
Cooperative Success in the Management of Landscape Level Ecosystems Involving Mixed
Ownerships”, Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper Series number 113, University of
Minnesota: April 1996.
Wondolleck, Julia and Steven Yaffee, Building Bridges Across Agency Boundaries: In
Serach of Excellence in the United States Forest Service, a research report submitted to the
USDA Forest Service, Pacific NW Research Station, July 15, 1994.
Yaffee et al, Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of the Current
Experience, Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1996.
Zeller, Marty, Common Ground: Community-Based Conservation of Natural Resources,
Report of Conservation Partners, Inc., 1997.
Mapping the Terrain
4-35
CHAPTER 5: ANIMAS RIVER STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
Silverton, Colorado
Prepared by Chrissy Coughlin
The Animas River Stakeholders Group illustrates a collaborative group that convened
in response to the threat of Superfund designation. This group is empowered to work
with the framework of a set of diverse interests to locate and evaluate sources of metal
contamination, to determine potential improvement and to prioritize sites for
remediation. Water degradation in the area is thought to be largely attributed to past
mining practices in the Animas basin. Although the group has made progress, it is still
in the information gathering stage and many feel its true success remains to be seen.
Interviews:
Bill Simon, Coordinator of the Animas River Stakeholders Group, (2/24/99)
Carol Russell, Environmental Protection Agency, (3/23/99)
Chris George, Local representative, owner of a local ski-lodge, (3/9/99)
Fred Clark, Landowner-seasonal resident, (3/12/99)
Gary Broetzman, Former facilitator, Colorado Center for Environmental Management,
(2/4/99)
Greg Parsons, Colorado Water Quality Control Board-CO Department of Health,
(3/2/99)
Larry Perino, Mining representative-Sunnyside Mine, (3/10/99)
Mike Black, Local environmentalist, (3/25/99)
Peter Butler, Member of the Colorado Water Quality Commission, (3/1/99)
Rich Perino, San Juan County Commissioner, (3/18/99)
Steve Feran, Mining representative, (3/8/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origin and Issues
Silverton Colorado is an old mining town nestled in the spectacular San Juan Mountains in
the Southwest region of the state of Colorado. Boasting a population of roughly 1,500 during
the summer season and 750 in the winter, the economy, once fueled by mining operations,
currently thrives primarily on tourism and recreational opportunities. Silverton is also
located in San Juan County and in the more than 700 square mile Upper Animas watershed.
The watershed is formed by three tributaries that join in Silverton and form the Animas River
(ARSG webpage, 1999). The Animas River flows for about 100 miles where it meets with
the San Juan River in New Mexico (CCEM, 1998). The area of concern, however
encompasses a 200 mile radius above the town of Silverton and the site of 400 abandoned
mines. To the distant eye, this area seems pristine and untouched. It is, in fact, home to one
of the most severely impacted areas in the United States. Up until 1934, mills in Silverton
dumped mine tailings directly into the river and ranching practices such as sheep grazing
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-1
greatly contributed to the pollution of the river. It is also within this 200 square mile area
that the town of Silverton and San Juan County faced the daunting possibility of becoming
designated a Superfund Site in the early 1990's.
Superfund designation has been a challenge to the residents of the Animas Basin for a couple
of reasons. One reason is that most landowners who own these mining sites, either no longer
reside or never resided in the Animas Valley. Indeed, although 83% of the land in San Juan
County is federally owned, most of the abandoned mining sites are located on private lands
and the majority of the owners of these sites are absentee landowners (Parsons, 1999).
Moreover, because the Mining Act of 1872 allowed people to purchase land for little to
nothing as long as their intent was to mine the land, many did mine the land, but then left it in
its current state and moved on without leaving behind documentation of their future
whereabouts. Although local efforts have been made to locate these landowners, not much
success has been made. The other reason is that although mining has the unavoidable
potential to pollute the land, valley residents have not historically spent a great deal of time
worrying about the effects of mining activity until the late 1980's. The consequence of this
situation, according to Bill Simon, coordinator of the Animas River Stakeholders Group
(ARSG), is that: "There is not any one person you can, therefore, point a finger to as to who
is responsible."
Indeed, Silverton currently struggles with the transition from a community with a strong
mining heritage to a community that currently fights to preserve its historic mining pits and
buildings and that must focus on a clean river so to attract the largest percentage of tourists
possible to fuel the economy. Local county commissioners, for instance, have all worked for
Sunnyside mine at some time resulting in strong alliances with the mining companies.
Moreover, the San Juan Historic Society currently has a strong presence in the Silverton
community and fights hard to avoid the removal of these historical sites that bring in
substantial revenue to the area and fuel the regional economy (Parsons, 1999). Regardless of
history and tradition, the water quality of the Animas Basin was not considered clean by the
government officials and it was time get to the root of the cause of the degrading water
quality of the Animas River. The question was how to do so.
In early 1993, the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, under the leadership of Greg Parsons, recognized the need
for broader public involvement in addressing water quality issues in the Animas Basin. A
collaborative approach was felt to be the most appropriate means of addressing concerns over
mining contamination (Simon, 1999). Concern in the Animas basin centered on water
quality issues, its effect on aquatic populations, and its relationship to mining activity.
However, although water quality in the upper basin did, indeed, not meet surface water
quality standards for cold water fisheries due to a combination of releases from both
historical mining activities and natural contributions, some still claimed that natural causes
were the primary cause. Nonetheless, after interviewing various mining, federal land
management, local government, environmental, and related interests regarding their views on
mine-related contamination in the Basin and their interest in participation in a collaborative
process, a collaborative approach was received favorably and the Animas River Stakeholders
Group (ARSG) was formed in February 1994 (CCEM, 1995).
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-2
Early Stages
Two political forces, the State Water Quality Control Board and the Superfund Program,
drove the initiation of the ARSG. The primary driver was the State Water Quality Control
Program, which, in the early 1990’s, designated this area of Colorado as one of the most
deteriorated stream segments in the state (Broetzman, 1999). Seriously elevated levels of
toxic metals had just about wiped out aquatic life throughout many segments in the upper
part of the watershed with contamination and came from the following sources: current (in
the process of closing down) and historical mining sites, as well as natural contributions
(CCEM, 1998). The State Water Quality Control Program felt that with both the threat of
the area's designation as a Superfund site and local sentiment firmly imbedded in the fact that
they did not want the federal government making their decisions for them, a clean-up
strategy must be developed around active participation from the local residents.
As the group tackled the issue of water quality standards, it became apparent that local
residents did not want any tightening of standards. Rather, they preferred to work through the
process as a group and figure out what they could reasonably accomplish (CCEM, 1998).
The Water Quality Control Commission then agreed to a three-year deferral of standards and
classifications but did set numbers for the Brown trout and gave the group a general target for
which to aim. According to Parsons, the group said: "Well, we got what we asked for--now
we have no choice but to produce."
Bill Simon states: "The commission empowered ARSG to make improvements and come up
with a basin wide plan with two primary goals in mind: 1) To develop the information
necessary to set appropriate standards and classifications; and 2) To demonstrate remediation
ongoing right now and to develop a remediation plan for the basin so that standards and
classifications could be maintained within the Clean Water Act." The group spent the next
three years monitoring the 400 abandoned mining sites. They are now in the process of
formulating an overall plan looking at data from key individual sites and prioritizing them in
order to accomplish the most in the shortest amount of time.
Organization and Process
By 1994, the Animas River Stakeholders Group was a functioning entity although it started
off on shaky ground primarily due to local distrust towards the state, EPA, and environmental
groups. As an indication of this lack of trust, Gary Broetzman was asked by the County
Commissioner, in the initial stages of the group: "Do the crazy environmentalists from that
crazy town downstream [Durango] have to participate?" By mid-1994, however, the group
had decided upon a mission statement, goals, and organizational structure of the group.
Mission Statement
"To improve water quality and habitats in the Animas River through a collaborative process
designed to encourage participation from all interested parties."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-3
The group does this through an extensive collection and analysis consolidation of the
chemical, physical, and biological components necessary to assess the impacts of
contamination on aquatic life and habitat throughout the basin.
The group also reached consensus on the following goals and objectives:
According to Gary Broetzman, "The group just brainstormed them a number of times. There
were a number of interests who wanted to quantify things while others did not. So they
decided to improve water quality but not to quantify it. It was a give and take until everyone
could shake hands."
Goals
!
To monitor the water quality and aquatic habitats of the Animas River and its tributaries
and provide access to the public of this information.
♦
♦
Determine which parameters presently limit aquatic life and habitats
Determine levels of reduction of those parameters necessary to substantially improve
aquatic life
!
To analyze all water quality information within the Upper Animas watershed to
determine the extent and effects of metal contamination from natural, geologic processes
and historic mining, and to identify major source locations.
!
To determine the feasibility of remediation of sites discovered to be major contributors of
metals or related contaminants.
!
To use information from monitoring and feasibility determinations to develop a basin
wide remediation plan consisting of cost estimates, possible technologies and probable
candidate sites.
♦
♦
!
To reduce metal concentrations in the Animas River to a level which will maximize
aquatic life while maintaining costs acceptable to the general public
To remain flexible allowing prioritization of sites to change in response to
technological developments, availability of funds, owner cooperation, regulatory
changes, and other factors which may be beyond the control of the Stakeholders
Group
To encourage private and public entities to reduce the amount of contaminants entering
the Animas River from abandoned mine sites through the following means:
♦
♦
♦
♦
Educating the public concerning environmental issues involved
Assisting in the development of cost effective remediation technologies
Encouraging the implementation of demonstration technologies
Assisting in the procurement of funds necessary to attain the goals and objectives of
the group, including funds for voluntary site remediation
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-4
!
To affect changes in current regulations and permitting procedures which would
encourage voluntary approaches to remediation (ARSG webpage, 1999).
Prior to each remediation effort the group policy encourages that each remediation project be
reviewed by the San Juan County Commissioners for possible historic impacts. The
commissioners have a county historical review committee, which provides comments and
recommendations.
Organizational Structure
The group was initially facilitated by Gary Broetzman of a Denver-based group called the
Colorado Center for Environmental Management (CCEM). Greg Parsons of WQCD figured
that since CCEM, had both the capability of working under a grant from the Department of
Energy and was not a stakeholder, that they would be in a strategic position to bring in
money and time to the Animas basin. Together they would develop a collaborative process
as a means to educate people about the data collected from 1991-93 and to use this data to
find solutions. In 1996, CCEM turned over responsibility for coordination and management
of the stakeholder group to the local community (Broetzman, 1999). Bill Simon, a local
resident and scientist and researcher by trade became the current coordinator. A selection
committee chose him from an applicant pool of over 35 people (Simon, 1999).
ARSG has no formal membership. Any interested person is allowed and encouraged to
participate. The group meets once a month at the Silverton Town Hall. It is also not a
501(c3) and is therefore devoid of a Board of Directors. The group prefers its loose
structure. As Bill Simon states, "We have intentionally chosen to not become incorporated.
We feel strongly that having a Board of Directors would be a negative thing to do. Although
challenging at times, nobody has ultimate authority within the group. We perceive ourselves
as a mass. The overlying theme is public involvement at all levels otherwise we feel it will
not work. Participants have to feel confident that the group is working in the public's best
interest.”
ARSG does use smaller workgroups to handle specific issues and activities. These
workgroups meet more frequently as specific issues arise. Bill Simon notes that, "although
these groups are open to the public, we try to limit the number of people who sit actively on
those. We figure out who has strengths in what category. The workgroups can produce
recommendations to the Stakeholders Group at large and then the stakeholder group decides
whether or not to implement a program or to review that data." In early 1999, there are four
public open workgroups focused on remediation, regulation, monitoring, and feasibility that
produce recommendations to the larger group. ARSG then decides whether or not to
implement that program or to review that data. The monitoring and feasibility groups are the
most active and easiest to maintain. Other short-lived workgroups form as needed and then
terminate (Simon, 1999).
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-5
Participants
ARSG consists of approximately thirty-five active members. Members include local
government representatives from San Juan County, the City of Durango and the town of
Silverton. Local landowners, local mining companies such as Echo Bay-Sunnyside Gold
Mining, Silver Wing, and Gold King, the San Juan Historical Society, environmental
organizations such as Friends of the Animas and River Watch, the general public, and the
Southern Ute Tribe make up the remainder of local and regional interests. State Government
representatives include Southwest Water Conservancy District, Colorado Department of
Health, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Federal
agency representatives include the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (University of Colorado Natural Resource Law
Center, 1996).
Funding
Funding and technical support for the group has been provided through Clean Water Act
Section 319 non-point source funds, and EPA Headwaters Mine Waste grant, in-kind support
from various federal agencies (USBR, BLM, USFS, USGS), a local water conservation
district, local mining interests, a resource conservation and development district, and local
students (CCEM, 1998). More recently, the group has received monetary donations from
local contributors (Broetzman, 1999).
Outcomes 1
The Animas River Stakeholders Group has achieved a number of outcomes as part of a threestep process for watershed protection. These include the creation and consolidation of river
monitoring data, feasibility and site characterization, as well as implementation and
assistance with remediation activities.
!
Consolidating river monitoring data: ARSG has not only developed a very extensive
monitoring program to determine the chemical and biological condition of the streams
throughout the watershed, they have developed and consolidated a database as well. The
group has characterized all sources of leading including natural background sources. The
watershed contains hundreds of abandoned metal loads. Water-quality data is being
collected by numerous Animas River Stakeholders Group (ARSG) participants, some of
which include:
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
1
A local student River Watch program
The U.S. Geological Survey
The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
Sunnyside Mine - Echo Bay
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Information in this section is taken from ARSG webpage.
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-6
♦
♦
♦
The U.S. Forest Service
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Colorado Division of Wildlife
!
Evaluating feasibility of cleanup actions and site characterization: The ARSG
evaluates sites throughout the watershed for feasibility of cleanup, researching the
processes that work best in this area and to prioritize those sites for possible cleanup
through a basin-wide, cost-effective remediation plan in cooperation with land owners.
The stakeholders approach this task with an emphasis on the preservation of both cultural
and naturally significant sites. Characterization of the basin will conclude in one year
according to Bill Simon, the group's coordinator.
!
Implementing and assisting with remediation activities: Sunnyside Gold is conducting
remediation of both of its properties as well as several other sites in the area. Sunnyside
Gold, has cleaned up several sites in the Upper Animas Watershed. The remediation is
part of a negotiated settlement with the State of Colorado that includes plugging and
flooding the Sunnyside Mine. Gold King Mines put in diversions around three dumps
and capped one. Other stakeholders have also led the way in implementing cleanups on
their own properties.
Other outcomes
!
Development of a method to assess not only the existing conditions for the streams
through a limiting factors analysis but for potential aquatic life conditions for the streams
through a limiting factors analysis that they have determined the biological potential for
the streams. According to Bill Simon, "These efforts will focus their remediation efforts
on specific constituents that limit aquatic life."
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
Members of the Animas River Stakeholders Group have chosen to collaborate for a number
of reasons:
!
!
To avoid Superfund designation
To empower local individuals
To avoid Superfund designation
Whether the Silverton area be designated a Superfund site was neither received favorably by
locals and nor deemed practical for people like Greg Parsons of the Colorado Water Quality
Control Board who felt local involvement to be pivotal to the success of cleaning up the
basin. He also felt Superfund designation to be unrealistic given the institutional structures
in place. In his words: "In addition to being counterproductive, a massive regulatory sweep
of the area would not be realistic given the fact that state regulatory agencies do not have the
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-7
resources to handle these problems." Peter Butler concurs: "The state regulatory agencies
just do not have the resources to handle these problems…and the only other way to handle it
would be for the EPA to come in under Superfund." Bill Simon, the group's coordinator
shares both insights and adds: "Dealing with abandoned mine issues is something new as it
applies to the Clean Water Act. It is also a very contentious issue. We have the most
severely impacted area in the U.S…. but because of Superfund and the possibility and the
enormous negative implications it would have on our (tourist) area, I got involved. They
came to me and wanted to know how to get everyone to the table."
To empower local individuals
Area residents see involvement in the collaborative process as a way to empower themselves
and to best enable the community to participate in the decision-making process at both state
and federal levels. In the words of county commissioner, Rich Perino: "…That is why I am
involved, to see what is going to happen to the county. We really have no control and EPA
keeps threatening." Local resident involvement has been difficult in some respects but in
others it has helped the individuals become more comfortable with the process. Chris
George speaks about his increased faith in the group. “For two years I avoided contact with
the group and wanted to wait it out and see which way the wind was going to blow. I really
did not care for what I had seen in Leadville and for the style of the EPA. But I finally
decided to attend with the distrust of a Vietnam Veteran, have built up trust, and now have
faith in the system. I hope this group is making history and it will be the way we do
business. Although I can not speak for all landowners, the Stakeholders Group is the only
intelligent answer to these problems” (George). And in the words of mining manager, Larry
Perino: "I thought it was in everyone's best interest. It is better to be involved that to be on
the sidelines."
Alternatives
Those interviewed offered a number of thoughts about what would have likely happened in
the basin without the Animas River Stakeholders Group:
!
!
!
Superfund designation
Lack of interagency coordination
Little local involvement
Superfund designation
The most obvious alternative to collaboration, according to landowners, mining
representatives, and agency representatives alike is Superfund designation. Most landowners
refer to it as the "monster." Indeed, The Upper Animas Basin was very high on the EPA's list
for potential sites to designate as Superfund sites and the possibility for site designation still
remains. In the words of Peter Butler, former representative of the Friends of the Animas
River and current member of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission: "There
would have been more impetus for the EPA to designate the area as a Superfund site using
Superfund money and I think it would have been disastrous. There is already a great deal of
antagonism in the area towards government agencies and to be honest, I am not sure that they
[government agencies] know what ought to be done."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-8
Lack of interagency coordination
Several participants highlighted the fact that there little interagency coordination taking place
in the basin and that agencies would even discredit each other's data. Mining representative,
Steve Feran states that the Stakeholders Group has been a way to facilitate agency
coordination. He notes: "We have really tried to coordinate the agencies. If we did not have
the group tackling these issues, there would have been litigation plain and simple and a great
deal of these issues would not have been answered as thoroughly."
Little local involvement
Greg Parsons highlights what he feels would have taken place without the formation of the
ARSG: "WQCD would gather data, show up in front of the Water Quality Control
Commission and argue with parties who had enough money to be represented by lawyers and
had an interest in terms of being represented. We would have had a few fights with
Sunnyside Gold and a few comments form the County but it would have been a battle. The
battle would have been between us and the mining company, not the people who live in the
valley. They would have had no say."
Advice
Those interviewed offered several suggestions for others considering whether and how to
initiate a collaborative process. Advice includes advocating an open process, seeking public
input, encouraging coordination and information sharing, and keeping an informal group:
!
Peter Butler speaks to the issue of information sharing and coordination: "First of all it is
important to provide a forum for agency cooperation. Another important role of the
group is to provide data/information that everyone has access to rather than agencies just
doing it on their own and being confronted with debates over which information is the
most accurate."
!
Greg Parsons stresses using public input as much as possible: "There is a big piece of
public input that can best be served through collaborative processes. It is a means for
agencies and citizens alike who are affected to weigh out approaches to problems."
!
Bill Simon speaks to the mechanics of the group: "Make sure that everyone is at the table.
Make the process all-inclusive. When you make mistakes, put them aside and move on.
When I see an issue that cannot be resolved, I do not push for the issue to be resolved.
We move on as a group and come back to the issue later on when we have had some
distance from it."
!
Steve Feran also speaks to group mechanics: "Have an informal group. This is very
important. It is a group where everyone is equal and nobody is allowed to laugh at
anyone else."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-9
!
A landowner offers a different perspective: "Make sure that you have a problem to start
with. If you try to fund a project when there is really not a problem, it becomes political.
In our case, projects such as with the instance in Howardsville where tailings that were
removed ended up damaging the stream for about 2.5 miles downstream, projects that
have been done have actually harmed the river rather than helped it."
Ensuring Sufficient Representation
Ensuring sufficient representation has been a problem for ARSG from the beginning. A
town proud of its mining history, it has been difficult to convince people to collaborate.
Indeed, for many, collaborating is admitting to failure to take care of the natural resources in
the basin. The following challenges have resulted:
Challenges
!
!
!
Lack of landowner representation
Uncomfortable environment for participation
No trust with agencies
Lack of landowner representation
All people interviewed recognized the need for greater landowner representation (both local
and absentee) in the Animas River Stakeholders Group. The issue of lack of representation
has improved since the initial stages of the group, although the group remains agency
dominated and has had a difficult time breaking out of this mold. Some landowners also
indicated a lack of trust with both state and federal agencies.
Uncomfortable environment for participation
County Commissioners have been present throughout the process, but it has been difficult to
get other citizens to come to the meetings. As Greg Parsons puts it, "They saw it as a bunch
of bureaucrats getting together to decide our future so they did not see their place. The idea
of a collaborative approach was something that was a little distant to them. They did not feel
any empowerment and if they did show up, they felt technically overwhelmed.”
Nevertheless, as Carol Russell and Fred Clark both mention, it is their own decision as to
whether or not they show up. With an open process, it is their own choice. You can’t force
it.” Larry Perino also adds: “Although there could be greater landowner representation,
nobody is excluded. That is important.”
Peter Butler addresses the issue of absentee landowners in the Basin. He states, "A vast
majority of the mining claim sites up in the Animas Basin are not owned by people around
here, they are owned by people all around the country. A lot of people own sites that they
have never seen. We have made a couple of mailings to people and have obtained county
records of people but that does not always reach everybody." He also speaks to the
landowners who still remain in the valley. "Distrust has subsided a bit but there are still
landowners who come to the meetings and are disruptive. There is definitely an antigovernment sentiment in this area. They are also afraid of the potential liability. Many
people feel that government has come along and created a problem."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-10
Carol Russell also speaks to the issue of absentee landowners: “One of the bigger challenges
of the group is the summer-time residents. They go away for six months, come back, and are
anxiety ridden over the sweeping changes that the group has made without knowing the full
context of those decisions. Generally, when they are away, they do not keep up with the
group.”
Bill Simon, while aware of poor landowner representation, also feels that environmental
representation is lacking as well. “The environmental faction is poorly represented in
Colorado, in general, and the ones that are there are overworked. This is an ongoing
problem. Fortunately, in the case of the Animas, the mining interests have not taken
advantage of this. They could be in much more control of this process but I think that it is a
good sign that the miners feel that the miners have gotten a fair opportunity. Nonetheless,
environmental representation could be better.”
Lack of trust with agencies
Many participants do not trust state and federal agencies. In the words of Chris George,
“One of the challenges of the group is that it has been difficult to develop a sufficient amount
of trust on the part of landowners in working with agencies. We have everything to lose, for
instance, while agency representatives will still have bread and butter on the table and will be
able to send their kids to college. When we come to the table it is a crapshoot. They can ruin
a guy like me overnight.”
Strategies
Participants in the Animas River Stakeholders Group try a variety of strategies for dealing
with the challenges of representation, including these:
!
!
!
Active recruitment
Loose group structure
Educational forums
Active recruitment
As coordinator of the group, Bill Simon addresses the concern of ensuring adequate
represention through active recruitment of participants. It takes knowing your community so
that he knows who to go to and when to maintain balance. He states: "When it gets out of
balance, I try to find somebody or some group from the other side of the fence to come to a
meeting and put forth the other side of the issue."
Loose group structure
Another strategy that has been adopted by all group members is to focus on keeping the
process loose. Those interviewed feel that the loose structure has fostered greater
involvement because someone feels that he or she can jump in at anytime. Larry Perino
points out: "This has resulted in a slower process, but that it has been worth it."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-11
Participants in the Animas River Stakeholders Group try a variety of strategies for dealing
with the challenges of representation, including these:
!
!
!
Active recruitment
Loose group structure
Educational forums
Active recruitment
As coordinator of the group, Bill Simon addresses the concern of ensuring adequate
represention through active recruitment of participants. It takes knowing your community so
that he knows who to go to and when to maintain balance. He states: "When it gets out of
balance, I try to find somebody or some group from the other side of the fence to come to a
meeting and put forth the other side of the issue."
Loose group structure
Another strategy that has been adopted by all group members is to focus on keeping the
process loose. Those interviewed feel that the loose structure has fostered greater
involvement because someone feels that he or she can jump in at anytime. Larry Perino
points out: "This has resulted in a slower process, but that it has been worth it."
Educational forums
The group also conducts a library series, which serves as a friendly non-intimidating forum
to educate locals and out-of-town laypeople about the issues in the Animas Basin as well as
the activities of the Animas River Stakeholders Group. Each talk centers on a given issue
and serves to clarify information discussed at the Stakeholder meetings. Although this series
might not directly result in a greater community attendance record, these series are
informative and provide a way for residents to learn about the issues without having to be at
the meetings. Bill Simon points out that these meetings were very successful for the first
year and a half and states: "The thought was, and still is, that people may be interested but
may not want to participate in the political debate that stakeholder meetings encourage. Then
too, the meetings tend to be focused on so many issues, acronyms are used extensively, and
are dominated by state and federal representatives, whose involvement, although necessary,
is not your local community friendly environment." He also notes that they are scheduled
for this summer and will be scheduled right before the meetings so that people can leave if
they want to.
Advice
Those interviewed offered several suggestions for others considering the issue of ensuring
sufficient representation such seeking local input, keeping agencies in check, contacting
politicians, knowing your community/constituency, and providing financial incentives for
local participants:
5-12
the Mineral Policy Center and boy did people shutter. But that is what I wanted them to
do. I did not want them to think that they were operating in a vacuum and that the
Mineral Policy Center was not looking over their shoulder at what they were doing. He
never spoke a word but he was there and was very effective."
!
Mike Black suggests financial incentives: "At these meetings it really ticked me off that I
was one of the only people not getting paid. My advice is to provide citizen resources.
Commitment of time and energy is not going to work out in the long term without
providing these resources."
Accommodating Diverse Interests
The Animas River Stakeholders Group welcomes diverse interests and actively encourages
everyone to bring their concerns to the table. Indeed, the reason it was created in the first
place was through the realization that there was going to be a lot of concern at the local
level about any desire to clean up the valley. Greg Parsons, key initiator of the idea of
forming the collaborative group, felt that "instead of just collecting data and dumping it
somewhere it would be better to get a sense of what the data meant to the public and try to
approach it collaboratively and hear everyone’s side."
Clearly diverse representation has slowed the process down, but, at the same time, as noted
by Greg Parsons, it has also enhanced decision-making: "The compromises that we find in
the valley are still within acceptable boundaries. Both monitoring and projects have been the
right choices environmentally. I have not seen collaboration made up of poor choices." Bill
Simon states: "I would rather have those guys who are weirdos at the table than for them to
be looking from the outside in. They will be disruptive, slow the process, down. Let it slow
down! Let it come to grinding halt. The diverse representation that slows down the process
is what also helps get through the issues ultimately."
Although working collaboratively has its benefits, it also has confronted some challenges as
well. They include:
Challenges
!
!
!
Impatience
Developing and maintaining trust
Differing approaches to management
Impatience
Bill Simon speaks to the challenge of impatience by some group members. "Our biggest
challenge is time. Everybody expects action. In our case we have 120 years of mining
related damages and people want action right away. The challenge is in keeping the greater
community patient and letting this process run its course."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-13
Developing and maintaining trust
One of the bigger challenges to the group is convincing some that there is indeed an
environmental problem in the Basin. For this reason, it has been hard to develop trust
between agency representatives and local residents. As one participant states: "There is so
much mineralization in the mountains, rocks, and streams, that you just can’t do anything
about it." Another participant spoke about tests conducted on baby fish three years ago
where they were put in plastic bags full of water from the Animas River. None of the fish
died which further reinforced the participant's belief that Superfund designation was just
another way for agencies to justify their budgets. He also mentioned the gold medal fishing
in Durango and that the fishing there would not be of that caliber if there were such a
problem.
Carol Russell points out the challenge she faces in trying to assuage participant’s fears of
Superfund designation given this lack of trust. One aspect of this powerful law, she
highlights, is the degree of certainty that it will provide to landowners. For instance, it deals
with the issue of liability. "There are some parts that you want and some parts that you don’t
but very few people in the Animas Basin see it this way."
Differing approaches to management
Some participants feel that agency management practices are not sensitive to local needs and
are wasteful. Some participants, for example, tend to look at agency representatives
particularly the EPA) as "the people from Washington" who are not in tune with local
traditional natural resource management practices. One EPA representative even received a
death threat.
Peter Butler speaks to the challenge of overcoming the local perception that government
agencies are wasteful. "A lot of us feel that they have wasted a lot of money in that there are
a lot of scientists running around to get money to do their little project that does not even
wind up telling you anything. At the same time we do get a lot of money and resources
coming in our direction."
Strategies
Members of the ARSG adopt the following strategies for dealing with the issue of
accommodating diverse interests:
!
!
!
Provide forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
Encourage after hours interaction
Force action
Provide forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
ARSG uses what they call a library series that serves as a friendly non-intimidating forum to
educate locals and out-of-town lay-people about the issues in the Animas Basin as well as the
activities of the Animas River Stakeholders Group. Although these are also used in part to
get more people on board, they have also proven useful in assuaging participant fears that
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-14
certain issues are not being brushed under the rug but rather are being explained to the
community as a whole.
Encourage after hours interaction
ARSG meetings can run up to twelve hours, participants spend time together after hours and
often grab a pizza or a beer. Getting to know each other after hours has been a way to get to
know people and not just their interests.
Force Action
One reality of the Animas basin has been to use the threat of Superfund designation as way
to convince people that it will serve them well to work together to provide management
alternatives.
Advice
Group members offer the following advice accommodating diverse interests. They fall under
the following themes of leadership, trust, local involvement, meeting structure, and issues:
!
Peter Butler believes it all starts with proper leadership and relationship building: "You
need to start out with a paid facilitator and someone who can handle the administrative
tasks such as getting mailings out. Secondly, the group must do things together beyond
the 12 hour enclosed meetings. Get out into the field as much as possible. Go out to
lunch, dinner, or have a beer together."
!
Carol Russell offers advice on something she, in hindsight, wishes the group had spent
more time doing: "Build up more trust before the formal formation of the group. If you
structure it right and build trust at the beginning, it will go a long way. In our case, too
many people had little to no idea what was going on. More time should be spent
identifying leaders and spokespeople within the community. Time should also be spent
figuring out who will need a greater amount of persuasion to come to the meetings."
!
Fred Clark speaks to the issue of local involvement. "Get property owners and the
county government to attend the meetings and listen to what these folks [agencies] are
going to do. Make your own decisions and then get up and fight for them."
!
Larry Perino highlighted to the positive effect that meeting structure could have on an
effective process: "Keep the meetings open. Do not turn anyone away. Make sure that
all groups are represented, but limit the control and input of any one group. We have
been lucky because we do not have any rabid interests on either side. The more rigid
people there are, the less likely that the process will work out."
!
As the coordinator, Bill Simon emphasizes the importance of working only on the issues
on which you have consensus. "If you do not have consensus on an issue, do not push it.
If you can’t resolve them, don’t. Move on." He adds: "You have to have patience. None
of these issues came to be in a short period of time."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-15
Dealing with Scientific Issues
Issues
The issues that fall under the umbrella of the Animas River Stakeholders Group include the
following: Water quality issues as a result of mining activities and natural causes, threat of
designation of the area as a Superfund site, brown trout. Mining sources include adits
(mining tunnels), dumps, and tailings piles. These contribute to elevated metal loadings of
zinc, copper, iron, aluminum, manganese, lead, and cadmium (CCEM, 1998).
Efforts of the Animas River Stakeholders Group built upon water quality data that was
collected between 1991 and 1993. WQCD was facing a triennial review of water quality
standards in the basin in September 1994 by the State Water Quality Control Commission. It
was the job of the Stakeholders group to think about what to do with the data. According to
Greg Parsons, former non-point source coordinator for the Water Quality Control Division,
"samples were collected from over 200 locations in the Upper Basin. From that monitoring,
we gained the knowledge of where the generalized sources of loading were in the basin and
what we thought was the potential to see some remediation to try to improve water quality."
Greg Parsons commented on the broad expertise of the local community: "One of my
primary reflections with the Animas River Stakeholders Group is that I never anticipated that
I would walk into a town this small and find the level of expertise involved. Their knowledge
of the scientific and technical features of mining were very high obviously because it was a
mining community that loved being a mining community. It was not a mining community
that dreaded its past or its future. The people that lived there were very involved in wanting
to be miners. Engineering, metallurgy, chemistry…what that meant was that there was a
tremendous knowledge base from which to draw upon potential solutions."
The majority of those interviewed feel that scientific information has been adequately
gathered. Indeed the system that the group has set up is systematic. There are challenges,
however to adequately managing the scientific issues. They include:
Challenges
!
!
!
!
Different perceptions of the nature of the problem
Agency motives and integrity
Verification of information
Balancing the discussion
Different perceptions about the nature of the problem
Some people in the Animas basin have different perceptions of the nature of water quality
degradation. In fact, some do not even feel that there is a problem at all. This is challenging
for agency representatives who are trying to bring local residents up to speed about the
scientific issues involved. Carol Russell states: "I find it difficult to argue with those at the
table who simply say, ‘there are fish there and you people from Washington can’t tell me
there aren’t.’ In this case no matter what the data says, they are not going to believe you."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-16
Agency motives and integrity
Many residents do not trust the motives of government agencies. They feel that they are at
liberty to pick and choose with which studies they will move forward. Some even feel that
particular projects that agencies have headed up, instead of improving various sites have
actually made them worse off. The following concern illustrates local concern of the motives
and integrity of the involved agencies: “We have found that when some of the studies done
have not been politically correct, we just do not hear from them and we find someone else
who has taken their job. It is obvious that the agencies feel that they have to find something
that is wrong in order to justify their work." He goes on: "A couple of years ago an aquatic
scientist from Colorado State University did a study where he used day old rainbow trout.
Rainbow trout are most susceptible to damage from metals. He demonstrated that these little
trout lived in all of the flowing areas of the Animas River. He ended up needing another
seven to eight thousand dollars to complete the study, but conveniently, his funding was cut
off and given to someone else. Again, a lot of us feel that the Denver EPA simply needs
projects to justify budgets. Unfortunately the Animas River has become one of them."
Verification of information
Participants also feel that agencies tend to invalidate the findings of other agencies. With
regard to interagency relations, one participant states that the EPA does not want to recognize
the back ground data compiled by the USGS. With regard to site restoration, Rich Perino,
the County Commissioner, is going to start charging the agencies road impact fees because
"they are ruining our county roads. In addition to tearing up our historic mining sites, they
are tearing up the roads in the process." And in the words of Chris George, "I do not see
anything sinister, but I have seen a certain unwillingness of people at certain levels to not be
happy with the data."
Balancing the discussion
Several participants have complained that meetings are often conducted using scientific
language and acronyms that are intelligible to those with a less scientific background. Many
participants, therefore, often choose to stay away from meetings because they feel like it is
waste of their time given that they understand very little and could not voice their feelings
and concerns.
Strategies
Members of the ARSG adopt the following strategies for dealing with scientific issues:
!
!
Use work groups
Avoid jargon or acronyms
Use work groups
ARSG divides into working groups that include people who are more familiar with specific
issues such as mining tailings, chemistry of water quality, etc. They will obtain outside help
to get a better understanding of an issue in some instances, but usually there is enough
knowledge and expertise within the group. In addition to having set protocols, the group has
a monitoring workgroup responsible for collecting all data and ensuring its quality. The
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-17
various studies that are conducted are followed by presentations to the group as a whole.
According to Bill Simon, “Everyone in the basin has to use the same quality control and
assurance. It is all uniform raw scientific information that is gathered. You always run into
obstacles such as data that does not make sense or a problem at the lab, but we use what we
can. The challenge is really with interpretation.” County Commissioner Rich Perino adds,
"the USGS has done a really good job at collecting the background data."
Avoid jargon or acronyms
The use of jargon or acronyms by agency representatives and others with scientific
backgrounds directly resulted in decreased incentive for others to actively participate in the
group. Mike Black speaks to the complexity of science involved: "I was not understanding
the chemistry. The science was too complicated. You need to make it so that it is
understood by everyone."
Advice
Several members offered the following advice such as educating participants, getting
everyone to the table, using local talent, and having good data:
!
Fred Clark takes the issue of local involvement a step further: "Make sure that the entire
group understands what the studies are about so that actions taken can be justified. The
county governments and property owners must understand so that they can take
appropriate actions if necessary. Although most of the presentations it takes a real effort
to really get into it."
!
Peter Butler offers the following advice: "Make a conscious effort to get everyone
involved when obtaining scientific information. Get everyone in on the ground floor as
terms of how you are going to conduct the study, collect the data, and what it is going to
represent."
!
Greg Parsons speaks to the issue of data: "Have really good data to support your
assumptions." Secondly, he concurs with Carol Russell’s comments about the
opportunities inherent in local knowledge: "Utilize the talents of the local residents.
People like Steve Feran and Larry Perino were able to bring in a high level of technical
skill and were involved in the both the scientific and technical end of designing studies."
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Although there are a range of diverse capabilities in the ARSG, the group has benefited from
the fact that it is an entirely open process. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge that
exists in the basin and the historic insight that residents are able to provide is invaluable. The
group has come to realize, however, that another important factor regarding differing levels
of knowledge, power, resources and skills has to do with personalities. One participant
commented that things could change quite dramatically, however, when they get to the point
where they start recommending standards.
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-18
Larry Perino sums up the reality of the situation: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The
ones that speak up get heard the most and those people are probably the ones who are either
the most knowledgeable on the subject or have most at stake. It is part of the democratic
process. Nonetheless, the group makes a real effort not to intimidate anybody or to not listen
to anybody. But sometimes someone is not happy. That is going to happen."
Participants highlighted the following challenges. Both directly relate to agencies:
Challenges
!
!
Distrust in agencies
Technically overwhelmed
Distrust in agencies
There are still those who in the Animas Basin who do not believe in the motives of
government. While this sentiment is not pervasive, those who tend to feel this way are often
the most vocal. Chris George for instance, makes the following observation: "If some guy
way down on the totem pole has data that conflicts with agency policy, that guy could get
fired or his data get shelved."
Rich Perino, who strongly distrust agency motives, has an additional complaint about
agencies: "I am tired of the agencies blaming Congress for the Clean Water Act. They
blame Congress for designating this a test site. That should not have been done without
consulting the San Juan County government and residents because they ended up hurting the
property owners."
Technically overwhelmed
Many participants feel that, consistently, meetings are too technical putting them at a
disadvantage when it comes to decision-making time. In the words of Mike Black, a former
participant and representative of regional environmental groups including Friends of the
Animas: “I went to meetings for the first couple of years and then it was taking up too much
of time. The meetings were getting too technical anyway. It seemed like the chemists took
over. It also seemed like they were spending a lot of time and money on studies and that the
studies were not all that necessary.”
Strategies
Members of the ARSG adopt the following strategies for the issue of accommodating diverse
capabilities. To date, not a great deal has been done to handle this issue:
!
!
Use educational forums
Encourage after hours interaction
Use educational forums
Forums for information sharing and education like the library series is a way for those who
care about what ARSG is doing to participate in a less intimidating setting. It is the hope that
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-19
after attending the library series or workshops that individuals will be more motivated to
attend the general ARSG meetings and take a more active role.
Encourage after hours interaction
Like helping to accommodate diverse interests, after hours interaction is a way for group
members to let down their guard and really get to know other participants-not just what they
stand for. Socializing with agency representatives has been a way for some to get to know
the person as a human being rather than just the agency representative.
Advice
Several members offered the following advice and reflections about how to best
accommodate diverse capabilities. They fall under the themes of partnering, setting
groundrules, writing letters, and being fair:
!
From the environmental standpoint Peter Butler offers the following advice. "Usually the
way it works is that the groups that have money and resources are going to be industry.
Environmental groups can get more leverage if they work with government agencies.
There are a lot of people in the governmental agencies that are real sympathetic to
environmental standpoints. They may not say so publicly, but they will tell you an awful
lot if you buttonhole them in a corner or sit down at lunch with them."
!
Larry Perino offers the following advice: "Set ground-rules at the beginning such as
mutual respect. Another word of advice is to participate! If you do not you will
definitely not get heard. Your ideas will be ignored if nobody is aware of them."
!
Fred Clark suggests letter writing as a positive communication technique: "When you are
frustrated but feel that you need to collect your thoughts and think about what you are
going to say, I suggest writing a letter. If there is something in which I do not agree with
the EPA, then I write them a letter so that they have a record of it and so do I. That way
they can respond at the next meeting."
!
Greg Parsons sums up a number of points: "Treat people fairly. Approach meetings
from a positive perspective. Give people an opportunity to voice opinions and respect
each other (while realizing that this takes quite a bit of discipline)."
!
Gary Broetzman states that it is important that the ideas come from the locals and that
agencies should be prepared to take more of a backseat role. “That way you create local
ownership and commitment to the process. In our case, you would not be able to draw
upon and tap into that capability into the solution if you did not use them as an integral
part of the solution."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-20
Insights specific to this case
Challenges
Trust
One of the biggest challenges to the Animas River Stakeholders Group is lack of local trust
towards the government agencies. Given the fact that there are several valley residents who
do not feel that there is an environmental problem or feel that water quality degradation is a
result of natural causes, the task of developing trust is somewhat monumental. Indeed, some
local residents feel that the EPA is going to ruin the valley in their effort to take steps to
improve water quality. These same residents also feel that they know their valley better than
any outside agency ever could. What is even more intriguing, is that these skeptics include
people of substantial power in the area, including the current County Commissioner and
member of ARSG. This dynamic may make it difficult for the group to achieve success
when the group is really put to the test.
Abandoned mining site issue
The abandoned mining site issue is an interesting challenge for a number of reasons. First, as
explained above, has to do with the issue of absentee landowners. Second, pertains to the
role of mining companies relative to their obligations to clean up past mining sites. The third
reason has to do with the role of the Department of Reclamation with its obligations as an
agency to handle active sites as opposed to abandoned mining sites. The Department of
Reclamation has a severe shortage of staff resources to let alone handle active mining sites
let alone abandoned sites. These three factors culminate into a situation where there is no
organized management plan for effectively handling abandoned mining sites like the ones in
the Animas basin. Sunnyside mine is currently picking up their site as well as several other
sites, although not until after much prodding from agencies like the EPA.
Preponderance of agency representatives
Although most participants voiced concerns of an imbalance of agency representatives to that
of local representatives, in the initial stages of the group, concerns remain that this imbalance
still exists. This seems to be fueling local skepticism as to the motives of agency
representatives and is certainly resulting in local frustration. Common complaints are that
meetings are "over the heads" of laypeople due to its technical nature. The other effect of
using technical lingo is that, in addition to being complicated for locals, meetings are viewed
as boring. This makes meetings more of a burden for residents to attend as often and for as
long as the meetings run.
Is anything really getting done?
Several participants stated that although the threat of Superfund exists, not much has been
accomplished since the formation of ARSG and that there needs to be someone present who
is forcing the issue. The concern is founded upon the original studies that were conducted in
the basin in the early 1990’s. Mike Black ties in this lack of accomplishment to the Clean
Water Act: "You have got this Clean Water Act and other legislation in the state and it
should be followed. You still need a big hammer over everyone’s head to see that something
actually gets done."
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-21
Sources
Animas River Stakeholders Group, Animas River Stakeholders Group.. Retrieved January 9,
1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.waterinfo.org/arsg/.
Colorado Center for Environmental Management, Animas River Collaborative Watershed
Project: 1995 Status Report, Denver: 1995.
Colorado Center for Environmental Management, Community-Based Environmental
Decision-Making for Western Watersheds, Denver: 1998.
University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center, The Watershed Source Book:
Watershed-based Solutions to Natural Resource Problems, Boulder, CO, 1996. pp. 2.1972.1999.
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5-22
CHAPTER 6: BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE
Blackfoot River, Montana
Prepared by Chrissy Coughlin
The Blackfoot Challenge is a highly visible resource management partnership
initiated to coordinate land stewardship efforts in the Blackfoot Valley in South
Central Montana. The largest effort of its kind in Montana, the Blackfoot Challenge
provides a robust example of a collaborative group that has been well received by
local residents and has been instrumental in staving off threats to the valley’s
ecological integrity and rural way of life. Primary threats to the valley include
unsustainable land use practices and commercial and private development. Through
efforts such as hands-on projects, community involvement and empowerment, the
Blackfoot Challenge has served as a model for other collaborative groups in Montana
and across the United States.
Interviews:
Becky Garland, Business owner, former President-Big Blackfoot TU Chapter, (2/28/99)
Gary Sullivan, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (11/03/98)
George Hirschenberger, Bureau of Land Management, (2/27/99)
Greg Neudecker, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (1/29/99)
Hank Goetz, Manager of the Lubrecht Forest, University of Montana, (2/23/99)
Jack Thomas, Acting Executive Director-Blackfoot Challenge, (4/6/99)
Jim Stone, Rancher, Chairman-Blackfoot Challenge, (2/25/99)
Land Lindbergh, Landowner/former rancher co-founder of the Challenge, (2/17/99)
Rich Clough, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, former participant, (2/22/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origins and Issues
Montana’s Blackfoot River Valley is home to the Blackfoot River and a 1.5 million-acre
watershed located in Western Central Montana near the town of Missoula. The river and its
tributaries extend from the top of the Continental Divide in the Bob Marshall Wilderness
westward for approximately 132 miles. The Valley is a mountainous area that boasts 10,000
feet peaks that give way to timbered slopes at lower elevations (Blackfoot Challenge video,
1997). Prairie grasslands, sagebrush steppe, coniferous forest, and extensive wetland and
riparian areas contain more than 600 species of vascular plants. The valley is also home to
21 species of wildlife, including waterfowl and other water birds such as peregrine falcons,
grizzly bears, bald eagles, and bull trout (The Blackfoot Challenge informational pamphlet ).
Roughly 50% of the watershed is federally owned, 7% is state owned, 20% is corporate
timber holdings, and the remaining 23% are privately owned ranches and land holdings
(Lindbergh, 1999). Fifth generation cowboys run many of these ranches. This tranquil rustic
valley which has sustained a rural lifestyle for more than a century has also attracted
newcomers tired of the congestion and pace of life in the east and California.
Blackfoot Challenge
6-1
The Blackfoot Valley, however, is not without its own problems. Although the Blackfoot
River is seemingly beautiful on the surface, poor mining, grazing, and logging practices have
resulted in water quality, water supply issues, sedimentation, and a declining fishery.
(Blackfoot Challenge video, 1997). Valley residents also share a number of pressing
problems such as invasive noxious weeds, damage on private lands as a result of elk
migration, and disputes over instream flow rights. These same residents are also concerned
over the loss of rural character of the valley as an increasing number of large family ranches
are being sold off and split up for development in the form of golf courses, summer
homesites, and commercial sites (Neudecker, 1999). Mounting concern about these
problems triggered a dialogue between agencies, landowners and key community leaders as
far back as twenty years ago but finally became more formalized with the formation of the
Blackfoot Challenge in 1991.2 In the words of Challenge participant and Lubrecht Forest
manager at the University of Montana, Hank Goetz, "We knew that we could do a lot more
together than we could do individually."
Early Stages
Relationships, dialogue, and trust needed to be established before this community felt
comfortable embarking on a multiparty process like the Blackfoot Challenge. Recognition of
the benefits of participation by landowners such as Bill Potter, directly contributed to the
forward momentum of the group. In his words, "We realized that if you do not make the
rules, someone is going to make them for you. It is a lot easier to follow your own rules."
Agencies, particularly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), spent time developing
stronger ties with local landowners in an informal manner that they describe as "across the
kitchen table" (Sullivan, 1998). Agency staff worked with local landowners on specific onthe-ground projects under the USFWS Partners for Wildlife Program that allocates federal
dollars and agency expertise for resource protection on private land.3 Specific low risk
projects included installation of artificial nesting structures for Canadian geese. These initial
projects helped the USFWS to develop the landowner’s trust. The projects eventually grew
in size supplementing the short term projects and included wetland, stream, and riparian
restoration, as well as development of grazing systems that all served to improve water
quality in the valley. Other long-term projects such as conservation easements helped to
protect important habitat on private land. All of the projects experienced the high degree of
success because none compromised the landowner’s agricultural operations and all proved
highly educational for some valley residents. Reflecting on the utility of the projects,
Blackfoot Challenge Chairman and valley rancher, Jim Stone, states: "We have not
2
The Blackfoot Challenge will be intermittently referred to as the Challenge throughout the text.
The USFWS Partners for Wildlife program has helped the Blackfoot Challenge make its project ideas a reality
through both financial assistance and expertise. USFWS and the Challenge partners realized early on that the
majority of habitat with which they were concerned, was located on private lands. The USFWS Partners for
Wildlife program has three goals of partnership building through sharing an interest to conserve private lands,
habitat restoration on private lands, and providing landowners assistance for improved land management, which
served as the mechanism by which trust was built between landowners and the USFWS and eventually other
state and federal government agencies. This has been at no cost to landowners and has noticeably enhanced
habitat protection in the valley. These efforts by the USFWS were taking place before the inception of the
Blackfoot Challenge.
3
Blackfoot Challenge
6-2
eliminated cows from streamside grazing in all cases but now it is done properly. It is that
whole educational wheel that I have jumped on and it is incredible. These projects affect
ranchers in a positive way. It saves us money. Everyone is happy and we are putting more
pounds of beef on the hoof because we are managing our ground better."
The Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited (TU) sponsored the first meeting with the
objective of creating a new organization as a conduit for information sharing in the valley. It
was entirely open to the public. Agencies, industry representatives, organizations, and
landowners met to talk about possible solutions for managing the recreational interests,
environmental concerns, and commercial uses of the valley (USFWS, 1999). TU realized
that the scope of the issues in the valley was outgrowing their organization's more narrow
focus on fish and water issues and that current problems required a broader set of interests in
order to be effectively addressed. According to Becky Garland, local business owner and
former vice-president of the Big Blackfoot Chapter of TU: "People were dying for
information…to do the right thing. They were trying to make their wrongs right." The initial
meeting was well received and a follow-up meeting was held in the Missoula and formalized
the effort and creating the organization’s framework (University of Colorado Natural
Resources Law Center, 1996).
Organization and Process
In January 1993, the Blackfoot Challenge had decided upon a mission statement, goals, and
the general organizational structure of the group (USFWS, 1999). In 1994, the Challenge
hired its first Executive Director and established itself as a nonprofit 501(c3). In the words
of Blackfoot Challenge co-founder, Land Lindbergh: "Before there was no forum by which
to handle both the direct and indirect impacts to the river. With the influx of new ideas and
people to the valley coupled with the different agendas of all of the agencies, it was time to
get in front of the potential issues and try to deal with them." To this day, the Blackfoot
Challenge, viewing itself as a forum for information exchange and communication, will not
take a position on issues. Land Lindbergh offers a poignant image: "We are like a
roundhouse on a railroad line where issues come in on various tracks and are presented to the
Board and then a response is set out on another track to bring together the issue and the
individual or agency that can best handle that issue."
Members of the Blackfoot Challenge authored the following mission statement: 4
“To enhance, conserve, and protect the natural resources and rural lifestyle of the Blackfoot
River Valley for present and future generations.”
The Blackfoot Challenge has put forth the following goals. The executive committee works
at providing more specific goals when different issues arise:
!
4
Provide a forum for the timely distribution of technical and topical information from
public and private sources;
Mission and goals were taken from the Blackfoot Challenge informational packet.
Blackfoot Challenge
6-3
!
!
!
!
Foster communication between public and private interests to avoid duplication of efforts
and capitalize on opportunities;
Recognize and work with diverse interests in the Blackfoot Valley to avoid confrontation;
Examine the cumulative effects of land management decisions and promote actions that
will lessen their adverse impacts in the Blackfoot Valley; and
Provide a forum of public and private resources to resolve issues.
Blackfoot Chairman and valley rancher Jim Stone adds: “The Challenge and eventually the
valley is dead if we do not keep the family ranches going. If there is a primary goal for the
Challenge, it is to try to keep the landownership pattern in a state of where we are still having
ownership of these older families.”
Participants
The Blackfoot Challenge is represented by the following diverse representatives: the
Montana Trout Unlimited, ranchers, business owners, recreational interests, The Nature
Conservancy, Plum Creek Timber Company, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, North
Powell Conservation District, US Forest Service, the US Bureau of Land Management,
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Montana Water Quality Bureau, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Montana Land Reliance (University of Colorado Natural
Resources Law Center, 1996).
Organizational Structure
The Blackfoot Challenge has an open membership. Anyone who so desires is encouraged to
participate at any time. Membership has grown to include more than 100 private landowners
and representatives from twenty-seven state, federal, and non-governmental organizations.
The group has had both an executive committee and steering committee. Presently, only the
Executive Committee serves as a functioning entity. The five individuals on the Executive
Committee are also officers on the Board of Directors and are voted on by the general
membership. They set the policies for the group and currently serve one-year terms although
they are currently considering going back to the original two-year terms. The executive
committee meets once a month. Annually there is a larger meeting that brings together all
participants. All decisions are made by consensus only (Neudecker).
While there is a strong relationship between state and federal agencies and the Challenge,
agency participants have taken somewhat of a backseat approach and have let the citizen
participants lead discussions and prioritize projects. Gary Sullivan of the USFWS coins this
approach as "leading from behind." He prefers the tactic of offering advice when necessary
but not setting the agenda. Richard Clough of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks points out
that a number of representatives from the various agencies have considerable expertise in
group process and have been an asset in helping with the interpersonal dynamics of the group
an as well as being in the more traditional position of offering purely scientific expertise.
Blackfoot Challenge
6-4
Funding
The Blackfoot Challenge receives its funding from a number of sources and is constantly
struggling to secure more. Agencies such as the USFWS through their Partners in Wildlife
Program, BLM, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, and Pheasants Forever, as well as private
donors have all contributed funding (University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center,
1996). Darrell Sall, former area manager of the Bureau of Land Management, was also
instrumental in helping the Blackfoot Challenge gain momentum once initiated. He was able
to obtain money from the BLM for administrative support, temporary help, an executive
director, and a computer and really set a positive tone for agency/citizen relations
(Neudecker, 1999). Nonetheless, the group finds it difficult to secure funding for
administrative needs. Presently the group is trying to secure funding to bring in an Executive
Director. In August of 1998, primarily due to a lack of funds allocated for administrative
purposes, the previous executive director, Jack Thomas, was let go. He currently serves as
acting director helping out when needed (Thomas, 1999). Those interviewed believe that the
Challenge needs a person who is consistently involved in the process and is out in the Valley
trying to assess people’s priorities for resource protection. In order to hire a new Executive
Director, however, they must seek out private donors in the valley and educate them about
the virtues of the Challenge.
Outcomes
Many participants of the Blackfoot Challenge readily voice what they believe are some of the
most important outcomes of the Blackfoot Challenge. These outcomes range from the
development of trust to implementation of concrete projects:
!
Darrell Sall indicates that, "It has built a lot of trust with all the people of the valley. It
has taught us to work together and collaborate for the improvement of the land"
(Blackfoot Challenge video, 1997).
!
Rich Clough adds: "The Challenge has provided the opportunity to meet and keep in
touch with lots of people, coordinate with other agencies some of the efforts necessary to
maintain what we have in the valley."
!
One representative from Plum Creek Timber Company shares his opinion of the group:
"The Blackfoot Challenge is an opportunity for Plum Creek to remain in contact with its
neighbors, its adjoining landowners to work with them on projects that protect the
environment, wildlife, and water resources" (Blackfoot Challenge video, 1997).
The Blackfoot Challenge has also been involved in a range of projects. Two such projects
that have received the greatest amount of attention are the noxious weed control program
and Project Wet, an environmental education program that focuses on water issues in
schools.
!
In the formative stages of the Blackfoot Challenge, the group took on the grandiose task
of noxious weed control with the help of agency representatives. It has been something
Blackfoot Challenge
6-5
that has united the group more than any other project so far (Stone, 1999). According to
Land Lindbergh, "Weed control got the group into the minds and hearts of landowners
because it was easy for landowners to see the critical importance of a coordinated
approach in tackling this problem."
!
Through the educational tool, Project Wet, and the assistance of Becky Garland, great
success has been made to educate teachers and children in the valley about their
watershed. By conveying a message to the children that the watershed is a place to be
taken care of and explaining ways that they might have a positive impact on it, Garland
has also been pleased with the effect that it has on the both the children and the teachers.
"Last year we put together a week long water education workshop for teachers. It has
changed their lives in the way that they now look at their valley and how they will teach
their children about the valley's watershed." Greg Neudecker of USFWS feels that
"Project Wet efforts have been the best thing in which the Challenge has been involved in
the last 2-3 years."
Additional Outcomes
!
Establishment of a Noxious Weed Program which has resulted in the:
♦ Formation of a weed task group
♦ Coordinated effort with landowners
♦ Success in controlling spread of noxious weeds through chemical treatments and
introduction of insects that feed on the noxious weeds (Blackfoot Challenge video,
1997)
!
Sponsorship of educational workshops and tours throughout the year to encourage local
involvement and ownership in resolving resource problems in the watershed.
!
Establishment of the Blackfoot River Corridor Project. Started more than twenty years
ago, this project is a good example of landowners agency coordination. Thirty-mile
corridor 85% privately owned. Landowners allowed access to their land as long as the
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks agreed to look after the recreationists. It has Resulted
in more control of recreational activity and a greater recreationist appreciation knowledge
of land ownership patterns and need for management of private lands (Blackfoot
Challenge video, 1997).
!
Stream restoration projects such as the Dick Creek Project, Elk Creek Project, Rock
Spring Creek Project, and the Nevada Creek Project including:
♦ Skidding logs to the stream for overhead fish cover
♦ Fencing stream banks to reduce erosion
♦ Cutting and planting willow shoots for bank stabilization
♦ Placing rocks to protect irrigation structures from erosion
♦ Removal of fish passage barriers and replaced with bridges
♦ Reduction of stream sediments from county road (Blackfoot Challenge video, 1997)
Blackfoot Challenge
6-6
Resulted in:
♦ Improved aquatic habitat an fish population
♦ Reduction in sediment in the rivers/improved water quality
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
Members of the Blackfoot Challenge pursue collaboration as a means for enhancing the
Blackfoot Valley for a number of reasons. Agency representatives, landowners and business
owners alike offered the following reasons for why they chose to collaborate:
!
!
!
!
!
Future of natural resource management
Increasing land-use conflicts
Natural way to manage resources
Duplicative agency efforts
Tired of working for the state
Future of natural resource management
Both Greg Neudecker and Jim Stone see the virtues of collaboration. Greg Neudecker,
through his work with the USFWS as a wildlife biologist, has experienced first hand the
obstacles of not including the local population in management decisions. He offered his
reason for becoming part of the Blackfoot Challenge: "It is the future of natural resource
management…We need to get away from managing for one piece of property and start
managing from a watershed approach. The only way we are going to start solving fish,
wildlife, and natural resource issues is by looking at the whole landscape and unless you get
the local people involved, you may win your battles but you ultimately lose your war."
Similarly, Jim Stone, rancher and Challenge Chairman, has seen what he refers to as "the
hateful flavor" that has derailed collaborative efforts in Eastern side of the Montana
mountains and the negative impact that a lack of collaboration can have on the changing face
of communities. He offered his rancher’s point of view. "In the ranching community,
collaboration has not always been a good thing to do. We tend to have our heads in the sand.
Slowly but surely more and more [ranchers] are jumping on board as they see the positive
projects that have come out of the Challenge. We look over the fence and see what our
neighbor is doing and often it is not what you are doing…so we grapple with these
differences. But this valley has (historically) proven that working together was really the
only option."
Increasing land-use conflicts
Land Lindbergh pointed out that he and others began to see in the early seventies that there
were conflicts as a result of changes in the valley that were not being addressed and that were
making local residents increasingly uncomfortable. He noted the increase in recreational use,
influx of new people as well as local, county, and state agencies bringing in their own
Blackfoot Challenge
6-7
agendas but without communicating very well among themselves. He knew that there
needed to be a forum that got people in the same room dealing with specific issues to avoid
duplication or conflict dealing with those issues and, ultimately, to avoid litigation.
Natural way to manage resources
Hank Goetz, Director of the Lubrecht Forest at the University of Montana’s School of
Forestry and Jim Stone, Challenge chairman, feel that collaboration comes naturally. Goetz
states that he had been involved in other collaborative efforts at a smaller scale and that the
initiation of a group like the Blackfoot Challenge was, for him, the natural mode.
Duplicative agency efforts
Richard Clough, representative of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, speaks to the challenge
of avoiding agency duplicative efforts. "In this case, my agency was bidding against another
agency for a conservation easement yet it was not until late in the game that the two agencies
became aware that this was going on. It was at that point that I realized that there needed to
be more collaborative approaches in dealing with these issues."
Tired of working for the state
Finally Jack Thomas, acting Executive Director for the Blackfoot Challenge, offered his
reason for choosing to collaborate: "For me, I had been working for the state for 14 years
and had been involved in starting watershed based activities in Montana. I got tired of
working for the state."
Alternatives
At the time of the Blackfoot Challenge, people in the valley were hungry for information.
Many landowners had a desire to change their current practices but were at a loss as to where
to get the necessary information. Except for a few people skeptical of federal government
who saw the Challenge as an environmental ploy to get access to their properties, most
interviewees felt that positive natural resource decisions would have been made in the valley,
but that they would have been performed on an individual basis. Moreover, these efforts
would not have matched what has been achieved through diverse input/advice and
understanding on the part of all stakeholders involved.
Those interviewed offered a range of different thoughts about what would have likely
occurred in the Blackfoot Valley without the Blackfoot Challenge. Main themes include:
!
!
!
Loss of rural character
Uncoordinated efforts
Agency duplication
Loss of rural character
Jim Stone, rancher and Challenge Chairman, feels that the future of the ranching business
would have been at stake without the Challenge and that agriculture may have had
considerably less influence without the formation of the group. He states: "Although
ranchers are the most impressive environmentalists, they are also the most passive. Without
Blackfoot Challenge
6-8
the Challenge we would just be out there all by ourselves trying to make a living. We would
never have utilized the resources available like agency expertise. We would have also gotten
into the regulatory part of agriculture, which I believe is not a part of agriculture" (Blackfoot
Challenge video, 1997). Indeed, while the Challenge has been a means for landowners to
exchange information, it remains difficult for people involved in the agricultural business to
let down their guard and ask for help. Without the Challenge, however, Jim Stone feels that
many of the existing ranches would not be around in ten years. He does not think his ranch
would have been.
Uncoordinated efforts
In addition to ranchers, 99% of the valley residents indicate that they want to maintain a rural
lifestyle, agriculture, a timber base, and to keep industry moving while trying to make a
viable living. As Hirschenberger commented, "Many people tend to forget this and get
tunnel visioned about what they are trying to do. Without a forum like the Challenge, this
tunnel vision was looking to spiral out of control.” Saving the valley, coupled with a view
that agriculture was a benefit to the valley, and topped off by the fact that the challenge is a
grassroots citizen initiated organization, provided the necessary recipe for resource
improvements in the valley. In the words of one rancher referring directly to the benefits of
conservation easements, states: "The alternatives here are subdivisions. For the agricultural
way of life, they just are not very compatible. We do not have many valleys like this left"
(Blackfoot Challenge video, 1997).
Agency duplication
Duplicative efforts on the part of agencies were also expressed as an inevitable outcome
without the forum for information exchange that the Challenge has provided. This concern is
amplified by the fact that no particular agency has primary jurisdiction over the land in the
Blackfoot Valley and that each agency has bought into the process at varying levels. George
Hirschenberger of the BLM highlights this dichotomy: "The USFWS has embraced the
process and has a strong private land component as a result of their Partners for Wildlife
Program. Managers of the BLM find it a stretch both organizationally and legally, while the
Forest Service generally operates within their boundaries and often finds it difficult to see the
benefits of contribution.” There is also a dichotomy between state agencies. The Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, for instance, is more aggressive with the collaborative approach
while the Montana Department of Natural Resources tends to follow the lead of others.
Richard Clough of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks offers another agency perspective: "We
would have probably still moved ahead trying to coordinate with federal state and local
governments regardless. We all had something to gain by doing that. You weren’t bidding
against each other, but we were all feeling budget constraints so this effort helped to avoid
duplicative efforts. That was my main intent- to avoid duplicative efforts and to get things
done more effectively." Another participant adds: "Without a formal organization to handle
these natural resource issues, there would have been more potential for issues to blow up
whereas the Challenge attempted to handle these issues on an ongoing basis before they
became contentious.” Indeed, people of the valley feel they have evaded a crisis situation as
and a situation where others would have made decisions for them because they have pooled
Blackfoot Challenge
6-9
and coordinated their resources. In sum, Hank Goetz states: "We were not happy with just
sitting back and letting nature take its course."
And George Hirschenberger of the BLM points out: “Without the forum, projects such as
conservation easements, for instance, would have been helter sketler- before there was no
unified agency approach.”
Advice
Those interviewed offered several suggestions for others considering whether and how to
initiate a collaborative process. Advice includes encouraging discipline, flexibility, and
starting off slowly:
!
Becky Garland speaks to need for human discipline: "Never point a finger at any
member of the group, never get on the defensive, understand your individual needs and,
always remember the commonality of all being human. Together as humans we all want
a good quality of life. That is why we chose to be in the Blackfoot Valley. "She feels
that there will always be a level of compromise but if you are compromising the very
fiber of your being you have gone too far. Watershed groups should never attack the
very fiber of group members. The mountain that keeps from eroding is the very fiber of
the folks. Never compromise the fiber."
!
Finally Jim Stone offers his suggestions for how to effectively enhance communication
and trust between locals and agency representatives: “You have got to drop the baggage.
If you can first drop the issue and look at the individual, it helps…They [agency
representatives] are no different than you and I. They may wear funny coats and drive
nice cars but I can go to the local pub and it is just like having a beer with anyone else.”
!
The advice offered by Hank Goetz speaks to the benefit of building trust: “Take the time
to sit down and build up trust. Find common overriding interests, then focus on what
unites the group rather than what separates them. In our instance, it was the protection of
the river. Then comes tolerance-having enough tolerance to let other things go by the
wayside while concentrating on those things in which there is agreement. Agree to
disagree on other things.”
Agency Advice
Agency participants offered insights for their agency counterparts entering into collaborative
processes:
!
Some highlighted the importance of finding the elders or opinion leaders in the
community, getting to know them, and being in tune with their priorities. According to
Greg Neudecker: "Not only do the ideas have to come from people in the community,
they have to come from people who are well respected in the valley. If Jim Stone thinks
that it is a good idea, then it must be. Sometimes it takes a long time to figure out who
Blackfoot Challenge
6-10
are the elders in the community, but once you do, they will take the whole project and run
with it."
!
George Hirschenberger of the BLM advocates a certain level of respect for landowners:
"Appreciate the amount of risk that landowners are taking and place emphasis on the
needs of the private landowners. Agency projects and priorities come and go but the
landowners are staying put. Moreover, for them, this is live or die stuff whereas for us if
we make a mistake we do not, for instance, lose our ranch. There is not a solid system in
place for the private landowner in making decisions for assembling resources and getting
sound advice. Supporting efforts like the Challenge is, therefore, a good idea."
Ensuring Sufficient Representation
The Challenge has not been overtly criticized for lack of proper representation of
participants. When the Blackfoot Challenge established itself as a formal organization,
participants made every effort to include all stakeholders in the Blackfoot Valley who were
potentially affected by the changes in the valley and to educate valley residents of the
implications that those changes had on the community’s resource base. Challenges do exist
however and fall under the following two themes:
Challenges
!
!
Getting certain parties to the table
Reducing local confusion about the mission of the Blackfoot Challenge
Getting certain parties to the table
Blackfoot Challenge participants have found it difficult to convince representatives from
Plum Creek Timber Company as well as various landowners of the virtues of coming to the
table. The opportunity and open invitation to attend their meetings exists but Plum Creek
and others usually decide against it. Many in the group feel that Plum Creek is merely
interested in the bottomline and sees little benefit to collaboration. Moreover, while private
landowners are at the table, these dedicated opinion leaders cannot be expected to represent
all landowner interests. Richard Clough of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks speaks to this
challenge: "It has been difficult for people to attend meetings if they don’t have an interest.
It is easy to identify people. We found this with the private sector particularly. Private
timber interests rarely show up. That does not help when you have a consensus process you
have to have them at the table. We tried to change players when that did occur. Personalities
are key. One representative from Plum Creek never showed up and when he did everyone
unloaded which was probably not productive either. By the same token he could have had a
lot of input into process itself and hopefully come up with some recommendations."
Hank Goetz expresses his concern that the ranching community is not adequately
represented: "It is the ranchers who are traditionally underrepresented-people in general tend
not to get involved until something hits them personally. Pocketbook or access issues are
examples." He also comments, however, that these ranchers who are doubtful of the process,
are "few and far between."
Blackfoot Challenge
6-11
Reducing local confusion about the mission of the Blackfoot Challenge
There is still local confusion of who the Blackfoot Challenge really is. Indeed, there are a
number of groups in the Blackfoot Valley that deal with resource issues. Local residents
tend to get confused about the difference between groups such as the Blackfoot Legacy, the
North Powell Conservation District, the Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and the
Blackfoot Challenge in terms of their mission but also what sets them apart from each other.
According to Challenge co-founder Land Lindbergh, "This confusion keeps them away from
participating in the Challenge." And Acting Executive Director, Jack Thomas, points out:
"Some of the ranchers still do not know what the Challenge really is but the vast number of
people in the valley do."
Strategies
Participants in the Blackfoot Challenge try a variety of strategies for dealing with the
challenges of representation, including the following:
!
!
!
!
!
Write letters
Make information accessible
Create an open process
Conduct workshops
Assign participants to communities
Write letters
In the case of Plum Creek, when a representative consistently failed to show up, the group
wrote a letter asking them to come to the table, everyone signed it, and then sent it.
Everyone talked to the individual personally as well and expressed their concern that Plum
Creek was not actively participating in the process (Neudecker, 1999).
Make information accessible
The group has also made sure that information is readily available to anyone who cares to see
or use it. That way if some participants do not attend a meeting, they are still able to learn
what was discussed and decided upon and can in turn make an informed decision about what
they are and are not going to support. It can be looked upon as an insurance policy.
Create an open process
Another strategy has been to keep the process open while making efforts to encourage
participation of the opinion leaders or elders in the valley. Having their strong voice and
endorsement of the Challenge has increased local perceptions and trust concerning the
motives of government.
Conduct workshops
The Challenge has also held several workshops where they have invited groups or
individuals such as the Goldmine Company and biologist and hydrologists. According to
Greg Neudecker, "By holding these workshops and not taking sides, we have effectively
brought in all sides and have provided to the public information about the watershed so that
Blackfoot Challenge
6-12
Make information accessible
The group has also made sure that information is readily available to anyone who cares to see
or use it. That way if some participants do not attend a meeting, they are still able to learn
what was discussed and decided upon and can in turn make an informed decision about what
they are and are not going to support. It can be looked upon as an insurance policy.
Create an open process
Another strategy has been to keep the process open while making efforts to encourage
participation of the opinion leaders or elders in the valley. Having their strong voice and
endorsement of the Challenge has increased local perceptions and trust concerning the
motives of government.
Conduct workshops
The Challenge has also held several workshops where they have invited groups or
individuals such as the Goldmine Company and biologist and hydrologists. According to
Greg Neudecker, "By holding these workshops and not taking sides, we have effectively
brought in all sides and have provided to the public information about the watershed so that
people can then make educated decisions. We hope that by doing this, entities such as the
Goldmine Company and the timber industry will see the Challenge as what we are-a neutral
entity."
Assign participants to communities
Another strategy used to empower individuals and try to increase their interest in the
Challenge was to put them on committees as representatives. Jack Thomas explains, "We
put those who did not want to be there on the Executive Committee. We just made a spot for
them." This has been the case with Plum Creek Timber representatives who are used to
having things the way they want them and are only there to watch out for the interests of
Plum Creek.
Advice
Those interviewed offered several suggestions for others considering the issue of ensuring
sufficient representation. Advice included being aware of time constraints, working with
opinion leaders, and using enthusiasm to broaden involvement:
!
Land Lindbergh advised: "Be aware that people often do not have sufficient time to
attend meetings and be involved on a regular basis. There have to be ways for groups to
make the community aware of the availability of services of the group in a way that
might make residents respond to the issues." Jack Thomas adds: "Make extra effort
those people [skeptics] to the table. Contact them and talk to them a little bit. A lot of
people, for instance, talked to Plum Creek so even if they still primarily saw it [the
Blackfoot Challenge] as a PR effort, they began to see advantages to being at the table."
6-13
insight. Find good examples of people involved in efforts similar to your own and
investigate them.”
Accommodating Diverse Interests
Diversity is apparent in the Blackfoot Challenge. This has been primarily attributed to the
conscious efforts of the Challenge to avoid being portrayed as partisan. In the words of Hank
Goetz: "By having a diverse representation of people at the table, although you may not be
ensuring everyone’s opinions, you are ensuring a wide range of reactions.”
Perhaps the Challenge has learned from experience. Recently, for example, Powell County
passed zoning proposals the information of which was not seen by many people but was
passed anyway. It angered a lot of people. This frustration was attributed to both the lack of
diverse representation on the part of decision-makers as well as a closed process. The
Challenge averts this possibility by providing an open forum whereby the public not only has
a voice but also has access to all information. (Hirschenberger, 1999).
Although the Blackfoot Challenge has worked diligently to accommodate all interests at the
table, challenges still exist. These challenges fall into the following categories:
Challenges
!
!
Obtaining sufficient leadership
Dealing with land ownership patterns
Obtaining sufficient leadership
One challenge the group has faced is to find someone who is able to run effective meetings
given the time constraints and busy lifestyles of participants. This person must be adept at
encouraging people to do their homework so that when the next meeting takes place, it
moves forward. Right now, for the Blackfoot Challenge, this person does not exist
(Neudecker, 1999).
Dealing with land ownership patterns
Greg Neudecker also points out the preponderance of private timber holdings in the valley
and the difficulty this poses for the group to affect change on these lands: "When you are a
private business you are there because of the love for the watershed. When you are looking
at corporate ownership, on the other hand, the bottom line is monetary sustainability. The
resource and the overall watershed are not necessarily the primary goal. Money is.
Moreover, while they have stayed on the Board of Directors, they are only cooperative if the
Challenge goes to them with a specific issue. Every meeting we deal with some issue related
to their property cuts or the selling off to subdivisions. Everyone comes to the table and
says, 'let’s work together.' Plum Creek, when they come, make it quite clear that they would
rather be someplace else."
Blackfoot Challenge
6-14
Strategies
Members of the Challenge adopt the following strategies for dealing with the issue of
accommodating diverse interests that have together resulted in a shared vision of the
Blackfoot Valley. They fall under the themes of encouraging honest discussion, respect for
private landowners, and commitment to solve shared resource problems:
!
!
!
Provide forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
Implement small-scale projects
Encourage after hours interaction
Provide forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
One strategy of the Challenge is to work towards being portrayed as a group that is identified
in the valley as a conduit for information sharing and open dialogue rather than a group that
exists as a facilitator of conflicts. This effort has given landowners a favorable impression of
the group and has enhanced relations between landowners and agency representatives.
Ranchers, for instance, have grown to view the motives of agency representatives as benign
intent rather than that of a selfish agenda. These open forums encourage anyone in the valley
to attend meetings, to get involved in projects, and to go out in the field. Hank Goetz also
explains what they Challenge hopes to be conveying to the general public: "People have been
able to feel that they can join and become a member while at the same time not worrying that
they are going to get hammered if they do not join." Adding insight to the benefits of these
forums, Richard Clough notes: "Those that want to be involved should be involved and those
that really have an interest but do not really want to be involved should still have the
opportunity so that they can’t come back and nail you later."
Implement small-scale projects
Small-scale projects were encouraged even before the initiation of the Blackfoot Challenge.
Projects include USFWS efforts through their Partners of Wildlife Program to work with
landowners on enhancing habitat on private lands. For Greg Neudecker, these small-scale
projects increased landowner trust in him and his agency. He stated: "When the Challenge
started, people already knew who I was. To them, I was not just a USFWS representative, I
was also Greg Neudecker." Another project that started off small and later grew was the
noxious weed control program. The noxious weed program has been very successful because
it was tangible to valley residents.
Encourage after-hours interaction
Socializing after-hours has been a way for participants to get to know each other better.
From the beginning of the Blackfoot Challenge, Trixi’s Restaurant and Bar has been the local
breakfast spot and social hub where participants often meet during times of the day when the
Blackfoot Challenge was not discussed as the central issue (USFWS, 1999). Viewed as a
neutral territory, Trixi’s Restaurant and Bar has traditionally been a place where people are
not looked upon as representing one point of view or another.
Blackfoot Challenge
6-15
Advice
Those interviewed provided the following advice to best accommodate diverse interests.
Suggestions and reflections emphasize that participants should be practical, engage others,
and communicate in different ways:
!
Hank Goetz offers the following practical advice: "Keep your eye on the ball. Look at
ideas that people can truly handle. Don’t get hung up on issues over which you really do
not have any control."
!
One helpful piece of advice George Hirschenberger provides to leadership is to: "Make
sure that everybody is engaged all of the time. If you do not watch everyone, you can get
into trouble. Thinking things out on the front end can help this. You must structure it so
that people out there who have a strong knowledge base of a specific aspect of the
watershed are tapped into."
!
Other participants suggested using different communication techniques. It may not work
to just post a sign in one spot announcing a meeting because some individuals may not be
able to get to town to see those signs. Other options should be utilized as well such as
announcements over the radio word of mouth, phone calls.
!
Land Lindbergh suggests starting off with momentous projects: "Start with issues that
will mean something to everyone. The case of the noxious weed control was just that
example. Weed control got the Challenge into the minds and hearts of landowners
because it was easy for landowners to see the critical importance of a coordinated
approach in tacking this problem. Moreover, it was something in which the ranching
community could relate and in which they welcomed a group approach. Focusing on
weed control has now spilled over into other issues (albeit slower than the group would
like). Younger ranchers have been particularly keen once they got some experience
under their belt with using the Challenge to help them deal with some problems."
Dealing with Scientific Issues
Issues
The issues with scientific dimensions that fall under the Challenge's umbrella of education,
outreach, communication, and preserving the rural way of life in the Blackfoot Valley
include the following: elk migration, bull trout listing, water quality, streambank degradation,
concentrated cattle grazing along the river, a post hole operation that was putting sawdust
into the river, noxious weeds, subdivisions, and improper timber harvesting.
There have not been too many challenges with regard to the incorporation of science into the
decision-making process of the Blackfoot Challenge. Agency representatives have worked
diligently to build relationships with valley residents and are looked upon as friends and
peers. Trust abounds. People welcome the expertise of agency representatives because they
have given them guidance, provided them with information, and have been available but not
overbearing. Moreover, the valley is fortunate to have many residents who are adept at
Blackfoot Challenge
6-16
natural resource management. As Greg Neudecker points out, "It is not only agency
representatives who are looked to for advice. When Hank Goetz says that a certain type of
forestry management is the way to go, then everyone agrees. We trust him. Agency
representatives are there to point out the side-boards as to what is and is not feasible." Becky
Garland highlights the fact that the Challenge’s Executive Committee of is comprised of
individuals, agencies, private landowners, and others and that the committee carefully
chooses who they call upon to make decisions and to come up with the answers.
George Hirschenberger of the BLM captures the situation nicely: “We have some of the best
folks in this part of the state to handle these issues. We have good people and have brought
in some good people. We have good stream restoration people and weed control people, for
instance. We have lots of science. It gets political when a scientist has the wrong answer but
we have plugged a lot of science in. We start out within the ranks and have brought in
technical expertise. To be frank, you take advantage of what you can get for free.”
Challenges
While the Challenge has been successful in dealing with scientific issues, a couple of
challenges remain. They include:
!
!
Species listing
Elk grazing
Species listing
Although Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, has touted the bull trout listing as a
threatened species, this listing has been an issue of great debate among valley residents who
are concerned that the listing will have a negative impact on area fishing. This listing also
raised the issue of verification of scientific data. Some wildlife biologists representing
companies such as Plum Creek disagree with some of the data of federal and state biologists.
Elk grazing
Another challenge has to do with elk migration on private lands. It is a problem that has been
going on for many years Certainly, these herds of elk know no boundaries and have had a
significant impact on spring grazing and the rancher’s winter hay supply and.
Strategies
Members of the Challenge adopt the following strategies for dealing with the issue of science
that together have fostered creativity and resulted in a greater understanding of the valley’s
ecosystem:
!
!
!
Bring in experts
Conduct land swaps
Use agencies to set parameters
Blackfoot Challenge
6-17
Bring in experts
The Challenge has held public meetings and brought in specialists as a way to discuss the
issue of the bull trout listing as well as to answer other questions that valley residents might
have. In the words of Greg Neudecker: "Whenever there is an issue that comes up…bull
trout, grizzly bear reintroduction, wolf expansion, subdivisions, air quality issues, water
rights, we hold public meetings…they are rarely local people…we bring in a wolf
coordinator and he does the talking…we bring in an attorney to talk about water rights or a
professor to talk about data. We bring in professionals and we get the word out. In the
Blackfoot, people truly respect these professionals."
Land-use swap
The manner by which the Challenge dealt with the elk herd problem was through a land use
swap initiated by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This state agency allowed a certain
number of cattle in their land in return for a certain amount of land to be grazed on by the
migrating elk populations.
Using agencies to set parameters
Agencies have been pivotal in their role to set parameters. As previously mentioned, one of
the biggest successes of the Challenge has been agency work with private landowners. As
Land Lindbergh put it, "Agency representatives getting together with the landowners on a
reach by reach site by site basis to try to cope with some landowner problems."
Advice
Those interviewed offered the following advice as how to best handle the scientific
dimensions of collaborative decision-making. Suggestions and reflections included using
both agency and other outside resources:
!
In the words of Greg Neudecker, "Use agency expertise so that sideboards are created as
to what is and is not feasible."
!
George Hirschenberger adds: "It is critical to seek out professionals, whether or not they
are specifically working on a watershed project or not. There are always biologists, state
range conservationists or others with the expertise. The last thing you want to do is to do
a project that you are eventually going to have to redo. If for some reason they can not
help you to make the decisions, they have the resources to find someone else who can.
Agencies also have the money."
!
George Hirschenberger also suggests seeking out those with ecosystem management
perspectives: "Look for the holistic guys…people who understand watershed functions
such as 1.4 million acre lands. They are hard to find but they are out there. When you
are looking at lands that large, it is tough to prioritize lands and other opportunities pop
up which distract you. Some of the landscape ecologists are thinking of the big picture
and they can probably help you with decision-making element."
Blackfoot Challenge
6-18
!
Richard Clough sees the benefit of having an outside source to provide technical
expertise rather than just agency representatives: "There are a lot of federal and state
people who are excellent scientists but they do not have the credibility.” He also feels it
important to “concentrate on the policy aspects of the issue so you can prioritize them
rather than getting caught up in the technical wrangle."
!
Becky Garland suggests creating a checklist and not moving forward until everything is
checked off and approved by everyone. In her words, "This is a way to define the group
scientifically and it adds another stamp of approval. The group sits on it until they are
able to find the right choice because science is not black and white."
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Although a range of skills, resources, knowledge power, and influence exists at the table,
diverse capabilities have rarely been a problem for the Blackfoot Challenge. One participant
exclaims that this may be because the Challenge does not impose anything on anyone. They
only vote for officers. They do not take positions but simply provide information and
education. One rancher points out that while agency representatives may have more
technical knowledge, the ranchers and landowners in general often bring to the table the
more practical experience which can level out the playing field.
Challenges
Although the Blackfoot Challenge has been successful in accommodating diverse
capabilities, a couple of challenges remain:
!
!
Federal Government distrust
Species listing
Federal Government distrust
Speaking to the issue of dominant interests, there are still those in the valley who feel that
they are not able to work with federal people. While few in number, some feel strongly that
“"my father has done it this way and so has his father. I do not have to deal with the feds."
These same people are concerned about the amount of influence government has on natural
resource management. Moreover, these same people do not differentiate between the various
federal agencies. When they are slapped with a fine, for instance, they simply freak out and
say "the feds are doing this to us, telling me what I have to do and that they are going to put
me out of business."
Species Listing
The species listing, in addition to being a challenge to the issue of dealing with science, is
also a reminder of the differences in power. This listing, although under the jurisdiction of
the USFWS, was not supported by everyone in the valley. In the words of George
Hirschenberger: "When there is money, power, and ego at play there is always going to be a
problem." He adds: "That was a deal by the USFWS. It buttered their bread quite a bit."
Blackfoot Challenge
6-19
Strategies
Members of the Challenge adopt the following strategies for dealing with the issue of
accommodating diverse capabilities that together has helped them to channel energy and to
allow all voices to be heard:
!
!
Redirect energy
Encourage open dialogue
Redirect energy
Although the Challenge is aware that there are individuals who do not trust federal
government representatives, the group chooses to not focus energy and resources on these
people but to focus on those individuals who believe in the collaborative process. According
to Land Lindbergh, The Challenge conveys the following message: "They are there if you
want them…if not they will stay away. Pretty soon some"[skeptics] say, ‘well that is
working...maybe I will give it a shot.’ They are starting to realize that these things are
coming down the road at them and some are asking what is the most productive way to deal
with them- that they need to tell their story and that they will not be able to if they are not at
the table."
Encourage open dialogue
Participants encourage open dialogue as a way to handle the issue surrounding diverse levels
of power, resources, skills, and knowledge and the influence that these varying levels can
have on the process as a whole. All valley residents are encouraged to attend meetings and
the greatest of effort is made to listen to everyone who attends whether it is a small
landowner or a Federal agency representative.
Advice
Participants offered the following advice as to best accommodate diverse capabilities.
Suggestions and reflections include encouraging an open process, listening, seeking out
leadership, and to not underestimate the power personalities have on the process:
!
Hank Goetz encourages getting everyone at the table, keeping them engaged, and keeping
the process open. He points out: "You will see people with absolutely no resources at the
table who are trying to dominate." He also stresses the importance of making sure that
people involved in the process are independent and confident enough to voice their
concerns while at the same time respecting the concerns of others. He was also unable to
stress enough the importance of commitment.
!
Make certain that you have a paid executive director or coordinator who knows how to
use the Board of Directors and vice-versa. This Executive Director must also be able to
adequately assess the priorities and limitations of all stakeholders involved in the group
and, as Becky Garland points out, "be someone who is able to deal with the tough people.
Put that person on them like a fly to poop until he/she understands."
Blackfoot Challenge
6-20
!
Becky Garland also suggests the following: "Sit, listen and listen good. Keep an open
mind."
!
Finally in the words of one participant: "Accept the reality that a great deal depends on
the individual personalities of the group and agencies in particular. In the instance of the
Challenge for example, there is a new ranger at Seeley Lake who is totally committed to
collaborative efforts. BLM manager, Darryl Sall, who recently passed away, is another
example of a committed individual. He was instrumental in getting the Challenge started
by obtaining money from the BLM to provide for initial items. This happens to work in
favor of the Challenge. In other parts of the state, however these type of people have not
stepped forward, making it difficult to apply some of the successes of the Challenge to
other groups."
Insights specific to this case
There are additional issues that the Blackfoot Challenge has had to try to overcome. They
include the following:
Non-point source pollution
A new challenge is to the group is the issue of non-point source pollution. Hank Goetz
explains: "What we are trying to do is tell the state that we are coping with situation to avoid
confrontation and litigation. Legislation passes that says we are not going to have any more
pollution in these waters--well that takes them years to designate what reaches of the streams
have a problem and years more to identify where exactly here problems are. We are trying to
start dealing with those early on-the most polluted worst of specific sites and to try to get
compliance by cooperation not enforcement."
Funding/Leadership
The Challenge has been struggling in the past few years with not having the finances for a
full time director but only a part-time director. The Challenge has had some good people but
because they were only part-time, they eventually moved on to other things. As Jim Stone
commented: "We desperately need a full-time director to take on the role that now 2-3
landowners and 2-3 agency people are trying to scrap around and find enough time and
energy to keep it going. That is the real weakness. We really need ideally a fund to draw on
to pay for administrative costs. That is something for which we need to raise money. We
need a director to go out there and raise administrative money. Right now we barely have
enough money to keep a part-time director going. Money now is coming form the agencies
but we really need to tap into the citizens. We have had people move into this valley that are
quite wealthy and we have to some how open there eyes to the potential here that this group
has to keep this valley the way that it has been which is what brought them here in the first
place. Trying to coordinate absentee landowners with those who have been living in the
valley for four or five generations is difficult. This is an essential/potential role for us of
which the Challenge has not had a chance to take advantage."
Blackfoot Challenge
6-21
Disproportionate amount of time spent on certain projects
The Challenge has been a little too dependent on the weed control for agency support
because that is something that landowners can really relate to. This intense focus is perhaps
to the detriment of perhaps developing other resources. In the words of Land Lindbergh,
"We are sort of in a problem now. Our success perhaps has not gone to our heads, but it has
maybe thinned our resources both dollars and manpower to the point that we are in to a new
stage of how much should we doing we do, how much funding do we have, where do we go
from here."
Sources
Blackfoot Challenge Informational Pamphlet, Helena Montana
Bureau of Land Management, The Blackfoot Challenge (video); BLM National Applied
Resource Sciences Center Video Production, 1997.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -Montana Partners for Wildlife Program, (1999). The
Blackfoot Challenge. Retrieved November 5, 1998 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.r6fws.gov/pfw/montana/mt6.htm
University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center, The Watershed Source Book:
Watershed-based Solutions to Natural Resource Problems, Boulder, CO, 1996. pp. 2.372.39.
Blackfoot Challenge
6-22
CHAPTER 7:
CLARK COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS
Clark County, Nevada
Prepared by Merrick Hoben
This case exemplifies the use of a private land conservation tool---Habitat
Conservation Planning (HCP)---in a collaborative public land management framework.
The Clark County HCP process was chosen for in-depth research because of valuable
insight it provides about key aspects of effective collaborative initiatives. The role of
significant financial resources, lack of viable alternatives for stakeholders, and the
development of trust over time are highlighted because of their impact on the form and
success of this natural resource management effort.
Interviews:
Brad Hardenbrook, NV Department of Wildlife, (2/23/99)
Christine Robinson, Environmental Planning Manager, Clark County, (3/5/99)
Jim Moore, The Nature Conservancy, (2/20/99)
Karen Budd-Fallon, Ranching and multiple-user representative, (3/18/99)
Mark Trinko, ORV multiple-user, Las Vegas, (3/1/99)
Michael Burrows, USFWS-Staff Biologist, Las Vegas Office, (2/17/99)
Paul Selzer, HCP mediator, lawyer, (3/4/99)
Sid Sloane, BLM representative, Wildlife Biologist-Las Vegas office, (3/2/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origin and Issues
Encompassing over 5 million acres and 13 major ecosystem types, the mountainous Mojave
desert climate of Clark County covers the southern tip of Nevada and five major cities,
including Las Vegas and its surrounding valley (Aengst et al., 1998). Recognized as one of
the fastest growing regions in the country, 4,000 to 7,000 people move to the area per month
to enjoy its burgeoning economy and bountiful recreation opportunities found in the nearby
mountains and wide open desert spaces. Indeed, this primarily rural landscape, located on
91% federal lands, is slowly changing from a region once dominated by ranching and
farming communities to that of an expanding metropolitan region with a population of well
over one million---a common scene on the changing face of the West.
Growth and activity, however, have not come without ecological cost. The Desert Tortoise,
the Nevada State reptile found throughout the region, is one of many species whose habitat
7-1
severe impact on the tortoise's population (Hardenbrook, 1999). In 1989, local
environmentalists successfully filed a lawsuit to have the tortoise listed as an endangered
species, but foresaw little of the raging battle that would ensue.
For a part of the country marked by conflict between the independent spirit of western
culture and this century’s rising environmentalism, reaction to the listing was one of bitter
outrage for many and victory for others. Ranchers, farmers, and off-highway vehicle
enthusiasts (OHVers)---commonly referred to as 'multiple users'---perceived the tortoise
listing as a threat to their access and use of public land. For environmentalists, it was but a
small victory in a fight against land-use patterns linked to ecological harm. For the Southern
Nevada Homebuilders Association (SNHBA), a coalition of regional developers dependent
upon tortoise-inhabited lands for future development, the listing meant a sudden halt to
unprecedented levels of growth in Clark County. In sum, there was tremendous community
fear that the County's vibrant economy and rural culture was on the verge of collapse if a
solution to the species' preservation was not found. Reactions were vicious and the ‘shoot,
shovel and shut-up’mantra became commonplace among embittered Nevada residents. As
one observer remarked, southern Nevada had "literally become a cultural war-zone
overnight" with the issue "more likely to be solved with a shotgun on the courthouse steps
than anywhere else (Aengst et al., 1998). Facing this harrowing scenario, Clark County
began to look for solutions to what had become a political and economic nightmare.
Formation of the Clark County HCP Process - Early Stages
By the time the tortoise listing was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on August 4,
1989, the State of Nevada, City of Las Vegas and developer organizations were already
planning litigation to overturn the listing. Yet, even before the lawsuit failed in 1990, Clark
County commissioners and local environmentalists began to consider other options that could
preserve the tortoise listing without ripping the community apart.
Habitat Conservation Planning under section 10a of the Endangered Species Act offered one
such answer. As a means of allowing the incidental take of a species in exchange for
protection of habitat on nearby private lands, the HCP was a growing method of enhancing
landowner conservation that had already seen success in neighboring California. The catch
was that Nevada had little if any private land to mitigate tortoise habitat on the outskirts of
Las Vegas where development was concentrated. Moreover, purchasing private land outright
to create Tortoise Conservation Reserves (TCRs) was both prohibitively expensive and
seemingly ludicrous given vast amounts of surrounding federal lands whose use could be
altered to accommodate the tortoise. Indeed, it soon became obvious that to successfully
mitigate the listing, the Clark County commissioners would be obligated to develop a
collaborative stakeholder process involving adversarial federal and state agencies, obstinate
ranchers, aggravated OHV users and stalwart environmentalists --- each with vested interests
in the management and use of federal lands.
Clark County HCP Process
7-2
Participants
In developing the HCP, the County began by seeking involvement of all parties included in
the recent lawsuit to form a Steering Committee. To encourage involvement from the OHV
community, ranchers, and local landowners, thousands of letters were sent out by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Town hall meetings were also held to educate
the public on the issues and to spark participation in the upcoming process.
Clark County, representing five surrounding municipalities and the Nevada Department of
Transportation, was the lead applicant for an incidental-take permit from USFWS. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, Nevada Division of Wildlife,
Nevada Division of Agriculture, and Las Vegas Valley Water District represented Federal
and state interests. Local environmental groups included the Desert Tortoise Council and the
Tortoise Group while national organizations such as Sierra Club and Environmental Defense
Fund were invited to participate but only remained peripherally involved in the process.
Finally, the Greater Las Vegas Board of Realtors represented developer interests while the
Nevada Mining Association, Southern Nevada Off-Road Enthusiasts (S.N.O.R.E.), various
representatives of the cattle industry, and members of the general public laid claim to rural
concerns.
Of this inclusive group, only the ranching community would drop out, feeling they had little
to gain by giving up their grazing allotments to protect tortoise habitat. Cattlemen have
since pursued unsuccessful litigation against the federal government.
Organization and Process
In 1990, the first open, voluntary and consensus-based Steering Committee meetings of the
HCP planning process began. With Clark County straddling the roles of stakeholder and
facilitator, initial meetings were characterized as “violent" (Schrieber). Threats were
screamed at the committee from all directions. Front door weapons checks were a standard
procedure in the first 2 years. One participant described the scene as “like being at a high
school dance, with all the beards and long hairs on one side and all the suits and boots on the
other” (Selzer). Realizing the difficulty of managing such a process, Clark County hired a
professional facilitator in late 1990.
Veteran facilitator Paul Selzer was chosen for his experience with similar HCP processes in
California. He immediately established three ground rules to focus the sessions.
1) No discussion over the validity of the Endangered Species Act;
2) No debate over the listing of the tortoise; and
3) Everyone had to come to table willing to "give up something" (Selzer).
Within these guidelines, the Steering Committee's mission was to develop an HCP that
provided alternative habitat and protection of the tortoise via mitigation of federal land use.
To facilitate this effort, a Technical Committee and an Implementation & Monitoring
Committee were also established to deal with particularly controversial issues. Though the
Clark County HCP Process
7-3
Technical Committee meetings were initially limited to only scientists and agency
representatives, complaints of exclusion by suspicious rural groups forced meetings to be
open to anyone. Particularly argumentative meetings dealt with:
!
!
!
!
Purchase of grazing right allotments from ranchers;
Location and establishment of Tortoise Reserve Areas (TRAs);
Road closure and use-designation of public lands; and
Implementation and monitoring of agreements.
In the first year of the HCP process, stakeholders had to come up with a plan that met
USFWS standards for protection of the tortoise. If a plan were not reached within this time,
the full effect of the tortoise listing would likely send the issue back to the courts. As Mark
Trinko described, "We knew we had to work it out together because there was more to lose
in the courtroom.”
Meetings
Meeting frequency during different stages of the Clark County HCP process was both
sporadic as well as costly in terms of time and energy. The Steering Committee met from 4 to
6 times annually to nearly once a week during important scientific discussions such as habitat
designation or use permits. Demanding significant time commitment, debate was typically
characterized by 12-hour heated conversations lasting from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. with meals eaten
at the table (Trinko, 1999). Rural participants paid a particularly steep price, often driving 70
miles one way and forgoing a day's work to attend meetings held in various agency offices in
Las Vegas (Schrieber, 1999). In all, over 800 hours of meetings were logged during all
stages of the HCP planning process.
Funding
Unique to the Clark County HCP process, the development community provided large
amounts of financial resources to underwrite conservation efforts (in order to ensure urban
growth opportunities). As part of the 1990 lawsuit settlement decree, developers paid $2.5M
that funded a desert tortoise conservation center and desert tortoise research programs. In
addition, Section 10a of the Endangered Species Act---the incidental take permitting
process---was used to raise significant funds. By charging developers a $550 per acre
mitigation fee for land development, a Clark County conservation account was established in
1995 to cover administrative costs, facilitator fees and purchase of grazing allotments. Since
its inception, the Steering Committee has spent only $8-10M of a $13M original endowment
and funds have since grown to a remarkable $27M in 1999. In all, the process currently has
an annual budget of between $1.3M and $1.625M (Clark County web page, 1999).
Clark County HCP Process
7-4
Outcomes
Three major achievements resulted from the nine years of the HCP planning process:
!
!
!
Establishment of a one-year pre-HCP settlement between 1990 and 1991;
Development of a long-term 30-year Desert Conservation Plan (DCP) between 1992 and
1995; and
Formation of a Multi-species HCP Plan between 1995 and 1998.
The Multiple-species HCP, the most recent and comprehensive plan, is particularly unique
among these efforts. Submitted to USFWS March 16, 1999, it applies the processes' excess
funds to prevent 200 additional species from becoming endangered while allowing
development activity to continue. Altogether, these efforts have established between
800,000 and 1,000,000 acres of preserve, implemented monitoring programs, and improved
the ecological conditions and land use patterns of the Clark County region.
Yet, according to both observers and participants in the process, the most remarkable aspect
of the Clark County HCP process has been the ability of traditionally adversarial interest
groups to successfully create land management policy to suit the needs of all stakeholders.
Indeed, user groups and landowners, once hateful of the tortoise, now participate regularly in
the implementation and monitoring of habitat protection. As participant and local miner Ann
Schrieber summarizes, "This is going to sound crazy to you, but the most important
achievement I saw was that a group of people walked into a room hating each others guts and
ready to slit each others' throats… and now if you were to come visit those meetings and say
something against the plan we’ve come up with, you're apt to get eaten up by both sides."
Nonetheless, every future listing remains a challenge to the group---particularly with the
Multi-species HCP setting new issues on the table every day. Participant Jim Moore of The
Nature Conservancy notes optimistically, "at least with our unity in problem solving, we
have an essential tool to address unforeseen land management hurdles in Clark County."
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
The choice to collaborate in the Clark County HCP process was one of necessity. As
facilitator Paul Selzer summarizes, “it was really a matter of not having a better
alternative…and everyone would have lost otherwise. Environmentalists would have lost
because the issue would not have been resolved at all….builders would have lost because it
would have cost them a lot of money to go through another lawsuit and development would
have faced a serious setback…and rural folks knew they would lose access to public lands
one way or another. So everyone was better off having at least a say in the matter."
Indeed, once the desert tortoise had been listed, there seemed no way around a huge
economic impact and a cultural state of war. For participants, other than obligated agencies,
there was at least the possibility of having influence on the outcome by being at the table
Clark County HCP Process
7-5
instead of in the courtroom. This was particularly true for rural representatives, such as
miners and ORV users, who knew that their access to BLM lands would diminish as result of
the listing. Local gold miner, Ann Schrieber, describes both a sense of desperation and
resignation among rural interests: “Though we feel like the HCP gave us a voice to fight the
agencies, there are still thousands of people here in Nevada that think this [HCP process] is
the stupidest thing that ever happened. In the end we have really had to swallow a lot, but at
least we've gotten enough out of it to know it's worth what we gave."
Ranchers were the only exception to this broad acceptance of the collaborative process.
Accustomed to favored agency treatment, they believed their best interest lies in appealing
the potential loss of their grazing rights. As one participant put it: "Having endured a long
track record of privileged use of public lands to supplement their cattle operations, there was
no incentive for [ranchers] to give up their golden egg."
Alternatives
Failure of the developer association to effectively sue USFWS in 1990 made it obvious that
any future lawsuit could only result in a “piecemeal approach to desert tortoise preservation
at best” (Sloane). Absent other means of solving the problem, participants concluded that a
collaborative process was not only the best way to deal with the circumstances, but the “only
way” (Hardenbrook). National political pressure, including recognition by the Clinton
Administration and a thumbs-up from Secretary Bruce Babbitt, made walking away from the
table politically taboo for both agencies and developers. As Clark County spokesperson
Chris Robinson notes, "We felt very uncomfortable with proceeding with a plan that did not
have broad input.”
The federal land dilemma added the final narrowing effect on available alternatives. As one
federal participant observes, over 90% of the remaining tortoise habitat was on BLM lands so
"any federally imposed decision [that did not include all of us] would have been
unenforceable.” ORV representative Mark Trinko agrees, remarking that, “any law handed
down would have been ludicrous [without us] because the Department of the Interior didn’t
have an adequate budget to manage its land when there are 2 million of us recreating in Clark
County….hell, we would have all laughed at them and told them to shove it up their ass!”
Jim Moore, representative from The Nature Conservancy further comments: “Without a
collaborative effort, Clark County’s land management would not have had the coordination
nor the synergistic effect of a large conservation effort. The collaborative process provided
the best chance of survival for the HCP given that the (Clark County) developers had tried to
sue and lost.”
Advice
Participants offer the following advice and insight on what made the collaborative HCP
process effective in Clark County and its appropriate role in land management.
Clark County HCP Process
7-6
!
Remarking on his long experience with HCP processes, facilitator Paul Selzer notes:
“HCP processes always have to provide the best alternative to stakeholders…because it's
voluntary and if anyone thinks there’s a better alternative to accomplish their own ends,
they will opt for that. Just look at how the ranchers left the process early on if you want
proof. On the other hand, we were successful in that we convinced almost everyone that
it was in their best interest to accomplish their own goals through the HCP process. And
the bottom line is that that’s the only reason they stayed at the table."
!
Selzer also strongly supports the idea that a collaborative HCP process must be "open and
transparent." By this he meant “…any problems or inevitable fights in this process must
take place at the stakeholder level where they can be worked out before a decision is
made at higher levels. My experience has been that, once everyone understands the
problem and the risks involved, compromises and agreements generally result. So make
it open and invite anyone and everyone interested in the issue.”
!
USFWS biologist Mike Burrows concurs, noting that managing endangered species and
habitat in the wide-open spaces of the West would be "near impossible without broad
participation from all interested parties."
!
Finally, concerning the appropriate role of the collaborative group, BLM representative
Sid Sloane feels, "It was important that the degree of openness in the HCP process
depend heavily on the nature of the issues and the type of land being dealt with. In Clark
County’s case, where an entire public lands region was being affected, it was obligatory
to involve everyone. But when issues are not as broad, you may not need so many
participants. Collaboration helps a lot but should not be required. It’s a case by case
basis.”
Ensuring Representation
Participants generally agree that ensuring representation was a precursor to success in the
Clark County HCP process, though many challenges and shortcomings were noted.
Challenges
As noted by facilitator Paul Selzer, broad representation in the Clark County HCP was
ensured from the outset because the initial lawsuit acted "like a beacon bringing all the major
players to the table." The voluntary nature of the process also promoted wide representation.
As Selzer points out, "Meetings have always been public and advertised and anyone who
bellied up to the bar can say whatever they want." Indeed, as Schrieber indicated, there was
general sentiment among participants that if a stakeholder did not show up it was "your own
damn fault if your ideas were not heard."
Disproportionate representation from any particular group was also not perceived as a major
obstacle. Chris Robinson clarifies that, "depending on who you talk to, [every stakeholder]
felt it was their group that was underrepresented at times. But over the years there was likely
over and under-representation by everyone because people came and went [from the process]
Clark County HCP Process
7-7
year to year." Yet, turnover was surprisingly low. In fact, according to Selzer, 85% of those
participants involved from the beginning remained consistent members of the Steering
Committee for its nine-year lifetime.
In contrast, ORV representative Mark Trinko at times feels "heavily outnumbered" when
working with what he perceived as "green agencies." Others, like the Division of Wildlife
participant, see the absence of sport hunters at the table as attributable to over-reliance on
agencies to represent their interests (Hardenbrook). National environmental groups, though
invited to participate, were absent, particularly in the long-term HCP. In contrast, others
think The Nature Conservancy played an "overly dominant role" that “pulled decision
making to the right" because of its "conservative reputation" among environmental groups
(Sloane).
Absence of cattlemen at the table is also considered particularly "lamentable," according to
Sid Sloane, given their large community voice. However, as Clark County representative
Chris Robinson remarked, "it was at their own cost…. BLM had no qualms about taking
away grazing allotments, and by going to court, many ranchers gave away their only chance
to be bought out. This was at their own expense, not that of the process."
Finally, long meetings at inconvenient locations were a constant challenge to ensuring
adequate representation, particularly for rural groups. While agency representatives were
paid to attend HCP Steering Committee meetings in nearby government offices, stakeholders
from distant rural regions typically drove 70 miles each way to attend 12-hour sessions
lasting from 9 in the morning to 9 at night (Schrieber). This inconvenience, as well as giving
up a full day's work to sit around the table, made it obvious why, for instance, only one
person from three adjacent farming communities consistently attended meetings (Shrieber).
Strategies
To offset representational imbalance, particularly for rural representatives, a number of
strategies were employed.
Formal representation
Formal representation is one way the group addressed stakeholder concerns about being
heard in the process. At the beginning of the long-term HCP, for instance, Clark County
hired a rural resource lawyer, Karen Budd, to represent the interests of the rural ranching
community, miners, and ORV users---an effort made possible by the large amount of
conservation funds developed in the Clark County HCP process. As one rural participant
confirmed, "I felt comfortable turning to Karen when I didn’t understand to check if
everything was alright" (Schrieber).
Community outreach
An equally important strategy was having the right people at the table. Sid Sloane of BLM
agreed, stressing the importance of "going directly to the leaders of interest groups like
ranching or ORV organizations to solicit their involvement.” He added, "given western
culture here, folks operate better over a cup of coffee and a personal invitation than they do
Clark County HCP Process
7-8
with a formal letter. Even a phone call conversation is a better way to go to get key folks
involved.”
Meal provision
A frequently mentioned approach to improving representation is the provision of meals. In
the HCP process, lunches and dinners during meetings were covered by the County
conservation fund. Many participants note that working on a full stomach and not having to
worry about meals made long hours of deliberation more bearable.
Choosing the right people
Finally, there is agreement that "having a strong voice at the table was the best thing you can
do for your interests" (Schrieber). According to one observer, "You need to have someone
there who is both willing to fight as well as compromise.” Others add that the
"functionality" of the group was as much a matter of "the right chemistry of individuals at the
table as it was having the right rules" (Robinson). According to Trinko, it was also a matter
of "gradual education and sensitivity to each others' points of view" that provided the
"critical process" for balancing out representation issues.
Advice
Interviewees offer several suggestions for improving representation:
!
Paul Selzer notes that achieving perfect representation should be the goal but
acknowledged that it is seldom reached. In his words, "Folks participating in
collaborative efforts are voices in chorus and that chorus may not be perfect. In the case
of Clark County we were lucky because nearly everyone had something to lose and
nothing to gain by staying out of the process."
!
The Nature Conservancy's Jim Moore reiterates the importance of directly contacting the
people "with standing in rural communities" and to "really pick their brains and get to
know how they feel about their interests." He added that, "in the case when there are
multiple representatives for the same constituency, it's very useful to get those groups to
choose among themselves who they would like to participate. Otherwise you get too
many bodies at the table and that makes decision-making impossible."
!
Finally, Clark County's Chris Robinson notes that "no matter how frustrating, you must
include all stakeholders. Limiting the group because you are worried, for fear of it being
too big is never good. On the other hand, controlling the way it happens, is something
you can do."
Local / National Tension
Tension between national concern for the welfare of the tortoise and the threat to southern
Nevada’s rural culture is a sore issue for many interviewees. This was particularly true for
representatives of outlying communities, who perceive the ESA listing as a “national law
being leveraged against time-tested ways of western life” (Trinko). As miner Ann Schrieber
Clark County HCP Process
7-9
describes it, “The conflict is one of custom and culture here, and you can’t retain either in
these parts unless you can get on your horse and go out into the hills.”
According to Jim Moore of The Nature Conservancy, this tension made meetings throughout
the first years “extremely contentious” with “lots of verbal battles and folks storming out of
meetings.” Most rural folks wanted national interests to “stay the hell out of it” (BuddFallon) which only added to the dynamic of “ drawing lines in the sand and wearing the
uniforms of your position” (Hardenbrook). National attention on the Clark County HCP
process from the Department of the Interior and Clinton Administration aggravated these
feelings.
Strategies and Advice
Ideas about how to deal with the national / local tension were few but strong. Many note that
maintaining communication over time is a key aspect. As one participant remarks, “it’s
really a time dependent thing, because with multiple meetings, we started to develop trust
between participants. Not so much friendships, but constituents got to know what everyone’s
bottom line was and where everyone’s blurry areas were.” One participant made a unique
effort to "clear the hazy areas” by writing a two-page description of local culture to help
convey the values of rural life in the area (Shrieber). This document was used in meetings to
define cultural values and the importance of rural activities and culture for all participants.
Many of those interviewed also feel that environmental decisions affecting local land use are
better made on the local level. Rural legal representative, Karen Budd-Fallon remarks that
“even though I make my living litigating public land issues in the courtroom, I know the best
decisions are made by the people standing on that acre looking at the riparian area, timber
sale, or whatever it is…and having to live with it. Local control is key to good management
and if national interests want a part in that, they need to come stand out here with us.”
Accommodating Diverse Interests
Challenges
Participants encountered little difficulty regarding the challenges of accommodating diverse
interests. Most feel that no solution can be "optimum" for a particular stakeholder, but that
compromise is an integral part of the collaborative process that rises above the issue of who
won or lost. This feeling links to the notion that there is no better alternative for any group at
the table and that 'lowest common denominator solutions' are an "inaccurate description of
process outcomes."
Indeed, lowest common denominator solutions was only mentioned by one participant who
heard that the process had been criticized indirectly by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
and Defenders of Wildlife; groups that were invited to participate in the long-term HCP but
remained only peripherally aware of the process. One agency representative believes that
these national environmental organizations feel that collaboration can only lead to diluted
conservation products that would not meet HCP standards. But as one HCP participant
Clark County HCP Process
7-10
observes, "When asked for solutions, these organizations are hard-pressed to point out a
better solution other than litigation, and we all know the problem that would have led to."
Strategies
Incremental achievement
Attempting to resolve more approachable conflicts first is a core natural strategy of the
group. Selzer describes this as a pursuit of "lowest hanging fruit first" that allows the group
to make incremental progress toward more central issues. Going at the biggest issues first is
considered impossible with such diverse issues on the table. Another interviewee
characterizes the conflict as "just too exhausting, mentally and physically, so we started to
look for areas of good discussion that didn't lead to shouting."
Time
According to Ann Schrieber, enduring the time needed to "weed out fanatics" who were there
primarily to give others a "hard time" is also a critical. Recalling the frustration, she adds
"Had you told me I was going to work shoulder to shoulder with these people at the first
meeting, I would have said you were goddamn crazy!" Comparatively, the diversity has paid
its dividends not only by creating long-term innovative solutions, but also by "amplifying the
political strength of the process" as well as the "cultural comfort level with outcomes"
(Moore).
Advice
!
Ann Schrieber has this to say about accommodating diverse interests: "The biggest piece
of advice I can give is that people are people and if they think different, you need to look
underneath what they are thinking about and see who they really are. Then, even if you
don’t believe in the way they're thinking, at least you can be their friend and that way you
can fight them without the bitterness and the hate that existed when this whole thing
started."
!
Chris Robinson feels that although accommodating diverse interests has its inherent
costs, no alternative exists: "Clearly the solutions we reached are not the optimum for
any given group. That’s the nature of the word compromise. But what is often left out of
statements in the context of challenges like this is the flip side. Nobody ever stops to
finish that sentence with the question…'And had we not reached a compromise?…' In
other words, the alternative is never considered. In fact, the alternative is not, for
example, 300 miles of fence as opposed to 100 miles of fence. It's nothing! And that's
because, instead, the decision goes to court or there's lack of funding for what others may
want. And I'm telling you that if the HCP didn’t put up the money in this case, nobody
would have. So yes, lowest common denominator outcomes is a criticism, but I don’t
think it’s a valid one."
!
Lastly, Trinko and Schrieber add rural flavor to the issue of compromise. As Schrieber
put it, "Compromise doesn’t diminish decisions, because if the issue is that important to
any one of us, we won’t turn it loose ‘til it's right. In other words, you learn to pick the
Clark County HCP Process
7-11
important battles and let those go by that won't affect your constituents even if you don’t
believe in it." Trinko concurs noting that, "the rural public has had to suffer and make
compromises, but we also know that the 'greenies' have been brought from their extreme
positions to somewhere nearer the middle. So hell, it's better than 'Earth Firsters' ruling
the world."
Dealing with Scientific Issues
The Clark County HCP process dealt with high scientific uncertainty surrounding land-use
changes for tortoise preservation including: complex ecological relationships and lack of
data, and the need for scientific peer review.
Challenges
Complex ecological relationships
Nevada Division of Wildlife Representative, Brad Hardenbrook summarizes Clark County's
scientific dilemma: "The problem with desert tortoise is that the relationship between habitat
need and grazing impact is uncertain. Going out and actually scientifically proving a
negative relationship would take many years and probably millions of dollars. Moreover, the
nature of the Mojave Desert, long life of the tortoise and climatic variation year to year all
make it difficult to produce reliable studies. In hindsight, it would be nice to have better
information but that’s impossible at the moment."
Lack of data
Indeed, even nine years after the first meetings in 1990, an exact population count is still
unknown (Hardenbrook). As a result, the process can only rely on relative understanding of
how habitat loss is impacted by development, ranching and ORV use in order to gauge
conservation measures.
No peer review
Lack of a scientific peer review mechanism is also a 'weakness' of the process. As TNC
representative Jim Moore notes, "we rely heavily on the USFWS as a source of expertise
because everyone knows that the USFWS would not accept a plan whose science ran
contrary to what they knew was necessary to the recovery of the tortoise or would make them
look like fools. In other words, there is a bottom line for conservation of the species and we
rely on it."
Increasing complexity
Participants feel that involvement of more species within the Multiple Species HCP will only
increase levels of scientific uncertainty, thereby complicating decision-making. Given the
absence of a pending lawsuit present in the long-term HCP effort, many believe the proactive
approach of the MS HCP lacks the "stick" that can force decision-making without conclusive
science. Though many consider the adaptive management approach an adequate response,
this also means severely increased cost due to the monitoring and additional research needed
to legitimize the process.
Clark County HCP Process
7-12
Strategies
Technical group formation
To address lack of concrete data, a biological technical committee (also known as the
Technical Advisory Committee or TAC) was formed to manage contentious debate. Praised
by many as a key mechanism for streamlining complex scientific arguments outside the
business of regular meetings, the committee is also criticized particularly during initial stages
for being "exclusive," "difficult to access" and using "confusing technical language" that
rural participants feel they did not have the background to understand. Though the issue was
remedied in part by eventually making biological meetings open and voluntary like with the
Steering Committee, it is not considered a "neutral group." As one ORV user notes, "there
were tons of 'greenies' and scientists waving their degrees around the room while multiple
users had none. At times it feels like we have no choice but to believe in the process."
Indeed, others feel that, due to large amounts of research money produced from developer's
lawsuit, scientists initially pursued research agendas instead of focusing solely on resolving
management dilemmas. One committee member remarks coarsely that "it's often cited that
HCPs are a balance of science, politics and economics---and whenever you get science,
politics and money involved, the combination is bound to skew decisions."
Advice
!
Chris Robinson feels it is appropriate to take action in collaborative processes even when
complete information is not available. "We have improved the science through our
process, but sometimes the information is just not there. On the other hand, if you just
wait and wait for that better science you miss the opportunity to do hands-on
conservation. And so was every piece of science known? No, but we did the best with
what we had. Again, look at the alternative. Is what we did better than what would have
happened otherwise? Absolutely, no question. The desert tortoise is better off today than
when it was listed with or without the full body of evidence. And I don’t think there is
anyone who would dispute that."
!
Other participants advises a number of key strategies be employed in the Clark County
HCP:
♦
Develop subcommittees to debate issues that are cumbersome when managed by
larger groups.
♦
Assure that scientists on the committee are not only biologists, but also include a
broad variety of expertise, such as range land science.
♦
Realize that there are limitations to scientific understanding in almost all
management planning efforts.
♦
Focus on adaptive approaches to management strategies wherever feasible to
accommodate lack of information.
Clark County HCP Process
7-13
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Varying levels of power and resources can burden management in the HCP process. Issues
focused on the initial influence of developer money, lack of formal representation of rural
interests, and the central role of the facilitator in keeping the process fair and equitable.
Challenges
Balancing financing and information
At the outset, both developers and scientists were accused of attempting to use both money
and information to shift the process in their favor. Reacting to developers' heavy financial
role in the HCP, one rural observer remarks: "They told me at the first meeting to shut-up
because I was not putting up the money." Scientists were also criticized by ORV
representatives of "hoarding information" as a means of influencing research funding and
focus.
Unequal skills
Rural representatives also feel their lack of experience, knowledge of issues, and
unfamiliarity with HCP process made them vulnerable to disparate levels of power. TNC
representative Jim Moore summarizes the situation: "The resources, skills and access to the
process was an issue from day one. Especially with smaller land users and mom and pop
miners. They felt that their livelihood was on the line, yet they were not getting paid by
anybody to participate whereas for the agency folks and others like me were all getting
salaries to engage in this process. So there was tension. We tried with difficulty to
accommodate that in terms of the timing and location of meetings, as well as public
education efforts, but there are limitations as to how far these efforts can go. User groups
simply felt they didn’t have the legal or scientific skills to fight the battle on even ground."
Strategies
Consensus and facilitation
Rural representatives soon complained to the Clark County commission of being pushed out
of the process. In response, the commission made it clear that any decision that could not be
presented to the USFWS "hand in hand" by all participants would be unacceptable. In turn,
this empowered the consensus decision-making rule and the importance of effective
facilitating. According to those interviewed, the group felt lucky having a facilitator who
was a "a genius in not letting a single group or interest run away with the process."
Likewise, others comment that they did not always agree with his rough style but that it was
at times necessary to "getting us off our dime." Yet another participant exclaims that "he's
even thrown me up against the wall before and said 'look you little shit, get your shit together
or get out of here'." Indeed, many feel it was a harsh but necessary measure to level the
playing field and get back to the reality of coming up with a "unified decision" (Trinko).
Legal representation
Hiring a lawyer to represent rural interests was another key measure to leveling power and
resources. According to one member, "the choice was a reaction to solid evidence that we
Clark County HCP Process
7-14
had a communication problem and constant fear from outlying communities that they 'd get
blind-sided by something they didn’t understand" (Sloane). Chosen for her familiarity with
public land disputes and well-known appeal with ranchers, attorney Karen Budd-Fallon was
considered integral to involving rural interests in the process. Indeed, many felt that without
her presence, "the process would have met greater rural resistance down the road."
These abilities were particularly important in the eyes of miner Ann Schrieber: "Karen BuddFallon's role as a legal representative of rural interests and the grazing community has been
essential. I'm not sure we could have done it without her. We were struggling with allotment
acquisitions and frankly it was a matter of learning that we were doing it the wrong way. We
were knocking on door to door saying 'let us buy your allotment' and ranchers just didn’t
want any part of that. The reality in the end was that we were too anxious. BLM was going
to close those allotments in the end so it was clearly in their interest to sell rather than be shut
down. But you can't just go in and tell people that. You have to wait and stand ready. Karen
was very helpful in that aspect of communication. She served an invaluable liaison role."
Advice
Advice for creating a fair and equitable process includes:
!
Pay attention to the nuances of communication: "You really have to find the right
individual to match the culture of the communication needed. You can't just send a
person in a three-piece business suit into a community where the culture is ranching and
mining. That just doesn’t work" (Moore).
!
Seek skillful facilitation to navigate through stakeholder agendas: "It all comes back to
trust because everyone comes to table with a bag of agendas. The challenge is to get
everyone to be a straight shooter. Agendas will always be there, so the key is to skillfully
facilitate through them, which is damn difficult to do" (Budd-Fallon).
!
Realize the playing field may never be perfectly even: "I don’t know. I guess the whole
thing works on individual initiative...on people looking out for their own interests. As a
facilitator, if you ask me if I can guarantee equal abilities, knowledge, or resources? Hell
no! I never will, and I don't know of any process that does" (Selzer)!
!
Consider the downside of hired representation: "It always becomes delicate because
when you start paying folks (like we did when Karen was hired to be the legal
representative for the rural communities) , because then the other side says 'why not pay
us'?" (Sloane).
!
Put strong personalities at the table: "It helps to have strong personality traits in this
process. Only boisterous extroverts succeed and survive. It’s basically a pool of sharks
and the ones with biggest teeth win" (Schrieber).
!
Allow informal trust to build: "Any time you can increase the informal aspect of the
process and make opportunities to just talk, that's good. Having lunch together and
Clark County HCP Process
7-15
fieldtrips to conservation sites meant more opportunity for personal communication and
the building of mutual respect---and I thought that was key to eventually dealing on an
honest level" (Robinson).
Insights Particular to this Case
The Link between Trust-building, Time and the HCP Process
Strong facilitation, ground rules of discussion, and trusting building through time were
commonly cited as fundamental to the success of the Clark County HCP. As one participant
notes, "trust is a problem particularly out here in the West, and getting over that hurdle only
happens from people being at the table for a long period of time. That’s not to say that the
folks like each other now, but rather they understand each other. This really helps as far as
process goes."
Indeed, the on-going nine-year process, combined with broad national and local political
support, acted as a force that not only kept people at the table but provided opportunity to
search for common viewpoints that would likely not have been discovered had viable
alternatives existed.
The Impact of Clark County's Financial Resources
Clark County's unique and substantial financial resources also played an important role in
shaping form and success of the HCP process. Indeed, few collaborative groups have the
luxury of millions of dollars for research, facilitation, and legal representation for
marginalized stakeholders. As Chris Robinson states, "Had Clark County not been in the
economic situation it was in at the beginning of all this, the program would look very
different today. This is not to say I don’t have faith in the collaborative consensus process,
but there is no getting around that we have been as successful as we have because this is a
financially thriving community."
By the same token, the Clark County HCP process is not considered an anomaly by those
involved. Many participants feel that the County's genuine effort to seek a collaborative
solution was critical to broad stakeholder buy-in. While observers readily admit that it is
hard for a rural community to find such large financial resources, there is great confidence
among the group that the open and transparent process at the core of the HCP could be
repeated in any environment. To surmount financial barriers, one agency representative
suggests that smaller HCPs might short-cut high administrative costs by linking with larger
regional and established HCP efforts.
The Importance of having capable and committed people at the table
Finally, as facilitator Paul Selzer noted, the success of the HCP process was "not just about
good facilitation at the table, but having committed individuals with whom to work." Indeed,
those who have stuck with the process for nine years were considered the "right decision
makers" who could effectively speak on behalf of their constituencies (Shrieber). Many
participants feel "lucky" to have worked with their fellow Steering Committee members and
attribute their success to the individuals involved as well as the structure of the process itself.
Clark County HCP Process
7-16
A test case?
Despite these caveats, the Clark County HCP remains an example of a collaborative effort
that has endured the test of time. It remains to be seen, however, how well it will fare once
pressures to collaborate are removed in final stages of the Multi-species HCP. Absent a
pending lawsuit and facing significant scientific complexity, the future of the Clark County
HCP process may provide important an litmus about the potential of a 'transparent
consensus-based decision making' to resolve resource management issues once high stakes
political and economic pressures are removed.
Sources
Aengst, Peter et al, Balancing Public Trust and Private Interest: An Investigation of Public
Participation in Habitat Conservation Planning, University of Michigan School of Natural
Resources and Environment, May 1998.
Bernazzani, Paola, "Improving Integrated Natural Resource Planning: Habitat Conservation
Plans," National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research,
http://www.ncedr.org/casestudies/hcp/clark.htm, October 1998.
National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research - HCPs,
http://www.ncedr.org/casestudies/hcp.html, October 1998.
The Clark County Comprehensive Planning Home Page - The Clark County Desert
Conservation Planning Process, http://www.co.clark .nv.us/COMPPLAN/ Environ/
Desnet/Desert2.htm, December 1998.
Yaffee, Steven L, Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current
Experience, pg. 233-234, Island Press, Washington D.C. 1996.
Clark County HCP Process
7-17
CHAPTER 8: DARBY PARTNERSHIP
West Central Ohio
Prepared by Dirk Manskopf
Darby Partnership is an example of a very informal watershed-based collaborative effort with
no by-laws or even a memorandum of agreement. Darby Partnership has struggled to become
less agency driven and involve local citizen groups such as a unique farmers organization
called Operation Future Association. The fact that each agency and organization maintains its
own decision-making authority and that the partnership often does not go beyond information
sharing allows the partnership to avoid some of the challenges faced by other groups analyzed
in this report.
Interviews:
Teri Devlin, The Nature Conservancy, (3/25/99)
Dennis Hall, Ohio State University Extension and Executive Director of Operation
Future Association, (3/16/99)
Mary Ann Core, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, (3/16/99)
Marc Smith, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, (3/15/99)
Melissa Horton, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, (3/11/99)
Yetty Alley, former Darby Partnership member with Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Scenic Rivers Division, (2/23/99)
Kathy Smith, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, (2/23/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND5
Origin and Issues
Located in west central Ohio, the Big Darby Creek's main stem is approximately eighty-eight
miles long and contains 245 miles of tributaries that meander from the headwaters near
Marysville to its confluence with the Scioto River. The Big Darby and Little Darby Creek's
580-square mile watershed is one of the healthiest aquatic systems in the Midwest. The
meandering, free flowing streams of the watershed support eighty-six species of fish and
more than forty-one species of mussels, thirty-five of which are rare or endangered species.
The Big and Little Darby have been given many distinctions for their high quality habitat.
Notable designations are; its rank among the top freshwater habitats in the region by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), "National Scenic River" designation by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and its name as "One of the Last Great Places in the Western
Hemisphere" by The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
5
Background information was compiled from several sources including; A Great Place…The Darby Creek
Hydrologic Unit Area, USDA, The Darby Book, A Guide for Residents of the Darby Creek Watershed, Darby
Partners 1996 Resource Directory, Operation Future: Farmers Protecting Darby Creek and the Bottom Line
by Dennis Hall, and the interviews listed above.
Darby Partnership
8-1
Approximately eighty percent of the land used within the watershed is farmland, the majority
being corn and soybean row crops. Kathy Smith from Ohio Department of Natural Resources
(ODNR) noted the lack of public land within the watershed: "We really don't have any public
lands other than Columbus area Metro Parks." The creek banks are often flanked with native
vegetation including hardwood forests of buckeye, sycamore, silver maple and box elder.
Moreover, the watershed has not been subject to large amounts of industrial or municipal
waste and therefore has been able to maintain much of its natural balance. According to an
ecological risk assessment done by the U.S. and Ohio EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) the main stresses to the Darby Creeks are increased sedimentation, nutrient
overloading, rising water temperatures and flooding (Edwards, 1996). Some of the increased
risk to the watershed comes from the conversion of the watershed from farmland to urban
and industrial land uses as the city of Columbus expands westward.
In 1989, the Head of Watershed Planning for the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), the project coordinator for the NRCS's Top of the Ohio Resource Conservation and
Development and the Director of the Ohio Chapter of TNC met to discuss the potential of
working together (USDA). Over the next two years several partnerships, involving mainly
agencies, evolved as the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1991 selected Darby Creek as
one of its seventy Hydrologic Unit Areas (HUA). Furthermore, a great deal of attention was
brought to the Darby watershed as TNC named the creek "One of the Last Great Places in the
Western Hemisphere." The HUA brought together three participating USDA agencies
(NRCS, Farm Service, and Ohio State University (OSU) Extension) as well as many other
organizations that joined to implement parts of the HUA. In 1991, TNC offered to facilitate a
partnership of federal, state and local agencies as well as private organizations and other
watershed groups. It was this facilitation of over thirty organizations and agencies that led to
the creation of Darby Partners (later to be called the Darby Partnership).
The Darby Partnership, throughout the years, has dealt with a variety of issues in the
watershed. Teri Devlin the Program Manager for TNC's Darby Project stressed, "The reason
why we are working on the Darby is the Darby provides high quality habitat for freshwater
fish and fresh water mussels, a number of which are rare and endangered." Kathy Smith
explained, "Initially with USDA we were looking at reducing the amount of soil being
carried into the stream. Sedimentation being the key problem." One of the main issues the
partnership has focused upon is promoting agricultural stewardship in order to reduce runoff
from farms throughout the watershed. Sedimentation from topsoil running off during heavy
rains is one of Darby's biggest threats. "Sediment reduction and agricultural non-point source
reduction has clearly been something we have worked on," noted Dennis Hall from OSU
Extension and Executive Director of Operation Future Association (OFA). Educating not
only the farmers, but also the entire watershed community on various issues such as septic
tank maintenance, watershed recreation, responsible lawn and landscape management, stream
bank erosion, protecting riparian wooded corridors, household hazardous waste and other
issues have also been a focus.
Darby Partnership
8-2
Organization and Process
The mission of the Darby Partnership is to be a proactive resource for the citizens of the
watershed who want to protect the resource and acts as a "think tank" for conservation efforts
within the watershed (USDA). Over the years the structure and membership makeup of the
partnership has changed several times. For several years the core group of thirty-plus
members consisted of the heads of agencies, environmental groups, local governments and
organizations, meeting to develop cooperative strategies to preserve, maintain and enhance
the aquatic and riparian ecosystem. "There was an interesting split for a while," explained
Yetty Alley a former Darby Partner with ODNR's Scenic River Division, "The Partners'
meetings were viewed as upper management and they had one meeting while the field staff
had another." This core group held quarterly meetings to discuss current issues and share
field staff accomplishments. Mary Ann Core from NRCS noted that, "Early on they were
always concerned about getting all the agency head involved because they are the ones that
get the money." At the same time a group of field staff from the many agencies and
organizations were meeting on a regular basis.
The two meeting structure began to lose its effectiveness as some of the agency heads began
to lose interest, not many non agency people came to meetings, communication between the
Partners' meetings and the field staff was lacking and others just complained that there were
too many meetings. "After a while upper management staff started to drop off and you had
some people attending both meetings which did not make sense, so we began to combine
them and that seemed better," said Yetty Alley.
Not only did some field staff go to both Darby Partnership meetings, but they also had HUA
meetings. After four years of operating in that format the need for a change was expressed. A
brainstorming session resulted in a list of perceived problems within the watershed that
members' thought needed to be addressed: livestock management, communications, land use
and stream management. Members then signed up to work on one of the four teams that
formed around those issues. Melissa Horton from NRCS described the brainstorming session:
"We had a facilitated meeting, a mini gripe session, then we regrouped to allow members to
be more focused." Along with these four "teams" that met as needed, the Partners meeting,
facilitated by TNC's Teri Devlin, still takes place quarterly.
The Darby Partnership is very informal in structure. Melissa Horton refers to the group as, "a
hologram...It is not a formal type thing, it is very informal, that is why I call it a hologram."
Marc Smith of OEPA describes the structure as, "A lose knit collaborative effort of a lot of
agencies, private entities and citizens. Basically everyone has their say in the partnership, but
it is not like we are voting members or anything. It is primarily and information
dissemination organization." "The Darby Partnership is a place where information can be
exchanged without the need for judgement and so people can come to their own conclusions
about what the information means to them," said Dennis Hall. Hall felt the informal structure
was beneficial: "I think that process is very important in today's policy arena where
everything seems like it has to be a yes or no."
Darby Partnership
8-3
Teri Devlin described the partnership as, "A group of representatives from agencies and
organizations and our commonality is we work on the Darby in some way or another or have
a concern about the Darby system. We meet quarterly since 1991. We have no plan. We have
no agreement. There is no entity on paper or any other legal or organizational way that says
we are Darby Partnership. Funding comes through our individual sources. There has been
funding that has come to the partnership's work...but money does not flow into a central pot."
Some of the over forty organizations and agencies members of the Darby Partnership
include: NRCS, TNC, OEPA, Operation Future Association (OFA), OSU Extension, USGS,
ODNR, The Darby Creek Association, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), City of
Columbus Division Of Water, Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Ohio Farm
Bureau among others. Each organization and agency maintains independent decision-making
authority as meetings are mainly used to share information and plan cooperative activities.
In response to the intensified attention Darby Partnership placed on farming issues and with
the assistance of OSU Extension, a small group of farmers from across the watershed came
together to better understand the expectations from the non-farming community. In 1991, a
farmer task force was established to facilitate farmer participation in the watershed. This task
force later formed its own private, nonprofit organization, Operation Future Association
(OFA). Today, OFA membership includes more than 140 farmers that represent more than
thirty-percent of "high priority areas" adjacent to the Darby and its tributaries. According to
Dennis Hall, the Executive Director of OFA, "[OFA] represent farmers perspective in the
watershed and provide balanced, progressive feedback to the partners on issues that relate to
agriculture."
Teri Devlin of TNC described her organization's role in the Darby Partnership: "The Nature
Conservancy is one of the partners and has offered since 1991 to facilitate the process. By
that I mean we have a place to meet, food to eat, and an agenda, and kind of coordinating the
quarterly meetings." Devlin continued, "One of the reasons TNC is appropriate to facilitate
the partnership is we have been willing to fund full time people on the creek." From speaking
with other members it is clear that Devlin's role is crucial to Darby Partnership. Mary Ann
Core said, "Agendas are set a month prior to meetings by Teri. She sends out a call for
agenda items and if there is something out there she will let us know." Speaking about
Devlin, Marc Smith said, "She acts as a moderator. If she feels something is not being
covered she will call on someone there at the meeting that could speak to that point. That
position has really helped the partnership." Smith continued, "So, if anyone has a topic that
they wish to discuss they will call Teri and say I want to talk about whatever. She get the
agenda rolling."
Each of the four "teams" created in 1995, have different structures and are active at various
times with a variety of issues. According to Melissa Horton, the stream team, "went full blast
for a while, then did zero last year," The stream team is composed of up to three landowners
and seventeen individuals representing ten different agencies. At their first meeting they
brainstormed ideas on how members would like to see the team serve the watershed. One
role the stream team played was on-site evaluation and recommendations given to
landowners that called on them to get advice on stream bank erosion on their farms. Mary
Darby Partnership
8-4
Ann Core said, "We would save up two or three sights to visit and then go out and inventory
the sight, usually around five or six of us. We would talk about alternatives and I would write
up a report and then give it to the landowner." Other issues the stream team worked on
during the first two years were stream stabilization practice sheets and a landowner stream
management guide. According to Horton there are current efforts to get the stream team back
working again. When asked how successful the stream team was, Core said, "It is hard to
coordinate and it would take a long time to get answers back to the land owner. You can only
do so much, but we got some actions [on the part of landowners] out of it."
Outcomes
Due to the informality of the group as well as the number of organizations participating,
outcomes from Darby Partnership are often not clearly linked to the partnership, rather are
often credited to individual organizations. Melissa Horton spoke of the challenge of giving
credit to the partnership when writing a stream team manual: "You could not say this is a
product of the partnership, we felt like we needed a clause, but it is not in print." At the same
time Mary Ann Core noted that, "People don't realize it, but the partnership is working all the
time. Not as a unit, but when you have forty to sixty people in a partnership from different
agencies and municipalities the work of the Darby Partnership is going on at all times."
One outcome often mentioned is a greater awareness of issues affecting the Darby watershed.
This is because Darby Partnership has focused upon education. Several Darby Partnership
members put together a book, The Darby Book, which is widely distributed throughout the
watershed. The goal of The Darby Book is to educate the residents in the watershed on the
various stresses to the creek such as leaking septic tanks, livestock grazing too closely to
streams, and wetland loss among others. An education event that many members have
spoken highly about are a series of canoe trips arranged by OFA where landowners are
paired in canoes with an agency official. Other education events include cleanup days along
the stream where residents go out in canoes to pick up trash, and field days where farmers
open up their farms to groups in order to inform the public of their farming practices.
In terms of on-the-ground achievements, many have credited the partnership with promoting
various programs that have helped to reduce sediment runoff from farmland. In 1991, 45,000
acres of cropland within the watershed were in conservation tillage. By 1995, that number
had grown to over 139,00 acres farmed with conservation tillage and has reduced sediment
entry into the stream by 35,000 tons per year (USDA).6 Currently the partnership has begun
to focus more attention towards urban sediment runoff. It is feared that the reductions in
sediment coming from farmland will be offset by setbacks as the watershed continues to be
paved over.
Some other accomplishments and programs that have been designed by the Darby
Partnership to address the threats to the watershed include: environmentally benign
streambank stabilization techniques, mapping of land use trends and point source pollution,
6
Conservation tillage entails leaving the field alone after harvest. The farmer does not churn up the soil which
allows plant residue to remain on the surface. The plant residue retains water on the soil surface rather than
allowing it to run off and cause erosion.
Darby Partnership
8-5
reforestation of high priority areas in the riparian corridor, and citizen adopt-a-stream
programs.
Members had a variety of responses when asked what has been the greatest accomplishment
of the Darby Partnership:
!
Mary Ann Core mentioned the educational aspect: "Raising awareness of water resource
and land use and how they truly effect the streams. We have done a great job at that."
!
Melissa Horton spoke about changing peoples' attitudes: "[The Partnership] made people
think about the streams in their backyards and started to get the idea out that they are not
a sewer. I think [Darby Partners] have gotten a lot of people involved."
!
Marc Smith said the greatest accomplishments were, "The group sticking together and
continuing to work at getting everybody to the table and the process. There are a lot of
neat things that have happened."
!
Kathy Smith felt the greatest accomplishment was educating people in the watershed:
"The education of those in the watershed and even myself who work in other watersheds
as well. I have learned a lot going through the process. I hope that is the lingering effect."
!
Yetty Alley the greatest achievements were, "A lot of the education type things that took
place, canoe tours, family days at the Metro Parks, teacher workshops, and tours of
farming communities."
!
Teri Devlin felt the greatest achievement was the continued healthy state of the stream:
"The Darby is still very healthy, that is the greatest accomplishment. Now how you tie
that to the partnership work becomes ephemeral in some areas because some of the things
that keep the Darby healthy would have occurred anyway. Although having that amount
of resource expertise and focus going on I guarantee helped to keep the Darby healthy."
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITES
Why Collaboration?
There are various reasons why members of the Darby Partnership chose to participate. First,
the USDA's HUA program along with distinctions bestowed upon Darby Creek brought a
great deal of attention and funding. It was the funding and attention the provided for staff to
be assigned to the Darby especially from several of the agencies such as NRCS and OSU
Extension. Second, TNC's naming Darby Creek "One of the Last Great Places in the Western
Hemisphere" brought with it a concerted effort from TNC to protect the stream through a
watershed based approach.
Darby Partnership
8-6
Members had the following responses when asked why they chose to participate in the Darby
Partnership:
!
Yetty Alley spoke about all the activity in the watershed and efforts to reduce duplicated
work: "With the HUA and 319 funding there was a lot of activity starting to happen and it
seemed to make sense for everyone to know what others were doing so you were not
duplicating efforts and so you could cooperate on different things to make money go
further and see what types of gaps are there."
!
Kathy Smith was hired to work with the Darby Partnership and has since seen a large
increase in the number of watershed groups in her region: "When I was hired nine years
ago this was part of my duties. When I came on board here [the partnership] was one of
the things listed for me to work with. When I started there were two watershed projects,
now I am up to eight or nine."
!
Teri Devlin mentioned the size and complexity of the watershed: "When you have 560square miles of land drained by a system it is ludicrous to think that you can do anything
by yourself. [TNC] is very good at specific channels of work. A specific focus we are real
good at is our science, land acquisition. We are very good at strategizing, but we do not
know much about agriculture. We do not know much about urban planning. How does a
developer go about planning? We really needed help in learning and the ability grow in
our ability to leverage our work. So the partnership was an absolute necessity on our
part."
!
Marc Smith noted that, "It was my interest in the Darby watershed and they invited me to
come participate because of my knowledge of the water resource quality and problems."
!
Melissa Horton worked with the partnership as part of her duties: "I was assigned and
that was fine."
!
Mary Ann Core spoke about the necessity of brining people together in a watershed this
size: "Because it is such a big monster. Nobody wants to take it on alone. Nobody wants
to make any decisions alone. It was a way of educating and informing people."
Dennis Hall from OSU Extension is also the Executive Director of OFA and therefore had
different responses for why he, OFA and OSU Extension chose to particiate in the Darby
Partnership. "For me I am interested in community development. I am interested in
citizenship and developing people in the community and am an advocate of win-win
perspectives," said Hall, "If we take the time sit down together, work creatively we can come
up with better solutions than if any of us work independently. I am not convinced that my
perspective by itself is better or lesser than any other." Hall then continued on to talk about
why OSU Extension chose to participate: "I think OSU Extension is involved because we
have been promoting learning...our job in extension is more about facilitating learning and
providing interpersonal exchange." Lastly Hall spoke about OFA: "They had their
agricultural interests they wanted to protect and did not really see anyone at the table that was
really doing that."
Darby Partnership
8-7
Alternatives
According to Darby Partnership members, agencies would have gone about their normal way
of managing the watershed, and citizens and landowners would have been more frustrated.
Moreover, there would not have been the overall understanding of issues affecting the Darby
had the partnership not formed.
Teri Devlin explained: "I think a lot of the agency personnel would have done their jobs and
will always do their job and therefore a lot of the agricultural stresses to the Darby would
have been helped. What the partnership did was two-fold. First, is if you get that many
people from all those agencies together talking about one area it gets a lot of attention and
attention is a magnet for more attention which means more resources, more ability to work
on things which all translates into success. Secondly, is that I think it is very easy to focus
only on your interests given the limited time we have. I do not think there would have been
the overall kind of thinking, the long range kind of thinking about what could happen here.
Also the realization that you do not have to be an expert on everything. You team up with
experts and therefore get a hole bunch more done than you ever could by yourself." Kathy
Smith had similar sentiments: "Probably without the partnership things would not have been
addressed on such a large scale. With the attention these issues have gotten because we have
broadcast its unique characteristics...issues would probably have been addressed on a much
smaller scale."
Several members focused mainly upon the attention and the awareness that the partnership
has brought to the stresses within the watershed. "Without the partnership I think fewer
people would be involved," said Dennis Hall, "The successes would have been much smaller.
I think we have in place here a new social structure and have altered the context to a degree
that the Darby has a chance of continuing to improve." Marc Smith noted that, "There has
been an increased amount of public awareness of the resource, the quality of the resource."
Melissa Horton had similar feelings stating, "I think [the Darby Partnership] has gotten a lot
of people involved. It has given all a different perspective on things."
Specifically focusing upon how the partnership has changed the interaction between
landowners, mainly farmers, and the agencies regulating them both Melissa Horton and
Dennis Hall had similar thoughts. Melissa Horton said: "I think a lot more people would have
been frustrated in and around the stream. Many landowners were frustrated with all the hoops
with rules and regulations that they needed to jump through. I think [Darby Partnership]
simplified it for them." Dennis Hall said: "I think if we would have adopted more of a selling
approach saying okay farmers this is what you have to do and these are the reasons why and
just do it, we might have gotten adoption. What I am not sure we would have gotten is the
conviction. Now I think we have got a completely different mindset about the stream and the
role of the farmers in protecting it."
Darby Partnership
8-8
Ensuring Stakeholder Representation
Challenges
Most members of the Darby Partnership did not feel ensuring stakeholder representation was
a challenge for the partnership. Several members felt that the partnership could have done a
better job at recruiting citizens and citizen groups, while others felt that high staff turnover in
the agencies posed difficulties.
Not a Challenge
Most Darby Partnership members could not think of any group or interest that has not been
represented at the table. "I am not sure there has [been someone left out of the process].
Nothing pops up in my mind," said Marc Smith. Smith continued saying, "Anytime you have
a communal resource though, there are people concerned that are not being heard." "If
anyone was left out, they were quickly added," said Melissa Horton, "I can't say anyone was
purposely left out." Dennis Hall stated, "No, I do not think anyone raised the concern that
someone might have been left out."
Citizens and Developers
Although none of the Darby Partnership members felt the lack of any interest had affected
their ability to work to improve the stream, several members did think that citizens and
developers are lacking at the table. Securing their involvement would improve the group's
ability to accommodate diverse capabilities and could prove crucial to the future of the
partnership.
Since the USDA's HUA project ran out in 1998, several agencies have not been able to spend
as much of their resources, including staff time, within the Darby watershed. This has led
several members of the Darby Partnership to feel the need to become more citizen oriented.
"The more they are trying to get the community involved, the more citizen input is becoming
more crucial as they reach the point where funding is decreasing," said Yetty Alley. Mary
Ann Core said "regular people" were needed more at meetings, referring to general citizens
with an interest in the watershed. Speaking about how often citizens come to Darby
Partnership meetings, Teri Devlin said, "It depends upon the issue. For instance at the last
meeting we had about one hundred citizen show up because of the touchy issue of a proposed
Fish and Wildlife Service refuge near the Darby."
Along with the funding changes occurring with the Darby Partnership, the partnership is also
trying to become more focused on urban development and sprawl within the watershed
coming from Columbus expanding westward. Dennis Hall explained: "As we move on, land
use policy is increasingly important and therefore local public officials are becoming
increasingly important. Increasingly, developers and realtors are important and I do not think
we have done the job there in terms of bringing that perspective in. Yet, it has been
recognized as a need. We have made different attempts to reach out that have been somewhat
successful."
Darby Partnership
8-9
Teri Devlin mentioned both citizen groups and developers are interests the partnership needs
to actively recruit more of: "I think there are two areas where we have not had good
representation. The one group is developers. I do not think we are well represented by the
people we are pointing our fingers at. Nor has any developer asked to be there and I have on
a regular basis invited several to come. Frankly though, the partnership has not worked as
hard at it should to get those people there. The other is that we meet during the day and I
think that limits some citizen groups who are volunteers from being in attendance. I have not
had a lot of complaints about that, but I think if we were to have the meetings in the evening
it would be a different participation." Devlin continued when asked what the greatest
challenge faced by the partnership today she responded, "To become more citizen-based. We
have two citizen groups (OFA and Darby Creek Association) that have been formed that
have the ear of the agriculture and suburban communities. I think we need to expand that."
Devlin also said, "I think the Darby can act as a model of what not to do on a watershed. That
is, we were so lucky to have such great agency and organization buy-in and real good
funding that what got lost was the community of people. The landowners kind of got put over
on the side because we were just steam rolling our way to getting things done. Now as soon
as you have funding or resources removed from those agencies, what have you got. What I
think the benefit of the Darby can provide is to show that if you don't start with citizen-based
and real citizen involvement...down the road you may end up with nothing."
Staff Turnover
Another challenge that Kathy Smith brought up was the fact that many of the agency staff
move on after time. Smith explained that, "Over the years we have added a lot of new people.
As things come up people come and go from meetings." Smith also mentioned that for most
agency personnel, "The Darby is just one of the watersheds we have to deal with."
Strategies
The Darby Partnership uses several strategies to ensure stakeholder representation. Most
members feel the openness of their process is the most important factor in attracting a diverse
membership. Other strategies include Teri Devlin, and other members active recruitment of
stakeholders they feel should be at the table and making meetings more accessible.
Yetty Alley described the way the Darby Partnership selected its membership as "pretty
much it was an open invitation for anyone." Marc Smith felt the agencies have played an
important role in getting participants: "Agencies were contacted and those most active in the
watershed were sought out."
Darby Partnership is open to anyone wanting to attend meetings. TNC's Teri Devlin pulls in
members that she feels need to be at the table as topics emerge that are related to their
interests. "I think it is generally open to anyone that wants to come," said Dennis Hall. Hall
continued that the selection of members "was related to what were the issues and what were
the perspectives that were needed to be given consideration." Devlin similarly said, "The
partnership invitations have always gone out to all organizations and agencies who had
expressed, or shown, or demonstrated interest in the Darby. It has always gone to the head of
the organization or agency and they choose who would represent them. The partnership has
Darby Partnership
8-10
always been open to anyone who wishes to come to the table and has something to offer. In
other words, citizens are always invited, but they must be willing to bring something to the
partnership. That does not mean money necessarily. It could be expertise, it could be ideas, it
could mean they sit there representing a number of landowners." Each member interviewed
spoke highly of TNC's role in the partnership and Devlin's ability to get various stakeholders
to the table to discuss issues in a non-confrontational manner.
Darby Partnership members suggested evening meeting times to get more citizens involved.
Yetty Alley remembers, "There was talk of moving one meeting a year to the evening to get
more citizen input." Alley continued, "They recognize meetings during the day can be
difficult for some." Although Mary Ann Core said, "Meetings at night and direct mailings to
citizens wasn't that fruitful."
Advice
Darby Partnership members felt communication, a neutral facilitator whose job it was to get
all stakeholders to the table as well as the need for perseverance, were all important in
ensuring stakeholder representation.
!
Yetty Alley felt communication among members is key: "It takes a lot of communication.
The partnership eventually broke into teams..so that people attending these would be
more interested in the topic. Try to figure out how to keep everyone informed and up to
speed and not to have the meetings just be a reporting period. Very few agency people
are solely devoted to the Darby. They have other duties as well. Having one person or a
few who coordinate seems like a good way to go."
!
Kathy Smith stressed getting everyone to the table: "Try to bring everyone to the table.
Don't be afraid to have what you perceive to be an enemy at the table because if you don't
invite them to the table to discuss the issues it makes it harder in the long run to
accomplish what you want and there is an educational component."
!
Teri Devlin felt a facilitator is helpful: "I think you need a very neutral facilitator. [TNC]
sometimes are not seen as neutral, but early on I think we were because we were private
and not under grant money. That neutrality allows you to not have one or two strong
issues that bring the group in one direction."
!
Marc Smith felt not giving up was important: "Keep hammering at it. Try to approach it
through many different route. One mode of communication is not going to reach
everyone so you have to keep trying, local newspaper, direct mailings."
!
Mary Ann Core said: "It depends upon the size of the watershed. If you have a small
watershed you really can do a good job of getting citizens there."
!
Dennis Hall expressed the need for a staff person: "It needs to be someone's job to be
thinking about that. Everybody's commitment to be open to the process. Even today I run
into people who want to categorize people as friends and enemies. I am not willing to
Darby Partnership
8-11
!
Teri Devlin felt a facilitator is helpful: "I think you need a very neutral facilitator. [TNC]
sometimes are not seen as neutral, but early on I think we were because we were private
and not under grant money. That neutrality allows you to not have one or two strong
issues that bring the group in one direction."
!
Marc Smith felt not giving up was important: "Keep hammering at it. Try to approach it
through many different route. One mode of communication is not going to reach
everyone so you have to keep trying, local newspaper, direct mailings."
!
Mary Ann Core said: "It depends upon the size of the watershed. If you have a small
watershed you really can do a good job of getting citizens there."
!
Dennis Hall expressed the need for a staff person: "It needs to be someone's job to be
thinking about that. Everybody's commitment to be open to the process. Even today I run
into people who want to categorize people as friends and enemies. I am not willing to
accept the creek has any enemies. We need to continue to reach out to people even as we
question the judgement of some of the landowners."
Accommodating Diverse Interests
Various federal, state and local agencies and other governmental entities such as NRCS,
USGS, US EPA, USFWS, ODNR, OEPA, Franklin County Zoning Commission, City of
Columbus, Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce, provide the basis for the diversity within
Darby Partnership. Other members such as Darby Association, a local grassroots
preservation group began over twenty-five years ago, TNC and OFA make up the majority of
the non-governmental diversity. At various other times depending upon the issue being
discussed citizens, developers, other environmental organizations and citizen groups have
made up diverse interests around the table.
Challenges
The challenges the diversity of interests' poses for Darby Partnership is limited due to the
informal, information sharing structure where each member maintains autonomous decisionmaking authority. Several members did mention a few challenges that diverse interests
brought to the process. Several felt trusting government motives, the fact that there may be
too many interest within the watershed, and different agency objectives, are some issues
raised by members.
When asked about the challenge of compromise from diverse perspectives, Teri Devlin
explained: "It is more information sharing so that issue has not really come up. People give
back advice from their expertise, sometimes it stops at that. Sometimes it is taken up by a
smaller group of partners that have specific interests in that and then we continue to work at
it until we come up with a solution." Devlin continued, "The term win-win is what we would
8-12
zoning and consistency of regulations is the biggest challenge with regards to diverse
interests," said Marc Smith, "There are so many different governmental entities that have
responsibility over the watershed. We have six counties, god knows how many townships.
They each have different ideas on how things should be done."
Dennis Hall saw two challenges faced by Darby Partnership due to the diversity of interests
within the watershed. Similar to what Marc Smith saw as a challenge, Dennis Hall said, "One
of the challenges may be unique to here, is that the Darby watershed is in six counties, I don't
remember how many townships and other political jurisdictions. Yet it is home to nobody. I
think the largest county has maybe thirty to forty percent of its land in the watershed. It is
difficult to manage or lead these multi-jurisdictional efforts. Somehow the Darby has to find
its way to find its own voice. The citizenry has to be leading this at some point. Otherwise it
will be a neat phenomenon that occurred in the 90's and kind of went away." The second
challenge posed by the diverse interests as stated by Hall: "There is a facilitation challenge
keeping all the interests at the table and making sure they feel comfortable there. We have
from my perspective one of the real great facilitators in Teri Devlin. Someone who just
knows how to make people feel welcome and comfortable and honored in their perspective. I
think if someone has a strong self interest to be gained by the partnership they run the risk of
really threatening its integrity. I think Teri has been the right degree of friendship and has
been a great facilitator in honoring all points of view."
Wildlife Refuge
One specific challenge came to the mind of both Teri Devlin and Dennis Hall. A recently
proposed USFWS refuge within the watershed along Darby Creek has stirred mixed
emotions within the community and is creating some problems for members of the
partnership. To Devlin the USFWS proposed refuge has caused her to question her
relationship with several members and to re-evaluate certain communities within the
watershed. For Hall, the proposed refuge has led him to question the commitment the
USFWS has to the collaborative process and has reminded him politics can even play out
within the partnership.
When Teri Devlin was asked about her role as a neutral leader of the partnership is when the
refuge challenge was brought up. Speaking about her neutrality she said, "I think it is still
alright. Although [TNC] has taken a strong position on this refuge and I think it has polarized
our position with some agencies." Devlin continued on by stating, "Until recently I never had
an issue with trust. With this refuge I think I may have been a little ignorant and our
organization may have been a little ignorant of the level of distrust in the community for the
federal government." Devlin mentioned that she may have "destroyed some trust I had with
individuals and I am also questioning trust I had built [with certain individuals]." Devlin felt,
"by listening" she could rebuild that trust.
Dennis Hall mentioned the proposed refuge when asked about controversy surrounding
Darby Partnership. Hall stated: "It is not like we agree on everything. Right now we have a
Fish and Wildlife Service proposed wildlife refuge and the local farm community has
perceived that as a major threat to the agricultural integrity of their community." Hall
continued to talk about the politics surrounding the USFWS decision: "I am really frustrated
Darby Partnership
8-13
with the Fish and Wildlife Service in that they claim to be collaborative, but not feeling
anything like that. They maintain all the information...they think up what they need to and
then present that to the public and you have a chance to like it or not...Their process is not
open and collaborative. In the end that has resulted in a lot of mistrust from the local people
and now they have taken up a competing perspective and have worked diligently to oppose
the refuge."
Opportunities
The main opportunities presented to the members of Darby Partnership from the diversity at
the table was the diversity allowed for different perspectives to be heard that normally would
not have been heard. Melissa Horton explained: "[Diversity] lets us look at thing from a
different angle,". Marc Smith stated, "I think the main positive benefit is that it makes people
from the opposite side of the fence look at the problem from the view of the person on the
other side." Smith continued, "It allows you to see different perspectives and realize what we
are talking about is a resource used by many different people for many different uses."
Similar to Horton and Marc Smith, the positive aspect for Kathy Smith was: "Working with
people I probably would not have ever had the chance to work with before." Smith continued
that, "In my normal scheme of things I would not have had any contact with some people
such as USGS, TNC or some people at EPA."
"This is going to seem a bit esoteric," said Teri Devlin, "but I think having not only
agriculture agencies and conservation agencies sitting at the table has been valuable, but to
have actual farmers sitting at the table. We can sit and talk about agricultural incentive
programs, agricultural stresses to the creek. It is different when you sit with farmers and talk
about these issues and they talk about what the incentive program has meant to his land. All
of a sudden it is very local, fully fleshed out issue." Devlin continued, "There are issues that
create polarity, but more often than not they have been issues that have brought people
together to enlarge thinking and get rid of stereotypes."
Strategies
There are several ways that the Darby Partnership deals with the diverse interests in order to
promote the opportunities and to limit any challenges the diversity may bring. Participants
mentioned having Teri Devlin as a facilitator, not going beyond an information sharing
structure, and promoting a non-confrontational atmosphere as strategies used in the
partnership.
Several members also mentioned a unique way the Darby Partnership has brought together
members to help develop the relationship side among diverse interests. Early on in the
partnership, OFA decided canoe trips where agency officials would share a canoe with a
farmer would be a good way to place their relationships on a personal level. "[OFA] did a
canoe trip," said Dennis Hall, "and farmers hosted the canoe trip and invited some of the
stream advocates to go along with them so they could learn about the stream from their point
of view. They also wanted to share their perspective and it was at that point that [OFA] really
Darby Partnership
8-14
began to take off." Hall continued, "People could see it was not a matter of competing
interests, but it was a matter of shared interests. There was a lot more we had in common
than in disagreement and it was realized that it was much better we work together than
separately to accomplish our goals."
Kathy Smith also spoke about the canoe trips, "Canoe trips are an awesome thing to try. If
you can pull something like that off. All of my watersheds now use something like that. You
are either going to drown or have a wonderful time." Teri Devlin said, "At a very personal
level to get a farmer in the canoe with a regional planner, normal relationships that would not
normally occur happen on the canoe trip and it is happening in the habitat. You not only
forage personal relationships, but you can get out of the canoe and see the fish and begin to
understand how beautiful. It is very powerful." Devlin continued, "It is much different from
sitting in a conference room around a table with blank walls. I recommend some kind of
hiking or getting out into the habitat on a one on one basis."
Advice
When members of the Darby Partnership were asked to give advice to other collaborative
partnership regarding the issue of accommodating various interests at the table they came up
with a variety of ideas:
!
Dennis Hall had several pieces of advice: "People need to recognize that collaboration
does take more time, but does yield higher quality results and I think a greater quantity of
results. I talk about marketing your weakness that when you look at the partnership look
for your weaknesses or other holes and use that to go out and recruit new members.
Furthermore, acknowledge that you can not do everything. If the partnership is humble
and does only what they can do well it has a better chance at surviving."
!
Melissa Horton explained: "Don't bite off too much. It can take a lot of time and there
may be topics that are not necessarily of interest to you. It is nice to have someone at the
top of the partnership who has the patience to keep it all going."
!
Marc Smith felt it was important to, "Try to get all concerned parties to the table at one
time. Promote a non-confrontational environment. Permit everyone an equal say. Try to
promote respect for the over viewpoints. A lot of time you come to the table quite
suspicious of other peoples motives. You have to figure out how to get around that. There
are reasons why people have their ideas, try to understand the other person's point of
view. Also education explaining to other people why you have a certain viewpoint."
!
Yetty Alley mentioned peoples needs for credit: "Try to get over turf battles and give
credit where credit is due. There were several instances where one group got the credit
where several groups worked on it. Give other people credit."
!
Teri Devlin said, "In general I don't think you get much done unless you are diverse. I
think when you form a group one piece of advice is not to get caught up in the issues that
are hot that have brought you together. Slow down so you keep trying to see who is there,
Darby Partnership
8-15
who is missing, who should be there, how we are forming our relationships with each
other. The groups that I have seen fail are the groups that get on an issue that everyone is
energized around changing. They go directly at that issue and solving that rather than
looking long term and if we get all these people together we can do more than this. I don't
think many groups spend the time on relationship and enlarging the table which has to be
done right up front."
Dealing with Scientific Issues
When Dennis Hall was asked to describe the scientific issues Darby Partnership has dealt
with, he replied, "There were so many different types it is hard to characterize because it is
such a holistic perspective." Hall continued to say, "We have been very involved in an
ecological risk assessment in order to look at the major stresses to the stream and to prioritize
those. Sediment reduction and agricultural non-point sources and changes in hydrology has
been clearly something we have focused upon."
Darby Partnership has dealt with numerous scientific issues during its first nine years. Many
of the scientific aspects revolved around issues such as putting together a manual regarding
techniques to mitigate steam bank erosion, implementing forested filter strips along streams,
putting forth nutrient management plans for area farmers. The bulk of the science was
provided in a forum of information sharing by the numerous agencies as an educational
component in order for all stakeholders to make more sound decisions.
Challenges
Most Darby Partnership members thought the group handled scientific issues well. A few
members mentioned challenges such as missing baseline data and making the science
accessible to citizens who attend meetings. Generally, with so many agency representatives,
Darby Partnership handles scientific discussions well and appears to base many issues on
science.
Teri Devlin explained: "There are so many of our representatives that are based upon science
that we can have a pretty good conversation." Devlin also expressed a challenge that several
other members mentioned: "If we have more citizen groups sitting at the table there might be
a need to change our orientation of our discussions so that everyone knows what we are
talking about." At the last meeting Devlin noted, "We had a large number of citizens and we
were using some buzzwords, some acronyms, so they were not fully understood." Continuing
Devlin said, "I think as the partnership grows and changes, I think the science is integral to
everything we are doing. First of all to prove what we are doing is right and to justify it, but I
think it is also intimidating to many, including myself. I had to gear up."
Yetty Alley and Kathy Smith had similar sentiments regarding technical discussions in a
citizen-based group. Alley stated: "Most of the folks at least from the government side had
more of a scientific or technical background so it was not very difficult for most people to
pick up. But when you start to include members of the general public it becomes more of an
Darby Partnership
8-16
issue that would need more attention." Smith noted that, "All of us tend to talk in our own
jargon and use terms familiar with us and that can be a challenge."
A particular challenge Mary Ann Core faced during several meetings was not understanding
the scientific analysis being presented. Core stated, "I sat through numerous meetings where I
did not understand one half of what the researchers were saying." Core continued, "But they
try to bring science to whoever is there." Noting that she did not see any significant problem
with not understanding she stated, "You get what you get out of it. It is not my job to
understand about the re-colonization of algae. My job is understanding the rapid runoff into
the stream."
Melissa Horton also had a particular challenge not mentioned by any other member. Horton
stated, "We always wished we had more baseline data to begin with. We did lack an engineer
on the stream team. We did get one from time to time, but we never consistently had one that
was committed to attending all the meetings."
Strategies
Darby Partnership members all felt that either the necessary scientific background was at the
table or they went outside the group and got whatever expertise they needed. "I'd say if it
wasn't at the table, it was just a short time lag before it came," stated Dennis Hall when asked
if the needed expertise was at the table. Asked if the partnership brought in experts if needed,
Kathy Smith replied, "Yup, bring them to the table and make them a partner."
Marc Smith said, "I think we have dealt with the science very well." He continued: "I am
sure people are drawing upon research done elsewhere. An example is TNC had a
hydrologist from their national headquarters come in and do some work. There have been
things like that, but it isn't like we are hiring a consultant to come in." Smith also noted that
there has, "been a lot of interest in the Darby because of the amount of data and the high
profile. So, we have had people coming to us to do research and consequently they are
invited to the partnership."
Advice
Darby Partnership members had a variety of advice to give to other collaborative groups
regarding dealing with the scientific dimensions of issues:
!
Mary Ann Core stressed going out and getting the information: "You go out and get as
many sources of information as you can. Figure it out. Science is there, it just takes a lot
of time and people to sit around and discuss it. It also depends upon the complexity of the
issue."
!
Marc Smith explained the need to be accessible: "Be accessible. A lot of scientists come
off as unapproachable or seem esoteric to the lay person. Figure out ways of presenting
material that is understandable to the average person. Be willing to go out and present
your findings to various groups."
Darby Partnership
8-17
!
Kathy Smith said, "That is tough because everyone comes at the issue with a different
twist. Be willing to present all sides of whatever science you are trying to present. I
would hope that if you are dealing with an agency on an issue that the agency is given
some sort of credibility with the group. Trust has to be there or it does not work. For the
most part our agency folks have been looked upon with some authority. They are willing
to trust what we are saying."
!
Teri Devlin felt there are numerous places a group can get its scientific information:
"They need to understand that here are agencies available to them to get that science
done. Do not ignore colleges and universities. Welcome in those experts and be clear in
what your needs are. Don't just say can you become a partner. Say we need GIS mapping,
we need to know about X."
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Challenges
Due to the informal structure of the Darby Partnership most participants did not view
accommodating the various levels of knowledge, power and even skills as a problem.
Members also felt the original meeting structure, having teams with specialized interests, and
a concerted effort to make everyone feel equal allowed the partnership to take advantage of
diverse capabilities.
Asked how the Darby Partnership encountered the various levels of knowledge, power and
skills members inevitably came to the table with, Kathy Smith said, "That is probably why
initially they had the [heads of the individual agencies] at one meeting and the worker bees
(field staff) at another meeting. That kept us on one level of power, skills and knowledge and
us on one level. We just kept integrating with the head chiefs and as they merged you leveled
out some of the playing field." Smith continued to say, "You had landowners sitting at the
table that just had an interest in the watershed and maybe did not have a lot of knowledge,
but they were willing to sit there at the table and learn with us. If you come to the table
thinking you know it all, I don't think it will fly." Marc Smith noted that accommodating
diverse capabilities was a challenge, but felt the group handled it well. "I think that has
definitely been recognized and we handle it well."
Melissa Horton acknowledged that in order to work with people having diverse capabilities
one needs to be able to trust other members. Furthermore, ones ability to work productively
with these individuals also depends upon an individual's personality. Horton stated, "Depends
upon your personality. If you trusted the person you take it for what they say. I don't think it
takes long to build trust." Horton continued, "I think if you work with them you build trust
with them."
Teri Devlin also felt accommodating diverse capabilities is a matter of trusting other
members and what they are telling you. Devlin speaking about the various capabilities stated:
"It was not a problem, but it is trust." Devlin continued with an example, "A regulatory
Darby Partnership
8-18
agency sits there with a hole different personal possibilities then a farmer group does. So,
how do they deal with each other when their normal relationship has always been to
regulate? One regulates and the other tries to get the approval of the other to get their work
done." Devlin then proceeded to state, "I have not seen in the Darby Partnership any power
struggle or any tipping of the scales on one another. The power in the partnership was when
you brought the agencies together and they began to understand what the other could do
instead of dealing in myth."
Dennis Hall felt a challenge diverse capabilities posed was who gets credit for successes.
Hall stated, "One of the areas that threatens the integrity of the partnership are notions of
inequitable recognition of different players. I think a piece of advice is that people getting
started need to think about what their recognition needs are. My notion of what is important
in terms of recognition may not be the same for others." Hall mentioned he has felt from his
director a need for OSU Extension to be more recognized in certain instances. "Those issues
can nip at and threaten the integrity of the partnership," said Hall.
Strategies
The original structure with two meetings; one with the agency heads, the other with the field
staff, may have helped to alleviate early tensions among members. More importantly the
informal information-sharing atmosphere in which each individual retains his/her own
independent decision-making authority allowed the variety of agency personnel to
collaborate with diverse organizations and citizens without significant challenges. Lastly, the
various teams formed in 1995 helped to focus participants into groups where individual's
knowledge and skills could be most useful and they could feel most comfortable with
discussions.
Marc Smith spoke about the effort to make all members feel welcome: "I think there has
been a definite attempt to make everyone feel comfortable in the group and to value their
contribution independent their level of expertise or ability to provide input. Everyone has an
equal opportunity to present their view." Smith also noted the contributions of Teri Devlin:
"Teri has definitely contributed toward that to make everyone feel comfortable and to
minimize any confrontations."
Advice
Darby Partnership members did not have much specific advice to other collaborative groups
regarding the challenge of accommodating diverse capabilities. One insight several members
provided that appears to have helped Darby Partnership members integrate more
successfully, were the canoe trips highlighted above. Most members' felt trusting partners
was key, as well as listening and respecting everyone's opinion no matter their level of
knowledge power and skills.
Specifically, Kathy Smith's advice was, "It comes down to sitting at the table and listening to
other peoples opinions. Being willing to listen no matter what kind of power you have. Listen
and learn where other interests are coming from is an invaluable resource because you may
Darby Partnership
8-19
have the power to change something, but maybe by listening to others you can realize new
issues and problems you had never thought about."
Insights Particular to this Case
Army Corps Ruling
Several members mentioned a recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ruling that may result in
more dredging within the stream that could prove harmful to water quality and has posed a
challenge to the group. "We are not sure if it will result in more dredging in the stream which
could de deviating. It could have as much impact as the Clean Water Act in my mind," said
Marc Smith. Although Teri Devlin mentioned, "As negative for the creek as it may be, it may
have been positive for the partnership in that it has re-energized some of the participation
from some of the partners." Devlin continued, "We had a very good meeting about it and
realized there were some things we could do, some good expertise and some good protective
levels that are still available." This example illustrates how high profile challenges can act to
rejuvenate a partnership as they search for common relief from a perceived threat.
Sources
Edwards, Randall. "Studies Point to Ecological Threats to Darby Creek," The Columbus
Dispatch, November 25, 1996.
United Stated Department of Agriculture. "A Great Place...The Darby Creek, Hydrologic
Unit Area, Ohio."
Darby Partnership
8-20
CHAPTER 9: MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL
McKenzie River Watershed, Oregon
Prepared by Shannon Quesada
This case exemplifies the challenges and opportunities experienced by a group with
substantial government participation. The council has been successful as a coordinating,
information-sharing body that creates macro-policy recommendations for watershed
management.
Interviews:
John Allen, Forest Supervisor, Willamette National Forest, USDA Forest Service
(4/12/99)
Dorothy Anderson, Board member, Eugene Water and Electric Board, (4/1/99)
Barb Blackmore, Planning Forester, Weyerhaeuser Corp. Willamette Region, (3/24/99)
Tony Cheng, Ph.D. student, Oregon State University School of Forestry, (3/30/99)
Tim Fox, Wildlife biologist / volunteer member, Oregon Trout, (3/28/99)
George Grier, former member, original co-chair, represented Rural Resources
Development Commission, landowner, (4/6/99)
Doug Heiken, Western OR Field Representative, OR Natural Resource Council, (4/9/99)
Emily Rice, McKenzie Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, (4/16/99)
John Runyon, McKenzie Watershed Council co-coordinator, (3/16/99)
Louise Solliday, original co-chair, represented Pacific Rivers Council. Currently the
Governor’s Watershed Advisor, (4/1/99)
Pat Thompson, President, Mohawk Community Council, resident, (3/23/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origins and Issues 7
The McKenzie River, a tributary of the Willamette River in west central Oregon, flows out of
three wilderness areas on the western slope of the Cascade Mountains. The 1300 square mile
watershed includes part of the Willamette National Forest, Bureau of Land Management
lands, industrial forestlands, and small private farms and ranches. The confluence of the
McKenzie and the Willamette rivers is near the Eugene-Springfield urban center in Lane
County, which depends on the McKenzie watershed as both an industrial and residential
water source. The McKenzie provides high quality drinking water to over 200,000 people.
Outside the metropolitan area, residents value the “rural character” of the watershed with its
open spaces, recreational opportunities, and high water quality.
Boasting some of the highest water quality in Oregon, as well as the last sustainable
population of native bull trout and the last sustainable run of native Chinook salmon, the
7
Compiled from interviews and the McKenzie Watershed Council web site (www.pondnet.org/~mwc)
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-1
McKenzie River watershed is a pristine resource. It is a “hot spot for biodiversity” with
habitat not only for endangered fish species, but also terrestrial species like the spotted owl
and pond turtles (Runyon). People travel from all over the country to fish and raft the
McKenzie and to enjoy its scenic beauty. However, this same beauty has attracted substantial
development interest. In the words of Council coordinator, John Runyon, “It’s a beautiful
area and people want to live there.”
Pressures on the resource are diverse. In the upper watershed, six dams provide hydroelectric
power and flood control and provoke concern over high water temperatures adversely
affecting the bull trout, a cold water species. Both Weyerhaeuser and Willamette Industries,
along with other small industrial timber companies, own substantial portions of the upper
watershed. Most timber extraction in the McKenzie basin occurs on private lands, with only
minimal extraction from federal lands. Although timber extraction concerns many residents,
the more substantial pressure actually comes from population growth and ensuing
development, especially in the lower river valley along the main stem of the McKenzie. It
was conflict over land use planning issues and the concern about the impact of development
on water quality that spurred the creation of the watershed council.
Runyon describes the concerns of local residents, “Folks were seeing trophy homes being
built right next to the river. They were upset about that, they were upset about trees being cut
next to the river. There was a lot of concern about water quality being degraded over time,
although it wasn’t really based on any data, just anecdotal thinking that forestry for example
was contributing a lot of sediment to the streams.” Throughout Oregon, the population was
beginning to expand and in the McKenzie valley, “we were seeing a slow death by a
thousand cuts … each house that was built, another riparian area ripped out so that people
could have their view and get down to the river” (Solliday).
Early Stages
In 1991, Pacific Rivers Council (PRC), a local environmental organization, headed up a
ballot initiative that would have provided for riparian area protection by adding more
restrictions to the county’s comprehensive land use plan. The initiative was very
controversial, and while it eventually failed, it brought issues of concern into the public eye
and prodded the county to reexamine its resource management strategies. At the same time,
the state legislature was considering a bill that would create watershed councils throughout
the state. According to George Grier, then chair of the water resources committee of the
Rural Resources Development Commission (RRDC), these councils would have been topdown management entities staffed from the state capital. Both PRC and RRDC proposed the
idea of forming a watershed council to the Lane County Commissioners. Charter member,
Dorothy Anderson, member of the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) remembers
that, “everything was coming together at the same time” within the regional context of the
Northwest Forest Plan and endangered species listings. Many people felt “pressure and fear
that we were going to lose this very nice resource” (Solliday). Local resident Pat Thompson
adds, “You had the economic aspect and the physical and biologic aspects of watershed
health at loggerheads, not exactly at loggerheads, but stumped as to where do we go from
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-2
here. And so this gave them both an avenue to sit down together and do what everyone knew
was really right for the resource.”
In 1991, the Lane County and Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) commissioners,
frustrated with the current piecemeal approach to managing the resources of the McKenzie
River watershed, initiated the steps that would lead to a more integrated approach. Joint
funding enabled the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to conduct an initial scoping
study to identify the issues, concerns, resources, and needs of a wide range of interests in the
watershed. The study proposed a tentative organizational structure for a watershed program
and the formation of a policy committee.
Once the initial scoping study was completed the Lane County and EWEB boards proposed
an alternative framework including a watershed council, a project manager from LCOG,
technical advisors and staff from government agencies. With the support of local
governments and the boards, LCOG obtained $600,000 in EPA start-up funds to support the
watershed council. Dorothy Anderson of EWEB remembers that with that initial partnership
and substantial funding, “We had the clout, the interest and enough money to get going.”
Organization and Process
The guiding document of the McKenzie Watershed Council is its charter, approved in
October 1994. The charter outlines goals and objectives, council participation, structure,
process and ground rules. The charter states that the purpose of the McKenzie Watershed
Council is “to help address watershed management issues in the McKenzie River watershed
and provide a framework for coordination and cooperation among key interests in the
development and implementation of a watershed action program.”
The specific mission of the McKenzie Watershed Council is:
“To foster better stewardship of the McKenzie River watershed resources,
deal with issues in advance of resource degradation,
and ensure sustainable watershed health, functions and uses.”
The MWC focuses equally on program (substantive issues) and process (improved
coordination and education) objectives. In the spring of 1994 the council identified and
prioritized a list of issues. The top four issues are incorporated into the overall watershed
program objective “to maintain and enhance the quality of the McKenzie watershed for water
quality, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat and human habitat.” All work program objectives
must address one of the top four issues. In 1996, the council completed Action Plans for
water quality and fish and wildlife habitat and recreation and human habitat outlining
specific objectives for the main issues affecting the watershed.
In its role as an advisory body to “established decision-making bodies and communities of
interest,” the MWC makes recommendations concerning the management of the watershed.
None of the council partners are obligated to abide by the recommendations of the council,
but are expected to consider them. The McKenzie Watershed Council has a fairly formal
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-3
organizational structure with very specific roles for different entities. Those entities include
the Council itself, Coordination Team, Project Team, Subcommittees, and Task Forces.
Participants
The Council is made up of twenty partners, who are formal representatives of an
organization, interest group or other constituency. The council charter specifies the exact
balance of interests to be represented, including a majority of local citizens (15) representing
private and public interests and five federal and state agency representatives. Represented
interests must include local government, water utility, McKenzie Valley residents, resource
users (agriculture / private timber) industrial forestland manager, major water consumers,
environmental, state and federal governments. In a charter amendment approved in 1993,
MWC outlined specific criteria and steps to use when responding to requests for new
partnerships. Since its inception, several new partners have been ratified. Other individuals
and organizations may participate as members of task groups or as technical advisors, or in
other capacities. Partners are expected to keep their constituencies informed of council
activities and decisions, and to represent those constituencies’ viewpoints in council
meetings. Partners may designate alternate representatives in case they cannot attend a
meeting.
Partners currently represent the following organizations and interests:
LOCAL CITIZENS:
Private Interests:
Agripac Cooperative
McKenzie Fisheries Restoration Project
McKenzie Residents Association (2 partners)
Mohawk Community Council
Oregon Trout
Rural Resources Development Committee?
Weyerhaeuser Company
Elected Officials
City of Eugene
City of Springfield
East Lane Soil and Water Conservation District
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Willanalane Park and Recreation District
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Federal (3)
Army Corps of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District
USDA-FS Willamette National Forest
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-4
State (2)
Division of State Lands
Water Resources Department
Organizational Structure
The Lane Council of Governments was the original MWC Project Manager, responsible for
administrative tasks, project coordination, communications, and budget management. The
Coordination Team was an interagency team that acted as staff to the council for the first four
years. Members of the team participated on subcommittees and task forces, and the team as a
whole implemented council projects and recommendations. Since MWC hired John Runyon
as council coordinator in 1997, he and co-coordinator Renee Davis-Born have taken over the
administrative tasks previously carried out by LCOG and the coordination team, which no
longer meets.
Task-based subcommittees made up of council partners form and meet as needed.
Subcommittees have so far focused on process, citizen involvement, program resources, and
other ad hoc tasks. Task groups are ad hoc technical advisory groups that provide data and
expertise for specific projects. The MWC appoints both public and private sector technical
advisors to each task group. For example, the council convened technical task groups to
prepare Action Plans for each of the council’s focus issues.
Process
The MWC meets monthly in the evening, usually at the EWEB offices in Eugene.
Occasionally, the council holds meetings further up river, when an issue directly concerns
rural residents. Meeting agendas are formal. Although every meeting reserves ten minutes
for public comment following provisions of the Open Meetings Law, council agendas are set
by the coordinator beforehand. Anyone can request to add an issue to the agenda, but must
usually do so three weeks before the next meeting. The MWC has drafted specific guidelines
regarding the appropriate “level of involvement” for issues brought to the council, with
consensus decision issues requiring the most time and effort and information issues the least.
An average council meeting lasts two to three hours.
MWC uses a consensus decision-making process. The council recognizes five levels of
consensus from “wholeheartedly agree” to “serious concerns, but can live with the decision.”
Consensus is reached when each member can live with the decision. Before the council
adopts a consensus decision, absent members have the opportunity to discuss the decision at
the following meeting. Since some partners have legal responsibility regarding an issue on
the table, those partners may abstain from formally giving a position. For example, the
USDA Forest Service representative, although present, may choose not to participate in a
consensus decision affecting national forest management. In some cases, the council may
decide to move forward on an issue despite the opposition of a few members. This occurs
only when a strong majority of the council is supportive and opposing members agree not to
block the decision as long as their concerns are recorded.
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-5
Funding
MWC is fairly unusual in that the council was started with substantial funding. The 1992
$600,000 line item in EPA’s budget was earmarked for the Integrated McKenzie Watershed
Program and approved as a grant to LCOG for the purpose of supporting the MWC and
developing a basin-wide Geographic Information System and action plan. In 1994 and 1995,
Congress again supported the watershed program by appropriating $250,000 each year to the
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to support the McKenzie program. With this
money, SWCD funded on the ground projects recommended by MWC.
Currently, the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) is the primary funding source for the
Council, providing $105,000 out of the $160,000 annual budget. EWEB also provides
$25,000 to support administrative and project costs. MWC also receives direct funding for
various aspects of its work from partner organizations and small grants. In-kind contributions
include the provision of staff and technical advisors as well as time volunteered by other
partners.
Outcomes
Most members of the council describe both process and substantive outcomes that have
resulted from the MWC’s formation. One of the MWC’s most significant tangible outcomes
is the development of a coordinated water quality monitoring network. Several members and
outside observers emphasized that the council’s primary achievement is providing a forum
for information exchange and collaborative problem solving. Former member George Grier
states, “What the MWC did that is really important is that it designed a master plan and it
pinpointed critical needs and it got everyone to agree on things that needed to happen.” As
McKenzie District Ranger John Allen points out, "[The watershed council] allows you to talk
a little more holistically about how to manage a watershed instead of managing little
components, everybody’s little pieces. It really changed the nature and context of the
discussion."
Some of the outcomes of the council are:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Creation of a forum for information sharing
Framework for coordination and cooperation among stakeholders
Lane County involving citizens in drafting of new land use regulations
Education and outreach (Speaker’s Network, Open Houses, Newspaper insert,
Information booth at Lane County Fair, Newsletter and mailing list, streamside planting
demonstration projects)
Evaluation of fish and wildlife habitat data
Compilation of a GIS Database
Development of program benchmarks and recommendations
Development of a water quality monitoring network in the valley
Advisory decisions (e.g. urging agency restoration projects, recommending specific
testimony and comments for draft EISs, etc.)
Securing funding to install temperature control towers on dams
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-6
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
When asked to describe why they chose a collaborative approach to address their concerns,
council members emphasized two main themes: a concern that current management
strategies weren’t sufficient to protect the McKenzie River’s pristine conditions, and a
conviction that only by bringing former adversaries together could the issues be addressed.
The 1991 ballot initiative on riparian area protection created factionalization and conflict
between environmentalists, developers and private landowners. People were frustrated with
the county land use planning process, which pitted conservative county commissioners
against Eugene’s liberal residents. According to Louise Solliday, then of Pacific Rivers
Council, there was very little enforcement of the comprehensive plan’s “very mushy
language on riparian areas.” As development pressure increased along the McKenzie’s main
stem, “every weekend the chainsaws would go” (Solliday).
PRC had also been involved in lobbying for the 1988 Wild and Scenic Rivers bill, which
added 40 river segments to the federal program. Despite this protection “We continued to see
resources decline…we got all these miles of river protected and yet we’re still losing
resources left and right.” Throughout Oregon, “There was a growing recognition that the
regulatory framework was not going to bring about recovery…People realized that we could
no longer manage river systems as segments or agency interests but needed to begin to
manage whole systems” (Solliday).
Local resident Pat Thompson echoed this concern for the resource as well as a desire to
resolve the conflicts in the watershed. “I saw a lot of things happening to the environment. I
also come from a strong timber background, so I understand both sides of the situation and I
felt that there was a lot missing in between. I wanted to find the balance and common ground
solutions to problems that will make things work. The best way to do that is to get all sides
sitting down together at the table.”
John Allen, USDA Forest Service district ranger, described a history of developing
collaborative relationships within the watershed that made participation on the council a
natural extension of those relationships. As founding member Dorothy Anderson of EWEB
relates, “Eugene is different. There’s a long history of citizen participation. The community
has recognized that working together is the way things are done in Eugene.” As the agency
responsible for providing drinking water to Eugene and surrounding areas, EWEB was
concerned with protecting water quality and wanted to take a proactive stance8.
8
The board is also anticipating meeting the re-licensing standards of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for several hydroelectric dams on the McKenzie. Some observers believe that part of EWEB’s
support for a watershed council stemmed from a desire to diffuse opposition and avoid becoming a target for
future conflict.
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-7
Weyerhaeuser’s Barb Blackmore’s observation reflects this incentive to collaborative. “I
think for a long time we've felt as a company that we need the public's support as our license
to operate …if you don't have the public supporting you as a company, it's just a matter of
time before you're legislating. Even though sometimes it would be nice to just go about your
business and leave the political side alone, I don't think as a big company you can do it.”
George Grier, then serving as president of the water resources committee on the Rural
Resources Development Commission, was involved in assessing water resource management
in the Basin. Grier felt that the top-down watershed council approach proposed by the 1991
legislation would only add to the problem of complex water regulations. “We suggested the
creation of watershed councils that were a bottom up approach, where you had people
involved on the ground…benefiting by the shared knowledge of everyone’s experience”
(Grier). Pat Thompson adds that, “Watershed councils, at least in the state of Oregon are the
best way to get a very large diverse group of people to sit down together and talk turkey”
(Thompson).
Alternatives
Interviewees imagined a variety of scenarios could have happened if the MWC had not
formed. Besides a status quo of lawsuits and finger pointing, participants cited detrimental
effects of development, lack of coordination among the responsible agencies, and a lost
opportunity to involve interested stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Commenting on Weyerhaeuser Corporation’s alternatives to collaboration, representative
Barb Blackmore states, “You can always opt to not join the process, and do the law and keep
your head down and follow the forest practices act and hope people leave you alone.”
In contrast, some stakeholders have not chosen to participate, in part because they prefer
alternative paths to reach their objectives. The Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC)
and other environmental organizations prefer advocacy strategies like litigation to
collaboration. ONRC’s Western Oregon field representative Doug Heiken explains that,
among other reasons, “We're going to stay out of it so we can have our full arsenal of tools
available.”
Almost all members agreed that if it were not for the formation of the watershed council,
development would have continued in a way that was harmful to the watershed. “Without a
doubt, encroachment of development on the watershed would have had a detrimental effect. I
don’t think that water quality would have been maintained” (Thompson). Several participants
recounted a specific issue that occurred in 1997 when Lane County, along with other
counties in Oregon, had the chance to develop new criteria for use of forestlands. All other
counties in the state, under pressure from timber companies, developed criteria that would
loosen the restrictions on forestlands, allowing for development. MWC provided a forum for
discussion of the issue, and former member George Grier states, “I am pretty certain that
without the thoughtfulness that was injected in the process by the watershed council, that this
thing would have gone through quickly enough that the dialogue would not have been there
to actually examine the impact, and we would have done what all the other counties did.”
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-8
When asked why the agencies and organizations responsible for the resource weren’t
effective, George Grier responded, “They weren’t talking to each other!” Several council
members mentioned the incoherent water quality monitoring that existed before the
formation of the watershed council. Grier expands, “The State of Oregon had been
maintaining water quality data for almost 100 years, but it was in 16 different formats, no one
could access it and no one knew what was going on. (Data) was all scattered around, there
was absolutely zero communication and it was ludicrous. There was data that someone was
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect and it was just sitting gathering dust
someplace. We had all the stuff we needed to be making more informed decisions about the
health of the river, but no one was talking about it or could even view it.”
Above all, members felt that the watershed council offered a unique forum that would not
have existed otherwise. "The context of agreed upon interests," says Allen, "creates working
relationships that cross agency and private boundaries, where you really focus on the
important issues; you don’t get lost in the tangential issues.” New environmental
representative Tim Fox believes that without the watershed council “An avenue of getting
information out to people with an interest would be lost and also having a voice of influence
on those involved more directly in the issue…you get a lot of different perspectives on things
that I don’t think you’d get without it.” Founding member Thompson also reflects that
without the council to bring them together, “There would have been a lot of people like
myself thinking about [these issues] individually or in small groups without being able to
actually have a large impact on how things are done.”
Advice
Members of the MWC were adamant about the council's role as an advisory body only. The
recommendations, action plans and agreements that result from a council consensus decision
have no authority over participating agencies or organizations. For the most part the MWC
functions as a coordinating framework and forum for discussion. Since agencies and other
decision-makers do have seats on the council, unlike many other watershed councils in
Oregon, interesting questions can be raised about the appropriate role for collaborative
groups in the resource management process. Participants offered the following reflections
and advice about the role of the council and its relationship to the actual decision-making
bodies.
!
“Natural resource management is a very complicated issue and there’s lots of components
to it and those components are going to continue to stay there. and unless they all get
together and integrate their approach or at least stop tripping over each other things are
going to be much more complicated than they need to be...that's a really important
function to serve” (Grier).
!
“The discussions and the decisions that the council makes have a lot of influence on the
agencies. They’re not there just to listen and then go away and do something different. I
think they’re there to bring ideas, to get feedback and to try and implement things in a
way that are going to work within the larger context of the watershed plan” (Solliday).
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-9
!
“If you don’t want to have agencies at the table then you damn well ought to include
them somehow in the whole process because they have a stake in what’s going on…If
you exclude them then you set up a boundary between your organization and theirs that’s
going to be really hard to pierce, and its going to set up an adversarial relationship”
(Grier).
!
“Agencies have figured out that the work that councils are doing can actually reduce
workloads for agency folks. They’re able to leverage dollars to stretch dollars further to
get things done” (Solliday).
!
“Councils look to agencies for technical objective experts. You don’t have to get too
deeply involved in the political aspects of it” (Allen).
Ensuring Sufficient Representation
When Lane County and EWEB began the dialogue that led to the creation of the MWC, they
agreed that all stakeholders must be represented on the council for it to work. First key
stakeholders were identified, then “we did a careful review of who could participate in the
collaborative process” (Grier). “There was a real effort to find individuals who were
respected in their broader stakeholder arena who could carry and represent a broader
community than just their own individual organization” (Solliday). The MWC chose a formal
representation strategy, with each member representing a larger constituency, because, “there
was a recognition that the table can’t be so big that you can’t get anything done” (Solliday).
Several participants commented that the process of identifying stakeholders and ensuring
representation must evolve with the process and maturation of the group. In the words of
John Allen, "Over time there’s been continual concern over [having] the right people at the
table. I think it’s an evolutionary thing…over time as issues mature and issues change you
realize that somebody should be there that’s not. Some partners have dropped out completely
because they realized their stakes weren’t that large. It’s an expected and dynamic process
that representation will change over time." Barb Blackmore agrees, "We've evolved who's
there consciously. When first setting up…they put more of the focus on high level people
who could direct resources ... Once the work plan's in place, the shift has been more to the
partners being technically knowledgeable."
Challenges
MWC's representational strategy is reminiscent of that of a formal advisory council. Each
member represents a larger interest group and is responsible for communicating the concerns
of that group to the council and keeping constituents informed of council business.
Coordinator John Runyon remarks, "While it sounds good in theory it doesn’t always work in
practice. We’re walking a fine edge between having a sort of representation stakeholder
involvement process and try to open it up to a broader range of folks and bring them in." This
strategy, while it has kept the process manageable, has been a challenge for the council.
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-10
Tony Cheng, a doctoral student studying the McKenzie, notes the challenges involved in
defining categories of stakeholders or interests. “Having a group that represents interests of
that watershed as if it were divisible maintains a status quo that they wanted to get away
from...It eats up so much of people’s energy to discuss who you represent, what hat you
wear, what you are and are not allowed to say and do, as if your interests are divisible”
(Cheng). In fact, several participants mentioned “wearing more than one hat,” with both
organizational and personal interests that are fundamentally intertwined.
Lack of representation
Two main stakeholder groups, environmentalists and residents, feel their interests are not
being represented, despite the presence of one "environmental" and two "resident" council
members. Commenting on the diverse interests within each of those "stakeholder categories,"
Grier says, “It’s hard to find someone who has enough support from all the local
organizations who have different missions." With over 100 residents associations and many
“factional interests,” it has been impossible for the council to provide council seats for all of
them.
Environmentalist Doug Heiken, ONRC field representative, who has attended council
meetings as a visitor says, “I pooh pooh the idea that I'm being represented by somebody
else. Nobody's representing ONRC on that council.” Heiken criticizes the council as being
“very self-selecting,” excluding stronger environmental advocates for meeker, less informed
representatives. George Grier mentioned the difficulty the council has had in finding
"someone who’s militant enough to not take any guff but still centered enough to keep their
cool and establish a trusting relationship with the farmers and the people who see your
organization as trying to undermine six generations of work.”
Although the Pacific Rivers Council, represented by Louise Solliday, was one of the
principle founders and supporters of the MWC, internal changes in the organization’s
leadership and strategies caused it to sever its ties with the council. Since Solliday left both
PRC and the MWC to serve as the governor’s watershed advisor, the council has had trouble
maintaining consistent representation of the environmental community. Both ONRC and
PRC declined participation as environmental representatives. ONRC has a policy of not
participating in collaborative processes. “There is this perception, right or wrong, that if
you’re an environmental organization, collaboration is a dirty word and you need to be out
there being more of an activist and taking no prisoners” (Grier).
Pat Thompson counters those concerns with the observation, “A lot of people wear more than
one hat. There’s a very good balance of environmental interests but from a practical sense,”
Of the council’s 20 members, he perceives 2-4 to represent strong environmental interests.
Involving citizens
Another challenge the MWC has encountered is in balancing government officials with
private citizens. Grier states, “If the mix is deficient in any way, it's deficient by not having
enough private landowners or folks who aren't agency rep or elected officials.” Dorothy
Anderson of EWEB adds, “We have been criticized because we don't involve more of the
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-11
grassroots people. We're a Eugene group (EWEB) coming up there (up river) to dominate
their lives.”
Strategies
Participants reflected on some of the strategies that the MWC has used to ensure diverse
representation within a manageable process:
!
“One technique we've used is a round robin. When an issue gets too difficult we'll go
right around the table to make sure everybody had a chance to say what they wanted to
say” (Anderson).
!
“You have to get a number of people involved in the chair position (by rotating chairs). It
got everybody really involved in the process, in the inner workings of the council.
Everybody gained a better knowledge of what it took to make this work; what the
mechanics were behind the machine itself” (Thompson).
!
“We wanted as many people as possible at the council level. The way we deal with the
specifics or logistics of getting work done is to break up in working groups. To some
degree the watershed council becomes a policy setting or a policy direction kind of entity
that approves working groups to go on to logistical things” (Allen).
Advice
Council participants advocated the importance of diverse representation. Those interviewed
also had the following advice to offer:
!
“It's tough to have faith that by opening the doors up everyone is going to benefit but I
think you need to concentrate on making sure folks are at the table that deserve to be
there…otherwise there's the risk someone's going to file a lawsuit against you or
denigrate what you've done and spent 3 years on” (Grier).
!
“Do your homework up front, identify key players and bring them in early on so they
have a chance to help frame the process and the issues” (Runyon).
!
“Figure out who the key stakeholders are instead of focusing on individual organizations”
(Solliday).
!
“You’re forming a new social contract of how people relate to each other with respect to
the watershed and if you treat it as something that is separable and has discrete attributes,
then your social organism will reflect that” (Cheng).
!
“Players are important, not only who they represent but their personalities. When you're
putting together a group you should stress that you want people who are willing to work
towards solutions. Obviously you want people with opinions, strong opinions, but you
want people who are willing to listen and be flexible” (Blackmore).
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-12
!
“There needs to be a workshop training process that forces people to step back and take
off all of their hats and speak forthrightly about why they are there and what they expect
to achieve” (Cheng).
!
Speaking on the role of environmental advocacy groups, Dorothy Anderson suggests,
“They're going to be pushing the box outside what the watershed council does and I hope
they do …You have to have that environmental interest pushing outside, but you also
want to hear their voice inside the council so that they can help maintain some balance.”
Accommodating Diverse Interests
Coordinator Runyon summed up the challenges and opportunities faced by the MWC’s
attempt to accommodate diverse interests through a consensus process, stating, “There is
usually some level of compromise in all of our decisions. Because though we do arrive at our
decisions based on consensus, when we do come to a decision it’s much more powerful. In
some cases you can’t always tell when you start the process what the end result will be,
there’s often sort of a synergy that develops out of this consensus process. So it’s not always
strictly compromise middleground. Sometimes you do come out of it with some surprising
results. But there are other times when it does come down to the lowest common
denominator.”
Challenges
A main challenge the council faces with regards to diverse representation is difficulty in
dealing with controversial issues. Several interviewees remarked that the McKenzie does not
usually take on issues on which they feel it would be impossible to reach consensus. This has
limited the activities of the council to macro policy recommendations rather than addressing
micro land use issues. Researcher Tony Cheng notes, “Time and again with controversial
issues, they failed to get to a point where they took any action.” In the words of Dorothy
Anderson, “Consensus does constrain how far you can go and how proactive you can be
when you have such a wide variety of interests.” Not only do diverse interests constrain the
types of issues addressed or the potency of the outcomes, but also social relationships
sometimes take precedence over voicing a concern. Cheng describes that dynamic, “There’s
seems to be desire not to hurt peoples’ feeling, too much emphasis on relationships. Someone
(like xx) might not step up to the plate if she’s going to piss off some of the people she really
gets along with.”
Commenting on the human relationship challenges, John Allen says, “Sometimes you just
don’t understand each other. We all speak English…but we’re all so different, certain words
or phrases mean different things to us and the context of how we’ve been involved in
resource issues over the last 2-3 decades means different things to us.”
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-13
Opportunities
Despite the limitations of trying to meet the needs of diverse interests, the process has also
provided unprecedented opportunities, including increased coordination, pooled resources,
improved understanding of the issues, and more creative solutions.
Comparing the watershed council’s decision-making process to traditional top-down resource
management, Barb Blackmore reflects, “I've seen so many agencies reach decisions that are
either politically motivated or they only address one issue while making others worse.” In
contrast the watershed council offers the opportunity to take advantage of “a real breadth of
resource” (Blackmore) that provide “huge efficiencies …as you begin to coordinate the
activities at the watershed scale” (Solliday). Solliday expands, “All of a sudden we have a
huge area of commonality that we can spend years doing project work in any watershed and
still not have done enough.”
District Ranger John Allen remarks, “When you have a good relationship with people of
diverse interests, they’ll pose ideas to you that will put you outside of your own box and get
you thinking about ideas that you hadn’t thought of or hadn’t been exposed to before. When
you have a good relationship with that person you’re more willing to accept ideas outside of
box. I think we’ve come up with ideas and solutions and strategies that are much better
because we have a diverse group of people represented.”
Strategies
The main strategy the council has used to avoid watered down agreements, and to maintain
group integrity is the avoidance of really controversial issues like specific national forest
harvest plans, or individual land use decisions. As John Runyon explains,
“There are times when we can’t tackle a really controversial issue and in fact we table them,
because we know we can’t deal with it in a consensus format, and we say, well, we’re gonna
wait until the time is ripe or the organization is ready to deal with that issue.”
Advice
Louise Solliday felt it was important when thinking about the effects a process involving
diverse stakeholders might have on resource management to “keep in mind that watershed
councils don't have any authority, so they're not making any decisions, they're making
recommendations that may or may not be followed.” She also emphasized the existence of
other options to ensure any stronger voices are heard. Solliday noted that the watershed
council has an advisory role, one that feeds in to other federal decision processes that provide
for further review and comment by any interested individual. “Where there are federal lands
there are always processes that are open to all comers. Those processes don’t go away when
there’s a watershed council created”(Solliday).
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-14
Advice
With regards to accommodating diverse interests, those interviewed had the following advice
to offer.
!
“You really need to go slow in the beginning…take time to develop relationships,
develop an understanding of shared interests and shared expectations. If you’re not able
to do that, you’re not going to be able to productively take on the issues you might have
conflict on” (Allen).
!
“If you don't have trust and understanding and communication then the more diversity
you have the quicker things are going to fall apart”(Grier).
!
If you start off a watershed council in the context of learning, we’re really all here to help
each learn…start off with those kinds of discussions when you start a watershed council
(Allen).
!
“Not taking up the most controversial issue at the first meeting, they need time to go
through the forming, storming, norming stages and until you get to the norming stage,
taking up the first crisis is not going to work. You need time to mature the group,
understand and respect each other’s perspective” (Solliday).
!
“Consensus training is imperative. Base the whole collaborative process on the premise
that everyone who's there is entitled to be there and they have a part of the answer and if
you all just listen carefully enough, you come up with a solution you never would have
before” (Grier).
!
“New folks need to understand norms are always evolving. They’re not stepping into
something set in stone. New people are afraid to change those norms. It’s like marrying
into new family or moving into a new town; you don’t want to be the one that disrupts
norms that could be really deep seated” (Cheng).
!
ONRC’s Doug Heiken believes, “You need somebody to ask the hard questions”
(Heiken).
!
Solliday counters, “Having extremists at the table will cause the process to not move at
all, that's not in anybody's interest and it’s certainly not in the interest of the resource.”
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Challenges
The presence of many technically knowledgeable members, and upper level managers creates
opportunities as well as challenges for the McKenzie Watershed Council. On the one hand an
“elitist” (Anderson, Rice, Heiken) group can leverage resources and influence, but on the
other it can create “an intimidating forum for residents to come into” (Runyon). The
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-15
imbalance of knowledge, resources, power or skills sometimes suppresses dialogue and
incurs strong peer pressure.
Outside observers Cheng and Heiken both noted a tendency in council meetings towards
“Dialogue where some people have more knowledge than others make categorical comments
and everybody takes them as truth” (Cheng). Heiken, who has attended five or six meetings,
explains that “It’s hard to stand up and disagree with your peers when you don’t have totally
solid information. Representatives of city council know more about budgets and police than
natural resources. They get buffaloed into going along. The environmental representatives
they choose are usually the meeker type who aren't going to raise a stink.” Discussing a
Forest Service’s timber harvest plan presentation to the watershed council, Heiken says,
“they [the Forest Service] give a 5-minute presentation and nobody asks any questions and
they put the absolute smiliest spin on it and then it’s over.”
However, resident Pat Thompson disagrees with that perspective. In his opinion, “We’re
fortunate to have a group of people who know when to call bologna. There’s not a single
person in this group who’s going to be bullied…we’ve had some very very strong
personalities who try to guide the process. (After) two or three meetings, they realize if
there’s ever going be a decision made I’m going to have to give as well. And there’s not a
person on this group who isn’t willing to pull that individual aside and talk turkey with them
and say look, you’re not getting anywhere with this.”
Anderson recognizes that the social relationships built on the council do influence members’
decisions: “There's peer pressure. You don’t want to be the one who always blocks things.”
Strategies
One strategy the council used during its formative years was the use of “primers” on
watershed management issues. At every meeting, either an internal or external expert would
offer a session explaining an issue pertinent to the McKenzie River Basin. Other strategies
include the following:
!
“We try to be very very careful to listen to all interests equally. We’re very careful up
front in providing very thorough orientation to everybody who comes in on how the
council works and let them know that there are resources available if they don’t have
them personally” (Runyon).
!
“The final sort of equalizer is our consensus process. One individual has the power to
block anything moving forward even if that individual doesn’t have big institutions
behind him. Everyone around the table is aware of that and that’s a big
equalizer”(Runyon).
!
“We’re death on using acronyms. We have an acronym police force” (Thompson).
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-16
Advice
Those interviewed provided the following advice:
!
“Before you even form, before you have the board sitting down together, you need to
have a process where you listen to all of the stakeholders in the watershed and actively
listen to residents and actively try to pull them into the process. I’ve seen this work on
other watershed councils – put on a series of community picnics and barbecues and have
an open forum for listening. If people feel they are being listened to they are more likely
to want to be involved in the process” (Runyon).
!
“You have to get people who are more knowledgeable about certain things to share that
knowledge and not browbeat people with it” (Thompson)
!
“We all have alternates. You have to be attuned to burn out. Volunteer burnout is a very
real thing” (Thompson).
Scientific Soundness and Credibility
The McKenzie Watershed Council deals with several primary scientific issues: water quality
monitoring, endangered fish habitat protection, and riparian area restoration. Most of their
work is focused on the lower basin, the agricultural, residential and urban sector of the
watershed. Rarely does the council deal with terrestrial issues, except those that directly
affect water quality or fish habitat.
Challenges
Some of the challenges the MWC has encountered revolve around the uncertainty of both
“cutting edge” management methods and of the exact causal relationships between human
actions and impact on the resource. With a mix of approximately twelve out of twenty
members lacking scientific expertise (Rice), the council has to struggle with keeping
everybody up to speed and comfortable with the level of discussion around technical issues.
Both the watershed council and its member organizations have had to deal with a conflict
between public perception and scientific data. John Runyon provides an example, “There’s a
public perception that most of sedimentation and turbidity in the water comes from forestry
operations. We have scientific evidence that shows that it does not, it actually comes from
agriculture and growing urban areas.”
When dealing with research or monitoring, large landowners like Weyerhaeuser want to
make sure the science is “good science,” stating a fear of “poorly designed, poorly
implemented scientific projects”(Blackmore). Several interviewees observed that defining
“good science” is also a challenge. Not only can scientists also hold biases, but much of the
science of watershed management and habitat restoration is so “new that it’s going to take
many many years for us to actually figure out if that approach was the right one or not”
(Grier). John Allen adds, “We’re tousling with a barrage of new scientific information and
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-17
how we deal with it in a social context. I don’t think we understand well some of the social
implications of our resource decisions.”
Although the MWC is “almost too top heavy with scientific technical folks” (Cheng), the
population of technically literate representatives can cause further challenges. Both
Blackmore and Cheng mentioned a paucity of dialogue about the scientific process and the
need to deliberately ask, “Why did you measure this in the first place? What was the question
you wanted to answer? … When it comes to the processing of scientific info it revolves
around a small group of folks that know what’s going on” (Cheng). Barb Blackmore
explains, “On occasion you get caught up in a question and you grab people and you start
down a path without doing as good a plan or asking as good of questions. We've all learned
from doing. We gather all this stuff up and get people involved and you're half way through
and you say ‘what question were we trying to answer?’”
Strategies
The primary strategy of the council when dealing with scientific issues is to convene
technical task forces made up of experts on the issue at hand. Council members brainstorm
possible candidates, including agency or industry staff, university faculty or private
consultants. Recognizing that even scientists will have different perspectives on the issue, the
council tries to balance the task force with a diverse representation of experts. Blackmore
says, “[Task force members are] truly scientists, we're not trying to make sure we got one of
every flavor, but we do try to get them into the group, especially if they have land that will be
impacted or are decision-makers.” Rice adds that the council never asks only one expert’s
opinion. In the early years, most of the council’s meetings revolved around educating its
members. Thompson recalls, “We held primers and invited some of the best known
professors from Oregon State in fish biology and water quality and wetlands issues.” Even
six years later, Emily Rice estimates that half of each council meeting is spent on educational
presentations.
To address the problems of public misperceptions, the MWC recently hired an education
director who is working with schools and residents. Another strategy that was highly
successful was the organization of a water quality forum after severe flooding in 1996
provoked conflict within the community over the impacts of land management practices on
water quality. Many outside experts were brought in and over 200 community members
attended. The forum offered the opportunity to present scientific data and information in an
accessible format to the public.
In an effort to provide credible information, the council has been cautious about drawing
conclusions from preliminary water quality monitoring studies. John Allen says, “We made
that very clear to the public. Five or six years into data, from a scientific standpoint we have
much more confidence in our data and we can speak more clearly about what this data means
and about what kinds of questions it raises.”
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-18
from doing. We gather all this stuff up and get people involved and you're half way through
and you say ‘what question were we trying to answer?’”
Strategies
The primary strategy of the council when dealing with scientific issues is to convene
technical task forces made up of experts on the issue at hand. Council members brainstorm
possible candidates, including agency or industry staff, university faculty or private
consultants. Recognizing that even scientists will have different perspectives on the issue, the
council tries to balance the task force with a diverse representation of experts. Blackmore
says, “[Task force members are] truly scientists, we're not trying to make sure we got one of
every flavor, but we do try to get them into the group, especially if they have land that will be
impacted or are decision-makers.” Rice adds that the council never asks only one expert’s
opinion. In the early years, most of the council’s meetings revolved around educating its
members. Thompson recalls, “We held primers and invited some of the best known
professors from Oregon State in fish biology and water quality and wetlands issues.” Even
six years later, Emily Rice estimates that half of each council meeting is spent on educational
presentations.
To address the problems of public misperceptions, the MWC recently hired an education
director who is working with schools and residents. Another strategy that was highly
successful was the organization of a water quality forum after severe flooding in 1996
provoked conflict within the community over the impacts of land management practices on
water quality. Many outside experts were brought in and over 200 community members
attended. The forum offered the opportunity to present scientific data and information in an
accessible format to the public.
In an effort to provide credible information, the council has been cautious about drawing
conclusions from preliminary water quality monitoring studies. John Allen says, “We made
that very clear to the public. Five or six years into data, from a scientific standpoint we have
much more confidence in our data and we can speak more clearly about what this data means
and about what kinds of questions it raises.”
In order to ensure compliance with federal and state environmental regulations, the council
relies on the expertise of agency participants who understand the laws. In the words of
Blackmore, “The expertise is there if somebody starts treading on thin ground.”
Advice
Participants had many words of advice for other collaborative resource management
initiatives and watershed councils.
“Identify expertise in your watershed. Foster relationships with those experts. Create a list of
folks that you can call upon when issues come up” (Runyon).
9-19
based group, but rather a handpicked group of individuals formally representing specific
interest groups. Involving citizens and residents has been an additional challenge.
The nature of the group is also different in that the McKenzie formed proactively, instead of
reacting to the possibility of salmon listings. Perhaps because of this orientation, the MWC
has focused on changing policies rather than individual land-use decisions, a trend that has
kept the group intact with a broad base of support, but has limited the council’s impacts on
the ground.
Citizen involvement
Several council members mentioned a community perception that the watershed council is
“just another layer of bureaucracy, because it is dominated by agency heavyweights”
(Cheng). Thompson explains, “Even though you don’t have any authority, you eventually get
to a point where your advisory capacity is very strong and very well thought of, you carry
some weight even though you don’t have any regulatory authority. You’ve got to be careful
not to throw that weight around or you alienate people (Thompson). Cheng adds, “Because
they have that perception of not really being community based and citizen oriented they’re
going to face some of the same challenges that any government agency in the post Reagan
era is going to face: a lot of distrust, a lot of perception that they’re just throwing money
down the drain” (Cheng).
Although all council meetings are open to the public, and anyone can request an issue be
brought before the council, the process’ formality can restrain those opportunities for citizen
participation. Agenda items must be submitted several weeks before the next council
meeting, and opportunity for public comment is formally restricted to the first ten minutes of
each meeting, before agenda items have been addressed. Doug Heiken of the ONRC said,
while he felt he could have raised questions or commented on issues during the meeting as
well, “it's unfortunate that I have to feel like I'm bending the rules to make my point. They
should allow public participants who don't interfere with the process to be engaged”
(Heiken).
Transition of new members
Although five of the current members have been on the council since its inception, there has
been continual turnover. Both Cheng and Thompson point out the problem of volunteer
burnout. New people who come in may share the same interests as the parting member, but
don’t share the history of the group. The transition of new members was described by Cheng
as a big “mumble jumble.” Since the group is now in its “implementation phase,” the
emphasis is more on completing work plans than consensus training or continued team
building. Although provided with some kind of orientation process, new members often
struggle to integrate with the council.
Concrete Outcomes
Other than the water quality monitoring project, the only on the ground projects have been
implemented by the Mohawk Sub-basin Group, which has done riparian area re-vegetation.
While most members feel that the council fills other essential roles in the community, and
may be moving into an implementation phase now, some are frustrated with the lack of on
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-20
the ground action. George Grier, who left the council to volunteer with a local land trust (the
McKenzie River Trust) says, “I felt that they [MWC] were not going to function as an
implementing organization, they were going to function as an organization that created
meaningful dialogue and unearthed good long term decisions about what type of actions
needed to take place.” Critic Heiken comments, “They've identified these things that need to
be done but they're not necessarily doing them, they're not following through on the
promise.”
Researcher Cheng links both the potential for and lack of action back to the council’s
composition. “The richness of dialogue is what really transforms the watershed council into
something that I think has greater potential for action. The potential for action is there
because you have all these federal agencies and they can leverage resources and support, but
they’re kind of like a gentle giant, this imposing body that really can’t do anything because
they’re afraid to hurt anyone.”
Advice
!
“I think the council needs to restructure itself to be more citizen and resident oriented in
order to gain some more legitimacy” (Cheng)
!
Cheng suggests promoting sub-basin initiatives like the Mohawk Group: “A lot of what
will drive these community-based efforts is the perceived threat to their back yard. If you
[focus on small-scale community-based projects] on a whole watershed scale you’re
actually doing something for the resource. If that occurs up and down the watershed then
the watershed council can say these are accomplishments that are directly tied to our
process” (Cheng).
!
“When you get those landowners [involved], you get a good education going, you get
people who have a vested interest in the watershed, it’s easier to do on the ground
projects because they know what’s going on on their own land” (Thompson)
Charter member George Grier sums up the ultimate difficulty in assessing the progress of a
collaborative process: “You need to have an incredibly long-term view of things if you’re
going to gauge success by collaborative processes. This is kind of like the analogy of filling
the pipe line: You know you don’t get anything out the other end until the pipeline’s
completely full, and in this case filling the pipeline takes a really long time because it’s
relationship building, and it’s building a knowledge base, and it’s networking, and there’s a
lot of complicated stuff that goes on that has to do with human dynamics and has absolutely
nothing to do with natural resources. So if you judge how well you’re doing by looking at
projects completed it’s going to be tough to evaluate a collaborative process as being a
functional one in a short period of time. The test really will be to see what it looks like in 10
years after the relationships have been maintained. There’s a lot of symbiosis that goes on
and you got to give that time to get itself established” (Grier)
McKenzie River Watershed Council
9-21
CHAPTER 10: NANTICOKE WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Nanticoke River watershed, Delaware and Maryland
Prepared by Chrissy Coughlin
The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance provides an example of a rapidly growing collaborative
partnership that crosses the state boundaries of Delaware and Maryland in the eastern
region of the United States. Referring to itself as a consortium or organization of
organizations, the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance convenes diverse stakeholders with
different agendas to make decisions on the future of the rapidly growing Nanticoke River
watershed.
Interviews:
Charlie Cipolla, former NWA Board of Directors, Professor of Sociology, (3/22/99)
Judith Stribling, Assistant Professor of Biology at Salisbury State, (3/10/99)
Larry Walton, President-Chesapeake Forest Products, (3/9/99)
Lisa Jo Frech, Executive Director-Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, (2/24/99)
Mark Zankel, The Nature Conservancy, Director-Science and Stewardship, (3/25/99)
Mike Terry, Environmental Engineer-DuPont, (3/5/99)
Nancy Stewart, Maryland DNR-Watershed Restoration Division, (3/4/99)
Ralph Harcum, Farmer and Wicomico County Farm Bureau Representative, (3/15/99)
Steve Corbitt, Sales Manager of Survival Products, (03/09/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origin and Issues
The Nanticoke River watershed, located in both Maryland and Delaware on the Eastern
seaboard, covers 64,000-square miles and is home of the Nanticoke River--the most pristine
of several tributaries feeding into the Chesapeake Bay (EPA, 1999). The Nanticoke River
itself flows southwest from central Delaware through Maryland's Eastern Shore, where it
divides Wicomico and Dorchester Counties to the Tangier Sound and eventually to the
Chesapeake Bay (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 1995). It drains one-third of Delaware,
approximately 250,000 acres, and more than 125,000 acres in the Maryland counties
(Naughten, 1996). Roughly 43% of the watershed is agricultural and 56% or 300,000 acres
are managed for forest products (Naughten, 1996). 38% of the watershed is forested
including the largest contiguous pine forest on the Delmarva Peninsula. Freshwater wetlands
border nearly all streams and wetlands account for 22% percent of the land surface (Alliance
for the Chesapeake Bay, 1995). The watershed is primarily rural with most growth and
development occurring around existing towns.
The Nanticoke River watershed is also host to a diversity of plant and animal life with habitat
ranging from estuarine marshes to upland forest. In addition to a wide variety of tree species
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-1
The Nanticoke River watershed is also host to a diversity of plant and animal life with habitat
ranging from estuarine marshes to upland forest. In addition to a wide variety of tree species
such as loblolly pine, sweetgum, red maple, and seaside alder, it is not uncommon to observe
endangered and threatened species such as bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and the Delmarva
fox squirrel (Nanticoke Watershed Alliance webpage, 1999). Other watershed species
include fox, deer, turtles, snakes, and beaver. The Nanticoke River watershed, together with
the neighboring Blackwater River, also supports 35% of all wintering waterfowl and
provides valuable and commercial recreational fisheries.
Although the level of biodiversity in the watershed is unparalleled in the region, the
Nanticoke River watershed has not entirely escaped the pressures of people. Steady
development, increasing levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as boat
traffic all affect its ecological richness. The water quality of the Nanticoke River reveals the
most obvious signs of degradation where algae blooms block out light to the river and
nutrients, many found in leaking septic systems as well as in the soil, mimic fertilizers.
When these blooms die, they settle at the bottom of the river, and decompose taking with
them much of the oxygen that aquatic species need to survive.
In response, local residents have directed their efforts towards the protection of the river.
Several citizen groups have organized themselves as stewards of the river in an effort to
maintain the ecological integrity of the watershed. The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance is one
of these groups that decided to cross-state boundaries and to convene diverse interests in the
watershed. They pledged to work together, to share information, and to find ways to protect
the watershed in a manner that is acceptable to all residents. This is a far cry from just a few
years ago, when distrust, hidden agendas, and opposition prevailed.
Early Stages
NWA began by developing a vision of protection of the river and watershed. These tasks
lead them to eventually seek input from farmers, foresters, watermen, industry, academia,
private businesses, and other non-profits. Initially, the NWA was solely an attempt to bring
together diverse stakeholders to see if they could reach some common ground. As former
NWA member, Charlie Cipolla illustrates: “It was sort of to check your guns at the door, to
cease hostility and to sit down with timber people and developers to see if there was anything
to discuss.” This initial group evolved to its present day state of twenty member
organizations attempting to expand on their knowledge base and projects.
Lisa Jo Frech, the Executive Director of the NWA summarizes the overall sentiment shared
by those involved with the group in its initial stages: “We knew that to protect the river, it
was going to take different parties coming together. We would have enjoyed or autonomy,
have made decisions really quickly and have been radical but there would be real limits to
what we could do without the technical and financial support of other organizations and
without the recognition of a broad based consortium.”
10-2
Organization and Process
In 1992, conservation organizations from Maryland and Delaware, Friends of the Nanticoke
and the Nanticoke Watershed Preservation Committee, reached across state lines to form the
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance. This agreement was also signed by the Maryland DNR and
the National Park Service (NWA Fact Sheet, 1998). By 1995, the NWA established
themselves as a nonprofit 501(c3) and became a consortium. This move ensured financial
stability as well as an open door policy (Frech, 1999).
The group reached consensus on the following mission statement, goals and objectives: 9
Mission statement
“To conserve the natural culture and recreational resources of the Nanticoke River watershed
for the benefit of present and future generations.”
Goals
!
!
!
Promote and support protection, conservation, and management of important watershed
related natural resources;
Recognize sites, structures, and activities that are important parts of the Eastern Shore
heritage, history, and livelihood and work to achieve their preservation;
Encourage educational and low impact recreation uses of the river.
Objectives
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
9
Foster public support through education, outreach, and advocacy;
Conduct forums and workshops to provide avenues for private, public, and
government involvement in the process of preserving the watershed;
Develop partnerships between landowners, private organizations, businesses, and
all levels of government in Maryland and Delaware;
Promote the protection of wildlife resources and their habitat;
Promote the establishment of wildlife and recreational greenways on both sides of
the river;
Protect the river as an ecosystem to include rare, threatened and important plant
and animal communities;
Improve river water quality;
Encourage appropriate development and land use patterns throughout the
watershed;
Develop activities that emphasize the river's cultural history;
Develop opportunities for low impact recreational uses of the river.
NWA's mission, goals, and objectives were taken from the NWA webpage.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-3
Participants
Twenty-nine organizations are now members of the NWA. The following members
represent the overall membership body: Friends of the Nanticoke, the Wicomico County
Farm Bureau, Chesapeake Forest Products, the Nature Conservancy, the DuPont
Corporation, Connectiv, Survival Products, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Salisbury
Zoo, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Nanticoke Watershed Preservation Committee
(Frech, 1999).
Organizational Structure
NWA is made up of a Board of Directors as well as its general membership and runs under
its existing by-laws. NWA charges members an annual $100 membership fee. Only
organizations up to date in their dues are eligible for representation on the Board. The Board
and general meetings are held the second Wednesday of every month at the Greater Salisbury
Building in Salisbury. The President of the Board of Directors runs both meetings. A
quorum for meetings is fifty percent of the members. Decisions are made by absolute
majority (NWA By-laws, 1998). One nay cancels one yeah. Lisa Jo Frech talks about the
power that this gives to one vote: “We are not going to have close calls. If something goes
5-4, it does not fly. We come back to the issue later on, and then do more consensus
building. This allows us to be attractive enough and threatening. The vote has a lot of
weight.”
The Board of Directors consists of twelve organizational members. A permanent seat is
secured on the Board for three members of the founding grassroots organizations. Nine
members are elected by the membership at large. At least three members of the Board must
be from Delaware organizations, three from Maryland organizations, and three from public
organizations such as government agencies and nonprofit organizations. Finally, there must
be three members from proprietary organizations such as private for profit corporations.
Members serve a three-year staggered term so that one-third of the Board is elected each year
(NWA By-laws, 1998). Nominations may come from the floor as well as from the
nominating committee. When a vacancy arises in the course of a Board member’s term, it
the responsibility of the organization from where the Board member comes, to fill the vacant
seat with another representative from the same organization.
NWA does not have specific committees. The Board, as it deems necessary, may create
standing committees. The recommended standing committees include finance, nominating,
and public relations. The President of the Board appoints standing committee members.
Members of standing or special committees do not have to be Board members.
Funding
NWA is primarily grant driven. Most of their funds come from private foundations but the
group also receives government grants from the EPA as well as from both the Maryland and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Section 319. Although the group receives
both restricted and unrestricted funds, the majority of the funds are restricted. Occasionally
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-4
the group receives private donations and is planning on beginning to actively solicit funds
from the public. The group has put on a few small fundraising events, which have been
relatively successful, and is currently involved in workplace giving (Frech, 1999). Lisa Jo
Frech mentions her concerns of being a grant driven organization: “Grants right now are
easy to come by because the economy is healthy and they are easy for me to come by
because I write and speak well…but it would put us in a precarious position if I were to leave
the organization. We should have a steady source of revenue and a trust for funds, but we
have not been able to think that out. We also have no financial advisor who could help us
with this.”
Outcomes
10
The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance has resulted in a number of projects. These include a
water quality-monitoring program, Shad festival and Shad restoration, boat traffic study,
creation of Conservation Directory, a Quarterly newsletter, clean-ups, and classroom
education:
!
Water Quality Monitoring: The Nanticoke Watershed Water Quality Monitoring
Program has established a baseline data from which to assess the efficacy of measures to
reduce nutrient pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. Using this data, trends in water
quality and the biology of the Nanticoke will enable various agencies and organizations
to provide better management for the preservation of this river ecosystem. Ongoing
research on coliform bacteria and Pfiesteria has been part of these efforts.
!
Shad festival and Shad restoration: The shad population in the Nanticoke River is
currently quite low so the NWA created the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance's Shad
Restoration Program to rebuild public awareness of this formerly great fish. The overall
goal of the program is to revive public consciousness and to create a constituency for
restoration. NWA has spent a great deal of time on the festival but now feels it has to
spend its time and resources in other areas so it will now assist the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation and / or the Town of Vienna with the festival.
!
Boat Traffic Study: Completed in August 1997, NWA assisted with the design of the
study working with the State of Maryland and the State of Delaware. The objective of the
report was to study the effects of boat traffic on the Nanticoke River with regard to
pollution, wake, and noise and the impact of such on wildlife, submerged aquatic
vegetation, shoreline erosion, human population, and water and air quality. The report
discusses the need for waterway regulation, the institutional framework, the history of
waterway planning in both Delaware and Maryland, the unique aspects of the Nanticoke,
analytical basis and findings, management recommendations, and maps. It also provides
valuable information to the public and helps delineate regulations (or enforcement
thereof) needed on the river. In 1998, NWA conducted a series of public meetings to
disseminate highlights form this study. Participants at the meeting advocated the need for
a repeat study in 2001 and for NWA to take a leading role in designing and distributing
10
Information in this section, unless otherwise indicated, was taken from the NWA webpage.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-5
boater safety and environmental education information to boaters (NWA Progress
Report, 1998).
!
Conservation Directory: This directory is a reference guide for those interested in the
conservation of the Nanticoke River watershed. It describes many of the public agencies
and private organizations involved in conserving the Nanticoke, projects that are
proposed or under way, and Nanticoke River publications. It also outlines some of the
technical and financial conservation assistance programs available for use in the
watershed. The directory includes a matrix of organizations and their activities as a quick
reference, which also indicates where efforts have been overlapped or ignored.
!
Quarterly Newsletter: The purpose of this free quarterly newsletter is to gain awareness
and appreciation of the natural, historical, scenic, recreational, and cultural values of the
Nanticoke River watershed. It reaches landowners, schools, libraries, civic associations,
local and state officials, retirement homes, park and recreation departments, the
Nanticoke Indian Museum, conservation organizations, and members of the non-profits
groups affiliated with the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance.
!
Clean-ups: Ongoing since 1994, NWA hosts two clean-ups annually that take place in
both Maryland and Delaware. These clan-ups help bring together NWA members and
the community at large. Salisbury State University sends students to help and High
school and junior high school students get credit for community service hours (needed for
graduation). Over 125 volunteers pulled an estimated six and a half tons of trash from
three sites in the first year alone.
!
Classroom Education: NWA hosts a two week educational program called Diary of a
River for gifted students that covers issues that pertain to the watershed. NWA feels it is
very important to bring watershed issues to the classroom as part of their curriculum.
Additional Outcomes
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
11
Creation of a NWA web-site;
Lawn care education pamphlet distributed by realtors to new homeowners highlighting
environmentally friendly lawn care practices;
NWA involvement in the Rural Legacy Program where the state gives county money to
preserve land in targeted areas through conservation easements;
Ongoing research on ways to enhance proper fish passage on the Nanticoke River. NWA
is currently applying for a grant to install fish ladders on two tributary sites of the
Nanticoke River (NWA Progress Report, 1998);
Native planting at residential areas;
Pond reclamation;
Monitoring the county’s comprehensive plan to support adoption of rural development
standards.
11
Information in this section, unless otherwise indicated, was provided by Lisa Jo Frech through personal
communication.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-6
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
Members of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance offered the following reasons for why they
chose to collaborate: 12
!
!
!
!
To get things done and to develop trust
To be involved in their communities
To watch over others
To continue the work of founding environmental organizations
Lisa Jo Frech speaks to the issue of trust: “You can accomplish a lot through litigation but at
what cost? I think that what we were able to accomplish in the long run is far greater
because we have trust. There is not player in this watershed that I do not trust. There is not
anybody that I would not call at the drop of a hat work or at home and say ‘I heard a rumor
would you verify this for me?’ I would not want it any other way. I would not want to be
second guessing people’s agendas.”
Nancy Stewart talks about the level of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) involvement and why MDNR sees the virtues of collaborating in a group like
NWA. She states: "DNR wants to be involved in watershed groups as much as possible and
have a role in things that are happening in the community and be able to provide support and
input wherever it is applicable. I am not voting on policy issues but I provide input and
assistance wherever I can.”
Judith Stribling, assistant professor at Salisbury State and former Board President, states:
"What drew me to it was that it was a real consensus building group that took diverse
interests and tried to bring them together. I was impressed that these people were trying to
do that and appeared to be relatively successful at it. They were successful to at least
committing themselves to it."
Mark Zankel offers his reasons for becoming involved in the NWA as a member of a major
conservation organization: "TNC is heavily involved in the Nanticoke Watershed. We are
one of conservation players in the watershed and felt that it was important for us to have at
least some kind of presence in the Alliance and to keep our pulse on what the Alliance is
doing. This way we can provide input where we think that it is appropriate based on our
understanding and areas of expertise and to look for opportunities to work together with the
Alliance on various projects.”
There are other members who participate because they have a great deal at stake in the
watershed and want to make sure that others understand that they do. In the words of Larry
Walton, President of Chesapeake Forest Products: "Initially it was probably an adversarial
12
Members are involved in the NWA to varying levels of degree. Some are more concerned about supporting
the group financially and do not attend meetings on a regular basis whereas others rarely miss a meeting.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-7
kind of thing never having met Lisa Jo before. But we had a lot at stake and we certainly
have a lot to contribute and do contribute to the health of the watershed. We go to these
kinds of things to tell them what we do. If these watersheds are in good shape on the Eastern
Shore, it is because of the forest products industry and not in spite of them.”
Mike Terry of DuPont gives his reasons for choosing to collaborate: “We do not have the
right to work in the community, it is just a privilege so unless we meet the requirements of
the community, we lose that privilege. We utilize the river to bring raw materials in
primarily for fuel oil. We also utilize lots of water for cooling and we have a wastewater
treatment facility. We treat the water, and then, of course, it is discharged back into the river.
We are concerned with quality of water in the river and what impact we have and we are also
concerned about the other entities are doing to the river and what they think that we are doing
with it.”
Lisa Jo Frech also highlights the incentives for participation of two other NWA members.
Both are clearly interested in the health of the watershed. One participant drives two hours
each way to get to the meetings. This participant runs the Oyster Recovery Project based in
Annapolis and is interested in the recovery of oysters and wants to create sanctuaries in the
rivers all over the Chesapeake Bay. He seeks the input of local people to determine where
those sanctuaries should be built and would like local volunteers to build, publicize, and
protect the sanctuaries. Another participant, a local Realtor, is concerned about the cost of
housing, development, and the effects of development on the economy and the watershed.
Lisa Jo Frech comments: “He takes his livelihood seriously but also cares deeply about the
river.”
Finally in the words of Ralph Harcum of the Wicomico County Farm Bureau: “I go to keep a
finger on what is going on. I am a watchdog and make sure that things are not done that
would be a detriment to the farming community. I also go to try to educate them. They have
no concept of farming yet they want to dispute me. If you can’t beat them join them.”
Alternatives
Those interviewed offered a range of different thoughts about what would have likely
happened in the Nanticoke River watershed if the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance had not
formed:
!
!
!
!
Distorted information
Less public involvement/education
More difficult to protect the watershed
Litigation
Distorted information
Steve Corbitt feels that the public would have regularly seen local interests in the watershed
colliding. He states: "In a rural area, the only means for people to acquire information is
often by what they hear by word of mouth or on the local TV station or newspaper. Farmers,
for instance, have felt attacked and felt forced to take the blame on the effects on water
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-8
quality of run-off of poultry manure. It can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the
effects that have had on water quality. We have been able to work with the farm bureau and
at least talk about it and look into it. This is what people tuning into come away with rather
than going by local TV stations where the public just sees us yelling at each other.”
Less Public Involvement/Education
Nancy Stewart speaks of the ability for the public to receive information from a different
angle. "The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance serves to bring things to people's attention that
might not have gotten there as readily otherwise. Because it is so diverse, they are getting
input and drawing lots of minds together. The public would have been less informed and
involved. NWA has also provided a forum for issues that may not have been there
otherwise.”
Mark Zankel indicates that the level of watershed education would not have been of the
caliber that is it is today with the NWA. He explains: "NWA has done a good job of raising
the profile of the watershed both for the communities that live in the watershed and in terms
of getting it on the radar screen of agencies and others that fund a lot of work that goes on. I
do not think that if they had not been there, it would have happened as well."
More difficult to protect the watershed
Judith Stribling feels that accomplishments by other groups would have been made but that it
would have been more difficult and not achieved as much due to a lack of credibility on the
part of the group. "The hope was that NWA would have a great deal more credibility by
getting together and being diverse. It would carry more weight and have a bit more of an
impact on the local scene than any one organization and all of its associated baggage.”
Litigation
Lisa Jo speaks to a common alternative of collaboration: "We would have gone through
litigation. Some people would have stepped up to the plate and accomplished a thing or two
and then would have burnt out. They would have been bitter and resentful but would still be
in the watershed. It would be hard to find replacements for them. We would win a couple of
battles and lose a couple of battles but overall it would just be bloody."
Advice
Those interviewed offered several suggestions for others considering whether and how to
initiate a collaborative process. These included the need for good leadership, tight goals and
objectives, interagency coordination, energetic participants, and coming up with a good
name:
!
Lisa Jo Frech provides advice for others who are in leadership roles in a collaborative
group: "You have to work with everyone. You have to get to know everyone
individually. I get to know people personally so that when opportunities arise for a
project, I know who cares about that project and I know who I want to get involved in
that project.”
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-9
!
Mark Zankel speaks to the mission and participants of NWA:
♦
"Develop a fairly tight mission statement, goals, and objectives. The NWA had
kind of a murky mission statement originally but they have since refined it. It is
now a lot clearer what they are trying to accomplish."
♦
"Have one or a couple of people who have a lot of energy to round up people.
You need a cheerleader in a sense, who has the right personality and energy level
and composure to say 'come and join this party because there are going to be long
term benefits of doing so.' Those people are out there but are hard to find. In
rural areas it helps to have someone local who is doing that. People in Southern
Delaware people are fairly insular and skeptical of outsiders."
♦
"Get local leaders to champion your cause. You have to connect with the people
who live there and have them understand that you are trying to make this place
more livable for everyone.”
!
Steve Corbitt talks about the benefit interagency coordination can have on maintaining a
watershed: "I think the best thing is to let the left hand talk to the right hand and let the
other hand know what it is doing. Groups like the NWA can facilitate the process in a
situation where two agencies are spending money on the same things.”
!
Nancy Stewart highlights the benefits of agency involvement: "The most important thing
that the group can do is to bring in agencies and give them a chance to speak on issues
that are important then turn around and disseminate the information to the general public.
Because they are bringing so much expertise they can have an influence in the watershed
by actively accomplishing things on the ground-education as well as implementing
projects.”
!
Judith Stribling illustrates the negative impact a name can have on a watershed group:
"Watch out what you name yourself! The NWA and the Friends of the Nanticoke River
get confused by everybody. You can't get over that. You go to meetings and spell it out,
you spend time explaining, and nobody hears you. I have been very frustrated by that.
People just hear Nanticoke.”
Finally, Ralph Harcum advises to, “Get the right people involved. Get knowledgeable
people. I wonder about the people they put in charge at meetings. They do not understand
what it is all about.”
Ensuring Sufficient Representation
Participants, overall, felt that the NWA has done a good job getting many diverse
representatives to the table to share information and to educate each other. Lisa Jo Frech
points out, “In the formative stages, lack of representation was an issue, but it is better now.
But I never let myself think for one minute that absolutely everyone is at the table because
there are new organizations and businesses and there is always someone who should be there
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-10
who is not on your list.” Nonetheless, several participants voiced their concerns about two
aspects of ensuring sufficient representation:
Challenges
!
!
!
Getting certain groups to the table
Working towards more active involvement from the state of Delaware
Giving participants a clear role
Getting certain groups to the table
The primary challenge of ensuring sufficient representation is to get three different groups in
the watershed to play an active role in NWA and help determine how to manage for the
watershed’s future. These groups are a local Native American tribe, the poultry industry and
the farming industry. Indeed, both the poultry industry and farming groups are one of the
biggest landowners in the Nanticoke River watershed. At the time the interviews were
conducted, they were not at the table and have shown no sign to join NWA despite numerous
attempts to bring them on board.
Judith Stribling illustrates her concern over the inability of NWA to bring the poultry
industry to the table: “We have had a hard time getting anybody from the poultry industry to
the participate. They are an enormous player on the local environmental scene so I think that
it is a real failure on our part that we have not managed to get them in there.”
Larry Walton also speaks to the efforts he has personally made to get the poultry industry
involved. “I called them myself and asked them to participate and they got kind of nasty. I
said: ‘They hit on you guys every meeting. You can sit back there in your office and let them
stuff up or you can talk to them face to face.’ They have not done it yet.”
Mike Terry discusses the concerns of the group to get the farming community on board but
also recognizes that efforts are being made to do so: “We have tried to look at farming
interests and we often look around and ask whom have we forgotten. We do have diverse
people, though. NWA, for instance, is not full of industry. We do realize that the more input
you have the better your end result.”
The local Native American tribe is currently consumed with trying to retrieve land from the
government but Executive Director, Lisa Jo Frech, feels that NWA could be helping them if
the two worked together. She states: “I don’t think that they see it that way, however. I
don’t know how they see us really, but I do know that without their participation, our view of
the watershed and its needs, issues, and resources, are not a total vision.”
Working towards more active involvement from the state of Delaware
Although not viewed as a major challenge of NWA right now, one participant brought up the
fact, although NWA lines work across state lines, there is more representation from
Maryland than there is from Delaware. Although he does not know exactly why this is the
case, it is a concern of his. He felt that if more emphasis were placed on the Delaware side
then interests like DENREC (Delaware Department of Environmental Control) might
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-11
participate. Given that the watershed crosses state lines, NWA is interested in encouraging
membership from both states. This imbalance could certainly have negative consequences
when trying to encourage organizations from Delaware to join.
Giving participants a clear role
Although NWA encourages active participation, some participants addressed their concern
that they often felt they lacked a purpose for being at meetings. These were people with very
busy schedules who may choose not to attend meetings with as much frequency if they are
not given a clear role in the meetings. Nancy Stewart of the Maryland DNR was often
unaware of her purpose in attending meetings because she often did nothing more than sit in
the back and listen. She states: “Sometimes I have wondered what I was doing there. I was
not really contributing all that much except for a little bit here and there. Then I spoke to
someone and they told me that they just appreciated my showing up.” For busy participants,
however, this uncertain role can certainly prove a disincentive for attending future meetings.
Strategies
Participants in the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance try a variety of strategies for dealing with
the challenges of representation including:
!
!
Active recruitment
Locate meetings in a convenient location
Active recruitment
The Executive Director, Lisa Jo Frech, is constantly working towards identifying
stakeholders in the watershed and actively trying to bring them on board. This often entails
hours spent on the phone with certain individuals, promoting community efforts such as
clean-ups, and hosting/attending workshops to get the NWA name and mission out to the
public and to differentiate it from other organizations within the watershed. Indeed, NWA
feels that as a coalition, they are able to take on greater issues that affect more people.
Locate meetings in a convenient location
NWA has also made a conscious effort to make the meetings as convenient as possible. To
do so, meetings are currently held outside of the watershed to best accommodate all
representatives. Moreover, the general meeting and the Board of Directors meetings take
place back to back so that those who must be at both do not have to make two trips.
Advice
Those interviewed offered several suggestions for others considering the issue of ensuring
sufficient representation. Advice and reflections include having clear goals, giving people a
voice, and having solid leadership:
!
Nancy Stewart speaks to the need for NWA to have a clear idea of who they are: “You
have to have a clear cut idea of what the goals are for the group. When the NWA started
out they were more oriented towards environmental groups. Since that time, they have
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-12
changed and have become much broader spectrumed. If you are going to have a group
like this all groups must be involved. Everyone has a right to voice his or her own
opinions. If you want to have credibility, the public needs to know that as many interests
as possible are present and that it is not a one-sided issue so to speak.”
!
Related to defining the group, Judith Stribling talks about the reputation of NWA: “A lot
depends on the reputation that you set out. It involves a very good PR effort to make sure
that you are understood and that the first people who do sign on have a broad base. If we
had just been three non-profits then it would have been hard to get anyone to sign on
because it would have been viewed as this environmental organization. So! Don’t
proceed until you have a certain amount of representation from different angles.”
!
In the words of Mark Zankel: “Have a clear agenda. Defining what kind of commitment
you want from people is very helpful. Everyone in our field is way over busy so if you
are being asked to go and get involved in something else you have to know what you are
going to get out of it. Secondly, accomplish things and show people what you have done.
People are hesitant to get involved but once something is up and running they do not
want to miss the boat and seem like they are out of the loop. Success really sells.”
!
Steve Corbitt speaks to the issue of open dialogue and suggests: “Make sure everyone is
entitled to an opinion. Nurture a sense of stewardship for everyone who is concerned
about the river. Figure out a way to attach their needs and goals to that of NWA in some
way shape or form.”
!
Finally, Charlie Cipolla offers the following advice concerning the importance of having
solid leadership: “You need leadership that is politically astute enough to grapple with
the tough thorny issues. Make sure that people who are at the table are the right ones. I
know that watershed management is not the creation of trails and bikepaths. I am no deep
ecologist by any stretch but I know that.”
Accommodating Diverse Interests
The main intent of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance is to bring together different interests
in the watershed to make decisions about its future. How to accomplish that is where there is
some group dissension. As highlighted above, some feel that this effort has been successful
whereas others feel the group has fallen short. As Mark Zankel points out, however, “NWA
has not functioned so much as a solution generating group where they are looking at some
issue and having to figure it out. I have seen them in more of an educational information,
capacity with some monitoring and research being done so you do not have this lowest
common denominator problem.”
Judith Stribling speaks to the reality of diverse representation. “I think that it is the basic
dilemma that you face. I think it works both ways. I have seen things that we have done that
could not have possibly been done without the diverse interests and I have seen us fail to do
things because of them.”
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-13
Overall NWA members feel that having diverse interests at the table has increased awareness
and encouraged respect. Indeed, NWA has worked hard to accommodate diverse interests at
the table. Challenges, however, still exist and fall into the following categories:
Challenges
!
!
!
Defining the role of the group while dealing with contentious issues
Inappropriate representatives from organizations
Developing and maintaining trust
Defining the role of the group while dealing with contentious issues
Indeed, NWA has struggled with complex and often controversial issues and has been
hesitant to take a stance on certain issues for fear of losing key players. Lisa Jo Frech, NWA
Executive Director, explains: “We are always potential victims of the lowest common
denominator. At any given moment we are definitely falling into that category for LCD. It
is a risk that we have to guard against. We might not necessarily be conscious of falling into
that trap. Pfiesteria is an example. We have no position. Is that because we are chicken?
We are saying right now that there is not enough evidence to point conclusively in any one
direction. CBF (Chesapeake Bay Foundation) has pointed their finger at farmers. People
expected us to the same thing. If we pointed at farmers, we are going to lose them at the
table, put them on the defensive and lose this open working relationship we have. We are
keeping busy and doing good things, but are we do have to ask if we are necessarily doing
the right things.”
Steve Corbitt adds his insight: “There are some issues that we have not hit hard enough for
fear of alienating constituent members. I guess that it has not come up enough to be more of
a problem than it has, although the Pfiesteria issue has been around here for a long time.”
Judith Stribling talks specifically about the issue of Pfiesteria and the effect that diverse
representation has had on finding solutions to tackle this concern: “Pfiesteria was something
that was talked about a lot but we never came up with a policy position for where we stood
on waste. We did write letters urging change in regulation and enforcement in regulations.
We were able to agree on some things on that but we did not agree on the overriding idea of
whether nutrient management needed to be changed.”
Inappropriate representation from organizations
Another challenge that NWA faces is that by having to recruit organizations, they may not be
getting the best representatives from that organization to attend the meetings. In fact, in
some instances, representatives not only show little concern of the future of the watershed
but also do not properly represent their organization. Larry Walton voices his concerns about
the representation of the group and what that means for decisions made by NWA. “A lot of
people have left because they see those compromises being made and they do not feel
comfortable with that. I have seen them [NWA] really compromise their principles in some
cases to reach consensus on some things. If nothing else, this concerned the diverse
membership to the Board of Directors let us say. Someone may not be that interested or
environmentally inclined but just because he works for an organization that they would like
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-14
to have in the group, they [NWA] just tell him that they want him on the Board. This may be
a person that even I myself would say would not be a good choice-Somebody that they would
not even talk to five years ago.”
Developing and maintaining trust
Some participants represent large industries like DuPont and Chesapeake Forest Products,
companies and carry the stigma of being environmentally unfriendly. For this reason,
particularly in the initial stages, others in the group have questioned their motives. In fact,
Farm Bureau representative, Ralph Harcum, feels little trust for anyone who threatens his
traditional way of farming his land. In his words: “I am a watchdog and make sure that
things are not done that would be a detriment to the farming community…They have no
concept of farming yet they dispute me.”
Strategies
Participants in the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance try a variety of strategies for dealing with
the issue of accommodating diverse interests:
!
!
Develop forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
Conduct field trips
Develop forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
NWA was created as a forum for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns.
Although often challenging, members are constantly reminded to voice their opinions. NWA
places great emphasis on the importance of listening to everyone interests so that everyone at
the meetings are aware of all perspectives that need to be considered.
Conduct field trips
Field trips such as clean-ups are a way for participants to get to know each other better with
the hope of transferring this new found respect to more formal settings such as NWA
meetings. With reference to one of the first clean-ups in the watershed, Executive Director,
Lisa Jo Frech, points out: “We got to know people personally and I realized that it was
important to find out what made someone really tick and to find out where their passion for
issues really lived. One of the people who came happened to be someone we were
fighting…I got to know him personally…when he came to meetings from then on and looked
across the table, he saw a different person.”
Advice
Those interviewed offered the following advice to best accommodate diverse interests.
Advice and reflections encourage participants to be open to suggestions, to be dedicated, and
to demand solid leadership:
!
Steve Corbitt offers the following advice: “Encourage membership to vocalize
everything positive and negative that they can about the ongoing process. There is a
right way and a wrong way of doing this and if you can't play nice then get out of the
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-15
sandbox. You have to know how to talk to people and have basic respect for human
beings. See what about them makes them tick.”
!
He adds: “You are constantly confronted with obstacles. All of the issues have become
compounded because we have diversity. You have to work through it so that you can
make progress.”
!
Larry Walton suggests that dedication is key to a positive outcome when a group is
comprised of diverse stakeholders: “It takes the right kind of people. It takes time and
patience and a lot of one on one stuff. And on the ground stuff--not just sitting in on a
meeting, but going out and looking at something. If they have an impression that
something is not right, well then let’s go and look at it. Let’s go walk a mile in that
person’s shoes before you make that decision. We all seem too busy to take the time but
it is very important that all of our people take the time to do it. We have got four
foresters and myself here and between the five of us, we do it full-time. Nobody does it
solely but it adds up.”
!
Charlie Cipolla offers this poignant advice in reference to leadership: “Make sure that
the leadership of the organization has a degree of political sophistication and
understanding of larger issues. Planting trees is a wonderful thing but that alone is not
going to cut it.”
!
Judith Stribling offers advice that relates to the challenge posed by Charlie Cipolla: “The
most important thing is to know that you have a good representative--someone who
clearly does speak for others and is not in there with a personal. I have run across a
situation where a representative was speaking his own mind and was not representing the
group that he was supposed to be representing or the group that his group is supposed to
be representing. You need to watch who you take on as your stakeholder for a particular
segment and make sure there are truly representative of that segment. Sometimes that is
very hard because there are some groups like the watermen because there is really
nobody who speaks for them that we can bring to the table.”
Dealing with Scientific Issues
Issues
The issues with scientific dimensions that fall under NWA’s umbrella of information sharing
and education include river restoration and clean-ups, water quality monitoring, fish
recovery, run-off, and the occurrence of pfiesteria and coliform bacteria.
Although, NWA clearly does not have the staff power or resources to be a foundation of
scientific expertise, with robust scientific resources both inside and outside of the group,
NWA has had little trouble dealing with scientific dimensions of issues. Moreover, most
group members, with the exception of one or two people, are open to clear concrete scientific
ideas (Stribling, 1999). Water quality monitoring and research are two areas where NWA
has achieved expertise.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-16
While the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance possesses the scientific resources it needs in order
to incorporate sound science into its decision-making structure, two challenges remain that
are of concern to some participants:
Challenges
!
!
Taking a stance
Keeping participants up to speed
Taking a stance
NWA has been criticized by some for not taking a stance on certain scientific issues. Many
claim that it is because the group is afraid of losing key players at the table. Ironically, by
not taking a stance on these issues, other key players are choosing to back down. The issue
of pfiesteria is one such example.
Keeping participants up to speed
Some participants also have less education or experience needed to keep up with the science.
The group recognizes the importance of having, for instance, the farmer’s expertise at the
table, but although they know how to farm, they hesitate to heed advice from the group. As a
result, the group will tend to move away from the topic at hand with incomplete information.
Judith Stribling remarks: “They [the farmers] are nutrient experts in one respect but in
another respect, they are not getting the good science so they do not know what they need to
know. They know enough of what they are doing but they often do not understand the
implications. There are too many people in our group to be in a situation where they are
feeding off of each other’s ignorance.”
Strategies
Participants of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance implement a variety of strategies for
dealing with scientific issues, including:
!
!
!
!
Utilize external expertise
Utilize internal expertise
Attend / conduct workshops
Develop community planning forums
Utilize external expertise
When the group talks about an issue with scientific implications or has heard of an industry
in the watershed that may be doing something that could be detrimental to the watershed,
they bring in experts. This is part of their effort to educate members. Often the experts will
make a presentation to the group. From there, the group decides whether or not to pursue the
issue further. Lisa Jo Frech explains: “We are always asking people to come and to make
presentations or to critique other presentations. It is like a spider web that is always growing,
we are always evolving-we are always looking to catch somebody else in our net. We ask,
here is what we are handling now, who should we attract to handle this. Or here is an issue
that we were not planning on having to handle who do we need to work on that issue. It is
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-17
my job to know who is out there doing what and whom we can call on. We are not working
in a vacuum here. If we do not have the people we need, then we go get them. If I do not
know who they are, I know somebody who does.”
When industry practices are of concern, the group will take information in and then decide as
a group whether or not to make a statement. One instance was a dual presentation by Power
Company and NWA Board member, Connectiv, and the Maryland state permitting agency,
Maryland Department of the Environment. The issue concerned copper lining in one of
Connectiv’s cooling towers and its effect on water quality. According to Lisa Jo Frech,
“NWA wants to know is what they are doing, whether they will be able to remedy this
problem before their permit runs out, what happens if they do not remedy it, what are the
alternatives that they are considering, what should we be concerned about, what are the
assurances that we have. In most cases, it turns out that we do not need to make a statement,
we do not need to pressure them, we don’t need to fight them, but at least we know what is
going on.” Finally, in the words of Larry Walton, “The group does a very good job of
bringing in the people that they need to get the information they need. They have a good
way of seeking out the information and the people they need to get that information.”
Utilize internal expertise
NWA’s success in obtaining scientifically sound and credible scientific data can be also be
attributed to inside agency, university, and environmental organization expertise at both the
Board and general membership level. In addition to receiving assistance from members who
are scientific experts at Salisbury State University such as Judith Stribling, and from TNC
representatives like Bill Bostion and Mark Zankel, agency representatives are always
working hard to help the group handle scientific issues. In the words of Nancy Stewart of the
MDNR, “You [inside scientific experts] are providing insight that you might not have had
otherwise.” Inside experts tend to prioritize and reinforce the importance of taking on
projects that enhance the quality of the watershed.
Attend/conduct workshops
Another strategy is for members to take part in workshops, seminars, and meetings both
within and outside the framework of NWA. Overall NWA has experienced a willingness of
members to attend these events. They have helped the group keep up to speed with the
scientific issues in the Nanticoke River watershed.
Develop community-planning forums
NWA is currently developing a forum to work with realtors, builders, developers, planners,
architects, farmers, foresters, and environmentalists to forge environmentally sensitive design
standards for rural development as a tool for implementation of the Wicomico County
Comprehensive Plan. If all goes well, the process will provide a model for other counties in
the watershed (NWA Progress Report, 1998).
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-18
Advice
Those interviewed offered the following advice to best handle the scientific dimensions of
collaborative decision-making. Suggestions include using outside expertise, remaining
flexible, and keeping active in the process:
!
Charlie Cipolla speaks of the benefits that academic institutions can provide: “Having
access to a State University or private institution and involving them in your endeavors is
a good idea. State agency involvement like Maryland DNR and DENREC have also
proven helpful.”
!
Mark Zankel also talks about the role of watershed groups and the benefits of bringing in
outside technical expertise: “It is not reasonable to expect watershed groups staff to be
science experts in every area that you need it so the key is to get people with expertise to
be technical resources for the group. Whether that is regular involvement or
collaborative research projects or just being able to come when there is an issue being
discussed and they can provide some technical expertise and be a backboard for people to
ask questions. Bring those people into process. Anytime that anybody can bring people
into the applied conservation environment, there is a lot of benefit.”
!
Nancy Stewart indicates the importance of utilizing regional expertise and of being
proactive. “Go to the scientific community. Go to the experts and talk to them. Go to
several individuals. Attend workshops.”
!
In addition to recognizing the benefits of both agency and university expertise, Judith
Stribling highlights the importance of active and thorough participation: “Get that good
mix of people in there that are working for different agencies and make sure that they are
there. But also make sure the end group is there. Farmers for example. They are talking
about their own concerns and bringing their own expertise on scientific issues to the
table.”
!
Larry Walton speaks on a personal note: “Do not be confrontational. If you want to get
cooperation and get all of the people to the table who can give you some good input,
bringing law enforcement down on their hands is not the way to get good cooperation.”
!
Finally, Mike Terry offers the following advice: “ It depends what your objective is. If it
were to analyze and critique you would need another layer to our group. But my advice
would be to make sure that you have some talents from a scientific background. It must
be balanced though, because a group of all Ph.D.'s would just be a think tank.”
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Although there is a range of skills, resources, and power at the table, most of this dichotomy
was noticeable in the formative stages of the group. Lisa Jo Frech illustrates this challenge
as reality for the group primarily early on: “In the early days a number of people who were
in the leadership position at the time were very worried about being co-opted. Comments
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-19
such as ‘we do not want the DNR to be a formal member of this group because they will coopt us’ abounded.” She adds: “My personal and professional fear of being co-opted is
usually if not always loose fear. Fear with for the sake of fear. Fear feeding on itself. I do
not think that most agencies, foundations, businesses, organizations, industry has the time to
co-opt another one.”
She also speaks to the current dynamic of the group and why co-optation is not much of an
issue. “Let’s say in our coalition state, we decide we are not going to fight a particular issue.
That does not mean that one of our member groups can’t go out and fight. They still have
autonomy. Friends of the Nanticoke is an example. If they disagree with a position that we
take, they have autonomy and are more than free and they always will be to fight that issue as
the Friends of the Nanticoke.”
While Lisa Jo Frech’s perception of this issue is somewhat optimistic, she does not share it
with other members of the group who are more skeptical of the reality of a level playing
field. They feel the following challenges of accommodating diverse capabilities still exist:
Challenges
!
!
Prevalence of power interests
Confusion over the definition of consensus
Prevalence of power interests
Certainly, balancing influence in the process is difficult with varying levels of knowledge,
skills, resources, and power at the table. Many feel that these dominant interests have
attempted to use their influence to push their agendas through the collaborative process. In
fact, Larry Walton, President of Chesapeake Forest Products, feels that Chesapeake Forest
Products has contributed to this an imbalance of skills, resources, and power at the table and
has disturbed the flow of decision-making within the group. He refers specifically to a
former colleague who worked with him before he passed away with a powerful and
overbearing personality. Walton states: “I am sure that there are people in the varying
organizations parent organizations that think that Chesapeake Forest Products with their
power and clout has unduly influenced the group to get them off their back which I guess we
have but through good will and time and effort. But, I could see how people could think that.
I am Vice-President of the Board and although I was asked to be President, I would not be
because I think that too many members would resign if I were to become President.”
Charlie Cipolla is perhaps the most vociferous regarding this issue. He states: “As far as I
am concerned the big money private interests prevail. Part of the problem is that private nonprofit green groups are created and run by people who do other things and have other jobs. It
is hard to maintain as active degree of involvement as people from the timber industries who
as it is part of their job description is to become involved in these groups and I think to
effectively neutralize efforts to really get anything done.”
He also adds: “The interests that have some to the table and who have really set the agenda
have been the large economic interests. The timber people made darn sure that they got in
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-20
there and defined the situation.” He went on to speak about an incident roughly three years
ago when a timber company cut an illegal road that pushed dirt into streams, and continued
down to river’s edge in clear violation of the buffer zone. The Timber Company was upset
because NWA went ahead and contacted the appropriate people in Annapolis. “There was a
cooling off period and since then they have returned to the table. There were some not so
thinly veiled threats leveled that if that were ever to happen again, the person involved might
find himself at great risk. The idea really is that they will play ball, throw around a little
money, and be nice neighbors but don’t mess them.”
Confusion over the definition of consensus
With such varying levels of knowledge, skills, resources, and power at the table, it has
become difficult to determine when the group has actually reached consensus. Judith
Stribling articulates this reality while indicating, however, that the group is, indeed, evolving:
“There have been situations where the group will have a sense that there is a consensus when
there are people there who do not really agree and find it difficult to express that because
they are felling somewhat overwhelmed. Now people are becoming more sensitive. We
remind people that everyone has to have a point and explain where they stand and not being
concerned that they may not be on the same bus. It is a little difficult, however.”
Strategy
The one strategy used by NWA to accommodate diverse capabilities is to ensure that, if need
be, each participant feels as though they are able to maintain their independence when it
comes to decision-making:
!
Retain autonomy to act outside of the group
Retain autonomy to act outside of the group
One strategy to deal with the issue of varying “capabilities,” although it runs the risk of
compromising the integrity of the group, was to ensure that every member retained his or her
right to act in the way that he or she saw fit. Lisa Jo Frech explains this strategy in greater
detail: “Let’s say in our coalition state, we decide we are not going to fight a particular issue.
That does not mean that one of our member groups can’t go out and fight. They still have
autonomy. Friends of the Nanticoke, for instance. If they disagree with a position that we
have taken, they are more than free and they always will be to fight that issue as the Friends
of the Nanticoke. That is the beauty of the way that we are organized. If there is an issue
where we are divided, they can go their own way and they know that.”
Advice
Participants offered the following advice as to best accommodate diverse capabilities such as
sticking to the agenda, looking towards the leadership, questioning your assumptions,
listening to each other, and taking it slowly:
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-21
!
Ralph Harcum suggests the following so as better balance diverse capabilities at the
table: “Only promote discussion that is constructive and sticks to the agenda originally
called for.”
!
Adding to Ralph Harcum’s words, Mark Zankel’s advice centers on group process:
“Forums must be run well. Everyone there has to feel that they will be listened to and are
going to be taken as seriously as everyone else. It is also incumbent upon group to have a
good facilitator. That is something that has improved at the Alliance recently versus the
first couple of meetings I went to a couple of years ago. Someone who can move the
discussion around to people who are raising their hands or whatever. Keep things on
track and make people feel like their points are worthwhile.”
!
Charles Cipolla advises to look towards your leadership for guidance. “As long as your
leadership is strong and the group has a good set of bylaws it seems like to me you can
cope with differentials such as power and wealth. I have faith in the ability to sit and
discuss and debate. But often if you do not maintain your focus, and if the leadership is
not strong you end up holding hands and playing pitty-pat.”
!
Mike Terry also speaks to the role the leader of the group has to accommodating diverse
capabilities: “Whoever is the President or leader of the group, has to control the group
and create an atmosphere where everyone’s opinions are valued. Part of the challenge of
the board members is to ensure that so the group does not fall apart. It is also important
to set groundrules and to document them.”
!
Finally, Nancy Stewart also advises the leadership to work to: “Get to the crux of what
someone is trying to say. Speak up and assist the person if the person is struggling. That
takes expertise you need to have an individual who knows how to draw that out of
someone. If someone does have a particular issue, it has to be thoroughly discussed.
Nothing can be scrapped because the group has not come to consensus.”
!
Judith Stribling speaks to the issue of co-optation: “It is important for everyone to be
aware of that potential (co-optation). I also think it is important to always question our
assumptions stopping and considering the alternatives whether or not someone brings it
up or not.”
!
Nancy Stewart feels that co-optation, although present, is a challenge to the group
because it is not explicit. She sees it directly linked to the varying levels of education and
personalities of participants. In her words: “For example, although people may listen,
individual concerns and ideas might not be to various participants. Possibly. Some
individuals are more educated than others are and some are better speakers, are more
forward. Different personalities. I sometime wonder if some individuals and tend to rant
and rave a little, I hesitate to say that they are not given credibility. There are, but I think
it is more of a strain to get to the crux of the matter some towns. I think that efforts are
given to give people representation and to respect people's opinions and to take into
consideration their concerns. It is just difficult to filter out what its trying to be said
sometimes.”
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-22
!
And Steve Corbitt has several words of advice: “Take it slow. Be respectful. Encourage
people to speak up. Don't be judgmental. Put a positive spin on everything that is said
and try to see everything in best light as possible. Keep hammering away on making
progress. Get to know each other. Do meetings in different places once in a while. Share
a pizza.”
Insights Particular to this case
Unclear direction of the NWA
While many participants feel relatively satisfied with the direction of the NWA, others are
less convinced that the NWA knows which direction it wants to go as an organization and
that NWA has lost its focus and avoids contentious issues all in the spirit of friendly
relations and compromise. Some participants have decreased their involvement or have
terminated their membership altogether. Another complaint that has been levied against the
group is that in their efforts to diversify they have compromised their beliefs. As mentioned
earlier, they have asked certain individuals to serve on the Board who might not be the best
fit or have recruited organizations onto NWA who have in the past have shown little to no
interest in NWA all in the name of increasing diverse membership. Some feel, however, that
these efforts are now coming with a cost and that it is time to re-evaluate where NWA would
like to go in the future.
NWA’s evolving image
NWA has created a balance sheet that tracks its development (NWA Balance sheet, 1998).
NWA as a by-product of three environmentally focused groups, has certainly had to
overcome an image of an elitist and narrowly focused group to one based on among other
characteristics, credibility and diversity. They tracked three stages and highlighted both the
pros and cons of these stages. From this exercise the group was reminded that although it
takes years to build a coalition like this that coalitions allow tremendous flexibility and that
they focus energy and resources on critical issues. These stages are:
Stage 1
Formative
Pros
Easy to manage
Quick turnaround time on projects
Local Flavor/Action
Vision/Mission Easy to Agree upon
Free Reign
Cons
Considered Elitist
Considered Radical
Limited Resources/Support
Limited Scope
Monoculture
Inability to influence land use
decisions
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-23
Stage 2
Transitional
Pros
Greater Recognition
Greater Resources/Support
Greater Scope
Slightly more Diversified
Fear of Government
Still considered elitist
Inability to influence land use
decisions
Mission/Vision Becomes a
Struggle
Stage 3
Coalition
Statewide/National Recognition
Statewide/National Resources/Support
Very Diversified
Broad Focus
Sustainable/Credible Organization
with a voice in land use Decisions
Decision-making/Consensus
Building Time Consuming
Broad Focus
Political in Nature
Less Risk Taking
Sources
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, The Nanticoke River, August 1995.
Environmental Protection Agency, Surf Your Watershed-Watershed Environmental Profile.
Retrieved January 17, 1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.epa.gov/surf2/hucs/02060008.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, By-laws of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Tyaskin:
April 1998.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance Fact Sheet, Tyaskin: October
1998.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance. Retrieved January 28, 1999
from the World Wide Web: http://www.nanticokeriver.org/river.html.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance Progress Report, Tyaskin:
1998.
Naughten, K. (1996). Wild about the Nanticoke River's Charms Lure Anglers, Birders,
Boaters. Alliance for Chesapeake Bay-Bay Journal, 6(4). Retrieved Feb 2, 1999 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.bayjournal.com/96-06/coke.htm.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
10-24
CHAPTER 11: NORTHWEST RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Northwest Colorado
Prepared by Dirk Manskopf
Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) are mandated and highly formalized collaborative
resource partnerships that were developed from Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's
initiatives to reform grazing. RACs are official federal advisory committees of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) with twenty-four located in the thirteen western states. Although
they are unique in many ways, RACs face the same challenges as other collaborative
resource partnerships analyzed by this report. Furthermore, even though many RACs differ in
terms of membership make-up, structure, and the level to which they are influenced by
political factors, the Northwest Colorado RAC (NW RAC) provides an excellent example of
some of the challenges RACs encounter.
Interviews:
Karen Slater, BLM, Intergovernmental Affairs Group Manager, (1/29/99)
Mark Morse, BLM, Northwest Center Manager, Craig and Grand Junction Districts,
(2/9/99 and 3/30/99)
Rich Whitley, BLM New Mexico Associate State Director, (2/22/99)
Clee Sealing, Colorado State Public Lands Chairman Sierra Club, (3/12/99)
Geoff Blakeslee, Member Category 2, Environmental, (2/10/99)
Walid Bou-Matar, Member Category 1, Energy and Minerals, (2/10/99)
T. Wright Dickinson, Member Category 3, Elected Official, (2/16/99)
Donald Peach, Member Category 2, Archaeology/History, (2/11/99)
Cathie Zarlingo, Member Category 2, Environmental, (2/12/99)
Troy Rarick, Member Category 2, Recreation, (2/12/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origins and Issues
In Northwest Colorado (NW CO), BLM manages over 5.5 million acres of land and nearly
11 million acres of sub-surface minerals. Beginning at 4,500 feet in elevation, with peaks
over 10,000 feet, the region contains several distinct ecosystems. The low-lying areas are salt
desert shrubs, cactus, with large amounts of tall sagebrush going into pinon juniper stands.
The higher elevations are alpine meadow and aspen stands. Much of the area slopes into the
Yampa and White River watersheds that feed into the Colorado River.
BLM land in NW CO is under heavy usage. Uses include oil and gas development, grazing,
wild horse and burro usage, and recreation. According to Mark Morse, BLM Northwest
Center Manager, recreational uses are growing quickly in NW CO: "Recreation is going to
become the biggest factor in all of Colorado, especially in the northwest." Recreation
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-1
includes rafting, mountain biking, hunting large elk populations, off-highway motorcycles
and other off-road vehicles.
The NW RAC has dealt with a variety of issues during it first four years. The majority of
their time was spent on grazing standards and guidelines although, over the last two years,
they have diversified the issues they have dealt with. Fire management, recreation guidelines,
oil and gas development, and a roadless review of six proposed wilderness areas have been
some of the issues the NW RAC has concentrated on since 1997.
Formation of RACs
RACs differ from other case studies in this report in terms or their origin. The RAC concept
began at the highest levels of government land policy making through Secretary of the
Interior, Bruce Babbitt. A son of a cattleman and an experienced politician, Babbitt is known
for seeking consensus-based solutions. He set out in August of 1993 to reform grazing
practices in the United States. Known as Rangeland Reform of '94, Babbitt's first initiative
was to improve the rangeland in the West through various programs including setting
national standards and guidelines for rangeland health and raising the fee ranchers pay the
agency for grazing permits. Although this first proposal passed the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Senate defeated Babbitt's first initiative, mainly due to opposition from
western Senators. Rangeland Reform '94 sparked fierce debate throughout much of the west,
many ranchers referred to it as the "War on the West."
After this legislative defeat, Babbitt vowed to pass grazing reform administratively (Healy,
1993). However, at the same time the Clinton Administration was being urged by many
Western Democrats to slow down the grazing reforms (Kenworthy, 1994). At this time
former Governor Roy Romer of Colorado invited Babbitt to participate in a discussion with a
small group of ranchers and environmentalists who claimed to have a solution to end the
gridlock surrounding grazing reform. This small group of ranchers and environmentalists had
been meeting in Gunnison, Colorado in the southwestern portion of the state. They had
conceived of a plan for creating local citizen advisory councils composed of diverse
stakeholders that would assist land managers in grazing reforms at the local level. These
councils would work through consensus-based decisions and would be located in each
National Forest or BLM district.
After meeting with the Gunnison group, Babbitt revised his plans for grazing reform to
include similar groups throughout the West. Babbitt met weekly for two months with a
roundtable of ranchers, environmentalists, local officials and Governor Romer to work on
plans to incorporate these advisory councils into his reform efforts. On March 18, 1994
Babbitt announced his new proposals to be implemented administratively. As promised, his
proposal aimed to move some of the decision-making away from Washington and do away
with the BLM's grazing boards which were dominated by ranching interests and replace them
with more multi-use advisory councils (RACs).
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-2
Formation of the NW RAC
Although his new proposal did not quell the fears of many in the West, Babbitt went ahead
with his proposal and set up twenty-four RACs in thirteen western states.13 The NW RAC
was initially chartered in August of 1995 to advise the BLM's Northwest Center Manager in
both the Craig and Grand Junction Districts in Colorado. Babbitt selected the original
members of the NW RAC. Mark Morse, who had just moved to NW CO, was assigned as the
official federal officer that the NW RAC would advise. Morse stated: "The first [RAC] we
did not set up, that was set up by the Secretary [of the Interior]. [BLM staff in NW CO] did
not even know how people got on there to be honest with you."
While each RAC varies in significant ways and there is no single RAC that can be labeled
representative of them all, the NW RAC does provide insights into this unique highly
formalized and mandated form of collaborative resource partnership.
Organization and Process
The objective of the NW RAC is to provide counsel and advice to the Secretary of the
Interior through the BLM concerning planning and management of the public lands within
the Craig and Grand Junction Districts. The RAC gives advice and counsel directly to the
designated federal official, Mark Morse. Like all RACs, the NW RAC is chartered by the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, an act that was designed to reduce "close door" decisionmaking. Administrative support and funding is provided through Morse and his staff.
Duties and responsibilities of the NW RAC include:
a) Developing recommendations for the BLM regarding the preparation, amendment,
and implementation of land use plans for the public lands and resources within Craig
and Grand Junction Districts. Among these responsibilities are to gather and analyze
information; conduct studies and field examinations, and hear public testimony.
b) Except for the purposes of long range planning and the establishment of resource
management priorities, the RAC shall provide advice on the allocation and
expenditure of Federal funds, or on personnel actions.
c) Assisting BLM to identify standards for ecological health and sustainability and
guidelines for resource uses.
d) Assisting the BLM to identify the geographic area to which standards and
guidelines apply.
e) Assisting in the establishing resource management priorities for range
improvement or development programs.
f) Developing recommendations for implementation of ecosystem approaches to
management. Assist the BLM establish landscape goals and objectives.
g) Assisting local efforts to develop and achieve ecosystem approaches to
management.
13
Wyoming is the only western state with out a RAC. Wyoming's RAC was disbanded when Governor James
Geringer (R) and Babbitt could not agree on who should be appointed to balance interests on the group, leading
Babbitt to revoke its charter. See Paul Kzra, "Cow Coup: Wyoming Governor Usurps Federal Grazing Group,"
High Country News, December 23, 1996.
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-3
h) Recommending future council model(s) and jurisdictions that best serve the
state(s) affected.
The charter that created the NW RAC uses the model with fifteen members equally
distributed among three categories. Five members come from each of the three categories:
Category 1 members must be a person who:
1) holds a federal grazing permit in the region
2) represents interests associated with transportation or right-of-way
3) represents developed outdoor recreation such as off highway vehicle users
4) represents the commercial timber industry
5) represents energy and mineral development
Category 2 members must be a person who represents:
1) national of regional environmental or conservation organization
2) dispersed recreation activities
3) archeological and historical interests
4) wild horse or burro interests
Category 3 members must be a person who:
1) holds a state, county, or local elected position
2) is an employee of a state agency responsible for natural resource
management
3) represents Indian tribes
4) is employed in academics
5) represents the public-at-large
Members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior in order to provide for balanced and
broad representation within each category. The first steps in the selection process go through
the designated federal official, Mark Morse. In making appointments Morse receives
applicants in response to a public call for nomination. All nominations are to be accompanied
by letters of reference from interests or organizations one wishes to represent. According to
Morse he then looks for members that can represent their interests effectively, someone who
is a "team player," and "someone with the ability to stand up and argue for his
constituency...but is also able to come to consensus." Morse said he also looks for "who their
constituency wants." Morse will then send his nominations on to the Governor and the
Secretary of the Interior for review. Speaking about how none of his nominations have been
turned down, Morse states: "Once it clears the state, it's not going to be rolled by the
Secretary."
Current membership of the NW RAC includes county officials, a forestry consultant, an oil
and gas engineer, several ranchers, a mountain bike shop owner, a mayor who represents
archeological interests, a person representing wild horses and burros, and two people
representing environmentalist interests among others. Every member interviewed described
the NW RAC as containing diverse interests. Troy Rarick, a mountain bike shop co-owner,
calls the group "well-rounded" and Walid Bou-Matar, an oil and gas engineer, states: "our
members are very diverse."
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-4
Current membership of the NW RAC includes county officials, a forestry consultant, an oil
and gas engineer, several ranchers, a mountain bike shop owner, a mayor who represents
archeological interests, a person representing wild horses and burros, and two people
representing environmentalist interests among others. Every member interviewed described
the NW RAC as containing diverse interests. Troy Rarick, a mountain bike shop co-owner,
calls the group "well-rounded" and Walid Bou-Matar, an oil and gas engineer, states: "our
members are very diverse."
Process
The NW RAC meets at varying times depending upon the issue they are dealing with.
Currently, the group meets once every two months. Most members think this meeting
schedule is working fine. Geoff Blakeslee, who represents The Nature Conservancy, said the
meeting schedule was, "just right, plenty to discuss, and not a dull moment, but I can't justify
additional meetings." Troy Rarick noted, "Meetings are just right, anymore frequently it
would be too hard to travel to all meetings and if you don't have everyone coming you lose
your effectiveness."
Meetings are open to the public with time provided for public input. Mark Morse noted that
public attendance, "varies greatly with the issue we are dealing with and the time of the
meetings." Meetings are held throughout the northwestern corner of Colorado in order to get
different communities involved as well as to spread travel distances around for members.
Don Peach noted his travel time varies greatly depending on where meetings are held: "I
either have to travel two miles when it is right in Rangely, or up to eighty miles when it is
further away." Members of the NW RAC are reimbursed by the BLM for travel and other
expenses such as meals or lodging when necessary.
Mark Morse noted that at one point early on he felt a facilitator was necessary for every
meeting: "At one time we used to run facilitation for every meeting." Morse continued that,
currently, most meetings are not facilitated unless "we have a subject that could be divisive."
One of those contentious issues is a debate over six potential wilderness sites in NW CO.
Morse said, "Wilderness stuff always had a facilitator." Morse stressed that the facilitator
helped to maintain the integrity of the group during contentious discussions.
The agenda is set prior to each meeting by the NW RAC with input from Mark Morse. Morse
states: "I adjust meetings if something comes up, but not without input from RAC members."
In between meetings Morse said: "I send lots of info to read over." Meetings are run by either
the Chair, T. Wright Dickinson, or Co-Chair, Don Peach. Dickinson noted that the group
elects the Chair and defines its role. Dickinson speaking about his role said: "I am listening
and watching folks to make sure everybody gets a chance at speaking and making sure
everyone is heard." The Chair also signs meeting minutes kept by a BLM staff person, and as
Dickinson puts it, other "figurehead" duties.
11-5
The amount of time members spend on NW RAC related issues varies widely. When asked
how much time they spend, members answered anywhere from a couple hours to a couple of
days a month. Mark Morse highlighted this when he was talking about how much
information he tries to send the group: "I think about fifty-percent [of members] read most
and fifty-percent read parts. From my observation the time spent on RAC related issues
varied depending on how active subcommittees are."
Outcomes
From its inception and first meeting in August of 1995 through the end of 1996, the NW
RAC focused its attention developing Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for
Livestock Management (S&G's). Babbitt's grazing regulations, which created RACs, called
for State Directors of the BLM, in consultation with the RACs, to develop S&G's by August
1997. According to Mark Morse the NW RAC started off "slowly." During this time Morse
arranged for a three-day training session in February 1996 at a nearby college. The training
session was used to get everybody "on the same page," to explain some of the scientific
issues pertaining to rangeland health and to get to know one another. Most members on the
NW RAC at the time of the three-day training thought it was very helpful and allowed the
RAC to proceed more smoothly.
Because the NW RAC spent most of its first two years working on the S&G's there are not
many tangible outcomes. Furthermore, outcomes are typically policy-based proposals and not
on-the-ground achievements. Having the S&G's completed and approved by the Secretary of
Interior prior to any other state was an accomplishment of all three of the Colorado RACs
working together. Currently the State Directors of the BLM are working on plans to
implement the S&G's. For their efforts in completing the S&G's, Vice President Al Gore
noted RACs are, "truly fulfilling our goal of reinventing the way government does business"
(Gore, 1998).
In November 1996, the NW RAC voted to sanction three subcommittees to work on policies
and guidelines for management: recreation, land tenure adjustments, and fire management. In
addition to those formal committees, three informal subcommittees were formed during 1996
to assist in three ongoing land management plans in NW CO: Unaweep Canyon, Bang's
Canyon and Ruby Canyon. With the S&G's completed in February 1996, the NW RAC
began to focus on other issues such as a transfer of a Department of Energy Naval Oil Shell
Reserve to BLM, weed management, wild horse management, and a very controversial
wilderness proposal.
With recreation increasing throughout much of Colorado, the NW RAC along with the other
RACs in Colorado have been developing recreation guidelines. The draft guidelines were
revised by the BLM's state office and are almost "ready to hit the streets." According to T.
Wright Dickinson, "recreational issues are something the entire west is dealing with and
these guidelines may be a real test...If we have done it right there should not be a big blowup, if we have missed a step then you'll see us scattered over the landscape." One major
change that the recreation guidelines propose is limiting off-highway vehicles to existing
roads and trails. Mark Morse noted that this proposal "is supported by all three Colorado
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-6
RACs." Current management allows these vehicles anywhere but areas designated
wilderness.
Many of the outcomes that members tend to speak about are related to the process and
relationship building. Here is what some members thought were the greatest outcomes:
!
Don Peach spoke about getting people to work together: "First is getting very disparate
groups together to work and appreciate other peoples points of view. I think that has
made it easier for the BLM to carry out its role. Second, it avoids the long drawn out
arguments including lawsuits."
!
T. Wright Dickinson thought the greatest outcomes are still to come: "The deliberateness
by which we have gone about our job and the fact that we are really defining how these
groups can be productive. In part, I think the better days are ahead of us."
!
Geoff Blakeslee spoke about the groups ability to bring about new ideas: "I sometimes
see things in my mind one way and can't think of things differently and all of a sudden
someone (in the RAC) comes up with an idea that makes sense and it goes along the
direction I wanted to go. I have learned respect for the group mind."
!
Mark Morse talked about the credibility the RAC brought within the community, "any
agency wants credibility in the community, the RAC gives that credibility."
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
Members of the NW RAC have chosen to participate in this collaborative effort for varying
reasons. Due to its mandatory structure and formality in the selection of representative,
members realize that if they do not participate someone else would be needed to represent
similar interests as their own. Although there are several unique reasons for why members
have chosen to participate, there seems to be a common belief that things can be done better
with more localized input from diverse stakeholders discussing the issues that may often be
divisive within their communities.
Here is a brief description of each person interviewed, their interest/role in the NW RAC and
their reasons for participating in a collaborative effort.
!
Don Peach, Mayor of Rangley, Colorado, represents archeological and historical
interests on the NW RAC. He has been a member since its inception in 1995 and is
currently Co-Chair. He chose to participate for the following reasons: "I believed much
better work comes from the grassroots up than decisions from DC or the state level. If
you get people involved early, most of the time they are willing to look at other guys
points of view and work to arrive at consensus."
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-7
!
Troy Rarick is the co-owner of a mountain bike store in Fruita, Colorado and he
represents dispersed recreational issues on the NW RAC. He has been a member for four
months. Rarick chose to participate because, "If you don't get involved you can't
complain when things don't go your way and to affect things on a bigger level."
!
Walid Bou-Matar is a self-employed engineer in oil and gas production representing the
oil, gas and mining interests on the NW RAC. He stated, "I am not a lawyer. I am an
engineer, a businessman. I think we can solve problems through negotiation instead of
fighting in court."
!
Geoff Blakeslee is the manager of Carpenter Ranch (a Nature Conservancy Ranch) and a
former red angus breeder. On the NW RAC, he represents conservation interests. He has
been a member since September of 1998 choosing to participate because, "I think it is a
great idea to bring people together from a variety of backgrounds. Instead of dealing
with issues you are dealing with a human being. Issues remain important but dealing
with a person on a human level allows you to provide dignity and self respect to
individual's positions."
!
T. Wright Dickinson owns and operates a commercial livestock operation and is the
Moffat County Commissioner. He has been involved in several collaborative efforts and
sat on Babbitt's roundtable discussion that developed the RAC model. On the NW RAC,
he represents elected officials and has been a member since the RAC's inception. His
answer for why he chose to participate is complex: "One of the things that was evident in
the roundtable is that national environmentalists do not trust local people. There is a
tremendous deep-seeded distrust. When you can get a diverse group together and agree
on something it is a very powerful force to be reckoned with. None of us need the
controversy the appeals and all that bring. To me something is wrong when you need to
go to that, not that I haven't used that method. You can't solve these problems from top
down management. You can't solve these issues in Washington. What gets lost in that
process is a respect for local community."
!
Cathie Zarlingo also has been on the NW RAC since its inception. In the past she has
also been involved with the BLM's multi-use advisory councils. On the NW RAC she
represents the National Wildlife Federation, and wildlife and sportsmen interests. She
stated: "My biggest thing dealing with natural resources is the only way you are really
going to get the best use out of the resource and get the best protection for the resource is
to go at it from the people who use it. You have to have all players at the table, tell them
what the problem is and try to problem solve within the framework of laws set up."
!
Mark Morse is the designated federal official for the NW RAC. He is the Northwest
Center Manager for the Craig and Grand Junction BLM Districts. His enthusiasm for the
RAC process is evident: "If I was allowed to only attend one meeting a month, I would
choose to go to the RAC meeting...these are volunteers giving their time and their best, I
really respect them."
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-8
While not a formal member of the NW RAC, Clee Sealing of the Sierra Club has attended all
but four meetings in the last two years. He stated, "The main interest I carry to the RAC
representing Sierra Club is that a great percent of the land in NW CO is BLM land and there
are a number of proposed wilderness areas on those lands that Sierra Club has an interest in."
He chose to attend meetings to "influence the decisions and also to lend support to the
person, or persons on the RAC that support our viewpoint."
Alternatives
The NW RAC is a mandated collaborative partnership. If these members chose not to
participate the BLM would seek others to fill their roles within the partnership. Although
many said they were directly affected by BLM policies, prior to the RAC many stated their
involvement with BLM policies were limited. Speaking to that point, Walid Bou-Matar
states: "I was not really active before the RAC, although I had lots of dealings with the BLM
through permitting, following their orders and the standards and guidelines."
T. Wright Dickinson had been active with BLM policies prior to the RAC and had filed
appeals against BLM rulings in the past stated: "You have to realize that the RAC can not be
all things and can't solve every issue and detail...but if it can create mutual respect hopefully
that will percolate down the rest of the system." Dickinson also stated that one of the main
reasons he is involved is to, "cut down on those other things (lawsuits, appeals etc.)."
Most members said without the RAC they would go through the usual process. Don Peach
noted: "The BLM has some good people, they are very professional, and they would come up
with plans. There then would be public hearing with lots of arguments on both sides and no
doubt suits filed. Peach continued by stating, "I think we have avoided much of that. That
does not mean there will not be lawsuits down the road, but I think we have blunted a lot of
that." Geoff Blakeslee stated, "I think there would be public hearings, meaningful, but not
sure there would be some of the same outcomes. Not sure there would be a way to gather as
much public input into topics. The RAC is good at gathering feelings within the community."
Ensuring Stakeholder Representation
Unlike the other collaborative partnerships analyzed in this report, members of the NW RAC
must apply to become members and are chosen by federal officials. The process of BLM
officials choosing who will sit at the table to advise them on issues has the potential to be
corrupted by political and personal preferences. Most NW RAC members felt all
stakeholders were represented on the NW RAC. Several members did see the challenge of
politics entering the selection process and of ensuring the correct mix of stakeholder when
space is limited to fifteen participants.
Challenges
Politics
As explained above, RAC members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior after local
BLM officials forward their choices. The Secretary "shall provide for balanced and broad
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-9
representation from within each category." It appears the composition of statewide RACs
have a greater potential to be influenced by politics than regional RACs, like the NW RAC.14
With a member of the governor's office as Co-Chair, the New Mexico RAC seems to
exemplify this point well. According to Rich Whitley, Associate State Director for the New
Mexico BLM who often attends New Mexico RAC meetings, "politics play a much bigger
role at the statewide levels than a more local RAC."
It appears as if the NW RAC has not been greatly influenced by politics in the selection of
members. Most members feel all stakeholders are represented and Mark Morse has done a
"good job" at selecting members. "I do not think Mark has been swayed by a lot of pressure.
He put together a RAC that can work well together," said Walid Bou-Matar. Bou-Matar
continued, "I think everyone is heard from." Bou-Matar's comments' were expressed by
several members. Not one member expressed any feeling that Morse's selection of members
was swayed by politics at any level. Morse understands the challenge politics could pose and
speaking generally expressed his frustration with politics: "The politics being played in and
around public lands management is overwhelming and frustrating."
Selection Process
When Mark Morse moved to NW CO one of his duties was to work with the newly
established NW RAC. The first members were selected by the Secretary of the Interior
without his input. Since that time he has played a major role in selecting members. Morse
said he, "went through and learned with them...there is a maturation of the process [by which
I select members]"
Most members were satisfied with Mark Morse's selection of participants. Geoff Blakeslee
noted: "I don't know how the names come to him, but I think he does his homework. People
on the RAC are genuine, caring and reasonable people. We don't have any radicals." When
asked if he had heard any concern that some interests had been left out of the process, Don
Peach said, "No, I have not heard that, although there have been some people who have
applied who have not been appointed that have expressed that." Cathie Zarlingo said,
"Coming from the old multi-use boards [which often were dominated by grazing interests], it
is imperative to pull in all user groups."
Environmental Interests
The only interest that several members thought might have been left out and could have
proved helpful during recent debates was a wilderness advocate or "true environmentalists."
Troy Rarick noted that in his opinion all stakeholders are involved "other than a wilderness
advocate...maybe because they are very argumentative, people may be afraid of them. That is
the one view I see missing."
Two of the environmental representatives have some concerns about whether they represent
the environmental population at-large. Geoff Blakeslee stated, "I am in the environmental
category. I am also involved with livestock industry and also employed by The Nature
Conservancy which we consider ourselves a conservation organization, not an
14
Six states contain statewide RACs. Those states are Arizona, Alaska, South Dakota/North Dakota, New
Mexico, and Utah.
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-10
environmental." Cathie Zarlingo had similar concerns when she said, "If there is anything I
would look into changing is the environmental category to maybe conservation and
environmental separate, they are different. An environmental group may look at me and say
well, she is not really representing our constituents and that is probably true. I think right
now we may be missing a true environmentalist."
When asked about several members feeling as if a wilderness advocate was missing, T.
Wright Dickinson said, "I think you will always get that in any type of forum because you
have limited membership, even with fifteen. I think they have done a good job at selecting
members with balance in mind." Mark Morse noted that there was a wilderness advocate
[Bill Shapley] who resigned in the middle of the wilderness debate and, "trying to bring
someone in at the end of it would have been tough." Shapley represented Sierra Club on the
NW RAC. Morse said he was "well liked" by RAC members and "his role needs to be filled."
Morse also spoke about the difficulty in the selection of certain wilderness advocate groups
for a consensus group: "There is a tendency with wilderness groups of saying no compromise
in the field, we will only compromise in Congress."
Clee Sealing who was not selected to represent Sierra Club on the NW RAC said that not
being selected caused, "a good deal of grief among [Sierra Club] people who sponsored me."
When Mark Morse was asked why Sealing was not selected as a member of the NW RAC, he
responded that a couple of things happened. Morse noted that members need to be strong
enough to argue their opinions, but also must be willing to compromise. Morse continued,
"Clee is very good at standing up for his constituency, but is not very good at coming to the
table and having any compromise in him." Morse also stated that RACs are very fragile right
now and that "several NW RAC members came to me and expressed that they did not want
to have [Sealing] on." The last reason Morse stated for not selecting Sealing was that "I have
been very concerned with putting ex-government, federal and state, people on the RAC."
Sealing is retired from the Colorado Division of Wildlife who according to Morse, "does not
have the best reputation right now in the northwest."
Dual Roles
Clee Sealing also said he had a problem with the dual interests certain participants
represented. Sealing stated, "I have a bone to pick with the way these people are placed in
the RAC. [T. Wright Dickinson] is representing elected officials on the RAC, not the cattle
industry and that is what he really represents. The BLM impacts his cattle operation
tremendously, so he actually has a dual role on the RAC and I think that is unfair...Sierra
Club has a problem with that." When asked about Sealing's remarks, Mark Morse stated,
"That is accurate. He is not only a county official, but he is a rancher and an advocate of
ranching." Morse further said that dealing with this challenge is part of the "maturation
process" on his part when selecting members.
Strategies
The NW RAC always leaves time for public comment and publishes its meeting schedule.
Walid Bou-Matar noted that, "Public comment is always open, we respect that and always
make room, we have time for question and answer." Several members expressed a strong
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-11
desire for getting the community involved with their RAC. Members expressed the
importance they felt in keeping in touch with their constituents.
The NW RAC at times goes outside its membership to gain stakeholder representation. Due
to the fact that the NW RAC is currently dealing with recreation issues and there is no
representative from off-highway vehicle groups, Don Peach felt it was necessary to go out
and build a relationship with a particular group that "had developed the reputation of being
unreasonable." Peach noted that their extreme reputation was undeserved: "That reputation
was false when we sat down with them on the recreation guidelines. As I told them later, they
sounded like a bunch of environmentalists by the end. It was important to recognize their
problems. It was a satisfying process and it should be that way and most of the time it can be.
You always have extremists, but most people try to be reasonable and recognize in the long
haul we are going to have to take care of our public lands."
The formality of the selection process means that ensuring stakeholder representation falls
mainly on Mark Morse and the BLM. Morse selects members that can reach greater a
constituency, someone who is willing to negotiate and come to the table with a desire to
express his/her opinions. Morse rarely will interview applicants and will look for someone
their constituency wants on the RAC. "I want to select a member who I will only need to
guide. I do not want to have to jump start an individual," said Morse. As stated earlier Morse
believes the selection process is an evolving one that has no perfect formula.
To ensure that environmental groups apply for upcoming openings, Mark Morse said: "This
time I will send letters out to all the environmental groups in the area and see if they want to
put in a nomination. I will push a little more to get an environmentalist on the [RAC]."
Accommodating Diverse Interests
NW RAC members feel the stakeholders involved in their RAC are diverse. In comparing
this RAC to her experiences on the now defunct BLM multi-use boards, Cathie Zarlingo
stated: "These are much more diverse. With the multi-use boards there was not as much of an
effort to get all sides." Walid Bou-Matar agreed, "Our members are very diverse, a big
mixture of people that well represents [NW Colorado]."
Challenges
With such a diverse group dealing with issues that often directly affect their way of life in
NW CO, the potential exists for the group to become polarized. It appears as if the NW RAC
handles the diverse interests well. When speaking about their relationship with other
members and with Mark Morse, words like "friends" and "respect" were often used. When
asked about his relationship with other group members Troy Rarick said, "I have only been
there for four months, but I am impressed with how the group with such diverse backgrounds
can sit around the table and have such intelligent conversations without letting emotions get
involved." Cathie Zarlingo said, "I feel comfortable with them all."
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-12
Particularly, members felt comfortable with, and respected Mark Morse. Don Peach
described his relationship with Mark Morse as, "Very good. He does a good job at getting us
both sides of an issue and that is important so that we don't act on our own so called personal
prejudices. We have good solid facts when facing various issues." Geoff Blakeslee described
his relationship with Mark Morse as, "very open, cordial, very helpful for me, always makes
himself available when I need an explanation or further information...through the RAC
process I have tried to understand the issues that other members bring to the table and try to
respect that, I may not agree, but I respect that." Often when participants had something
negative to say about BLM they would exclude Morse and the local BLM saying that, "it is
not the local office."
Mark Morse stated how he knew the NW RAC was working: "I realized my board was
working was when T. Wright had Bill [Shapley of Sierra Club] out to his ranch and T.
Wright said to Bill, Bill, why don't you like me? Bill looked at him and said, T. I like you, I
just don't like your damn cows."
With the diverse stakeholders on the NW RAC the fear that compromise will lead to less than
optimal solutions is not evident. Walid Bou-Matar stressed the necessity of compromise in
collaborative partnerships when he stated: "If you want to live in this universe you need to
compromise because you don't have all the truths...and if someone doesn't believe that they
should have their head examined." Speaking about the prospect that compromise could
potentially lead to watered down solutions, Cathie Zarlingo said: "I think this group will
stand firm on sound resource management and not reach that lowest common denominator."
T. Wright Dickinson noted, "I am not saying those things might not occur with other
collaborative groups...trying to find workable solutions and compromise has not diminished
any decision [we have made]."
As a person who attends many meetings representing the views of Sierra Club, Clee Sealing
says "absolutely [watered down solutions] is what happens...nobody is really happy with the
solution because everybody gives up something. It is more of a centering force." Sealing
used the S&G's to explain his belief that the group would not make any decision that might
financially hurt one of the ranchers on the RAC and therefore could not be effective in
dealing with grazing issues. Sealing noted that the Colorado Division of Wildlife pulled out
of the S&G discussion altogether because "there was not a measurable goal in the whole
damn thing. No way of knowing if we were going in the right direction or even if we got
there."
Some members of the NW RAC have acknowledged that there are certain issues that they
personally would not compromise with. Geoff Blakeslee pointed out that, "Native vegetation
issues is a no compromise issue to me. If that situation were to arise, I don't know how I
would deal with it. I am going to stick to my guns. I will work hard to convince anyone who
disagrees that we can't do it any other way. Certain issues people cannot compromise." Walid
Bou-Matar said, "Compromise has not diminished any decision. When it comes to the wellbeing of the land, the public will win, you can't compromise on that. Although when you take
the environment and treat it like a religion it is tough to compromise...and that is a problem.
It is a different value system and that is tough."
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-13
Strategies
Building trust is an important strategy when working with diverse interests. Each member of
the NW RAC spoke about trusting other members fairly quickly. Members thought the open
and honest dialogue was the reason they were able to trust one another. Cathie Zarlingo
summed up many statements well: "I feel comfortable with them all. We all agreed to be
open and honest. I don't feel as if there are any behind the scenes type things going on. I have
learned a lot about each persons background and agenda of the groups they represent."
Similarly T. Wright Dickinson said, "[Trust] came easier to this group due to the way we
started off getting everyone up to speed [such as the weekend training session]. We got lucky
with some personalities, we just clicked as a group."
Making sure every person's interests are being heard from and that solutions the group comes
up with do not leave any interests out was mentioned by several participants. Troy Rarick
noted that members have to be willing to take a stand on the issues that are important to them
and not let solutions become watered down. Rarick felt that was his job with the recreation
guidelines. "Each person, me being the recreation appointee, has to stand up and be willing to
be workable and mellow, but also when something is of vast importance has to be willing to
take a radical stance."
Having good leadership can be a strategy at accommodating diverse interests in a
collaborative forum. Mark Morse's personality made members feel at ease with the diversity
within the group. Each member spoke highly of Morse's role within the group. Geoff
Blakeslee said, "People in charge make a big difference. Mark is one of the better
government employees. I think Mark has looked at the RAC as a way to make him more
effective at doing his job." Cathie Zarlingo similarly stated, "Mark has done a good job at
being supportive and saying we value your input."
A facilitator has been used by the NW RAC during meetings that Mark Morse feels could
potentially become divisive. For instance, the NW RAC used a facilitator from the BLM
during many of their discussions about proposed wilderness regions in NW CO.
Local/National Tension
The NW RAC's sole responsibility is advising the BLM on management of their lands in NW
CO. The fact that BLM lands are public lands brings in national interests that need to be
addressed by this local council. Some see the job of bringing in national interests as BLM's
job, others feel it is within the scope of the council. Don Peach expressed this issue by
stating: "Oh sure, there is a delicate balance between national policy and local
implementation of these policies, or what the locals feel should be the policy...There is a
balance that needs to be maintained and that is difficult at times." T. Wright Dickinson spoke
about how he feels the west can resolve natural resource management issues: "The only way
to do that is to get local people together to figure out what they want to do. The sticker is you
need to figure out how to represent the broad national interests. This is a legitimate concern
of nationals. Although it ultimately needs to work here or it doesn't work. What gets lost in
their process is the respect for local community."
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-14
Some see the solution to the problem of combining national input into local collaborative
groups is to include national interest groups such as the Sierra Club or the National
Association of Cattlemen. "Yeah, out of fairness to both sides they should have to be on the
RAC and have to go through the process the rest of us have to, sit and fight it out," said Troy
Rarick speaking about national groups. On the other hand Walid Bou-Matar seems skeptical
about those prospects, "When we invite small groups like the Sierra Club, or Colorado
Environmental Council, the local people will agree, but when they go to the national group
they get reputed. I think because of the big agenda, the integrity issue. It is all about how they
look in the White House."
When asked about local/national tension within collaborative groups like the NW RAC, Clee
Sealing stated, "It is like stepping on a landmine. When you start to talk about local/national
issues it is like the old west. You come dead on with property rights, local control, right
down the line. Sierra Club's position is these are national lands." Sealing also saw other ways
to balance interest, "Lawsuits that are rooted in federal law depending upon the situation can
level the playing field or through the political process through organizations such as Sierra
Club. "The best example of how the issue of local/national tension has become evident
within the NW RAC is the recent contentious debate over a wilderness proposal (discussed
below).
When asked about the local/national tension and how it has effected the NW RAC, Mark
Morse noted the difficulty of the issue. Morse stated, "[The RAC] has a difficult time looking
at a national perspective, but I am not sure it is really a problem." Morse continued that
"Secretary Babbitt said I want these issues solved at the local level...I am not even sure in
this day with the age of electronics we are capable of dealing with national issues." Morse
also said that he felt the NW RAC should be inviting more spokespeople from national
groups and that the BLM can provide some national perspective to the RAC.
Dealing with Scientific Issues
The exact extent with which the NW RAC deals with the scientific dimensions of an issue is
not clear. From the outcomes it appears that they attempt to incorporate science into their
proposals, although they seem to focus more on the political and societal dimensions. Mark
Morse said the RAC focuses, "Predominantly on the political side, although we bring in the
academia to give a foundation for them to make decisions." Members of the NW RAC seem
to be satisfied with the way the group has dealt with the scientific side of issues.
Challenges
Most members spoke highly with regards to the information made available by Mark Morse
and other BLM staff (see training information below). They did not see dealing with science
as a challenge. "We have a BLM representative at all meetings and we frequently call on
them to explain certain issues or technical aspects," explained Geoff Blakeslee: "I feel the
caliber of advice we get is very high and very good." T. Wright Dickinson gave the group,
"high marks due to starting off with the educational training" and their "deliberateness in the
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-15
way we deal with issues." He continued, "These are smart people, if we don't know an
answer we ask. We have even asked for third party advice when someone thought the BLM
was not trustworthy." Cathie Zarlingo commented, "We wanted to be data driven. We have
worked hard to understand that component."
Clee Sealing has a different perspective on how well the RAC deals with scientific issues.
"Most people have little interest in the technical side, only the political parts of ramifications
of their decisions," he stated.
Strategies
In selecting members, Mark Morse said, "You try to select members with some academic or
scientific background that allows them not to be completely overwhelmed by the public or
political opinion. They then have the strength to stand up on some kind of foundation."
Morse also mentioned that is one of the reasons he feels the workshops and training are
necessary.
Each member mentioned that BLM staff, particularly Mark Morse, has always been willing
to provide the group with any information they needed. At times members mentioned they
felt it was important to go outside the BLM and have experts come and speak to a subject.
Morse stated, "I just don't know how anyone can give me good advice, or work with their
constituents outside, if they don't have a wider perspective than their backyard, even if their
backyard is a thousand acres."
The training provided by the BLM for each member of the NW RAC also focused some of
its attention on scientific issues. Troy Rarick noted that the BLM brought in professors from
Colorado State University, University of Colorado, and University of Arizona during a two
day training session. Rarick said, "I learned more biology and soil science...I learned a lot."
Other NW RAC members mentioned lectures on ecosystem management and rangeland
health provided a strong foundation for their involvement with the RAC.
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Diversity on the NW RAC not only is evident in the amount of issues members bring to the
group, but also in varying levels of knowledge, skills, and power that each member
possesses. In order for the NW RAC to be effective they must deal with the reality expressed
by Walid Bou-Matar: "We don't expect one guy who knows oil and gas to know everything
about ranching, farming and the environment. There is room to listen and build trust; to know
that someone is not giving you a snow job."
Challenges
Several members of the NW RAC did not believe that the varying levels of skills, knowledge
and power had any impact on how the group has run. When asked if he thought varying
capabilities had any impact on the group, Don Peach said, "I don't think so, we learn from
each other...The group is strong enough to tell someone to stop it" if they try to influence the
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-16
group improperly. "I don't think people bring in outside power," stated Troy Rarick. Rarick
concluded, "Sitting at the table we all feel as if we are all equal and have equal say." T.
Wright Dickinson said, "At least I hope that with myself, I try hard to listen to other people
and they are getting their point of view up on the table." Dickinson continued, "I am not
hesitant to talk, and I do, but trying hard to respect the other people...that is very important to
me because I want the same respect. In the beginning there were some who were fearful [that
varying levels of power could impact the group] but that has not played out."
Speaking about diverse capabilities, Cathie Zarlingo said, "When I first looked and saw who
was representing the agriculture-ranching industry they were pretty well known and powerful
people, but I have found them to be very human. They want to succeed in what they are
doing, but they also bought into this process of the RAC. I think they understand that if they
try to overwhelm it, that could torpedo the process and we would be back where we were
before with nothing. I don't know, it may be that we just clicked [as a group]. I do suppose
that on other RACs there could be a situation where a particular group bans together and
takes over the process. I have not seen it with ours. We have a good system of checks and
balances. You have to be confident enough in yourself to not allow someone to dominate."
In discussing his relationship with other members of the RAC, Geoff Blakeslee noted, "At
the first meeting I was intimidated by [T. Wright Dickinson], but I am not anymore. If you
are going to disagree with him, you better have your ducks in a row." From speaking with
several members there was a sense that although Dickinson does not dominate the process,
he is quite strong in his role as chair. According to Mark Morse, "He is an influential person
is western Colorado. I like to have him on the board so he is in view. Even if he was not
chair, he is in a leadership position [Moffat County Commissioner] and I would coordinate
with him more." Morse stated that Dickinson has a great influence on the NW RAC: "He
tries to downplay effecting or influencing the group. The first two years he was much more
influential especially with grazing stuff. The last two years [his influence] has balanced out."
Even though he is "an influential person" Walid Bou-Matar does not think he has swayed any
issue. He states: "The group is strong enough to tell T. Wright to stop it. I have seen it done
before. I think some people are just more outspoken, T. Wright is in that category, but he will
not stop any single person."
Personalities play an important role in determining how the issue of diverse capabilities plays
within a collaborative partnership. Mark Morse expressed that fact when he stated, "There
are certain people who will always get their voice heard. T. Wright, if he has an opinion you
will hear it. Cathie Zarlingo on the other hand, has some tremendous opinions, but for a long
time it was hard to know if she had something to say or she was just going along with the
group." Morse also noted a change in his personality was needed in order deal with the NW
RAC: "I have learned to sit at the side of the table and just be a part of the process, that is a
big step for any BLM Manager...I usually like to be the center of attention and direct
everything"
Clee Sealing called Dickinson his "arch rival at this stuff...he represents a lot of what us at
Sierra Club would consider the worst in the livestock industry." And although Sealing said,
"Don't get me wrong, I like T. Wright. He is a guy you can say now there is a guy you have
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-17
to respect. He has no hidden agenda. You can see through him like a clear glass of water,"
Sealing continued by stating T. Wright has, "scared the RAC into writing a nasty letter to
Ann Morgan (CO BLM State Director) regarding the outcome of the roadless review. He
pushed them into doing something I am sure if they had thought about...I am sure they would
have voted against." Sealing then went on to say that this RAC "for some reason is not well
balanced," and "power plays out in various roles and ways depending on the issue and who
has interests in the issue."
Strategies
To deal with the reality that people were going to come to the RAC with varying levels of
knowledge and skills and be thrown into the complex issue of grazing standards and
guidelines, the BLM set up a weekend training session for members in February 1996. Each
person who attended this training session spoke highly about that experience. The BLM was
"gracious at training us on landscape issues and ecology-based management," said Cathie
Zarlingo. She continued, "Providing training was imperative to working in these types of
groups. When you do that type of training you get people past their own personal agendas
and a lot of people come to these types of groups with their own personal agenda. The
training allows you to look across the table and understand the other person's point of view."
T. Wright Dickinson said he "insisted" on the training session after discussions at the
roundtable led him to believe both the livestock and environmental community needed to be
educated about the other side's views: "As livestock people we are not looked upon by the
broader community as folks that know what the heck we are doing. In reality we have an
innate knowledge of these systems. We needed an educational course to begin with to kind of
try to bring everyone up to the same level of knowledge. At least the basics so they could talk
to each other. So rather than start the RAC off and jump right into the S&G's, I quite honestly
insisted" we have the training.
According to NW RAC members and Mark Morse, the training consisted of spending a
weekend at a local college where several professors from universities throughout the state
came and lectured. Lectures consisted of basic ecology, ecosystem management principles,
rangeland science, and discussions about their individual roles on the RAC. This training on
a smaller scale was recently conducted again as some new members joined the group. Troy
Rarick who is one of the new members who attended the training said, "I went to school for
two days, it was neat. I thought you just start going to meetings and that was how the RAC
worked but they wanted to make sure we were all speaking the same language. I learned
some biology and soil science...so if someone is speaking about an erosion process we all
know."
Mark Morse stated that he felt the BLM was not adequately trained many RACs: "I think the
BLM is falling down on [training RACs]. I know that other RACs have not spent the money
on training that we have spent in Colorado." Morse also felt that training NW RAC members
was instrumental: "I am a strong believer in exposing not only my staff, but the RAC to
[training] because lands management in the west is changing so fast." In addition to the
training Morse also mentioned that he would sit down one-on-one with a member if he feels
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-18
the member is not stating their opinion. "My job is to more than anything make sure that
nobody feels that they can't express themselves, that nobody feels they have to cow down to
any person or any group."
Unique Challenges and Insights Specific to this Case
The Wilderness Proposal
In early 1997, soon after the S&G's were signed for the state of Colorado, the RAC turned its
attention to a BLM policy regarding a wilderness proposal. The wilderness proposal was
"contentious" to begin with. The proposal resulted in a roadless area review of six areas that
have projects or plans proposed for projects within their boundaries. One of those areas was a
place called Bangs Canyon.
The RAC set up an official "informal" subcommittee for Bangs Canyon. "RAC members
went out with BLM staff to look at the land and see whether or not they met the criteria and
we made the recommendation that some of these clearly don't; other have sufficient," said
Don Peach. On May 7, 1998 the RAC gave its recommendation that Bangs Canyon did not
meet the criteria of roadless areas for further wilderness study. Troy Rarick stated, "There
was a strong local consensus that (Bangs Canyon) not be pursued as a wilderness area." On
November 24, 1998 Ann Morgan, Colorado BLM State Director announced BLM's plan to
further pursue Bangs Canyon and two other areas, South Shale Ridge and Vermillion Basin,
as possible wilderness areas.
The BLM's decision to pursue Bangs Canyon as wilderness and not to follow the NW RAC
recommendation caused a very difficult and contentious atmosphere not only in the RAC but
throughout NW Colorado. One newspaper editorial called the decision, "Queen Ann's
Decree," referring to State Director Ann Morgan (Sentinel, 1999). The editorial stated:
"Morgan told council members last week that she can't be bound by what a few pesky folks
in western Colorado think. She needs to consider national implications."
The wilderness situation presents a good example of several challenges such as ensuring
stakeholder representation and the tension between local and national interests. The
wilderness debate also highlights some other challenges that have not been written about
before in this chapter such the issue of value laden topics where certain individuals have a
strong, even financial stake in the outcome and the fear that an advisory council can become
a "rubber stamp."
Ensuring Stakeholder Representation
For much of the time while the group discussed the proposed wilderness area in Bangs
Canyon there was a "wilderness advocate," Bill Shapley from Sierra Club, on the council.
Towards the end of the discussions he resigned from the group for personal reasons. Several
members spoke about the void left due to the fact there no longer was a strong "wilderness
advocate." Troy Rarick spoke about his feelings that a wilderness advocate, someone from a
national environmental organization, should be on the RAC since they often have to power
through the political process to "supercede" the RAC. He stated: "If they have the ability to
straight to the state office then they almost don't want to be on our little committee. Out of
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-19
fairness to both sides they should have to be on the RAC and have to go through the process
the rest of us have to. Sit and fight it out." T. Wright Dickinson on the other hand felt that
wilderness points of view were represented, "Rest assured, I can assure you that there are two
other people there that do a good job at looking at those folks view point."
Local/National Tensions
When asked about local versus national tension, several group members immediately brought
up the wilderness issue. "At our last meeting [local versus national issues] was brought up by
a representative from the CEC (Colorado Environmental Coalition). They pointed out this is
a clear issue that public land are owned by everyone and because they lie within one state
that doesn't give anyone a claim to them,' said Geoff Blakeslee. Cathie Zarlingo said, the
local versus national tension was, "very apparent with the wilderness issue. At the local level
you need to talk about the financial side. Yes, we believe in wilderness but just saying it is
wilderness doesn't protect it.
Contentious Issues
Through the interviews it became evident that certain issues are more contentious because
they are more value-laden. This wilderness debate is a prime example most often mentioned
by members as a value-laden issue that posed problems for the group. "Wilderness can
polarize this group...I do not know if it could be more divisive" said Mark Morse. He
continued: "Any issue with strong emotions can polarize," and when most wilderness
discussions take place he tries to bring in a facilitator. Furthermore some members having a
financial stake in some of the proposed wilderness areas through grazing leases may have
complicated the issue.
It appears that what caused the most "anger" within the group was when they felt the BLM
did not listen to their recommendations and did not pre-notify the group when they decided
to go against their recommendations. Mark Morse said, "several members walked out of the
meeting two meetings ago out of anger." "[Ann Morgan] asked for our opinion, but did not
listen," said Walid Bou-Matar. Many felt a letter writing campaign by many
environmentalists from outside NW Colorado and political pressure from environmental
groups who had not even seen Bangs Canyon had too much weight in the final decision. T.
Wright Dickinson said of the decision, "It was top down." Locals worked hard to come to
consensus said Troy Rarick and, "the state office just overturned it and said lets pursue it as
wilderness, so that was about pressure coming from above that swayed opinions.
Appeal to the Secretary
The group felt that their advice was arbitrarily disregarded by the BLM and therefore upon
unanimous approval by members sent a letter of appeal to Secretary Babbitt. Mark Morse
noted, "Out of no surprise to anyone the Secretary supported Ann [Morgan]." Walid BouMatar stated, "If you are an advisory council and they do not take your advice...then there is
no value in what you are doing, it is a farce, you can't use it just when you need it." His
concern seems to be echoed by most members. Some felt that Ann Morgan did not trust them
and that if BLM continued to ignore their advice the RAC could just become a "rubber
stamp." Furthermore, if the BLM is not going to give them the tough issues several members
stated: "I would not be part of a rubber stamp."
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-20
Speaking about some members' fear of becoming a rubber stamp for BLM Mark Morse said:
"[The RAC] needs to look at what they did. They did not rubber stamp anything for the
BLM. The fact that BLM did not take their recommendation upsets them, but [the RAC] did
its job."
To address some of these issues Ann Morgan came to the RAC meeting on January 14, 1999
to explain her position and quell some fears on the part of RAC members. According to Mark
Morse, "To her credit she admitted she did not handle it right but said she would not hand
over decision-making authority to the RAC." "I do not think she does not trust us. She did a
good job at explaining how she needs to take other factors into consideration when making a
decision. She was not discounting us. The thing that caused a problem in my mind was that
she promised before going public she would come explain the decision to us first," said
Geoff Blakeslee. Others expressed similar feelings and Don Peach noted, "I don't think that
problem will occur again. She (Ann Morgan) is an able person and very much wants to work
with the RAC."
Sources
Gore, Albert. Letter from the Office of Vice President of the United States to Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt. February 20, 1998. Published in Partners Across the West:
Resource Advisory Council. US Department of the Interior, February 1998.
Healy, Melissa. "Way Cleared for Interior to Raise Grazing Fees." Los Angeles Times,
November 10, 1993.
Kenworthy, Tom. "Babbitt Announces Plan to Create Local 'Councils' to Manage Federal
Rangelands." Washington Post, February 15, 1994.
The Daily Sentinel. "Queen Ann's Decree." January 18, 1999.
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
11-21
CHAPTER 12: OWL MOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP
Jackson County, Colorado
Prepared by Dirk Manskopf
Owl Mountain Partnership (OMP) exemplifies a collaborative resource partnership that labels
itself as an ecosystem management group. Triggered by a state-established program, OMP
developed during its first five years from an emphasis on data gathering to an emphasis on
planning, implementing projects, monitoring, analysis, and education. During these five years
the partnership struggled to define its role in promoting a holistic approach to natural
resource management. OMP provides a prime example of a partnership that has struggled to
attain representation from environmental organizations. In addition, there has been a great
deal of local fear toward the concept of ecosystem management and the federal agencies that
are advocating it.
Interviews:
Cary Lewis, Co-Chairman, Rancher Lewis Ranch, (3/17/99)
Jerry Jack, Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management, (3/9/99)
Stephen H. Porter, Steering Committee member, Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division
of Wildlife, (2/9/99 and 3/15/99)
Verl Brown, Steering Committee member, Rancher, (3/10/99)
Greg Sherman, Steering Committee member, Western Envir. and Ecology, (3/9/99)
Jack Haworth, Steering Committee member, Rancher, (3/12/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND15
Origin and Issues
In north central Colorado just south of the Wyoming border along the Continental Divide lies
the North Park region. The region is bound by high mountain ridges and is characterized by
coniferous forests, rolling sagebrush uplands, and extensive pasture lands and hay fields.
Agriculture (primarily livestock grazing), recreation and logging provide the main economic
foundation for this rural and least populated area of Colorado. There are twenty-five major
ranching operations in the area as well as over three hundred small ranches. Local economic
depression due to the closure of the local coal mines and lumber mill, loss of the railroad,
perceived threats from the influx of "new" people, Rangeland Reform, increasing
environmental regulations and a proposed ski area have created a fragmented community.
15
The information for the background has been compiled from several sources; The Owl Mountain Partnership,
A Prototype for Ecosystem Management, Five Year Assessment Wildlife Perspective by Stephen H. Porter and
Dr. Roy Roath, December 1998, Showcasing Sharing Common Ground on Western Rangeland: The Owl
Mountain Partnership by Stephen H. Porter, Colorado Owl Mountain Partnership, Partnership for Total
Ecosystem Management, Seeking Common Ground, April 1994, Ecosystem Management in the United States:
An Assessment of Current Experience, by Steven L. Yaffee et. al. 1996, Owl Mountain Partnership web site,
http://www.yampa.com/northpark/owlmnt/, and the interviews listed above.
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-1
The Town of Walden, located within North Park, has been fragmented to such a degree that it
was listed as one of ten endangered communities according to the National Association of
Counties. The major ecosystem stresses in the region include: past logging and grazing
practices, loss of forage resulting in a decline in sage grouse and deer populations, as well as
an increase in wildlife, particularly elk, retreating to private lands at lower elevations.
Early stages
The Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) Habitat Partnership Program (HPP), a
statewide effort to induce collaborative processes that resolve conflicts between livestock and
big game animals throughout Colorado, was established in 1991 within North Park.16 The
HPP program resolves these conflicts by developing partnerships between land managers,
landowners, sportsmen, the public and CDOW. The North Park HPP composed of interested
stakeholders began by first writing a five-year plan to address the livestock/big game
conflicts. While writing a grant proposal requesting funds from a group known as Seeking
Common Ground17 in 1993, the North Park HPP realized that the locally contentious issue of
the livestock/wildlife conflicts could not be resolved focusing on one or two isolated issues.
They began to realize that many of the livestock/big game conflicts within the North Park
involved larger issues such as other herbivores, vegetation and soil.
After receiving the initial grant from Seeking Common Ground, the North Park HPP was
approached by the sponsors of Seeking Common Ground. They inquired whether or not the
group wanted to begin an ecosystem-based management effort as part of a nationwide effort
to develop new and more effective ways to manage natural resources. For nearly six months
the North Park HPP analyzed background information pertaining to ecosystem management
and determined what it would mean to begin such a process. In the summer of 1993, the
North Park HPP created a separate OMP Steering Committee (herein after Steering
Committee) with the objective of total resource management for the southern quarter of
Jackson County. OMP gets its name from Owl Mountain, a key landmark just southeast of
Walden.
The initial Steering Committee for OMP composed of local agency personnel, landowners,
and business people (several of whom were also members of the North Park HPP), agreed
from the beginning that since there were no set guidelines for ecosystem management they
would have to spend the first five years developing a process that would begin to define it.
Stephen Porter, a wildlife biologist with CDOW and member of the OMP Steering
Committee, noted, "we decided to take the big bite...total resource management instead of
singular elk-livestock conflicts and no one really knew exactly what they were getting into."
Evolving from CDOW's HPP, OMP developed a collaborative approach among diverse
stakeholders to manage a broader array of issues surrounding the landscape. From issues
16
Information about the Habitat Partnership Program in Colorado can be found on the web at
http://www.dnr.state.co.us/wildlife/HPP/HPPsec6.htm.
17
Seeking Common Ground is an ad hoc coalition of organizations and agencies including the U.S. Forest
Service, BLM, National Cattlemen's Association, Public Lands Council, American Farm Bureau, and others. It
was set up after a 1991 meeting in Nevada to "improve and manage rangeland resources to enhance the long
term benefits for livestock, big game, and other multiple uses and to effectively communicate success."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-2
surrounding the livestock/big game conflicts, the partnership expanded its focus on an
extensive set of issues involving water quality, soils and using vegetation as a baseline for
land health.
When asked how visible natural resource conflicts were prior to the formation of OMP,
Stephen Porter said, "extremely." The OMP presented a new way for members of the
community, governmental agencies, and businesses to deal with often-contentious natural
resource conflicts in North Park. Something the Steering Committee learned early on was
that controversy was going to be a constant factor they would have to face. Greg Sherman,
environmental representative on the Steering Committee said, "On a scale of one to ten, ten
being the worst, we were close to a nine or ten when we first got started as far as local
involvement and local trust. There were great many misconceptions, fears and political
factors surrounding the concept of ecosystem management." Stephen Porter stated "Politics
go with the baggage that the word ecosystem management carries. The fact is that people cue
into one word, ecosystem and not the management side of it. Local politics of people not
liking government is also a tremendous hurdle."
In order for the process to work, Steering Committee members knew they would have to get
the support of all stakeholders. But, many stakeholders were doubtful including ranchers who
were skeptical when hearing government resource managers talk about "ecosystem
management" as a new way to resolve resource conflicts on public and private lands. Support
from the livestock producers was achieved through a meeting in which ranchers were asked
if they felt they both could solve the livestock/big game conflicts alone. When ranchers
unanimously agreed they could not resolve the conflict without a broader perspective and
were assured a major emphasis of the group would be to determine the capacity of the land to
support grazing, several ranchers saw the partnership as a means to address their concerns.
Agency support already existed since several agencies previously helped to develop the
model and saw this partnership as a new way to gain credibility within the community.
Stephen Porter mentioned the main reason he personally wanted to take part was to ensure
government credibility: "[Agencies] have to change the way we do business with the people."
The Steering Committee sponsored public meetings, newspaper articles, one-on-one
discussions and other similar events to gain public support and begin to develop an
ecosystem-based management partnership.
Organization and Process
Mission Statement and Goals
As the Steering Committee began developing goals to guide their planning process they
struggled to find common ground on the definition of ecosystem management. During this
time they adopted the following mission statement:
To serve the economic, cultural and social needs of the community while
developing adaptive long-term landscape management programs, policies
and practices that ensure ecosystem sustainability.
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-3
From this mission statement the Steering Committee was able to unanimously agree to five
fundamentals of ecosystem management:
1) Increased trust must be developed between local stakeholders and all levels of
government.
2) Ecosystems allow harvest of appropriate natural resources on a sustainable basis.
3) The local people that will be affected must be involved and empowered to make
decisions and implement actions that will contribute to sustaining the social, cultural,
economic and ecological systems upon which they depend.
4) Environmental education is crucial element of management because it is a process
of learning about the interactions and interdependencies of the socio-cultural,
economic, and ecological systems that support mankind.
5) The issues that drive and ecosystem management efforts must, in large measure,
originate from the community's grassroots. It is here where the sense of place and
community ties to their natural world are best expressed.
Goals were developed through numerous meetings with agencies, individuals, and
community members. Issues were prioritized in terms of what needed immediate action.
From there, a five-year set of goals was established. The goals listed below are periodically
reviewed and reprioritized:
1) To create partnerships that build trust and teamwork to achieve ecosystem health
and resolve resource conflicts which will serve the economic, cultural, and social
needs of the community;
2) To develop and implement an adaptive ecosystem management plan across
political, administrative, and ownership boundaries based on identified issue needs;
3) To document the implementation process of ecosystem management and
communicate knowledge gained from the project to partners and public.
Originally OMP focused on an area of more than four-tenths of a million acres (67% public,
33% private), but in 1997 the partnership decided to expand its boundaries to include all of
Jackson County (more than one million acres with similar percentage public/private land).
Public lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States
Forest Service (USFS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park
Service (NPS), State Land Board, CDOW, Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) and the
Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
OMP Steering Committee is composed of a diverse array of members, representing varying
values and motives. Representatives include ranchers, timber industry, outdoor recreation,
Colorado State University, federal and state agencies (USFS, BLM, USFWS, NPS, and
Natural Resource Conservation Service, CDOW and CSFS) as well as an environmental
representative. At times county and local government representatives have been involved.
To become a member an individual must submit a written application that must be approved
by the Steering Committee. However, Verl Brown, a Steering Committee member and
Rancher noted that, the key to becoming a member of the Steering Committee is to show
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-4
commitment: "All you have to show is an interest and you have to be alive. Although we do
discourage more than one representative from any one agency." Brown continued,
"According to OMP by-laws there must be a minimum, four landowners from within the
project area." Membership has fluctuated during OMP's first five years depending upon the
issue being discussed, although most members spoke of a core group of fifteen to twenty that
attend most meetings. According to Stephen Porter, the strength of OMP lies with the people
who portray the very essence of Western culture such as independence, common sense, and
realism and who actively want to be involved.
The common ground that unites the diverse membership of OMP is sustainable land health.
The Steering Committee has strong representation from landowners and agency personnel
who live and work in the community and provide administrative, financial and technical
support. The committee also seeks support from all other stakeholders and community
members. Some members mentioned that if they know an issue coming up is of interest to a
particular group or person, they make an effort into getting that interest to the meeting.
The Steering Committee serves as the governing body to define, approve and establish goals
and objectives as well as handle budgetary matters. The Steering Committee is also where all
formal recommendations and actions originate. While the Steering Committee forms the
foundation for the process, other stakeholders are always welcome. According to Jerry Jack,
OMP Project Manager from the BLM, "The public is involved anytime they want to be. We
advertise all meetings in the newspaper and also send out about 400 mailers from our mailing
list." During the first four years the CDOW and BLM provided full time positions for a
project manager and an assistant. Currently, the BLM has the only full time project member
(Jerry Jack) with the staff assistant position vacant. "The assistant is something we need and
we were hoping would be back filled by one of the agencies, but it has not." The USFS is
currently providing office space for the group.
After five years the OMP is still developing and has not yet begun to address the "big picture
items" of ecosystem management. "We are still working towards ecosystem management,"
notes Stephen Porter, "It is very difficult to move to basin wide approach...there are many
dangling issues." A five-year planning process was developed at the outset of the OMP
process, with emphasis on: database/inventory, planning, projects, monitoring, analysis, and
education. With the five-year process completed, OMP is in the midst of redefining its role.
With regards to redefining the OMP role, Porter stated, "We are feeling a lot of pressure to
expand. That is scary for a lot of us. All four components will remain. What we emphasize in
the next five years, I don't think we have determined that." "We are moving from project
oriented to issues we can deal with," said Verl Brown, "I don't know how that is going to go."
The decisions of the partnership are advisory. They provide recommendations to the agency
or landowner who manages the resource who can then either act on or ignore OMP
suggestions. According to Jerry Jack: "I do not like to use the term advisory because of
FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act)...I think that a group of individuals with expertise
can look at an issue and give solid recommendations and maybe two or three alternatives, but
that is as far as I would go." Greg Sherman noted that he feels, "An important thing that any
group should have is by-laws or other legal papers...Since BLM representatives on the group
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-5
are bound by FACA they can only represent themselves as individuals and that has to be
documented in the by-laws." According to Stephen Porter the goal of the partnership is to
build enough credibility over time where those who manage the resources can trust decisions
made by the partnership. This credibility could ensure that partnership actions and decisions
would have a better chance of being implemented.
OMP combined revenue from January 1993 through December 1998 totaled just over $1.11
million with the bulk coming from BLM ($422,966), EPA Clean Water Act Section 319
money ($219,950), USFS ($102,084), with state and federal agencies as well as private
sources making up the remainder of financial donations or assistance. Expenditures during
the same time period totaled over $1.12 million including $539,574 for projects, $226,630
for administrative, $153,513 for planning, $117,393 for vegetation inventory, with the
remainder going toward education, travel and publicity in that order.
Process
Verl Brown spoke about the evolution of meeting schedules: "When we first started we just
decided to call a meeting whenever we needed one. That did not work, so when I became
chair, I changed it to once a month. Although we usually don't meet in August as ranchers are
busy and government folks are on vacation." Most meetings are held in the town of Walden,
but occasionally they are held elsewhere or in the field. Brown also described meetings: "We
run fairly loose meetings. We have an agenda and we try to keep meetings as organized as
possible." Cary Lewis described the typical process: "Ideas are brought to the Steering
Committee. Whoever brings the idea, presents it and gives the pros and cons, usually mostly
pros. We then try to tie it back to our objectives. We look for data and input and then decide
whether or not to go further."
As issues and conflicts are identified, OMP often attempts to first review a considerable
amount of background information and often appoints subcommittees to do in-depth work.
Examples include budget, economic, education and project committees. "We have five or six
standing committees currently that evolve as we go along," said Jerry Jack. The decisions
and recommendations from the subcommittees are taken to the full Steering Committee for
further study and approval. Both subcommittees and the Steering Committee use consensus
decision-making requiring full agreement from each group member.
Stephen Porter noted that the group has often been criticized for using consensus because
decisions often take longer. Stephen Porter said, "If we can't reach consensus we will table it
and come back or stay with it until we resolve it, we work through it." At the same time,
Porter was quick to point out the strength of decisions once consensus is reached: "If
everyone is doing their job they have to pay attention and communicate back and the issue is
covered so that each person gets a good understanding of the issue and then we can make the
best decision. That is why we have stayed with consensus."
The Steering Committee elects the Chairman and Co-Chairman yearly at the December
meeting. Chairman and Co-Chairman assist the process and move the meetings along. The
Chairman is also responsible for determining that the activities of the committee are directed
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-6
toward achieving project and community needs. OMP has used facilitators in the past. "Yes,
on controversial issues we certainly do [use a facilitator]," said Jerry Jack, "We only bring
one in when we have a real head knocking session and we know some of the more reticent
members may get stomped over by more vocal members." Stephen Porter noted that, "Over
time we have gotten better and do not use facilitators as much as we used to." Currently,
OMP is using a facilitator from the BLM who is working with the group on its vision for the
future.
Steering Committee members vary greatly in the amount of time they spend on OMP issues.
Jerry Jack, as the Project Manager and BLM representative, works full time on OMP issues.
Others range from several hours a month to twenty percent of their time.
Outcomes
As OMP struggled to define its role as an ecosystem management partnership they decided to
focus efforts on database and inventory projects. Having evolved from livestock/big game
conflicts, OMP decided to use soils and vegetation as indicators for land health. For the first
three years OMP focused on gathering data, including vegetation sampling, soils studies, and
Neotropical bird surveys. A majority of the time, effort and money was spent on an extensive
range site inventory. Using vegetation as an indicator of rangeland health was and still is a
major focus of the group.
Verl Brown noted that the partnership heavily focuses on on-the-ground project
implementation: "Right now we are talking about moving away from the projects that we
have been so heavily involved with. When we first started five years ago, there were people
wanting to put money into stuff like this cause there weren't many. Now there are getting to
be quite a few of them so we really can't depend upon quite as much money. Moving from
projects-oriented to issues we can do with less money, but it is a question of whether it will
work or not." Greg Sherman noted, "Early on we were trying to get everyone to love us...we
were throwing a lot of dollars to highly visible projects because of that. I think we did some
early projects that weren't tremendously important to land health but they were high profile.
Some of the early ranchers were able to see some projects on their property that aided them
right away."
OMP projects address problems such as: elk populations and distributions compared to
livestock numbers, competition between big game animals for existing forage, damage to
private hay stockpiles, decline in sage grouse numbers, noxious weeds, transportation, and
water quality monitoring. The types of projects undertaken with help from OMP include:
high tensile hay stacks, realigning fences, irrigation projects, soil studies, various bird
inventories, reseeding projects, and sagebrush treatments. One particular project was a
baseline vegetative inventory for the project area to determine the carrying capacity of the
range resource. Another outcome is their newsletter Mountain Ecos which is sent to all
"interested individuals" and highlights recent accomplishments.
Group members frequently mentioned the Hebron Slough Management Plan.
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-7
Hebron Slough Management Plan was developed by OMP for BLM land leased by current
Steering Committee Jack Haworth. The plan allowed for Haworth to keep his permit and
graze on the land with a provision that called for rotating the cattle and installing a fence
system that would allow the area to be developed as duck habitat. Several members referred
to this project as a win-win situation. Haworth was allowed to keep his permit, improved
areas of his grazing lands, and ducks currently have begun to nest in the slough.
OMP members had various answers when asked what they believed was their greatest
outcome:
!
Greg Sherman mentioned the coordination that has occurred: "Not any of the projects. It
is that all the members of the group can talk amongst one another quite openly. BLM can
talk to USFS which is almost never heard of. Ranchers can talk to their BLM
representative or water quality people. It is trust."
!
Stephen Porter mentioned, "The biggest achievement is the process and showing how it
can be done. We have done more projects in that community in the five years of the
partnership than in all the twenty years I was there combined. Those are the products but
we need to look at the potential and what we now can do. [OMP] has shown it is possible
for a community to accept the responsibility of resource management as it relates to
meeting the needs of local citizens and interests of outside communities and stakeholders
within the boundaries of land health sustainability."
!
Jack Haworth felt OMP's projects have, "proved to [environmentalists] that we can have
cattle and wildlife and still improve the land."
!
Verl Brown felt the educational aspect was the greatest outcome: "The main value to me
which did not cost anything at all was the education on grazing practices. I have changed
my grazing practices of the last five years and it has worked so well. I have more grass
for my cattle, more grass for elk. That has been the biggest asset for me. The education."
!
Jerry Jack said, without this effort we would not have a five year track record of
success." He also mentioned the many "spin off groups that have seen what we are
doing."
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
OMP members chose to participate for various reasons. The common thread appears to be
that each member thought that this process had the potential to be effective and they were all
looking for something different from the "top down" approach.
Stephen Porter emphasizes the distrust of government, particularly within the North Park
region of Colorado. In his words: "Government is not well liked in rural communities. We
need to change the way we do business. The goal over time is to build government
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-8
credibility. From a wildlife perspective we need to also deal with the people component if we
are going to be successful and sustainable." OMP provides an opportunity for the agencies to
build credibility within an often-hostile environment, in which they work and often live.
One of the driving reasons for many members to participate in OMP is the promise of the
process. As Greg Sherman highlighted, the old ways of resource management such as public
hearings did not work effectively and often polarized the community. OMP offers something
different that members hope can be the answer to effective resource management from the
ecosystem level and that includes their personal human component into the equation.
While Stephen Porter spoke about the difficulty that a new process brings, he also
highlighted its potential rewards: "This is extremely hard, it is hard for different reasons. It is
extremely hard and it should be. If it was easy we would be doing something very wrong. If
sustainability is something we are all after you have got to start looking at the pieces of a
huge landscape. We need a new process, and this is on its way."
Several of the landowners and ranchers also have the incentive to participate in OMP because
of the possibility of having a project on their lands and learning more effective grazing
techniques. Verl Brown spoke about the education aspect that has led him to "change my
grazing practices over the last five years" leading to "more grass for my cattle and more grass
for the wildlife." Furthermore, Stephen Porter mentioned that the ranchers participating are
"ten steps ahead of the other (ranchers) when it comes to range reform. The people who are
working to alleviate problems on their land will be the first not to lose their permits." Jack
Haworth felt that without OMP, "I would not have my BLM permit in the spring of this
year."
Listed below are several members' reflections on their decision to participate:
!
Greg Sherman wanted: "To avoid lawsuits and public hearings. What usually happens is
that they don't come to a successful fruition, nobody wins a lawsuit except for the
attorneys involved. And as far as public hearings with agencies, they have not been very
successful because of the polarization that occurs when you get a lot of people talking
and discussing, but what you don't get are a lot of constructive ideas."
!
Jack Haworth spoke about the Hebron Slough plan as a catalyst for his participation:
"Our allotment was one of the first to have a OMP project done on. I've spoken before a
lot of groups and if I can help out OMP or anything, I am willing to get up and say what
has worked for me and how it helped me. I thought maybe I could help."
!
Verl Brown thought, "it just makes sense." Brown then spoke about a current lawsuit in
the county where a rancher and the county government is suing the USFS. He noted, "In
the end it is not going to solve anything. I think if the USFS would sit down with a local
collaborative group and look at the problem and look at some solutions" that would work.
!
Cary Lewis mentioned coordination was a driving force behind his choice to participate:
"I could see a big benefit to seeing all the agencies agree and to channel their energies
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-9
toward one line, one way of doing something, put them all into one and we can get more
done more effectively."
!
Jerry Jack spoke about the fact that BLM hired him specifically to work with the
partnership and how the BLM is the most active agency because, "we are the big gorilla
up there."
!
Stephen Porter spoke about his belief in the collaborative approach: "We had the
experience working with it (collaborative partnerships) through the HPP and ...it worked
real well. So we decided to stay with the process and we have learned over the years it is
a better process."
Alternatives
According to members of OMP, several important projects, more localized decision-making,
a more holistic approach to resource issues, as well as the ability to disseminate funds for
resource management, all might have been lost, or never occurred within North Park, without
OMP.
When asked what would have occurred without the formation of OMP members mentioned
things such as:
!
Cary Lewis felt that decisions made would have "been more toward the government
side of the idea and the issues might have not been as well known for people to get
together and debate on them and decisions would have been less favorable for the
landowners."
!
Jack Haworth spoke about the fact that he might not have his grazing permit without
OMP: "There is a good chance I would not have had the permit at all. The movement
for a long time has been to take all livestock off public lands. We (OMP) have proved
to them that we can have cattle and wildlife and still improve the land."
!
Stephen Porter mentioned holistic thinking: "We would not have had such a large scale
look at things. Maybe this is a fad, but this is not the time to back away from this...the
future prospects are too great."
!
Verl Brown mentioned projects that would not have been done: "We would not have
done some good things such as Hebron Sloughs. That was headed to be a disaster."
!
Jerry Jack said, "I think it would be a top down push. For example, the BLM
throughout the west right now is undergoing the implementation of Standards for
Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management and because of the
collaborative efforts and the BLM being so intensely involved and because of some of
the action taken on BLM land in the last five years (with OMP), the majority of the
permittees who have been involved with OMP will not have any problems."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-10
!
Greg Sherman mentioned several things: "Certainly we would not have fallen apart.
There probably would have been a loss of grazing permits to some BLM lease holders.
Some innovative methods for grazing would not be as wide spread as they are now." He
also mentioned that the Hebron Slough project would have been lost.
Several members also mentioned OMP's ability to gather money and combine agency funds
to put towards projects that without the partnership would not have been possible. As Jerry
Jack commented: "The money factor. To be able to stay in business, to support a staff and do
the projects we have been able to has been a constant scramble." As the group has matured, it
is clear that members still fear that resources could run dry. Greg Sherman pointed out:
"What we are finding, and this is typical of so many government programs, of course a lot of
our money is government money, that these programs (Clean Water Act Section 319
funding) are not long term." Sherman continued to say, "They are seed money to get you
started. Well, where do you go after five years?" Furthermore, Verl Brown questioned if the
group needs the amount of money it has been so dependent upon now that they are shifting
their focus more to be an issue-based group: "Moving from project oriented, to issue we can
do with less money, but it is going to be a question of whether it can work."
Ensuring Stakeholder Representation
From reading OMP's by-laws and speaking with members it is clear that membership is open
to anyone interested in North Park resource management and is willing to stick with the
process. Jerry Jack commented about how members were selected: "We opened it up. We
tried to get people to come that should be there. We had no problem with livestock, business
(interests) but we sure had one hell of a time getting anyone to step forward from the
environmental community." Cary Lewis said OMP selected members, "By volunteer. We had
enough interest although we were lacking with some interests." Stephen Porter noted that
they selected members, "By people showing up and showing interest to stay with it."
Challenges
What also is evident is that most members feel there are interests not at the table that should
be. The first chair was a representative from the county government. Ever since he resigned
because of philosophical differences, the relationship between the county and OMP has been
limited. Although OMP members do not think their decisions have been diminished by the
lack of environmental representatives, they have struggled to get the environmental
community involved. Furthermore, several members also mentioned the need to become
more citizen-based and include a more diverse array of landowners.
County Government
Stephen Porter spoke in detail about the problem the group has faced trying to get county
officials to be more actively with OMP. "Early on they were leading it," he stated. "[County
Commissioners] are not pro government for a lot of good reasons. They feel government is
there to keep them from managing their county (66 percent of the county is state and federal
government land) and they feel that amount of government land is a liability, not an asset. It
does not allow them to draw tax revenue and keep things going. Our answer is that it draws a
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-11
different economy than you are used to and don't like. You like the extractive, agricultural
side and this is more recreation. We are trying to profess a government that is there for them
to use and they think that government, especially a united government, is just a coalition to
take more away from them. I think they are going to be up and down through the
[partnership]. If there ever is a place they can use us they will come to the table. We can live
with that. We just have to stay focused on that the involved government in the partnership do
not walk away because of political pressure because they are getting quite a bit right now."
Porter continued that political pressure is coming as county officials pressure the state
legislators who appropriate money for the agencies through the state budget: "The way I can
see it happen is we are fighting budgets right now, we are downsizing under control of
legislature. With county commissioners talking to the legislature it makes it (OMP) any easy
place to cut. My job is being part of it for five years is to say wow, let's take a look at this
before we make any hasty decisions."
When asked about participation of county officials, Verl Brown said: "Oh yeah, that has been
bad." Cary Lewis said: "Local government did not want to be on there. It was their choice. It
would have helped but they keep track of us." Greg Sherman noted that: "The way we have
tried to handle it is through as much discussion and being as opened as we can with the local
entities." Several members thought county officials might be staying away because of a
lawsuit pertaining to timber practices in the Platte River watershed filed against the USFS by
a group called Coalition for Sustainable Resource. The County Commissioners support the
lawsuit, while USFS is represented on the OMP Steering Committee.
Several members also spoke about a proposed ski area development that caused some bad
feelings between the county and OMP, and divided the community. The County
Commissioners were in favor of the ski area development, while participants stated that OMP
took a neutral position. However, it was perceived by many that some OMP members
actively opposed the ski area. Furthermore, while OMP took a neutral stand, several of the
agencies involved with OMP, CDOW, CSF and USFWS were reportedly against the plan
among the high level staff. Several members felt that this situation caused a deterioration in
their relationship with the County Commissioners.
Environmental Community
Jerry Jack stated that OMP has struggled to get members from the environmental community
involved. He also offered his perspective on the minimal environmental representation: "I
don't think the environmental community likes these small local groups because they can't
keep track of them and they can't use their lawyers to come in...It is far easier to call up their
political leaders. I understand why the environmental community is leery of this but it is the
only way to go."
Greg Sherman, considered to be the lone environmental representative on the Steering
Committee, is the President of Western Environment and Ecology, an environmental
engineering firm. Sherman also owns a ranch in North Park and had this insight into why
environmental groups are hesitant to join collaborative efforts: "Recognized environmental
groups, I would not say The Nature Conservancy, but certainly Sierra Club and Friends of
the Earth, are not interested in [collaborative partnerships]. From my numerous contacts in
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-12
trying to get them involved [with OMP] they feel it is not the best use of funds and the
products produced because they are a compromise do not meet their goals. I think you will
find this universally, that recognized environmental groups do not like the collaborative
process and don't get involved and don't support it." Sherman also thought environmentalists
continually keep their distance from the collaborative process because: "One thing we have
found is that compromise does not produce controversy and national environmental groups
and funded on controversy. How do you get excited by a compromise? You can get all
excited about getting all the cattle off the range, but if we compromise, gee we can't raise ten
million bucks doing that." Similar sentiments we expressed by others such as Stephen Porters
comment that "Their agenda appears to be litigation and not things that are working."
Although many members recognized the environmental community was missing, most felt it
had not diminished OMP decisions. Jerry Jack when asked if he felt the lack of
environmental representatives affected group decisions said: "No. I will tell you why. When
you have representatives on the Steering Committee who are wildlife biologists for the USFS
or landowners who are also active Nature Conservancy members and avid birders, I am not
worried about the environmental aspect being lost." Verl Brown stated: "I am a rancher and I
consider myself an environmentalist. [The lack of environmental representatives] does not
bother me." Stephen Porter believes that environmental organizations are not worried about
the OMP efforts: "They don't have a problem with what we are doing."
Kurt Cunningham, Conservation and Water Quality Chair of the Colorado Sierra Club had
two thoughts about why there are no environmental organizations like Sierra Club involved
with OMP. Cunningham indicated distance as one reason hindering participation: "It is way
the hell out there and we don't have any volunteers in that area." Cunningham also mentioned
the amount of time collaborative efforts can take up: "Even [if meetings were closer], you
can waste a hell of a lot of time on these collaborative things. We don't have a lot of
volunteers." Asked if he was concerned about the lack of representation, Cunningham stated,
"In this case, I don't think so...I have never heard anyone say ill of [OMP]"
Citizens and Landowners
Several members also spoke about the lack of small ranching interests and the struggle to get
past early problems of certain individuals trying to "wreck the process." Jack Haworth said,
"I can understand why certain ranchers are not involved. I have mixed feelings. If you want
to get something done there is this process. There is a lot of private land and there is too
much government and we just don't want any part of it." Stephen Porter spoke in-depth about
the problem OMP encountered when certain individuals "were placed there to wreak havoc.
They thought a "no vote" could wreck it because we are consensus, but they could not say no
to everything because a lot of it is good stuff. They eventually lost interest in constantly
voting no." Porter also said these events caused OMP to continually revisit whether
consensus was the way the group should run.
Stephen Porter felt collaborative partnerships were much more likely to succeed if they are
based upon high amounts of citizen involvement. Porter stated: "If the process can start from
the local level and not be started by government I think that is by far the best way. At least to
have extremely strong support from the local level that is willing to take on responsibility.
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-13
Government took that responsibility in a region where government is not very popular and
that created problems." Porter continued, "The governments job, if we really are redefining
government, is to provide background support and the means to make things happen. And if
government is truly concerned with land health, working together is the only way to go.
Government is good at compartmentalizing and forest people think about the forest that is not
sustainable resource management."
Strategies
OMP employs several strategies to ensure stakeholder representation, particularly with
county officials, environmental organizations and a more diverse citizen base. Although
strategies so far have not resulted in many successes, many members expressed a
commitment at constantly reviewing to see who might be missing.
Several members said that OMP members often keep in touch with any stakeholders who
might not be participating. For instance Greg Sherman noted that: "Someone unusually
attends [a county] meeting once a month to give them an update on what we are doing." Cary
Lewis similarly stated, "We keep in touch with those organizations [not at the table] if issues
deal with them."
Most members stressed the openness of the OMP process as a strategy to encourage all
stakeholders to participate. OMP also sends out a newsletter, has sponsored public events and
publicly announces all meetings in the local newspaper.
In order to develop a more detailed relationship with environmental organizations, Greg
Sherman invited Kurt Cunningham from Colorado Sierra Club to take a tour of several
projects undertaken by OMP. Sherman said, "We were lucky to get Cunningham to go on a
tour. That took a couple of years to arrange. We took him on a tour of the wildlife refuge and
the grazing patterns we are doing on the refuge and other grazing practice products we are
producing...and he thought on the refuge the grazing was well done and improving the
habitat so that was a big step." Cunningham said of the trip: "I was not sure how some of it
related to Owl Mountain Partnership, but it was interesting...as far as I can tell it looked
reasonably successful." Sherman also mentioned how early on he would relay information on
to the environmental community and explain what OMP was doing.
Advice
OMP members offered a range of advice about how to ensure stakeholder representation.
!
Stephen Porter said, "Never forget it. Constantly address the gap and if someone is not
being represented don't just tokenly once a year state that they are not being represented
and not try to get them there."
!
Jack Haworth had the simple advice of, "Just make sure all interested parties are there."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-14
!
Verl Brown noted that there is no one solution fits all: "I don't know. I think each
community is going to be different. You are going to have to try to be open and honest
and take chances."
!
Cary Lewis suggested that, "You come up with conflicts you see you can get more
interested people might want to get involved in."
!
Jack Haworth mentioned ensuring stakeholder representation might mean, "you have to
beat the brush depending upon issue. Depending what the group is focusing on. If you are
focusing on education it is helpful to get help from extensions offices we have involved
CSU (Colorado State University) and local high schools, student teachers. What we try to
do is to figure out what we want to solve and then go seek the expertise if it is not already
around the table."
!
Greg Sherman offered the following suggestion: "Try to make as many contacts as you
can. Be informed with local issues important to the group and if you get a representative
from a national environmental group, great, if not well try to represent yourself as best
you can."
Local/National Tension
The majority of the land within North Park is publicly managed lands, mainly BLM and
USFS. OMP members do not feel national interests are being lost in their local partnership.
"No, I don't believe it has been an issue," explained Greg Sherman, "most of the issues we
have dealt with are local issues." Cary Lewis commented, "No big conflict there. The
agencies had to answer to the big guy in Washington at times but other than that we are
pretty well-supported."
Both Stephen Porter and Verl Brown see local/national tension on public lands as an issue,
although Porter states: "If the national interests are truly in healthy rangeland, the best way to
address that is through a process that government can feed into to allow it to happen from the
management side rather than a regulatory side. It is what I see getting done on the ground
(here)...the bottom line is what is best for the land and doing it." Finally the words of Verl
Brown: "Oh yeah, I see it all the time…people have to realize they can not run this county
from Rhode Island. They have no idea. I tend to ignore the problem and tell people to take
care of their own backyard."
Advice
Several OMP members gave advice on how to deal with the tension often felt within local
collaborative groups dealing with public lands:
!
Verl Brown explained, "You have to be confident in what you are doing and you can't
always be looking over your shoulder. You have to have confidence in your ability to
analyze what is going on and recommend possible changes and admit when you are
wrong and to change it as quick as you can."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-15
!
Stephen Porter suggested, "By bringing [local/national tensions] up and addressing it.
Constantly keep motives in mind. Identify the tension, address it, and talk about it."
!
Greg Sherman said, "You have to have thick skin. Do not let early failures detract you.
The ultimate goal of collaborative planning is what you need to fix your attention on and
not, gee, is the (news)paper happy with us. Have an eye on the prize and not worry what
others think."
Accommodating Diverse Interests
According to Stephen Porter, "Working with diverse people on land and resource issues,"
was the greatest challenge faced by OMP. Having several ranchers, several agency
personnel, an environmental engineer, a recreational outfitter and among others a timber
industry representative working collaboratively creates a dynamic that most individuals had
never experienced prior to OMP. Members mentioned several particular challenges, as well
highlighted some opportunities, that the diverse interest brought to OMP.
Challenges
Trust
The water quality-monitoring program was an issue several members brought up when
speaking about a challenge the diverse interests brought to OMP. Early on in the partnership
several members wrote a grant seeking Section 319 money from the EPA to design a water
quality-monitoring program that could be done by volunteers. Within the grant proposal the
members alluded to sedimentation problems possibly caused by off-highway vehicle use,
livestock grazing, mining and timber harvesting.
The grant proposal caused two sets of problems both founded upon mistrust. The first
according to Stephen Porter was the fact that, "water in [Jackson] county was looked upon by
the county and the local water quality district as on their turf and we told them right up front
we thought that we were doing something they should be doing." Porter continued, "They
said they did not want to do [the water quality monitoring] because it would raise concern in
the environmental sector and water users in the county might lose water rights. We disagreed
with that saying if we are doing something now, we are less apt to losing it down the road.
They did not buy into that."
According to Greg Sherman, the second problem the 319 grant proposal brought about was
"When the ranchers found out that [the inclusion of livestock grazing as a possible cause of
sedimentation] was in the grant they went to the county commissioner and tried to get the
entire thing killed. We started a war you cannot believe." Sherman continued to state the
problem was resolved "By sitting down with the water quality commission and the county
commissioners and explaining what we did have and if there was an error it was in the
proposal, not the data itself, and they began to see this as well."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-16
Several members have said that building trust within the community has been the most
difficult challenge OMP has faced. "People still don't understand what OMP is all about" said
Verl Brown; "I had a guy coming around last fall who was running for County Commissioner
and so I asked him what he thought of OMP, and he had no clue what it was about. He did
not even come close." When asked how to solve the misunderstandings and mistrust, Verl
Brown said, "I don't know. We are a small community with many problems that affect the
mental attitudes of folks in the community. There are not many open minds. I think you need
to just keep plugging away."
Jerry Jack had the feeling that some of the county officials were beginning to come around,
"They are starting to come back now. When I took over as project manager I think there was
a feeling that BLM is more used to dealing with a variety of resource issues not just wildlife
(Stephen Porter of CDOW was the former project manager)." Jack continued, "After five or
six years of waiting for us they have found out OMP was not driving people out of business,
was not trying to buy up private lands, all those things the fear factor was about. All those
changes have lead to a realization that we are not a big threat." Stephen Porter said, "The
majority of people are still watching us, we have more active support, than non-support and
that is why [county officials] have not stepped on us."
Watered Down Decisions
Verl Brown felt solid decisions have come from OMP: "The Hebron Sloughs was a pretty
radical approach and we just jumped in and did it. We have not had to compromise much."
Asked if he thought any decisions had been watered down by compromise, Greg Sherman
explained, "Being a consensus group we started off not knowing what [consensus] meant.
We confronted [the possibility of watered down solutions], and we have defeated it numerous
times." Sherman continued by giving the water quality monitoring issue as an example where
the group could have just walked away when discussions got "hot." Several other members
said similar things when referring to Hebron Sloughs that showed the group could take
radical approaches if needed for land health. Stephen Porter noted: "If a group is working
like it should, with diverse stakeholders there, [less than optimal solutions] should not
happen. If one person is guiding it...it can happen."
Several members mentioned there are times when they would not be willing to compromise
in order to avoid what they felt would be a "less than optimal" decision. Greg Sherman
described a situation that has come up where he would not be willing to compromise: "With
sage brush control whether we want to go with herbicide treatment, fire or something else.
Often times a rancher will go with whatever is easiest which is to apply herbicide and don't
worry about it. Time and again my position is we need to re-evaluate on a case-by-case basis
whether the site is suitable for herbicide. I will not compromise on that. It has not been
difficult due to the trust we have developed. When I say I am concerned with this site
because of shallow groundwater and potential fly-by [they understand]."
Time
Two participants mentioned that working with diverse interests took time to get used to.
Stephen Porter noted that, "It is a time thing. It just takes time to get the mechanics of the
process together." Cary Lewis described the differences among OMP members as "different
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-17
livelihoods" and said a particular challenge of time is, "trying to get decisions made takes a
little while to get the best solutions found and convince people that they can live with it can
take even longer."
Opportunities
The diverse interests at the table adds many positive aspects to OMP. Speaking about a
positive outcome obtained from the diverse perspectives of OMP members, Jerry Jack said,
"I think most ranchers now realize that you need some sort of grazing system, you just don't
throw the cattle out on the field and leave them seasonally in riparian zones, you need to
move them." Jack continued about the positive aspects of input from diverse representation:
"There is a greater recognition of the importance of wildlife. I think some of our group
members had not been around ranchers much came with certain opinions have had those
changed when they have met people and seen how they do things." Verl Brown said, "You
get the resources for different ideas. I think the diversity adds a lot."
Strategies
Building trust for many OMP members was not a great challenge due to the small
community feel of North Park. "I did not initially distrust anyone," said Verl Brown. Cary
Lewis explained how there was a lot of "new stuff" and that is the reason, "It took me four to
five months to build trust." Greg Sherman built his trust "over a year" when he was "thrown
in the fire with the water quality monitoring program." Several members also said the main
way to build trust was to sit through many meetings and eventually the trust comes.
According to Stephen Porter, constantly addressing differences was a strategy to bring
members together. When asked how OMP dealt with the diversity, Porter stated, "Mainly by
bringing it up and addressing differences. We constantly need to keep our motives in line."
Advice
Several members provided advice on how to maximize the positive aspects of diverse
representation while minimizing any shortcomings:
!
Verl Brown simply said, "You have a variety of resources and you have to learn how to
tap into them."
!
Greg Sherman mentioned the trust element: "Don't have hidden agendas. Get to trust.
You don't have to agree with what they are all saying, but get all the cards on the table
and know where everyone is coming from."
!
Jack Haworth spoke of having an open mind: "Try hard to work together. Be able to look
at both sides. You might need to give a little at times."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-18
!
Cary Lewis suggested to "Be prepared for the future. Cover all the bases when making
decisions and do not leave anyone out. This will allow you to have a much smoother ride
in the future, to make a stand."
!
Stephen Porter suggested collaborative partnerships should "Pay attention to the people
you have at the table. Identify the workload up front. Promote energy needed to get
going."
!
Jerry Jack felt groups should, "Go out and do it. Don't wait for someone else; if you have
an issue go out and do it. I am impatient about that stuff. Nobody ever is going to give
you approval; you have to take a risk and do it."
Dealing with Scientific Issues
Some of the scientific issues with which OMP handles revolve around rangeland health,
riparian and watershed quality issues, wildlife habitat and health and noxious weeds. Most
members feel the group handles the scientific dimensions well and that needed scientific
information is most often found within the group. If not, they go outside the group to find
"experts" to answer their questions.
Challenges
Cary Lewis stated, "We deal with the science pretty well. We are a bunch of young modern
thinking group. We can see the benefit to the technical side of things." Lewis continued,
"There usually is enough (scientific information) at the table. The agencies have been
gathering data for years. They know a lot." When Stephen Porter was asked how well OMP
manages scientific issues, he explained, "Good, not excellent. That is where Greg Sherman
comes into play. Government is good at collecting data and filing it and Greg said, no you
collect data to use it for management down the road and you constantly go back to the data
and re-evaluate...Like our vegetation database that is something we need to use." Porter
continued, "We did not have trouble figuring out what we needed and knowing that we did
not have all the resources to deal with it."
Asked if he thought OMP members had the needed scientific background, Verl Brown said,
"Yeah, I think so. Greg Sherman, in the area of water, I don't think we could find anyone
better. We have had some timber experts. BLM and USFS have done a lot of good studies we
have access to. I'd say that goes pretty smoothly." Jerry Jack answered the same question by
stating, "Yes, ranchers have experience from thirty years on the land. They may not know the
genus or species of all the grasses and plants, but they sure can tell you which ones are
important to their land."
Greg Sherman spoke about how many members deal with science differently: "Ranchers
usually stand back and listen to the agencies that do have these experts and evaluate the gist
of what they are saying. Ranchers seldom come up with scientific bases, but respect the
agency people that add that." Sherman continued, "We have a lot of good internal people and
haven't used a lot of external people."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-19
Advice
OMP members had several pieces of advice regarding how collaborative groups should deal
with the scientific dimension of the issues they are addressing
!
Jerry Jack felt common sense should not be underestimated: "Don't get wrapped up in the
scientific issues. Don't put all your trust in going out and collecting baseline data. You
better use some common sense in what you are doing."
!
Stephen Porter said, "First identify what your priorities are and what you want to look at
and then start to look at where you can get that science. A lot of rural groups do not like
science...you have to have a strong scientific component. That is where you will get eaten
alive if your protocols are all wrong, if you did not gather good data, if you did not use
data accurately in the best means. That is where the scientific community will come in
and chop you to pieces."
!
Cary Lewis felt dealing with science is more of an opportunity than a challenge: "Look at
it as an opportunity not a challenge. Make us of it."
!
Verl Brown said, "Don't be afraid of it. You have to look for the truth and can't be afraid
of finding something you don't like."
!
Greg Sherman felt groups need to recruit members with scientific backgrounds: "Get as
many people with the needed expertise on your committee."
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Challenges
Most OMP members did not find the varying levels of knowledge, power, resources and
skills OMP members bring to the table to be a challenge. "Maybe we have not had that big of
a problem come up, maybe things just move slow enough," said Cary Lewis. When asked if
the varying levels of knowledge, power and skills members bring to the table has negatively
affected any decisions the group has made, Verl Brown said, "That is a little deep for me. I
like to take what I see is what is there. I don't look for those types of things. I just see us as
all equal and if somebody else thinks they are better then I am, well that is their problem."
Greg Sherman thought the varying levels of capabilities as "More of a personality problem.
You have some people who are louder, more aggressive than others. It could theoretically
control where the group is going. What really happens, though, is it puts a lot of weight on
the private landowner's side. They are typically very quiet about it, but when they do say
something about it, everyone listens...and the ones that yap most kind of get shut off."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-20
The varying capabilities, especially power, can often lead to politics being brought into the
group either by members or from the community. Several members of OMP expressed
discomfort with the role politics has played throughout the first five years. Much of this
discomfort seems to be rooted in the county government's distrust of the process and agency
bureaucracy. "The politics is a real problem," said Verl Brown, "Everyone wants power...the
power struggle between people and agencies...that is a real drawback on getting things done.
Right now we are talking about getting more into the area of issues rather than projects and it
is going to be tough because agencies do not like to give up their authority." Brown said the
greatest challenge is "the political realm and the tendency to get drawn into politics." Cary
Lewis said, "That some big name power has a trump card to change our whole decision on
something always is there as a possibility. On the county level it has been especially rocky."
Strategies
One strategy suggested by several participants to deal with diverse capabilities was to get to
know members outside of the formal partnership meetings. Jerry Jack said, "If someone
because of there background, education or training doesn't understand, you have to take the
time to sit down with them and explain it to them...Go out sit down and drink some coffee
with them and explain things. It happens all the time." Stephen Porter mentioned other
bonding experiences the group has done such as barbecues and work shops that has helped to
build trust among members.
Advice
Greg Sherman and Stephen Porter had advice for other collaborative groups on how they can
deal with the inevitable fact that members will bring varying capabilities to the table:
!
Greg Sherman mentioned the importance of listening and keeping focused: "You have to
keep your eye on why are you doing it and the reason why is collaborative management
for land health and regardless of personalities that should be your goal. So listen to
everyone on the committee with equal amounts of interest and efforts and not allow
personalities to be a part of it even though they will be at times."
!
Stephen Porter spoke of the importance of keeping aware of the issues and others at the
table: "Listen and communicate back to other members your feelings. Be alert. Know
what is going on. If answers are not at the table, find out where they are and make sure
they get introduced. If there is a major question not getting answered make sure it does."
Owl Mountain Partnership
12-21
CHAPTER 13: SCOTT RIVER COORDINATED RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Scott River Valley, Northern California
Prepared by Merrick Hoben
The Scott River CRMP Council attempts to balance the health of anadromous fish runs
with the economic stability of a rural California community. This case highlights the
challenges of building trust among extremely diverse stakeholders, working
collaboratively with strong personalities, and making watershed management changes
within an adjudicated water system.
Interviews:
Allan Kramer, non-industrial timber owner, (3/9/99)
Dennis Maria, California Department of Fish and Game, (3/10/99)
Felice Pace, Klamath Forest Alliance, (3/21/99)
Jeff Fowle, Cattleman's Association, (3/9/99)
Jennifer (Jeffy) Davis Marx, CRMP coordinator 1996 - present, (3/7/99)
Ken Maurer, Marble Mountain Audubon Society, (3/17/99)
Mike Bryan, Scott Valley Irrigation District, (3/10/99)
Mary Roehrich, small landowner, (3/11/99)
Sari Sommarstrom, CRMP coordinator, (1992-1996)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origin and Issues
18
When gold miners first discovered the Scott River in the 1850s, there was little doubt that
northern California's pristine beauty was an integral part of the region's wealth. Lying
adjacent to the mountainous Oregon border, Scott River Valley is located within Siskiyou
County---a 6,313 square mile region whose ecological diversity rivals that of the
Appalachians. The 819 square mile watershed (42% US Forest Service land, 13% private
ranch land) comprises a segment of the Klamath National Forest that spans six distinct
ecosystems, ranging from high elevation Douglas fir forests to broadleaf evergreens that
paint the riparian lowlands. Indeed, dramatic variation in elevation, hydrology and soil
where the Scott tributary joins the Klamath River make the valley a veritable wildlife
treasure. Originally known as ‘Beaver Valley’ for its lucrative French and native American
fur trading, the region is still recognized as a world class fishery where fall-run salmon were
once caught with a pitchfork instead of rod and reel.
18
Background information was compiled from various group publications and web sites listed at the end of this
document.
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-1
Today, however, the Scott Valley and its river look far different than years past. Impacts
began with the gold rush of the 1800s when dream seekers arrived in droves in search of
fortune. With them came mining dredges, tailing deposits, and sedimentation plumes that
damaged streams. When agriculture followed in the soil rich lowlands, mining ditches were
converted to irrigation channels and riverbanks cleared of vegetation for farming and
livestock. Timbering also began in the upland regions of the watershed, causing logjams and
destroying habitat. By 1920, the landscape had been stripped bare of the large Cottonwoods
and tall pines that once shadowed the Scott’s banks. Adding to change, Siskiyou County
requested the Army Corps of Engineers to clear debris and ‘straighten’ the river after a series
of mid-century floods---effectively slowing run-off and lowering the water table. Crop
conversion to more profitable but thirsty alfalfa crops took more flow from the river. Levees
and permanent bank stabilization, established between 1940 and 1974, put the final clutches
on the river’s flow. These impacts would forever alter the Scott River and its ability to
support fish runs.
Environmental Crisis
Evidence mounted with environmental awareness in the 1970s that farming and logging were
taking their toll on riparian habitat. Federal and state agencies followed with substantial proof
that rising water temperatures and increased sedimentation affected the annual return of
anadromous fish.19 Indeed, numbers of Coho Salmon, King Salmon and Steelhead Trout
were steadily dropping. By the 1980s, federal-state cooperative efforts to study and restore
riparian zones---such as the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Program--were
underway. Species and river listings under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act
heightened attention on what was becoming a clash of conservation and economics in the
Northwest. Soon residents of Scott Valley witnessed neighboring farming and timber
communities engage in expensive lawsuits with uncertain outcomes. Cases like the Spotted
Owl sent a lightning rod message about the fate of resource dependent communities facing
environmental regulation. Fearing a similar economic blow, the local Resource Conservation
District (RCD) and residents began to consider how to proactively head-off such a disaster.
Formation of the Scott Valley CRMP Council --- Early Stages
In 1992, the RCD decided to follow the advice of local conservationists and form a
Coordinated Resource Management Planning Council (CRMP) in hope of skirting future fish
listings. Originally developed by cooperative extensions agents in the 1940s to manage
natural resource management issues, the CRMP process was gaining renewed attention in the
West as a voluntary means of bringing landowners, agencies and interested parties together
to resolve resource disputes. Drawing on the example of other successful regional CRMPs,
the RCD convened a public meeting at the local grange hall in June to openly discuss the
concerns of the community. To the surprise of many, an audience of 60 people showed with
a host of issues in tow. As one observer described, the meeting quickly became a "chaotic
Pandora's box” in which "every problem under the sun was put on the table” (Sommarstrom).
Particularly controversial issues were the control of river flow, the restoration of riparian
19
Anadromous fish, such as salmon and trout species, spend the majority of their lives in the ocean only coming
back to their freshwater stream of birth to mate.
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-2
zones, and the looming impact of a Coho listing. Overwhelmed by the experience, the
conservation district facilitator frantically passed his business card to a friend during the
meeting. On the back it read "HELP!!!" in bold letters. Indeed, the meeting was out control
and boded an omen of the challenging process the Scott River CRMP would become.
Participants
Membership in the CRMP represented the diverse viewpoints in the Scott River community.
This was due to the open nature of the first public meeting and announcements in the local
paper that the CRMP was forming. Originally consisting of 18 decision-makers that were
part of the initial gathering, the group has since grown to over 30 active representatives.
These include six federal and state agencies (California Department of Fish and Game,
United States Forest Service (USFS), California Department of Forestry / Fire, Regional
Water Quality Control, and Natural Resource Conservation Service), two environmental
groups (Klamath Forest Alliance, Marble Mountain Audubon Society), and five farming
organizations (Cattlemen's Association, Farm Bureau, Scott Valley Irrigation, Scott Valley
Hay Growers, Siskiyou Resource Conservation District). There are also several small
landowners involved that have property adjacent to the river. Finally, Quartz Valley Native
American reservation and the local timber company serve as inactive members because the
river’s management does not directly affect either party. They may enter the process fully at
any future time.
Organization and Process
After the initial public hearing in June, the RCD decided to host the first official Scott Valley
CRMP meeting three months later in September. The group would have no authority of its
own. Rather, its power would come from landowners, agencies, local organizations and
residents working cooperatively to form management plans that the RCD would implement.
Decision-making is consensus-based with the ability of any member to veto or stand aside if
they do not agree with a decision.20 In terms of staff, the group operated for the first four
years with several voluntary elected chairpersons who organized and ran meetings. The
CRMP has not used an official facilitator with the exception of a 2-year period in 1994 when
management of controversial issues and subsequent difficulty controlling meetings made it
necessary. Due to increasing time requirements of volunteers, the council hired its first paid
coordinator (Jeffy Marx) in 1996 to manage internal communications and guide development
of plans and reports.
The CRMP Council's long-term goal --- to seek coordinated resource management in the
Scott River watershed, which will produce and maintain a healthy and productive watershed
and community--- has remained consistent over the years.
20
CRMP members wear color-coded tags to represent ‘voting’ or ‘non-voting’ status. Voting consists of
approving or disapproving of a group decision and gives the member the ability to veto a decision. State and
federal agencies are non-voting CRMP members and serve only an advisory role on scientific and economic
issues.
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-3
Its short-term goal, however, has become more detailed and broad. Originally focused on
exclusively managing flow levels to protect migration and spawning conditions, the Council
now seeks coordinate the resource management of the upland areas with use of subwatershed groups through the following objectives:21
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Reintroduce fire into the uplands in order to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, reduce
vegetation density, and contribute to building health soil.
Manage forest density where it is not sustainable given site conditions.
Ensure the Scott River road system does not contribute to degradation.
Identify problem areas in the watershed.
Encourage use of best available science in management techniques.
Investigate water storage possibilities that do not affect fisheries and wildlife.
Coordinate and combine data collection to develop priorities and aid decision-making.
To achieve these objectives, four subcommittees are used to break the 30-person council into
manageable decision-making units. Committees and their focus are the:
!
!
!
!
Water Committee - focused on water use, water rights, and ground water issues;
Upland Vegetation Management Committee- focused on water yield improvement, fuel
management, wildlife habitat improvement, water quality protection and rangeland
improvement;
Fisheries Riparian Habitat Committee- focused on artificial propagation, harvesting,
poaching, predation, habitat restoration and emergency conditions; and
Agriculture Committee- focused on water quantity & quality, riparian areas, bank
erosion, stock-watering and private property rights.
These committees embody the current focus of the Council. They are attended by at least
one CRMP member with invitations to individuals outside the CRMP to agencies who wish
to participate.
Meetings
The CRMP normally has regular monthly meetings (third Tuesday) that alternate locations
between the two main towns of the valley, Etna and Fort Jones. This helps accommodate the
40-mile drive some members must make to attend meetings. The council met more often
between 1994 and 1996 because of time-intensive decision making sessions and to break-up
the long hours consensus building requires. By the end of this period, many regular members
were “burnt out by 4-hour meetings" (Marx). As a result, after 1996 it was decided to scale
back to bimonthly meetings with education events during off-meeting months. CRMP
members currently spend anywhere between 3 to 10 hours per month on CRMP business.
21
The CRMP's objectives have been simplified for clarity. See Upland Management Action Plan listed in
Sources for full text.
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-4
Funding
The CRMP is primarily funded by grants obtained from the Klamath Basin Fisheries Task
Force (KBFT), a non-profit organization called For the Sake of Salmon, the California
Department of Conservation, and most recently the California Department of Fish and Game.
Other projects prioritized by the CRMP and implemented by the Siskiyou RCD have tapped
funding from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, the University of California-Davis, and small foundations. Total funding since
inception of the CRMP surpassed $2 million dollars in 1999. Key to the CRMP’s financial
success has been its relationship with the Siskiyou RCD. The CRMP helps funnel
conservation dollars to the area because of its popular multi-interest process, while the trust
and long-term relationship between RCD and landowners has gained broad involvement
from watershed residents. This complementary partnership gives the CRMP unique
"informal power" to promote management changes on the Scott River beyond its advisory
role to agencies (Marx).
Outcomes
To date, the Scott River CRMP has provided an “essential forum” for dealing with resource
management in the Valley. Athough three years of intensive discussion and argument we
required for the Council to complete the first watershed management plan in 1995,
substantial restoration progress has since been made. Notable achievements include:
!
!
!
!
Bank stabilization, fish screening, and habitat restoration efforts;
Productive joint fact-finding sessions for project data collection;
Equalization of river water temperatures; and
Establishment of monitoring systems.
As one former chairman explains, “it took a long time to create the problems we have now,
and it will take a long time to fix them.” For now, the Council has attempted to address less
controversial projects first in hopes of confronting more tenuous issues down the road.
In contrast, some members doubt that protecting fall salmon runs can be done without
addressing broader underlying political issues. One of these is the adjudication of the river in
1980 by the State Water Resources Control Board that allocates more than four times the
total amount of water in the Scott to ranchers for crops and livestock. Additional concern
stems from timber activity on Forest Service land contributing to sedimentation in the upland
watershed. Former chair Sari Sommarstrom notes,"There is simply not enough water
available to meet the needs of the fish and all the stakeholders. Something or someone has
got to give.”
Given these conditions, conflict is commonplace in the group. For example, one group
member filed for endangered listing of the Coho Salmon in 1994 and again for the Steelhead
Trout in February 1999 --- both unbeknownst to the Council. While some view these actions
as the right of any member to pursue their interests, others see it as an affront to the
commitment of the group to work through problems outside of the court. In the words of one
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-5
member, “What we are dealing with is a matter of trust, and our trust has been broken.” "On
the other hand," notes another participant, “without the fire under the feet that legal action
represents, the group would unlikely make the tough management choices.” Coordinator
Jeffy Marx summarizes the tension saying “It’s been a bit of roller coaster, with periods of
successful decision-making and other times of total roadblock---and it will be interesting to
say the least to see if we can survive this latest bump in the road."
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
The choice to collaborate in the Scott River CRMP was triggered by the threat of the Coho
listing. Though not visible to the entire community, the local RCD saw the increasingly
effective use of lawsuits as an environmentalist strategy in the Northwest and feared its
effects on the economy. Siskiyou RCD knew it had to expand its approach beyond a one-onone restoration effort with farmers. Watershed consultant Sari Sommarstrom and local
environmentalist Felice Pace played important roles in bringing the threat to their attention.
As Pace recalls “We went to the RCD and told them the Coho listing was coming and they
had better get out in front of it. Because RCD is the link to land management decisions with
landowners, it was obvious they needed to be the lead organization.”
Participants had a broad range of reasons for participating in a collaborative effort.
Landowners like Mary Roerich with river side property, for example, wanted to get involved
to hope to at least have a say in land management activity. Farmers and ranchers were more
concerned with how a potential listing would affect their businesses while others admit they
hoped to "capitalize" on RCD funds for restoration efforts. Agency representatives perceive
the CRMP as an opportunity to improve its struggling relationship and reputation of distrust
with landowners. Finally, environmental groups like the Klamath Fisheries Alliance believe
the CRMP to be an effective avenue to simultaneously support cooperative conservation
efforts and species protection. Indeed, all participants feel that a “well functioning CRMP”
could deter federal regulators from promulgating economically detrimental regulation.
Alternatives
According to participants, there was no reasonable alternative to the collaborative process.
The listing of the Coho appeared imminent and a lawsuit battle was financially prohibitive.
The one exception is Klamath Forest Alliance representative Felice Pace who chose to
remain part of the CRMP while pursuing endangered species listings to force resolution of
Coho and Steelhead protection. Explaining his choice, Pace remarks that "There is often an
unspoken caveat or expectation that if you are participating in a collaborative effort, you will
refrain from using other means, particularly litigation. But I don’t agree. Others push their
interests, such as lobbying for agriculture interests by the Farm Bureau, yet are never called
to task for pursuing their interests outside the CRMP."
Opinion is sharply divided on Pace’s actions, with some believing it has been "inappropriate"
and others feeling resolute that the valley's problems would be "largely where they were"
without his legal intervention. Many participants now sense the group will break-up and the
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-6
RCD may form its own watershed management group as a result of the division among group
members.
Advice
Given the controversy, participants offered broad advice about the form and role of
collaborative decision making:
!
Former coordinator Sari Sommarstrom remarks, “Make sure your CRMP is an open
process. In its best form, CRMPs give a personal face to government in big states like
California”…“ it should also be a door that reduces the threat of lawsuits that can destroy
communities economically.”
!
Mary Roehrich adds, "Members of the group need to be understanding and cooperative
with their intent to make changes. If not, you should expect to get nowhere."
!
Regarding the form of the CRMP, environmental representative Felice Pace suggests the
need for collaborative efforts to be democratic: “Ultimately I think [collaborative efforts]
should be based on solely democratic institutions like the RCD which is an elected body.
It was a compromise we made at the time. [Forming the CRMP Council as a separate unit
from the RCD in order to attract broad support]. However, I like the idea of a government
institution running local watershed management efforts better than the non-profit model.
It so happens that most communities support [watershed projects], but what if they
didn’t? Where is the democratic access to the part of the community that does not like
them?"
!
Former-coordinator Sari Sommarstrom also cautions about the difficulties of forming a
collaborative group to deal with deep seeded natural resource management issues:
“Trying to do the voluntary cooperative thing when the bottom line is lack of water and
fish is pretty much impossible once you get past the honeymoon stage. That’s not to say
that you can’t get something done with collaboration, but it requires a lot of hand holding
sometimes. I see it as analogous to step Alcoholics Anonymous program. We are all
addicted to water out here, but we can at least make some progress one step at a time.”
!
California Department of Fish and Game representative Dennis Maria voices similar
frustrations: “Because we are using a collaborative consensus-based framework,
sometimes it seems like there’s no way to achieve adequate answers to the larger
problems. Re-adjudication appears to be the only way, because no one wants to give up
anything. Right now farmers have [all the water] and nothing short of changing the law
is going to alter that.”
!
Finally, Sommarstrom expressed caution about collaborative processes: "You see, you
never start these groups without knowing where you are going with them. That’s my
lesson from our first meeting. The Pandora's box approach says ‘we can deal with any
issue and anyone can be involved, anytime, anyplace, but it doesn’t work. Once you
open that box you can never close it again. Afterward, it never got back in control.”
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-7
Ensuring Representation
Ensuring representation has not been a major difficulty for the Scott River CRMP despite the
small size of the valley. In fact, interest from environmentalists, local government,
landowners and interest groups has ensured broad involvement. However, many feel the
impact of the lawsuits on group trust poses future challenge.
Challenges
Lawsuit impact
Involving independent and cautious ranchers in the group has been a constant challenge to
the group. The filing for endangered species listings, perceived by a number of participants
as a "threat that goes above the group and that unfairly forces national law on local issues"
has now inflamed this problem. The result has been the loss of a number of participants and
resignation of two chairpersons. As one participant notes, I'm not going to be involved in an
process where folks might be going behind my back." While the actions of Felice Pace are
not intended to be "secretive," perception has augmented anti-environmental property rights
sentiment in the valley. As cattlemen Jeff Fowle observes, "Those feds should come out
here themselves and see how well we are managing…because if they think that [an
endangered species listing] can provide answers…well, they’re dead wrong."
Strategies
A number of strategies were applied to improve representation:
Formation of subcommittees
The use of subcommittees was seen a way of building trust in smaller groups and getting
individuals more directly involved with decision making.
Facilitation
A facilitator was hired to manage meetings after the contentious 1994 listing of the Coho
Salmon. Establishing ground rules helped calm discussion and keep people at the table.
Small projects first
Attempting smaller restoration projects first became the mantra to ensure participation and
trust building. Many participants believe that "from small successes and broadly represented
achievements, larger issues can be addressed down the road" (Marx).
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-8
Social Activities
Issue educational sessions combined with social events also help involve valley residents.
For example, a water law seminar held by the group in1995 was attended by residents and
farmers as a mean of sharing information on the legal parameters of water distribution in the
valley. A warm meal was served in the grange hall that created "an inviting atmosphere for
exchange." Another success was the old-timers video project. Considered a good “tableleveler," elderly farmers and ranchers were asked to recount the resource conditions of the
valley over the past century. Learning from these residents helped involve them in the
group’s activities and provided opportunity to contribute to the Council’s knowledge base
(Roerich).
Advice
Participants felt that ensuring adequate and fair representation in collaborative processes is a
constant challenge. They offered the following reflections and advice:
!
“You just have to muddle through it", said environmentalist Felice Pace, "You can never
guarantee that you’ll have perfect representation. I only suggest that the bottom line be
that the door be open for democracy to function. And if someone wants to walk out, they
should be allowed to as well."
!
Allan Kramer speaks to the importance of having good leadership: "Finding the right
representative for a particular group is particularly important. You can’t have someone
coming in with their guns blazing and not listening. You need a representative willing to
hear what others are saying. If you don’t do that, you might as well not be at the table.”
!
Sommarstrom contrasts the notion that CRMP should be wide open. In her words: “I’m
not sure if these processes can run fairly and allow adequate representation if just anyone
is allowed to participate. It has been so difficult with [one individual] that it nearly
destroyed the group and discouraged many from participating. It’s not that [the person’s]
point of view can’t be represented, it's just that his style of interaction makes it hard for
others to feel comfortable and to participate.”
!
Coordinator Jeffy Marx speaks to the importance of having the right kind of people at the
table: "It has to do with choosing people who can operate in the consensus process. This
is really an important piece of the equation. You have to be someone who can stay open
and listen and remember what he or she learned in kindergarten---such as containing
anger. I don’t mean you can't vent, but you definitely can't go into the physical realm.
You also need to have good listeners in general and a good neutral facilitator at least to
start out with to help train people in the process."
Accommodating Diverse Interests
Accommodating diverse interests has challenged the Scott River CRMP Council.
Environmental, rancher, and agency concerns vary widely. The clash of recent lawsuits with
the independent culture of the valley again plays a significant role.
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-9
Challenges
Property rights activism
Scott River Valley's property rights activism (known locally as the 'Jeffersonian mind-set’)
has made reaction to lawsuits even more adversarial. 22 Central to this division, is the
controversial role the RCD plays as both a CRMP member and the representative of
landowner interests. According to one participant, "RCD has been afraid to seek restoration
watershed management changes too quickly for fear that they would lose their constituency."
In the words of another, "RCD is effectively seeking to sanitize every CRMP decision so as
not to scare ranchers off." The result has been an arduous and frustrating process limited to
non-confrontational projects (e.g. tree planting, bank stabilization). Coordinator Jeffy Marks
sums the situation aptly: "We go by the premise that we need to seek agreement where
agreement can be found and leave the real tough points aside for now. This may sound like
we would never deal with the main issues. But most of us believe that if you build trust and
make agreements where you can on the smaller issues, sooner or later you end up coming
around to those tough points when folks better understand each others' points of view."
Strategies
Seek middle ground
Seeking middle ground continues to be the centerpiece to the CRMP Council's approach to
addressing diverse interests. Meanwhile, Felice Pace filed for listing the Steelhead as an
endangered species in February 1999 to bring attention to the politically sensitive issue of
water flow. He believes that "lawsuits act as the fire under the feet that force all concerns
onto table. While some participants feel this is painfully necessary others have threatened to
leave the group.
When asked if Pace had violated members' trust one CRMP member remarks:
"Well if I log off my land without permission maybe I've done the same thing. If my cows
are muckin' up the river, maybe I've done the same thing. Just because Pace filed lawsuits
doesn’t mean he's not working hard at the table to solve other parts of the equation. Yeah, the
KFA has damaged trust, but its not an excuse to back out of process. We need every
viewpoint, including theirs. Using the lawsuit issue to reject them is hogwash. It's totally out
of line."
Advice
Advice from participants focuses on the effect of the lawsuit on trust within a diverse group:
!
"I think we have to own up to the fact that a lot of our success has to do with outside
factors like species listings. If we don’t deal with it, it will be dealt to us. I’d like to say
it's all the consensus process, but its really a combination of what's happening on the
22
The Siskiyou region of California has attempted to succeed from the U.S. several times. As late as 1941, the
county put forward legislation to form the State of Jefferson--modeled after Thomas Jefferson's state's rights
policies. The attempt was swept away by the winds of WWII late that same year.
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-10
outside and feeling like we can take some control through the collaborative process"
(Mary Roehrich)
!
Felice Pace feels that conflict resulting from diverse interests is a natural occurrence:
"We must accept that there is a tremendous amount of outside pressure on all sides and
that everyone is playing their own game at some level. Don’t be fooled. What we are
going through is social change and the idea that we can all get together and do this
without conflict or pressures that builds to arguments is naive and wrong."
!
He also feels the need for proper forums to handle the conflict: "There will always be
some sections of society that want change and other parts that resist it. When there is
resistance there is sure to be conflict. Therefore you need institutions that are capable of
dealing with that conflict, as opposed to those that want to avoid it"(Felice Pace).
!
Jeff Fowle believes "taking the middle ground yields the quickest results with the least
detrimental effect on the community. People can cut us all they want because its taken
us 6 or 7 years just to get this far, but they have to remember that learning where to give
and take can be slow and crucial part of that."
!
Mike Bryan also supports compromise: "You can't have the attitude of minimizing or
maximizing anything. Instead, you have to think 'optimum' for the group or situation. It’s
when you’re optimizing for individual concerns that things start to erupt."
!
Jeffey Marx sees the process as challenge of balancing risk and trust: "It comes down to
the people being willing to stretch further with their values…to take risk. And the ability
to take risks requires trust. You see, you have to remember that it’s a slow step by step
process. If people want to see immediate results I don’t think its going to happen, in most
cases. It’s a very long process and there is no way to evaluate our group in this regard
except to ask if we are still working in our process."
!
Jeff Fowle advocates trying to put together as diverse a group as possible: "I pity the
group that tries to find 10 or 12 people with equal knowledge and interests. When that
happens I can guarantee you that there's something they're not thinking about. It would
do us good to recall how Teddy Roosevelt surrounded himself with a cabinet of which
four of them he despised. But he brought them there because they made him think. You
could say the same of our CRMP in that there are people we may not like personally, but
we can all find some respect for where they are coming from.”
!
Lastly, once people are at the table, Allan Kramer suggests looking for the following
characteristics: "Seek representatives with patience, good communication skills, and
willingness to work with others."
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-11
Dealing with Scientific Issues
Incomplete understanding of the causes of fish run declines, lack of data, and inability to
manage and coordinate available information were the primary scientific concerns of the
Scott Valley CRMP. These stemmed from persistent disagreement between agencies and
experts regarding the relationship between agriculture activity, sedimentation, water quality
and the health of fish runs.
Challenges
Managing scientific information
Coordination and assimilation of information from multiple participating agencies has been
burdensome. Not only is the process adhoc, there is no one person responsible for the job.
Moreover, participants complain of "proprietary behavior over information" between
agencies. As Mike Bryan notes, "getting the right scientific information is expensive and
time intensive…and when you get down to the nitty gritty, the agency folks don’t always
know the answers."
It was suggested that the CRMP coordinator take on this immense responsibility. However,
as a former schoolteacher working only part time, Jeffy Marx replies she "neither has the
time nor professional expertise to take on such an immense task."
Isolation
The valley's rural isolation makes tapping external expertise extremely difficult. Though the
CRMP could greatly benefit from outside knowledge, the valley is four hours from the
nearest university (Sommarstrom). Moreover, ranchers and farmers resist being told what to
do after poor experiences with academics that lack ability to empathize with rural concerns.
Politicizing Science
Finally, property rights groups in the valley use the incomplete understanding of factors
affecting watershed health as a way of debunking conservation efforts. Sympathetic
landowners have impeded agencies from conducting scientific test on their property, citing
the river's non-navigability status to prevent access. In addition, the Natural Resource
Conservation Service office has a reputation for being pro-farming and slowing the transfer
of watershed conservation information. According to one participant, "Unfortunately,
[NRCS representatives] here tend to think about the riparian zone as synonymous with the
sacrifice zone---the kind of place where you can let your cows hang out while you protect
your pasture."
Strategies
Educational workshops / Outdoor field-trips / Joint-fact finding sessions
Participants agree that bringing landowners and agency representatives shoulder to shoulder
can break the barriers of information sharing. Issue seminars (e.g. water rights), an 'oldtimers' video project to gather a resource history of the valley, and site visits to proposed
management zones have been particularly successful. Fish and Game representative Dennis
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-12
Maria remarks that these types of information exchange in the valley are "obligatory"
because "to do anything out here requires the blessing of the landowners."
Formation of a technical advisory group
The CRMP council is also seeking funding through grants to hire an independent scientific
advisor to head up a technical advisory group composed of agency personnel. Though
agencies agree on the need for this measure, the concept is still under development and
awaits financial support.
Advice
Participants are frustrated by scientific dilemmas facing the CRMP and offer few
suggestions:
!
Felice Pace believes this problem very much shaped by the cultural and political climate
of Scott Valley. "All I can add is that environmental groups have a responsibility to
make sure the core scientific issues are on the table. I think we have a unique
responsibility to make the core issues clearer and to focus the scientific questions.
Agencies share the same responsibility."
!
Sari Sommarstrom advises making sure everyone has the same information. "You need
to try to instill as much information sharing as possible to sift out the facts. I constantly
refer to Julia's five public land management objectives in doing this. You see, it's not just
that people need to be educated. They need mutual education to take place. In our case it
took three years to become literate on the issues".
!
Finally, Jeffy Marx suggests that it's helpful to have a coordinator versed in the relevant
science issues. "The first chair of this process [Sari Sommarstrom] had a background in
geology as well as working with groups. Comparatively, I came to this process as an exschoolteacher with little understanding of the science involved. I've learned my way but I
think these processes could benefit from coordinators who have both the time and
expertise to manage the scientific information."
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Agency, environmental and agricultural stakeholders bring a diverse range of skills,
resources, and power to table, particularly in terms of scientific knowledge, legal power, and
the ability to negotiate. This circumstance has been frustrating for some. As one participant
describes, "Unequal power is a problem of the world in general, and what we have in our
CRMP is just a little slice of the same thing."
Challenges
Agency control of the process
At the beginning, Scott River CRMP participants feared that agencies would "run away with
the process" by controlling access to technical information. Trust building through the
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-13
passage of time and open access to subcommittees has largely eased this concern though
some ranchers remain skeptical, believing the research is flawed or skewed against there
interests.
RCD's influence
Many Council members feel the RCD is biased toward agriculture interests because of its
role as both initiator of the CRMP and a participant. "At the beginning," one participant
recalls, "it seems the RCD thought the consensus process was just another name for majority
rule. Because they already had the trust of landowners, they attempted to load the CRMP by
putting multiple representatives of the agriculture interest groups on board. In other words,
they wanted to make sure that, no matter what, they had a majority."
Difficulty working with strong personalities
Finally, participants cited difficulty working with Felice Pace. Criticized for being
"obstinate" and "abusive" in his behavior during meetings, he was accused of violating the
group's trust by filing lawsuits unannounced. While, most concurred that his presence has
been a significant challenge, others feel that legal actions are not any different in effect than
"the Farm Bureau lobbying for agricultural interest or a farmer knowingly letting his cows
muck up the stream." (Maurer) Nonetheless, some CRMP members have dropped out of the
process citing Pace’s "irascible personality" as the reason for their departure. One participant
describes the experience in the following way: "[He] broke the rules many times but people
were afraid because of his ability to get the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and others with
big money to sue landowners. Frankly I don’t think the group will ever have trust as long as
he's involved. That doesn't mean his interests can be represented. It's the personality that
represents those interests that’s the problem."
Strategies
Facilitation
The group hired a facilitator in 1994 to manage increasingly contentious meetings.
According to CRMP members, this "helped immensely" and was very important to
establishing ground rules and maintaining meeting etiquette. After two years, however, the
group decided to continue without a professional facilitator in order to save money. Now
similar problems have arisen again, aggravated by the Steelhead listing. Though Jeffy Marx
currently serves as an informal facilitator, this is criticized by some who feel her inherent
involvement in forming management plans could skew the manner in which she handles
issues.
Advice
Participants offers a range of conflicting opinion about how to accommodate unequal power
and skills in a collaborative process:
!
Timberland owner Allen Kramer describes unequal power among group participants this
way: "It's not just an Achilles' heel of collaboration, its an Achilles' heel of the world---and there is precious little we can do about it."
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-14
!
Sommarstrom talks about the need for instituting measures to remove people from the
group: "The lesson I learned is that you pick your people carefully as to who is going to
be at the table. Not just the interest groups, but whom from those groups you work with.
Maybe there needs to be a ground rule so you can kick people off if you need to."
!
She also speaks to the importance of defining the consensus process up front: "It's crucial
that everyone really have a common definition of what consensus means when they first
begin the process. If you don’t take the time to do that in your group, like we didn’t,
you'll have to work through a lot of issues late with representatives trying to stack the
cards in their favor."
!
Felice Pace believes training is the key aspect that can improve communication in the
process: "State and federal agencies need lots of training with these groups because they
often come in with too much arrogance. They need to learn how to talk to rural folks and
explain the issues."
!
He also advocates a mechanism for participants: "You need a training component in the
process so that people become empowered. That can be a source of conflict, however,
because generally those who have power want to keep it. But that’s exactly what we
need to do if we are going to make democracy work in watershed management."
!
Fowle reflects on the difficulty that strong personalities can have on a collaborative
process: "Everyone has to come into this process willing to give something. When there
are people seeking their way or the highway, it won't work. For our CRMP it's Felice
Pace and the Klamath Forest Alliance. For others it might be timber or agriculture
representatives. They aren't filing lawsuits but they are digging their heels in and having
the same effect Felice is having on the Council. I’m sure every group has a member like
this, but you need to figure out how to work with it and not reject them."
!
Finally, Pace reflects: "The idea that the collaborative process is a culture of personality
is all wrong. In my mind, it doesn't have much to do with who's involved. We are just
fooling ourselves. It's basically a myth. It's really about real differences between interests
and how those interests respond to change."
.
Insights Particular to this Case
Addressing Underlying Political Frameworks: Water Adjudication
The Scott River CRMP exemplifies the limits of collaboration within a legal framework.
According to many participants, northern California water adjudication represents a power
imbalance that cannot be changed without involvement of the courts. "There is only so much
water," remarks Sari Sommarstrom, "and when push comes to shove, farmers of valley have
the lion's share and won't be willing to give that up without a fight." For that reason Felice
Pace continues to file lawsuits as a way of "shifting the balance." He adds, "I believe
collaboration is the ideal way, but I think we have to be realists and know that there will be
losers and winners in this process. Collaboration has its limits." Audubon Society
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-15
representative Ken Maurer further comments that "Someone needs to make a judgement for
us with that will force us to address issues we are afraid of. If it takes the KFA forcing
agencies to their job, then I commend them for it" (Maurer).
Managing Difficult Personalities
Accommodating Felice Pace's personality is perhaps the most salient issue of the Scott River
CRMP. Some feel his presence provided the threat that forced stakeholders to address the
major issues while others sense his aggressive behavior damages the collaborative process
and ability of others to participate without intimidation. This quandary raises a difficult
questions about whether a collaborative decision-making body should have a right to remove
someone from a group and, if so, under what conditions.
Determining Group Success
Finally, former chair Sari Sommarstrom offers two questions she believes can help measure
the success of a collaborative group:
!
!
"Has group internalized better management practices for sharing and building on
information?" and;
"Have participants changed their attitudes and practices as a result of the group?"
Sources
Draft of the Scott River Watershed CRMP's Upland Management Action Plan, January 1997.
Fish Population and Habitat Plan, Scott River Watershed CRMP Council, Final Version,
1997.
Jefferson Public Radio Online, The State of Jefferson, "SoWhat is this Jefferson Stuff About
Anyway?" http://jeffnet.org/jpr.state.html, March 1999.
Long Range Plan for the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration.
Program, http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/kris/BIBLIO/HTTOC.HTM, March 1999.
Plant Communities of Siskiyou County. Electronic Atlas of Siskiyou County.
http://www.snowcrest.net/freemanl/atlas/plants.html, March 1999.
Scott River Fall Flows Action Plan-1998 Action Plan Update, Prepared by the Scott River
Watershed CRMP Council, CRMP Water Subcommittee, November 1998.
Sommarstrom, Sari. Coordinated Resource Management Planning: The Scott River
Watershed Experience. Klamath Basin Fisheries Symposium. Proceedings of a Symposium
Held in Eureka, California. March 23-24, 1994. Published by California Cooperative Fishery
Research Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-16
Siskiyou County Home Page. Coho Critical Habitat Designation / Coho Pages / Activism /
Stewardship. (http://snowcrest.net/siskfarm/chabrip.html)
Siskiyou County Farm Bureau Home Page. SCFB Services: Environmental Regulation and
Federal Lands in Siskiyou County. (http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/county.html)
Where in the World is Siskiyou County?
(http://www.snowcrest.net/freemanl/atlas/where.html)
WMC Networker Spring 97: Scott River Coordinated Resources Management Planning.
WPI Project Description for the Scott River Watershed CRMP Council (CERPI).
(http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/wpi/ProjectDescription.asp?ProjectPK=320)
Scott River Coordinated Resource Management Council
13-17
CHAPTER 14: THREE-QUARTER CIRCLE RANCH CRM GROUP
Wind River Range,Wyoming
Prepared by Merrick Hoben
This case demonstrates the use of collaborative decision-making to manage a western
cattle ranch. Insights are gleaned about the complexities of running a for-profit farm
with the input of multiple stakeholders and the unique impact of the landowner on the
form, focus and nature of the Coordinated Resource Management process (CRM).
Interviews:
Tony Malmberg, CRM Chair, (3/18/99)
Jim Allen, Diamond Four Ranch, hunting outfitter, (4/14/99)
Ron Cunningham, Freemont County Extension, (4/5/99)
Marty Higgenbotham, Hudson Grade School Teacher, (4/5/99)
Bob Lanka, Wyoming Game and Fish Department - Biologist, (4/13/99)
Roy Packer, Bureau of Land Management, (3/30/99)
Bob Trebelcock, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, (3/29/99)
Jeri Trebelcock, Popo Agie Conservation District, (4/13/99)
Dick Loper, Praire Winds Consulting, (2/18/99)
Steve Wiles, CRM Partner, Realtor, Rancher's Management Co., (4/13/99)
PART I: BACKGROUND
Origin and Issues
Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM is a 33,000-acre cattle-grazing initiative that lies at the
southern foothills of Wyoming's pristine Wind River Range, 30 miles southeast of Lander.
Consisting of a mixture of deeded, federal and state lands,23 the property balances a stock of
900 cow-calf pairs a year with preservation of a rich ecological landscape. Indeed, its steppe
and upland sagebrush, steep mountain cuts, and riparian lowlands offer range of wintering
habitat for large populations of deer and elk. So well run is the operation that the ranch
recently won the Wyoming's Stock Growers Association Award for Environmental
Stewardship (Grant, 1996).
Yet this picture belies the immense financial and cultural transition its owner has made to
preserve the ranching way of life. In 1980, Tony Malmberg wondered if he'd still be in the
cattle business by the end of the decade. Calf prices had fallen through the floor, interest rates
were high and he faced a mountain of debt. "My grandpa and dad put this place together,"
Malmberg recalls, "and I guess it was my job to pay for it." At the same time, the West was
23
Of the Ranch's 33,000 total acres: 5,400 acres are private land 2,500 acres are state lease, and 22,000 are
owned by the Bureau of Land Management.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-1
confronting cultural changes. Wyoming had led the nation's growth with a 20% population
increase in the last ten years and there was rising sentiment among new residents that grazing
damaged the land (Malmberg, 1999). When his father died in 1978, family members went
their own way, and Tony found himself as a third-generation rancher facing a hostile
environment.
Early stages
By 1988, Tony Malmberg was forced to declare bankruptcy on Three-Quarter Circle Ranch
and worked in Wyoming's oil fields to make ends meet. His first effort at turning things
around was to form a partnership with two local attorneys and an accountant who helped him
repurchase the ranch. The partnership brought increased equity for operations but better
management strategy was needed to fight an uphill battle against rising costs.
In 1989, a conservation district meeting opened a new possibility. Wyoming Department of
Agriculture extension agents Grant Stumbough and Jim Swartz became aware Tony's
ranching dilemma and suggested an innovative land management technique known as
Coordinated Resource Management (CRM). Though the concept had existed since the
1950s, it was receiving revived attention as a landowner initiated tool for bringing together
property owners, agency personnel, and members of non-governmental organizations to
collaboratively manage private and adjoining public lands. With nothing to lose, Tony set out
late that same year to give it a try.
Participants
The initial step was to tap long-standing relationships with agencies and individuals that
Tony felt could bring new knowledge and ideas to the ranch. As Tony recalls, "I sat down
with each and every one of the folks I thought could help me in Lander and personally
invited them to the CRM. It was a very one-on-one process." Indeed, Tony drew on a range
of expertise that continues today. Current participants number around 10 and include:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Freemont County Extension
Popo Agie Conservation District
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Bureau of Land Management (2 - wildlife biologist and range conservationist)
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Hunting outfitter representative
Local environmentalist
Because of his innate concern for the land as rancher, Tony also invited environmental
organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Wyoming Outdoor
Council, and a private environmental consultant to overlook the CRM's decisions. They
declined to participate, however, citing that the ranch was a non-priority concern.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-2
Organization and Process
In terms of current process and structure, Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM functions very
informally. It is a consensus based volunteer run organization with no paid employees.
Administration consists of a single chairperson who serves as "quasi-facilitator" organizing
meetings and ensuring all concerns at the table are heard. Chairmanship rotates between
members depending on the group's current focus, interests, and need of expertise on a
particular issue.24
The CRM initially focused its first years on improving efficiency and profitability given the
grazing focus of the ranch. However, primary concerns have broadened along with
recognition of the multiple factors that affect rangeland management and its interconnection
to environmental health. Other CRM concerns include:
!
!
!
!
!
Water quality;
Bio-diversity;
Education;
Wildlife management; and
Riparian protection.
Accordingly, the group's mission is to:
Promote wise use of the natural resources through application of sound ecological,
managerial, and financial principles; improve knowledge of present natural resources;
promote positive aspects of CRM; and establish a partnership to accomplish multiple use
objectives through combined management objectives.
The CRM has nineteen goals which together aim to economically harvest renewable natural
resources and other assets by:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
24
Establishing a stocking rate and grazing system compatible with multiple use of range
resources -- including recreation, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife, natural, scenic,
scientific, and historical values;
Developing spring pasture or purchase winter pasture that can be integrated into overall
ranch operation;
Improving efficiency of irrigation;
Developing opportunities for range recreation;
Improving hunting opportunities;
Improving animal breeding and nutrition;
Maintaining and improving riparian communities and upland range conditions;
Improving livestock distribution;
Designing and implementing intensive grazing management in respect to special resource
concerns;
Maintaining and improving wildlife habitat;
Using economically efficient conservation and range improvement practices;
Rancher owner Tony Malmberg has never served as chair in order to avoid influencing group decisions.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-3
!
!
!
!
!
Coordinating adequate hunter access to achieve harvest levels for wildlife objectives;
Consulting and coordinating with all affected parties in implementation of CRM plan;
Maintaining a beaver management program to raise water table and enhance riparian
zones;
Documenting and inventorying all ranch resources; and
Monitoring all resource base changes.
Meetings
Meetings are typically held at an agency office (Bureau of Land Management or Wyoming
Game and Fish) or on the ranch itself because of Lander's small size and the fact that the
CRM members live in the general vicinity.25 Group meetings occurred once a month during
the first two years of the process in order to determine goals that stakeholders could agree on.
Initial discussions were heated as the group tried to agree on priorities. The meetings have
since tapered to 2-3 times a year for a few hours in order set priorities and review yearly
strategies. The busy nature of ranching life does not lend itself to more frequent meetings.
Funding
The CRM taps state and federal grants to fund its innovative management. Resources come
from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for reparation and protection of riparian
zones, the Environmental Protection Agency for water quality issue. The Natural Resource
Conservation Service also provides finances via its Great Plains program for herd
management. In all, over $200,000 has been used toward CRM management projects since
1989. As Tony Malmberg notes, "There are no administrative costs except the box of
donuts the chairperson pays for out of their own pocket each meeting."
Outcomes
Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM's collaborative approach has resulted in innovative range
management approaches. As Tony remarks, "I no longer no see the ranch as growing cattle,
but rather an ecological grass growing business. Good beef is a natural result." Indeed,
improved information sharing with agencies and resource experts, effective experimentation,
and enhanced care of the land's resources have resulted in remarkable economic and
ecological benefits:
Outstanding economic outcomes are:
!
!
95% increase in beef production; and
Lowered production costs from $60,000 per year in 1989 to $40,000 in 1998
Equally impressive ecological gains are:
!
!
Increased bio-diversity with more varieties of native grasses and enriched habitat
Natural increases in protein, phosphorus, and other trace mineral levels on grazing land;
25
The town of Lander is roughly 8,000 people and is only 30 miles northwest of the ranch.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-4
!
!
Riparian habitat protection; and
Improved water quality and reduced water use.
New business and education concepts have also resulted from the collaborative effort. Two
concepts include a ranch recreation program that brings 'city folk' to the property to ride the
range and live the ways of West use of the ranch by a grade school science class as case
laboratory for environmental experiments. In sum, Tony remarks, "We've tried to align our
management efforts with the forces of nature, and we reach out to our community to help us
achieve those objectives. We also believe the best way we can be a good neighbor and
practice sound environmental management is to maintain a profitable business." For his
efforts, Tony and the CRM have won multiple awards including:
1989 - Outstanding Area Supervisor, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts
1995 - National Stewardship Award, Bureau of Land Management
1998 - National Environmental Stewardship Award, National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
1999 - Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII - Outstanding Environmental
Achievement.
PART II: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why Collaboration?
Participants expressed three themes in describing their decision to collaborate:
!
!
!
Belief that financial benefit could result from working closely with agencies;
The idea that more information about the land and management strategies could improve
ranching viability; and
Frustration with the ‘old way’ of doing business.
For ranch owners, the choice to pursue collaboration was primarily driven by financial crisis,
not environmental concerns. Ranch owner Tony Malmberg explained, "I was going broke
and that was the wake up call that I wasn’t managing the land correctly and something else
was needed." Partner Steve Wiles recalls being motivated by the economic and regulatory
opportunities the CRM process might offer through working directly with agencies; "We
saw opportunity for land improvement projects and government concessions coming out of
the CRM process --- basically any way to get this operation above water."
Though Malmberg specifically asked others to participate when forming the CRM, they had
their own reasons for choosing to collaborate. Agency representatives generally feel
involvement was part of their public land management duties. Moreover, there was
recognition of the need to "try something new" given historically bad communication with
landowners (Lanka). As BLM range conservationist Troy Packer explains, "agency folks out
here [in Wyoming] are often regarded with a bit of suspicion and are generally distrusted
because regulation and rules are seen a threat to business. Getting involved with the
community at an eye to eye level helps to build those relationships." Likewise, Freemont
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-5
County Extension Agent Ron Cunningham adds that it is his "responsibility" to deal with
land management issues: "I think we are also interested in preventing duplication of efforts
when multiple agencies are working with the same piece of land.”
Other participants feel the CRM provides a chance to affect land management on a broader
scale. Outfitter Jim Allen notes he was concerned primarily about wildlife management for
his hunting operation on the ranch. He thought, "getting involved might provide a chance to
influence policy and management trends on public lands." Comparatively, Marty
Higgenbothan, a schoolteacher who recently moved to Lander from California, saw the CRM
approach as an opportunity "to get to know the community better" through the CRM. "Tony
invited me on as an environmental representative since I had been involved with Sierra Club
previously. I also saw the possibility of eventually using the ranch as a science education
tool for my classes."
Alternatives
According to Malmberg, there were no obvious alternatives to the pursuit of collaboration.
In his words: "I don’t know that I was even aware of options… it was rather a natural
progression of my personality. I had worked with many of the people before and asking
them onto the CRM was kind of like formalizing a brain trust for management of the ranch.
If I hadn't done this I would surely be working in Wyoming's oil fields like I did back in the
early 80s when I was heading into bankruptcy."
As for others, like BLM representativeTroy Packer, there was no doubt that things would
have continued "the way they had always been done" if not for the CRM. "Out here, change
comes slowly in the ranching community---there's lots of tradition to deal with and people
more often do things the way their fathers and grandfathers showed them. CRM has been
growing in popularity, but Tony has taken it further with his creativity and perseverance."
Advice
Participants offered the following advice and reflections when deciding whether to enter a
CRM process:
!
Steve Wiles emphasizes the need to set goals for the operation. "You need to be able to
see where you and your partners want to go. You’ve also got to determine their
willingness and flexibility as well before entering in this process."
!
Bob Lanka advised participants to "understand beforehand that the CRM process can be
very time intensive. You just don’t think about the CRM once a month for 10 minutes
and you're done. It takes quite a bit of effort and thought. If people are not willing to do
that, they don’t work."
!
Finally, Jim Allen voiced concern about agency involvement in collaborative processes:
"I guess I would encourage everyone to start these things with a good faith effort.
Unfortunately I feel that, regardless of what's said, I've come up against the attitude of
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-6
entrenched agencies that I wish were more flexible and creative in there work with
collaborative processes."
Ensuring Representation
CRM participants did not consider ensuring sufficient representation a major issue, although
they did voice concern about the effect if community resources, strength of representation for
particular groups, and the existence of a local / national tension.
Challenges
Community Resources
A primary challenge to ensuring sufficient representation was the small community setting of
Lander. As Tony Malmberg notes, "when you live in a town of less than 8,000, you tend to
know who's in the community and how they can help you. I've worked with most of [the
CRM members] before and that really helps to get the right people on board." By the same
token, Bob Lanka considers Wyoming's isolation to be limiting. "With so many CRM
processes occurring out here, and fewer agency resources year to year, sometimes you just
can't get enough the people to be on these things. I think finding the time to sit on these
Boards is the biggest challenge."
Strength of Representation
There was also general concern that environmental interests are not well represented in the
CRM group. Tony has made multiple efforts to attract environmental non-profit
organizations to the table such as The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited and the
Audubon Society but they have all refused. As Tony says, "They just say no thanks, pat me
on the back and tell me I'm doing a great job. They say they don’t have time for non-crisis
issues." CRM member Marty Higgenbothan added " an independent environmental voice
could bring a unique voice to issues on the ranch that would be free of the constituent based
opinion of agency representatives."
Other participants felt state and federal agencies had too big a voice on the CRM. Ranch
partner Jim Wiles noted that "agency interests are not as diverse as we would like. They have
different methods but they tend to dovetail in their goals." Jim Allen pointed out that
agencies like Wyoming Game and Fish Department are difficult to work with on issues like
managing the deer population: "You see, government and independent expertise have
entirely different constituencies and [hunting] business owners like me often get the short
end of the deal. In these CRM meetings I look around the room and all I see are paychecks.
And when it comes to the rest of us there are none. The only way we pay our bills is through
our risk taking, creativity, and imagination. These guys just don’t have the same stakes
involved as the rest of us and I think it limits them in what they are willing to experiment
with."
Local / National Tension
Existence of local / national tension was also recognized as a challenge. Dick Loper, a local
critic of CRMs notes that most Wyoming residents fear national interests will override local
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-7
control of resources: "Regulations coming from Washington scare the hell out of us. We see
road closures and wilderness designations as a restriction of freedom."
Hunting outfitter Jim Allen agrees. "If anything, it’s the reverse of most people's concern
over local control. To me it seems federal agencies are getting the better end of the deal.
With so many of them involved in management out here, I feel like we've lost a great deal of
control over how we can make a living in our own community. I see the Feds as kind of like
a 900 pound gorilla that doesn’t fit in its cage back in Washington D.C."
In contrast, environmentalist Marty Higgenbothan voices an opposing view: "I personally
don’t approve of public land grazing, yet I don’t have a problem with it when its done right,
like on Tony's ranch. Nevertheless, there is something troubling when a rancher can take a
huge chunk of BLM land for bottom of the barrel rates and use it for their personal
business.26 With the predator control that the government throws in, the economic benefit
really swings in their favor. I often asked myself who promised that profession success?"
Strategies
Invitations
Malmberg's face to face strategy of inviting missing stakeholders into the CRM has been key
to addressing some of these challenges. In his words: "It's like what I did this morning when
I spoke to a Game and Fish representative about a ranching concern I had. He gave me a
recommendation for someone to talk to and I sought them out. In other words, I determine
the need for knowledge and then go and find someone who can address it."
Limiting Participation
Limiting participation to those interested in the CRM's goals has also been a key strategy to
ensuring that the right people are at the table. Some participants voiced concern that a larger
group might mean even broader representation, but at the expense of the functionality of the
ranch. Bob Lanka notes, "the process can become just too cumbersome when a group is
allowed to grow without restriction." He adds, that while CRM certainly is a "useful
approach" to cooperative management of natural resources, "in the setting of ranch life there
has to be some careful calculation between how you idealize the process while still making it
work for the landowner."
Advice
CRM members had a wide range of advice on how to ensure representation:
!
26
Ron Cunningham speaks to the unique nature of representation: "Remember that dealing
with representation is different in every situation. There is no cookbook for it. There are
no two ranches alike, no two families alike, and no two communities alike. You kind of
have to feel your way as you go. Start with the values of the people in the community
and hopefully you can recognize and include others with time."
Federal grazing allotments are granted at $1.84 an acre in Wyoming.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-8
!
Jim Allen adds: "I think representation could benefit from having more self-employed
people whose lives are impacted by our decisions instead of mostly insulated
bureaucrats."
!
Tony Malmberg advocates the inclusion of all stakeholders: "If you can include as many
interests at the front end then you can take care of hidden problems more easily as they
surface. It's just human nature that things start blowing up if folks are excluded. But if
you keep everyone on the inside of the process you can take care of those problems when
they are still small."
!
On other hand, Bob Lanka encourages small groups: "Smaller groups are better. If you
can get a set core of people dedicated to do something in common, then these processes
work better. I've been on large CRMs that try to be all encompassing, which is tough."
!
Though Jim Allen agrees, he also feels group size must be handled delicately:
"Sometimes I think limiting participation could benefit the CRM process. But I can also
see how some group or individual would easily feel left out. It's a fine line. But if you
get every single stakeholder involved it can be nearly impossible to accomplish much."
!
Finally, Steve Wiles ends on this note: "Start with the goals of the ranch and stay within
those parameters. That gives you a tool to handle representation issues. Otherwise,
you're going to end up all over the show."
Accommodating Diverse Interests
Participants highlighted a number of benefits as well as challenges to accommodating diverse
perspectives. Salient themes included:
!
!
Difficulty of matching traditional ways of rancher business with cooperative approaches
to management; and
The challenge of participating in an innovative process with agencies.
Challenges and Opportunities
Balancing Benefits or Costs
Participants felt challenged by the difficulty of separating the benefits and costs when
accommodating diverse interests. As Jim Wiles notes "looking at a common goal through
different interests has given us the added knowledge we've needed to become profitable. At
the same time, diversity can diminish decisions because you don’t always get what you
want." Similarly, Ron Cunningham considers the positives and negatives of diverse
perspectives "like two sides of the same coin…diverse interests have a positive impact
because there are more strategies on the table to address the issues, but the negative side is
the time and energy required to address those ideas.”
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-9
Cultural Limitations
Another concern was the difficulty of managing diverse interests within the independent
culture of the West. According to one CRM observer "Ranchers are for the most part solitary
in their operations and don't possess the skills to interact and make decisions with others.
Hell, they have enough challenge working with their bankers or lawyers, much less a
consensus group!" (Loper) Jim Allen iterated similar cultural limitations for agencies: "I
think for the most part [agencies] are outside of the comfort zone of their rules and
regulations when dealing with collaborative processes. I know we need them when dealing
with public lands, but they have a tendency to fall back on their bullshit rules when the
situation demands that they try something new."
Group Size
Finally, participants raised the challenge of group size and its role in managing diverse
groups. Bob Lanka elaborates: "I've got experience on four of these groups and you learn
quickly that when they get too big it's nearly impossible to make decisions. I think Tony's
group is a good right size for now, but it’s not typical of a lot of other large CRMs I've been
involved in."
Strategies
Holistic approach
Tony's holistic approach to the CRM and ranch management is the driving force behind the
incorporation of innovative ideas in the CRM. As Jim Allen describes "Tony is bold enough
to put his whole ranch into this CRM thing. A lot of folks are afraid to do that because you
really have to open up your dirty laundry for everyone to look at. It’s a bit like inviting the
public to watch you raise your family. Imagine them saying 'well those parts look kind of
good and this other part needs some work!'?" Others agree. "Tony is not your typical
rancher by any means," says Ron Cunningham. "He's broken the mold out here by inviting
us all into his operation. Frankly, some ranchers are even offended by it because they see
him moving away from tradition."
Standing invitation
The CRM group also maintains an open invitation for all to visit the ranch and to see its
successes as well as trouble spots. As Malmberg illustrates, "bringing people face to face
with what the CRM is doing out here allows me to establish a connection. It's like when I
invited Marty Higgenbotham and his wife to tour the ranch and check their doubts about the
sustainability of ranching for themselves. I showed them both the bad and the good. I could
just have as easily said 'to hell with you goddamn vegetarians' and never made an effort to
understand them. Instead, I recognized who and what they were as legitimate and did not
judge them as right or wrong. In turn, that enables them to do the same with me.”
Advice
Participants offered a range of advice on how to maximize the benefits of diverse
stakeholders while minimizing the shortcomings:
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-10
!
Joe Nimick iterates the importance of involving everyone: "It's true that many CRMs are
livestock oriented, but to be effective you’ve got to include a variety of interests and all
aspects of a healthy range. That’s part and parcel of the growing stakes in western public
lands."
!
Ron Cunningham places importance on regularly "checking back in" with the CRM goals
to focus the group and connect concerns at the table to direction of the partnership. "Replowing that ground is often necessary, particularly for new members coming on board
who don’t understand as clearly where the group has been and where it's headed. If you
don’t do that, you don’t have a group marriage. You may even up with a group divorce
on your hands."
!
Marty Higgenbotham emphasized the need to "remain flexible" since you "just can't
always get your way… remember that you’re at least doing something by being involved
in these things instead of watching the land go to heck."
!
Bob Lanka highlights the need for flexibility: " I think you need groups, agencies and
landowners that are willing to leave their dogma at the door. If they are not open to new
approaches, then forget it. People that have strict ideas about making a buck with this
process won't help. "
!
Jim Allen comments on the importance of getting to know people across the table:
"Coming back to the personality thing, once you get to know these people and their
families it’s a little easier to try and understand their point of view. When you can look
someone right in the face and hear why they want to try a certain strategy, or make a
change, instead of reading it in an EIS statement, then it’s easier to find an agreement.
It's a lot better than the cold and faceless and impersonal type of situation we used to
have with agencies."
!
Finally, Jeri Trebelcock encourages CRM leaders to accommodate diverse interests by
example. "Like Tony says, you need to reach out the community to bring people into the
process who you might not otherwise talk to."
Dealing with Scientific Issues
Managing scientific concerns was not considered a major difficulty for the group though a
number of challenges were posed to improving science including:
!
!
!
Access to information
Cultural barriers
Managing new issues
Challenges
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-11
Access to Information
Lack of information and the scientific uncertainty inherent to range land management
strategy are considered obstacles to managing science in the CRM. As Bob Trebelcock of
Fish and Game elaborates, "what we are doing is not an exact science by any stretch of the
imagination.” Tony Malmberg adds that although substantial local knowledge exists on land
management, the best science "comes from far away countries like Australia and Africa
where they've been dealing with desert-like grazing much longer."
Cultural Barriers
As Bob Lanka notes, the independent decision making style of ranchers, time requirements,
and unequal scientific understanding among CRM members combine to make the pursuit of
hard science a "troublesome task." Jim Allen explains that "the need to make quick decision
on the ranch for economic reasons does not lend itself to going through long deliberate
debate over appropriate scientific steps." Though Malmberg regularly seeks outside
knowledge---such as when he asked The Nature Conservancy to evaluate the ranch's biodiversity---operating the ranch leaves little time to pursue formalized scientific decision
making. Moreover, Lander's small size and isolation also makes accessing scientific
information difficult.
Dependency on Agencies
According to Jeri Trebelcock, reliance on agencies like the Fish and Game Department and
BLM for scientific expertise also has its problems. CRM member Jim Allen comments that
this dependency carries a sour taste because of his bad experiences with agency information
that too often has a constituent slant. He states, "With more and more interests agencies need
to respond to, it's hard to know where they are getting their numbers. With deer population
management, for example, surveys just don’t match up with what I see as a hunter. God
knows what they're doing in that main office in Cheyenne. I basically don't trust what they
hand on down from up high."
Managing New Issues
Though not directly a challenge to sound scientific decision making, the presence of new
wildlife management concerns could exacerbate existing problems. Bob Trebelcock offers
an example, "The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone a few years could pose a new
management concern as recent sitings have been confirmed near the ranch."
Strategies
Experimentation and Monitoring
Given the above limitations, experimentation and monitoring are the best approaches the
CRM has found to deal with scientific issues. Indeed, in some cases the CRM has benefited
scientifically from a lack of regimen. As Malmberg remarks, "Even though we don’t have a
methodical plan, I actually believe we are out ahead of science as the agencies know it." By
using an approach to land stewardship known as Holistic Resource Management that focuses
on the health of the grasslands to improve grazing, Malmberg draws on many sources of
knowledge. He states: "Between the on-the-ground experience we have within group and our
ability to monitor and adapt to new discoveries, we can move faster than if it was just the
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-12
agencies making decisions on their own."
Outsourcing
Openness on the part of the group to outsourcing for the scientific knowledge for the CRM
needs has also been key. Malmberg recounts asking The Nature Conservancy to evaluate biodiversity and identify endangered plants on the ranch. In his words "It was one of the best
moves I made to understand the land better… my theory is you can't manage something if
you don’t know what or where it is. I want a track record that shows that I monitored our
activities out here so if somewhere down the line someone wants to take us court we can
show we did the best we could with our resources."
Advice
Having the benefit of hindsight, participants offered a host of advice for improving scientific
decision making:
!
Outfitter Jim Allen encourage better use of agency resources: "I think a greater effort
needs to be made to share information between agencies and look outside them for help
with science. I'd also caution that it can be hard to find the time to do this in the
ranching business when decisions have to be made quickly and there's little time to mull
over the scientific implications."
!
Marty Higgenbothan agrees: "We have got to look for more outside expertise. There's
no excuse for not having it because of our prominent need. This is becoming more
important with the deer population decline we are facing. Bringing someone in who
specializes in this would be incredibly helpful."
!
Ron Cunningham suggests diversifying expertise in the CRM: "There are too many
rangeland specialists focusing the scientific approach to the ranch. We need to diversify
our expertise by bringing on a botany or wildlife specialist for example."
!
Finally, Bob Trebelcock suggests the inclusion of as many voices as possible:
"Sometimes you're just going to have to make do…there's a lot of uncertainty in our
scientific approach, but what are our options? The most we can do is bring in as many
voices to the issue as possible and trust the agencies to work with the best information we
can find."
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
Members of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM possess a range of capabilities and power.
Mixture of public and private land management, combined with the landowner initiation of
the process, pose particular challenges to working together effectively.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-13
Challenges
Landowner Control
Because CRM processes are landowner initiated, participants recognize an inherent bias in
decision-making. As Malmberg describes it, "we operate on a consensus basis but with a
quasi-veto power for landowners. In other words, if I don’t like the decisions that will affect
my lands, I am not going to do what the group wants." Partner Steve Wiles voice similar
reservations: "Yeah, veto power is a security blanket that keeps me from being defensive or
threatened by the collaborative process. I know it sounds hypocritical, but if I had to give that
up I would have to rethink the whole process."
Other participants agree. "To say [the existence of diverse capabilities] doesn't affect the
process," remarked Marty Higgenbothan, "is being too idealist. No matter what situation or
wherever you are, there is always going to be a power inequity based on who holds the cards.
So far, it hasn’t been a self-destructing problem [in our group] because of agreement on our
goals."
Participants view the BLM with similar influence because they are the largest landowner in
the CRM. Dick Loper comments that "[the process] can sometimes feel like a status quo
mechanism because of the grazing focus of agencies." Ron Cunningham agrees: "It's not a
perfect democracy but it seems to be improving. Control of the landowner is still somewhat
of a quagmire and if we are in the same place next year I'll be disappointed. "Over time I
think we better see the improvements in the balance of players at the table, otherwise the
pluses we've achieved will become negatives."
Peer Pressure
Peer pressure poses another challenge to bringing fair and equitable attention to the issues.
According to Steve Wiles, "typical decisions are not unanimous consent and, at times,
people get left out." Roy Packer further describes the social dynamic group as "at best,
general agreement among peers." Jim Allen adds explanation: "One of the real tensions of
these groups is that even when you disagree with something strongly, you have to temper that
with the fact that, even after the disagreement is worked out, you still have to live with these
people day to day in the community." Bob Lanka concurs. "It's not always comfortable
disagreeing when you know you have to work with the person the next day."
Managing Strong Personalities
Managing strong personalities at the table is also a challenge. Though the group generally
gets along, the strong voice and presence of some members, like BLM representative Roy
Packer for instance, has been irksome for some. Jim Allen describes him as "one of those
guys that will break into your sentence mid-stride and will continue for 5 minutes without
thinking about it twice."
Dick Loper, interprets this as "an exploitation of a custom and culture" because "ranchers in
the West don’t have the professional skills and negotiation training you find among
professionals." Indeed, outfitter Jim Allen recalls being outgunned on another CRM when a
Forest Service employee shouted him down for suggesting a vote on an issue: "This guy just
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-14
jumped down my throat screaming that I was breaking his rules. 'Well stick your rules up
your ass,' I said. I'm not a little kid and I'm not in school so don’t hard-line me. I came home
from that at 10 p.m. more stressed out then I had ever been and could not get to sleep until 1
a.m. It was painful as all hell."
Strategies
The group has no specific strategies for accommodating diverse capabilities. However, they
offered following approaches to the dilemma:
Reliance on the chair to incorporate group ideas
Most participants felt that, because the CRM has no formal facilitator, the chair is responsible
for bringing out and defining the interests of group members. Jim Allen remarked that being
the chairperson is "the death sentence of the year" because "doing it well is damn difficult."
Focusing on CRM goals
Focusing on the goals of the CRM was also deemed critical. As partner Steve Wiles states,
"If the groups keeps its eyes on the original goals, interests can be narrowed to a manageable
scope."
Outlasting Controversy
Tony Malmberg notes that sitting at the table longer than the other guy is often your only
option to dealing with power issues: "There are people that operate so close to their
professional traditions or even their personal agenda that it can make them impossible to deal
with. That reminds me why Copernicus, Plato and Columbus didn’t have to go out and prove
to those who thought the world was flat that it was actually round. All of them just
eventually died! There's a similar reality in resource management when an agency
representative comes into the process that you can't work with. Sometimes the only way to
survive is to sit at the table longer than the other guy."
Openness to Diverse Interests
Finally, many CRM members see increased diversity at the table as a means of keeping a
particular person or interest from dominating the CRM. Malmberg again elaborates: "I
guess I see diversity at the table as an insulator against being controlled by one group or
interest. Newton comes to mind when he said that a body in motion tends to stay in motion
at the same rate and direction until acted on by an outside force. So if you're a lone rancher
sitting out there and you get some agency jerk transferred to your region, there's a possibility
they could throw you for a loop. But if you are part of a diverse CRM, you are part and
parcel of a much larger force and he will have a lot harder time knocking you off track."
Advice
Participants had broad advice on how to manage diverse capabilities and power when making
collaborative decisions.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-15
!
Steve Wiles starts with the following words: "I think we need to face up the fact that
these [CRM processes] will never be completely fair and equitable. In the end, you need
to figure who holds the sway and work with that."
!
Ron Cunningham speaks to the issue of trust: "It boils down to developing a bit of trust in
the other guy that he will reason with you fairly. There is definitely a leap of faith
involved."
!
CRM critic Dick Loper recommends training for ranchers: "It's important that[ranchers]
get training in labor negotiations before they even think about coming to the table.
Otherwise they just get creamed. More often than not, I get calls from ranchers that say
they thought [CRM] was a good idea at first, but now it feels like they are getting run
over by a train."
!
Jim Allen suggests that the chair of a CRM group has to facilitate discussion and make
sure everyone gets their say: The chairpersons need to take it upon themselves to bring
out what everyone thinks on the issues. "
!
Bob Trebelcock believes that "professional facilitation might be worth a try…of course
it's all an experiment. A skilled [facilitator] could bring a person out who was quieter
while monitoring more aggressive types. Unfortunately, I think we are often bound by
that person's skills. Not everyone has the ability since it’s a pretty trick process."
!
Roy Packer adds generally that people need to "realize that facilitation doesn’t make
trust, but it can help produce ideas and create conditions that develop relationships.
Don’t be surprised if this takes years though."
!
Finally, Steve Wiles states the importance on being committed to the process for the long
haul: "You've got to have time. It's that simple. Without the relationships between
stakeholders that the passage of time allows, you get people holding back what they are
willing to do because they fear they'll be giving too much. In our CRM, knowing what
process the other guy is going through is also very important because it helps to know
where they fit into the issue and where they don't."
Insights Particular to this Case
Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM offers a number of insights about collaborative activity:
Financial Incentive
Three-Quarter Circle provides a unique perspective on how collaborative decision-making
can function within the for-profit framework of a ranch. The reader should note that the line
between a participant's commitment to collaboration and their need to make a living is a
complex one. Indeed, one participant describes CRM as "quasi-socialization of grazing that
still tries to make a buck." Steve Wiles alludes to the contradiction: "I realize that what I
agree to do in the CRM ultimately has to financially reward me, otherwise why the hell am I
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-16
doing it? In our case, I think it’s serendipity in that what's best for the ecology is also good
business. Otherwise, we would surely not be operating this way."
Impact of the Landowner
It is also clear that Tony Malmberg's ideology has a great deal to do with the success of the
CRM. As Ron Cunningham remarks, "It's people that make these things, not process--- and
it's Tony's uniquely broad approach that has made all the difference." Bob Lanka agrees: "I
think each CRM is inherently different and that difference depends almost entirely on the
ranch owner -- particularly if they have the financial flexibility to experiment with different
ranch management strategies. There's a world of difference between working with a
motivated landowner who has money and someone who's just barely scratching by."
CRM - An Old Process
Finally, many participants acknowledge that the CRM process is really nothing new. Tony
Malmberg explains the point as follows:
"If you know your history, you're aware that Alexander and Jefferson disagreed on
most everything with the constitution but they did agree on the idea that democracy would
flourish and do fine as long as there was a frontier for the losers to escape to. Once that
frontier was closed and the country turned back inward on itself, however, they both feared
that democracy would implode. That's where we are now. There is nowhere left to go and
we are turning back on ourselves having to decide how to manage this country's resources.
In the West, like in Wyoming, it's particularly hard because we are not used to having
to confront people's values. Shakespeare's said it best when he said 'nothing is right or
wrong, but thinking makes it so.' The point is that we've got to learn to work with people's
values instead of fighting them. And until we give others the right to hold their values, you
will never be able to talk honestly with others and you're not going to figure things out.
That reminds me of a discussion I had a few years back in a winter book club. The
issue was western ranching and I thought someone should go and represent the point of view
of a local rancher. I struck up conversation with one of the members and we later exchanged
questions on the issue of cattle grazing. After a discussion, she wrote a bunch of questions
on a piece of paper and put it in my mailbox. I would answer the questions and put them
back in hers. After 3 books worth, her last question was, 'why should I support ranchers
grazing on federal land when they are so traditional?' I answered, 'Have you ever known a
school teacher resistant to change?' As soon as she got it she came running right over
apologizing."
I really zinged her on that one, but it reminds me that we all need to be open to
change out here. Not necessarily to a change in values, but certainly the ability to change our
way of doing and perceiving things… including ranching."
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-17
Sources
Beef Today, "New Age Cowboy - Tony Malmberg's Wyoming Operation is a Model of
Environmental Stewardship," September 1996.
Malmberg,Tony and Grant, Eric, "Riding the Ridges---A Changing Frontier," From draft
chapter - Community. 1999.
National Cattlemen Magazine, "Tony Malmberg, Three Quarter Circle Ranch of Lander,
Wyoming," January 1998.
Ranchers Management Company Flyer, "Discovering Ways to Practice Ecological Land Use
that Pay, 1999.
Range Magazine, Grant, Eric, "Rites of Passage - Peewee Wesaw Breathes New Life into
Old Traditions," Fall 1996.
Three Quarter Circle Land & Cattle Company, CRM meeting minutes,
December 1995 to November 1998.
Vitgoretone Special Report, Producer Profile, "Malmberg Works with Nature to Improve
Ranch Productivity."
Wyoming Governor's Web site, "Ways to Conserve Wyoming's Wonderful Open Lands - A
GuideBook," (A Project of Governor Jim Geringer's Open Space Initiative),
http://www.state.wy.us/governor/openspace/openspaces.htm#31a, January 1999.
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-18
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-19
Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM Group
14-20
CHAPTER 15: WHY COLLABORATION AND ALTERNATIVES
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
There are a variety of ways an individual can deal with environmental and natural resource
issues they are concerned about. Individuals interviewed in our case studies chose to use
collaborative processes involving diverse stakeholders. For non-agency participants,
involvement in a collaborative partnership is often a deviation from more typical advocacy
actions such as attending public hearings, lobbying, appealing agency decisions and even
litigation. For agency participants, collaborative partnerships are a new input channel to
assist with resource management and coordination with other stakeholders.
In order to understand why the number of collaborative partnerships are increasing
throughout the country our research attempted to clarify why each individual has chosen this
form of resource management and what they felt would have occurred had the partnership
not formed. Those interviewed were asked, given all the options available to participate in
natural resource decision-making, why they chose the collaborative approach. Secondly, they
were asked what they believe would have occurred with the resource issues or problems had
the partnership not formed.
The reasons why individuals have chosen to participate and what they felt would have
occurred without the partnerships vary according to numerous factors. By analyzing the
reasons why individuals chose to participate as well as what would have likely occurred, we
hope to provide insights into the individuals' motives for choosing an alternative path to deal
with issues and problems.
Why Collaboration? Summary of Core Findings
There were various responses individuals gave when asked why they chose to participate in a
collaborative partnership. The reasons given generally fall into the following categories:
!
!
!
!
!
!
Empowerment of stakeholders: The collaborative approach allowed their perspective to
be heard by others, was a way to take action and to stay aware of activity.
New strategy: The partnership provided a break from traditional strategies that were not
effective and a different approach was appealing.
Direct stake or responsibility in management of resource: Individuals had either a
financial, legal or strong personal stake in the way the resource was managed.
Coordination: To avoid duplicate work, accomplish more, and gain pooled knowledge
individuals chose collaboration.
Community building: Individuals wanted to improve relations, diffuse tensions, and get
to know other members of the community.
Threat of government action and/or lawsuit: Possible or imminent government regulation
or lawsuit triggered participation.
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-1
Alternatives, Summary of Core Findings
When participants were asked what they felt would have occurred with the resource issues
and problems had the collaborative partnership not formed, they gave a large range of
responses that tended to overlap. Responses generally fell into the following categories:
!
!
!
!
!
Continuation of current management strategies
Loss of holistic thinking and awareness toward issue
Continued contentious atmosphere in community
Government intervention would occur
Increased harm to resource would have occurred
II. SPECIFIC FINDINGS: WHY COLLABORATION?
Empowerment of stakeholders
Members of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch, Clark County
HCP, Scott River CRMP, Northwest Resource Advisory Council, and Animas River
Stakeholders Group partnerships mentioned some form of empowerment as a reason why
they chose a collaborative approach to managing the natural resource issues. Empowerment
can be found in a variety of ways. To some it means having their interests expressed and
heard while for others it is a way to build knowledge of what is going on or to take action.
Having influence over the outcome was a driving force behind many members' choice to
participate in a collaborative partnership. Local gold miner Ann Schrieber said the Clark
County HCP gave her, "a voice to fight the agencies." Members of the Animas River
Stakeholders Group felt the collaborative partnership was a way to enable the community to
participate in the decision-making process at both the state and federal levels. Similarly,
hunting outfitter Jim Allen a member of Three-Quarter Circle Ranch partnership concerned
with wildlife management said: "Getting involved might provide a chance to influence policy
and management trends on public lands."
The desire to ensure their interests or expertise was heard by the partnership was another
form of empowerment that drove individual members to participate in collaborative
processes. Dennis Hall is the Executive Director of Operation Future Association, a farmer's
stakeholders alliance. When asked why Operation Future chose to participate in Darby
Partnership, Hall stated, "They had their agricultural interests...and did not see anyone at the
table that was really doing that." Similarly, Mark Zankel, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
participant and TNC representative noted: "This way we could provide input based on our
understanding and areas of expertise and to look for opportunities to work together with the
Alliance on various projects."
Troy Rarick, co-owner of a mountain bike store and member of the NW RAC, said the
reason he got involved was "The age old answer, if you don't get involved, you can't
complain when things don't go your way." On a different note, T. Wright Dickinson, Chair of
the NW RAC, thought that it was the partnership that empowered each interest, "When you
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-2
get a diverse group together and agree on something it is a very powerful force to be
reckoned with."
New strategy
Many participants were driven to collaborate out of frustration. In general, they felt the top
down management approach of agencies was not working, wanted to avoid litigation and
were drawn by a different process and the prospects for innovative solutions to old problems.
Several members of the McKenzie Watershed Council were drawn to the collaborative
process out of concern that current management strategies were not sufficient to protect the
McKenzie River's pristine conditions. According to Louise Solliday, a member of the
McKenzie Watershed Council, "There was growing recognition that the regulatory
framework was not going to bring about recovery...People realized that we could no longer
manage river systems as segments or agency interests, but needed to begin to manage whole
systems."
The belief that the collaborative partnership model provided a novel approach and prospects
for innovative solutions to resource management also drove participation. Ron Cunningham,
an agency representative for Three-Quarter Circle Ranch chose the collaborative process
because he felt the resource was his responsibility, "as well as a desire to do something
innovative." Similarly, Bob Lanka, also a member of Three-Quarter Circle Ranch, said that
given historically bad communication with landowners he wanted to "try something new."
Greg Sherman an environmental engineer and member of the Owl Mountain Partnership
chose to collaborate, "To avoid lawsuits and public hearings...that don't come to successful
fruition." Sherman also noted that lawsuits and public hearings did not work effectively and
tended to "polarize the community" therefore making the collaborative approach more
appealing. Similarly, Lisa Jo Frech from the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance stated, "You can
accomplish a lot through litigation, but at what cost?"
Several members of Blackfoot Challenge, Owl Mountain Partnership as well as the NW RAC
have the belief that the "standard top down approach" cannot work to solve the resource
problems in their region. A new strategy of localized input was appealing to several
members. Don Peach, Mayor of Rangley Colorado and Co-Chair of the NW RAC chose to
participate because, "I always believed much better work comes from the grassroots up than
decisions from D.C. or the state level." Greg Neudecker of USFWS and member of
Blackfoot Challenge stated," It is the future of natural resource management. Unless you get
local people involved, you may win your battles but ultimately lose your war."
Direct stake or responsibility in management of resource
Although nearly every participant interviewed had some stake in the resource being
managed, certain individuals chose to highlight those stakes as reasons for choosing to
participate in a collaborative partnership. Individuals' stakes ranged from direct financial
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-3
interest in the resource, to legal responsibility, to feeling personally vested in the protection
of the resource.
Farmer and rancher members of Scott River CRMP were concerned with how the potential
Coho listing would affect their businesses. A realtor and representative from DuPont chose to
participate in the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance due to their direct financial interests within
the watershed. Mike Terry from DuPont spoke about his company's stake in saying, "We do
not have a right to work in the community, it is just a privilege so unless we meet the
requirements of the community, we lose that privilege." Similarly, Weyerhaeuser's Barb
Blackmore, a member of the McKenzie Watershed Council, spoke about her company's
incentive. "I think for a long time we've felt as a company that we need the public support as
our license to operate...if you don't have the public supporting you as a company, it's just a
matter of time before you're litigating."
Several ranching members of Owl Mountain partnership also spoke of the economic benefit
from projects on their land and education that choosing to collaborate has produced. Verl
Brown a member of Owl Mountain Partnership said the education has led him to "change my
grazing practices over the last five years" which has lead to "more grass for my cattle and
more grass for wildlife." Jack Haworth added that, "Our allotment was one of the first to
have a project done on it." Furthermore, several members of Owl Mountain Partnership,
including Haworth, felt it would have been more difficult to renew their BLM grazing
permits without the partnership. According to Stephen Porter, a member of Owl Mountain
Partnership, "The ranchers on Owl Mountain Partnership are ten steps ahead when it comes
to range reform …those members working to alleviate problems on their land will be the first
not to lose their permits."
Finally, several agency participants mentioned their legal responsibility for the resource or
the fact that they were assigned to the partnership as reasons for their participation. When
asked why she chose to participate in the Darby Partnership, Melissa Horton from NRCS
stated: "I was assigned and that was fine." Agency representatives involved in Three-Quarter
Circle Ranch also felt involvement was part of their public land management duties.
Freemont County Extension Agent Ron Cunningham gave "responsibility in dealing with
land management issues" as one of his reasons for choosing to participate in Three-Quarter
Circle Ranch. Jerry Jack from the BLM noted that he was hired specifically to work with
Owl Mountain Partnership because, "We [BLM] are the big gorilla up there (in North Park,
Colorado)."
Coordination
Individuals also felt they could get more accomplished, gain a more complete understanding
of issues, and would avoid duplication of efforts by collaborating in a partnership. In
particular participants from the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Blackfoot Challenge,
McKenzie Watershed Council, Darby Partnership, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch, and Owl
Mountain Partnership all mentioned the need for coordination as a key element in their
choice to participate.
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-4
Members of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance felt that they would be able to accomplish a
great deal more by convening as a group. In the McKenzie Watershed Council, Dorothy
Anderson of Eugene Water and Electric Board noted, "The community has recognized that
working together is the way things are done in Eugene." Similarly, several members of the
Darby Partnership felt it would be impossible to get things done without collaborating with
other stakeholders. Teri Devlin from The Nature Conservancy and member of Darby
Partnership stated, "When you have 560-square miles of land drained by a system, it is
ludicrous to think you can do anything by yourself." Mary Ann Core of NRCS and also a
member of Darby Partnership similarly noted that the region was too large for any one
individual to handle: "Because it is such a big monster, nobody wants to take it on alone."
Another driving force for choosing to collaborate was avoiding the possibility of duplicating
agency efforts. Freemont County Agent Ron Cunningham stated as one reason for his
participation in Three-Quarter Circle Ranch that, "I think we are also interested in preventing
duplication of efforts when multiple agencies are working with the same piece of land." Owl
Mountain Partnership, Darby Partnership and Blackfoot Challenge members had similar
sentiments. Cary Lewis, a rancher and member of Owl Mountain Partnership, stated, "I could
see a big benefit to seeing all the agencies agree and channel their energies toward one line,
one way of doing something, put them all into one and we can get more done more
effectively."
Community Building
Several individuals chose to collaborate in order to promote a sense of community, improve
relations with other stakeholders or diffuse conflicts surrounding the resource. One important
factor that participants considered part of building community was building trust among the
diverse stakeholders and with agency personnel.
Several agency representatives from Owl Mountain Partnership, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch
and Scott River CRMP mentioned the reason they chose to collaborate was to build trust and
credibility within the community for their agency. Stephen Porter a wildlife biologist with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife and member of Owl Mountain Partnership stated,
"Government is not well liked in rural communities. We need to change the way we do
business. The goal over time is to build credibility." Similarly, BLM range conservationist
and member of Three-Quarter Circle Ranch partnership Troy Packer noted, "agency folks out
here (in Wyoming) are often regarded with a bit of suspicion and generally distrusted
because of the regulation and rules that are often seen a threat to business. Getting involved
with the community at an eye-to-eye level helps to build those relationships."
Dennis Hall from Ohio State University Extension and Executive Director of Operation
Future Association said he is a member of Darby Partnership because, "I am interested in
citizenship and developing people in the community and am an advocate of win-win
perspectives." Similarly, Lisa Jo Frech, Executive Director of the Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance stated her reason for becoming involved: "I think that what we were able to
accomplish in the long run is far greater because we have trust. There is not anybody that I
would not call at the drop of a hat...I would not want it to be any other way."
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-5
Several individuals also mentioned the desire to quell a contentious atmosphere within the
community and put things on a more personal level as reasons why they chose a
collaborative process. Geoff Blackeslee, member of the NW RAC representing The Nature
Conservancy said, "I think it is a great idea to bring together a variety of backgrounds.
Instead of dealing with issues, you are dealing with human beings. Issues remain important,
but dealing with a person on a human level allows you to provide dignity and self respect to
individuals' positions." Mary Higginbothan, a schoolteacher who recently moved to Lander,
Wyoming from California, saw an opportunity in the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch partnership
"to simply get to know the community better."
Threat of government action
The threat or perceived threat of a government regulation such as the designation of a
Superfund site or endangered species listing was also a force driving participation. Hank
Goetz of the Blackfoot Challenge did not believe the government should be making decisions
on land in the watershed when he stated: "We were not happy just sitting back and having the
federal government and developers make decisions about our land." Greg Parsons of the
Animas River Stakeholders Group added: "In addition to being counterproductive, a massive
regulatory sweep of the area would not be realistic given the fact that state regulatory
agencies do not have the resources to handle these problems."
In the Animas River Stakeholders Group and the Scott River CRMP the potential Superfund
listing and Coho Salmon endangered species listing respectively triggered participation. In
the Scott River CRMP case, participants felt a well functioning CRMP could deter federal
regulators from handing down an economically detrimental regulation.
III. SPECIFIC FINDINGS: ALTERNATIVES
A continuation of current management strategies
Many participants felt that, barring a collaborative approach, management of natural resource
issues would have remained largely the same; with agencies promulgating regulations,
limited public input and public hearings and lawsuits that caused polarization. Greg Parsons,
member of the Animas River Stakeholders Group, described the traditional approach that
would have continued in the Animas Valley: "Water Quality Control Division would gather
data, show up in front of the Water Quality Control Commission and argue with parties who
had enough money to be represented by lawyers and had an interest in terms of being
represented. We would have had a few fights with Sunnyside Gold and a few comments from
the county, but it would have been a battle. The battle would have been between us and the
mining company, not the people who live in the valley. They would have no say."
Similar to Parsons, members of Owl Mountain Partnership, Darby Partnership, NW RAC and
Three-Quarter Circle Ranch also felt traditional management strategies would have continued
without the partnership's formation. Teri Devlin, member of Darby Partnership representing
The Nature Conservancy, believes that agency personnel would continue their normal duties
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-6
of managing the resource: "I think a lot of the agency personnel would have done their jobs
and will always do their job." Most members of the NW RAC had similar sentiments best
expressed by Don Peach: "We would go through the usual process. The BLM has some good
people, they are very professional, and they would come up with plans. There then would be
public hearings with a lot of arguments on both sides, and no doubt, suits filed." Peach
continued to say, "I think we have avoided much of that."
Loss of holistic thinking and awareness toward issue
Collaborative partnerships often provide a holistic framework to deal with natural resource
issues that allow greater awareness as well as coordination among various stakeholders. The
loss of this framework of coordination and awareness was mentioned frequently when
participants were asked what would have occurred had their partnership not formed.
Several participants felt that without this approach, issues would have been dealt with in a
smaller, more incomplete forum. Kathy Smith, member of Darby Partnership representing
NRCS, stated clearly, "Without the partnership things would not have been addressed on
such a large scale." If the partnership had not formed Steve Feran, mining representative
member of the Animas River Stakeholders Group, felt, "...a great deal of these issues would
not have been answered as thoroughly." Stephen Porter a member of Owl Mountain
Partnership representing the Colorado Division of Wildlife iterates similarly: "We would not
have had such a large scale look at things."
According to a number of participants, the holistic framework set up by the collaborative
partnership not only allowed for a more complete way to deal with issues, but also brought a
greater overall understanding to the community. Increased awareness within the community
augmented knowledge of stresses upon the resource. Many participants felt that greater
overall awareness provided by the partnership would have been lacking without the
collaborative forum. Tim Fox from the McKenzie Watershed Council believes that without
the council, "An avenue of getting information out to people with an interest would have
been lost and also having a voice of influence on those involved more directly in the
issue...you get a lot of different perspectives on things that I don't think you'd get without it."
Nancy Stewart, from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and member of
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, had similar thoughts regarding the ability of the community
to receive more complete information. "The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance serves to bring
things to people's attention that might not have gotten there as readily. Because it is so
diverse, they are getting input and drawing many minds together. The public would have
been less informed and involved. NWA has also provided a forum for issues that may not
have been there otherwise." Melissa Horton who represents the NRCS on the Darby
Partnership plainly stated that because of the partnership, "there has been an increased
amount of public awareness of the resource, and its quality."
Increased coordination was an additional benefit of the holistic framework that may have
been lost without collaboration. In the words of Jim Stone, local rancher and Chairman of
the Blackfoot Challenge: "Without the Challenge we would just be out there all by ourselves
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-7
trying to make a living. We would never have utilized the resources available like agency
expertise." George Grier also noted the frustration from lack of coordination felt prior to the
McKenzie Watershed Council's formation: "We had all the stuff we needed to be making
more informed decisions about the health of the river, but no one was talking about it or
could even view it."
Continued contentious atmosphere in community
Several members of the Darby Partnership, Blackfoot Challenge and Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance expressed that without their partnerships, the contentious atmosphere within their
community would have continued or degraded. Participants highlighted current or possible
litigation to exemplify the contentious atmosphere within the community. Lisa Jo Frech,
Executive Director of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance demonstrated the point: "We would
have gone through litigation. Some people would have stepped up to the plate and
accomplished a thing or two and then would have burnt out. They would have been bitter and
resentful but would still be in the watershed. It would be hard to find replacements for them.
We would win a couple battles and lose a couple of battles but overall it would just be
bloody."
Other collaborative partnership members thought that, without the partnership, there would
have been the potential for more stakeholder frustration and unrest. Richard Clough of
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and member of the Blackfoot Challenge noted: "Without a
formal organization to handle these natural resource issues, there would have been more
potential for issues to blow up whereas the Challenge attempted to handle these issues on an
ongoing basis before they become contentious." Melissa Horton a member of Darby
Partnership added similarly, "...a lot of people would have been frustrated in and around the
stream. Many landowners were frustrated with all the loops with rules and regulations that
they needed to jump through. I think [the partnership] simplified it for them."
Government intervention would occur
Individuals within the Owl Mountain Partnership, Animas River Stakeholders Group and
Clark County HCP highlighted the fact that they felt there would have been some sort of
government intervention had the partnership not formed. In each of these three cases, the
participants felt government intervention would have been negative and these partnerships
presented an improved alternative for their interests.
The most obvious alternative that came to the mind of several members of the Animas River
Stakeholders Group was Superfund designation. Several of the landowners referred to
Superfund designation as the "monster." The Upper Animas Basin was very high on the
EPA's list of potential sites and the possibility of designation still remains. According to
participant, Peter Butler, also former representative of the Friends of the Animas River and
current member of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission: "There would have
been more impetus for the EPA to designate the site as a Superfund site using Superfund
money and I think it would have been disastrous. There is already a great deal of antagonism
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-8
in the area towards government agencies and to be honest, I am not sure that they know what
ought to be done."
Members in the Clark County HCP expressed similar opinions. As ORV representative Mark
Trinko states, "any federally imposed decision [that did not include all of us] would have
been unenforceable...any law handed down would have been ludicrous."
Increased harm to the resource would have occurred
Participants in the McKenzie Watershed Council and the Owl Mountain Partnership believed the natural
resource would not have been as well off had the partnership not formed. McKenzie Watershed Council
members agreed that, if it were not for the formation of the watershed council, development would have
continued in a way that was harmful to the watershed. Local resident Pat Thompson, highlighted this point:
"Without [the partnership], encroachment of the development on the watershed would have had a detrimental
effect. I don't think that water quality would have been maintained." Without the Owl Mountain Partnership,
Verl Brown thought the benefits the projects had for the resource would have been lost. Brown mentioned one
particular case, Hebron Sloughs, as an example: "We would not have done some good projects, such as the
Hebron Sloughs, which have been very good for the land health."
Why Collaboration and Alternatives
15-9
CHAPTER 16: OUTCOMES
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
Outcomes of collaborative partnerships are often difficult to measure, and our ten
collaborative partnerships were no different. Individuals interviewed for the case studies had
various responses when asked about outcomes and achievements that resulted from their
partnership.
In order to understand what participants felt were some of the most important outcomes of
their partnership, we began by asking what they thought was their greatest achievement of
their collaborative partnership. Other questions, such as what kind of projects the partnership
accomplished were also asked to several members to gauge the nature of outcomes. For
several cases we also used other sources such as videos and written documentation to learn
about various outcomes. There are a wide variety of achievements possible from
collaborative partnerships, many of which are not tangible using traditional measures. By
analyzing these achievements, we hope to provide insight into the range and variation of
outcomes that can result from a collaborative approach to resource management.
Outcomes: Summary of Core Findings
Outcomes from the ten collaborative partnerships analyzed in this report fell into four general
categories:
!
!
!
!
Ability to build relationships and community
Capacity for increased education, awareness and information gathering and exchange
Implementation of on-the-ground conservation achievements
Development of policy-based advice and resource management plans
II. SPECIFIC FINDINGS: OUTCOMES
Ability to build relationships and community
Relationship and community building was mentioned in each of the case studies. This entails
a variety of aspects including individuals coming together from diverse often adversarial
positions to work together, being good neighbors, building trust, to coordination among
stakeholders and sticking together as a group.
Individuals coming together from adversarial positions and competing interests to a point
where they are working together to find common ground was mentioned as an outcome in the
NW RAC, Owl Mountain Partnership, Scott River CRMP and Clark County HCP. Local
gold miner Ann Schrieber, a member of Clark County HCP spoke about how competing
interests have begun to work together: "This is going to sound crazy to you, but the most
Outcomes
16-1
important achievement I saw was that a group of people walked into a room hating each
other's guts and ready to slit each other's throats...and now if you were to come visit those
meetings and say something against the plan we've come up with, you're apt to get eaten up
by both sides." Don Peach, Mayor of Rangley Colorado and member of the NW RAC, said
the greatest achievement was, "Getting disparate groups together and appreciate other
people's points of view." Similarly, Greg Sherman an environmental engineer and member of
the Owl Mountain Partnership stated the most important achievement was, "that all members
of the group can talk amongst one another openly. BLM can talk to USFS which is almost
never heard of. Ranchers can talk to their BLM representative. It's trust."
Several partnerships spoke about the building of trust among members as an outcome.
Darrell Sall, former participant in the Blackfoot Challenge, summarized the feelings of many
participants when he stated, "[The group] has built a lot of trust with the people of the valley.
It has taught us to work together and collaborate for the improvement of the land."
Members of the Blackfoot Challenge and Three-Quarter Circle Ranch spoke about the
partnership and its connection to the immediate community. Roger Marshall, a Plum Creek
Timber Company representative on the Blackfoot Challenge, stated, "The Blackfoot
Challenge is an opportunity for Plum Creek to remain in contact with its neighbors...to work
with them on projects that protect the environment, wildlife, and water resource." Tony
Malmberg, landowner and participant in Three-Quarter Circle Ranch said similarly, "We've
tried to align our management efforts with the forces of nature, and we reach out to our
community to help us achieve those objectives. We also believe the best way we can be a
good neighbor and practice sound environmental management is to maintain a profitable
business."
Part of the relationship and community building that a member of Blackfoot Challenge
highlighted was coordination amongst stakeholders. Rich Clough of Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks stated, "The Challenge has provided the opportunity to meet and keep in touch
with lots of people and to coordinate with other agencies about some of the efforts necessary
to maintain what we have in the valley."
Another form of relationship and community building mentioned by a participant as an
outcome was the fact that the group has stuck together for so long. Marc Smith, of the Ohio
EPA, a member of Darby Partnership since its inception in 1991, said the greatest
achievement was, "sticking together and continuing to work at getting everybody at the table
and the process."
Capacity for increased education, awareness and information gathering and exchange
Members of Owl Mountain Partnership, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Three-Quarter Circle
Ranch, Blackfoot Challenge, Darby Partnership, McKenzie Watershed Council and Scott
River CRMP all spoke of increased education, awareness of resource issues and information
gathering as an outcome of their partnership.
Outcomes
16-2
Verl Brown, a ranching member of Owl Mountain Partnership, spoke in detail about how
educational opportunities of the partnership allowed him to improve habitat on his land. "The
main value to me which did not cost anything at all," Brown said, "was the education on
grazing practices. I have changed my grazing practices over the last five years and it has
worked so well. I have more grass for my cattle, more grass for the elk. That has been the
biggest asset to me, the education." Kathy Smith, a NRCS representative on the Darby
Partnership noted similarly, "The education of those in the watershed and even myself [has
been a great benefit]. I have learned a lot going through the process."
The various techniques used by groups to educate members of the partnership and the
community at large were mentioned by members as substantial outcomes themselves.
Newsletters, brochures, booklets, field trips and workshops were some of the techniques
mentioned by participants. McKenzie Watershed Council used a newspaper insert, a forum
on water quality, and information booth at a county fair, while Darby Partnership produced
The Darby Book and other brochures to educate the public in its watershed.
Participants in Blackfoot Challenge, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch and Darby Partnership
spoke about three unique educational opportunities that resulted from the partnership.
According to Greg Neudecker of USFWS, "Last year we [Blackfoot Challenge] put together
a week long water education workshop for teachers. It has changed their lives in the way that
they look at the valley and how they will teach their children about the valley's watershed."
In Three-Quarter Circle Ranch a program was developed that brings 'city folk' to the property
to ride the range and live the ways of the West. Furthermore, a grade school science class
also uses the ranch as a laboratory for environmental experiments.
Members of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance spoke of several educational events the group
has implemented. In 1998, the Alliance conducted a series of public meetings to disseminate
the highlights of a boat traffic study they helped assist with. They have also developed a
web-site, Conservation Directory, lawn care educational pamphlets and a quarterly
newsletter in order to educate the public within the watershed. In addition to those
educational techniques and events, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance members host a two-week
educational program called Diary of a River for gifted students that covers the issues that
pertain to the watershed.
The Darby Partnership has used canoe trips in the Darby Creek as an educational
opportunity. Canoe trips often paired a farmer or non-agency individual with an agency
representative in order to build mutual understanding. Teri Devlin, The Nature Conservancy
representative on Darby Partnership, spoke about the canoe trips: "At a very personal level to
get a farmer in a canoe with a regional planner, normal relationships that would not normally
occur happen on the canoe trip and it is happening in the habitat...it is very powerful."
Implementation of on-the-ground conservation achievements
There was a wide-ranging list of on-the-ground achievements realized by partnerships.
Participants in Three-Quarter Circle Ranch, Animas River Stakeholders Group, McKenzie
Outcomes
16-3
Watershed Council, Blackfoot Challenge, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Scott River
CRMP, Darby Partnership and Owl Mountain Partnership offer excellent examples.
Projects undertaken by several collaborative partnerships included: fencing of sensitive areas,
planting to improve stream bank stabilization, clean-up days on the stream, bird inventories
and other restoration and conservation events. Owl Mountain Partnership is an example of a
partnership that has spent a good deal of time and effort on projects. Examples include: high
tensile hay stacks, realigning fences, irrigation projects, soil studies, various bird inventories,
reseeding projects and sagebrush treatment. Stephen Porter, member of Owl Mountain
Partnership said, "We have done more projects in that community in the last five years of the
partnership than in all the twenty years I've been there combined."
The Blackfoot Challenge has also been involved with a variety of projects. Projects
undertaken by Blackfoot Challenge include: fencing stream banks to reduce erosion, cutting
and planting willow shoots for bank stabilization, removal of fish passage barriers and
protecting irrigation structures from erosion. One project highlighted by Land Linbergh was
weed control: "Weed control got the group into the minds and hearts of landowners because
it was easy for landowners to see the critical importance of a coordinated approach to taking
on the problem." The McKenzie Watershed Council also implemented various projects
including compiling a GIS database, establishing a water quality monitoring network in the
valley as well as a fish and wildlife habitat evaluation. Furthermore, bank stabilization, joint
data collection and water monitoring projects were all outcomes discussed by members of
Scott River CRMP.
Similar to the McKenzie Watershed Council, the Animas River Stakeholders Group and
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance have developed water quality monitoring programs. The
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance has also assisted with a boat traffic study and several clean-up
days that help to bring partnership members and the community at-large together. In addition
to the water quality monitoring program, the Animas River Stakeholders Group has been
involved with implementing and assisting with remediation activities.
The health of the ecosystem and/or economy were mentioned by participants in Darby
Partnership and Three-Quarter Circle Ranch as outcomes of their partnership. In ThreeQuarter Circle Ranch the economic benefits include an increased beef production and
lowered cost of production while the ecological benefits have been an increase in biodiversity and protection of riparian habitat. Teri Devlin, member of Darby Partnership said,
"The Darby is still very healthy, that is our greatest accomplishment. Now how you tie that to
the partnership work becomes ephemeral in some areas because some of the things that keeps
the Darby healthy would have occurred anyway. Although, I guarantee having that amount of
resource expertise and focus going on helped to keep the Darby healthy."
Development of policy-based advice and resource management plans
Members of NW RAC, Clark County HCP and McKenzie Watershed Council mentioned
policy-based advice and plans as outcomes from their partnership. The NW RAC only deals
with policy-based advice in its capacity as an advisory board to the BLM. They have worked
Outcomes
16-4
on BLM Recreation and Fire Management Guidelines as well as providing input into
wilderness reviews.
Comparatively, McKenzie Watershed Council has provided advice urging agency restoration
projects and recommending specific testimony and comments for draft environmental impact
statements. Another policy-based plan was the Clark County Multi-species HCP, currently in
the final stages of approval.
Outcomes
16-5
CHAPTER 17: ENSURING REPRESENTATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
The issue of representation---or who is at the table---is one of the first consequential issues
that a collaborative group must address. It is the question of who comprises a collaborative
partnership and the factors that a group must consider and weigh when developing
representative structure. Indeed, there are inevitable trade-offs that groups must make: such
as whether to involve more versus less stakeholders; at what level (individuals or
organizations); or if the process will be open or limited. In turn, these choices affect the
group's reach, credibility and ability to work in a productive and efficient manner.
Given wide variation in objective, issue focus, geographic location, community culture, and
organizational structure among collaborative partnerships there is, not surprisingly, no
magical formula for achieving perfect representation nor a single representation template that
can be applied to all groups. As environmentalist Felice Pace of the Scott River Coordinated
Resource Management plan states, "You just have to muddle though [the representation
issue]. You can never guarantee it will be perfect. I only suggest that the bottom line be that
the door be left open for democracy to function. And that should be both ways --- if
someone wants to walk out, they should be allowed to do so as well." Indeed, we found that
the groups we studied recognized and struggled with the issue of representation, asking
similar questions of themselves and weighing the advantages and the disadvantages of
different approaches to their objective. Ron Cunningham of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch
Coordinated Resource Management Group notes, "We need to remember that dealing with
representation is different in every situation. There is no cookbook for it. There are no two
ranches alike, no two families alike, and no two communities alike. You kind of have to feel
your way as you go." Additionally, the representative composition of groups tended to vary
over time as the groups learned, gained credibility, and their issues and objectives evolved.
John Allen of the McKenzie Watershed Council observes, "Over time there's been continual
concern over [having] the right people at the table. But you have to remember that
representation is an evolutionary thing…over time, as issues mature and change, you realize
that somebody should be there that is not. Some partners have dropped out completely
because they realized their stakes weren't that large. It should be an expected and dynamic
process that representation will change over time, and we've got to work with that."
Summary of Core Findings
The following is a summary of the core issues and strategies case study groups encountered
when developing their own representational structure, as well as advice they offered to others
considering similar issues.
Ensuring Representation
17-1
Core Issues and Strategies
1. Identifying stakeholders
Groups struggled with how to identify stakeholders among multiple groups of similar
interest, dual roles, and variation in commitment and ability to work together.
Strategies
! Sought out community leaders
! Had groups choose among themselves
! Held public workshops to explain and disseminate information, consequently attracting
participants
2. Balancing strength of representation
Groups worked to determine sufficient levels of representation for all interests, so that one
group or interest did not dominate the process.
Strategies
! Active recruitment
! Targeted and defined goals to narrow stakeholder concerns
! Formal representation
3. Improving access to the process
Groups grappled with altering the structure, timing and form of partnerships to help
participants engage more fully in the collaborative process.
Strategies
! Developed flexible meeting structures
! Used working groups
! Paid attention to convenience (meals, meeting locations)
4. Overcoming distrust
Groups strove to overcome distrust among agencies, environmental groups, landowners and
citizens. This distrust affected the willingness of some individuals to participate in
collaborative processes.
Strategies
! Used a facilitator
! Adjusted the agency role
! Engaged in relationship-building activities
Advice
!
Maintain an open process
Keeping partnerships open to all interested parties is imperative to the integrity of the
collaborative process.
Ensuring Representation
17-2
!
Realize that perfect representation is ideal but not always possible
Groups should aim to maximize sufficient representation but also realize that cultural
and resource restriction can limit representation goals.
!
Involve capable and committed individuals
Involving those individuals with the necessary skills and capability to participate in
collaborative processes is imperative to the functionality of a group.
!
Realize that representation is a dynamic and evolutionary process
Understand that the issue of representation in collaborative groups is not static, but
rather will change in accordance with evolving group objectives and stakeholder
concerns.
I.
CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES
1. Identifying stakeholders
Challenges
All groups struggled with the process of identifying stakeholders when confronted with
challenges of:
!
!
!
Choosing among multiple representatives of a single interest;
Separating dual roles and responsibilities of participants; and
Finding capable and committed people to work together
Choosing among multiple interests
Choosing a representative among multiple interests was a challenge among most groups. In
the case of McKenzie Watershed Council, for example, former member and landowner
George Grier describes the challenge of having too many groups representing one interest:
"It's hard to find someone who has enough support from all the local organizations that also
have different missions. There are over 100 resident associations and many factional
interests, so it's impossible for the council to provide seats for all of them." Coordinator John
Runyon adds, "[Getting one person to represent a constituency] sounds good in theory, but
doesn’t always work in practice. It’s a fine line between working on a representation basis
and opening it up to a broader range of folks and bringing them in."
Similarly, the Clark County Habitat Conservation Planning process (HCP) initially grappled
with choosing among multiple off-road vehicle user groups to be on its Steering Committee.
Mark Trinko comments that it was at times "impossible" to make fine distinctions between
more radical albeit similar recreational interest groups. Indeed, the same held true for
environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club, who have resisted joining collaborative
processes for fear of losing their identity through association with other environmental
organizations.
Ensuring Representation
17-3
Separating dual roles
Separating dual roles was also a challenge to identifying stakeholders. This was particularly
evident in the Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council (NW CO RAC). As
representative of The Nature Conservancy Geoff Blakeslee states, "I am in the environmental
category in terms of my job but I am also involved in the cattle industry." National Wildlife
Federation representative Cathie Zarlingo voices similar concern: "If there is anything I
would look into changing, it's making environmental and conservation concerns more
separate. In fact, I think they can be very different. An environmental group may look at me
and say, 'well, she is not really representing our constituents,' and that is probably true."
Sierra Club member Clee Sealing, who attends RAC meetings complains that this confusion
further jades the representative selection process: "Our coordinator is choosing
representatives for the RAC who are elected officials and also own ranches. In fact, he owns
a cattle operation and BLM decisions impact his land tremendously." In the same vein,
several participants in the McKenzie Watershed Council mentioned 'wearing more than one
hat,' with both organizational and personal interests fundamentally intertwined. Tony
Cheng, a doctoral student studying the McKenzie, captures the strain involved in separating
categories of stakeholders or interests: "It eats up so much of people’s energy to discuss who
you represent, what hat you wear, what you are and are not allowed to say and do, as if your
interests are divisible."
Finding capable and committed individuals
Finally, finding the few individuals with the right skills for working in collaborative
environments made identifying stakeholders challenging. Ann Schrieber, a local miner
participating in the Clark County HCP process remarks, "It's really the people on this thing
that have made it work. It could be a totally different ball game if we didn’t have the folks
we have that are able to work with each other." Sari Sommarstrom, former coordinator of the
Scott River CRMP agrees: "You have to have people on these groups willing to work in the
consensus process…and it's not always easy to find them." George Grier of the McKenzie
Watershed Council adds: "It's tough to find someone who's militant enough to not take any
guff but still centered enough to keep their cool. [Participants] need to be able to establish a
trusting relationship with the farmers---in other words, those people who see your
organization as trying to undermine six generations of [their way of life]."
Strategies
Strategies used among groups to help identify stakeholders were:
!
!
Representative self-selection; and
Considering individuals, not just interest groups
Representative self-selection
Self-selection refers to multiple groups of similar interests choosing an individual to voice
their concerns as a whole. In the case of the Clark County Habitat Conservation Planning
process, representative self-selection was used to help identify a representative for many offroad vehicle stakeholder groups. Bureau of Land Management representative Sid Sloan
recalls Clark County officials going directly to interest group leaders and requesting them to
Ensuring Representation
17-4
identify suitable representatives: "Given western culture here, folks operate better over a cup
of coffee and a personal invitation than they do with a formal letter…so we went out there,
met with the groups, and had them make the decision on their own." Jim Moore, The Nature
Conservancy representative of the same group further elaborates: "It's imperative that you
contact folks with standing in those communities and really pick their brains like we did.
Then get them to choose among themselves in terms of who they would like to participate.
Otherwise, you get too many bodies at the table."
Considering individuals, not just interests
Many groups also directly sought participation of community leaders. In the case of The
McKenzie Watershed Council, the group requested participation of individual community
leaders who they felt could work effectively and collaboratively in the group. According to
former environmental representative Louise Solliday, "There was a real effort to find
individuals who were respected in the broader stakeholder arena and who represent a broader
community than just their own organization."
2. Balancing Strength of Representation
Nine case studies cited balancing strength of representation of stakeholder groups as a
challenge to ensuring representation. In particular, participants noted the importance of
greater involvement on the part of citizens, landowners, and environmentalists while others
felt it was important to clearly define and, in some cases, limit the role of agencies. It should
be mentioned that the role of agencies was of particular concern among participants in our
research in part because of the strong government role in three cases: namely, the Clark
County Habitat Conservation Planning process, Three-Quarter Coordinated Resource
Management Group, and the NW CO RAC.
Challenges
Involving Environmentalists
The presence of environmentalists at the table was considered vitally important yet not as
strong as most participants would have liked. This was attributed in part to the limited time
and financial resources available to environmental organizations to be part of the growing
number of collaborative efforts across the country. Indeed, some participants felt that
environmental groups were, in general, focused more on crisis issues and could not afford to
be a part of time-consuming collaborative groups. In the case of Three-Quarter Circle Ranch
CRM, for example, ranch owner Tony Malmberg has been unable to bring environmental
organizations to the table despite consistent effort: "I've asked environmental groups to
participate many times," Malmberg recalls "but they always say no thanks, pat me on the
back, and tell me I'm doing a great job." Similarly, Jack Terry of the Owl Mountain
Partnership states, "We tried to get [environmentalists] to come that should be there. We had
no problems with livestock and business interests, but we sure had one hell of a time getting
anyone to step forward from the environmental community." Greg Sherman an
environmental representative in the Owl Mountain Partnership believes large environmental
organizations perceive the cost of participation as "an unwise use of funds when objectives
Ensuring Representation
17-5
may be compromised [in a collaborative process]." Finally, George Grier, formerly a
member of the McKenzie Watershed describes the absence of environmental representation
in collaborative groups: "There is a general perception, right or wrong, that if you’re an
environmental organization, collaboration is a dirty word and you need to be out there being
more of an activist, putting out fires and taking no prisoners."
Increasing Citizen and Landowner Participation
Participants also noted the need to maximize citizen and landowner participation in their
collaborative processes. In the Darby Partnership, for example, coordinator Teri Devlin
recognized the trade-offs involved in giving participation a backseat to accomplishing group
objectives: "[The group's] greatest need now is to become more citizen-based. The
landowners kind of got put over on the side [of the process] because we were just steamrolling our way to getting things done. Now as soon as you have funding or resources
removed from those involved agencies, what have we got? What I think Darby [Partnership]
can show is that if you don’t start with citizen-based involvement, down the road you may
end up with nothing [after agencies leave the process]." Similarly, the McKenzie Watershed
Council is concerned with balancing representation of landowners in its process. As
landowner George Grier of the McKenzie Watershed Council notes, "If the mix [of our
participants] is deficient in any way, it's deficient by not having enough private landowners
or folks who aren't agency reps or elected officials. For now, we are perceived as a Eugene
group coming [up river] to dominate the lives of landowners, [and that could really limit our
effectiveness]."
Finally, the Owl Mountain Partnership exemplifies the need to increase participation of
citizen and city government officials in its process. Dennis Hall, a representative from the
Ohio State Extension Office notes, "Increasingly, [these individuals] are important [to our
collaborative process] and I do not think we have done the job there in terms of bringing that
perspective in. Only in hindsight do our participants recognize the fact that the partnership
has not worked as hard as it should to get [these] missing factions involved."
Managing agency roles
The need to manage agency involvement was prevalent in a number of studies. While agency
openness to collaboration brought useful technical input to a number of collaborative
partnerships, participants expressed concern that their role could become dominant. Group
issue focus and amount of public land involved and were key factors determining the level of
agency participation. In the case of Three-Quarters Ranch CRM---located on a 33,000 acres
mix of public and private property---Jim Wiles notes "the large size and cattle-grazing focus
of [the CRM] lends itself to a high level of agency participation." Moreover," he adds,
"agency interests tend to dovetail in terms of goals and interests, which can augment their
presence on particular issues like wildlife protection or grazing rights." Similarly, offhighway vehicle representative Mark Trinko in the Clark County HCP process felt "heavily
outnumbered" by the number of agencies involved in tortoise protection on public lands.
"Sometimes I'd look around the round the room and see forty of them and only one or two of
us [ORV user group representatives]," Trinko recounts. "That can be damn intimidating."
Ensuring Representation
17-6
Finally, economic concerns on public land played a role in bringing agencies to the table. In
Scott River Valley CRMP, for example, farmers and local land conservation agencies
combined to maximize the number of participants they could bring to the process when they
sensed the possibility of influencing outcomes. As Sari Sommarstrom remarks, "they
thought that by loading the process with representatives, they could somehow alter [the
process]."
Evolution of membership
Lastly, dealing with changing membership was a factor two groups dealt with. In contrast to
the common view of membership as static in some of the literature on collaboration,
coordinator John Runyon of the McKenzieWatershed Council describes the process of
maintaining group participation as an evolving factor: "Over time there’s been continual
concern over [having] the right people at the table. I think [participation] is an evolutionary
thing…over time as issues mature and change, you realize that somebody should be there
that’s not. Some partners have dropped out completely because they realized their stakes
weren’t that large. It should be expected that representation is a dynamic process and will
change over time."
Likewise, analysis of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM showed how the structure of
public land agency representation can influence turnover in the collaborative process.
Because resource agency personnel undergo regional rotations, a representative may form a
working relationship with a group, only to be assigned to another area some months later. As
Tony Malmberg of the CRM remarks, this factor is a "representation wildcard that can make
or break a group, particularly in a small community where there are few folks to work with
and tight relationships."
Finally, keeping part-time summer residents up to date and involved in collaborative
partnerships, particularly in rural areas, is a mounting task that a number of groups felt was
important. As Animas Stakeholder Group member and EPA representative Carol Russell
summarizes, "These members go away for six months, come back, and are anxiety ridden
over the sweeping changes that the group has made without knowing the full context of those
decisions." "Moreover, she adds, "when they are away, they do not keep up with the group."
Strategies
Active recruitment
In order to balance representation, a number of groups used active recruitment to bring
needed skills and interests to the table. This strategy is best illustrated by the Three-Quarter
Circle Ranch CRM, the Clark County HCP process, and the Nanticoke Partnership. In the
case of Nanticoke, Executive Director Lisa Jo Frech describes the basis of this approach. "I
never let myself think for one minute that absolutely everyone is at the table because there
are always new organizations and businesses sprouting up---There is always someone who
should be there who is not on your list." Similarly, in the Clark County HCP process, a
specific effort was made by the Clark County government to hold rural community public
information sessions to solicit community interest. In addition, meetings were kept open to
all interests to encrourage representation. Facilitator Paul Seltzer notes "our meetings have
Ensuring Representation
17-7
always been public and advertised and anyone who bellied up to the bar can say whatever
they wanted."
Perhaps most effective among interviewees was the one-on-one effort of coordinators. Tony
Malmberg, coordinator of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM exemplifies this best by
identifying needed expertise or constituent interests and continually seeking to broaden
involvement through personal invitations to potential participants over a cup of coffee.
Targeting goals / defining expectations
Targeting group goals and defining the expectations and parameters of concern for groups
also helped bring the right stakeholders to the table. Mark Zankel of Nanticoke notes that by
building his group's efforts on tangible projects, people were attracted to the group by its
success. He states, "Having a clear agenda that defines what kind of commitment you want
from people is helpful. Everyone [in the resource management field] is so busy that, if you're
asked to get involved in something, it's important to know what you are going to get out of it.
[Also], success really sells. So accomplish things and show people what you have done.
People are often initially hesitant to get involved but once they see something up and running
they do not want to miss the boat or be out of the loop." Jim Wiles, a partner and ranch
owner in the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch also felt focusing the group's activities on specific
goals helped tremendously: "We spent the first year of meetings on our goals without taking
any action. [That's] particularly important with landowner initiated processes like CRM, in
which you need to map out where you're going from the beginning. Otherwise, these
[collaborative efforts] end up all over the show with everyone under the sun involved." The
Scott River CRMP took similar action. According to former-coordinator Sari Sommarstrom,
"it took three years to formulate our first steps and get everyone up to speed," time she feels
helped strengthen awareness and involvement that were also critical to broadening
representation.
Formal representation
Formal representation was used by two groups to manage multiple stakeholders and improve
their opportunity to be heard in the process. In the case of McKenzie Watershed Council, a
"representational strategy" was used such that each member represented a larger
constituency. According to former environmental representative Louise Solliday, "There was
a recognition that the table would otherwise get so big that you can't get anything done." In
the words of George Grier, this also "prevented over-representation of a particular interest at
the table."
In the Clark County HCP process, a formal legal representative was hired to represent rural
concerns. According to participants, this decision helped tremendously to alleviate fears on
the part of rural constituents. As local miner Ann Schrieber recalls, "we felt we would have
otherwise been taken advantage of because we didn’t always understand the technical
language [used on the Steering Committee]. Having a legal representative changed all that."
Ensuring Representation
17-8
3. Access to Process
Access to partnerships in our cases was influenced by how the process was organized. In
particular, frequency, timing, and location of meetings posed specific challenges to
participants facing limited time and financial resources.
Challenges
Meeting structure
Meeting times and length were key factors that many groups struggled with to make
participation more convenient for participants. In the Clark County HCP process, nine-hour
meetings made ensuring representation a constant challenge. Rural participants, in particular,
drove 140 miles round-trip to attend meetings. Rural representative Ann Schrieber noted that
this inconvenience resulted in low representation in the process from surrounding rural
communities.
Financial resources
Whether or not participants were paid to take part in collaborative processes also created a
challenge to participation. For example, Mark Trinko of the Clark County HCP process
commented that he had to give up a full day's work to attend meetings. Likewise, in the
Animas Stakeholder Group, environmentalist Mike Black vented that "it really ticked [him]
off" that he was "one of the only people not getting paid." Outfitter Jim Allen of the ThreeQuarter Ranch CRM explains that agencies encourage being part of CRM processes but
attibutes this in part to the fact that they are receiving salaries to participate: "I look around
the room and all I see are paychecks….Paycheck, paycheck, paycheck! And when it comes
to the rest of us there are none. Not only is that discouraging, I think it also limits whether
agencies are willing to take the risks needed to explore innovative strategies since they don’t
have to put as much on the line. Commitment of time and energy required for these things is
not going to work out in the long run without providing those resources."
Cultural barriers
Finally, the culture of a community can limit access. As Bob Lanka, a former Wyoming
Department of Fish and Wildlife representative on the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM
remarks, "while the CRMs I've been involved in have been useful, in the setting of ranch life
there has to be some careful calculation between idealizing the [collaborative] process and
the realities of time required to make a living as a rancher."
Strategies
In response to issues of access to collaborative partnerships, efforts were made by a number
of groups to make meetings more convenient for the general public by:
!
!
!
Keeping the process flexible;
Alternating meeting structure; and
Improving convenience
Ensuring Representation
17-9
Flexible structure
Adjusting the structure of meetings was used by a number of groups to increase participation.
In the case of Animas River Stakeholder Group, coordinator Bill Simon claims their "loose
structure" has fostered a higher and more consistent level of involvement because
[participants] feel that [they] can jump in at anytime. Mining representative Larry Perino
further points out that "This has resulted in a slower process, but it has been well worth it."
Similarly, the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch has shaped its bi-annual meeting structure around
the calving and wintering season of local ranchers in order to ensure convenience for
ranchers.
Use of working groups
Breaking larger collaborative groups into smaller units in order to improve access to citizens
is another strategy used to improve access. In the Animas River Valley, for example, a
Library Series was developed in an effort to form a friendly and non-intimidating forum to
educate locals, out-of-town lay people and part-time residents coming and going from the
process about the latest activities of the group. Discussion centers on current issues of the
collaborative group and served to clarify information without having to be present at the
more formal and sometimes contentious regular meetings. As facilitator Bill Simon points
out, "The thought was and still is that people may be very interested but not want to
participate in the political debate that stakeholder meetings encourage." For convenience,
meetings are also scheduled during the summer and right before regular meetings so
participants could stay or go if they as they wished. Similarly, the Clark County HCP process
and Scott River CRMP also use less formal working groups to address specific issues.
Meal provision
In a number of groups, providing meals at either regular meetings or social events was
considered critical to improving access and participation in the process. In the Clark County
HCP for example, ample funding allowed Clark County government to provide meals at
meetings. According to Mark Trinko, "not having to leave the table for a meal or pay for
them made huge difference in our attitudes towards the amount of time discussions required,
and it gave us a crucial social experience as well."
Taking turns
Finally, creating rules for allowing all to speak at meetings was a basic strategy that
enhanced access. In the case of McKenzie Watershed Group, a 'round-robin' approach was
used at meetings to go around the room giving everyone equal designated time and
opportunity to speak their mind about the issue at hand. Similarly, with the Three-Quarter
Circle Ranch CRM, the group chairperson is rotated on a regular basis depending on the
knowledge of the individual and the current focus of the group. Coordinator Tony Malmberg
notes that this allows everyone equal opportunity to take on leadership as well as understand
the requirements of what it takes to make the CRM process work.
Ensuring Representation
17-10
4. Building Trust
Groups struggled with distrust of government involvement as well as internal trust issues
among partnership members in the Owl Mountain Partnership, The Animas Stakeholder
Group, NW Colorado RAC, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM, and the Scott River CRMP.
Challenges
Relationship between agencies and rural participants
Groups dealt with a cultural divide between agencies and rural communities when trying to
build trust. In the Owl Mountain Partnership, Stephen Porter comments that "county officials
have extreme distrust for federal and state governments" whom they see as "promoters" of
collaborative processes. Greg Parson, the Water Quality Control Division representative on
the Animas Stakeholder Group adds that members of his group fear government entities will
control the process: "[Landowners] saw a bunch of bureaucrats getting together to decide our
future [in the Animas Group] so they did not see their place. The idea of a collaborative
approach was distant to them. They did not feel any empowerment and, if they did show up,
they felt technically overwhelmed." Jim Allen, a hunting outfitter on the Three-Quarter
Circle Ranch CRM in Wyoming feels similarly: "[Agencies] just don’t have the same stakes
involved as the rest of us. Moreover, I don’t trust their information. It never matches up with
what I see out in the field, so why should I work with them? Finally, Peter Butler, participant
in the Animas elaborates that in his group "Landowners are afraid of potential liability. Many
people feel that the government has come along and created a problem."
Local / National tension
Another factor affecting trust is the tension which sometimes arose between stakeholder
groups that avoided involvement in collaborative efforts for fear of compromising control of
their interests. In the case of the Northwest Colorado RAC, BLM Associate Director Rich
Whitley explains, " Because the governor politically appoints representatives, the
composition of statewide RACs have greater potential to be influenced by politics." Indeed,
RAC critic Dick Loper, notes that "Most Wyoming residents have reacted in fear that
national interests will override local [concerns]…It's the main reason many [Wyoming
residents] shun the RAC process. Regulations from Washington scare the hell out of us. I
was involved in the Wyoming RAC until the governor stepped in and would not let us run
with our decisions." He added, "I have a baseball cap with the letters R-A-C printed on the
cap but I crossed the Resource Advisory Council wording out and wrote in Ranchers Against
Collaboration."
Similarly, outfitter Jim Allen, member of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM, sees the
federal government as a "900-pound gorilla that just doesn’t fit in its cage back in
Washington D.C." In contrast, Marty Higgenobothan, an environmental representative notes
concern that "what’s happening with public grazing land does not always reflect broader
national concerns."
Ensuring Representation
17-11
Managing strong personalities
Finally, the presence of strong personalities in groups had an acute affect on trust between
members. In the case of Scott River CRMP, for example, an environmental representative
filed an Endangered Species listing unannounced to the group. Members reacted with
feelings of angst and betrayal, interpreting the behavior of the individual as 'going outside the
group's process' to address personal concerns. In turn, the group cites the loss of membership
including two coordinators who mentioned extreme difficulty working with this particular
member. Coordinator Jeffy Marx recounts, "Trust is now at an all time low. Even the
Resource Conservation District, the major link to the involvement of landowners, is
threatening to pull out and start their own CRMP."
Strategies
Strategies employed to build trust within groups include:
!
!
!
Use of facilitator
Limiting agency role
Taking time to build relationships
Facilitation
In nearly all cases, a designated facilitator or group member was used to guide the dialogue
and focus of the group. In Clark County, for example, the facilitator was considered key to
preventing one interest from becoming dominant in the process as well as helping solicit the
involvement of stakeholders. Comparatively, in the Scott River CRMP, a facilitator was
hired to help manage internal conflict between group members that was causing angst and
loss of participants. Though successful for two years, the Scott River group has since
experienced more problems and is now considering establishing a rule to vote to remove
some individuals from the group who do not abide by discussion ground rules.
Defining the agency role
Some groups limited agencies to a technical advisory role in order to quell concern that
government interests would dominate the process. In the case of Scott River CRMP, for
example, agencies were given a non voting member status in which they could be consulted
for technical information but could not vote on critical issues. Likewise, in the McKenzie
Watershed Council, agencies are allowed to recuse themselves, or refrain from voting, when
issues arise over which they are legally responsible (It should be noted here that this
measure, while useful in some cases, is not appropriate when public resources or other public
interests are at stake, thereby necessitating the direct involvement of agencies in
collaborative decision-making processes).
Taking time to build relationships
Finally, in the Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM and the Scott River CRMP cases, a specific
effort was made to allow time to simultaneously build trust and the flow of information that
came with it. In both cases, nearly three years went by before plans were established to
address their respective resource issues. Many participants regarded this purposeful time as
Ensuring Representation
17-12
critical to relationship building, attracting more stakeholders to the decision-making process,
and building a better information base.
III. ADVICE AND REFLECTIONS
Interviewees offered five categories of advice and reflection for others about how to ensure
representation. They are:
!
!
!
!
Maintain an open process;
Realize that perfect representation is ideal but seldom reached;
Involve capable and committed individuals; and
Understand the dynamic and evolutionary nature of representation
Maintain an open process
Participants in nearly all cases made specific mention of the importance of keeping the
collaborative process open, both in terms of initiating a partnership as well as managing
collaborative processes over the long term.
Clark County representative Chris Robinson summarized the feelings of many participants:
"No matter how frustrating, you must include all stakeholders. Limiting the group because
you are worried about it being too big or having the wrong people is never good. On the
other hand, controlling the way it happens [adjusting meeting structure or using a facilitator,
for example] is something you can do."
In contrast, Sari Sommarstrom, former chair of the Scott River CRMP commented to the
contrary of other interviewees based on her difficulty with working with particular members.
"I'm not sure if [collaborative processes] can run fairly and allow adequate representation if
just anyone is allowed to participate. In my experience, the difficulty of working with one
obstinate member can nearly destroy an entire group."
Understand that representation is seldom perfect
Participants also felt that achieving perfect representation in collaborative processes was
ideal, but difficult to do. Indeed, environmentalist Felice Pace of Scott River CRMP, saw a
the issue as a process of "muddling through" with no guarantees.
Paul Selzer, facilitator of the Clark County HCP process reflected similarly that achieving
[adequate and fair] representation should be the goal but acknowledged that it is seldom
reached. "I liken folks participating in collaborative processes are voices in a chorus, and
that chorus may never be perfect."
Ron Cunningham of the Three-Quarter Ranch CRM adds, "We need to remember that
dealing with representation is different in every situation. There is no cookbook for it. There
Ensuring Representation
17-13
are no two ranches alike, no two families alike, and no two communities alike. You kind of
have to feel your way as you go."
Involve capable and committed individuals
Involving those people in collaborative processes who have the skills and perspective to
work in consensus was considered key to ensuring representation. According to Jeffy Marx,
current coordinator of the Scott River CRMP, "Adequate representation in collaborative
processes has everything to do with choosing the people who know how to operate in a
consensus process. This means good listeners, containing violent anger, and someone who
can remember what they learned in kindergarten during a heated argument."
Chris Robinson, a local government representative in the Clark County HCP process adds
that, "The functionality of the group is as much a matter of having the right chemistry of
individuals at the table as it was having the right rules."
Personality also makes a vital difference to the representation issue. As Mike Black,
environmentalist formerly of Animas Stakeholder Group, states: "Players are important, not
only in terms of who they represent but their personalities. When you're putting together a
group you should stress that you want people who are willing to work towards solutions.
Obviously, you want people with opinions, strong opinions, but you want people who are
willing to listen and be flexible."
Finally, Bill Simon, a former facilitator also in the Animas Stakeholder Group emphasizes
that the coordinator should know both their constituency and community well: "[The
coordinator] needs to know who to go to when they need to maintain that balance. I brought
people into this process that made people shudder. But that is what I wanted. I did not want
them to think they were operating in a vacuum."
Realize that representation is a dynamic and evolutionary process
Finally, and most critical, is understanding that ensuring representation is a dynamic and
changing factor in collaborative efforts. As John Allen of the McKenzie Watershed Council
notes, "Over time there's been continual concern over [having] the right people at the table.
But you have to remember that representation is an evolutionary thing…over time, as issues
mature and change, you realize that somebody should be there that is not. Some partners
have dropped out completely because they realized their stakes weren't that large. It should
be an expected and dynamic process that representation will change over time, and we've got
to work with that.
Ensuring Representation
17-14
CHAPTER 18: ACCOMMODATING DIVERSE INTERESTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
Collaborative groups that tackle natural resource issues often include participants with a
broad range of perspectives. Accommodating these diverse interests poses inevitable
challenges and opportunities. While having a greater number of heads at the table may
cultivate creativity and insight toward reaching innovative solutions and lead to more broadbased understanding of the issues at stake, it may also require compromise that some fear
leads to “lowest common denominator” solutions.
Part of our research explored the challenges faced by collaborative groups in accommodating
diverse interests. We asked members and outside observers to describe how their group
managed the diversity at the table. Interviewees were asked to reflect on the strategies that
they had used and to offer suggestions, now having the benefit of hindsight, on how they
might have accommodated diverse interests differently. Participants offered advice on how
to deal with issues in a way that would ensure proper accommodation of all interests within a
manageable process.
Both the challenges groups encountered and strategies they used reveal significant
similarities as well as differences. By analyzing the way that partnerships accommodated
diverse interests, we hope to provide insight regarding common barriers to credible processes
and suggestions for maximizing the positive aspects of diverse representation while
minimizing the shortcomings.
Summary of Core Findings
There are two main challenges associated with accommodating diverse interests. The first
challenge is that of establishing a new form of interaction in the face of diverse interests.
The second is that of decision-making given divergent interests combined with an
undercurrent need to sustain this new relationship. Indeed, most of the obstacles confronted
by these groups are challenges inherent in establishing a new type of relationship and a new
type of approach when people come to the table with different understandings of the issues
and each other and different expectations about how decisions should (or could) be made. At
the same time, the presence of diverse interests at the table can increase the likelihood of
addressing resource issues in a timely manner and gaining wider acceptance of approaches to
managing the resource at hand.
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-1
Core Issues and Strategies
1. Establishing a New Form of Interaction
Partnerships learned to work together in this new process by building trust and developing
relationships outside of the collaborative process.
Strategies
! Field trips
! After-hours interaction
! Small-scale projects
! Forums for information-sharing, education and addressing concerns
2. Decision-making given Diverse Interests
Partnerships grappled with how to make effective and fair decisions by adapting decisions to
reflect the goals, perceptions, and limitations of the group.
Strategies
! Seeking middle ground
! Avoiding controversial issues
! Forcing action
! Holistic approaches to management
Advice and Reflections
!
!
!
!
!
Establish the working relationship
Enhancing this relationship
Develop effective leadership
Create a group process
Other insights
II. SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES
1. Establishing a New Form of Interaction
Challenges
With diverse participation in collaborative processes comes the challenge of establishing a
new form of interaction. Groups mentioned three main aspects of this challenge:
!
!
!
Developing and maintaining trust
Handling differing approaches to management
Dealing with group logistics
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-2
Developing and maintaining trust
The challenge of developing and maintaining trust that allows communication and problemsolving to occur is something that all groups in our study grappled with given the distrustful
attitudes brought to the table. Two aspects of distrust: anti-government sentiment and
distrust between group participants are evidence of this challenge.
In the Animas River Stakeholders Group, distrust of agency motives and anti-government
sentiment run rampant. Many feel the creation of the Stakeholders group as an alternative to
Superfund designation is merely a way for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
justify budgets. This local perception is compounded by the fact that meetings are very
agency dominated. Although Greg Parsons, of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division
and group participant, intended for the initiation of the group as an alternative to simply
collecting data and “dumping it somewhere,” some participants feel that initial data revealed
no water quality problem in the basin. There is also the additional challenge of overcoming
the local perception that government agencies are wasteful and that cleaning up the water is
coming at an enormous financial cost.
In the Darby Partnership, government distrust became an inhibitor to establishing a new form
of interaction well after the initiation of the collaborative group when The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed a refuge. Perceived as a major threat to the agriculturebased economy of the region, the proposal broke down trust and left participants feeling that
the agency was less dedicated to the collaborative process than they initially lead everyone to
believe. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) also felt the negative effect of this proposed refuge
and one TNC representative commented that TNC's strong support of the refuge put her
‘neutral' position at risk within the group. In the words of participant Dennis Hall of the
Ohio State University Extension “Their (USFWS) process is not open and collaborative. In
the end that has resulted in a lot of mistrust from the local people…Now they [local farmers]
have taken up a competing perspective and are working diligently to oppose the refuge.”
Groups also experienced distrust among participants. Although collaborative partnerships
can improve or provide a forum for trust-building, in the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance,
some participants represent large companies like DuPont and Chesapeake Forest Products,
companies that carry the stigma of being environmentally unfriendly. For this reason,
particularly in the initial stages, others in the group questioned their motives. In fact, Farm
Bureau representative Ralph Harcum feels little trust for anyone who threatens his traditional
way of farming his land. In his words: “I am a watchdog and make sure that things are not
done that would be a detriment to the farming community…They have no concept of farming
yet they dispute me.”
Differing approaches to management
Groups also dealt with how to manage the collaborative process when participants come to
the table with different ideas of natural resource management, perceive other management
practices as incompatible to their own, and differ culturally. Related to the previous issue of
trust and primarily based on perception, some ranchers, miners, and farmers view their
resource management practices as incompatible with those of the agencies. Seen in the
Animas River Stakeholders Group and the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM, this can result
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-3
in a lack of understanding between participants and creates a communication gap. Moreover,
the rules and regulations of agencies are often looked upon as threatening to the local way of
doing business although this would be a reality outside of the collaborative process as well.
For the Animas River Stakeholders Group, some participants tend to look at agency
representatives, particularly the EPA, as “the people from Washington” who are not in tune
with local traditional natural resource management practices. One EPA representative even
received a death threat. Participant Greg Parsons states: “A lot of us feel that they [Federal
agencies] have wasted a lot of money to do their little projects and that the projects do not
even wind up telling you anything.”
Cultural differences are also a factor when addressing the issues of natural resource
management. In the Scott River CRMP the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM and again, the
Animas River Stakeholders Group, independent Western culture and difficulty matching
traditional ways of rancher or miner business with collaborative decision-making underscores
cultural differences. As Jim Allen of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM explains, “I think
for the most part that agencies are outside of the comfort zone of their rules and regulations
when dealing with collaborative processes. I know that we need them when dealing with
public lands, but they have a tendency to fall back on their bullshit rules when the situation
demands that they try something new.”
Similarly, in the Scott River Valley and Siskiyou region of California in general, a
Jeffersonian mind-set has resulted in multiple secession attempts. Recently, property rights
activism has made reaction to lawsuits even more adversarial. With regard to the Scott River
CRMP, controversy has arisen with the dual role of the Resource Conservation District
(RCD) as a CRMP member and landowner representative. One participant captures the
effect of this dual role: “RCD has been afraid to seek watershed restoration management
changes too quickly for fear that they will lose their constituency.” Another participant
states, “The RCD is effectively seeking to sanitize every CRMP decision so as not to scare
ranchers off.”
Group logistics
Group logistics is yet another aspect of the challenge of establishing a new form of
interaction. Three factors loosely fall under group logistics: watershed size, participant
commitment, and participant impatience. These factors put additional stress on partnership
efforts of ensuring that all interests at the table are adequately accommodated.
Watershed size
For the Darby Partnership, the challenge has not focused on group size but rather the size of
the watershed. With six counties and numerous townships and municipalities within the
watershed boundary, each with their own zoning ordinances and regulations, it has been
difficult to for the group to address land use issues, to manage the multi-jurisdictional efforts,
and to find its own voice. Participant, Marc Smith, addresses this challenge: “Zoning and
consistency in regulations is the biggest challenge. There are so many different government
entities that have responsibility over the watershed…They each have different ideas of what
should be done.”
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-4
Impatience
Impatience of group members can also inhibit a collaborative group’s ability to establish a
new form of interaction. For instance, people joining collaborative groups often view
collaboration as an expedient alternative, when in reality, collaboration is not a one-step
process and can take a great deal of time. Some individuals, like participants in the Animas
River Stakeholders Group and Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, became frustrated by this
unanticipated reality and demanded action at a point where a decision made would have been
premature and even detrimental to the resource.
Bill Simon, coordinator of the Animas River Stakeholders Group states: “Our biggest
challenge is time. Everybody expects action. In our case, we have 120 years of mining
related damages and people want action right away. The challenge is in keeping the greater
community patient and letting this process run its course.” Similarly, in the Nanticoke
Watershed Alliance, some participants claim that the group has lost its identity and that
although it throws around ideas, nothing of substance really ever gets accomplished.
Consequently, due to impatience, a few participants have decreased involvement in the group
or have terminated their membership altogether. This reduced or terminated involvement has
not shattered the diversity of the group but has increased group awareness of the importance
of diversity at the table because the group noticed that it was losing players that brought a lot
of ideas to the table. Lisa Jo Frech, Executive Director of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance,
pointed out that although diverse interests remain, when one interest drops out, it is felt as a
loss.
Participant commitment
Different levels of commitment have caused tension in some of the groups studied. In the
Blackfoot Challenge, for example, a specific private timber interest which is also the largest
private land owner in the Valley, has clearly not exhibited the same level of commitment as
others in the partnership. The need to increase their commitment is viewed by participants as
necessary because so much of valley’s lands remain in their hands. This disproportionate
level of commitment on their part has become taxing on participants who are dedicated to the
process. The group, for instance, will make progress on weed control only to be delayed by
an entity that sees little value in the collaborative process. This entity, while peripherally at
the table, hangs onto the reality that ultimately, it is their land and they can do with it
whatever they please and that profits are their bottom line. Greg Neudecker points out:
“Every meeting we deal with some issue related to their property cuts or the selling off of
subdivisions. Everyone comes to the table and says, ‘let’s work together.’ Plum Creek,
when they come, make it quite clear that they would rather be somewhere else.”
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-5
Strategies
Groups adopted the following strategies in establishing a new form of interaction given
diverse interests at the table. Strategies adopted were to:
!
!
!
!
Implement small-scale projects
Encourage after hours interaction
Develop forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
Conduct field trips
Implement small-scale projects
Small-scale projects with local landowners were a key strategy used to build up trust of the
agency representatives. In the Blackfoot Challenge, some of these projects were even taking
place before the initiation of the group. These included activities such as installation of
nesting structures on local landowner private property to help enhance avian habitat areas on
private lands. Greg Neudecker of the USFWS illustrates: “When the Challenge started,
people already knew who I was. To them, I was not just a USFWS representative, I was also
Greg Neudecker.” He now feels that this initial increase in agency trust has helped to
accommodate diverse interests. In the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, meeting after meeting
was taking place with very little being accomplished. Not only was trust diminishing,
participants were becoming both weary and wary of the process. At the request of Executive
Director, the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance organized a clean-up. They recruited volunteers
both inside and outside of the group, located an area that needed a face-lift, and got the job
done. As a result, people had the opportunity to truly get to know one another. Lisa Jo Frech
mentioned that the effects of the clean up were reverberated in following meetings and that it
positively changed the entire dynamic of the group.
Encourage after hours interaction
Relationship building was key for all groups, however three groups specifically encouraged
after hours interaction. In the Blackfoot Challenge, Trixi’s Restaurant and Bar is the local
breakfast spot where participants often meet during times of the day when the Blackfoot
Challenge was not discussed as the central issue. Viewed as a neutral territory, Trixi’s
Restaurant and Bar is one place where people are not looked upon as representing one point
of view or another. Likewise, in the Animas River Stakeholders Group, whose meetings run
up to twelve hours, participants spend time together after hours and often grab a pizza or a
beer. Finally in the NW RAC, T. Wright Dickinson at one point invited Bill Shapley a
former member representing Sierra Club, up to his ranch and said: "Bill why don't you like
me?" Bill looked at him and said, "T. I do like you, I just don't like your damn cows."
Develop forums for information sharing, education, and addressing concerns
In addition to groups such as the Blackfoot Challenge and the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance,
which were created as forums for information exchange and education, other partnerships
such as The Darby Creek Partnership, Animas River Stakeholders Group, the Owl Mountain
Partnership, and the McKenzie Watershed Council have developed similar forums. These
open forums are a way for people to have the opportunity to state their feelings and to get the
facts. The Owl Mountain Partnership, for example, provided a forum for the group to sit
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-6
down with the water quality commission and the county commissioners to clarify an error in
a proposal. This proposal was part of a grant to secure section 319 money from the EPA to
design a water quality-monitoring program. In addition, The Darby Partnership tackled the
issue of the proposed USFWS refuge by “providing a forum where all sides can be heard”
(Hall, 1999). The type of forum utilized by the Animas River Stakeholders Group is what
they call a library series that serves as a friendly non-intimidating forum to educate locals
and out-of-town lay-people about the issues in the Animas Basin as well as the activities of
the Animas River Stakeholders Group. Although these are also used in part to get more
people on board, they have also proven useful in assuaging participant fears that certain
issues are not being brushed under the rug but rather are being explained to the community as
a whole.
Conduct field trips
Also used as a strategy of ensuring scientific understanding, field trips forge interpersonal
relationships and increase understanding of other participants. The Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance, McKenzie Watershed Council, the Blackfoot Challenge, Animas River Stakeholder
Group, Darby Partnership, and the Scott River CRMP all encouraged field trips to share
information and to build group understanding. In the Darby Partnership, for instance, canoe
trips were a way for landowners to pair up in the same canoe with agency representatives and
to build a relationship outside of a person’s interest. In the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
field trips often take the form of clean-ups (also small-scale projects) where NWA members
and the community at large offer their time to clean a pre-determined site within the
watershed. With reference to one of the first clean-ups in the watershed, Lisa Jo Frech, the
Executive Director, pointed out: “We got to know people personally and I realized that it
was important to find out what made someone really tick and to find out where their passion
for issues really lived. One of the people who came happened to be someone we were
fighting…I got to know him personally…when he came to meetings from then on and looked
across the table, he saw a different person.”
2. Decision-making Given Diverse Interests
Challenges
For a collaborative group to succeed they must not only establish a new form of interaction
and build relationships, they must confront the challenge of decision-making given diverse
interests at the table. Evidence of these challenges exists in the following forms:
!
!
!
Dealing with contentious and complex issues,
Defining the role of the group,
Working toward win-win solutions
Dealing with contentious and complex issues
One aspect of the challenge of decision-making given diverse interests is dealing with
contentious and complex issues when participants exhibit divergent views of the importance,
source, and solutions to the problem. These complex issues can be felt both internally and by
the community at large. For the McKenzie Watershed Council, this has resulted in macro
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-7
policy recommendations rather than addressing micro land use issues. Moreover, social
relations tend to take precedence over voicing concerns. Tony Cheng, outside observer and
Ph.D. student studying watershed councils in Oregon, captures the fact that the group will not
move forward without consensus. In his words: “Time and time again with controversial
issues, they failed to get to the point where they took action.” He also adds: “There seems to
be a desire not to hurt people’s feelings too much. There is too much emphasis on
relationships. Someone might not step up to the plate if she’s going to piss off some of the
people she really gets along with.” For example, the council does not address individual
timber harvest plans but will provide general recommendations for important factors to
consider when harvesting. In the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, one participant pointed out
a similar concern: “There are some issues that we have not hit hard enough for fear of losing
constituent members” (Corbitt, The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance). And although later
resolved, The Owl Mountain Partnership experienced the challenge of dealing with
contentious issues but the effect of this challenge was felt in the community at large. Here,
the issue centered on a 319 EPA grant to design a water quality-monitoring program. Clearly
a turf issue, one community became upset with the community who designed the grant and
the ranchers tried to shoot it down because it referenced grazing in the grant proposal as a
potential source of water quality degradation.
Defining the role of the group
Another aspect of the challenge of decision-making given diverse interests is defining the
role of the group. In the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, the issue of Pfiesteria was brought
to a head. The group was unwilling to take a position on something for fear of it tarnishing
their reputation as an information sharing group. Although other groups in the region, such
as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, blame Pfiesteria’s effect on water quality on current
farming practices, the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance has been unwilling to take a strong
stance on the issue because the effect of Pfiesteria on the environment as a result of farming
practices has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Moreover, the group fears losing
key players at the table and altering its image as a benign entity fostering information sharing
and education. Judith Stribling highlights this concern: “Pfiesteria was something that was
talked about a lot but we never came up with a policy position for how we stood on
waste…We were able to agree on some things but we did not agree on the overriding idea of
whether nutrient management needed to be changed.”
Working toward win-win solutions
Several groups mentioned their desire to work towards solutions that served everyone at the
table. While challenging, none of the groups we studied felt like their decisions were diluted
and took steps to ensure that this did not happen. In fact, participants outside of the
collaborative process were the primary voices of concern. In the McKenzie Watershed
Council, for instance, the group did not make decisions on things where they did not reach
consensus as will be discussed below. In the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, however, some
participants are concerned that some issues are watered down. Larry Walton, NWA
participant and President of Chesapeake Forest Products exclaims: “I have seen them really
compromise on principles in some cases to reach consensus on some things.”
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-8
Strategies
Most partnerships employed a series of strategies for handling decision-making given diverse
interests. Three strategies groups adopted were to:
!
!
!
Seek middle ground
Force action
Adopt holistic approaches to management
Seek middle ground
To seek middle ground, groups tackled those issues on which they felt they could have an
impact thereby improving their ability to tackle issues at a later date.
The Scott River CRMP provides an example of this approach. Participants clearly
recognized what falls outside of the acceptable parameters for resource management such as
logging off the land without permission or allowing cattle to damage the river. Another
tactic adopted by the McKenzie Watershed Council, the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, and
the Blackfoot Challenge has been to recognize and table controversial issues. As John
Runyon of the McKenzie Watershed Council explains, “There are times when we can’t
tackle a really controversial issue and in fact we table them because we know we can’t deal
with it in a consensus format, and we say, well we are going wait until the time is ripe or the
organization is ready to deal with that issue.”
The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance tables controversial issues in order to keep participants at
the table and to avoid the risk of being labeled as an organization that takes strong stances on
issues where there is still scientific uncertainty. Comparatively, for the Blackfoot Challenge
the strategy of avoiding controversial issues manifested itself in focusing its efforts of
noxious weed control. Although the Blackfoot Challenge has taken a leadership role on an
issue landowners can relate to, some feel that this has been at the expense of tackling more
controversial issues in the valley.
Force action
Acting outside of the group, one strategy that has brought participants together to make
decisions given their diverse interests, was the use of species listings and Superfund
designation as a way to force action by getting everyone to the table. In the case of Scott
River, the species that was listed was the steelhead as a means of bringing attention to the
politically sensitive issue of water flow. Felice Pace, the individual who advocated the
listing of the species, states: “Lawsuits act as the fire under the feet that force all concerns
onto the table. While some participants feel this is painfully necessary, others have
threatened to leave the group.” In the Blackfoot Valley, the bull trout was the listed species.
Although this listing was highly controversial among valley residents, it perhaps served the
same purpose of bringing the issue to the forefront and to create creative ways such as the
formation of collaborative groups to handle these realities. With regard to the Animas River
Stakeholders Group, the threat of Superfund designation has brought people together in a
collaborative forum to find alternatives.
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-9
Adopt holistic approaches to management
Resource management that takes a more ecosystem management approach is another strategy
used by the Blackfoot Challenge and Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM. In the Blackfoot
Valley, for example, the USFWS representatives have been commended for adopting holistic
management practices. In the Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM, ranch owner Tony
Malmberg is commended by others for incorporating innovative ideas into the CRM as a
means of combining new strategies for management with older strategies through a holistic
approach. Jim Allen describes Malmberg and what he has done for his ranch: “Tony is bold
enough to put his whole ranch into this CRM thing. A lot of folks are afraid to do that
because you really have to open up your dirty laundry for everyone to look at.” Malmberg
himself sees what benefits the strategy of adopting a holistic approach has to offer:
“Bringing people face to face with what the CRM is doing out here allows me to establish a
connection.”
IV. REFLECTIONS AND ADVICE
Participants provided the following advice and reflections for how to best assist participants
in collaborative processes in creating partnerships that not only convene diverse interests and
encourage equitable participation, but also encourage relationship building, promote effective
leadership, and set group direction. District Ranger, John Allen of the McKenzie Watershed
Council specifically refers to the benefit of forming relationships and the effect they have on
accommodating diverse interests in a collaborative process: “When you have a good
relationship with people of diverse interests, they’ll pose ideas to you that will put you
outside of your own box and get you thinking about ideas that you hadn’t thought of or
hadn’t been exposed to before. …You’re more willing to accept ideas outside of the box.”
1. Establish the working relationship
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go slow at the beginning
Build up trust before (and during) the formal formation of the group
Take time to get to know other participants
Start off in the context of learning
Identify workload up front
Realize people’s limitations
Look to people for ideas
“You really need to go slow in the beginning…take time to develop relationships, develop an
understanding of shared interests and expectations. If you are not able to do that, you’re not
going to be able to productively take on the issues you might have conflict on” (Allen,
McKenzie Watershed Council).
“Build up trust before the formal formation of the group. If you structure it right and build
trust at the beginning it will go a long way. In our case, too many people had no idea what
was going on” (Russell, Animas River Stakeholders Group).
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-10
“If you don’t have trust and understanding and communication then the more the diversity
you have, the quicker things are going to fall apart” (Grier, McKenzie Watershed Council).
“Keep your eye on the ball. Look at ideas that people can truly handle. Don’t get hung up
on issues over which you really do not have any control” (Goetz, Blackfoot Challenge).
“Pay attention to the people you have at the table. Identify the workload up front. Promote
energy needed to get along” (Porter, Owl Mountain Partnership).
2. Enhancing these relationships
!
!
!
!
!
Go out in the field as much as possible
Voice all opinions
Use various communication techniques.
Understand and respect each others perspectives
Be open and flexible
“I recommend some kind of hiking or getting out into the habitat on a one on one basis”
Devlin, Darby Creek Partnership).
“Encourage membership to vocalize averting positive and negative that they can about the
ongoing process…but there is a right way and a wrong way of doing this. If you can't play
nice then get out of the sandbox. You have to know how to talk to people and to give them
the basic respect as a human being. See what about them makes them tick.” (Corbitt, The
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance).
“It may not work just to post a sign in one spot announcing a meeting because some
individuals may not be able to get to town to see those signs. Other options should be utilized
as well such as announcements over the radio and word of mouth” (Garland, Blackfoot
Challenge).
“It takes the right kind of people and on the ground stuff-not just sitting in on a meeting but
going out and looking at something. If they have an impression that something is not right,
well then let’s go out and take a look at it. Let’s go walk a mile in that person’s shoes before
you make that decision. We all seem too busy to take the time but it is very important that all
of our people take the time to do it” (Walton, The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance).
“Try hard to work together. Be able to look at both sides. You might need to give a little at
times” (Haworth, Owl Mountain Partnership).
“People are people and if they think different, you need to look underneath what they are
thinking about and see who they really are. Then, even if you don’t believe in the way they
are thinking, at least you can be their friend…that way you can fight them without the
bitterness and the hate that existed before this whole thing got started”(Schrieber, Clark
County HCP).
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-11
3. Develop effective leadership
!
!
!
!
!
!
Engage people and structure things to tap into people’s strengths
Have a paid facilitator who can handle tasks and ask hard questions
Have good leaders who are patient and can keep the process going
Seek a well rounded leader who looks beyond participants to the community at
large
Ensure participants representing an organization are the most appropriate people
to speak for that organization
Identify leaders and spokespeople in the community and figure out who will need a
greater amount of persuasion to come to meetings
“Make sure that everybody is engaged all of the time. If you do not watch everyone, you
can get into trouble. Thinking things out on the front end can help with this. You must
structure it so that people out there who have a strong knowledge base of a specific aspect of
the watershed are tapped into ” (Hirshenberger, Blackfoot Challenge).
“Seek representatives with patience, good communication skills, and willingness to work
with others” (Kramer, Scott River CRMP).
“Like Tony, you need to reach out to the community to bring people into the process”
(Trebelcock, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch).
“Make sure that the leadership of the organization has a degree of political sophistication and
understanding of the larger issues. Planting trees is a wonderful thing but that alone is not
going to cut it” (Cipolla, The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance).
4. Create a group process
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Incorporate “check back in” goals
Keep meetings open-create an open environment
Permit everyone at the table an equal say
Simplify
Ensure diversity at the table
Get rid of hidden agendas
Be prepared for the future-cover all bases
Don’t push issues
Keep on looking for people who should be at the table
Learn to pick your important battles
Recognize that the group can’t do everything
“Re-plowing that ground (check back-in goals) is often necessary, particularly for new
members coming on board who don’t understand as clearly where the group has been and
where it is headed. If you don’t do that, you don’t have a group marriage. You may even
end up with a divorce in your hands” (Cunningham, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch).
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-12
“Keep the meetings open. Do not turn anyone away. Make sure that all groups are
represented, but limit the control and input of any one group” (L. Perino, Animas River
Stakeholders Group).
“I think that when you form a group one piece of advice is not to get caught up in the issues
that are hot that have brought you together…The groups that I have seen fail are the groups
that get on an issue that everyone is energized around changing. They go directly to that
issue and solving that rather than looking long term” (Devlin, Darby Partnership).
5. Other
!
!
!
!
New folks need to understand the norms of the group
Accept that it is a long process
Be dedicated
Incorporate consensus training
“New folks need to understand norms are always evolving. New people are afraid to change
those norms. It’s like marrying into a new family or moving to a new town, you don’t want to
be the one that disrupts norms that could be really deep seated” (Cheng, McKenzie
Watershed Council).
“…You see you have to remember that it’s a slow step by step process…there is no way to
evaluate your group except to ask if we are still working on the process” (Marx, Scott River
CRMP).
“Consensus training is imperative. Base the whole collaborative process on the premise that
everyone who’s there is entitled to be there and they have a part of the answer and if you all
just listen carefully enough, you come up with a solution you would never have before”
(Grier, McKenzie Watershed Council).
Accommodating Diverse Interests
18-13
CHAPTER 19: ACCOMMODATING DIVERSE CAPABILITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
The diverse perspectives, insights, skills, energy, creativity and influence that participants
bring to the table comprise the basis of a collaborative partnership's ability to solve problems.
At the same time, this diverse amalgam of capabilities can create challenges for the group. In
reality these differences are not unique to collaborative groups, but hold true for the public
policy arena in general. As Ken Mauer of the Scott River CRMP commented, "Unequal
power is a problem of the world in general, and what we have in our CRMP is just a little
slice of the same thing." Similarly, Allen Kramer of the same group noted, "[Diverse
capabilities] are not just an Achilles’ heel of collaboration, it's an Achilles' heel of the
world." The partnerships we studied recognized the challenge of accommodating diverse
capabilities, and dealt with it in a variety of ways in order to enhance their communication
and problem-solving abilities.
Summary of Core Findings
Core Issues and Strategies
1. Balancing influence in the process
Partnerships grappled with how to temper the influence of traditionally high power interests
so that all were better able to contribute to the process and voice their concerns in an
equitable way.
Strategies
! Retained autonomy to act outside the group
! Increased diversity at the table
! Used a consensus decision-making rule
! Hired a lawyer to represent less powerful interests
2. Managing different communication styles and abilities
Partnerships dealt with how to organize themselves so that no single interest or individual
dominated the process.
Strategies
! Built trust through opportunities for social interaction
! Hired a facilitator / provided internal facilitation
! Practiced one-on-one interventions
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-1
3. Building capacity for equitable participation
Partnerships struggled with how to organize themselves so that everyone is on the same page
at the same time and everyone has the ability (or at least the opportunity) to articulate their
concerns.
Strategies
! Made meetings accessible in terms of timing and location
! Provided orientation and training
! Broke down the larger group into working groups
Advice and Reflections
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Improve communication
Practice constructive behavior
Provide training
Think about individuals as well as interests
Utilize leadership
Build trust
Other insights
II. SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES
1. Balancing Influence in the Process
Collaborative partnerships by nature bring together diverse interests with differing abilities to
exert influence either inside or outside the process. The variance in levels of influence
reflects the way U.S. society is organized, and is therefore a reality of most decision-making
arenas. The groups we interviewed recognized the need to temper the influence of
traditionally high power interests so that all were better able to contribute to the process and
voice their concerns in an equitable way.
The majority of the people we interviewed felt that, although varying levels of power were
apparent in their groups, more powerful interests did not dominate the process. In fact, some
groups mentioned that having powerful interests at the table was an advantage for the
partnership. In the case of the McKenzie Watershed Council, most of the members are highpower individuals who have great influence in their own organizations and the community.
By including those people on the council, members conclude that recommendations made by
the council are more likely to be implemented.
Defining roles and authority
A few groups confronted power struggles resulting from a desire to retain a status quo
authority over the decision-making process. In the Scott River CRMP, agencies were
observed attempting to control the process. Sari Sommarstrom, former coordinator of Scott
River described what happened with the local Resource Conservation District (RCD), a
champion of farming interests: “At the beginning, it seems the RCD thought the consensus
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-2
process was just another name for majority rule. Because they already had the trust of the
landowners, they attempted to load the CRMP by putting multiple representatives of the
agriculture interest groups on board. In other words, they wanted to make sure that, no matter
what, they had a majority.” Some participants expressed a fear that agencies would “run
away with the process” by controlling access to technical information (Marx, 1999).
In the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM, landowner Tony Malmberg speaks to the same
desire to maintain authority. The CRM process he initiated to collaboratively manage his
ranching operation in Wyoming reserves a status quo mechanism that provides the necessary
incentive for landowners to try alternative management methods: “We operate on a
consensus basis but with a quasi-veto power for landowners. In other words, if I don’t like
the decisions that will affect my lands, I am not going to do it.” When compared to the
alternative of private ranching decisions that do not incorporate the perspectives of other
stakeholders, this was seen as a necessary mechanism.
Often the issues surrounding jurisdictions and influence result from ambiguous decisionmaking roles. Verl Brown of Owl Mountain Partnership described this tension: “Everyone
wants power… the power struggle between people and agencies…that is a real drawback on
getting things done. Right now were talking about getting more into the area of issues rather
than projects and it is going to be tough because agencies do not like to give up their
authority.”
Mitigating the influence of dominant interests
In the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance and Clark County HCP, dominant interests attempted to
use their influence to force agendas through the collaborative process. In the Nanticoke, for
example, environmentalist and former University professor Charlie Cipolla believes that,
“The interests that have come to the table and who have really set the agenda have been the
large economic interests. The timber people made darn sure that they got in there and defined
the situation.” He described a situation where the NWA, upon learning of a member timber
company’s violation of a buffer zone along the river corridor, reported the incident to the
local authorities. The industry was furious and according to Cipolla, “There were some not so
thinly veiled threats leveled that if that were ever to happen again, the person involved might
find himself at great risk.”
In Clark County, representatives of multiple-use interests like miners and off-road vehicle
enthusiasts felt at a disadvantage because of their lack of resources and knowledge of the
issues. They believed that both developers and scientists have attempted to use money and
information to shift the process in their favor. Ann Schrieber, a local miner in Clark County
recalled, “they told me at the first meeting to shut up because I was not putting up the
money.”
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-3
Strategies
While the reality of different levels of influence cannot be eliminated, partnerships did
employ a variety of strategies to temper the influence of traditionally high power interests so
that all interests were better able to contribute to the process and voice their concerns in an
equitable way. The partnerships we interviewed mentioned the following strategies. They:
!
!
!
Used a consensus decision-making rule
Increased diversity at the table
Retained autonomy to act outside the group
One of the primary strategies used by the majority of our cases was a consensus decisionmaking rule. On the McKenzie Watershed Council, consensus was seen as a way to give
“people from those potentially less powerful groups a voice with these bigger groups” (Fox,
1999). In the words of McKenzie Watershed Council coordinator John Runyon: “The final
sort of equalizer is our consensus process. One individual has the power to block anything
moving forward even if that individual doesn’t have big institutions behind him. Everyone
around the table is aware of that and that’s a big equalizer.”
In the Clark County case, rural interests felt shut out of a process that required intense time
investments, familiarity with science, and negotiation savvy. In order to provide those
interests with an opportunity to successfully negotiate with more powerful participants, the
HCP group hired a lawyer to represent them. In the words of off-road vehicle user Mark
Trinko: “Karen Budd-Fallon’s role as a legal representative of rural interests and the grazing
community has been essential. I’m not sure we could have done it without her…. She served
an invaluable liaison role.”
A third strategy employed by the Darby Partnership, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, and
McKenzie Watershed Council, was to create an information-sharing atmosphere where each
individual retains his / her own independent decision-making authority. Partnerships that
structured themselves as primarily information-sharing or coordinating bodies retained
decision-making autonomy for their members. Lisa Jo Frech, director of the Nanticoke,
explained: “Let’s say…we decide we are not going to fight a particular issue. That does not
mean that one of our member groups can’t go out and fight. They still have autonomy.” This
autonomy, while it can compromise the partnership’s integrity, exists for all participants. Of
hundreds of collaborative groups reviewed for this study, none had regulatory authority.
Participants, regardless of their influence in the group, always have the option to pursue other
paths to meet their goals.
2. Managing different communication styles and abilities
In all of the partnerships, individual personalities were raised as an issue groups had to be
aware of and work with. As in the outside world, the participants in collaborative groups
bring with them vastly different communication styles and abilities. Much of the ability to
work productively with others depends on personality. Some groups struggled with how to
deal with one individual with a strong personality who tended to dominate the process,
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-4
limiting opportunities for more reticent individuals to participate, or toppling the group’s
fragile trust. Although stronger personalities often made it difficult to manage the process
fairly, groups employed a variety of strategies to curb the dominance of any single individual
or interest
In the Scott River CRMP, environmentalist Felice Pace’s “irascible personality” has caused
members to drop out: “He broke the rules many times but people were afraid because of his
ability to get the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and others with big money to sue
landowners. Frankly I don’t think the group will ever have trust as long as he’s involved.
That doesn’t mean his interests can’t be represented. It’s the personality that represents those
interests that’s the problem” (Roehrich, 1999). Dick Loper of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch
CRM comments that strong personalities are “an exploitation of a custom and culture”
because “ranchers in the West don’t have the professional skills and negotiation training that
you find among professionals.”
On the other hand, interviewees stressed that the group dynamic itself is often adequate to
curb extreme voices and to ensure that all voices are heard. Greg Sherman of Owl Mountain
Partnership describes this process: “You have some people who are louder, more aggressive
than others. It could theoretically control where the group is going. What really happens
though is it puts a lot of weight on the private landowner’s side. They are typically very quiet
about it, but when they do say something about it, everybody listens…and the ones that yap
most kind of get shut off.”
Speaking about a strong personality on the NW Colorado RAC, Cathie Zarlingo adds, “I
think they understand that if they try to overwhelm it, that would torpedo the process and we
could be back where we were before, with nothing.”
Strategies
In order to manage diverse communication styles and capabilities, groups employed several
strategies. A subtle way of dealing with diverse personalities was to ensure diversity at the
table. In the words of Tony Malmberg of the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM, “I guess I
see diversity at the table as an insulator against being controlled by one group or interest.”
The group, by the strength of its coalition of diverse individuals, often outweighed a
particular individual.
In the Scott River CRMP, the group had to hire a facilitator for a period of two years in order
to manage contentious meetings productively. Groups without neutral facilitation, like the
Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM, stressed the importance of using a group leader or
chairperson to bring out and define the interests of group members.
Also, in the McKenzie Watershed Council, although interviewees mentioned the “stronger
voices” on the council, they felt the group dynamic tempered what might have been more
dominating interactions. One-on-one interactions also helped integrate those people into the
process. As Pat Thompson, a resident and landowner, recalled, “We’re fortunate to have a
group of people who know when to call bologna. There’s not a single person in this group
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-5
who’s going to be bullied…we’ve had some very very strong personalities who try to guide
the process. (After) two or three meetings, they realize if there’s ever going to be a decision
made I’m going to have to give as well. And there’s not a person on this group who isn’t
willing to pull that individual aside and talk turkey with them and say look, you’re not
getting anywhere with this” (Thompson).
3. Building capacity for equitable participation
Given the reality that participants come to collaborative processes with differing levels of
knowledge, skills and resources, partnerships grappled with how to facilitate meaningful and
productive participation for everyone involved. Specifically, groups faced the challenge of
organizing themselves so that everyone is on the same page at the same time and everyone
has the ability (or at least the opportunity) to articulate their concerns.
The issue of knowledge and skills was a concern to several of the participants that we
interviewed. In the Clark County HCP, Jim Moore remarked that “User groups simply felt
they didn’t have the legal or scientific skills to fight the battle on even ground.” In fact, Sid
Sloane from the same group described the “constant fear from outlying communities that
they’d get blind sided by something they didn’t understand.” Outside observer Doug Heiken
of the Oregon Natural Resources Council, commenting on the “meek” environmental
representation on the McKenzie Watershed Council, said, “It’s hard to stand up and disagree
with your peers when you don’t have totally solid information.”
Judith Stribling, a professor at Salisbury State College and member of the Nanticoke
Watershed Alliance, described the effect that unequal knowledge base can have on group
process: “There have been situations where the group will have a sense that there is a
consensus when there are people there who do not really agree and find it difficult to express
that because they are feeling somewhat overwhelmed.” Tony Cheng, a doctoral student who
has closely observed interactions on the McKenzie Watershed Council, describes a similar
situation of “dialogue where some people have more knowledge than others make categorical
comments and everybody takes them as truth.”
Disparate levels of resources were another reality that hampered equitable participation. In
Clark County, this was especially evident because of the long meetings and driving distances
required for participation. Private citizens often had to forfeit a day’s wages to attend
meetings. Jim Moore stated, “The resources, skills and access to the process was an issue
from day one. Especially with smaller land users and mom and pop miners. They felt that
their livelihoods were on the line, yet they were not getting paid by anybody to participate,
whereas the agency folks and others like me were all getting salaries to engage in this
process.”
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-6
Strategies
Groups dealt with these issues by implementing concrete changes to group process or
organizational structure. Specifically, they:
!
!
!
Made meetings accessible in terms of timing and location
Provided orientation and training
Created working groups
Both in the beginning stages and throughout the collaborative process, orientation and
training was considered an essential strategy to keep everybody on the same page and
facilitate equitable participation. The NW Colorado RAC, for example, provided a pre-RAC
weekend training workshop on both substantive issues and process. The workshop, described
as “imperative to working in these types of groups” (Zarlingo, RAC), was recently repeated
as new members joined the group. The McKenzie Watershed Council also provides
orientation for new members, in addition to on-going educational presentations to the group
as a whole. John Runyon explained: “We’re very careful up front in providing very thorough
orientation to everybody who comes in on how the council works and let them know that
there are resources available if they don’t have them personally.”
Altering the timing and location of meetings was important to providing adequate
opportunity for everyone to participate. When the McKenzie Council hired John Runyon as
coordinator two years ago, the meeting structure was one of the first things he changed. He
recalled: “When I came on board that was one of the first things I tried to do, change the
structure to streamline the meetings, because they would often go on into the wee hours of
the morning. They would last for six hours…Start at 5 and run until 12.” Now most meetings
last about three hours. Runyon explained, “The way we did that was to transfer a lot of
council business and a lot of the up front framing of the issues to the executive committee. So
we have an executive committee that meets once a month before the council meeting, sets the
agenda, and frames the issues, actually makes recommendations on what the council should
act upon.” The location of meetings was also important, to facilitate access for rural
residents. Although most council meetings are held in Eugene, the closest town for most
members, sometimes meetings are held in different locations throughout the watershed.
According to Runyon, “When we have a meeting where we think there’s something of
interest to watershed residents, we try to move up river, especially in the summer.”
Organizational structure was also altered to create more opportunities for participation. In the
Darby Partnership, meetings were often very large and dealt with a wide range of issues.
Participants without expertise in a particular issue were not able to contribute or engage in
the process. The creation of teams to deal with separate issues, like soil erosion or urban
sprawl, helped to focus participants in a comfortable setting where their knowledge and skills
were most useful.
Interviewees saw building trust among participants as a way to make the most of the diverse
capabilities at the table, while minimizing any drawbacks. In the words of Walid Bou-Matar
of the NW Colorado RAC, “We don’t expect one guy who knows oil and gas, to know
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-7
everything about ranching, farming and the environment. There is room to listen and build
trust to know that someone is not giving you a snow job.”
III. ADVICE AND REFLECTIONS
When asked what they might have done differently in hindsight, or what advice they might
offer others now undertaking collaborative initiatives, participants offered a wealth of advice
and reflections on how to temper the influence of traditionally high power interests so that all
are better able to contribute to the process and voice their concerns in an equitable way.
Steve Corbitt of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance provided a guide: “Take it slow. Be
respectful. Encourage people to speak up. Don’t be judgmental. Put a positive spin on
everything that is said and try to see everything in the best light as possible. Keep hammering
away on making progress. Get to know each other. Do meetings in different places once in a
while. Share a pizza.”
The advice of other participants fell generally in the following categories:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Improve communication
Practice constructive behavior
Provide training
Think about individuals as well as interests
Utilize leadership
Build trust
Other
Improve communication
!
“Before you even form, before you have the board sitting down together, you need to
have a process where you listen to all of the stakeholders in the watershed and actively
listen to residents and actively try to pull them into the process…. Put on a series of
community picnics and barbecues and have an open forum for listening. If people feel
they are being listened to they are more likely to want to be involved in the process”
(Runyon, McKenzie Watershed Council).
!
“Listen and communicate back to other members your feelings. Be alert. Know what is
going on. If answers are not at the table, find out where they are and make sure they get
introduced. If there is a major question not getting answered, make sure it does” (Porter,
Owl Mountain Partnership).
!
“Listen to everyone on the committee with equal amounts of interest and effort and not
allow personalities to be a part of it, even though they will be at times (Sherman, Owl
Mountain Partnership).
!
“Get to the crux of what someone is trying to say. Speak up and assist the person if the
person is struggling. That takes expertise. You need to have an individual who knows
how to draw that out of someone. If someone does have a particular issue, it has to be
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-8
thoroughly discussed. Nothing can be scrapped because the group has not come to
consensus” (Stewart, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance).
!
“Any time you can increase the informal aspect of the process and make opportunities to
just talk, that’s good. Having lunch together and fieldtrips to conservation sites meant
more opportunity for personal communication and the building of mutual respect –and I
thought that was key to eventually dealing on an honest level” (Robinson, Clark County
HCP).
Practice constructive behavior
!
“Treat people fairly. Approach meetings from a positive perspective. Give people an
opportunity to voice opinions and respect each other” (Parsons, Animas River
Stakeholders Group).
!
“Another word of advice is to participate! If you do not you will definitely not get heard.
Your ideas will be ignored if nobody is aware of them” (Perino, Animas River
Stakeholders Group).
Provide training
!
“Bring all members along. If someone because of their background, education or training
doesn’t understand then you have to take the time to sit them down and explain it to
them. Go sit down and drink some coffee with them and explain things” (Jack, Owl
Mountain Partnership)
!
“State and federal agencies need lots of training with these groups because they often
come in with too much arrogance. They need to learn how to talk to rural folks and
explain the issues” (Pace, Scott River CRMP).
!
“It’s crucial that everyone really have a common definition of what consensus means
when they first begin the process"”(Sommarstrom, Scott River CRMP).
!
“(Ranchers should) get training in labor negotiations before they even think about coming
to the table. Otherwise they just get creamed” (Loper, ¾ Circle Ranch CRM).
Think about individuals, not just interests
!
“It helps to have strong personality traits in this process. Only boisterous extroverts
succeed and survive. It’s basically a pool of sharks and the ones with biggest teeth win”
(Shreiber, Clark County HCP).
!
“The lesson I learned is that you pick your people carefully as to who is going to be at the
table. Not just the interest groups but whom from those groups you work with. Maybe
there needs to be a ground rule so you can kick people off you need to” (Sommarstrom,
Scott River CRMP).
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-9
!
“Everyone has to come into this process willing to give something. When there are
people seeking their way or the highway, it won’t work” (Fowle, Scott River CRMP).
!
“You really have to find the right individual to match the culture of the communication
needed. You can’t just send a person in a three-piece business suit into a community
where the culture is ranching and mining. That just doesn’t work” (Moore, Clark County
HCP).
Utilize leadership
!
“As long as your leadership is strong and the group has a good set of bylaws it seems like
to me you can cope with differentials such as power and wealth (Cipolla, Nanticoke
Watershed Alliance).
!
“Agendas will always be there, so the key is to skillfully facilitate through them, which is
damn difficult to do” (Budd-Fallon, Clark County HCP).
!
Forums must be run well. Everyone there has to feel that they will be listened to and are
going to be taken as seriously as everyone else. It is also incumbent upon the group to
have a good facilitator…someone who can move the discussion around to people who are
raising their hands or whatever. Keep things on track and make people feel like their
points are worthwhile” (Zankel, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance).
!
“It is important to set ground rules and to document them” (Terry, Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance).
Build Trust
!
“It boils down to developing a bit of trust in the other guy that he will reason with you
fairly. There’s definitely a leap of faith involved” (Cunningham, ¾ Circle Ranch CRM).
!
“You’ve got to have time. It’s that simple. Without the relationships between
stakeholders that the passage of time allows, you get people holding back what they are
willing to do because they fear they’ll be giving too much’ (Wiles, ¾ Circle Ranch
CRM).
Other Insights
!
“It is important for everyone to be aware of that potential (co-optation). I also think it is
important to always question your assumptions stopping and considering the alternatives
whether or not someone brings it up or not.” (Stribling, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance).
!
“When you are frustrated but feel that you need to collect your thoughts and think about
what you are going to say, I suggest writing a letter. If there is something in which I do
not agree with the EPA, then I write them a letter so that they have a record of it and so
Accommodating Diverse Capabilities
19-10
CHAPTER 20: DEALING WITH THE SCIENTIFIC
DIMENSIONS OF ISSUES
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
Many environmental or resource management issues can be both scientifically complex and
involve high degrees of risk or uncertainty. In some cases, the issue may be purely scientific,
such as deciding which species of riparian vegetation is best for a stream bank restoration
project. Many issues however, involve a mix of social, economic and scientific concerns. A
policy decision, like prioritizing actions for endangered species habitat protection, also relies
on an understanding of the scientific dimensions of the issue.
Involving citizens, who may have insufficient scientific or technical expertise, in deliberation
or decision-making on these issues also raises a number of concerns. Indeed, critics argue
that collaborative partnerships may result in recommendations or decisions that are not
scientifically sound, and may signify devolution from scientifically based management or
protection strategies.
Part of our research explored the challenges faced by collaborative partnerships in dealing
with science. We asked members and outside observers to describe how the group dealt with
the scientific dimensions of the issues addressed by the partnership. In inquiring about those
challenges, we learned what strategies groups had employed to confront challenges. Those
interviewed were asked to reflect on those strategies and offer suggestions for how they
would have improved the partnership’s approach. Finally, participants had the opportunity to
offer advice on how to deal with issues in a way that would result in credible and sound
decisions.
Both the challenges groups encounter and the strategies they use vary according to many
other factors affecting the partnership. By analyzing the way partnerships dealt with technical
and scientific issues, we hope to provide insight on some common barriers and approaches to
creating a credible collaborative process that results in scientifically sound solutions.
Issues
The partnerships chosen for case studies dealt with a wide range of scientific issues. Some of
those issues include: impacts of industrial processes, development, forestry, and grazing on
water quality, protection or restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, riparian area management,
maintenance of rangeland health, and elimination of noxious weeds.
Scientific Dimensions
20-1
Summary of Core Findings
Most of the challenges associated with the scientific and technical side of natural resource
management are not unique to collaborative processes. In fact, uncertainty, lack of
information, complex issues, divergent public perceptions, and the blending of science and
politics are common barriers to environmental decision-making. Whether agencies are
exclusively managing the resource, or a group uses collaborative problem-solving to provide
solutions or advice, the path is not simple. Although some of the challenges encountered by
collaborative partnerships are unique to multi-stakeholder processes, in some cases the nature
of the process can shed light on issues that might otherwise remain unexplored. Having
different perspectives at the table can force participants, and ultimately the decision-makers,
to confront the problems associated with natural resource planning, monitoring and
restoration.
Since our research focused on the challenges faced by partnerships and the strategies they
used to address those challenges, this analysis is heavily weighted towards describing the
“boulders in the road,” rather than the opportunities incurred by collaborative approaches.
These findings are not meant to represent an all-inclusive picture of collaborative
partnerships, nor do they attempt to evaluate the success of strategies used. They are merely a
report of some of the challenges, strategies and advice encountered in our exploration of ten
cases.
Most partnerships employed a series of strategies to address the scientific dimensions of
issues. Science was a dominant concern of some groups, while others dealt more with social,
economic or political matters. Groups varied according to their inclusion or access to
scientific and technical expertise. One of the top approaches employed by all of the groups
was to involve scientific or technical experts in the process, either as members of the
partnership or related task forces, or as invited speakers. Some strategies influenced
partnerships’ abilities to deal with a range of stumbling blocks, yet specifically addressed a
set of challenges.
Core Issues and Strategies
1. Ensuring understanding
Partnerships dealt with how to accommodate limited expertise by educating participants and
balancing the level of discussion around technical topics. They also worked on how to clarify
public perceptions about the nature of the problem.
Strategies
! Provided presentations and workshops
! Went on field trips
! Avoided acronyms / jargon
! Conducted community outreach
Scientific Dimensions
20-2
2. Uncertainty
Partnerships grappled with how to make scientifically sound decisions given unclear impacts
incomplete information and new methods.
Strategies
! Practiced adaptive management
! Avoided premature conclusions from data
! Compared most likely outcomes
3. Obtaining information
Partnerships in some cases grappled with how to obtain information given lack of baseline
data, limited access to expertise, and resistance to data collection on private land.
Strategies
! Enlisted expert members and staff
! Created technical task forces
! Brought in outside experts
! Accessed outside resources
4. Managing information
Partnerships had to learn how to manage information given the need for agency coordination
in assimilating and verifying data.
Strategies
! Obtained a well-matched coordinator
! Utilized GIS technology to present data
5. Legitimizing information
Partnerships grappled with how to legitimize information given the often-inextricable nature
of science and politics. Issues included: lack of trust, agency integrity and consistency,
defining "good science," and interpreting data.
Strategies
! Developed public outreach and education strategies
! Engaged in joint fact finding
Scientific Dimensions
20-3
Advice
!
Tap into resources
♦ Establish network of technical experts
♦ Include experts in the group
♦ Access resources in the community
♦ Maximize information sharing
♦ Choose a coordinator versed in science
!
Be inclusive
♦ Include all stakeholders in discussion of scientific issues including question
development, data collection, and inference
♦ Ensure understanding of research / monitoring
♦ Keep the language at a simple level
♦ Use broad variety of expertise, not just one field
♦ Use diverse sources
!
Separate Tasks
♦ Start with small projects
♦ Develop subcommittees
♦ Focus on adaptive management
!
Other Insights
♦ Focus scientific questions
♦ Find experts with holistic perspectives
♦ Consider alternatives and act, despite lack of complete information
♦ Have reliable data to support your assumptions
II. SPECIFIC CHALLENGES
1. Ensuring Understanding
Challenges
With diverse representation comes the challenge of managing varying levels of knowledge
and understanding of the scientific and technical dimensions of the issues on the table.
Groups mentioned three main aspects of this challenge: educating participants, balancing the
level of discussion around scientific or technical issues, and dealing with differing
perceptions of the issue within the community.
Educating participants
Participants in both the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC) and the Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance (NWA) mentioned the need to address the fact that some members do not have the
education or experience to keep up with the science involved. A landowner from the MWC
noted, “Nobody knows everything” (Grier, 1999). Educating participants and keeping them
up to speed was a challenge, especially for those groups that had member turnover.
Scientific Dimensions
20-4
Education is vital, participants say, but it takes time. Groups sometimes feel pressure to jump
into projects without asking all the necessary questions or ensuring understanding. In the
Nanticoke River watershed, biology professor Judith Stribling found that some members did
not recognize their need for more knowledge about science: “They [the farmers] are nutrient
experts in one respect but in another respect, they are not getting the good science so they do
not know what they need to know. They know enough of what they are doing but they often
do not know what are the implications. There are too many people in our group to be in a
situation where they are feeding off each other’s ignorance” (1999).
Balancing the discussion
A second aspect of this challenge is how to manage the process and the language used in
order to create an accessible environment for participants with less scientific background
without detracting from a commitment to sound science. On the MWC for example, some
members were described as “out of it” (Anderson, 1999) during presentations or discussion
that dealt with complex science, because of the high number of knowledgeable members.
The Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process had to deal with the intricacies
of habitat protection for multiple endangered species in a way that did not alienate rural
participants with “confusing technical language” (Schreiber, 1999). Both the Darby
Partnership and Animas River Stakeholders Group are aware of the impact of jargon on
limiting open dialogue around the issues of water quality. Yetty Alley, a former member of
the Darby Partners from the Ohio Natural Resources Department, noted that “Most of the
folks at least from the government side had more of a scientific or technical background, so it
was not very difficult for most people to pick up. But when you start to include members of
the general public it becomes more of an issue.” Some non-agency members felt intimidated
by the level of scientific analysis discussed at meetings. Mary Ann Core, of the Natural
Resource Conservation Service, stated, “I sat through several meetings where I did not
understand one half of what the researchers were saying.”
Perceptions about the nature of the problem
In some cases, due to conflicting information, the community at large either did not
recognize the problem the collaborative group was attempting to address, or had a different
understanding of the nature of the problem. In the Animas River Valley, some residents
refused to believe a water quality problem existed. Carol Russell of the EPA remarked, “I
find it difficult to argue with those at the table who simply say, ‘there are fish there and you
people from Washington can’t tell me there aren’t.’ In this case, no matter what the data say,
they are not going to believe you.” In the McKenzie River basin, the watershed council has
had to deal with conflict between public perception and scientific data. Coordinator John
Runyon explained, “There’s a public perception that most of sedimentation and turbidity in
the water comes from forestry operations. We have scientific evidence that shows that it does
not, it actually comes from agriculture and growing urban areas.”
Strategies
Internal education
Particularly in dealing with the challenge of ensuring participant understanding of the
technical issues, interviewees emphasized the importance of presentations and workshops.
Scientific Dimensions
20-5
For example, the McKenzie Watershed Council held a series of "primers" on watershed
management issues when the council first formed, with invited guest experts. They also
continue to dedicate a substantial amount of the monthly meeting time to educational
presentations. The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance is very active in bringing in outside experts
as needed to make presentations or critique other presentations.
The BLM set up a weekend training workshop for members of the NW Colorado RAC.
Participants spent a weekend at a local college where they attended sessions on basic
ecology, ecosystem management, rangeland science as well as discussions about their role in
the RAC. Visiting professors from throughout the state taught the workshop, which was well
received by all who attended. On member commented, "We needed an educational course to
begin with to kind of try to bring everyone up to the same level of knowledge. At least the
basics so they could talk to each other" (Dickinson).
Field trips
Many groups find that field trips help people understand the scientific issues by talking about
problems in the landscape context. In both Scott River and McKenzie, workshops and
fieldtrips facilitated information sharing by bringing landowners, agencies and other
representatives shoulder to shoulder.
Avoidance of jargon or acronyms
Partnerships with substantial expert representation also avoided the use of jargon or
acronyms in order not to alienate the non-experts. On the McKenzie, one member joked
about the group's internal acronym police that enforces the "no acronyms" policy. The
Animas River Stakeholders Group is making steps in to decreasing the use of technical
language and acronyms although some frustrated participants feel that jargon and acronyms
are still widely used in meetings.
Outreach
To address the need for more community education, the McKenzie Council recently hired an
education coordinator to work in schools and communities within the watershed. Both the
McKenzie, and the Scott River CRMP groups have used educational workshops and forums
as a way to bring information to the public.
2. Uncertainty
Environmental science and natural resource management are fields that involve inherently
uncertain, and difficult to predict relationships between human actions and tangible outcomes
on the ground. Management decisions may be based on incomplete information or may
involve untested methods. Cutting edge management or restoration methods, while they may
promise better resource protection in the long run, also involve a high level of uncertainty.
While agencies also deal with the issue of uncertainty in their management decisions by
bringing diverse perspectives to bear, collaborative partnerships shed light on different angles
of the problem and force recognition of the uncertainty surrounding many decisions. They
may in fact provide a better forum for addressing these challenges.
Scientific Dimensions
20-6
Internal education
Particularly in dealing with the challenge of ensuring participant understanding of the
technical issues, interviewees emphasized the importance of presentations and workshops.
For example, the McKenzie Watershed Council held a series of "primers" on watershed
management issues when the council first formed, with invited guest experts. They also
continue to dedicate a substantial amount of the monthly meeting time to educational
presentations. The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance is very active in bringing in outside experts
as needed to make presentations or critique other presentations.
The BLM set up a weekend training workshop for members of the NW Colorado RAC.
Participants spent a weekend at a local college where they attended sessions on basic
ecology, ecosystem management, rangeland science as well as discussions about their role in
the RAC. Visiting professors from throughout the state taught the workshop, which was well
received by all who attended. On member commented, "We needed an educational course to
begin with to kind of try to bring everyone up to the same level of knowledge. At least the
basics so they could talk to each other" (Dickinson).
Field trips
Many groups find that field trips help people understand the scientific issues by talking about
problems in the landscape context. In both Scott River and McKenzie, workshops and
fieldtrips facilitated information sharing by bringing landowners, agencies and other
representatives shoulder to shoulder.
Avoidance of jargon or acronyms
Partnerships with substantial expert representation also avoided the use of jargon or
acronyms in order not to alienate the non-experts. On the McKenzie, one member joked
about the group's internal acronym police that enforces the "no acronyms" policy. The
Animas River Stakeholders Group is making steps in to decreasing the use of technical
language and acronyms although some frustrated participants feel that jargon and acronyms
are still widely used in meetings.
Outreach
To address the need for more community education, the McKenzie Council recently hired an
education coordinator to work in schools and communities within the watershed. Both the
McKenzie, and the Scott River CRMP groups have used educational workshops and forums
as a way to bring information to the public.
2. Uncertainty
Environmental science and natural resource management are fields that involve inherently
uncertain, and difficult to predict relationships between human actions and tangible outcomes
on the ground. Management decisions may be based on incomplete information or may
involve untested methods. Cutting edge management or restoration methods, while they may
promise better resource protection in the long run, also involve a high level of uncertainty.
While agencies also deal with the issue of uncertainty in their management decisions by
20-7
Strategies
Dealing with the uncertain nature of natural resource management is not a challenge limited
to collaborative partnerships. Agencies also have to make decisions without complete
information, a stumbling block they may or may not recognize and/or address. Yet the
uncertainty of either data or management methods can compound the difficulty of reaching a
decision in a group with diverse perspectives on the problem and its severity. Partnerships
used three primary approaches to confront the problem of uncertainty: adaptive management,
avoidance of premature conclusions from data, and comparison of likely alternatives.
Practiced adaptive management
Adaptive management refers to the process of implementing small-scale experimental
projects combined with research and monitoring to assess results and provide information on
how to adapt management strategies to the current state of the resource. Of the cases included
in the in-depth survey, only the McKenzie has the structure in place to provide ongoing
monitoring for an adaptive management approach. Participants in the Clark County HCP
consider it an appropriate strategy, yet lament the high costs involved. In the Three-Quarter
Circle Ranch CRM, experimentation and monitoring are the primary strategies for handling
issues of biodiversity and endangered species.
Avoided Premature Conclusions
The McKenzie Council, which collects its own water quality data through a coordinated
monitoring project, is extremely cautious about making premature conclusions from
preliminary data. John Runyon stated, “We made that very clear to the public. Five or six
years into data, from a scientific standpoint, we have much more confidence in our data and
we can speak more clearly about what this data means and about what kinds of questions it
raises.”
Compared likely alternatives
When no data was available, as in the Clark County HCP case, participants made decisions
for tortoise habitat protection by comparing the management strategies proposed by the
group to what would likely have happened otherwise. Moving forward despite incomplete
knowledge is a strategy employed by partnerships, as it is by agencies.
3. Obtaining information and expertise
Challenges
Several partnerships included in the case study interviews reported difficulty with availability
of and access to scientific information and technical expertise. In some cases relevant data
was non-existent or inaccessible. Neither partnerships nor agencies had the necessary
information on which to base management recommendations or decisions. Particular to
partnerships, however, was a challenge linked to the small community size and rural location
of some groups. Community isolation limited partnerships’ access to external information
and expertise. Small communities often had few local resources on which to rely.
Scientific Dimensions
20-8
Lack of information
Participants from Darby Creek, Clark County, and Scott River remarked that a lack of data
made dealing with scientific issues much more challenging. Melissa Horton, a Natural
Resource Conservation Service representative from the Darby Partnership stated, “We
always wish we had more baseline data to begin with.” Often, the issues of concern have not
been studied, least of all on an ecosystem or watershed scale. In Clark County, even nine
years after the initiation of the HCP, an exact population count of the desert tortoise is still
unknown.
Few sources of information
In one case, even when data were available, the partnership had to rely heavily on one source
of information. In Clark County, The Nature Conservancy’s representative Jim Moore noted
“We relied heavily on the USFWS as a source of expertise.” Some participants considered
the lack of a peer review mechanism a weakness of the process.
Limited access to expertise
The Three Quarter Circle Ranch CRM group, and the Scott River CRMP recognized that
their location in small, remote places restricted access to external expertise. Unlike the
McKenzie River Valley, which is near both the University of Oregon and Oregon State, the
Scott River Valley is four hours from the nearest university. In rural Wyoming, Three
Quarter Circle Ranch CRM members noted that the cost in time and money required to
access new knowledge prohibits a regimented pursuit of hard science. Furthermore, a cultural
breach between residents of rural communities and academics who lack the ability to
empathize with rural concerns sometimes makes bringing in outside experts difficult. This
challenge was especially evident in the Scott River CRMP.
Strategies
Experts at the table
In order to obtain credible information and expertise, partnerships enlisted members with
expertise on the issues of concern. Many relied heavily on agency experts, industry scientists,
private consultants and research professionals. All of the cases studied included agency
representatives as group members. The Owl Mountain Partnership, for example, relies on the
expertise of the BLM project manager to deal with scientific issues. The Darby Partnership
and the McKenzie Watershed Council also include many experts at the table. The
composition of the group, while it has raised other problems, has provided a ready source of
information, as well as access to further data and expertise.
Task forces
Some groups also pull in other agency expertise by forming task forces to concentrate on
specific or short-term issues. Task forces often included other outside expertise, such as local
consultants or university researchers. For example, the McKenzie council convenes technical
teams and working groups for specific issues. Different task forces worked on developing
action plans for the council's primary program areas: fish and wildlife habitat, water quality,
recreation and human habitat.
Scientific Dimensions
20-9
Guest speakers and outside resources
When groups didn’t feel that the need for information warranted the formation of a task
group, outside experts were invited to speak to the group on a particular issue. Executive
Director Lisa Jo Frech of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance described this process of
identifying and accessing expertise as "a spider web that is always growing, we are always
evolving, we are always looking to catch someone else in our net." Outside resources that
partnerships tapped into also included data and research done by agencies or university
researchers.
4. Managing information
Challenges
Even when information and expertise was available, partnerships experienced problems
managing that information. With multiple agencies and organizations involved, information
coordination, and verification challenged participants in the Scott River CRMP, the
Blackfoot Challenge and the Animas River Stakeholders Group.
Utility of existing data
The McKenzie Watershed Council found that baseline data were based on different
parameters making it difficult for the groups to compare information across a watershed
scale. George Grier described the situation. “The State of Oregon had been maintaining water
quality data for almost 100 years, but it was in 16 different formats, no one could access it
and no one knew what was going on. [Data] was all scattered around, there was absolutely
zero communication and it was ludicrous. There was data that someone was spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect and it was just sitting gathering dust someplace.
We had all the stuff we needed to be making more informed decisions about the health of the
river, but no one was talking about it or could even view it.” This was a challenge not even
recognized by the agencies that had been collecting the data. The creation of the watershed
council brought the problem to light, opening doors to possible solutions.
Verification of information
Verifying scientific information can be another challenge for collaborative partnerships. In
the Blackfoot Challenge, data conflicts arose over the listing of the bull trout when wildlife
biologists from the Plum Creek Timber Company disagreed with some of the data of federal
and state biologists. Participants in the McKenzie Watershed Council observed the need to
recognize that even scientists have opinions. Industrial timberlands representative Barb
Blackmore commented, “You can get two scientists together and they can tell you two
different things…they have opinions, they also come at it with a bias.” Collaborative groups
must deal with the challenge of balancing different perspectives, even among the “neutral”
technical experts. In the Animas River Valley, for example, some residents believe that the
EPA will not acknowledge initial water quality studies done by the USGS. Data conflicts
among technical experts are certainly a common pattern in litigation processes. Partnerships,
while not immune to this challenge, can provide opportunities for bringing differing views
and sets of information into a common forum.
Scientific Dimensions
20-10
Strategies
Coordination
In order to adequately manage an increased flow of information from different sources, and
ensure efficient processing of data, partnerships stressed the importance of having a
coordinator. Particularly, coordinators who not only had strong people skills, but were also
proficient in the relevant science, helped partnerships progress. The NW Colorado RAC
BLM district manager Mark Morse not only knows the ins and outs of rangeland science, but
also is personally dedicated to the success of the RAC. In the McKenzie basin, coordinator
John Runyon has a technical background in water quality. Conversely, Jeffy Marx,
coordinator of the Scott River CRMP said, “I came to this process as an ex-schoolteacher
with little understanding of the science involved. I’ve learned my way, but I think these
processes could benefit from coordinators who have both the time and expertise to manage
the scientific information.” Although the scientific background of the coordinator was
stressed, one member of the MWC also mentioned the value of having a coordinator skilled
in conflict management. Before Runyon was hired by the MWC, the Lane Council of
Governments (LCOG) acted as coordinator. LCOG’s strength lay in a strong background in
group process, skills some technical experts may lack.
GIS
Geographic Information Systems have changed the possibilities for organization and
presentation of natural resource data. In order to improve the compatibility and accessibility
of data on water quality, the MWC is compiling a GIS database for the basin. Before the
council, “everyone had their own data layer and they were different”(Runyon). Mapping
information helps scientists and non-scientists alike understand the resource problems and
their relationships.
5. Legitimization of Science
Since collaborative partnerships as we define them inherently include diverse interests, most
groups deal with a mix of scientific, economic, social and political concerns. It is often
difficult if not impossible to extricate science from other interests. Proving the legitimacy of
the information is often a part of any management decision, whether by agencies or by a
partnership. By laying all of those issues on the table, collaborative groups may actually
depoliticize the insular "scientific" decision-making of agencies. As in the case of
uncertainty, partnerships illuminate the inextricability of science and politics. In the Scott
River CRMP, the McKenzie Watershed Council, and the Animas River Stakeholders Group
two main obstacles emerged in dealing with this challenge: forging new relationships
between agencies and landowners, and dealing with questionable motives and integrity on
the part of agencies.
Challenges
Forging relationships
Landowner distrust of agencies’ regulatory authority can pose challenges to collaborative
groups. For instance, landowners in the McKenzie basin are often afraid to collaborate with
Scientific Dimensions
20-11
the DEQ on water quality monitoring projects. Barb Blackmore of the Weyerhaeuser
Corporation explained, “Even if people may want to get some help from them, they would
never ask them, because they're just begging for a water quality listing.” An outside observer
and critic of the McKenzie Watershed Council recounted one meeting where members
discussed how to keep water quality data collected on private land from the state DEQ in
order to protect cooperative landowners (Heiken, 1999). The Scott River CRMP encountered
similar barriers to data collection on private land. Landowners interested in maintaining
property rights have impeded agencies from conducting scientific tests on their property. The
Natural Resource Conservation District’s pro-farming bias has also slowed the transfer of
information essential to watershed conservation (Sommarstrom, 1999).
Agency motives and integrity
In the Animas River Stakeholders Group, participants voiced concerns about the motives and
integrity of the involved agencies with regards to research on the effects of mining on water
quality. One concerned citizen commented, “We have found that when some of the studies
done have not been politically correct, we just do not hear from them and we find someone
else has taken their job. It is obvious that the agencies feel that they have to find something
that is wrong in order to justify their work.” Agencies have cut budgets for researchers who
find data that contradict other studies, and invalidated or refused to recognize the findings of
other agencies. Chris George, another participant, observed, “ I do not see anything sinister,
but I have seen a certain unwillingness of people at certain levels to not be happy with data.”
Agencies often have a difficult time learning to collaborate with each other. In the Scott
River Valley, agency members exhibited proprietary behavior over information or data they
had collected (Marx, 1999). Each agency needs to justify its existence by providing concrete
measurements of their impacts, and that can be difficult if credit goes to the collaborative
group.
Strategies
Both from a scientific as well as a political perspective, partnerships must work to legitimize
the collaborative process. Strategies to deal with the inextricability of science and politics
include public outreach and education and joint fact finding.
Public Outreach and Education
Public outreach and education can take several forms depending on the issues and needs of
the community. When information is in question or the motives of the group are unclear,
partnerships have convened public forums or workshops to shed light on particular concerns.
For example, in the McKenzie basin, severe flooding in 1996 led to conflict over the cause of
sedimentation in Eugene’s drinking water. The MWC held a public water quality forum with
guest experts. Over 200 people attended and many misconceptions were cleared up. Other
forms of outreach include agencies working one on one with landowners as in the Blackfoot
Challenge case.
Scientific Dimensions
20-12
Joint Fact Finding
In the Scott River CRMP, the group used a process of joint fact finding to ensure the
credibility of the information obtained for all involved. For instance, ranchers, agencies and
university experts visited sites in the watershed to jointly assess the conditions of
streambanks or salmon habitat.
IV. REFLECTIONS AND ADVICE
Reflecting on their own experiences dealing with the scientific dimensions of issues,
participants offered a range of advice for others using collaborative approaches for natural
resource management.
1. Tap into resources
!
!
!
!
!
Establish network of technical experts
Include experts in the group
Access resources in the community
Maximize information sharing
Choose a coordinator versed in science
“Identify expertise in your watershed. Foster relationships with those experts. Create a list of
folks that you can call upon when issues come up” (Runyon, McKenzie Watershed Council,
1999)
“Use agency expertise so that sideboards are created as to what is and is not feasible”
(Neudecker, Blackfoot Challenge, 1999).
“You need to instill as much information sharing as possible to sift out the facts…it’s not just
that people need to be educated. They need mutual education to take place” (Sommarstrom,
Scott River CRMP, 1999).
2. Be inclusive
!
Include all stakeholders in discussion of scientific issues including question
development, data collection, and inference
“Get that good mix of people in there that are working for different agencies and make sure
that they are there. But also make sure the end group is there. Farmers for example. They are
talking about their own concerns and bringing their own expertise on scientific issues to the
table” (Stribling, Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, 1999)
“Make a conscious effort to get everyone involved when obtaining scientific information.
Get everyone in on the ground floor as terms of how you are going to conduct the study,
collect the data, and what it is going to represent” (Butler, Animas River Stakeholders Group,
1999).
Scientific Dimensions
20-13
“Some parts of science are just straight math but most of the stuff in the natural resources
area can’t be quantified very easily and it’s important to listen to the people who are involved
locally because they might have an important role to play either by helping to design the
thing properly or in making sure that’s it s implemented appropriately” (Grier, McKenzie
Watershed Council, 1999).
!
Use broad variety of expertise, not just one field or source
“You go out and get as many sources of information as you can” (Core, Darby Partnership,
1999).
“Be willing to present all sides of whatever science you are trying to present” (Smith, Darby
Partnership, 1999).
Commenting on the CRM’s dependence on rangeland specialists to focus the scientific
approaches on the ranch, Ron Cunningham said, “We need to diversify our expertise by
bringing on a botany or a wildlife specialist” (Cunningham, Three-Quarter Circle Ranch,
1999).
!
Make sure entire group understands the basis of research / monitoring
“Make sure that the entire group understands what the studies are about so that actions taken
can be justified” (Clark, Animas River Stakeholders Group, 1999).
“Try to keep everything at like a 6th grade level, so everyone can understand (Thompson,
McKenzie Watershed Council, 1999).
3. Separate Tasks
!
!
!
Start with small projects
Develop sub-committees
Focus on adaptive management
4. Other
!
Focus scientific questions
“It’s so critical that you know before you start exactly what question you want to answer, or
you may be buried in data and not have a clue what to do with it” (Blackmore, McKenzie
Watershed Council, 1999).
!
Find experts with holistic perspectives
“Look for the holistic guys…people who understand watershed functions such as 1.4 million
acre lands…some of the landscape ecologists who are thinking of the big picture and they
Scientific Dimensions
20-14
CHAPTER 21: CONCLUSIONS
Collaborative partnerships convening to address natural resource issues are growing at a
dramatic rate across the nation. While these groups are more widespread in some regions of
the U.S. than in others, all regions play host to this new form of natural resource decisionmaking that boasts increased citizen participation. Increasingly, these groups are influencing
traditional top-down natural resource decision-making structures. Yet there is still
widespread confusion about what collaborative partnerships are and how they work.
This project offers the insights of a thorough exploration of the landscape of natural resource
collaborative initiatives across the United States. From a birds-eye view we began to
recognize patterns amidst the seemingly endless range and variation. When we looked closer,
focusing on the experiences of real people, we began to understand the kinds of challenges
that groups face on the ground, and how they deal with issues of concern to the larger
communities of interest.
Based on this research we made four significant findings about collaborative groups that we
hope will help clarify present confusion. Collaborative partnerships:
!
!
!
!
Vary substantially with regards to origins, issues addressed, organizational structure,
process and outcomes
Recognize and confront inherent challenges in unique ways
Reach out to the broader community in search of greater participation, expertise and
knowledge
Adapt and evolve in response to changing issues and the needs of both the resource and
the community
The Variable Landscape
In developing a partnership database of more than 400 examples of collaborative natural
resource management, our research unequivocally showed immense variation in the many
forms collaboration is taking across the country. Partnerships vary in terms of their origins,
the issues they address, their organizational structure, process, and outcomes. Some are
entirely new creations, springing up out of conflict, community need, or the vision of a single
leader. Others are subtle transmutations in traditional processes. There are numerous groups
that lie somewhere on the continuum from traditional public participation processes to this
“new” phenomenon we call collaborative resource management.
Partnerships do share common characteristics: they bring together diverse stakeholders to
develop a shared vision for the management of natural resources. However, individual groups
are extremely variable. Previous studies have attempted to describe the landscape of
collaborative partnerships through the development of case studies that fit into categories like
ecosystem management or watershed councils. While these “boxes” may be useful as a way
to define pieces of the landscape, they do not capture the range of collaborative activity
across the country. Both the number of groups arising and their rate of change make it
impossible, therefore, to fit groups into neatly divisible boxes. Indeed, by stereotyping these
Conclusions
21-1
groups, we run the risk of either misrepresenting a group’s intent or overseeing important and
unique characteristics that set them apart from other groups.
For instance, although both Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Advisory
Councils (RACs) and Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) groups are
formally linked to the BLM, they vary considerably in terms of their origins and structure.
RACs, which are linked to the BLM as a mandatory part of the agency’s decision-making
concerning the management of western rangeland, use a formalized process for appointing
members and making advisory decisions. On the other end of the spectrum, however, are adhoc community based partnerships like the Three-Quarter Circle Ranch Coordinated
Resource Management Planning Group. The Three-Quarter Circle Ranch CRM was initiated
by a lone rancher with a vision for including diverse perspectives to improve management of
a large public-private tract of land in Wyoming. Membership is loose, and meetings happen
as needed.
Even within a seemingly simple category like the Resource Advisory Councils, each of the
24 RACs has characteristics that set it apart from the others. These differences are a result of
the types of issues addressed, community history, or simply the personalities involved.
Personalities, in fact, often play a defining role in the direction, vision, and decision-making
of collaborative initiatives. Because the people involved are never exactly the same, even the
eighty-five watershed councils in Oregon, all modeled after the same set of state standards,
cannot be lumped into a single category.
Nor can collaborative partnerships be defined as something completely new. There is a
continuum from traditional public participation processes to processes where citizens are
actively involved in working together and with agency representatives to jointly make
decisions. For non-agency participants, involvement in a collaborative partnership is often a
deviation from more typical advocacy actions such as attending public hearings, lobbying,
appealing agency decisions and even litigation. For agency participants, collaborative
partnerships are a new input channel to assist with resource management and coordination
with other stakeholders.
The Challenging Nature of Collaboration
Collaborative initiatives, not surprisingly, are challenging processes. Partnerships use
innovative strategies to solve natural resource issues -- strategies that are currently being
tested in the field. The publicity surrounding select collaborative groups like the Quincy
Library Group, Malpai Borderlands Group, or Henry’s Fork Watershed Council sparked
many well thought out critiques of the use of collaborative partnerships to manage natural
resource issues. In exploring those critiques we better understood the questions being asked
of partnerships, policy-makers, and the environmental community. Do partnerships
adequately represent all stakeholders? How do partnerships manage decision-making, given
the diversity of knowledge, skills and influence at the table? What role do collaborative
groups play with
Conclusions
21-2
regard to government agencies and national laws to protect the environment? Do they usurp
legitimate decision-making authorities and give control of national resources to local
communities?
These concerns elicit valid and vital questions. Although we did not set out to respond to
those concerns on a landscape level, we did look closely at the experiences of groups in
confronting these inevitable challenges. In examining the principal critiques of collaboration
as challenges that groups might face, we explored to what extent and in what manner
partnerships dealt with issues like representation, accommodating diverse interests and
capabilities, and scientific soundness. We found that participants in the ten in-depth case
studies dealt with all of these challenges to varying degrees. They recognized and struggled
to address both internal and external concerns to insure the success of their endeavors.
Partnerships by definition bring together people with diverse perspectives, each of them with
different backgrounds, education, experiences, and levels of influence in the community.
Groups strive to bring the right people to the table and once there, to accommodate their
diverse interests and capabilities. This is no small task. Groups were aware of these
challenges and constantly evaluated levels of participation and process structures used to
provide opportunities for all stakeholders to have a voice. None are perfect, nor do they
profess to be perfect. Rather, they are involved in a constant effort to assess themselves and
adapt.
The challenge of dealing with science depended largely on the group’s location and access to
technical expertise and resources. Groups with heavy participation of agency personal and
technical experts felt the main challenge was keeping everyone on the same page and
balancing discussions so that everyone could understand. Groups without many technical
experts used resources outside the community. Few groups were so isolated that accessing
necessary scientific resources was a challenge. Dealing with the scientific aspects of natural
resource management is an inherently challenging task, given high levels of uncertainty and
incomplete information. In this respect the challenges facing collaborative groups are no
more than for a single natural resource management agency. In fact, in most cases the
partnership was able to coordinate information and data that would not have otherwise been
used to inform agency decisions.
The question that must constantly be asked is “as compared to what?” Many of the
community based efforts we examined did not replace a former government structure, but
rather filled a role that had been previously empty, or in some cases, not even recognized as a
possible role. In no case had a collaborative group usurped the authority of the agency
responsible for managing the natural resource at stake. In most cases the group served as a
coordinating, information, sharing advisory body that supported agency goals by augmenting
community buy-in and in some cases garnering extra funds to support projects.
Collaborative partnerships are a fairly recent phenomenon in the field of natural resource
management. As such they are caught in the throes of self-definition. They struggle to define
participants, appropriate limits and the interface between communities, agencies and the
resources that ultimately are in the hands of both.
Conclusions
21-3
Links to the Broader Community
Collaborative groups have been criticized as elitist organizations that through careful
selection of group members, fail to reflect the wider community’s views, needs and priorities.
We found, however, that these partnerships, due primarily to their interactive nature, work
symbiotically with their communities to improve decision-making and the use of natural
resources. Although some groups are bound by limiting factors such as political membership
(Resource Advisory Councils are one such example) there is overwhelming evidence that
these same groups reach out to the wider community in search of the expertise and
knowledge needed to improve their decisions. In fact, we found these groups actively strive
to be as diverse as possible. Participants know when particular interests are not adequately
represented, and they are aware of the potential consequences of their absence.
In the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, for example, (See chapter 10) Executive Director, Lisa
Jo Frech works diligently to recruit new members because she feels their perspectives are
invaluable yet missing at the table. All Nanticoke Watershed Alliance members interviewed
feel there could be greater involvement from the poultry and farming sectors. But Frech is
also concerned that the Native American perspective is absent and that key knowledge and
expertise is lacking. She adds: “I do know that without their participation, our view of the
watershed and its needs, issues, and resources, are not a total vision.” In the case of the
Blackfoot Challenge in South Central Montana members do not see eye to eye with the
regional timber company. However, they take great pains to try to bring them into the
collaborative process. Plum Creek Timber is the largest private landowner in the Blackfoot
Valley and without their involvement and expertise, the Blackfoot Challenge, similar to the
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, is concerned by an incomplete vision.
These cases are representative of the efforts many collaborative groups are making to
develop and to sustain community involvement. Collaborative groups, after all, often arise
because of the need for a local citizen voice. Collaborative groups are also aware that
without encompassing involvement from the community at large (including national
communities of interest) they will not withstand the test of time. Long-term community
commitment is necessary to insure that current efforts eventually bear fruit. Because many
collaborative groups work toward long term goals, conduct regular open meetings,
workshops and field trips, there is ample opportunity to draw in the wider community.
The roles of state and federal agency representatives also help collaborative groups to avoid
insularity. Collaborative initiatives surpass rather than circumvent the fulfillment of existing
requirements under National Environmental Protection Act. Of the groups we analyzed with
agency involvement, agency representatives were dedicated to these partnerships and felt
collaboration “to be the future of natural resource management” (Neudecker, 1999). Agency
representatives like U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Greg Neudecker, welcome the
communities’ expertise and realize that residents in these communities often possess a
knowledge base that complements that of agency expertise. In Silverton, Colorado, Greg
Parsons of the Colorado Water Quality Control District was astounded by the amount of local
expertise on biological and chemical components of water quality as a result of historic
Conclusions
21-4
mining practices. The expertise from the mining community has been fundamental to the
success of the Animas River Stakeholder Group.
Maintaining an open-door policy was another common and instrumental strategy that
facilitated greater involvement. The words of environmental representative, Felice Pace of
the Scott River Coordinated Resource Management plan (See chapter 17) are shared by an
overwhelming majority of participants with whom we spoke: "You just have to muddle
though [the representation issue]. You can never guarantee it will be perfect. I only suggest
that the bottom line be that the door be left open for democracy to function. And that should
be both ways --- if someone wants to walk out, they should be allowed to do so as well."
It would be incorrect to say that all collaborative groups succeed in effectively tapping into
the community at large. For many, it may take years before enough trust is developed for
community members to willingly share their knowledge and expertise. Indeed the Nanticoke
Watershed Alliance still struggles to overcome its image as an elitist environmental
organization. For that reason, it has been a challenge to get key players involved and some
influential participants have left partially because they feel the group has lost its identity.
Overall, however, groups take significant strides to reach out to the wider community in
search of expertise so as to make more knowledgeable decisions about the natural resources
at hand.
Dynamic and Evolving Processes
Contrary to perceptions in the literature that view collaboration as a static process, numerous
cases exhibited that groups are, by in large, constantly changing and adapting to the nature of
their problems, participants, and community resources. Similar to the notion that no two
partnerships are alike, no two partnerships adapt to these changes in a similar manner.
Nothing is set in stone. Whether it be the introduction of new people to the group, change in
partnership size, or a decrease or increase in member involvement, the partnership adapts
accordingly. The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance (see Chapter 10) for instance, functions
very differently today than at the time of its inception a few years ago primarily because new
members have joined, other members have left, and the priorities of both the general
membership and the Board of Directors has changed.
Adapting to change does not come easily. Evolution takes time and a great number of these
groups, because so many are relatively new, clearly have not had time to become established
organizations. Indeed, if they have evolved, it may be in the form of incremental steps.
Nonetheless, new partnerships are not created in a vacuum. They benefit and learn from the
experience of other groups, and often model their processes and organizational structures
after older more established groups.
Conclusions
21-5
It was the overwhelming consensus of all participants with whom we spoke, that to succeed,
their partnerships must listen to their participants and the community at large. Keeping the
process open ensures that all concerns are being addressed and that the group’s priorities fall
in line with not only the existing regulations, but with the needs and priorities of the wider
community.
Recommendations for Further Research
Although time constraints necessarily limited the scope of our research, our findings raised
other questions worth examining. The most important of these is the need for a quantitative
study that illuminates the issues brought out by our qualitative work and that would involve
more cases. We do advise, however, that any effort of this nature clearly recognize the
inherent variation between groups and the methodological difficulties this would entail.
Second, it is important to keep in mind that the case studies we developed represent only a
snapshot view of collaborative activity on the ground. Given the dynamic nature of
collaboration, it would be interesting to follow groups over the course of many years to
understand in more detail how they evolve. To look at a collaborative partnership at a
particular moment in time without the benefit of historical perspective is to see it as a single
still shot. In reality, one must follow a partnership through numerous stages of growth and
change in order to develop a context for understanding these initiatives.
As Charter member of the McKenzie Watershed Council George Grier explains: “You need
to have an incredibly long-term view of things if you’re going to gauge success by
collaborative processes. This is kind of like the analogy of filling the pipe line: You know
you don’t get anything out the other end until the pipeline’s completely full, and in this case
filling the pipeline takes a really long time because it’s relationship building, and it’s
building a knowledge base, and it’s networking, and there’s a lot of complicated stuff that
goes on that has to do with human dynamics and has absolutely nothing to do with natural
resources. So if you judge how well you’re doing by looking at projects completed it’s going
to be tough to evaluate a collaborative process as being a functional one in a short period of
time. The test really will be to see what it looks like in 10 years after the relationships have
been maintained. There’s a lot of symbiosis that goes on and you got to give that time to get
itself established."
Finally, though the scope of this research is not intended to provide specific policy
recommendations, we believe our review of collaborative activity serves as a definitive
signal that collaboration is indeed gaining momentum in growth and complexity, and shows
no signs of ebbing. If state and federal agencies are truly interested in supporting
collaborative resource management, they will have to revisit current policies and operating
procedures. In this regard, we sincerely hope this document aids policy makers, participants
and observers alike in attaining a better understanding of the landscape of collaborative
resource management.
Conclusions
21-6