BHNFPhase11 Progress and Final Report · 2008-06-12 · BANKHEAD FOREST HEALTH AND RESTORATION INITIATIVE FINAL REPORT PAGE 3 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is twofold: 1. To

Corinth Recreation Area – Bankhead National Forest

BANKHEAD FOREST HEALTH AND RESTORATION INITIATIVE

PHASE II: PROGRESS AND FINAL REPORT

Submitted to: The Bankhead Liaison Panel

USDA Forest Service, National Forests in Alabama Bankhead Forest Community and Interested Parties U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

RESOLVE

Submitted by: Mary Lou Addor

Natural Resources Leadership Institute North Carolina State University

December 2004

BANKHEAD FOREST HEALTH AND RESTORATION INITIATIVE FINAL REPORT PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE 3 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 3 PHASES I AND II: HISTORY AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS 6

A. Phase I: September 2002 — October 2003 6 B. Phase II: October 2003 — November 2004 7

PHASE III: PERSPECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9

A. Maintain Continuity of People and Philosophy 10 B. Continue Agency Commitment and Support 13 C. Retain the Compelling Focus on Sense of Place and Community 14 D. Maintain a Mechanism to Support and Control Involvement 15 E. Monitor and Evaluate Progress 16

APPENDIX A: PHASE II BANKHEAD LIAISON PANEL EVALUATION RESULTS

A. Bankhead Liaison Panel Responses 17 B. Interested Party Focus Group 24

REFERENCES 25


PURPOSE The purpose of this document is twofold:

1. To provide a progress report on Phase II of the Bankhead Health and Restoration Initiative (October 2003- December 2004).

2. To convey the results of a Phase II evaluation.

This document outlines a history of goals and accomplishments and sets forth recommendations to support the continuing efforts of the Bankhead Liaison Panel, the US Forest Service at the Bankhead National Forest Service District, process managers, and other interested parties. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT In September 2002, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (“U.S. Institute” henceforth), through its Federal Partnership Program, provided support to the USDA Forest Service (USFS) in Alabama to develop collaborative decisions for managing a Forest Health and Restoration Initiative for the Bankhead National Forest. Historically, management of the Bankhead National Forest has provoked controversy over natural resource decisions. Many citizens, organizations, and agencies (local, county, state, and federal) have expressed concerns about the forest’s management. This history of controversy, and a heightened degree of public interest in forest management decisions, led the USFS to design and offer a public-involvement process with these goals: to increase public trust, to improve working relationships, and to increase overall understanding among the various stakeholders. Interested individuals and groups worked with the Bankhead National Forest District Ranger and staff and developed a major initiative for public involvement―the Bankhead Liaison Panel. The Bankhead Liaison Panel includes representatives from federal agencies; environmental and other community advocacy organizations, both local and national; forestry groups; local government; and citizens representing various interests related to the Bankhead National Forest. The U. S. Institute worked with the USFS to interview and contract with third-party facilitators (the Natural Resources Leadership Institute or “NRLI” and RESOLVE) to develop and support a collaborative process for the Liaison Panel. The NRLI/RESOLVE facilitation team, Mary Lou Addor and Juliana Birkhoff, met the USFS staff and members of the Bankhead Liaison Panel for an orientation meeting in September 2002. They held seven more meetings between January and October 2003 during Phase I of the project.


The meetings began with participants educating one another about issues related to the Bankhead National Forest, such as forest uses (including logging, mining, recreation, cultural uses, and other historic uses), conservation, private property interests, fire plans, forest restoration, watershed protection, and wildlife habitat planning. The Forest Health and Restoration Initiative planning process provided an opportunity for the Bankhead National Forest community to:

• Explore and learn about each other's values and priorities. • Discuss different approaches to addressing their respective interests. • Propose the desired future forest conditions. • Build the capacity for productive long-term collaboration within the Bankhead

community. During Phase I, the Bankhead Liaison Panel proposed Alternative 5 as the desired future condition for the Bankhead Forest Health and Restoration Initiative in Alabama. This alternative, based on a five- year schedule of work, emphasizes the forest’s health and restoration of stands infested with the southern pine beetle by thinning overstocked loblolly pine stands and reforestation. Emphasis would be placed on restoring upland native hardwood forests; restoring native fire-dependent pine and oak woodlands; providing forest communities and habitats uncommon on other lands in the southern Cumberland Plateau; and improving the forest’s short-term health by reducing the risk of southern pine beetle infestations. In addition, the Liaison Panel specifically identified the need to create community-based work groups to survey the progress and implementation of the Bankhead Forest Health and Restoration work. Five monitoring work groups were identified as the:

• Timber and Thinning Performance Work Group; • Recreation Work Group; • Cultural and Historic Work Group; • Wildlife Work Group; and the • Desired Future Conditions Work Group.

A major focus of Phase II was establishing the five monitoring work groups, besides convening and facilitating seven more Liaison Panel meetings. These work groups were established to monitor the progress and performance of each aspect of the health and restoration work by convening meetings and field trips as needed; observing forest


health and restoration progress and implementation; documenting lessons learned; interacting with the USFS staff during work group meetings and observations; and presenting findings to the Liaison Panel regarding observation activities and lessons learned. The monitoring work groups also would serve as educational forums for broader public involvement and continuing education about the Bankhead Forest Health and Restoration Initiative, as well as assist the USFS with their ongoing monitoring efforts. A description of the five monitoring work groups and their goals follows:

• Timber and Thinning Performance Work Group. This group will work with USFS to ensure thinning work is performed according to best management practices and contract specifications. The group will look over thinning operations and work with USFS to develop approaches to accomplishing work with the least detrimental environmental impacts. • Recreation Work Group. This group will work with USFS to monitor restoration

work impact on recreation sites and users will help notify recreation users of restoration work, and develop approaches to mitigate negative impacts on recreation users and sites from restoration work.

• Cultural and Historic Work Group. This group will assist USFS staff with survey

work as needed and will work with USFS to monitor the impact of restoration activities on cultural and historic sites.

• Wildlife Work Group. This group will work with USFS to monitor the impact of

restoration activities on wildlife and develop approaches to protecting wildlife and enhancing habitat.

• Desired Future Conditions Work Group. This group will work with USFS and

academic partners to monitor the restoration activities, burning impacts, pests, and diseases of treatment areas; to monitor the health of shortleaf experiments and longleaf pine plantings; and to monitor the success of oak forest and oak woodlands transition.


PHASE I AND II: HISTORY AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BANKHEAD LIAISON PANEL AND THE USFS A. During Phase 1, September 2002 to October 2003, with the assistance of the Natural Resources Leadership Institute and Resolve, the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS accomplished the following:

1. A situation assessment involving key individuals and groups that identified issues and stakeholder interests related to the Bankhead National Forest’s Forest Health and Restoration Initiative was conducted from October -December 2002 by the Natural Resources Leadership Institute and RESOLVE. The assessment highlighted issues of concerns, points of common ground and potential controversy, mutual problem-solving options, suggested activities for improving relationships among the Bankhead Liaison Panel, the USFS, and the Bankhead community, and provided ideas for process management and design.

2. The Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS with assistance from the Facilitation

Team designed and supported an effective and intensive public-involvement strategy for the Forest Health and Restoration Initiative. Evening or weekend meetings were held to encourage participation as well as community forums and field trips. A training in collaborative decision-making and negotiation was also provided to the Bankhead Liaison Panel by the Facilitation Team.

3. The Facilitation Team and the Bankhead Liaison Panel formed a Bankhead Liaison

Steering Committee to assist with development of future meetings agendas, and to periodically assess the overall quality of the process and suggest improvements.

4. Agreements were developed by the Bankhead Liaison Panel regarding a shared vision

for desired future conditions of the forest as well as a five-year plan of priority actions needed to address current issues with assistance from the Facilitation Team.

5. The Facilitation Team developed a Bankhead Liaison Panel web site for

comprehensive outreach to interested parties regarding the USDA Bankhead Liaison Panel efforts.

6. The Facilitation Team encouraged the value of collaborative learning and inquiry

amongst the Bankhead Liaison Panel to support mutually agreeable and tested decisions. The Bankhead Liaison Panel established the following criteria for


proposing a vision and a five year plan for the forest health and restoration initiative:

a. Future users of the Bankhead National Forest will say that the Bankhead Liaison Panel did a good job in thinking through the problems and in weighing solutions.

b. The Liaison Panel used the best science and information available at the time.

c. The Liaison Panel qualified their decision-making by informing others of the reasoning behind their decisions during the Liaison Panel meetings and through documentation in the meeting summaries.

d. The Liaison Panel addressed the interests of each panel members and members of the community.

e. The Liaison Panel agreed decisions should be considered adaptive in order to allow for incremental learning and future modifications through monitoring and evaluation.

B. During Phase II, October 2003 to December 2004, with the assistance of the Natural Resources Leadership Institute (NRLI), the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS accomplished the following:

1. The Natural Resources Leadership Institute produced the Bankhead Forest Health and Restoration Initiative Phase I Final Report for distribution. The situation assessment conducted in Phase I formed the basis for the Phase I Final Report.

2. The Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS continue to support an effective public-

involvement strategy for the Forest Health and Restoration Initiative with the assistance of the Natural Resources Leadership Institute. An addition of seven Bankhead Liaison Panel and monitoring workgroup meetings were facilitated.

3. Bankhead Steering Committee conference calls were conducted to determine

future meeting agendas and topics for 2004, and to assess the overall quality of the process and improvements where needed.

4. The Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS with the assistance of NRLI developed a

monitoring and evaluation strategy outline for the five monitoring work groups to assess the future desired conditions. The work groups established operating structures and criteria to focus the monitoring efforts. In addition, the efforts of the monitoring work groups also increased public involvement at the Bankhead Liaison Panel meetings.


5. The NRLI provided coaching and coordination for the development and active

engagement of the Timber and Thinning Work Group as well as the Recreational Monitoring Work Group. Active monitoring work groups are Timber and Thinning, Recreation, and Historic and Cultural.

6. NRLI continued to maintain the Bankhead Liaison Panel Web site for comprehensive

outreach to interested parties regarding the Bankhead Liaison Panel efforts.

7. NRLI provided Bankhead Liaison Panel Orientation Notebooks to all Liaison Panel members, the USFS, and other partners, including several local community libraries in Alabama. The notebooks contained all previous meeting summaries, handouts, and presentations; the Phase I final report; and other materials to support new members to the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the work groups.

8. The Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS updated the Liaison Panel Ground Rules and Charter, both procedural and guidance documents for the Liaison Panel. Representation changes were made in 2004 to reflect new interests, to add alternates where needed, or replace members who could not serve any longer.

9. An evaluation of Phase II was conducted to assess the collaborative process, define

ongoing needs, and recommend potential changes for Phase III of the collaborative effort. NRLI provided a progress report to the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS.

10. The Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS prefer that a neutral third-party

facilitate and coordinate the Liaison Panel meetings. The NRLI developed a list of multi-party facilitators in Alabama who could provide potential facilitation services over the next phase of the project. In the interim, it is suggested that the Bankhead Liaison Panel Steering Committee coordinate with the USFS regarding the future meetings agendas, that one member of the Liaison Panel and one USFS staff member coordinate and facilitate the meetings, potentially rotating these facilitative leadership roles.

11. The value of collaborative learning and inquiry to support mutually agreeable and

tested decisions continues to be encouraged amongst the Bankhead Liaison Panel, interested parties, and the USFS.


PHASE III: PERSPECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS in partnership with others continue to monitor aspects of the Forest Health and Restoration Initiative and provide public-involvement forums to educate each other about the issues and concerns that affect the Bankhead National Forest. For instance, a meeting held October 19, 2004, focused on generating ideas about how to control illegal looting on historic and culture sites; and a meeting on December 9, 2004, explored future demands for outdoor recreation and generated some ideas about how to meet those demands. In addition to the Liaison Panel meetings, the Timber and Thinning Work Group and the Recreation Work Group continue to meet and assess forest health and restoration activities. Reaching an agreement was only one means to achieve better management of the Bankhead National Forest. Implementing the agreement as well as sustaining the collaborative initiative are also part of successful management plan. According to Wondolleck and Yaffee (1997; 2001), experience and empirical research suggest that four essential steps must be taken to sustain the success of a collaborative effort:

• Maintain continuity of people and philosophy. • Continue agency commitment and support for the process. • Retain the compelling focus on sense of place and community. • Maintain a mechanism to support continued involvement.

The author of this report believes a fifth step is necessary to sustain the success of any initiative as well as to determine if the initiative is practical or warranted to continue:

• Monitor and evaluate progress to ensure appropriate management decisions are being made; to revisit or revise previous decisions and adjust program and planning efforts accordingly.

A recent Bankhead Liaison Panel evaluation as well as the facilitation team's observations provided the Natural Resources Leadership Institute Facilitation Team with information to suggest future recommendations to the Liaison Panel and the USFS based on the five steps identified above.


A. Maintain Continuity of People and Philosophy 1) Continuity of People a) Bankhead Liaison Panel Representation. Since September 2002, representation on the Bankhead Liaison Panel has remained fairly consistent. In fact, membership on the Bankhead Liaison Panel ranges from those who have participated at least two years to those who have participated for five years with average length of service at four years. Members of the Bankhead Liaison Panel continue to serve in the following roles: as primary and alternate members, as leadership for the Bankhead Liaison Panel Steering Committee, and as chairs of sub-committees.

Bankhead Liaison Panel Representation Recommendations • Two members representing the multi-use perspective did not attend the 2004

meetings. Hence the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS are looking for interested individuals to represent a multi-use perspective. In addition, the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS may want to consider representation from a consulting forester, a local business representative or someone from a Chamber of Commerce, a representative of a youth organization that uses the Bankhead National Forest, and a representative of a local ethnic and minority community.

• The majority of the Bankhead Liaison Panel members have served for some time.

For consideration: do these members plan to stay on indefinitely, or are they considering a transition in the future? If the latter, how can this kind of transition occur without the Liaison Panel losing significant organizational memory and professional expertise? Considering these questions might be helpful for planning and long-term continuity.

• Furthermore, the USFS has experienced little turnover in the Bankhead National

Forest district. If turnover is expected in the future, it would be prudent to consider how to make successful transitions from key USFS staff that currently serves the Liaison Panel to new USFS staff replacements.

b). Bankhead Liaison Panel Responsibilities. In addition to their roles, members continue to provide the following responsibilities: travel and commitment time to attend the Liaison Panel

meetings; preparation for Liaison Panel and subcommittee meetings; steering committee conference calls; documentation of subcommittee meetings; presentations at Liaison Panel, subcommittee, and constituency meetings; and participation in field trips. Alternate members often attend meetings even


when the primary members attend (alternates typically attend meetings when primary members cannot attend). The majority of primary and alternate members on the Liaison Panel are volunteers. Several members, though paid professionally, stated they volunteer their time to serve on the Liaison Panel. Furthermore, the few members paid to attend the Bankhead Liaison Panel meetings and other corresponding activities often readily engaged in activities when volunteers cannot. Whether paid or volunteers, the members are highly committed and dedicated to the overall purpose of the Liaison Panel. Since September 2002, it is conservatively estimated that members, including alternates, contributed at least 1,738 hours to the Bankhead Liaison Panel and corresponding activities.

Bankhead Liaison Panel Responsibilities Recommendations • Formally recognize and celebrate the efforts of the Liaison Panel members.

• Consider how the USFS staff, other agencies who are members, and paid

members can continue to support overall efforts of the Liaison Panel without overextending the efforts of the volunteers.

2) Continuity of Philosophy The Liaison Panel continues to aspire to develop solutions acceptable to all panel members. The Liaison Panel meetings are open to the public, and the meetings provide a forum for the public to come together to learn, discuss, and help resolve difficult land management issues. The Bankhead Liaison Panel continues to serve the following mission:

• Learn about forest service projects, plans, health, and status of the Bankhead National Forest;

• Communicate clearly with other Liaison Panel members about each other’s preferences and interests; and

• Consider, discuss, act as a sounding board, and provide possible solutions to a variety of issues on the Bankhead National Forest.

In August 2004, the Liaison Panel revised its operating charter to include long-term operating objectives from December 2003 until December 2008. In addition, a small focus group of interested parties at the August 2004 meeting offered positive comments about the efforts of the Liaison Panel and its role as a mechanism of public involvement between the community and the USDA Forest Service. Several interested parties have attended Liaison Panel meetings since the panel’s inception, and they have praised the


Liaison Panel for its efforts in moving forward toward its goals in spite of the conflicts that have existed. Continuity of Philosophy Recommendations Though the Liaison Panel meetings remain open to the public and public involvement has increased as a direct result, the Liaison Panel faces several issues in its efforts to provide an open forum for the public to come together to learn, discuss, and help resolve difficult land-management issues.

• Interested parties would like the Liaison Panel to consider the following

recommendations for improvement: o Expand outreach efforts. o Consider ways to help the public better understand the technical

components of the meetings. o Recognize groups of private property advocates are still suspect of the

process, and do not believe the Liaison Panel represents their interests. Consider providing outreach to these groups in order to build mutual understanding and trust.

• Other recommendations:

o Recognize that natural resource terms mean different things to different people. As a result, consider "unpacking" words that have multiple meanings for different user groups. An example is the term “ecosystem management.” This term has roots in science as well as in natural resource policy, such as the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) According to Gray et al., in Europe “ecosystem management” refers to a highly technical scientific approach to resource management; outside of Europe – “bioregional and integrated conversation” may be terms used to mean the same thing (2001, p.37). Rural landowners may perceive the use of words like “ecosystem management” and “sustainability” are legal terms used to gain more control over their land instead of as a way to bridge economic, environmental, and social interests.

o Allow interested parties who are distrustful of the Liaison Panel efforts to continue to explain their perceptions and contribute their way of knowing and understanding.


B. Continue Agency Commitment and Support for the Process

The USFS Bankhead staff remains supportive and committed to the Liaison Panel and public involvement ―not simply in seeking input, but in sharing perspectives, ideas, and knowledge to develop better decisions about management of the Bankhead National Forest. The willingness of the USFS to support the Bankhead Liaison Panel is very apparent in its leadership as well as technical staff support, both in time and resources. The USFS continues to provide the following:

• Information exchange between technical experts and the community to identify problems or issues of concern and problem-solving opportunities in the Bankhead Forest.

• Outreach to the public through the Bankhead National Forest Web site,

newsletters, and other communication tools to share experiences and information related to understanding the current forest management efforts.

• Educational programs to disseminate information and increase awareness about

Alabama’s National Forests, both in what the forests provide and in how the community can be involved in shaping the future of the forests.

• Process management to the Liaison Panel meetings, either directly or through a

process management expert. • Facilitation of networking among local communities and other cooperative

programs to gain greater integration of forest stewardship planning at the local level and to offer multi-educational opportunities.

Agency Commitment and Support for the Process Recommendations

• Work with local businesses and educational facilities to improve and market educational opportunities amongst the local community and visitors to the area.

• Continue to inform the public about the activities of the Bankhead Liaison Panel,

including management plans, using the Bankhead National Forest Web site, local community gathering places, radio-talk shows, churches, libraries, schools, and local newspapers.

• Continue to provide a meeting summary of previous discussions and decisions to

each Liaison Panel member and interested party, and make these accessible to the members and the public (via email or the Bankhead Liaison Panel Web site).


C. Retain the Compelling Focus on Sense of Place and Community The Bankhead National Forest continues to persuade a compelling sense of place within the Bankhead community. Although community members value different things about the forest, it is important to each of them. This appreciation and, in some cases, reverence for the forest motivates the strong sense of dedication and commitment present in the Bankhead Liaison Panel. This dedication and commitment resulted in successes and achievements. The following factors also contributed to this dedication and commitment:

• Shared focus: the Liaison Panel developed a shared focus in order to problem-

solve the health and restoration issues on the Bankhead National Forest. • Shared knowledge: the Liaison Panel considered and discussed amongst each other,

the various interests affected by national forest management practices and policies, the legal and governance requirements, the local history and expertise and way of life and culture, as well as various technical and scientific understanding and perspectives.

• Shared accomplishments: the Liaison Panel developed recommendations for the Forest Health and Restoration Initiative; supported the establishment of the Center for Forest Ecosystem Assessment to integrate science and research into the Forest Health and Restoration Initiative; established an active monitoring work groups as agreed during Phase I of the project; and made an earnest effort to include a larger segment of the Bankhead community in order to share knowledge and ideas that would support the USFS in management of the forest.

• Personal accomplishments: members of the Liaison Panel achieved personal

satisfaction as a result of their participation on the Bankhead Liaison Panel by increasing one's ability to work with others; developing one's leadership potential; gaining technical knowledge about complex forestry issues; and developing process management skills in interacting with a diverse group.

Retaining the Compelling Focus on Sense of Place and Community Recommendations

• During Phase I of the project, short-term successes were evident partially due to the project deadlines required by the USFS. During Phase II of the project, though short- and long-term objectives were established, these objectives are predominantly long-term in nature (monitoring and evaluating the forest health and restoration process). Immediate deadlines are not evident and there is no sense of shared urgency. Although the Liaison Panel is working on several ongoing issues (such as development of trails, prevention of looting of cultural


resources, planning for the rise in demand of outdoor recreational use), no deadlines have been established for providing recommendations.

• Convey the accomplishments of the monitoring groups and other efforts of the

Liaison Panel to the panel and the public. A clear recognition and understanding of both the subtle and the obvious changes that are occurring will continue to build a shared sense of accomplishment between the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS.

• When feasible, suggest establishing timelines and deadlines in order for the

Liaison Panel and interested parties to gain a better understanding of future expectations, and areas for discussions and recommendations. Future topics for discussion and recommendations were established by the USFS and the Bankhead Liaison Panel in March 2004.

D. Maintain a Mechanism to Support Continued Involvement Obviously, a major mechanism of continued involvement is the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the Monitoring Work Groups. Because of the Liaison Panel, local community and academic participation has increased; mutual understanding and problem-solving efforts have been undertaken; and working relationships have improved with the USFS, in particular, between various partners, organizations, and individuals. Mechanisms to Support Continued Involvement Recommendations

• Develop ongoing activities and opportunities for collaborative learning to occur between the Bankhead Liaison Panel and the USFS, among new members to the Bankhead Liaison Panel, and local organizations. Continuing to learn from each other is essential to any monitoring efforts of the five-year plan of work, and for any future decisions and recommendations, or plans of action.

• Continue to build the build the capacity for the community to engage in

stakeholder natural resource processes by offering training in collaborative problem-solving, communication and negotiation; planning; monitoring and evaluation; and other topics as identified. Work with Alabama's Cooperative Extension Service, its Mediation Network, and academic institutions to develop a natural resources leadership development model similar to the Natural Resources Leadership Institute model (1994) developed at NC State University, or a model that will allow stakeholders with diverse perspectives to engage in collaborative learning and apply that learning to initiatives within their communities.


E. Monitor and Evaluate Progress and Adjust Project Efforts Accordingly Information gathered from formal and informal evaluations can support the USFS, the Bankhead Liaison Panel, and a process management team about the productivity of the collaborative approach and potential areas for improvement. Information about potential opportunities for improvement can be communicated at Bankhead Liaison Panel meetings and incorporated into the ongoing process. Three formal evaluations have been conducted:

• An initial project assessment conducted in December 2002 resulted in providing stakeholder information to the facilitation team about effective process design and management;

• in October 2003, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution conducted an evaluation of Phase I of the project; and

• in August 2004, the Natural Resources Leadership Institute conducted an evaluation of Phase II of the project with the Bankhead Liaison Panel and a interested parties. In addition, informal assessments occurred throughout both Phase I and Phase II of the project during Steering Committee conference calls, Bankhead Liaison Panel meetings, and Work Group meetings.

Measuring progress involves gathering information both qualitatively (primarily descriptive and interpretive) and quantitatively (numerical measurements and data analysis) regarding project implementation and results, and the process management. An outside evaluation may be prudent during Phase III. This could measure subsequent outcomes and impacts, either immediate or long-term, including participant and interested party reactions due to ongoing participation and accomplishments. Monitor and Evaluation Recommendations

• Conduct a second focus group. A small and very brief focus group was conducted in August with local community members who have not directly participated on the Liaison Panel. Another focus group, conducted by the Liaison Panel or its Steering Committee, might assist the USFS, the Bankhead Liaison Panel, agencies, educators, and the community in determining how best to build in the contributions of those who do not participate as frequently in the collaborative processes; how to work more effectively with those who do not participate as frequently or directly to keep them informed; and determine what educational activities might be of interest and how interested parties might take on more active roles.


APPENDIX A: PHASE II― BANKHEAD LIAISON PANEL EVALUATION RESULTS A. Bankhead Liaison Panel Responses 1. Respondents represented the following interests:

Concerned citizens Private landowners Native Americans Multi-use recreational users, including hunters and users of motorized and non-motorized recreational vehicles Local businesses Environmental organizations Local elected officials Cooperative Extension Service Government agencies

2. Length of time respondents participated on the Bankhead Liaison Panel:

From two to five years, with respondents averaging four years of participation. 3. Respondents participated in various roles as members of the Bankhead Liaison

Panel.

a. Attendance: Attend meetings. Several members stated they did not attend every meeting scheduled but attended when able to do so. b. Actively participate: Share in meeting discussion or subcommittee work, offer ideas, actively listen, and provide support where possible. Respondents said they participated in the meetings attended. c. Subcommittee participation: Participate in a member steering committee or work group, direct a particular activity, or both. Two respondents said they did not work outside the Bankhead Liaison Panel meetings, on either the steering committee or monitoring work groups. d. Prepare for the Liaison Panel meetings: Prepare for Liaison Panel or subcommittee meetings (read previous meeting summary or other handouts located on the Web site or sent via e-mail, mail, or fax). Several respondents said they did not prepare for the meetings.


e. Chair/lead a committee or sub-group: Several respondents said they chaired or led a work group effort.

4. Respondents ranked in order of importance the following levels of interaction among the Bankhead Liaison Panel members.

a. Members work together on complementary goals; there is coordination and some sharing of resources.

b. Members share (or are working toward) a common vision to link diverse interests; actions are jointly created; and resources, authority, and decision-making are controlled in the group.

c. Members provide helpful resources to support each other's interests and goals; there is some joint planning and activity, and decision-making.

d. Members interact primarily for exchanging information and communication. 5. Respondents indicated whether Liaison Panel members are volunteers or salaried participants:

Volunteer Participant Majority of members are volunteers. This includes members who may work for local government who state they are volunteering participatory time.

Salaried Participant Few members are paid a salary to attend the meetings.

6. During the past 24 months respondents indicated the number of hours provided to

the Bankhead Liaison Panel in support of its purpose and activities. (Combined hours include estimates of members who did not respond based on archival data such as meeting summaries. Hours contributed is a conservative estimate because participants are not expected to keep tallies of hours. In addition, these figures do not include the hours interested parties have contributed to the Liaison Panel process by attending meetings or subcommittee activities.) a. Bankhead Liaison Panel meetings (does not include travel time)

Hours contributed: 852

b. Subcommittee work outside of meetings (includes steering committee phone calls; subcommittee work; and monitoring group work)

Hours contributed: 310

c. Preparation for meetings or activities Hours contributed: 272 d. Other activities: hours for networking Hours contributed: 304


and communicating outside of meetings; presentations to other groups including one's own constituency

Hours Contributed to the Bankhead Liaison Panel

1,738

7. Respondents rated the extent their participation on the Bankhead Liaison Panel

affected or influenced them as individuals in terms of the following participatory aspects. Each item was rated from 1 [low impact] to 5 [high impact]. Ratings fell between 3 [moderate] and 4 [moderately high] with a few outliers of 2 [moderately low] and 5 [high impact].

Participation on the Bankhead Liaison Panel Had Moderate Impact on My… Understanding of community issues and assets. Ability to design and implement action plans Ability to evaluate progress and results. Understanding of group processes.

Ability to communicate effectively in a group. Sense that together we can make a difference. Leadership ability. Ability to help group achieve its goals. Participation on the Bankhead Liaison Panel Had Moderately High Impact on My… Ability to help resolve group conflict. Knowledge of ways to respond to issues. Understanding of others' perspectives. Ability to work with others. Skills to influence local policies. Ability to help solve community problems.

8. Some respondents provided direct comments about the greatest impact working on the Bankhead Liaison Panel has had for them:

a. Seeing the different perspectives people have. Some of the perspectives were so unusual. I would not have believed how strongly these perspectives were held unless I heard it directly.

b. Able to understand the needs and interests of other community members besides my own.


c. Provides an avenue to directly work with the US Forest Service Personnel and influence their decisions. d. Not much impact on me as an individual; prefer to focus on helping the Bankhead

National Forest. e. Opportunity to converse with diverse interests. f. Made me aware of the complexity of the forest and community issues and the

challenge the USDA Forest Service has to work with all parties. g. Increased my ability to work with others.

9. Respondents evaluated how effective he or she thought the Liaison Panel

functioned based on the following aspects. Each item was rated from 1 [low effectiveness] to 5 [high effectiveness]. Ratings fell between 3 [moderate], 4 [moderately high], and 5 [high effectiveness] with a few outliers of 2 [moderately low].

Moderate Effectiveness Doing effective planning (assess needs/assets, set goals, develop plan). Carrying out planned actions. Securing adequate resources so group can do its work. Making inter-organizational linkages. Gaining support from other organizations. Identifying and using members’ resources. Orienting new members. Retiring and adding new members. Involving volunteers. Conducting meetings that accomplish what is necessary. Reviewing, reflecting, and evaluating to assure progress and results. Celebrating progress.

Moderately High Effectiveness Developing group working procedures (setting up subcommittees, rules, structures). Bringing together parties with an interest in the issue. Listening to minority views. Building a clear mission (members know where the group is headed). Developing capacity to sustain efforts. Communicating progress and achievement. Providing for training of members as appropriate. Resolving conflict within the group. Making decisions accepted by all parties.


Communicating with external constituencies. Facilitating compromise when needed to further progress. Providing effective leadership.

High Effectiveness Communicating the interests and views of all parties. Creating mutual respect, understanding and trust within the group.

10. Respondents indicated their perceptions about the Liaison Panel as follows, using

a 5-point scale from 1 [infrequently] to 5 [all the time].

Most of the Time I feel comfortable in the group. My viewpoint is heard. I am viewed as a valued member. I am satisfied with the group’s progress.

11. Respondents listed their perceptions about the role of the Liaison Panel in

achieving results that made an impact on the Bankhead Forest community in general. Each aspect was rated as either 1 [not likely to be accomplished]; 2 [plan to work on in the future]; 3 [currently working on]; and 4 [accomplished this already].

Liaison Panel Plans to Work On: Realigning existing resources to support efforts of the Liaison Panel. Influencing budget and funding decisions. Increasing funding and grants to the community to resolve some of the community issues.

Liaison Panel is Currently Working On: Actively involving more residents in the issues of the national forests, including new members. Developing new group(s) to address the needs and issues (monitoring groups). Developing new and improved networks and working relationships among groups, agencieand businesses. Increasing the ability of its members and others to work collectively and responsibly on community issues.


Increasing overall community optimism that together a difference can be made. Encouraging others to participate and share in the discussions. Maintaining trust and open communication.

Liaison Panel Accomplished: Identification and inclusion of key stakeholders and interests on the Liaison Panel.

Greater public support for the national forest staff. Increased community-wide awareness of the forest issues. Involvement of people to work together on a community issue. Development of new group(s) to address the needs and issues (monitoring groups). Development of skills that are transferable to other group situations.

12. Respondents provided the following statements on the greatest impact the

Bankhead Liaison Panel has had on the community to date:

a. Allowed the general public to see that there are people in the community, such as the Liaison Panel, that are highly involved in community issues; that the Liaison Panel can serve as a watchdog and advocate for community concerns.

b. Led to increased public involvement. c. Provided information to the public, other organizations, and the local community. d. Informed people on issues affecting the Bankhead National Forest and to give

them a means to stay or become involved. e. Developed consensus on the Bankhead National Forest Health and Restoration

Initiative f. Provided a neutral zone for discussion of issues in a non-confrontational setting. g. Brought various interests together to comment on the Alabama National Forest

management plan revisions and to plan the Bankhead National Forest Health and Restoration project.

h. Provided a mechanism to build trust between the community and the USDA Forest Service.

13. Respondents provided the following comments about how to improve the Bankhead Liaison Panel's effectiveness:

a. Not exactly sure, but believe the Liaison Panel will become more important the longer it exists.

b. Have more meetings. c. Close it to the public or make it a legal entity.


d. List clearer next objectives as needed by the US Forest Service. e. Provide more expertise testimony and information and more expectations of

policy decision-making. f. Minimize the number of subjects dealt with at one time (i.e., if its recreational

use, stick to recreational use for several meetings rather than vary the topic).

14. Respondents provided the following comments about the facilitator's major

contribution to this group:

a. Kept Liaison Panel and work groups on track toward our goals. b. Assisted Liaison Panel and work groups in resolving or managing issues and

concerns. c. Kept group on point and progressing to a resolution on a specific issue. d. Kept the process coordinated; provided peace-keeping and record-keeping;

invaluable in many ways. e. Provided process management. f. Assisted group in development of ground rules and charter. g. Focused on topic and meeting process. h. Ensured diverse opinions were heard. i. Organized meetings and agendas. j. Brought tranquility to a volatile situation. k. Kept panel on target to meet stated goals.

15. Respondents provided the following comments as to how the facilitator or group

leader could improve the effectiveness of the Liaison Panel in the future;

a. Nothing. Facilitators did a great job and set a high standard for someone to follow and work toward.

b. Nothing. It would be hard to find anyone or a group that would be much better or more effective!

c. Establish clear objectives and deadlines to drive toward a needed product (as defined by the USDA Forest Service) in a timely and efficient manner.

d. Streamline meetings to limit subjects at hand. Otherwise extraneous discussion occurs, which diverts interests and prolongs desired outcomes.

e. Continue the good work; when the group is getting out of control, remind them of the ground rules.

f. Nothing.


B. Interested Party Focus Group Responses Members of the public who attended the August meeting were asked to provide their general perceptions and insights about the effectiveness of the Liaison Panel and areas of improvement. The responses included the following:

General Perceptions a. Meetings are more organized and planned though they remain technical during

discussions that are difficult for the public to follow and understand at times.

b. Even if conflict exists, the group moves forward and works on goals. c. The Liaison Panel provides a "set aside time" to focus on various interests, to

learn about various interests, and speak about those interests. d. Efforts and accomplishments of Liaison Panel can have far-reaching impacts on

the community. e. Serves as a forum for discussion and learning about the Bankhead National

Forest, a fantastic mechanism for public involvement.

f. Provides an interface between the public and the USFS. g. Monitoring groups are a great way to learn about various issues and serve as

mechanisms to engage others not directly involved on the Liaison Panel.

Areas for Improvement a. Need more outreach and awareness in the community, as others are not aware of the Liaison Panel and its efforts.

b. Increase media attention on the Liaison Panel meetings. c. Use recreational sites within the forest to post notification about upcoming meetings and encourage public involvement. d. Meetings seem to be about procedural issues. e. Help the public to better understand the technical components of the meetings. f. Use the listserv to contact a wider range of interested parties or inform them about the ongoing process. g. Some citizens are still suspect of the process; they do not believe the Liaison Panel represents their interests and, in fact, is operating against their interests. Need to continue outreach efforts with these groups.


REFERENCES Gray, G., Enzer, M., and Kusel, J. (2001). Understanding Community-Based Forest

Ecosystem Management. Food Products Press. Binghamton, NY.

Wondolleck, J. and Yaffe, S. (2000). Making Collaboration Work. Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press. Washington, DC.

Wondolleck, J. and Yaffe, S. (1997, 2001). Sustaining the Success of Collaborative Partnerships: Revisiting the Building Bridges Cases. School of Natural Resources and the Environment. Ann Harbor, MI

********************************************************************************

Where all think alike, no one thinks very much. Walter Lippmann

Documents

BHNFPhase11 Progress and Final Report · 2008-06-12 · BANKHEAD FOREST HEALTH AND RESTORATION INITIATIVE FINAL REPORT PAGE 3 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is twofold: 1. To