Building a Citizen-Agency 

Partnership Among Diverse 

Interests: The Colville National 

Forest and Northeast Washington 

Forestry Coalition Experience

Ryan Gordon, Angela Mallon, Carolin Maier, Linda Kruger, 

and Bruce Shindler

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-588

May 2012

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
Authors

Ryan Gordon and Carolin Maier are graduate research assistants, Department 

of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. 

Angela Mallon is a forester, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Missoula, MT 59804. Linda Kruger is a research social scientist, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 11305 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801. Bruce 

Shindler is a professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. This research is supported by the USDA 

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Joint Fire 

Science Program.

Cover photo of Colville, Washington, by Ryan Gordon.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250–9410 or call (800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.
Abstract 

Gordon, Ryan; Mallon, Angela; Maier, Carolin; Kruger, Linda; Shindler, 

Bruce. 2012. Building a citizen-agency partnership among diverse interests: the 

Colville National Forest and Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition Experience. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-588. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16 p.

Concerns about forest health and the threat of wildfire across the Western United 

States increasingly provide the impetus for communities to find land management solutions that serve multiple interests. Funding and procedural changes 

over the past decade have positioned federal agencies to put greater emphasis 

on multistakeholder partnerships and public outreach efforts. Partnerships build 

slowly over time, but can result in a healthier resource, reduced fire risk, greater 

stability for agency planning processes, and more resilient communities. Drawing on interviews with stakeholders representing broad interests in a partnership 

between the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition and the Colville National 

Forest, we examine some of the critical factors leading to the partnership’s 

success and identify challenges along the way. We illustrate how the citizens 

of Colville, Washington, overcame conflicts by learning to communicate their 

interests and use existing resources to advance a variety of goals, ranging from 

fuels reduction and active forest management to roadless area and wilderness 

management. We highlight a set of important organizational themes that have 

emerged from Colville to provide managers and other stakeholders with ideas for 

similar efforts.

Keywords: Collaboration, community capacity, community resilience, fire 

and fuels management.
Summary

The U.S. Forest Service has faced many challenges over national forest management in the past 40 years, especially in the Pacific Northwest. During the latter 

half of this period, in addition to experiencing forest management conflicts, many 

resource-dependent communities experienced economic downturns associated with 

globalization of wood product markets, changes in resource availability, and shifts 

in federal forest policy. Conflict between timber industry groups and environmental 

groups often resulted in gridlock, making it almost impossible for agencies to 

accomplish management objectives, to the detriment of both forest ecosystems 

and local communities. The community of Colville, Washington, has a history of 

disputes over forest management.

This paper describes how citizens of Colville learned to communicate their 

interests and use existing resources to advance a variety of goals, ranging from 

fuels reduction and active forest management to roadless area and wilderness 

management. Drawing on interviews with stakeholders representing broad interests 

in a partnership between the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition (NEWFC) 

and the Colville National Forest, we explore some of the critical factors leading to 

the partnership’s success and identify a variety of challenges the partnership faced. 

To guide managers and other stakeholders ideas in similar efforts, a set of organizational themes that emerged from the Colville experience are highlighted.

The Colville story illustrates how community-agency collaboration can generate stability for agency planning processes, laying the groundwork for a healthier 

resource and a more resilient community. Building social capital—the ability and 

willingness of different interests to act collectively for a common goal—has been 

essential to the partnership’s success. By lowering the transaction costs of working 

together, participants have facilitated a collaborative working environment that, in 

many cases, has led to agreement.

Collaboration has helped stabilize the region, creating a healthier forest that 

is also a major driver of the local economy. Measurable successes listed by those 

interviewed include 22 forest stewardship projects completed since 2002, no litigation on forest health projects during this same period, nearly 3,000 acres (1214 ha) 

treated with prescribed fire in 2008, and 61 million board feet (14 394 m3) harvested on the forest in 2008, all of which went to local mills. Members take pride 

in noting that formerly opposing interests are now represented within NEWFC. 

Although problems persist, stakeholders have been working together to develop a 

more balanced, holistic, and sustainable long-term vision for resource management 

in northeast Washington. This vision includes recognition that forest conservation 

is not possible without timber harvest, and sustainable harvest levels are not possible without supporting the needs and concerns of the environmental community.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Management Context

3 Relevant Concepts

3 Community Capacity

4 Community Resilience

5 Research Approach

5 Findings

6 The Right Environment

6 Clearly Defined Roles

7 Focusing on Goals Rather Than Positions

8 Wall-to-Wall Collaboration

8 A Strong Agency Presence

9 Supportive Agency Leadership

10 Sustained Commitment

11 Facing Criticism and Challenges

12 Building on Success

12 Conclusion

15 Literature Cited

1

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

Introduction

As concern about forest health and the threat of wildfire continues to grow in the 

Western United States, communities—once divided over single issues—are coming 

together to work on solutions that serve multiple interests. For years, the timber 

industry and environmental groups have held positions at opposite ends of the forest 

management spectrum. Aided in part by funding and procedural changes, as well 

as an increasing desire in natural-resource-based communities to find common 

ground, collaborative efforts are emerging throughout the United States (Flint et al. 

2008, Leahy and Anderson 2010, Paveglio et al. 2009). Land management agencies are putting greater emphasis on public outreach efforts and multistakeholder 

partnerships that seek some middle ground where active management can both 

reduce fuels to create safer communities and restore forest ecosystems. At the same 

time, citizen groups and business interests are coming together to protect the values 

seen as important in their communities.

Research indicates that successful partnerships build slowly, but the result can 

be a healthier resource, greater stability for agency planning processes, and more 

resilient communities (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007, Flint et al. 2008). One place 

where such activities have matured is in Washington state, where over the past 10 

years the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition (NEWFC) and the Colville 

National Forest have built an effective relationship. The NEWFC represents the tricounty area in the northeast corner of Washington, over which the Colville National 

Forest is spread.

Researchers at Oregon State University have tracked development of the 

coalition and its unique relationship with the Colville National Forest since 2004. 

In the summer of 2009, our research team conducted followup interviews with key 

participants, including members of NEWFC representing industry and environmental perspectives, as well as the forest supervisor and other forest and district 

personnel. We used these interviews to examine critical factors that have led to the 

partnership’s success and to identify challenges they have faced along the way.

This paper describes how the community of Colville recognized the risks of 

continuing to do business the “same old way.” Citizens saw their rural economy 

shrinking and the health of surrounding forest land threatened, and recognized 

gridlock was to blame. Community leaders learned to communicate their concerns 

and use existing resources to advance a variety of goals, including large-scale fuels 

reduction and active forest management. Here we use their story to highlight how 

open discussion, leadership, and trust have contributed to an increase in the community’s capacity to agree on and achieve common goals despite a wide spectrum 

of interests. Progress has not occurred without criticism and challenges—important 

Land management 

agencies are putting 

greater emphasis on 

public outreach efforts 

and multistakeholder 

partnerships; at the 

same time, citizen 

groups and business 

interests are coming 

together to protect 

the values seen as 

important in their 

communities.

Open discussion, 

leadership, and 

trust contribute to a 

community’s ability to 

agree on and achieve 

common goals.
2

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

elements also addressed here. We identify a set of organizational themes that 

emerged from the partnership-building process with the intent of providing managers and other stakeholders with practical ideas for similar efforts.

Management Context

Over the past two decades, many resource-dependent communities have experienced social and economic downturns owing to changes in federal forest policy 

and fluctuations in wood products markets (Trosper 2003). Gridlock resulting from 

conflict between the timber industry and environmental groups also threatens the 

survival of these communities. Polarization and delegitimization of the opposition’s goals can make resolving disagreements nearly impossible (Clark 2001, 

Trosper 2003). Under such circumstances, federal land management agencies are 

often unable to accomplish management objectives, to the detriment of both forest 

ecosystems and local communities.

Ten years ago, the area around Colville, Washington, served as a case in point. 

Because of litigation and appeals, the amount of timber harvested on the Colville 

National Forest had declined sharply and was insufficient to supply local mills 

(Hansen 2010, Sierra Institute 2002). In 2000, a mill closure in the nearby town 

of Republic devastated that community’s economy. Local citizens largely blamed 

environmental groups for the shutdown. A social assessment conducted by Findley 

et al. (2000) chronicled the region’s poor forest health and identified a complex 

web of stakeholders—including environmentalists, commodity interests (primarily 

timber and grazing), recreationists, and tribes—that were unable to reach agreement or effectively communicate about local problems. Broadly, conflict centered 

around differing values associated with how the resource should be managed and 

differences in risk perception associated with various management alternatives. 

The Colville National Forest, caught between these competing interests and limited 

by national policies, was hindered in its management of federal forest lands. At 

about the same time, larger and more frequent wildfires began to consume diseased 

forests and threaten communities throughout the Western United States.

These events prompted local citizens to take action. Formerly opposed groups 

recognized that neither their respective goals nor the overall well-being of the community were advancing under present conditions. Findley et al. (2000) referenced 

the initiation of a collaborative learning process, facilitated by an outside group and 

designed to help create productive dialog among stakeholders and build collective 

understanding of the complex issues facing the forest and community. At about the 

same time, new policies and direction at the national level (i.e., National Fire Plan, 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act), coupled with personnel changes at the forest level, 
3

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

better positioned the Forest Service to provide leadership for the growing community dialog. Over time, with leaders emerging from a range of stakeholder groups, 

NEWFC evolved as a public forum for reaching agreement on local resource 

management problems. In the words of one self-described environmentalist, early 

coalition members came together based on mutual needs:

The needs were a sustainable timber supply and to reach an armistice to 

preserve what’s left of our wilderness heritage, and to develop a working 

relationship to address the needs of what’s left in our forest.

Today the coalition represents three general natural resource interests—industry representatives, environmental groups, and members of the unaffiliated public 

who choose to come and go depending on the issue. The coalition promotes a policy 

of openness and transparency in which stakeholders are actively encouraged to join 

the discussion at any time. Although other entities—including local governments, 

the U.S. Forest Service, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation—

have no official representation in the group, NEWFC maintains an active working 

partnership with many of them; this is especially the case with the Colville National 

Forest where much of the active management is targeted.

Relevant Concepts

Relevant to this discussion of partnerships are several concepts researchers have 

been giving considerable attention. Two of these, community capacity and community resilience, are particularly useful concepts for understanding and describing events on the Colville National Forest. Closely related to each other, these 

concepts provide a framework for understanding the relationship between successful collaboration, individual and interpersonal behavior, and the natural resource 

environment.

Community Capacity

While there is no dominant definition of community capacity, it typically refers 

to local assets or resources, and how they are used to improve the lives of community members (Laverack 2006) or achieve a common goal (Magis 2010). Most 

researchers agree that community capacity should be viewed as a dynamic process 

rather than a condition, accounting for changes in the way resources are used by a 

community over time to address concerns important to local community members 

(Lyons and Reimer 2009). Once resources are invested in collective actions for a 

shared community goal, they are considered capital. This capital exists in many 

forms, including natural resources, physical infrastructure, financial assets, and 

human or social resources (Magis 2010). Of these, social capital has received a great 
4

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

deal of attention recently from researchers who view it as a crucial element of community resilience and collaboration (Flint et al. 2008, Leahy and Anderson 2010). 

Social capital lowers the transaction costs associated with working together (Pretty 

2003), allowing communities to more effectively use available resources to increase 

their well-being.

Researchers have identified several features of social capital that are particularly important in collaborative efforts. They include (1) individual leadership; 

(2) common goals, rules, and norms; and (3) trust, relationships, and reciprocity 

(Dales and Sparkes 2010, Olsson et al. 2004, Sturtevant and Jakes 2008). Citizen 

leaders are essential participants in the organization of community-based collaborative efforts and conflict resolution (Olsson et al. 2004). They can act as a catalyst 

for change by providing vision, direction, and structure to processes, and play an 

important role in fostering trustworthy relations (Sturtevant and Jakes 2008). 

Agreeing on goals is another critical step in building a collaborative effort, but 

can prove difficult when there are competing interests. Researchers have observed 

that an inclusive structure and broad representation of stakeholders contribute to 

successful collaboration (Selin et al. 2000, Shindler and Gordon 2005). Different 

goals typically reflect the way different community members frame a problem. 

The process of identifying common goals therefore requires an open discussion 

of perceived problems among community members, which in turn provides an 

opportunity to learn about others’ interests and values and can lead to a common 

framework for discussion. 

A willingness to negotiate and compromise is also an indicator of successful collaboration. This process of finding “middle ground” can be the basis for 

trust-building. According to Pipkin and Doerksen (2000: 16), “Trust is a matter of 

building credibility and building relationships...and demonstrating an attitude of 

inclusiveness.” Thus, the foundation for trust is laid in the initial stages of collaboration as stakeholders work to find common ground and forge relationships with 

others. Other research recognizes that trust is a fragile commodity (Shindler et al. 

2002). Trust takes time to build; on the other hand, it can easily be lost. The work of 

trust-building is an ongoing endeavor.

Community Resilience

As with community capacity, there are many definitions of community resilience. 

Most differ in their emphasis on resistance versus adaptation to change. For example, Adger (2000: 361) described the concept as “the ability of human communities 

to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure,” such as environmental 

variability or social, economic, and political upheaval. Other researchers (e.g., Folke 

2006) argued that resisting or attempting to control change ignores the opportuni-
5

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

ties disturbances provide—opportunities to view resilience as a dynamic process of 

constant adaptation and renewal. Magis (2010) suggested that adaptation is indicative of communities that effectively use their resources to thrive in an environment 

characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. Members of 

a resilient community intentionally develop collective capacity to respond to and 

influence change, to sustain and renew the community. This definition illustrates 

the close relationship between community capacity and community resilience. 

Resource-based communities with low levels of capacity are less likely to recover 

as quickly, if at all, from large disturbances (e.g., wildfires, flood events) or fluctuations in the economy. Because community capacity and community resilience are 

so closely connected, encouraging one helps build the other.

Research Approach

Our research team at Oregon State University first conducted semistructured 

interviews with members of NEWFC and Forest Service personnel on the Colville 

National Forest in 2004. Five years later in spring 2009, another series of interviews 

were completed with most of the same individuals as well as several new agency 

staff members to document important elements contributing to the partnership 

process. In addition, the research team also tracked progress by periodically 

attending NEWFC meetings, observing a community workshop on stewardship 

contracting organized by the Colville National Forest, reviewing postings on 

Forest Service and NEWFC Web sites, and following news media reports. Using 

information and insights gained from these efforts over time, we identified and 

examined critical factors leading to the partnership’s success as well as challenges 

along the way.

Findings

The NEWFC’s emergence and subsequent partnership with the Forest Service were 

aided by the presence of key community capacity building blocks—namely physical, social, and human resources. For example, the existing wood utilization infrastructure in Colville made forest treatments viable and contributed to the region’s 

economy. Additionally, a diverse group of knowledgeable individuals emerged who 

were able to set aside their personal positions and join in a discussion as to what 

was at stake in their community. However, the presence of these assets was not 

sufficient to overcome long-standing divisions. Successfully reconciling alternative 

viewpoints to move beyond a state of constant conflict would require dedicated 

leadership and commitment from agency personnel as well as core community 

Members of a 

resilient community 

intentionally develop 

collective capacity 

to respond to and 

influence change, to 

sustain and renew the 

community. 
6

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

members. Based on interviews with these central stakeholders, we have organized 

the outcomes of their interactions under the following themes to illustrate the 

importance of developing partnerships.

The Right Environment

Study participants described a number of factors that helped contribute to the “right 

environment”—one conducive to building a coalition of diverse individuals. First, 

mill closures a decade ago were credited with raising widespread awareness about 

the need for a more stable rural economy. Second, with overall forest health declining and the threat of wildfire increasing, more varied interests were also recognizing the need for active forest management. Many agreed that the region’s remaining 

industry infrastructure—several sawmills, a cogeneration plant, and a paper 

plant—were essential to community stability. The idea began to take hold that the 

timber infrastructure could provide the backbone for a large-scale forest management program targeting thinning and fuels reduction. Third, changes in leadership 

on the Colville National Forest brought a new forest supervisor who wanted to 

capitalize on the community’s leadership and momentum. Coupled with the 2003 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (which encourages citizen-agency interaction), 

these factors provided the right combination of circumstance and willing individuals to move forward with collaborative efforts.

Clearly Defined Roles

An important initial step was to recognize the roles and responsibilities of the interested parties. For the agency, central to this process was communicating that while 

NEWFC represents important voices within the community, the Forest Service is 

the ultimate decisionmaker on federal forest land. Forest Service managers noted 

that it was important to correct a common misperception among the local public:

If all of us (community members) agree, then the decision is made...you’ve 

got to do it because we all agree.

An especially pivotal event was a 3-day workshop hosted by the Colville 

National Forest. The forest supervisor hired professional facilitators to guide a 

discussion about collaborative processes, as well as the legal requirements and 

constraints to which the agency must adhere. Coalition members affirmed the 

workshop was instrumental in helping them understand the context of Forest Service planning processes, legal requirements, and agency directives. Furthermore, 

the workshop gave both agency personnel and the coalition a starting point by 

demonstrating skills for open communication and collaboration. It was instrumental 

in shaping the working environment within the coalition, as well as structuring a 

relationship with the Forest Service. The agency would not forego its commitment 
7

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

to the more traditional National Environmental Policy Act process and public 

involvement, but the coalition provided a place for discussion organized around 

community concerns and directed by local leaders. Shortly thereafter, a memorandum of understanding was developed to guide formal communication between the 

coalition and Colville National Forest. This agreement was intended to minimize 

confusion, avoid rumors, keep the group on task, and develop agreement on levels 

of support for projects.

Focusing on Goals Rather Than Positions

Those interviewed universally agreed the most valuable skill learned in the 

workshop was that of leaving personal positions at the door. Instead, deliberately 

discussing core issues of mutual concern became more important. Learning to talk 

about goals instead of positions was identified as a defining moment in the coalition’s evolution and was quickly adopted as standard procedure. This approach 

allowed members to find common interests despite opposing views, and all believe 

this provided the basis for trust and relationship building. One member reflected,

Trust comes from people coming together...having all these different opposing views, but also common interests...and saying guess what, I like that 

too...I enjoy recreation on public lands, and I like to see a healthy forest.

To ensure this open communication in the long term, coalition bylaws were 

created requiring members to be respectful of each other’s viewpoint and act in 

a professional manner. Members of NEWFC explained that the organization’s 

nonconfrontational, consensus-based decisionmaking style was intended to prevent 

alienating any interest represented at their meetings:

If we can’t work it out, we leave it alone, or we work elsewhere. Working on 

a consensus basis—if we do it right—prevents us from alienating anyone.

Issues for which no consensus can be reached are put aside temporarily to focus 

the discussion on concerns that can more easily be resolved. Most members were 

optimistic that building relationships over time eventually would allow them to 

tackle more difficult problems.

A specific tool developed by the coalition to help focus discussion on the forest 

resource was a document that became known as “The Blueprint.” It effectively 

divides the national forest into three zones (i.e., active management, restoration, 

and wilderness/roadless) with distinct management strategies identified for each 

one. Although subject to outside criticism, and a proper amount of caution from 

the agency, the document has served to guide discussion over priorities among the 

many interests present in the coalition.

Learning to talk 

about goals instead 

of positions allowed 

members to find 

common interests 

despite opposing 

views, and this 

provided the basis for 

trust and relationship 

building.
8

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

Wall-to-Wall Collaboration

Early on, the forest supervisor declared that management issues on the forest would 

be resolved by “wall-to-wall” collaboration. His intent was to initiate communication with all interested parties at the beginning of projects and to maintain two-way 

information exchange throughout the process. Wall-to-wall collaboration requires 

significant commitment from both agency personnel and the public. Initially, it 

also extends the time needed to bring projects to completion, but those interviewed 

agreed this inclusive process is preferable to past situations where opportunities 

for public involvement were less extensive, and many projects were eventually 

appealed in court. One coalition member noted,

The old style was—no one knew what any of the problems were until the 

11th hour... and all of a sudden local people or the conservation community 

came out of the woodwork to appeal it, and you spend almost all the money 

at the tail end trying to work through appeals and litigation.

There was wide acceptance between both the agency and the coalition that 

involvement from the beginning allows all interested participants to fully understand the planning process, and that when a final decision is made, everyone 

recognizes the terms of the agreement and how it was reached. Coalition members 

also saw it as recognition that their opinions were valued. 

A Strong Agency Presence

The Colville National Forest has been clear about its central role among numerous 

community interests and organizations. The forest supervisor has reiterated that 

“when it comes to national forest lands, we are the decisionmaker. We recognize 

that the coalition is not ‘everyone’ and it is up to us to help bridge the gap to keep 

other agencies and groups up to date.” The research team has observed that when 

much is at stake, as is the case here and also in other regions throughout the West, 

a strong agency presence is required to keep efforts on track and provide structured 

leadership. There is also evidence that local citizens expect and even appreciate this 

approach (Shindler et al. 2002). 

In communities surrounding the Colville National Forest, there also is wide 

recognition that many agency personnel have become particularly adept at working 

in a collaborative environment. This attribute is recognized within the organization 

as well; one Forest Service employee simply acknowledged,

We happen to have some folks who are very good at developing relationships with the public and collaborating within the agency.
9

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

Many credit the forest supervisor with handpicking line officers well-suited for the 

job, including one who stated,

I think some of the staff [on the Colville National Forest] have been selected 

not only because of their résumé, but because of their personalities...they 

can deal with collaboration, and even enhance it.

Forest Service leadership affirmed that the screening process does take into account 

interpersonal skills and a willingness to hear different viewpoints. However, leadership also believes that talented individuals are drawn to the forest and its reputation 

as a positive, productive environment. 

One agency employee was quick to dispel the notion that all national forests 

need a partnership coordinator or public affairs specialist to be the designated “public person.” Instead, staff can benefit from specialized training in collaboration and 

learn how to leverage their skills, as well as those of other personnel within their 

unit, to make collaborative processes work. A coalition member agreed, saying,

We don’t want to see one person who can put a good spin on things. Let’s 

get real with each other.

This point underscores the importance of having agency staff with decisionmaking authority present during critical collaborative sessions, as opposed to 

someone whose delegated role is partnership coordinator or public affairs specialist. 

Furthermore, participants noted that the public usually exhibits a more positive 

response when they can see that a decision has been reached or there is commitment to continued progress when a final decision cannot be made.

Supportive Agency Leadership

The forest supervisor was widely credited with supporting his personnel and 

creating an atmosphere for outreach and interaction with citizens. This working 

style is characterized by open communication and dialogue between line officers

 and along the chain of command, including regular check-ins and opportunities 

for constructive criticism of processes that may need improvement. The agency 

staff take special pride in “barrier buster sessions” that allow personnel from any 

level to identify obstacles in the organization that inhibit job performance. One 

district ranger summarized the keys to creating an open working environment as 

(1) allowing people freedom to experiment through trial and error without retaliation for mistakes, (2) reminding staff that outcomes on the land are what count, and 

(3) having supervisors who take ultimate responsibility for decision outcomes (good 

and bad). Study participants praised this flexible work environment as a style that 

allows personnel to more adequately address citizens’ concerns and ultimately leads 

to a stronger community-agency relationship.

Staff can benefit from 

specialized training in 

collaboration and learn 

how to leverage their 

skills, as well as those 

of other personnel 

within their unit, to 

make collaborative 

processes work.
10

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

Community members lauded related outcomes; particularly the ability of 

managers in local ranger districts to successfully work outside the lines of traditional procedures and protocol, while still being within the boundaries of legislative 

directives. One member of the coalition observed this new local level of public 

participation, saying

This change has been so refreshing...to be able to think that you can go talk 

to district rangers or the forest supervisor and that’s where the buck stops, 

that’s where you can make a difference. 

Sustained Commitment

Many participants agreed that continued success on projects and positive public 

feedback were often the best reasons for sticking with a collaborative process. As 

one manager stated, 

Folks in my unit say ‘hey, we really appreciate the way things are 

going; it’s feeling like the old days...the days when we see our job has 

an end result.’

The benefits from community interactions and personal growth also were primary 

reasons why people stayed committed to the process. One industry coalition 

member reflected on the collective 250 years of forestry experience and 100 years 

of conservation experience represented in the group, saying that in spite of all 

he thought he knew about forestry, he had gained a whole new perspective from 

the conservation community. At the same time, an environmental group member 

described his motives as

a goal to reach a long-term friendly, amicable relationship with the timber 

industry and the community at large.

However, both agency and coalition members mentioned long-term participation and burnout as challenges for everyone. Turnover within the agency was 

particularly difficult. All participants recognized that building relationships and 

establishing trust among partners can be a slow process; when someone leaves 

there is a gap that is not easily filled. Despite efforts to maintain continuity, newly 

hired staff members come in with little awareness of the ongoing collaboration or 

understanding of previous agreements among participants. In the absence of an 

official policy to promote long-term tenure in the Forest Service (a suggestion by 

one individual), coalition members offered several ideas for maintaining continuity 

between transitions, including (1) formal strategies for documenting collaborative 

processes, (2) mentoring opportunities for a departing district ranger and his or her 

replacement, and (3) teamwork improvement within the agency.
11

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

Coalition members often find it difficult to balance work with commitments 

to the partnership, despite generous support from employers. Coalition members 

successfully addressed this problem by working in teams, so that when one person 

is not available for part of the process, another can step in to maintain continuity. 

All recognize that long-term stability will be an ongoing challenge.

Facing Criticism and Challenges

There has been criticism from the broader community about the coalition’s focus 

on active forms of forest management. Coalition members recognized that their 

mission is not all-encompassing, instead believing they have been effective thus 

far by keeping a rather focused interest on activities related to fuels reduction, 

thinning, and forest restoration. In recent years, they have encouraged participation from individuals with other interests, but recognize that integrating recreation 

projects, off-highway vehicle use, and roadless area protection has been slower to 

gain traction. Time and difficulty in crafting agreeable solutions were frequently 

cited as barriers.

Coalition members described the risk of returning to the old ways of doing 

business as a continuing challenge to their collaborative efforts. The challenge, in 

part, stems from an inherent obstacle with the process itself. Simply, collaboration takes time. Some have expressed that while the coalition has made progress 

on many issues (the “low-hanging fruit”), reaching agreement on more difficult 

concerns—like wilderness use and designation—seems elusive.1

 This frustration 

is compounded by what is viewed as a lack of flexibility within the Forest Service 

at both the national and regional levels. Agency personnel and coalition members 

alike cited administrative regulations and procedures as additional obstacles that 

prevent local management units from addressing place-specific concerns.

Another focal point of local criticism has been “The Blueprint”—the coalition 

document described previously that divides the national forest into three zones for 

active management, restoration, and wilderness/roadless protection. Some outside 

parties have charged that the Blueprint is designed to direct development and 

implementation of the national forest’s management plan, though coalition members 

maintain it is merely intended as an internal tool to aid discussion about proposed 

management actions. Such criticism is especially salient for the Forest Service, 

1 The Forest Service, Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition (NEWFC), and other 

constituencies within the community, have sought clarity on roadless area management, 

wilderness designation, and related issues for some time, but it continues to be a difficult 

subject. Late in 2009, a congressionally sponsored “roundtable” was convened in Spokane, 

Washington, to find common ground on wilderness, but the initiative dissolved as some 

constituencies dropped out of the process. The NEWFC has expressed a renewed commitment to this effort.
12

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

which has clear motivation for working with the coalition but does not want to be 

viewed as having its priorities set by someone else.

Building on Success

While the collaborative effort was initially built around a partnership between 

NEWFC and the Colville National Forest, participants recognized that it has 

changed the community-agency dynamic as a whole. All agreed the general public 

is paying more attention to issues on the national forest now that the coalition is 

operational and actively involved. Individual citizens, who were not previously 

engaged, have been attending coalition meetings, thus strengthening its role as a 

community voice. Meanwhile, other interests that have not formally participated in 

coalition discussions—including livestock grazers, recreation groups, and county 

government—have increased their involvement in the more traditional federal 

agency participatory planning process. 

Most interview participants agreed there is a strong incentive to stay involved 

with collaborative efforts as everyone—individuals and the community—has something to gain. An individual representing environmental interests within NEWFC 

expressed a sentiment likely held by many in the group: 

If it were just about how we make sure roadless areas stay roadless, the 

timber industry wouldn’t have been involved for very long. If it were just 

about fuels reduction in the WUI [wildland-urban interface] and providing 

products for the timber infrastructure, the conservationists wouldn’t have 

been around very long. There’s a lot to gain by being together, and there’s 

a lot to lose by being together. It’s a balance, and any collaborative process 

that doesn’t have that balance isn’t a genuine collaborative process, and it 

isn’t going to retain committed participants.

Common, overarching goals are not the only components that bind the process 

together. Positive feedback from the public, seeing progress made on the ground, 

and building strong relationships were also emphasized as major incentives for 

continuing to collaborate.

Conclusion

Colville’s story illustrates how community-agency collaboration can generate stability for agency planning processes, laying the groundwork for a healthier resource 

and a more resilient community. Building social capital—the ability and willingness of different interests to act collectively for a common goal—has been essential 

to the partnership’s success. By lowering the transaction costs of working together, 

The general public is 

paying more attention 

to issues on the 

national forest now 

that the coalition 

is operational and 

actively involved 

and there is a 

strong incentive to 

stay involved with 

collaborative efforts as 

everyone—individuals 

and the community—

has something to gain.
13

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

they have facilitated a collaborative working environment that in many cases has 

led to agreement.

Before the partnership between NEWFC and the Colville National Forest, the 

forest was a source of conflict and a growing fire risk (Findley et al. 2000). Collaboration has helped stabilize the region, creating a healthier forest that is also a major 

driver of the local economy. Measurable successes listed by those interviewed 

include 22 forest stewardship projects completed since 2002, no litigation on forest 

health projects during this same period, nearly 3,000 acres (1214 ha) treated with 

prescribed fire in 2008, and 61 million board feet (14 394 m3

) harvested on the 

forest in 2008, all of which went to local mills. Members take pride in noting that 

formerly opposing interests are now represented within NEWFC. Although problems persist, stakeholders have been working together to develop a more balanced, 

holistic, and sustainable long-term vision for resource management in northeast 

Washington. This vision includes recognition that forest conservation is not possible 

without timber harvest, and that sustainable harvest levels are not possible without 

supporting the needs and concerns of the environmental community.

Current conditions suggest that community capacity is being built around the 

partnership between NEWFC and the Colville National Forest, better equipping 

the community to deal with environmental, economic, and social challenges. The 

Colville National Forest has been able to meet its fuel reduction goals and deliver 

a more dependable supply of timber at a time when market prices discourage 

many private landowners from harvesting. This relative stability now establishes a 

stronger base for reaching agreement over broader environmental concerns.

As in other productive partnerships, good leadership, effective communication about community interests, and trust-building are central to success on the 

Colville National Forest (e.g., Olsson et al. 2004, Sturtevant and Jakes 2008). This 

examination of the Colville case clearly demonstrates the role and importance of 

stable leadership for developing shared understanding among constituencies. As our 

research team noted previously, local citizen groups look to the agency to provide 

this stability and to build bridges across different interests that lead to a strategy 

for collaborative efforts (Shindler et al. 2002). The forest supervisor accepted this 

leadership role and set expectations for collaboration within his organization and in 

the greater community. Likewise, coalition members put aside hard-line positions 

to focus on pursuing common community interests, and have been forging unlikely 

relationships along the way. Mutual respect and dedication to professional discourse 

has helped maintain these relationships, even as the coalition has faced internal and 

external challenges.

Stakeholders have 

been working together 

to develop a more 

balanced, holistic, and 

sustainable long-term 

vision for resource 

management in 

northeast Washington 

and conditions suggest 

that community 

capacity is being built 

around the partnership 

between NEWFC 

and the Colville 

National Forest, 

better equipping the 

community to deal 

with environmental, 

economic, and social 

challenges.
14

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

2 The forest supervisor transferred to become the supervisor on the Clearwater and Nez Perce 

National Forests several months following the conclusion of these interviews.

Likely the biggest test for the coalition thus far will be the departure of the forest supervisor. At the time these interviews took place, members of both the coalition and the Forest Service spoke openly about the likelihood this key figure would 

transfer to another duty station in the near future.2 Participants were universally 

optimistic the group would continue to be successful, suggesting that the supervisor 

had sufficiently established a culture of collaboration within the Colville National 

Forest. In the words of one coalition member,

We’re doing everything we can to be logical, reasonable, use common 

sense, build relationships, build trust—from the ground up—even among 

historical antagonists who used to hate each other and be appalled by each 

others’ perspectives. 

The coalition, like many partnerships, always has room to grow—adding 

new interests and tackling additional management concerns. While challenging at 

times, this growth will invariably become easier as relationships deepen and new 

ways of doing business develop—a model that is difficult to replace once it takes 

hold because stakeholders see its value and accept it as the way to get things done. 

Participants acknowledged that reaching this transition point is a critical juncture in 

the collaborative process, but once achieved it becomes far more difficult for anyone 

to undermine the effort.
15

Building a Citizen-Agency Partnership Among Diverse Interests

Literature Cited

Adger, N.W. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in 

Human Geography. 24(3): 347–364.

Clark, C. 2001. Stability and moral exclusion: explaining conflict in timberdependent communities. Human Ecology Review. 8(01): 13–25.

Dales, A.; Sparkes, J. 2010. The ‘agency’ of sustainable community development. 

Community Development Journal. 46(4): 476–492.

Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2007. Revisiting community capacity and 

resiliency. Society and Natural Resources. 20: 899–912.

Findley, A.J.; Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A. 2000. Social assessment for the 

Colville National Forest CROP Program. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 106 p.

Flint, C.G.; Luloff, A.E.; Finley, J.C. 2008. Where is “community” in 

community-based forestry? Society and Natural Resources. 21: 526–537.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological 

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change. 16: 253–267.

Hansen, D. 2010. Model tames timber fights. Washington Spokesman Review. 

May 1. 

Laverack, G. 2006. Evaluating community capacity: visual representation and 

interpretation. Community Development Journal. 41(3): 266–276.

Leahy, J.E.; Anderson, D.H. 2010. Cooperation gets it done: social capital in 

natural resources management along the Kaskaskia River. Society and Natural 

Resources. 23: 224–239.

Lyons, T.; Reimer, B. 2009. A literature review of capacity frameworks: six 

features of comparison. In: Godfrey, B.; Greenwood, R.; Felt, L., eds. Remote 

control: lessons in governance for/from small and remote regions. St. Johns, NL: 

ISER Press: 63–76. 

Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: an indicator of social sustainability. 

Society and Natural Resources. 23: 401–416.

Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Berkes, F. 2004. Adaptive co-management for building 

resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management. 34(1): 

75–90.
16

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-588

Paveglio, T.B.; Jakes, P.J.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, D.R. 2009. Understanding 

social complexity within the wildland-urban interface: A new species of human 

habitation? Environmental Management. 43: 1085–1095.

Pipkin, J.; Doerksen, H. 2000. Collaboration in natural resource management: 

selected case studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 216 p.

Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science. 

302: 1912–1914.

Selin, S.W.; Schuett, M.A.; Carr, D. 2000. Modeling stakeholder perceptions of 

collaborative initiative effectiveness. Society and Natural Resources. 13: 

735–745.

Shindler, B.A.; Brunson, M.; Stankey, G.H. 2002. Social acceptability of forest 

conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Shindler, B.A.; Gordon, R. 2005. A practical guide to citizen-agency partnerships: 

public outreach strategies for fire and fuel management. Outreach Guide. 

Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University.

Sierra Institute. 2002. Assessment of the Northwest Economic Adjustment 

Initiative. Independent Research Report. http://sierrainstitute.us/index.php/

resources/archives/northwest-economic-adjustment-initative-neai. 

(October 27, 2010).

Sturtevant, V.; Jakes, P. 2008. Collaborative planning to reduce risk. In: Martin, 

W.E.; Raish, C.; Kent, B., eds. Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management 

implications. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 44–63.

Trosper, R.L. 2003. Policy transformations in the US forest sector; 1970–2000: 

implications for sustainable use and resilience. In: Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, 

C., eds. Navigating social-ecological systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press: 328–351.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300