Four forest restoration initiative (4fri) annual evaluation 2012

1. Four forest restoration initiative (4fri)annual evaluation 2012 Windy Selig, Russ Winn, Anne Mottek Lucas

2. Presentation of Results Identified areas for Potential Improvement Identified areas to Celebrate & Maintain One unique area of success Presentation Today Oh, what could it be!

3. 4FRI CHARTER • The 4FRI Charter provides: “VI. Annual Evaluation: Section 1. The stakeholder group will set aside time at least once a year (early October) to systematically evaluate the 4FRI program and actions to ensure regular adaptation and improvement; during the annual evaluation, the stakeholder group will also consider changes to the foundation documents, including the Charter and Structure of the 4FRI.”

4. 4FRI ANNUAL EVALUTION RESULTS 4FRI participants will use evaluation results to help them: • Foster a discussion on highlights and lessons learned • Celebrate and continue successes • Adapt 4FRI approaches and procedures to improve implementation

5. Categories of Questions • Organization and Structure • Shared Vision • Decision Making • Internal Communication • External Communication • Adaptive Management (Identified for Improvement in 2011) • Trust • Stakeholder Group & USFS Relationship • Facilitation • Demographics

6. Categorization of Responses • “Agreement Indicated” • Respondents indicated they strongly agreed/agreed/agreed somewhat with the statement • “Mixed” • There were disparate views • “Disagreement Indicated” • More than 50% respondents indicated they strongly disagreed/disagreed/disagreed somewhat with the statement

7. Ranked Results

8. Organization and Structure Agreement Indicated • Our foundational documents provide clear guidance for our collaborative process. (82%) • The foundational documents and structure of our collaborative offers adequate guidance for accountability within the group (63%) • The existing revolving co-Chair system that occurs every three months is effective. (66%) • Working groups have adequate involvement to complete their assigned tasks. (54%) • Open ended comments mostly dealt with last two: Same people doing all the work.

9. Organization and Structure Mixed results • Working groups have adequate resources to complete their assigned tasks. (33% 33% 33%) • The stakeholder groups’ efforts in moving products forward is timely and efficient. (37% 17% 47%)

10. Organization and Structure Disagreement Indicated • The stakeholder groups’ efforts in moving processes forward is timely and efficient (59%)

11. Shared Vision Agreement indicated • I believe my organization can best make significant progress on forest restoration by working together with the other stakeholders of the stakeholder group (86%) • I believe that our stakeholder group has made significant progress in the last year. (63%) • I believe the overall 4FRI Collaborative project (stakeholder group and USFS) has made significant progress in the last year. (77%)

12. Shared Vision Mixed results • The members of this stakeholder group have a common shared vision of what success will look like for the 4FRI project. (33% 20% 47%) • The members of the stakeholder group and the USFS have a common shared vision of what success will look like for the 4FRI project. (27% 43% 30%)

13. Shared Vision My vision statement for the future direction of the 4FRI project over the next 2-5 years would state: • Seven (20%) didn’t answer. Of remaining 24: • 10 specifically mention restoration as goal • 9 mention monitoring and/or adaptive management • 6 mention goals related to the 4FRI group itself • 4 mention certain number of acres thinned • 4 mention success of industry • 4 mention getting work done faster • Other themes: Getting EIS or DEIS (3) and Moving to east (3)

14. Shared Vision • Products to be completed in next 2-5 years • Of the 75 specific things mentioned: • 18 dealt with adaptive management or monitoring • 13 dealt with getting first EIS through • 12 dealt with success of industry • 10 dealt with moving to eastern half • 9 dealt with implementation in first area • Other “products” mentioned: Items dealing with how 4FRI group works (5) and Public acceptance (4)

15. Decision Making Agreement Indicated • Generally I am willing to make these trade-offs. (93%) • Disagreement Indicated • Generally, my fellow stakeholders are willing to make these trade-offs (52%) • Less than ¼ felt others were as willing to make tradeoffs as they were. For over ½ of respondents the difference was 2 or more categories (agree to disagree)

16. Internal Communication Agreement Indicated • I feel comfortable openly discussing my views in stakeholder group meetings. • I feel comfortable openly discussing my views within the working groups. • I believe it is each person's responsibility to hold themselves and members of the group accountable to the guidelines set forth in the 4FRI Charter • I try to communicate in a way that fosters trust among my fellow stakeholders. (Always/Often) • The Steering Committee openly communicates with the Stakeholder group. (Often/Always)

17. Internal Communication • How can the Steering Committee improve communications with the stakeholder group? Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • Faster and regular reporting of Steering Committee notes/summaries

18. External Communication • The stakeholder group has been effective at communicating the need for and benefits of forest restoration to the general public. • My organization upholds and honors the integrity of the stakeholder group's collaborative process when communicating with the general public. Agreement Indicated

19. External Communication Disagreement Indicated • The stakeholder group is effective at communicating stakeholder group positions to the general public. Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • More Newsletters; Newsletter is effective • Contractor selection was a problem • Opposing viewpoints, confuse the public, undermines the larger picture, impedes SH’s attempt to provide a clear position. • SH can do more to inform the public.

20. Adaptive Management In 2011, the SHG prioritized 3 areas for improvement and developed action items for each area. The following section evaluates the level of improvement in those 3 areas.

21. Adaptive Management - Trust • Over the last year, the stakeholder group has clearly identified the goals and intended use(s) of most of the products and documents generated by the stakeholder group. • Over the last year, the stakeholder group clearly and systematically captured and identified the decisions made by the stakeholder group, and their respective application. • In general, stakeholder’s interests are considered in the stakeholder group's collaborative process. • My fellow stakeholders rely on me to honor the integrity of the collaborative process. Agreement Indicated

22. Adaptive Management - Trust • Over the last year, individuals have articulated/shared their own individual and organizational interests and motives in 4FRI, identifying any special interests or abilities they bring to the stakeholder group. (St. Ag./Agree  52%; Undecided/Disagree  48%) Mixed

23. Adaptive Management - Trust • Trust has increased among members of the stakeholder group over the last year. (Undecided  43%; Disagree/Strongly Dis.  43%) • Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • Contractor selection • Small but vocal minority Mixed

24. Adaptive Management - Trust • I believe that everyone who is a member of our stakeholder group effort wants the 4FRI project to succeed. (St. Ag./Agree  38%; Undecided  28%; Disagree/St Dis.  34%) • Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • Success occurs on individual organization’s terms, not for the good of the group. Mixed

25. Adaptive Management - Trust • My fellow stakeholders honor the integrity of the collaborative process. (Agree  31%; Undecided  35%; Disagree/St. Dis.  34%) • Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • Most/almost all do. Mixed

26. Adaptive Management – Relationship with the USFS • In the last year, the USFS involved stakeholders in collaborative planning efforts at a level beyond what’s required by NEPA’s public process. (Always/Often) • In the last year, by working together with the USFS, the stakeholder group made progress on concrete issues. • In the last year, the USFS encouraged open communication with the stakeholder group and evaluated stakeholder ideas. Agreement Indicated

27. Adaptive Management – Relationship with the USFS • Active engagement from the four USFS Supervisors is important for the effectiveness of the stakeholder group in the collaborative process. (57% Str. Agree; 36% Agree) VERSUS… • Active engagement from the USFS Regional Office staff is important for the effectiveness of the stakeholder group in the collaborative process. (25% Str. Agree; 39% Agree) Agreement Indicated

28. Adaptive Management – Relationship with the USFS • Does the USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: • Planning • Monitoring Agreement Indicated

29. Adaptive Management – Relationship with the USFS • Does the USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: • Contracting (41% Often; 26% Rarely; 19% Sometimes) • Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • The process is unclear – how contracting decisions are made, more transparent Mixed

30. Adaptive Management – Facilitation • External facilitation is important for the success of this group. • Self facilitation should continue to be a future goal for this group. Agreement Indicated

31. Adaptive Management – Facilitation Disagreement Indicated • This stakeholder group is ready for self facilitation. • Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • Too many conflicts, Tenuous Issues, Internal resistance

32. Adaptive Management – Facilitation • What did you like about the facilitation the stakeholder group experienced over the last year? • Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • Staying on task/course, keeping discussion moving • Identified and worked on issues • Neutrality

33. Adaptive Management – Facilitation • What did you not like about the facilitation the stakeholder group experienced over the last year? • Open Comments – Recurring Themes: • Decisions/agreements/progress takes too long • Lack of enforcement/accountability – to the Charter • Not direct enough – did not force resolution, push back on un-collaborative behavior, call out accusations

34. Demographic

36. Potential Areas for Improvement

37. Potential Areas for Improvement • Organization & Structure • Timeliness: This was an identified issue in 2011 • Co-Chair time requirement • More involvement in working groups • Shared Vision • Concerns about everyone having same vision • Decision Making • Trust about intentions of other stakeholders: 2011 issue

38. Potential Areas for Improvement • External Communication • The stakeholder group is effective at communicating stakeholder group positions to the general public. • 2011: Disagreement/ 2012: Mixed • AM- Trust • articulate/share your interests/motives in 4FRI • Increase trust among members of the stakeholder group • Statement: Everyone who is a member of our stakeholder group effort wants the 4FRI project to succeed. • Statement: My fellow stakeholders honor the integrity of the collaborative process.

39. Potential Areas for Improvement • AM – Relationship with USFS • The USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: Contracting • AM – Facilitation • The SHG is ready for self facilitation. • 2011 & 2012: Disagreement SUCCESS!! Which actually means agreement!

40. Areas to Celebrate and Maintain 2012 Results were compared with 2011 results (where possible) to reveal areas of improvement, status quo or regression.

41. Areas to Celebrate and Maintain • Organization and Structure • Foundational Documents • Existing co-chair system • Shared Vision • Stakeholders commitment to 4FRI • Progress has been made 2011 & 2012 Agreement! 2011 & 2012 Agreement!

42. Areas to Celebrate and Maintain • Internal Communication – All aspects! • External Communication – With General Public • Effective at communicating the need for and benefits of forest restoration 2011: Mixed responses • My organization upholds/honors the integrity of the SHG’s collaborative process SUCCESS!! SUCCESS!!

43. Areas to Celebrate and Maintain Adaptive Management - Trust • SHG has clearly identified the goals and intended use(s) of most of the products and documents • SHG clearly and systematically captured and identified the decisions made and their respective application. • SH’s interests are considered in the SHG's collaborative process. • My fellow SHs rely on me to honor the integrity of the collaborative process. SUCCESS! SUCCESS!

44. Areas to Celebrate and Maintain Adaptive Management – Relationship with USFS • All areas with one exception – Contracting Adaptive Management – Facilitation • External facilitation is important for the success of this group. • Self facilitation should continue to be a future goal for this group. SUCCESS!! SUCCESS!!

45. Area of Unique Success • Decision Making • 2011: Agreement that the Decision Making worked and did not require revisions • Before the 2012 Annual Evaluation: stakeholders recognized a gap in the Decision Matrix process, Adaptively Managed the situation, and adopted a newly revised DM. SUCCESS!!

46. Areas to Celebrate and Maintain 2012 Results were compared with 2011 results (where possible) to reveal areas of improvement, status quo or regression. There were no areas of regression! SUCCESS!! Let’s celebrate!