A Conversation with Mike Petersen
Mike Petersen - Source - newforestcoalition.com
What is the history of the Northeast Washington Forest Coalition, and who does it represent?
The Northeast Washington Forest Coalition (NEWFC) has a mission to work collaboratively with public and government interests to steward and conserve forest ecosystems so plants, animals, and communities thrive. NEWFC’s board includes the timber industry, environmental groups, recreation interests, foresters, local business owners, and other community members, along with a diverse group of technical advisors. Formed in 2002, NEWFC works with the Colville National Forest (CNF) and other state and local groups and agencies to promote ecological forestry and watershed restoration, recreation, wildlands protection, and economic stability in the community. By working together, the CNF has maintained an integrated and diverse forest products infrastructure through the infamous “Timber Wars” and the 2008 recession.
Since 2008, NEWFC has collaboratively developed and agreed upon a set of principles outlining our common ground on management actions proposed in Colville National Forest projects. Proposed projects that align with the ‘Principles’ have collaborative support, while those that fall outside of them are subject to further dialogue and collaborative work. NEWFC principles are not a hard line, but guidelines, and a place to start in order to develop collaborative solutions for the toughest of challenges.
What is your background and history with NEWFC?
My background is in engineering and conservation. I challenged most timber sales on the Colville and nearby National Forests during the 90's, and protested at Forest Service offices in the late 80's. I believe the conservation community was able to enter into collaborative conversations because we were in a position of relative strength. It was not because we submitted science based comments, said please, or attended endless meetings, but because we used the legal system to force agencies to obey the laws or cancel their projects.
I was part of the first discussions between conservationists and the timber industry nearly 20 years ago. We found that we could all support some wilderness protection, as well as forest restoration, with a focus on removing small diameter trees that would keep local mills running. We all supported protecting roadless areas and focusing on previously managed stands. As part of NEWFC, I helped with the Mill Creek A to Z project as well as Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Projects (CFLRP).
What makes collaboration the best path forward for both the forest and the community?
All collaboratives are place-based, which is another way of saying that all politics are local. Collaboratives gain lots of strength from local knowledge, from the participation of people who have lived in a particular area long enough to develop an understanding of its social, economic, and cultural idiosyncrasies.
Collaboration at heart is finding common interests and moving away from "positions". If a diverse collaboration can find common ground, and then work closely with the Forest Service, it can be a fruitful endeavor. But collaboration takes a lot of work to build trust, and it is difficult to bring all interests to the table. Forest collaboratives also need the support and cooperation from the USFS, who may feel it takes too much time away from their work. The alternatives to collaboration, which we used to call the Timber Wars, pit people and ideologies against each other and often put the USFS in difficult situations. Rural communities can really be helped by collaboration - both economically and socially.
Collaborative members gather in the forest. Source: US Forest Service
What should on-the ground forest restoration look like in your opinion?
Forest restoration must consider both the historic site conditions of that patch of forest, as well as the broader future climate. We have to consider and take into account nearly a century of fire suppression, as well as considerable logging over the past 150 years. A landscape evaluation should be performed over a large area, using the research of people like Dr. Paul Hessburg, Derek Churchill, and others. Leaving the oldest and largest trees, including clumps, while providing for wildlife needs is critical. The ICO (individual, clumps, and openings), which uses variable density thinning and leaves both clumps of trees and openings, provides a good start for creating a landscape approach to restoration. Restoration needs to consider micro-sites, where old growth stands are most likely to develop and protect riparian area. After wildfire we should look at future drier and hotter conditions and favor tree species better adapted to warmer, drier conditions.
How important is the relationship between the collaborative, the USFS, and local mills?
NEWFC provides input to the USFS, but ultimately the decision is made by the agency. Challenges to that relationship, which include national directives, changes in NEPA and Forest Plans, and changes in USFS personnel, can be difficult, but I believe must be overcome. NEWFC includes representation from the largest local mill and the trust that has been built between the mill owner and conservationists is excellent, and critical to NEWFC. The face to face meetings with the USFS and NEWFC are critical and we all hope they resume soon.
What is your long-term dream and vision for NEWFC and for the Colville National Forest?
For nearly 20 years, NEWFC has succeeded in working with the Forest Service through dialogue around a broad table as well as through administrative processes to accomplish and advance forest restoration across the Colville National Forest. Along the way, NEWFC members helped to bring both the community and the forest beyond the timber wars and into a new era of restoration and social engagement on public lands.
Looking ahead, NEWFC will continue to build on landscape restoration successes, but there will simultaneously be a focused intention to implement conservation, recreation, and tribal components that can best be realized through legislation. A new partnership, known as NEW Heritage, has formed out of NEWFC to work on this legislative effort.
Mike Petersen’s guidelines to successful collaboration:
Don’t let the Forest Service start the collaboration. Remain independent from the agency.
Communicate with the agency and consider a MOU or formal agreement that describes how you will communicate and what the expectation are. Ask yourself what recourse you have when the MOU is not adhered to.
Go to the table with an equal or better power dynamic, it helps to carry a big stick. If you are invited to participate in a coalition do a power mapping of the participants.
Be trained in negotiation, take a Negotiate to Win course.
Don’t break environmental laws, favorable court rulings or regulations like the Roadless Rule.
Look for where you might be breaking federal meeting laws by working with the Forest Service.
Look beyond positions to interests and you may find you share many values. Understanding the interests of others in the collaboration will break down communication barriers.
Be inclusive of the interests of those who cannot or will not be in the room. If you are afraid to share what you are dealing with other conservation groups, you are likely heading in a wrong direction.
Take your time, trust builds slowly. Spend time out in the field.
Try to have a partner organization with you; it can be tough being the sole environmentalist at meetings or find yourself being used as the “bad cop”.
Be careful with maps, they can often polarize if not introduced carefully
Avoid controversy as a way to get started. Agree to take some things off the table and find common ground before taking them on. We found protecting communities from wildfire was something we could all agree on as a first step.
