Sept./Oct 2003 WF-24 Pgs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS Western Forester January/February/March 2019 Oregon • Washington State • Alaska Societies Volume 64 • Number 1 Collaboration and Partnerships Engage Forest Stakeholders versation. BY EMILY JANE DAVIS Collaborative groups typically Increasingly, we meet regularly, hear terms like review informa- “collaboration,” tion from the “collaborative,” and Forest Service “partnerships” about planned applied to forest actions, take management. What field tours, and do these mean? review relevant Broadly speaking, they refer to how scientific infor- multiple landowners, agencies, and mation. They other partners are working together to may develop achieve shared goals. Why and how written or ver- this happens depends on the place bal “zones of PHOTO COURTESY OF EMILY JANE DAVIS and the people. This issue of the Stakeholders participate in a coring exercise to compare agreement” that Western Forester examines several assumed versus actual tree age and growth rate over articulate the forms of collaboration in forestry, and time. kinds of future the value that foresters can bring to management activities that the group aries. Adjacent landowners may plan these efforts. supports. Collaboratives do not have together to decide where, when, and Common types of collaboration any formal decision-making authority how to manage the forest. These If you live or work near national for- or jurisdiction on federal lands, so it is landowners might be state or federal est land, you may have heard about ultimately the Forest Service’s choice agencies, private industrial, private “forest collaborative” groups. These how to utilize this input. These groups nonindustrial, Tribal, or other inter- voluntary stakeholder bodies host dia- may also engage in other activities such ests. These projects also often involve logue and provide input to the U.S. as community outreach and monitor- a range of partners for activities like Forest Service on a given area of public ing. mapping, inventory, landowner cost land that can range from a smaller There are over 40 forest collabora- share, outreach, and other technical watershed up to the ranger district or tives active in Oregon, Washington, and assistance. It is common to see the even the entire national forest scale. Alaska, with the largest number in Extension Service, soil and water con- Collaboratives often have participants Oregon. The Southern Willamette servation districts, state and federal from different sectors including local Forest Collabora-tive and Deschutes agencies, or nonprofit organizations government, the forest industry, envi- Collaborative Forest Project, both fea- contributing services to make all-lands ronmental organizations, and other tured in this issue, are examples of this projects function. All-lands efforts can state and federal agencies. Facilitators type of collaboration. look very different in different places. or coordinators usually help lead a dis- Another form of collaboration is all- For example, numerous private cussion of everyone’s values and inter- lands partnerships. These forest man- family forestland owners might coop- ests, and keep these groups organized. agement projects involve multiple erate across their fence lines to collec- There are often ground rules, policies, organizations and landowners plan- tively access resources or programs, as and other procedures to guide the con- ning and/or implementing coordinat- ed actions across ownership bound- (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2) In This Issue: Collaborative Forest Management Collaboration and Partnerships Engage Forest Stakeholders (CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE) the Ritter Land Management Team has done in Grant County, Oregon. A fed- eral agency might seek to coordinate with the other landowners along its boundaries to reduce the shared trans- mission of wildfire risk. Benefits and challenges of collaboration There has been a good deal of research about natural resource col- PHOTO COURTESY OF EMILY JANE DAVIS laboration. Generally, it suggests that Stakeholders in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative discuss planned collaborative efforts can potentially forest health restoration treatments during a field tour. produce land management decisions that reflect diverse perspectives and landscape, learn more about what dif- tive meetings or otherwise participate current science. Many also hope that ferent agencies and organizations are in these processes. For those who are collaborating will result in better eco- doing, and to meet other landowners results-oriented, it may seem that logical outcomes, and more economic and partners. desired outcomes do not come soon activity and social wellbeing from for- However, collaboration can also be enough. Some environmental and tim- est management and wood products challenging. Working closely with oth- ber stakeholders in the West have processing. For private landowners ers who hold diverse values can pose expressed concerns about the efficacy and foresters, participation in a forest frustrations. Some personality types of forest collaborative groups on collaborative or all-lands project could may find it easier to collaborate than national forests and have also raised have additional benefits such as new others. Collaboration also requires questions about the ability of these opportunities to pursue land manage- time investment. Not everyone has the groups to fully represent their perspec- ment goals, provide input on the larger time or flexibility to attend collabora- tives. For all-lands projects, it can be difficult to find and align multiple partners and sources of funding to Western Forester work across boundaries in a coordi- nated way. Society of American Foresters Contributing factors for functional 4033 S.W. Canyon Rd. • Portland, OR 97221 • 503-224-8046 collaboration may include how the www.nwoffice.forestry.org/northwest-office/western-forester-archive effort itself is organized. For example, Editor: Lori Rasor, [email protected] neutral facilitation, adequate capacity Western Forester is published four times a year by the Oregon, Washington State, and resources, and accomplishing and Alaska Societies’ SAF Northwest Office “small wins” to demonstrate outcomes can help. In addition, trust among par- State Society Chairs Northwest SAF Board Members ticipants and in the process is thought Oregon: District 1: Meghan Tuttle, 971-273-2461, Tom Hanson, Forestry and to be essential. If groups or projects [email protected] Arboriculture Consultant, ArborInfo LLC, 206-300-9711, [email protected]; Washington State: Jenny Knoth, Ph.D., www.ArborInfo.com 360-460-2613, [email protected] District 2: Mike Cloughesy, Oregon Forest Alaska: John Yarie, CF, 907-474-5650, Resources Institute, 503-329-1014, [email protected] [email protected] Please send change of address to: Society of American Foresters, 10100 Laureate Way, Bethesda, MD 20814 [email protected] Providing information about trees and forests Anyone is at liberty to make fair use of the material in this publication. To reprint or make multiple reproduc- Tom Hanson tions, permission must be obtained from the editor. Proper notice of copyright and credit to the Western [email protected] Forester must appear on all copies made. Permission is granted to quote from the Western Forester if the customary acknowledgement accompanies the quote. 206 300 9711 Other than general editing, the articles appearing in this publication have not been peer reviewed for techni- cal accuracy. The individual authors are primarily responsible for the content and opinions expressed herein. www.arborinfo.com Next Issue: Recreation 2 WESTERN FORESTER N JANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 2019 involve government land managers, working across boundaries. Further, the role of these entities is particularly projects involving private landowners Emily Jane Davis is an assistant important. Their willingness to truly may require data collection, inventory, professor and Extension specialist at work with others and try new things and mapping that foresters are often Oregon State University and associate can be pivotal to what is possible, par- well-suited to provide. director for the Ecosystem Workforce ticularly when they are a major The stories in this issue help show in Program. She can be reached at 541- landowner in the area. detail what collaborative forest manage- 520-2688 (cell) or emilyjane.davis@ All-lands projects also may benefit ment can look like on the ground. N oregonstate.edu. from the assistance of “intermediary” organizations or people who can help navigate and combine the different rules, funding, and landowner needs found across ownerships. This has been essential to the all-lands work of the Klamath-Lake Forest Health Partnership, which readers may remember from the April/May/June 2018 issue of this publication. Roles for foresters in collaboration As resource professionals with established standards for education, ethical conduct, and experience, trained foresters may offer valuable contributions to forest collaboration efforts. This may not always be feasible for the consulting forester or others who do not have latitude to participate given their job or other commitments. Depending on their specializations, foresters may bring knowledge of local forest types, operator and mill capaci- ties, and viability of planned activities. This technical information may aid a collaborative group or all-lands partners in developing more feasible and eco- nomical projects. Foresters also may be familiar