Ecosystem Workforce Program WORKING PAPER NUMBER 37 SPRING 2012 Assessing collaborative opportunities on the Willamette National Forest EMILY JANE DAVIS AND CASSANDRA MOSELEY INSTITUTE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT About the authors Emily Jane Davis is a faculty research associate in the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. Cassandra Moseley is the director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. Acknowledgements This study was made possible by funding from the Willamette National Forest (agreement FS #11-CR-11061800-008). We thank Forest Supervisor Meg Mitchell and the Willamette Forest Leadership Team for initiating and helping shape this assessment. We greatly appreciate the time that the national forest staff and community stakeholders took to share their perspectives. Errors remain the authors. Photos by Emily Jane Davis—Ecosystem Workforce Program Map by Brandon Rishel—Ecosystem Workforce Program, adapted from Willamette National Forest Contact information Ecosystem Workforce Program Institute for a Sustainable Environment 5247 University of Oregon Eugene OR 97403-5247 541-346-4545 [email protected] ewp.uoregon.edu An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication will be made available in accessible formats upon request. ©2012 University of Oregon DES0612-044bb Executive summary Leaders on the Willamette National Forest (WNF) in • What is the range of internal agency capacity for western Oregon and adjacent communities are in- collaboration? terested in using collaborative approaches to stew- • What opportunities exist to develop collabora- ard public lands and create community benefits. tive capacity? WNF leadership asked the Ecosystem Workforce Program and the University of Oregon to conduct We found that the WNF currently practices some an assessment of collaborative capacity and oppor- collaboration at the project and other smaller scales tunities. This assessment is based on information within specific program areas. It has numerous bi- gathered between May 2011 and February 2012. As lateral relationships with a diverse array of stake- such, it is a “snapshot” of collaborative activity and holders. However, there has been no larger-scale, capacity at that time, and may not fully capture the integrated collaboration, particularly to bridge the dynamic, evolving nature of what is happening on diverse rural and urban stakeholder needs on the the WNF. We focused on the following questions: WNF. Given the diversity and size of the WNF, “landscape-scale restoration” across large geo - • Who are the key stakeholder and community graphic areas as practiced on some drier east-side leaders in the communities surrounding the For- national forests may not necessarily be appropriate est? What are their main interests and expecta- at this time. tions? 2 Assessing collaborative opportunities on the Willamette National Forest Key stakeholder communities, interests, and Internal agency capacity for collaboration expectations Internal capacity and comfort with collaboration There are many diverse stakeholders across the varies across the WNF. Although some line offi- spectrum of rural and urban communities on the cers and staff are enthusiastic about collabora - WNF. Members of these communities often have tion, others are uncertain about its implications divergent or opposing desires for public forest man- for their work. Some have expressed concern over agement and are disconnected from each other. the startup time and energy commitment to initiate However, there may be common ground around collaboration. Other challenges include a lack of issues such as dispersed recreation, water quality, familiarity with “organizing” steps such as iden- and public access. Tribes have an established con- tifying interested leaders or following up and sus- sultative government-to-government relationship taining engagement after meetings. Some staff may with the WNF, but they desire more consistent com- have a hard time knowing when the Forest is not munication and opportunities to work together. allowed to lead and stakeholders have to initiate and drive collaboration. Staff may also be uncom- In rural communities in particular, the WNF has fortable sharing decision space with external enti- had difficulty finding and consistently engaging ties or fear that collaboration requires abdicating middle ground leaders. Stakeholders from envi- decision-making authority. ronmental groups and the timber industry often receive the majority of attention from the Forest, Opportunities to increase collaborative capacity while local leaders only participate if they per - The WNF and its partners may consider increasing ceive a problem. There is internal agency interest their collaborative capacity by: in building stronger relationships with community and civic leaders, e.g. from educational institutions, • Deliberately building a culture of collaboration local governments, and economic development or- and new capacities in both the staff and stake- ganizations. holders of the WNF • Trying Forest-wide collaborative approaches to In addition, leaders from rural communities see cross-cutting issues the WNF as increasingly disconnected from their • Starting small with locally-appropriate collab- needs. Fewer line officers and staff now live in orative approaches to specific “ripe” projects on these communities, and rapid turnover within the each ranger district, given local contexts (see Ap- agency has created inconsistency in past efforts pendix 1, pages 12–19) to build new relationships. Rural leaders are in- • Maintaining robust communication and adaptive terested in seeing the WNF become more directly learning about collaboration across the Forest engaged in their communities beyond their schools, and in the potential for the Forest to contribute to their local economies beyond recreation. Assessing collaborative opportunities on the Willamette National Forest 3 he Willamette National Forest (WNF) in est? What are their main interests and expecta- western Oregon (Figure 1) currently practic- tions? Tes project-scale collaboration and has robust • What is the range of internal agency capacity for partnerships. However, it has yet to expand collab- collaboration? orative efforts to cover greater ground or multiple • What opportunities exist to develop collaborative interrelated relationships, particularly across its capacity? diverse urban-rural communities. At times, stake- holders feel that the Willamette has not has sought FIGURE 1 sufficient public participation and community in- put on its projects. Willamette National Forest SALEM WNF leaders see collaboration as timely and neces- sary to manage the Forest for integrated, beneficial DETROIT OREGON ecological and socioeconomic outcomes. Collabora- ALBANY DETROIT tive approaches elsewhere in Oregon have helped stakeholders build agreement around forest manage- SWEET HOME ment issues, advanced restoration on public lands, and created opportunities for local contractors and McKENZIE BRIDGE CLOSED IN WINTER forest products businesses. To better understand BLUE RIVER SPRINGFIELD McKENZIE the current context and potential for increasing RIVER EUGENE collaborative capacity, WNF leadership asked the 0 20 LOWELL Ecosystem Workforce Program to conduct a “pre- MIDDLE FORK National forest boundary collaboration assessment.” The objective of this as- OAKRIDGE Ranger district boundary sessment was to address the following questions: Ranger station Interstate highway • Who are the key stakeholder and community Federal highway leaders in the communities surrounding the For- State highway 4 Assessing collaborative opportunities on the Willamette National Forest Approach portunities. There are many organized institutions We conducted twenty-nine interviews with seven- located in urban areas that interface with the For- ty-four community stakeholders and Forest Service est, such as conservation groups. However, many staff from May–August 2011 (see Appendix 2, page of the major forest products companies and forest 20). Given the size and diversity of WNF personnel, contracting businesses are also located in or near it was important to include internal agency per - urban areas, so there is a subset of the urban popu- spectives. We also participated in four field tours lation that is concerned about timber supply and on various forest management issues. After summa- forest-based employment. Rural stakeholders on the rizing our findings, we presented them to the For- Forest live in a range of places from larger incor- est Leadership Team (FLT) in September 2011 and porated to more isolated communities. Some rural received feedback. The FLT used these findings to community members are interested in redevelop- help design a collaborative training for line officers, ing local forestry and forest products infrastruc- staff, and key community leaders in February 2012. ture, while others have moved to the area seeking natural amenities and may not necessarily sup - We then identified ripe opportunities for collabo- port active timber management in their backyards. ration on each ranger district. Rangers and other What matters to both urban and rural stakeholders WNF leaders helped ground-truth and refine these includes water quality and the potential effects of suggestions. In addition, we helped convene small