Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forest Collaborative Groups Engaged in Forest Health Issues in Eastern Oregon

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Human Dimensions of Forest and Tree Health

Abstract

In eastern Oregon in the USA, there has been a debate about restoring forest health to address overstocking, insects and disease, and uncharacteristic wildfire. Stakeholder “forest collaborative” groups have formed for dialogue about these issues. Little is known about how these groups function and how they conceive of forest health. We examined seven forest collaboratives, finding that forest health is an umbrella term often used to indicate general need for forest restoration including thinning and prescribed burning. Concepts such as historic range of variability, structure, and species diversity were more commonly discussed than specific insects and diseases. There is a fairly high degree of satisfaction among participants with how well forest collaboratives are achieving their desired outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrams, J., Davis, E. J., & Moseley, C. (2015). Community-based organizations and institutional work in the remote rural west. Review of Policy Research, 32(6), 675–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, J., Kelly, E., Shindler, B., & Wilton, J. (2005). Value orientation and forest management: The forest health debate. Environmental Management, 36(4), 495–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Kusel, J. (2003). Community forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beebe, J. (2001). Rapid assessment process: An introduction. 224 pp. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. J. M. (2012). The Soda Bear Project and the Blue Mountains Forest Partners/USDA Forest Service Collaboration. Journal of Forestry, 110(8), 446–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, W. H., Monroe, A., & McCaffrey, S. (2015). Collaborative implementation for ecological restoration on US public lands: Implications for legal context, accountability, and adaptive management. Environmental Management, 55(3), 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, A. S., & Sturtevant, V. E. (2012). A framework for assessing collaborative capacity in community-based public forest management. Environment Management, 49(3), 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, K., Boggs, D., Macfarlane, G., St. Clair, J., Garrity, M., Marderosian, A., et al. (2015). Collective statement on collaborative group trends. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project. Available at: https://bluemountainsbiodiversityproject.org/collective-statement-on-collaborative-group-trends/ (Last accessed August 28, 2017).

  • Davis, E. J., Nuss, M. L., & Hughes, J. R. (2015a). Science and collaborative decision-making: A case study of the Kew Study. Case Study Research Brief #3, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1957/56559.

  • Davis, E. J., Cerveny, L., Nuss, M. L., & Seesholtz, D. (2015b). Oregon’s forest collaborative groups: A rapid assessment. Research Contribution Summary #1, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1957/55791.

  • Davis, E. J., White, E. M., Cerveny, L. K., Seesholtz, D., Nuss, M. L., & Ulrich, D. R. (2017). Comparison of USDA Forest Service and stakeholder motivations and experiences in collaborative federal forest governance in the western United States. Environmental Management, 60(5), 908–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DellaSala, D. A., Olson, D. M., Barth, S. E., Crane, S. L., & Primm, S. A. (1995). Forest health: Moving beyond rhetoric to restore healthy landscapes in the inland Northwest. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–2006), 23(3), 346–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, J. F., Hagmann, R. K., & Urgenson, L. S. (2014). Interactions between societal goals and restoration of dry forest landscapes in western north America. Landscape Ecology, 29(10), 1645–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L., Marzano, M., Peace, A., Quine, C. P., & Dandy, N. (2016). Public acceptance of tree health management: Results of a national survey in the UK. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, B. E., & Butler, W. H. (2010). Expanding the scope and impact of collaborative planning: Combining multi-stakeholder collaboration and communities of practice in a learning network. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 238–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessburg, P. F., & Agee, J. K. (2003). An environmental narrative of inland northwest United States forests, 1800–2000. Forest Ecology and Management, 178(1), 23–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessburg, P. F., Agee, J. K., & Franklin, J. F. (2005). Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1), 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessburg, P. F., Churchill, D. J., Larson, A. J., Haugo, R. D., Miller, C., Spies, T. A., et al. (2015). Restoring fire-prone inland Pacific landscapes: Seven core principles. Landscape Ecology, 30(10), 1805–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyerdahl, E. K., Loehman, R. A., & Falk, D. A. (2014). Mixed-severity fire in lodgepole pine dominated forests: Are historical regimes sustainable on Oregon’s Pumice Plateau, USA? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(6), 593–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, A. F. (1997). Forest health: A crisis of human proportions. Journal of Forestry, 95(9), 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, R. E., Hessburg, P. F., Landres, P. B., & Swanson, F. J. (2009). The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(7), 1025–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langston, N. (1995). Forest dreams, forest nightmares: The paradox of old growth in the Inland West. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond consensus: Improving collaborative planning and management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, A. S., & Butler, W. H. (2016). Responding to a policy mandate to collaborate: Structuring collaboration in the collaborative forest landscape restoration program. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(6), 1054–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutch, R. W., Arno, S. F., Brown, J. K., Carlson, C. E., Ottmar, R. D., & Peterson, J. L. (1993). Forest health in the Blue Mountains: A management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuss, M., & Davis, E. J. (2015). Formalizing decisions: A case study on collaborative zones of agreement. Case Study Brief #2, College of Forestry, Oregon State University. Available at: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/56364.

  • Oregon Board of Forestry. (2009). Achieving Oregon’s vision for federal forestlands. Oregon: Oregon Board of Forestry. 59 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Wild. (2012). Restoring eastern Oregon’s dry forests: A practical guide for ecological restoration. Available at: https://www.oregonwild.org/sites/default/files/pdf-files/Eastside_Restoration_Handbook.pdf.

  • Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, J. D. (1998). Environmental values and popular conflict over environmental management: A comparative analysis of public comments on the Clinton forest plan. Environmental Management, 22(3), 347–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, C. A., Jedd, T., & Beam, R. D. (2012). The collaborative forest landscape restoration program: A history and overview of the first projects. Journal of Forestry, 110(7), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager, S. T., Ediger, V., & Davis, E. J. (2015). Aspen restoration and social agreements: An introductory guide for forest collaborative groups in central and eastern Oregon. Portland, OR: The Nature Conservancy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shindler, B. A., Brunson, M. W., & Stankey, G. H. (2002). Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: A problem analysis (p. 68). Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Perry, C. H., & Pugh, S. A. (2009). Forest resources of the United States, 2007: A technical document supporting the forest service 2010 RPA assessment. General Technical Report-USDA Forest Service, (WO-78).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stine, P., Hessburg, P., Spies, T., Kramer, M., Fettig, C. J., Hansen, A., et al. (2014). The ecology and management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: A synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-897. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 254 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, B. M. (2014). The effectiveness of forest collaborative groups at reducing the likelihood of project appeals and objections in eastern Oregon. Master’s thesis, Portland State University, Portland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorson, T. D. (2003). Ecoregions of Oregon. Reston, VA: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidwell, T. (2012). Statement to the committee on agriculture, subcommittee on conservation, energy, and forestry, United States House of Representatives. US Forest Service land management: Challenges and opportunities for achieving healthier national forests. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/testimony/HAgC_03-27-2012_Testimony.pdf (Last accessed January 14, 2015.

  • United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). (n.d.). Eastside restoration. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5423597 (Last accessed January 14, 2015).

  • Vaughn, J., & Cortner, H. (2005). George W. Bush’s healthy forests: Reframing the environmental debate. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, E. M., Bennett, D. E., Davis, E. J., & Moseley, C. (2016). Economic outcomes from the U.S. forest service eastside strategy. Ecosystem workforce program (Working Paper No. 64). University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, E. M, Davis, E. J., Bennett., D. E., & Moseley, C. (2015). Monitoring of outcomes from Oregon’s federal forest health program. Ecosystem workforce program (Working Paper No. 57). University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. A., & Baker, W. L. (2012). Spatially extensive reconstructions show variable-severity fire and heterogeneous structure in historical western United States dry forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(10), 1042–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

    Emily Jane Davis

  2. Pacific Northwest Research Station of the USDA Forest Service, Olympia, WA, USA

    Eric M. White

  3. Philomath, USA

    Meagan L. Nuss

  4. Los Alamos, USA

    Donald R. Ulrich

Authors
  1. Emily Jane Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric M. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meagan L. Nuss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Donald R. Ulrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Jane Davis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Countryside & Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester, United Kingdom

    Julie Urquhart

  2. Forest Research, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Mariella Marzano

  3. Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

    Clive Potter

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

1.1 Collaborative Documentation Reviewed

Where a link is not provided, documents came from authors’ files and are not publicly available.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Davis, E.J., White, E.M., Nuss, M.L., Ulrich, D.R. (2018). Forest Collaborative Groups Engaged in Forest Health Issues in Eastern Oregon. In: Urquhart, J., Marzano, M., Potter, C. (eds) The Human Dimensions of Forest and Tree Health. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76956-1_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76956-1_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76955-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76956-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation