|
Collaboration in the Southwestern United States
HARV FORSGREN, SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL FORESTER, FOREST SERVICE USDA, 06/12/06
For hundreds of years, diverse cultures in the arid Southwest have had to learn how to work together to find solutions to complex problems just to survive. That spirit of collaboration — a cultural gift from our ancestors — is alive and thriving today.
Perhaps more is being accomplished in the Southwest through collaboration than anywhere else in the country. Notable regional and statewide examples include:
- Inclusive efforts are being led by the governors of Arizona and New Mexico to develop statewide strategies for restoration of forest and watershed health.
- The Collaborative Forest Restoration Program has awarded $22.2 million in grants since 2001 to tribes, universities, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and local and state governments to collaboratively design, implement, and monitor forest restoration projects on public and tribal lands.
- The Southwest Sustainable Forests Partnership is working as a state/federal collaborative integrating community and economic development within the context of ecological restoration.
- The Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes, located at Colorado State University, and New Mexico Highlands University and Northern Arizona University are working together to meet the information needs of communities and land managers working to restore the health of Southwest forests.
- The Public Service Company of New Mexico convened a group of state and federal agencies, environmental groups, and business interests to develop a set of restoration principles. Application of the principles should help streamline project design, reduce appeals and litigation, and result in a more conducive business environment by enhancing reliability of the supply of material generated as a byproduct of restoration projects.
To understand the power of collaboration, it's instructive to examine a local-scale effort, the White Mountain Stewardship Project.
In 1997 a cross section of community members in southeastern Arizona met to find ways to move the natural-resource dialogue from contention and conflict in the courtroom to collaboration and restoration on the ground. Their efforts brought about the creation of the Natural Resources Working Group, comprised of local, state, and federal government representatives, environmental groups, business people, academics, and other interests.
The group's goals are to restore forests to diverse and sustainable conditions, to involve interested people, to develop economic opportunities, and to share social and environmental benefits. The group identified the wildland-urban interface areas surrounding communities in the White Mountains of Arizona as "ripe" for such a collaborative effort.
One result of the group's work is the White Mountain Stewardship Project — a 10-year contract to thin 50 to 150,000 acres of primarily small-diameter ponderosa pine trees. To date, more than 70,500 acres of NEPA analysis has been completed, with only one objection filed, and the objection resolution process is under way. This project has been openly supported by major conservation organizations as well.
Since the project's inception in August 2004, task orders for treatment of about 24,000 acres have been issued. More than a quarter-million tons of green biomass have been removed from the forest, reducing the risk of catastrophic fire to adjacent communities. The reliable supply of biomass has enabled expansion of a wood pellet plant and other existing businesses, construction of a three-megawatt biomass power generation plant, and establishment of a new sawmill and molding production facility. A recent economics study found the contract has resulted in 414 full-time, six part-time, and 44 seasonal jobs. As a result of the increased utilization of the excess biomass, the cost of hazardous fuel treatments has been reduced from about $1,100 per acre to $350-$450 per acre.
The White Mountain Stewardship Project has truly been a win-win-win effort by which environmental, social, and economic objectives are being achieved. Keys to the success of this collaborative effort include: community-lead wildfire protection planning that identified the need for forest management and established treatment priorities; a strong scientific basis for that management; focused investment; and ongoing community involvement in monitoring project results.
The White Mountain Stewardship Project is just one example of success — there are many more. Collaborative approaches have been increasing over the last several years. Agency employees and private individuals and groups recognize the interdependence between national forests and grasslands and their surrounding communities. Where the economic health of communities once depended on harvest of the surrounding forests, today the ecological health of the forests is dependent upon the vitality of local communities. There is a much stronger desire among community members to take a more active role in deciding how national forests are managed today. In the Southwest, changing values, increasing uses, and social and economic sustainability are all part of the equation that leads to the increase in collaboration efforts.
As with any meaningful endeavor, there are challenges to successful collaboration. Collaborative processes require an extra measure of time and effort. Relationships and trust have to be built and nurtured. Developing common expectations surrounding actions and desired outcomes is essential. Turnover of key members of a collaborative can limit success. Sharing "decision space" and using new tools and authorities challenge many bureaucracies. These challenges are likely to remain with us in the coming years. However, there just isn't a better model of how to accomplish meaningful conservation outcomes. The dedication and commitment of people — such as those involved in the White Mountain Stewardship Project and other collaborative efforts across the Southwest — show that successes, big and small, are more than a theoretical possibility.
| |
