Table 3. Monitoring objectives, stage and type of community involvement in monitoring, and monitoring outcomes for 18 collaborative or community-based ecological assessment or monitoring projects conducted by five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Check marks indicate relative strength of evidence for each outcome as follows: no check = no supporting evidence, √ = some supporting evidence, √√ = moderate supporting evidence √√√ = strong supporting evidence. CBF Group Monitoring/Assessment Project Monitoring Objectives Stage of monitoring in which community is involved Type of community involvement Outcomes Ecological Knowledge and Shared Understanding Trust and Credibility Social Learning and Community-building Application of Results Communication of Results Alliance of Forest Harvesters and Workers (AFHW) Mushroom monitoring Learning Trust Conflict management Objectives Mushroom pickers √ Yes √√ Yes, among harvesters and some agency scientists √√ Yes, among harvesters √√ U.S. Forest Service (USFS) changed/moved timber sale to protect mushroom fields. Increased harvester compliance with permit regulations and best practices. √√ Yes, to USFS, mushroom pickers (in camps and fields), and at CBF group membership meetings Design Mushroom pickers Data collection Mushroom pickers Analysis No formal analysis Interpretation Mushroom pickers Communication Mushroom pickers Weed monitoring Learning Trust Conflict management Effectiveness Objectives CBF staff √ Yes √ Yes, among harvesters No, with agency √√ Yes, among harvesters No, as results contested. √ Yes, to USFS and among harvesters Design CBF staff Data collection CBF employees Analysis CBF staff Interpretation CBF staff Communication CBF staff Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition (JBC) Mill Site #1 and #2 (forest thinning/ restoration) Learning Trust Conflict management Effectiveness Objectives Multiparty √ Yes √√ Yes, among agency, environmental advocate, and logger √ Weak, among agency and CBF. √√ Validation of thinning treatment, no change in management. Used to design other thinning and monitoring projects. √ Yes, to agencies and other CBF and conservation groups. No to local community. Design Multiparty Data collection Youth crew/students Analysis Consultant Interpretation Multiparty Communication Multiparty Public Lands Partnership (PLP) UP Project Watershed Assessment and Monitoring Learning Trust Conflict management Effectiveness Civic engagement Objectives Multiparty and Citizens √√√ Yes √√√ Yes, among agency and citizens √√√ Yes, among various participants √√ Assessment used to design treatments, monitoring likely to change future treatments √√√ Yes, to agencies, other CBF and conservation groups, and local community Design Multiparty and Citizens Data collection Agency Analysis Agency Interpretation Multiparty and Citizens Communication Multiparty and Citizens Burn Canyon Monitoring (post-fire salvage logging) Learning Trust Conflict management Effectiveness Civic engagement Objectives Multiparty and Citizens √√ Yes √√√ Yes, among agency, citizens, timber industry, environmental advocates √√√ Yes, especially among environmental advocates, citizens, and timber industry √ May influence weed treatments and future monitoring √√ Yes, to agencies, other CBF and conservation groups, and local community Design Multiparty and Consultant Data collection Citizen* Analysis Consultant/Researcher Interpretation Multiparty and Citizens Communication Multiparty and Citizens Wallowa Resources (WR) Upper Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment Learning Trust Conflict management Objectives Multiparty and Citizens √√ Yes √√√ Yes, among diverse cross-section of interests √√√ Yes, among various participants √√√ Numerous USFS projects derived from the assessment √√√ Yes, to agencies, other CBF and conservation groups, and local community Design Multiparty and Citizens Data collection Multiparty and Citizens Analysis Multiparty and Citizens Interpretation Multiparty and Citizens Communication Multiparty and Citizens Aspen and Landbird Habitat Monitoring Learning Trust Effectiveness Objectives Multiparty √√ Yes √√ Yes, credibility of CBF with local population √ Yes, among local residents and CBF staff √√ Local landowners adopted new fencing to promote habitat √√ Yes, to local landowners Design CBF staff Data collection Citizens and Consultant Analysis Consultant Interpretation Multiparty and Citizens Communication CBF staff and Citizens Haypen Project Learning Trust Conflict management Effectiveness Objectives Multiparty and Citizens √ Yes √ Yes, among CBF, environmental advocates and agencies √ Yes, among local residents, CBF and agency staff √ Methods applied to subsequent watershed assessment √ Somewhat, primarily within CBF group Design Multiparty and Citizens Data collection Multiparty and Citizens Analysis No formal analysis Interpretation Multiparty and Citizens Communication Multiparty and Citizens Buck Stewardship Project Learning Effectiveness Objectives Multiparty √√ Yes √√ Yes, among agency, environmental advocates and CBF √ Yes, among conservation organizations, CBF and agency staff √ Validation of thinning treatment, no change in management √ Yes, to agency and CBF group, but only somewhat to local community Design Multiparty Data collection Consultant Analysis Consultant Interpretation Multiparty Communication Multiparty Wallowa Lake WUI Learning Effectiveness Job training Objectives Multiparty and Citizens √ Yes √ Yes, citizens more accepting of visual impacts of thinning √ Yes, among local residents, CBF and agency staff √√ Applied to subsequent thinning projects in the WUI √√ Yes, to local residents and agency Design Multiparty and Citizens Data collection Agency and CBF staff Analysis Agency and CBF staff Interpretation Agency and CBF staff Communication Agency and CBF staff Weed Monitoring Learning Effectiveness Jobs Objectives CBF staff and Consultant √√ Yes √√ Yes, ranchers more accepting of biocontrol √ Yes, among agency, conservation organization, and CBF weed specialist √√ Applied to new weed management strategies √√ Yes, to local residents, cooperating conservation organization, and agencies Design CBF staff and Consultant Data collection CBF staff Analysis CBF staff Interpretation CBF staff and Multiparty Communication Multiparty Lynx Survey Learning Trust Job training Jobs Objectives Agency √ Yes √√ Yes, agency confidence in local contractors increased √ Modest, only a few local contractors involved √ USFS applied findings to project planning √√ Yes, to agencies, conservation groups, and CBF membership Design Agency Data collection Citizens (local contractors) Analysis Agency Interpretation Agency Communication CBF staff and Agency Eagle Survey Learning Trust Job training Jobs Objectives Agency √ Yes √ Yes, agency confidence in local contractors increased √ Modest, only few local contractors involved √ Used in state agency report √ Somewhat, to agencies via state report Design Agency Data collection Citizens (local contractor) Analysis Agency Interpretation Agency Communication CBF staff and Agency Grouse Survey Learning Trust Job training Jobs Objectives Agency √ Yes √ Yes, among agency, CBF and local schools for youth monitoring √ Modest, a few local students involved √ Used in state agency report √ Somewhat, to agencies via state report Design Agency Data collection Citizens (students) Analysis Agency Interpretation Agency Communication CBF staff and Agency Watershed Research and Training Center (WRTC) Stewardship Training Team Inventories Learning Job training Jobs Objectives Agency √ Yes √√ Yes, agency confidence in local contractors increased √√ Yes, among local trainees √√ Used in agencies’ project planning √ Somewhat, through local trainees’ social networks, no formal communication to community Design Agency Data collection Citizens (local trainees) Analysis Agency Interpretation Agency Communication Citizens (informal) Chopsticks Monitoring Learning Effectiveness Job training Jobs Objectives CBF staff and Researcher √√ Yes √√ Yes, among CBF, environmental advocates and agencies √√ Yes, among CBF staff √√ Applied to subsequent thinning projects by CBF group √√ Yes, to agencies, conservation groups and local community via field tours Design CBF staff and Researcher Data collection Citizens and Researcher Analysis Researcher Interpretation CBF staff and Researcher Communication CBF staff and Researcher Non-timber Forest Products (NTFP) Assessment and Harvest Research Learning Trust Conflict management Effectiveness Objectives Harvesters and Researcher √√ Yes √ Somewhat, among CBF staff and harvesters √√ Yes, among harvesters, CBF staff, and researcher √ Used to develop NTFP Guidelines, but not applied to management decision making √ Guidelines published as USFS General Technical Report, and some communication to local community Design Harvesters and Researcher Data collection Harvesters and Researcher Analysis Researcher Interpretation Researcher and CBF staff Communication Researcher Post Mountain Stewardship Collaborative Monitoring Learning Trust Conflict management Effectiveness Civic engagement Objectives Multiparty and Citizens √ Yes √√ Yes, among agency, CBF, citizens, environmental advocates √√ Yes, among local resident participants Too soon to assess Too soon to assess Design Multiparty and Citizens Data collection Multiparty and Citizens Analysis None yet (CBF) Interpretation None yet Communication None yet