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