This article is about the fact that the Malheur National Forest hasn’t had a lawsuit in 15 years.
Hannibal said “three to four times the amount of work” is getting done nowadays compared to 15 years ago. Timber sales data from the Malheur National Forest tell a similar story. From 2010 to 2016, the volume of timber cut from the forest more than doubled. The collaboration and a 10-year stewardship contract gets credit for saving the last sawmill in Grant County, Oregon, too.
It also links to the “Collaborative Directory” for the Pacific Northwest Region.
Every national forest in the Pacific Northwest has now aligned with at least one outside “collaborative,” as they are called. The idea is to build trust and get compromises done at the front end of proposed timber sales, thinnings or controlled burns. That way, the work doesn’t get bogged down in litigation or analysis paralysis later.
A Forest Service directory lists 36 collaboratives associated with the 16 national forests in Oregon and Washington state. Some are more successful than others. Brown said the greater presence of endangered species west of the Cascades complicates the work of the groups active in wet-side forests.
It’s interesting to see how many groups are working where, but I just want to highlight that last point. It suggests to me that addressing at-risk species is the key to successful projects, and that forest plans can and should provide the framework for doing so. It would be nice to see revised forest plans treat this as an important issue and consider alternative approaches in that context. On the other hand, there are no references to any forest plans or forest planning (as opposed to project plans and planning) in this document. What am I missing?