The efforts of the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project, and the challenges that they have encountered along the way, contain many important insights for other groups trying to address landscape-scale issues in the face of distrust, scientific uncertainty, differing agency procedures and capabilities, funding shortages and, as always, the unpredictability of fire. This case study vividly illustrates three particular aspects of the group’s process that have been important contributors to their progress
First, the group’s deliberate focus on learning has played a big role in their success. They recognized that the ecological system needed attention, and that revised management approaches were in order. They acknowledged the need to learn about the system and experiment with different prescriptions. Consequently, they integrated science and scientists into their dialogue in a meaningful way. Moreover, they took monitoring seriously, and paid attention to key indicators to make sure that they were making progress. Additionally, they found ways to creatively fund this monitoring. They recognized that they could learn more by trying to learn together; individually they were only looking at pieces and doing so with narrower objectives and capabilities. By working together, they began looking at the whole. While many projects and monitoring were conducted individually, it was done with an eye on larger questions and implications.
Forging strong working relationships between scientists and managers can help to ensure a project continues to learn from its successes and failures. In this case, managers benefited from the early research that Kaufmann and his team at the Rocky Mountain Research Station had completed on historical fire regimes and forest composition in the basin. However, having a strong body of scientific information available to you does not ensure that it can easily be applied in management. Kaufmann observed that often “managers don’t have the interpretative skills to really know how to make sense out of some of [the scientific research at hand].” Involving Kaufmann and other scientists on the Steering Committee as direct partners helped management personnel interpret the research available to them and better understand the implications of different management techniques.
The decision to involve scientists in management is not a decision restricted to managers; scientists should also take the initiative. As Kaufmann commented, “When we do a lot of science and we just stick it into journal articles and expect the people who are interested to read it and they’ll get all of our knowledge out of those papers and apply what they need, that’s a pipe dream. I’ve got a lot of articles to write, but I’m at the same time conveying that information out there to the managers on the ground and in the grand scheme of things that’s going to have as much impact even if I was to never publish.” When asked about the inhibitions scientists often feel about getting involved in management decisions, Kaufmann stressed, “You run the risk that you become an advocate for certain courses of action if you do get out there and carry the message that is conveyed by your research. You just have to be darn careful as you approach that line that you maintain that scientific integrity.”
Second, the individual participants’ patience, persistence and sustained commitment has enabled their effort to overcome many challenges. While pursuing a collaborative approach was logical for all participants, it was not always easy, fluid, and without hurdles raised by pre-existing norms, procedures and expectations of the partner organizations. As Carol Ekarius noted, “It is challenging; there’s nothing easy about doing projects collaboratively. There are days when I wish I was the Queen…when I think this would be so easy if I could just say we are going to do this. But I do believe in the long run this process is the best process for accomplishing things and making a difference on the landscape.” She stresses the point that collaborative products are better outcomes because “you get more creative ideas and approaches than you would if it was strictly Agency X going forth and saying we are going to do this without including other folks.”
Obstacles in large-scale restoration projects are inevitable and members of this steering committee have had their share of challenges. The group endured an appeal of the U.S. Forest Service’s first major restoration initiative under the project, distractions from widespread fires in the project area, and the destruction of key monitoring sites. Wiley of Denver Water summed up the group’s ability to weather these challenges and stressed that you have to maintain a can-do attitude and a commitment to the process in order to overcome roadblocks, “Like anything you join, you have to put in the time. It’s not a let’s go to a meeting once a month and then walk away…If you want to be a player and you want things to work in relation to what you are trying to accomplish, you have to be involved.” He continued, “You have to believe that if this is something you are going to spend a lot of time [and] money on. [Then it] really is going to lead to something that supports the kinds of goals you are looking for. There is no doubt in our mind that this effort and the knowledge the U.S. Forest Service has will help the water quality and improve our ability to provide service to our customers.” Ekarius echoed Wiley’s comments, “Collaboration is hard work…It takes time and that’s part of the process, but I think…when you get a product out the other end that has been built collaboratively it’s a better product. And I think people can live with it better even if they might not [entirely] agree with one hundred percent of what happens; if it’s done collaboratively, everybody is going to feel…like they can live with [the decision.]”
Third, building on pre-existing networks enabled the group to quickly move forward. All of the partner organizations existed beforehand and were working independently in the region. In particular, they capitalized on the CUSP network that had an infrastructure and communication network that could facilitate their effort. The group also recognized the need to build capacity within their network at the same time that they capitalized on their differing strengths and capabilities. As the one non-agency person on the steering committee, Ekarius recommended that the agencies should invest in training their staff. She noted, “One of my pieces of advice for the Forest Service is to actually start doing some direct training with staff on partnership building…The [Forest Service] staff here [has] learned how to collaborate, but when we first started they really didn’t know…It’s been a learning experience for their staff, and so they need to go out in the fields and start building that capacity in house.” She also noted that in order to invest more in partnership-building, agencies should focus on building the capacity of non-profit and community groups to participate in these processes. She recommended that agencies should collectively fund some capacity building grants to help community groups adequately participate in these processes.
In the wake of the 2002 fires, members of the partnership have stressed that greater collaboration is essential to mitigate the effects of fire in the basin and throughout the Front Range of Colorado. The parties are currently discussing ways they can build on the structure and restoration goals of the steering committee to address increasing restoration needs throughout the Front Range. Ekarius noted, “We are entering into some of the initial discussions about whether we do away with this steering committee. Does it become part of a new steering committee for a larger front range project? What is its role now post fire?” Kaufmann commented on the future of the partnership in the context of a broader Front Range fuels reduction treatment partnership currently being planned, “the Upper South Platte committee provides a key [learning] focus and it would be a mistake to lose that right now. It has way too much momentum and it’s doing good things and let’s let it move its natural path. And that natural path is to continue to learn from the science and to continue to address barriers that get in the way as we start scaling up to larger levels of treatment in the South Platte.”
This site was developed by the Ecosystem Management Initiative through a partnership with the US Forest Service and the US Department of Interior. Read more.
