Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program FY 2014–2019 ANNA SANTO, HEIDI HUBER-STEARNS, EMILY JANE DAVIS, AND THE POLICY ANALYSIS GROUP SUMMER 2019 E C O S Y S T E M W O R K F O R C E P R O G R A M W O R K I N G P A P E R N U M B E R 9 1 O loREaoN EcosystemWorkforce Program ~ Oregon State Universityotldaho 9 University I Policy Analysis Group About the authors Anna Santo is a Faculty Research Assistant in the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. Heidi Huber-Stearns is an Associate Director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program and Assistant Research Professor for the Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. She is the Ecosystem Workforce Program Lead at University of Oregon. Emily Jane Davis is an Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist at Oregon State University and an Associate Director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program. She is the Ecosystem Workforce Program Lead at Oregon State University. About the Ecosystem Workforce Program: The Ecosystem Workforce Program is a bi-institutional program of University of Oregon’s Institute for a Sustainable Environment and the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. We conduct applied so- cial science research and extension services at the interface of people and natural resources. Our publica- tions aim to inform policy makers and practitioners, and contribute to scholarly and practical discourse. More information available at: http://ewp.uoregon.edu/about/intro. About the Policy Analysis Group: The Policy Analysis Group at the University of Idaho, including Greg Alward, Greg Latta, and Philip Watson, conducted the economic analysis for this report. The Policy Analysis Group (or “PAG”) was es- tablished by the Idaho Legislature in 1989 to provide objective analysis of the impacts of natural resource proposals. The PAG is administered through the University of Idaho’s College of Natural Resources. More information can be found at: https://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/policy-analysis-group. Acknowledgements We sincerely thank the interview participants who took the time to participate in this study. We thank the Oregon Department of Forestry staff for providing budget information, contract agreements, and additional information about their work. We also appreciate the reviews and edits from Eric White and Autumn Ellison. Funding for this research was provided by Oregon Department of Forestry’s Federal Forest Restoration Program. Photos courtesy of Southern Willamette Forest Collaborative (cover, pages 25 and 30); Oregon Department of Forestry (pages 1 and 14); Autumn Ellison (pages 5 and 15), and Emily Jane Davis (pages 18 and 29); all others public domain courtesy of U.S Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/forestservicenw/albums/). Document layout and design by Autumn Ellison, University of Oregon Ecosystem Workforce Program. For more information, contact: Ecosystem Workforce Program Institute for a Sustainable Environment 5247 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-5247-1472 ewp@uoregon.edu ewp.uoregon.edu 0 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON The University of Oregon is an equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication will be made available in accessible formats upon request. ©2019 University of Oregon. Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 1 Executive summary • State-Federal Implementation Partnership (SFIP) awards have provided state funds for federal The Federal Forest Restoration Program (FFR land management units to expedite restoration Program) is a partnership between the state planning. SFIP is the program area that has re-of Oregon, federal forest managers, and pub- ceived the most funding under the FFR Program. lic lands stakeholders to increase forest restoration The $3.2 million in SFIP investments resulted in and economic opportunity on federal forestlands an average economic impact of $0.9 million in across Oregon. The purpose of this working paper GDP and 12.0 jobs per year, for each the six years is to describe cumulative investments made by the of the program. Funds have been used to com- FFR Program during its six years of operation, and plete more than 55 projects including surveys, to highlight the economic impacts of these invest- analyses, and contract NEPA, among other work. ments. Here, we present: 1) FFR Program expen- Interviews indicated that SFIP investments had increased the pace of restoration planning and ditures, 2) economic impacts of FFR Program ex- supported the development and use of innova- penditures, 3) on-the-ground impacts of program tive strategies to collect data more efficiently for expenditures, and 4) stakeholders’ perspectives NEPA analyses. about the FFR Program. • Crew work funds were used to hire off-season Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) firefighters Key findings: to implement work on federal forestlands such as: fuels thinning, timber sale preparation, and • The state of Oregon’s FFR Program investments surveys. The $2.5 million in crew work invest- have totaled $10.6 million between state fiscal ments contributed an average of $0.6 million in years 2014 through 2019 (FY14-19). The impact GDP and 6.9 jobs per year. Crews have helped of these investments has been further increased prepare and lay out timber sales representing by at least $4.0 million of additional cash and in- more than 300 million board feet of volume. In- kind contributions from project partners. These terviewees believed that crew work investments investments have generated an estimated aver- have helped fill critical capacity gaps at federal age of 39.6 jobs per year across sectors and $3.0 agencies, supported stable and trained workforc- million in GDP per year in each of the six years es, and were critical for launching many projects of the program. authorized under the Good Neighbor Authority. 2 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 • Technical Assistance and Science Support for particular tasks. Some interviewees wanted (TASS) investments funded applied science more transparency regarding FFR staff’s roles, re- and technical efforts intended to support forest sponsibilities, and accomplishments. collaborative groups, such as original research, science synthesis, monitoring plans, communi- • Project management funds allowed for adminis- cation support, trainings, and facilitation needs. trative support, training, stakeholder input pro- The $1.6 million in TASS investments and $0.2 cesses, and program monitoring and evaluation. million in matching partner contributions con- The $0.8 million invested resulted in an average tributed an average of $0.4 million in GDP and economic impact of $0.2 million in GDP and 2.0 4.8 jobs per year. Funds were used to complete jobs per year. These investments resulted in ad- at least: 21 applied research projects, six work- ministration of the Collaborative Capacity Grant shops, and 11 outreach efforts. Interviewees ex- program, program monitoring and evaluation, plained that TASS investments helped collabora- and staffing of the Federal Forest Working Group. tive groups access scientific information needed • Interviewees identified outcomes that they to reach agreement, but they also expressed con- thought would not have been accomplished if cerns about the transparency and fairness of the not for the FFR Program, such as increasing the TASS award application and selection process. pace and scale of restoration project planning • Collaborative Capacity Grants supported forest and implementation. Interviewees thought the collaborative groups in efforts to build agreement program had: about their preferred restoration activities. The • Reduced hazardous fuels, increased economic $1.4 million invested and $2.5 million in match- activity and job creation, leveraged additional ing partner contributions from grants directly re- federal resources, and helped federal agencies sulted in an average of $0.8 million in GDP and meet timber targets. 10.9 jobs per year. The grants have also support- • Fostered “intangible” impacts including ed collaboratives in contributing to the planning strengthened interagency cooperation, more of nearly 1.9 million acres and 73 completed effective cross-boundary decision making dur- timber sales on federal forest lands. The timber ing emergences, efficiency in resource expen- sales that were supported by collaboratives with ditures, and interagency learning exchange. Collaborative Capacity Grants have resulted in 565 million board feet of volume, $25.5 million • Contributed to the successful launch of Good in sale value, and an average of $68 million in Neighbor Authority and other state-feder- labor income and 1,019 jobs per year between al partnership work in Oregon, as well as calendar years 2014-2018. Interviewees also ex- strengthened and broadened ODF’s role in fed- plained that grants helped establish and main- eral forest management. tain collaboratives, strengthened relationships between ODF and stakeholders, and allowed col- • Interviewees suggested the program would ben- laboratives to contribute to an improved quality efit from more strategic planning and targeted of restoration work. investments. They also expressed a desire for more outreach and communication about the • FFR staff facilitated program-related work and program’s strategy and progress. Some inter- liaised between collaborative groups, agencies, viewees expressed concern about the underlying and communities. The $1.0 million invested in need for the program. Nearly all participants rec- FFR staff has supported a program coordinator, ognized the potential and need for state-federal regional coordinators, and a GNA Forester and partnership work to grow in Oregon to address GNA Timber Sale Mentor/Evaluator. Interview- the state’s forest restoration needs; however, in- ees thought that FFR staff built valuable rela- terviewees also cautioned the program to grow tionships with collaboratives and federal agency at a pace that did not exceed the state’s ability to staff, but that FFR staff capacity was too limited build capacity. in target locations, at certain times of year, and Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 3 Introduction The The Federal Forest Restoration Program 1. State-Federal Implementation Partnership (FFR Program) is a partnership between the (SFIP) funds support the hiring of contractors state of Oregon, federal forest managers, and to conduct surveys, exams, timber sale layouts, public lands stakeholders to increase forest restora- analyses required under the National Environ- tion and economic opportunity on federal forest- mental Policy Act (NEPA), and other work to lands across Oregon. The program is administered expedite restoration planning on federal lands. by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) with 2. Crew work allows ODF crews to prepare and the overall goal to accelerate the pace, scale and implement on-the-ground restoration work on quality of forest restoration to increase the resil- federal forestlands. ience of Oregon’s federal forests, in a manner that 3. Technical Assistance and Science Support leverages collaborative efforts and contributes to (TASS) helps forest collaborative groups access the long-term vitality of regional economies and expertise to advance their work (e.g., research rural communities. scientists, outreach or communication special- ists). The Oregon state legislature has funded the FFR 4. Collaborative Capacity Grants (“collaborative Program since the state of Oregon’s fiscal year 2014 grants”) help forest collaborative groups sup- (FY14).1 The state has expended a total of $10.6 mil- port the planning of restoration work on fed- lion through the program over the last three bien- eral lands. nia (2-year budget periods totaling 6 years), includ- 5. ODF Federal Forest Restoration Program staff ing $2.6 million in FY14-15, $4.8 million in FY16-17, facilitate FFR Program-related work and liaise and an allocation of $3.2 million for FY18-19 that is between collaborative groups, agencies, and anticipated to be spent by the end of June 2019.2 communities. The Federal Forest Restoration Program makes in- 6. Project management provides administrative vestments in six strategic program areas: and legal support and third-party program evaluation. 4 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 The FFR Program has evolved over the past six years. Key changes are shown in Table 1 (below). Approach The purpose of this working paper is to describe We collected and analyzed four types of data to cumulative investments made by the FFR Program inform this report: 1) FFR Program expenditures, during its six years of operation, and to highlight 2) economic impacts estimated from FFR Program select economic impacts of these investments. expenditures, 3) on-the-ground impacts of FFR This report builds on previous monitoring of the Program activities, and 4) stakeholders’ perspec- FFR Program conducted by the Ecosystem Work- tives about the FFR Program. force Program at the University of Oregon.3 In past years, FFR Program monitoring was reported Calculating FFR Program expenditures in relation to broader federal lands metrics, such This report examines cumulative expenditures as national forest board feet sales and restoration of the FFR Program. We present expenditures in contracting. However, in this report, we focus spe- three ways, by: 1) biennium, 2) the program’s six cifically on the FFR Program and only report met- program areas, and 3) geography. We determined rics and outcomes that are directly linked to the budgeted and actual expenditures by reviewing Program. This report contributes to larger efforts administrative documents, including: budgets, to track the progress of state, federal, and partner collections agreements, grant proposals, reports, programs engaging in forest restoration in order and work orders. In some cases, funding recipients to adapt management practices and policy for im- were not able to fully expend funds allocated to proved outcomes. them before the end of the funding biennium. For awards granted in FY14-17, we report actual rather Table 1 Brief timeline of key changes during the Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY14-19 Biennium Key components and changes FY14-15 • FFR Program (formerly called the Federal Forest Health Program) was first funded by the Oregon state legislature and administered by ODF. • The multi-stakeholder Federal Forest Working Group developed a strategy to gauge the effec- tiveness of the state’s investments. Performance measures selected covered six themes: treat- ment activities, timber supply, economic impact, collaborative capacities, NEPA appeals and objections, and administrative efficiency. • Investments focused on Forest Service lands in eastern Oregon. FY16-17 • Program expanded to the entire state of Oregon. • First program staff hired including a program coordinator and three regional coordinators for on- the-ground presence in strategic locations. • Good Neighbor Authority (GNA)4 began to be used to complete restoration activities on federal forestlands. FY18-19 • FFR Program staff expanded to include a fourth regional coordinator and to support two ODF- employed GNA Foresters. • Funding guidelines for TASS and collaborative grants adapted to more directly support on-the- ground restoration work. • The Oregon Legislature House Bill 4118 provided lottery funds to ODF to support development, planning, or implementation of GNA projects in conjunction with federal and FFR Program fund- ing to jointly advance restoration on federal lands. Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 5 than allocated expenditures. For awards granted collections agreements, grant proposals and re- in FY18-19 (the current biennium at the time of ports, previous monitoring reports and supporting publication), we report allocated funds instead of data, and work orders to create databases of accom- actual expenditures because awards were still ac- plished work. In some cases we communicated di- tive at the time of publication. All expenditures rectly with ODF staff, Forest Service staff, or grant were reviewed and confirmed by financial admin- recipients to identify deliverables linked to spe- istrators at ODF and were current as of April 2019. cific projects or awards. We report on-the-ground and other direct impacts with both quantitative Calculating economic impacts of program metrics and descriptions of outcomes. expenditures An evaluation of the effects of the FFR Program Stakeholder perspectives expenditures involves more than the direct in- We conducted 56 semi-structured interviews with jection of these funds into the Oregon economy. key informant individuals (ODF staff, federal These funds also support jobs and income across agency partners, FFR Program funding recipients, a broad set of sectors as they move through the and collaborative members) to solicit qualitative economy. We partnered with the University of Ida- feedback about the program. Interviews focused ho’s Policy Analysis Group to model the number of on interviewees’ perceptions of: the greatest suc- jobs and total GDP generated as a result of the FFR cesses and achievements of the FFR Program, Program’s investments. The definitions of jobs and changes that interviewees thought could improve GDP we use are consistent with the U.S. Bureau of the program, and broader reflections regarding the Economic Analysis definitions. FFR Program’s investment strategy. Appendix A contains the full list of interview questions (all ap- To arrive at an estimate of the economic impact of pendices are available at: http://ewp.uoregon.edu/ the FFR Program investments themselves we first publications/working). reviewed project budgets, collections agreements, and final expenditure reports. We used this infor- mation to break spending into different catego- ries of expenditures (i.e., staff, travel, materials/ supplies, training) as well as matching cash and in-kind contributions made by partners. These results were compiled into a database. The Policy Analysis Group at University of Idaho used these estimates to conduct an economic impact analysis. Direct FFR Program expenditure line items were mapped to IMPLAN industry sectors (e.g., “train- ing” expenditures were mapped to IMPLAN sector 611 “Educational Services”) and IMPLAN state- level multipliers were applied to estimate the job and income effects from the use of the grant funds. Calculating on-the-ground impacts of program expenditures We considered on-the-ground impacts to be tan- gible, quantifiable activities affecting federal for- estlands that occurred as a direct result of FFR Program funding. We calculated on-the-ground impacts through document review, information from FFR Program and Forest Service staff, and interviews. We used documents such as budgets, 6 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Results SFIP Overall program summary InvestCmreenwt Work has fluctuated (Figure 2, page 7). The largest total The state of Oregon’s FFR Program investments investments were made on the Wallowa Whitman, totaled $10.6 millioTnA bSetSween FY14-19 (average of Malheur, Ochoco, and Umatilla National Forests ~$1.8 million/year). The impact of these invest- of northeastern Oregon. This is largely because ments has been further increased by at least $4.0 of the program’s strategic focus on funding work Collaborativem Cillaiopn aofc aitdydi tGionraal ncatssh and in-kind contribu- in the Blue Mountains region of northeastern Or- tions that project partners (i.e., federal and local egon during the FY14-15 biennium. In the FY18- government, collaborative group participants, 19 biennium, the Fremont-Winema, Malheur, and technical asFsiFstRan cSet aproviders) contributed to Willamette National Forests received the greatest match the state’s investments.5 amount of funding. Approximately $1.6 million were invested in efforts with statewide benefits, The lParrgoesjt eFFcRt PMroggram tinvestment was made in and $2.5 million were invested in crew work that State-Federal Implementation Partnerships (SFIP, was administered by ODF District (see “Crew 30 percent of program fund0ing) to5 e0xp0e0di0te0 1re0sto0-00W01o0r5k”0 s0ec0tio0n20, p0a0ge0 102, 0fo20r a5d0di0ti0on0al30 d0et0ai0l).0030500000 ration project planning. The second largest invest- ment was made in crew work (24 percent of fund- FFR Program investments benefitted all national ing). Figure 1 (below) shows the total amount of forests and the BLM. SFIP funds were awarded funds expended in each program area. directly to forests, whereas TASS, collaborative grants, and FFR Program staff funds went to part- Some program investments can be directly linked ners and ODF staff working on national forest- to specific federal land management units (Figures lands. The forests in the Blue Mountains region 2 and 3, page 7), whereas other investments were received the most SFIP funds. The Rogue River- made at the ODF District or statewide level. All Siskiyou and Fremont-Winema National Forests national forests and four BLM Districts (Medford, received the greatest TASS investments. The Mal- Prineville, Roseburg, and Coos Bay) in Oregon heur, Deschutes, and Willamette National Forests benefitted from some level of program investment; have received the greatest amount of collaborative however, the amount of funding allocated to each capacity grant support. Figure 1 Total investments made through FFR Program by program area, FY14-19 SFIP $3,158,858 (30%) Crew work $2,532,723 (24%) TASS $1,630,348 (15%) -- FY 2014 and 2015CCG $1,433,484 (14%) FY 2016 and 2017FFR program staff $1,040,179 (10%) FY 2018 and 2019 Project management $809,931 (8%) - 0 $.5 million $1 million $1.5 million $2 million $2.5 million $3 million $3.5 million Funding type Deschutes NF Fremont-Winema NF Malheur NF Mt. Hood NF Ochoco NF Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Siuslaw NF Umatilla NF Wallowa-Whitman NF 12000000 Willamette NF Umpqua NF 10000000 BLM Districts 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 8000000 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 7 6000000 4000000 Figure 2 FFR Program spending totals by federal land management unit and biennium 2000000 0 84 Portland Wallowa-Whitman Deschutes $357,203 Umatilla SFIP Mt. Hood $527,841 Funds Fremont-Winema TASS allocated CCG to national Malheur $953,577Salem forests or FFR BLM Mt. Hood $307,476 staff Siuslaw districts $6.4 million Ochoco $776,513 Rogue River-Siskiyou Ochoco $63M2a,2lh3e7ur SiusEluagwene $266,734 State-level Umatilla Willamette Deschutes $753,316 funds1 $1.7 million Wallowa-Whitman $989,213 $989k $951k Willamette $453,469 Crew Umpqua $777k work 5 Umpqua $159,405 $753k $2.5 million $618k BLM Districts $215,913 $534k 0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $4$586k00,000 $1,000,000 $357k Rogue River- Fremont- $306k Siskiyou Winema $271k $214k Medford $166k 0 50 Miles Wal Mal Och Uma Rog Fre Wil Des MtH Siu BLM Ump Figure 3 FFR Program spending by federal land management unit, FY14-19 Deschutes $357,203 Fremont-Winema $534,091 Malheur $951,078 Mt. Hood $305,945 Funds allocated Ochoco $776,513 to national forests or Rogue River-Siskiyou $618,061 BLM districts Siuslaw $271,170 $6.4 million Umatilla $753,316 Wallowa-Whitman $989,213 Crew work Willamette $456,265 State-level $2.5 funds million Umpqua $165,705 $1.7 million BLM Districts* $214,398 0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 *BLM District investments include: $74,478 Medford; $53,390 Prineville; $51,496 Roseburg; and $35,034 Coos Bay. [ • SFIP . TASS . CCG . FFR staff FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 8 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Economic impact On-the-ground impact On average, the state’s FFR Program investments FFR Program funds have resulted in a variety of plus matching contributions have resulted in the on-the-ground accomplishments specific to each generation of an estimated 39.6 jobs per year across program area. These accomplishments range from, sectors (i.e., government, scientific, support servic- for example, acres planned and treated, survey es, real estate, forestry, and others; see Appendix B data collected, timber sale preparation, applied for details) and $3.0 million in GDP per year dur- science research, technical support and staffing ing each of the six years of the program (Figure for forest collaborative groups, FFR Program staff- 4, below). The estimated number of jobs created ing to expand program reach, and more. More de- varied between 33 and 50 jobs per year. Estimated tail describing the impacts of each individual pro- GDP impacts were between $2.7 million per year gram area is provided in the following sections. and $3.9 million per year (Table 2, below). Jobs and GDP impacts were greatest during FY16-17, when the state of Oregon made the largest investments. Figure 4 Average annual GDP and jobs generated from FFR Program investments during FY14- 19, by program area. FFRP investments generated: $3.04 million - and - 39.6 (per year average) GDP JOBS Per year average by program area $168,575 GDP Project management 2.0 jobs $232,850 GDP FFR staff 3.0 jobs $358,245 GDP TASS 4.8 jobs $577,432 GDP Crew work 6.9 jobs $791,503 GDP Collaborative grants 10.9 jobs $910,541 GDP SFIP 12.0 jobs Table 2 FFR Program investment impact on jobs per year and annual GDP FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 Investment per year $1.3 million (actual) $2.4 million (actual) $1.6 million (anticipated) Jobs per year 36.6 49.3 32.9 GDP per year $2,662,495 $3,891,057 $2,563,883 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 9 Program area summaries The Federal Forest Restoration Program makes contractors to complete the work. A complete list investments in six strategic program areas. In the of SFIP awards is available in Appendix C. following sections, we highlight select outcomes from each program area. Investment SFIP is the largest funded program area of the FFR State-Federal Implementation Program. $3.2 million of FFR Program funds (30 Partnerships percent of FFR Program investments to date) have been invested in SFIP work since the program be- gan, an average of $0.5 million per year. Federal “There have been a lot of project timelines that have partners have provided an additional $1.3 million been sped up for USFS – especially with SFIP funding. That’s important because they have limited time and in documented match for SFIP-supported projects. especially because the field season is really short.” SFIP investments have been awarded to all 11 na- tional forests and four BLM districts in Oregon State-Federal Implementation Partnership (SFIP) over the six years of the FFR Program (Figure 5, investments are provided to federal land manage- below). As noted earlier, nearly all FY14-15 SFIP ment units to expedite restoration planning on fed- investments were made on federal forestlands eral forestlands. Projects typically address federal in the Blue Mountains region (Malheur, Ochoco, agency capacity gaps, delays in implementation, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National For- or promote the development of innovative strate- ests). Starting in FY16-17 and continuing into gies or efficiencies in restoration planning. Funds FY18-19, the FFR Program expanded this program for SFIP work are transferred from ODF to federal area to a statewide focus. land management units, who then use external SFIP by forest Figure 5 Figure 5 SFIP investments by federal land management unit, FY14-19 FY14-19 SFIPS toFtalI:P $3,138,860 Deschutes $65,000 Fremont-Winema $152,000 FY18-19 $703,730 Malheur $439,841 Mt. Hood $60,950 Ochoco $502,716 Rogue River-Siskiyou $179,550 FY16-17 Siuslaw $204,635 $1,653,097 Umatilla $448,065 Wallowa-Whitman $631,179 Willamette $164,701 Umpqua $141,926 FY14-15 $782,033 BLM $148,297 0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 10 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Economic impact NEPA increases the overall acreage of federal for- SFIP investments have contributed an average of estlands ready for implementation. ODF completes $0.9 million in GDP and 12.0 jobs per year over the these contract NEPA projects under the Good program’s six years. Average annual expenditures Neighbor Authority. and estimated economic impacts varied by year (Table 3, below). Stakeholder perspectives Interviewees described several important aspects On-the-ground impact and outcomes of SFIP awards: SFIP investments have resulted in a variety of on- • Increasing NEPA-approved acres by speed- the-ground accomplishments, including the com- ing up the analysis process. Interviewees re- pletion of: ported that the Forest Service had limited • 39 surveys, including: 13 heritage, 6 botany, 6 and decreasing internal capacity to complete wildlife, 5 stand exams, and 12 others (i.e., fun- NEPA analyses in a timely manner. Interview- gi, aquatic, property boundary, ethnography). ees described “bottlenecks” in the agencies ex- • Eight LiDAR data acquisition and analysis proj- ecuting NEPA processes, particularly heritage/ ects archeological surveys, botany surveys, and • One timber sale layout stand exams. SFIP awards provided the For- est Service with resources to contract out this • One non-commercial thinning project for aspen work to complete it faster. Interviewees ex- habitat restoration plained how expediting NEPA analyses helped • One road maintenance project projects reach implementation more quickly, • One cable logging systems analysis which was particularly important given lim- • Four complete or in-progress contract NEPA ited staff availability and the short duration of projects on four national forests field seasons. • Supporting the development and use of inno- During FY18-19, the FFR Program allocated nearly vative strategies to collect data more efficient- 40 percent of SFIP funds to work on contract NEPA ly (i.e., the use of LiDAR data to accomplish projects on the Fremont-Winema, Umpqua, Willa- work that previously required on-the-ground mette, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. In labor). these projects, state contractors complete NEPA • Investments in a wide range of projects, which analyses from start to finish with some data, guid- meant that the funds were able to address ance, and review from the Forest Service. Contract each forest’s diverse needs. Table 3 Average annual SFIP investments and estimated economic impacts, FY14-FY19 Expenditures Partner match Biennium Fiscal year per year per year GDP per year Jobs per year FY 14-15 FY 14 $73,387 $50,000 $156,636 2.2 FY 15 $708,645 $750,000 $1,881,643 26.8 FY 16-17 FY 16 $239,143 $109,847 $403,692 5.5 FY 17 $1,413,954 $358,249 $2,142,567 27.4 FY 18-19 FY 18 $194,081 $15,240 $204,415 2.3 FY 19 $529,649 $70,297 $674,292 7.6 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 11 Stakeholder suggestions for future SFIP contract NEPA as an example of achieving ad- investments ditional impacts. Interviewees made suggestions about how they • Continue to help address capacity gaps in the thought SFIP funds should be invested in the fu- Forest Service, especially through heritage/ ture. In particular, interviewees recommended: archeological and botany surveys. Fund proj- • Prioritize projects that have truly addition- ects that allow the state and federal agencies al impacts, meaning demonstrable on-the- to work together to develop innovative ways to ground outcomes that otherwise would not collect data required for NEPA analyses more have been accomplished. Interviewees cited efficiently. 12 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Crew work with national forests to identify needs and orga- nize crew activities. FFR crews often transferred “I like the flexibility of having the [FFR Program crew] between projects and project areas on short notice workforce available to me when I need it… [and] that to address emergent needs. I don’t have to find work for people when I don’t have it. It works well for [federal agencies].” Investment $2.5 million of FFR Program funds (24 percent of Crew work funds were used to hire off-season ODF FFR Program investments to date) have been in- firefighters to implement on-the-ground work on vested in crew work, an average of $0.4 million per federal forestlands. FFR crews typically complete year. Crew work investments notably increased restoration activities such as: fuels thinning, pil- during FY16-17 when the total program budget in- ing, scattering, or burning; timber sale preparation creased, and then decreased in FY18-19. (e.g., cruising, marking, or sale administration); and surveys. FFR crews often provided “surge ODF allocated crew work funds by ODF district, capacity” to national forests at key times of year, rather than federal land management unit (Table such as during narrow windows for conducting 4, below). The $2.5 million invested were spread prescribed burning and/or times of the year when across the state, primarily in the Northeast Oregon the weather permitted access to high-elevation District, Central Oregon District, and in the Klam- sites for restoration work. FFR crews were typi- ath-Lake District (Figure 6, page 13). cally managed by FFR staff who worked directly Table 4 Federal land management units associated with the Oregon Department of Forestry’s administrative units ODF Administrative Unit Federal Land Management Unit(s) Area District* National forest/BLM District Deschutes National Forest Malheur National Forest Central Oregon District Ochoco National Forest Eastern Mt. Hood National Forest (Barlow and Hood River Ranger Districts) Oregon Prineville BLM District Area Klamath-Lake District Fremont-Winema National Forest Northeast Oregon District Umatilla National ForestWallowa-Whitman National Forest Coos Forest Protective Association (FPA) Coos Bay BLM District Douglas FPA Umpqua National ForestRoseburg BLM District Southern Eastern Lane District Willamette National Forest (Sweet Home and Detroit Ranger Districts) Oregon Area South Cascade District Willamette National Forest (Middle Fork and McKenzie Ranger Districts) Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Southwest Oregon District Medford BLM District Roseburg BLM District Western Lane District Coos Bay BLM District Molalla District Mt. Hood National Forest (Clackamas and Zigzag Ranger Districts) Northwest North Cascade District Mt Hood (Clackamas Ranger District) Oregon Willamette National Forest (Detroit Ranger District) Area Tillamook District Siuslaw National Forest West Oregon District Siuslaw National Forest * Two additional districts, the Northwest Oregon District and the Walker Range FPA, do not have any federal land management units associ- ated with them and are not included in this table. Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 13 Economic impact • FY16-17: Pre-sale layout work covering 285 Crew work investments have contributed an aver- million board feet of sales on eight national age of $0.6 million in GDP and 6.9 jobs per year for forests and one BLM district. Crews also sup- all six years of the FFR Program. Estimated eco- ported sale prep work for the first timber sale nomic impacts varied across years, proportional authorized under the Good Neighbor Authority to investments in FFR crew work (Table 5, below). (GNA) in Oregon (Paddock Butte timber sale on the Fremont-Winema National Forest). On-the-ground impact • FY18-19: Pre-sale assistance and sale layout of The structure and intent of FFR crews was to help at least 7,650 acres, sale administration of at fill gaps on a variety of restoration projects as need- least 1,200 acres, and work on restoration proj- ed. Therefore, crews may have worked on a project ects and timber sales completed under GNA. for just a few hours or for months, and not all crew Additional work focused on reducing fire risk work was tracked at the project level. Here we re- in the wildland-urban interface and surveying port some of the on-the-ground accomplishments stands to identify areas that require thinning of crews, acknowledging there are many others not of merchantable timber. Crews in prior program included here: years focused on large contiguous projects, but • FY14-15: Pre-sale layout work covering 12.5 in FY18-19 crews were frequently used to fill million board feet of sales; 2,300 acres; and four many smaller gaps in projects as needed. project areas on three national forests. Figure 6 Crew work expenditures by ODF District, FY14-19 FY14-19 crewF Yw1o4r-k19 t otal: cr$ew2, 5w3o2rk,7 to2t3al*: $2,532,723 Central Oregon District $674,642 FY18-19 $F7Y0178,-21990 Klamath-Lake District $513,492 $707,290 Northeast Oregon District $840,564 Eastern Lane District $168,046 FY16-177 Southwest Oregon District $154,151 $$1,,490,,59933 Tillamook District $20,228 Statewide $62,091 FY14-15 $F3Y3144,8-1405 $334,840 0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 * An additional $20,000 was allocated in the FY18-19 biennium, but was not yet allocated to a particular land management unit at the time of publication Table 5 Average annual crew work investments and estimated economic impacts, FY14-FY19 Biennium Fiscal year Expenditures per year GDP per year Jobs per year FY 14 $167,420 $230,122 2.7 FY 14-15 FY 15 $167,420 $230,122 2.7 FY 16 $715,620 $983,633 11.5 FY 16-17 FY 17 $790,134 $1,086,026 12.7 FY 18 $251,423 $340,547 4.2 FY 18-19 FY 19 $440,706 $594,140 7.4 14 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Stakeholder perspectives status. They also described a need for crew as- Interviewees described several important aspects sistance during fire season (June through Sep- of the FFR crew funds: tember) when most FFR Program crews and staff members were unavailable because they • Interviewees thought that FFR crew work had were fighting fire. contributed to reduced fire risk, improved forest health, and economic benefit in select • It may be more expensive to complete work us- project areas. Federal agency interviewees de- ing FFR crews compared to crews contracted scribed how they could not have laid out and through private businesses. Interviewees not- treated as much ground without field assistance ed that it is important for the FFR Program to from FFR crews. highlight that these crews can complete work without developing a separate contract which • The flexibility of FFR crews helped fill critical can offset the seemingly higher per-acre cost of capacity gaps at federal agencies. FFR crews using FFR crews compared to contract crews. provided agencies with the option to request a trained workforce on short notice and when Stakeholder suggestions for future crew needed. work investments • Crew work supported stable and trained work- • Improve job stability for crew members (through forces. For example, interviewees thought that longer field seasons, year-round positions) to in- FFR crews provided stable jobs in rural com- crease employee retention. munities. They also thought FFR crews facili- • Consider scaling up FFR crew work to meet the tated greater retention among seasonal ODF em- available workload. ployees, which they said was an ongoing issue with fire suppression crews. They described • Clearly articulate the added value of having how crews provided opportunities to transi- flexible and consistent FFR crews to complete tion seasonal ODF employees into full-time po- work on federal forestlands. sitions. Interviewees noted that on a standard • Use FFR crews to conduct prescribed burns for ODF crew, skills would be focused primarily on maintaining landscapes where initial restora- fire suppression, but FFR crew members were tion work was completed. trained for a broad variety of skills related to fu- els treatment, prescribed burning, timber sale prep and administration, and surveys. • FFR crews were critical for launching many new Good Neighbor Authority projects. Inter- viewees explained that federal contracting pro- cesses can be lengthy, and that sometimes GNA agreements were not finalized during the short work window during which projects must get started. They felt that FFR crews bridged that gap because they allowed work on-the-ground to begin using FFR Program funds until fed- eral resources were available through finalized GNA agreements. • Challenges existed around the administration of FFR crews and turnover, especially during fire season. Interviewees explained that hir- ing, processing timesheets, and scheduling was complex for administrators, especially because crew members frequently changed employee Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 15 Technical Assistance and • Pre- and post-treatment monitoring Science Support • Watershed restoration action plans • Multiparty monitoring plans “We have enormous challenges across the • Developing NEPA templates state in terms of how fire suppression and forest • Virtual boundary assessments management have left the forests in the state in a vulnerable position....[and this will] require huge investment in research and capacity that allows each The FFR Program also invested funds in efforts to community to address it in their own way, and use improve the technical and organizational capaci- local science…. The solutions vary. That’s why this ties of Oregon’s collaborative groups by providing type of [TASS] investment is necessary.” TASS awards to organizations that support collab- oratives with: Technical Assistance and Science Support (TASS) • Outreach and communication investments funded a wide variety of applied sci- • Social media campaigns ence research and technical efforts. These efforts helped forest collaborative groups build capacity • Statewide and local workshops and agreement about how they would like to see • Collaborative group facilitation national forestlands managed. TASS funds were • Needs assessments typically awarded to regional or statewide inter- • Work plan development for collaborative mediary organizations or researchers who assist- groups ed collaborative groups. Applied science projects completed with TASS funds have included efforts During FY14-17, technical assistance providers such as: proposed work plans to the FFR Program directly; • Fire history analyses however, the process for awarding TASS funds • Wildlife science syntheses was revised for the FY18-19 biennium. In FY18- • Local workforce assessments 19 TASS providers applied in conjunction with individual collaborative groups and ODF selected • Water balance analyses recipients in a competitive process. A full list of • Historical photo analysis TASS investments is available in Appendix D. 16 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Investment ture Conservancy and Sustainable Northwest. $1.6 million of FFR Program funds (15 percent of FFR Program investments to date) have been in- Economic impact vested in TASS, an average of $0.3 million per TASS investments have contributed an average year. Partners have provided an additional $0.2 of $0.4 million in GDP and 4.8 jobs per year. The million in documented matching funds or in-kind economic impacts of these investments varied be- contributions for TASS-supported projects. tween years (Table 6, page 17). The $1.6 million invested through TASS have On-the-ground impact supported providers to perform work on all 11 TASS funds have supported many diverse projects. national forests in Oregon and one BLM district Descriptions of TASS work completed in FY14-15 (Figure 7, below). TASS investments have declined and FY16-17 are available in previous monitoring statewide in each subsequent biennium. Around reports.6 Some examples include: one third of the TASS funds over the program’s • 21 applied research projects that gathered and six years were invested in statewide efforts, which synthesized data to share with collaborative included work such as needs assessments, work- groups to inform decision making, synthesize shops, communication and messaging support, existing science, and address management and statewide monitoring. questions. Topics ranged from: aquatic species, northern goshawk, aspen, and dry forest resto- TASS support has been awarded to 17 organiza- ration science; fire and landscape histories; sus- tions (Figure 8, page 17). All organizations were tainable recreation; human ecology mapping; based in Oregon or the contracted work was fo- contractor capacity; and collaborative assess- cused in Oregon. The recipients that received the ments. greatest proportion of TASS funding were The Na- Figure 7 TASS investments by federal land management unit, FY14-19* FY14-19 FY14-19 TASS total: TASS total: $1,630,349$1,630,349 Deschutes $70,817 FY18-19 FY18-19 Fremont-Winema $163,355 $359,660 $359,660 Malheur $142,660 Mt. Hood $49,348 Ochoco $72,149 FY16-17 FY16-17 $538,916 $538,916 Rogue River-Siskiyou $252,040 Siuslaw $3,383 Umatilla $80,372 Wallowa-Whitman $95,003 FY14-15 $731,773 Willamette $102,935 FY14-15 $731,773 Umpqua $17,479 BLM $3,383 0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 * In addition to investments allocated at the federal land management unit level, $577,425 of TASS investements were made at the statewide level (FY14-15: $211,110; FY16-17: $274,315; FY18-19: $92,000). TASS 2, orgs The Nature Conservancy $483,406 Sustainable Northwest $454,567 Ecosystem Workforce Program/UO $162,362 USFS/PNW Research Station $117,732 Lake County Resources Initiative $98,240 Oregon State University $87,300 Ecotrust $77,323 Cascade Pacific RC&D/MWSG $55,670 Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition $25,000 Lomakatsi Restoration Project/SOFRC $20,000 Other* $48,748 0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 FY14-19 TASS total: $1,630,349 Deschutes $70,817 Fremont-Winema $163,355 FY18-19 $359,660 Malheur $142,660 Mt. Hood $49,348 Ochoco $72,149 FY16-17 $538,916 Rogue River-Siskiyou $252,040 MonSitioursilnawg In v$e3s,3t8m3ents in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 17 Umatilla $80,372 Wallowa-Whitman $95,003 FY14-15 $731,773 Willamette $102,935 Umpqua $17,479 • Six workshops, including and website and communications upgrades for • Four annual state- or regionBL-wM id $e3 ,f3o83rest col- collaborative groups. laborative workshops 0 $50,000 $1•0 0D,0e00velop$1m50e,0n0t0 of $m20o0n,0i0t0orin$g2 50e,c00o0logic$a30l0 ,0o0r0 so- • Managing Eastside Moist-Mixed Conifer For- cial-economic monitoring protocols and/or ac- ests Workshop tion plans for at least four collaborative groups • Forest Restoration Implementation Efficien- or forests. cies Workshop • Training and facilitation for collaborative • 11 outreach and communication efforts, both at groups, including educational and capacity- TAStShe 2st,a oterwgisde level, and for individual forests or building trainings, and facilitation of collabora- groups of forests. Efforts included social media tive meetings. campaigns, dissemination of workshop results, Figure 8 TASS funds received by each technical assistance provider, FY14-19 The Nature Conservancy $483,406 Sustainable Northwest $454,567 Ecosystem Workforce Program/UO $162,362 USFS/PNW Research Station $117,732 Lake County Resources Initiative $98,240 -D FY18-19Oregon State University $87,300 - FY16-17Ecotrust $77,323 FY14-15Cascade Pacific RC&D/MWSG $55,670 Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition $25,000 Lomakatsi Restoration Project/SOFRC $20,000 Other* $48,748 0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 * Including: FY14-15: $5K Mamut Consulting, $5K Oregon Consensus, $5K Wasco County; FY15-17: $748 National Forest Foundation; FY18- 19: $13K The Mazamas, $12K Wallowa Resources, $8K Metzler Media/SURCP. Table 6 Average annual TASS investments and estimated economic impacts, FY14–FY19 Biennium Fiscal year Expenditures per year GDP per year Jobs per year FY 14 $13,283 $19,695 0.3 FY14-15 FY 15 $690,929 $874,045 12.4 FY 16 $126,201 $149,516 2.1 FY16-17 FY 17 $440,182 $612,959 7.9 FY 18 $90,773 $118,771 1.6 FY18-19 FY 19 $268,980 $374,486 4.7 18 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Stakeholder perspectives Stakeholder suggestions for future TASS Interviewees described several important aspects investments of the FFR Program’s TASS investments: • Increase transparency and equitability of the • TASS investments allowed collaborative TASS application and selection process by: groups to generate or access scientific infor- • Convening a science advisory committee mation that helped them reach agreement. with external representatives to develop an Interviewees explained that original research overarching strategy for TASS investments conducted with TASS funding was especially and criteria for funding. meaningful to collaborative groups because • Developing a formal proposal process with co-creation of research helped the groups feel an open solicitation period, funding criteria ownership and investment. and metrics, and an external review panel to • TASS investments helped collaborative groups select proposals for funding. mature and succeed by funding staff, meeting • Increasing communication about the appli- facilitation, development of organizational in- cation and awards processes. frastructure and processes, and collaboration • Develop systems to collect and report specific training. on-the-ground outcome data to understand the • Concerns existed about the transparency and impacts of TASS investments. Consider having fairness of the TASS application and selection site visits with TASS providers or more specific process. Some interviewees described a lack of reporting metrics. clarity about the overall goal and investment • Explore ways to allow TASS awards to roll-over strategy of TASS awards; others expressed pro- into subsequent biennia to allow organizations cedural concerns, such as not understanding longer timeframes to implement research or ca- how or when to apply, or who they could con- pacity building projects. tact to discuss questions. Some interviewees expressed concern about the lack of external reviewers of TASS proposals, and the recurring awards made to select organizations without open solicitation. • There was a perceived lack of accessible infor- mation about TASS investments and outcomes. Interviewees suggested that a public-facing website, publications about work products, and quantitative monitoring of outcomes were nec- essary, and a concern that some investments may not have meaningfully addressed the most urgent needs for on-the-ground restoration work. • Stakeholders had varied visions of the appro- priate scope and scale of TASS awards. Some reported that the FFR Program should priori- tize grassroots science driven by collaborative groups’ requests. Others expressed concern that a too-narrow focus on the needs of individual collaborative groups would not strategically ad- dress broader or statewide needs. Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 19 Collaborative Capacity Grants complete list of collaborative grants is available in Appendix E and additional detail about the eco- / nomic and other impacts of collaborative grants is “If collaboration is really important to social 7 acceptance of active management of forest available in a separate working paper. restoration, [then] our state funding is one of the primary ways that collaboratives keep their lights on, Investment keep doing their work year to year.” $1.4 million of FFR Program funds (14 percent of FFR Program investments to date) have been Collaborative Capacity Grants (“collaborative invested in collaborative grants, an average of grants”) have supported forest collaborative groups $238,914 per year. Grants have been made to 21 in efforts to build agreement about the scope and collaborative groups engaged on ten national for- scale of planned restoration activities they would ests and one BLM district (see Figure 9, below). like federal agencies to implement. Collaborative Partners provided an additional $2.5 million in grants also supported monitoring, outreach, sci- documented matching funds or in-kind support to ence engagement, and mapping done by collabora- projects supported by collaborative grants. tive groups in support of building agreement. A Figure 9 Collaborative Capacity Grants by federal land management unit, FY14-19 FY14-19 FY14C-ollaborative gr1a9n ts total: Collabo$r1a,t4iv3e3 ,484 grants total: Deschutes $168,990 $1,433,484 FY18-19 Fremont-Winema $11,509 $406,732 FY18-19 Malheur $312,431 $406,732 Mt. Hood $138,532 Ochoco $149,252 FY16-17 $479,456 Rogue River-Siskiyou $151,178 FY16-17 $479,456 Siuslaw $58,716 Umatilla $109,368 FY14-15 Wallowa-Whitman $141,270 $547,296 Willamette $152,566 FY14-15 Umpqua $0 $547,296 BLM $39,672 0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 1500000 1200000 900000 600000 300000 0 20 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Economic impact ment in areas that previously lacked durable Collaborative grants have contributed an average collaborative groups. Collaborative grants also of $0.8 million in GDP and 10.9 jobs per year (see provided key early support to other collabora- Table 7, below). These impacts are calculated for tives that helped to develop their operation. the grant funds themselves, not on-the-ground • Project planning and analysis contributions work that collaboratives may have supported. This by collaboratives on nearly 1.9 million acres of includes spending of grant dollars on staff and federal forestland across ten national forests contractor wages, materials and supplies for col- and one BLM district. Of these acres, 836,525 laborative organization, travel, and other expenses were planning areas or other types of “projects” related to operating collaboratives. for which a NEPA decision was made by March 2019; and 1,039,740 acres were actively being Collaborative grants directly supported collabora- collaborated on but were still under analysis. tives in contributing to the planning of 73 complet- ed and 12 in-progress timber sales. These timber • Creation of zones of agreement for landscape- sales resulted in 565 million board feet of volume, level issues or developed restoration principles $25.5 million in sale value, and an average of $68 in four collaboratives; others worked towards million in labor income and 1,019 jobs per year be- developing these or focused on project-level tween calendar years 2014-2018. recommendations. • Monitoring 67,207 acres of implemented proj- On-the-ground impact ects on federal land with FFRP support. TASS funds have supported many diverse projects. • Convening a regional biomass summit that at- Descriptions of TASS work completed in FY14-15 tracted over 100 participants to examine exam- and FY16-17 are available in previous monitoring ples of successful biomass utilization in sup- reports.7 Some examples include: port of restoration and barriers. • Creation and support of collaborative venues. FFR Program collaborative capacity grants di- Stakeholder perspectives rectly supported the creation of four new forest Interviewees described several important aspects collaborative groups between 2015 and 2017: of the FFR Program’s support for collaborative Smith/Umpqua Dunes Stewardship Group, Or- groups: egon Dunes Restoration Collaborative, South- • The FFR Program has played a key role in ern Willamette Forest Collaborative, and Wasco establishing and maintaining collaborative County Forest Collaborative. Together, the areas groups in Oregon. Interviewees recognized that of focus or boundaries for these groups covered some groups formed or expanded their work about 1.8 million acres of national forest and with resources from the FFR Program, and that adjacent private lands in western Oregon and collaborative grants have been a primary source the Cascades. The grants helped provide these of baseline, “keep-the-lights-on” funding that new venues for sustained stakeholder engage- provides necessary stability. Table 7 Average annual Collaborative Capacity Grant investments and estimated economic impacts, FY14-FY19 Biennium Fiscal year Expenditures per year GDP per year Jobs per year FY 14-15 FY 14 $53,774 $210,296 3.0 FY 15 $361,293 $1,464,378 20.0 FY 16-17 FY 16 $229,211 $602,407 8.2 FY 17 $284,720 $907,962 12.4 FY 18-19 FY 18 $186,442 $640,809 8.9 FY 19 $318,045 $923,163 13.0 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 21 • Collaborative grants allowed collaborative viewees thought the recent structural chang- groups to meet regularly and develop agree- es to the grant program had been positive. In ments that interviewees thought contributed to particular, interviewees reported that the shift an increase in NEPA decisions, acreage for im- toward explicitly funding the development of plementation, and economic activity and jobs Zones of Agreement had made the grant pro- in rural communities. gram more defensible and definable. • Collaborative grants helped strengthen the • The meaning of “pace and scale” and possibili- relationship between ODF and communities. ties for achieving it varied by national forest Interviewees explained that receiving collab- and forest types. Some aspects such as plan- orative grants made them feel supported by ning area sizes or timeframes for planning were the state of Oregon. The participation of FFR not within the control of collaboratives. staff in collaborative groups further served to build trusting relationships between ODF and Stakeholder suggestions for future collaborative groups. ODF’s involvement with Collaborative Capacity Grants collaborative groups provided the agency with • Develop systems to collect and report more spe- greater opportunity to engage with the public cific on-the-ground outcome data to understand and shape federal forestland management. the impacts of collaborative grant investments. • There were concerns about the clarity of the Consider having site visits with grantees or collaborative grant application process. The more specific grant reporting metrics. process changed throughout the six years of • Expand the eligibility to include all-lands part- the FFR Program, and some interviewees were nerships. Consider providing micro-grants to a unable to clearly distinguish the differences wider variety of groups. between TASS and collaborative grants. Some • Retain discretionary funding to address emer- thought the program’s definition of “collabora- gent needs. tive” was too narrow. Others questioned the ap- propriateness of competitive grants when some • Help collaborative groups develop the capacity collaborative groups were further along in de- to become more financially self-sustaining. velopment than others. There was concern that • disburse larger grant amounts over longer the program rewarded more mature groups at spending periods to increase administrative ef- the expense of younger groups that could have ficiency for collaborative groups. used support in order to mature. Other inter- 22 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Federal Forest Restoration Program staff Economic impact FFR staff investments contributed an average of “Every forest is unique in culture and needs. $0.3 million in GDP and 4.4 jobs per year during Something that’s a bottleneck on one forest may the four years the investments were made. Jobs not be on another. That’s the value of the FFR coordinators -- they are on the pulse of what’s and GDP per year varied with expenditure levels needed at each forest. It has worked really well.” between years (Table 8, page 23). On-the-ground impact Federal Forest Restoration Program staff facilitate FFR staff investments have included supporting FFR Program-related work and liaise between col- the following: laborative groups, agencies, and communities. When the program launched in FY14, it was coordi- • FY16-17: Hiring three full-time Regional Coor- nated by existing ODF staff and there were no dedi- dinators to manage on-the-ground operations in cated FFR Program staff. Funds were first allocated Northeast Oregon, the Klamath-Lake District, to dedicated FFR Program staff starting in FY16. and Central Oregon District. A fourth FFR staff position provided both program support in Sa- Investment lem and half-time Coordinator duties in west- $1.0 million of FFR Program funds (10 percent of ern Oregon, with primary focus on the Willa- FFR Program investments to date) have been in- mette National Forest. vested in staff. These investments were made only • FY18-19: Adding a full-time Program Lead and during the FY16-17 and FY18-19 biennia as there a full-time FFR Coordinator to cover the South- were no staff in FY14-15. During FY16-19, an av- ern Oregon Area. The FFR Program also began erage of $260,046 per year were invested in FFR partially supporting a GNA Forester and a GNA Program staff, which supported work statewide as Timber Sale Mentor/Evaluator.8 FFwRell as on all 11 national forests and one BLM dis- sttarifcft in Oregon (Figure 10, below). Figure 10 FFR Program staff investments by federal land management unit, FY16-19 FY14-19 Deschutes I $52,397 FFR staff total: I $FY11,044-109, 181 Fremont-Winema I $207,227 FFR staff total: I $1,040,181 Malheur I I $ 56,147 Mt. Hood I I $ 57,114 Ochoco I l $52,397 FY18-19 F Y$1683-139,440 Rogue River-Siskiyou I $ 35,294 $633,440 Siuslaw ] $4,436 Umatilla I I$ 115,512 Wallowa-Whitman I l $121,762 Willamette I I$ 36,063 FYF1Y61-167-17 Umpqua J $6,300 $ 4$0460,764,17 41 Statewide I j $272,486 BLM TI $23,046 0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 FY14-19 TASS total: $1,630,349 FY18-19 $359,660 1200000 FY16-17 1000000 $538,916 800000 600000 FY14-15 $731,773 400000 200000 0 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 23 Table 8 Average annual FFR Program staff investments and estimated economic impacts, FY14-FY19 Biennium Fiscal year Expenditures per year GDP per year Jobs per year FY 14-15 FY 14 $0 $0 0.0 FY 15 $0 $0 0.0 FY 16-17 FY 16 $154,818 $209,858 2.6 FY 17 $251,921 $340,388 4.2 FY 18-19 FY 18 $304,220 $406,245 5.3 FY 19 $329,220 $440,608 5.7 Stakeholder perspectives • Internal challenges existed with hiring and Interviewees described several important aspects maintaining staff. Interviewees reported that of the FFR staff investments: adding state staff was difficult and time-con- suming, that internal staffing structures within • FFR staff built trusting relationships with the the program sometimes made chains-of-com- Forest Service and collaborative groups. In- mand confusing, and that the limited-duration terviewees described how FFR staff were flex- status of some FFR employees contributed to ible, enthusiastic, creative, and contributed to staff turnover. significant on-the-ground impacts by bringing additional capacity and specialized skill sets. • Some interviewees wanted more transparency Interviewees thought the placement of dedicat- regarding FFR staff’s roles and accomplish- ed FFR Regional Coordinators in strategic loca- ments. Some interviewees expressed that they tions throughout the state helped address local would like to have a better understanding of needs. the job responsibilities held by FFR staff and a greater understanding of the impact of these • FFR staff had too-limited capacity in target lo- investments. cations, at specific times of year, and to address specific work types. For example, interviewees reported that it would be beneficial to add staff Stakeholder suggestions for future FFR in the Willamette Valley to plan and imple- Program staff funds ment GNA projects, and in the Central Oregon • Invest in start-up costs for additional GNA staff District to plan and implement noncommercial whose positions would eventually be partially restoration work. Interviewees also described or completely sustained by revenue from GNA disruptions when FFR staff had to leave during timber sales. fire seasons. • Adjust reporting structures so ODF field per- • There is a need for additional administrative sonnel report to a single supervisor. support for the FFR Program to track expendi- • Retain some non-fire FFR staff who are respon- tures, agreements, and project outcomes. Some sible for advancing projects during fire season. interviewees noted another need for funding to support FFR staff working directly with state • Communicate with stakeholders regarding FFR forest staff. staff’s roles, responsibilities, and accomplish- ments. 24 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Central Oregon District Klamath-Lake District Project management Northeast Oregon District On-the-ground impact Project management funds allow for administra- Primary outcomes that have resulted from project East rn Lane District tive support, training, stakeholder input process- management investments have included: Southewse, sat nOdre gporno Dgirsatrmict monitoring and evaluation for the • Monitoring reports by the Ecosystem Workforce FFRT illPamrooogkr aDmistr.i cAt full list of project management Program at the University of Oregon and Ore- expenditures is available in Appendix F. gon State University. Statewide • Staffing the Federal Forest Working Group, a Investment 0 $200,000 $400,000 $6s0t0a,0t0e0-level fo$8r0u0m,00 0for div$e1,r0s0e0, 00s0takeholders to $800,000 of FFR Program funds (8 percent of FFR provide input on barriers and proposed solu- Program investments to date) have been invested tions for restoration of federal lands (investment in project management, an average of $134,989 per primarily made during FY14-15 and FY16-17). year. Investments were made for office and admin- strative expenses as well as to service providers • Administration of the Collaborative Capacity (Figure 11, below). Grant program by the Oregon Watershed En- hancement Board. Economic impact • Procurement of contracts and agreements to Project management investments contributed an support all of the program’s funding areas (i.e., average of $0.2 million in GDP and 2 jobs per year timber sale contracts, contract NEPA services, (Table 9, below). TASS agreements). FigureFY 141-1 9Project management funds received by each service provider, FY14-19 program management FY1to4t-a1l:9 program$1 m,63a0n,a3g49ement total: $1,630,349 Ecosystem Workforce Program, FY18-19 University of Oregon & $279,813 $326,089 Oregon State University 9 FY18-19 Procurement/ODF Admin $226,332 $326,089 FY16-17 Oregon Solutions - Federal $214,689 $271,118 Forest Working Group staffing FY16-17 ODF training, office expenses, $33,782 $2F7Y11,41-185 information technology $212,724 Attorney General $15,315 FY14-15 $212,724 0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Table 9 Average annual project management investments and estimated economic impacts, FY14-FY19 Biennium Fiscal year Expenditures per year GDP per year Jobs per year FY 14-15 FY 14 $106,362 $129,026 1.5 FY 15 $106,362 $129,026 1.5 FY 16-17 FY 16 $135,559 $171,553 2.0 FY 17 $135,559 $171,553 2.0 FY 18-19 FY 18 $163,045 $205,145 2.5 FY 19 $163,045 $205,145 2.5 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 25 Stakeholder perspectives Oregon Board of Forestry’s recommendations Interviewees described several important aspects for expanding management of federal forest- of the FFR Program project management: lands through collaboration with the state. However, some interviewees lamented the loss • Fiscal management and financial oversight of of the FFWG as a channel for key stakehold- the program was improving, but was still not ers to stay informed and engaged in the Fed- adequate. Interviewees recognized the com- eral Forest Restoration Program. They reported plexity but suggested that there were capacity that the recent Good Neighbor Authority public gaps in billing, financial tracking, and admin- meetings facilitated by ODF were an important istration at both the local and statewide level. way for stakeholders to stay engaged. They also recognized that this monitoring re- port and the efforts involved to solicit stake- holder feedback were positive steps toward ad- Stakeholder suggestions for future project dressing this need. management funds Interviewees made suggestions about how they • Dissatisfaction existed with the depth and thought project management funds should be frequency of publicly-available information invested in the future. In particular, interviewees about the program’s inputs, outputs, and out- recommended to: comes. Interviewees felt that previous monitor- • Increase and improve public outreach and com- ing reports did not always provide specific or munication about the FFR Program as a whole, detailed-enough information to be useful. In- especially through a website that contains in- terviewees discussed the challenge of selecting formation about project expenditures and out- meaningful and quantifiable monitoring met- comes. rics that characterize the additive value of the program, especially when different stakehold- • Consider developing an investment strategy, ers valued different aspects of the program. including possible strategic investments zones that provides overarching guidance on the pro- • Varied perspectives about the diminishing ac- gram’s direction. Some interviewees suggested tivity of the Federal Forest Working Group. In- modeling it from other strategies (e.g., Wash- terviewees described the need for the group to ington State’s 20-year Forest Health Strategic dissolve after it had largely fulfilled its original Plan).10 purpose of working to implement the state of 26 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Additive value of the Federal Forest Restoration Program In this study, we attempted to characterize what Perceived “tangible” impacts has been accomplished under the Federal Forest Restoration Program that would not have other- wise occurred. Lawmakers and stakeholders have “One of the common denominators among the expressed interest in understanding the additive national forests around the state that have grown their programs is assistance from the state. It’s critical value of the FFR Program, yet it remains challeng- for us to get work done.” ing to characterize the program’s unique contribu- tions. This is particularly the case because work performed under the FFR Program often consists Outcome 1: Perceived increases in NEPA- of filling in or completing components of federal ready acres projects, which makes it interconnected with larg- er, collaborative, inter-agency accomplishments. Interviewees thought the FFR Program increased In the following section, we report on key findings the number of NEPA-ready acres by: reducing from 56 interviews with FFR Program staff, fed- planning bottlenecks, expanding the size of proj- eral partners, grant recipients, and other engaged ects, developing more efficient NEPA analysis stakeholders after asking the question, “What do processes, and taking on new projects through you think has been accomplished because of the contract NEPA. Interviewees explained that NEPA FFR Program that otherwise would not have been processes are delayed when federal agencies do accomplished?” not have the capacity to quickly complete heritage, botany, wildlife, or other surveys or exams. These Interviewees broadly expressed the importance delays create bottlenecks in the planning process. of documenting the additive value of Oregon’s in- The FFR Program contracts out or completes this vestments in federal forest restoration. They noted work to speed up NEPA timelines, allowing fed- that they thought there was political urgency to re- eral partners to take on additional projects sooner. port more quantitative, tangible outputs from the Interviewees also reported that support from the program such as acres treated, timber volume har- FFR Program allowed federal agencies to increase vested, and economic impacts like jobs and GDP. the size of some NEPA analyses, which allowed However, many of these same interviewees also federal land managers to plan more acres overall. reported that they thought the greatest value of the Obtaining data for larger projects can be difficult, FFR Program was in the “intangible” benefits it and the FFR Program helps to address that chal- created, such as stronger partnerships, collabora- lenge. Interviewees also thought that the FFR Pro- tion, social change within agencies and commu- gram helped create efficiencies through techno- nities, and leveraging of additional resources. In- logical advancements in data collection, the use of terviewees also thought that quantifying the pro- new planning tools such as categorical exclusions, gram’s additive value was further complicated by and taking advantage of ODF contracting mecha- differences in stakeholders’ values, as individuals nisms. Interviewees further noted that through differed in what they thought were meaningful ac- contract NEPA, the FFR Program completed en- complishments of the program. tire NEPA analyses for projects that federal land management units otherwise would not have com- Below we outline some key themes about the “tan- pleted. Although contract NEPA is still new, it was gible” and “intangible” additive impacts of the also anticipated to be faster and more streamlined FFR Program that emerged during interviews with than Forest Service NEPA processes in the future. stakeholders. Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 27 Perceived reduced litigation of planned projects. es, in some cases being matched by federal funds Interviewees explained how collaborative grants and timber resources coming directly from the supported forums for diverse stakeholders to de- national forests. Interviewees described how velop social license and make recommendations the partnership between the state and federal to the Forest Service. TASS investments further agencies increased capacity and resources to strengthened collaborative efforts by resolving complete non-commercial work through pro- underlying questions so stakeholders could reach grams and authorities like the Good Neighbor agreement. Interviewees thought these efforts cre- Authority. They explained how revenue gener- ated conditions in which federal partners could ated from GNA timber sales administered by successfully plan and implement work that stake- ODF were reinvested in restoration work on holders are in alignment with, and potentially re- the forest, essentially opening a new revenue duce litigation. stream for program work. • Increased economic activity and job creation. Outcome 2: Perceived increases in Interviewees also thought that the program had restoration project implementation resulted in timber products being sold sooner, which they thought helped sustain product Some interviewees thought that more on-the- flows to the timber industry and create eco- ground work had been completed on federal nomic activity not captured in estimates from forestlands than the Forest Service otherwise the expenditures invested. would have been able to accomplish. Interview- • Helping to meet federal timber targets. Federal ees described how support from the FFR Program and state agency staff and stakeholders alike all helped federal land management units prepare reported that the FFR Program helped federal and administer timber sales that would not other- agencies meet their timber sale targets. Inter- wise have happened. They also explained how the viewees saw tremendous value in this for the program supported layout and implementation of Forest Service; they also noted how it supported non-commercial hazardous fuels reduction proj- ODF’s goals of employee retention and greater ects that federal agencies would not have had the forest resilience. capacity to complete. Interviewees reported that accomplishing more on-the-ground work had ben- • Helping the Forest Service fill capacity gaps. efited Oregonians, ODF, and federal agencies. Some Interviewees also explained how the FFR Pro- benefits mentioned by interviewees included: gram helped the Forest Service release existing federal resources that they otherwise would not • Reduced risk of hazardous wildfire. Interview- have the ability to spend because of a lack of ees believed the statewide need for hazard- contracting capacity. For example, the FFR Pro- ous fuels reduction surpassed the scale of this gram was able to use GNA agreements to help program; however, some pointed to important utilize Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) funds to ac- examples of how the FFR Program had made a complish restoration and rehabilitation projects difference in select project areas. Interviewees in timber sale units after harvests were com- also linked the reduction in hazardous wildfire pleted. risk with potential improvements in commu- nity safety, air quality, and public health. • Leveraging of additional financial resources for state-federal partnership work in Oregon. Interviewees noted that FFR Program invest- ments had leveraged additional federal resourc- 28 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 • Interagency exchange and mutual learning Perceived “intangible” impacts between agencies. Interviewees from ODF and the Forest Service agreed that they had gained “As we enter this shared stewardship era, having valuable knowledge and experience by work- this [federal] relationship with the state is hugely ing with people from the other agency. They beneficial. Instead of starting from square one, we expressed that prior to deepening their partner- are well on the path of getting more done effectively ships they had little understanding of how the together. [This] leaves us well-positioned to take that work on and show the rest of the nation what is other agency operated. possible in terms of coordination” • More creative problem solving. Interviewees explained how the partnership increased cre- Outcome 1: Strengthened interagency ativity in problem solving. The agencies were cooperation able to dialogue more effectively and bring new perspectives regarding each others’ decisions, sometimes revealing opportunities that had Interviewees reported that the FFR Program had been overlooked. strengthened the cooperative relationship between the Forest Service and ODF. They described how • Reduced risk of litigation. Interviewees ex- the program improved communication, increased plained how improved cross-agency coordina- trust, and benefited both agencies by getting more tion and increased community support helped work done on federal lands while retaining state agencies face public scrutiny. They explained employees. how supportive partnerships made federal and state agencies more able and willing to imple- Interviewees also noted that the strengthened ment novel solutions. partnerships stemming from cooperative work • Morale improvements. Finally, interviewees seemed to have created a cultural shift in the agen- explained how this work had improved morale, cies. They described how younger generations of which was valuable because they felt the work- agency employees at both agencies had grown ac- load sometimes outpaced capacity to accom- customed to federal-state partnership work being plish work. the standard way to operate. Interviewees described many benefits of this Outcome 2: Contributed to the successful strengthened inter-agency cooperation, including: launch of GNA work in Oregon • More effective cross-boundary decision mak- Interviewees reported that the relationships ing during emergencies. Interviewees ex- built between ODF, the Forest Service, and BLM plained how stronger day-to-day cooperation through the FFR Program established the founda- had made it easier to work cooperatively during tion for the successful launch of Good Neighbor urgent situations in which decisions and ac- Authority projects in Oregon. In addition, they de- tions need to be made quickly (i.e., wildfire or scribed how the FFR Program contributed “start- insect and disease outbreaks). up” investments that enabled GNA work to begin • Efficiency in resource expenditures. Interview- sooner on some projects. These funds were espe- ees explained how their partnership has led to cially valuable when forests were faced with long better coordination of resource expenditures wait times to finalize federal agreements or when as well as the ability to take advantage of the there was a risk that project revenue would not strengths of each agency. For example, inter- cover project costs. Interviewees explained that viewees noted that ODF can offer specialized GNA work on some forests was trending towards equipment, nimble contracting, and experience greater self-sufficiency in financing, but that large administering timber sales that generate rev- upfront contributions and smaller continued in- enue. Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 29 vestments by the state were necessary to run a open relationships and partnerships with a broad- successful GNA program on any forest. Interview- er group of stakeholders, such as the environmen- ees also explained that they thought some forests, tal community and industry. especially dry forests on the east side of Oregon, Interviewees further explained how the FFR Pro- would always need significant external financial gram had benefitted ODF by increasing employee resources to implement GNA projects because the retention, growing the workforce, and broadening timber values are insufficient to fund the needed the skillsets of their field crew members. non-commercial restoration work. Outcome 3: Broader stakeholder involvement in forest management processes Interviewees also noted how the FFR Program had created and deepened opportunities for diverse stakeholders to influence federal forest manage- ment in Oregon. This increase in public involve- ment was seen as mutually beneficial for state and federal agencies, and for the general public. Interviewees explained how the FFR Program’s investments in collaborative groups had led to the involvement of new and different stakehold- ers in federal forestland management. They also Concerns about the Federal explained that state investments demonstrated Forest Restoration Program to federal agencies that the state was interested in and attentive to management decisions being Although interviewees generally reported that the made on federal lands, and that they thought fi- FFR Program had made positive contributions to nancial investment enabled ODF to influence fed- federal forestland management in Oregon, many eral priorities. They also noted how the involve- interviewees expressed concern about the under- ment of ODF had increased public trust in federal lying need for the program. Some interviewees forest management. questioned whether the FFR Program addressed the deeper problem for forest restoration work in Outcome 4: Broadened and strengthened Oregon, which they saw as understaffed, under- ODF roles and relationships in the state funded federal agencies. Others said they knew of other stakeholders who feared the FFR Program Interviewees noted that the goals and objectives of was an avenue for local stakeholders to try to as- the FFR Program departed from ODF’s traditional sume control over federal resources. role in the state. They reported that the program represented an expansion of the breadth and scope Some interviewees also noted that FFR Program of the agency’s work and perhaps the beginning of seemed to replicate similar previous efforts that a cultural shift within the agency. They explained had been discontinued, and they feared that there how the FFR Program expanded ODF’s focus on would be inefficiencies if the FFR Program lost fire suppression, timber production from State For- support from the legislature. Although interview- est lands, and private lands work, to other types ees expressed doubts about the program, they still of work such as prescribed burning and non-com- generally wanted a consistent, clear, and impact- mercial fuels work. Interviewees also noted that ful partnership program that focused on achieving the FFR Program had allowed ODF to build more on-the-ground restoration. 30 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Conclusion This report summarizes the investments in federal and qualitative data in this report demonstrate forestland restoration made by the state of Oregon that the $10.6 million invested through the pro- through the Federal Forest Restoration Program gram and the $4.0 million in matching contribu- over the six-year span since it was established. It tions by partners have made meaningful contribu- also presents select economic and on-the-ground tions toward this goal. outcomes stemming from those investments. The overall goal of the FFR Program is to accelerate the This report suggests that the value of the FFR pace, scale and quality of forest restoration to in- Program can be understood in both “tangible” crease the resilience of Oregon’s federal forests, in on-the-ground outcomes, as well as more “intan- a manner that leverages collaborative efforts and gible” outcomes that are harder to measure, such contributes to the long-term vitality of regional as strengthening relationships and collaboration, economies and rural communities. Quantitative and identifying ways to make restoration plan- Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 31 ning and implementation more efficient. One of and restoration needs. Key feedback from stake- the greatest benefits of the program according to holders included that there is a need for greater stakeholders interviewed was the flexible way the strategic planning and targeted investments with- state’s resources were used to fill gaps in staffing in the program. Interviewees expressed urgency or funding at federal agencies. This flexibility en- to link state investments to on-the-ground resto- abled on-the-ground restoration work to progress ration outcomes, and they offered suggestions for on federal forestlands in Oregon even when fed- how to focus the program’s work, such as invest- eral contracts, funds, or staff were not yet finalized ing in priority landscapes, or developing a long- or available due to long contracting processes or term strategic plan. They also expressed a desire limited resources. for more outreach and communication about the program’s strategy and progress. Nearly all par- Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of the FFR ticipants recognized there is great potential and Program yet to be fully realized is that the pro- need for state-federal partnership work to grow in gram created both the structure and relationships Oregon, especially through GNA, in order to ad- that are key precursors for increasing state-federal dress Oregon’s forest restoration needs; however, partnership work. In 2018, the Forest Service an- interviewees also cautioned the program to grow nounced a new “Shared Stewardship” strategy,11 in at a pace that did not exceed their ability to build which they would work closely with states across capacity within state agencies. the country to identify and implement priority res- toration work on federal lands. Other states grap- In this time of diminishing federal agency bud- pled with how to implement this change; in Or- gets, the FFR Program is a key element for accom- egon, state-federal partnership work was already plishing more restoration work in Oregon than strong and underway. Work under the GNA was federal agencies would be able to accomplish on implemented quickly in Oregon after it was au- their own. The economic outcomes, on-the-ground thorized. State resources allocated to GNA work accomplishments, and stakeholder perspectives through Oregon Legislature House Bill 4118 and we present here highlight some of the additional funneled through the FFR Program structure fur- impacts that the state’s investments generated. In ther accelerated implementation. As of May 2019, some cases, the FFR Program’s work is purely ad- the Forest Service and BLM had entered into more ditive, meaning that the program completed work than 30 GNA agreements with the Oregon Depart- that the Forest Service or BLM did not have on ment of Forestry and Oregon Department of Fish their work plans. More often, however, the FFR and Wildlife.12 The increasing use of GNA and OR Program’s investments were more complementary HB4118 represent an evolution in how state-fed- or multiplicative. The program completed portions eral collaborative restoration work is funded and of work that were burdensome for federal agencies an important step toward mobilizing additional to accomplish, but that the state could complete capacity to manage federal forestlands in Oregon. sooner or more efficiently. By creating a structure GNA further presents an opportunity to use the for the state and federal agencies to take advan- value of federal timber resources to increase resto- tage of the strengths and expertise of each agency, ration work in Oregon. the FFR Program has increased and accelerated on-the-ground outcomes, leveraged additional The FFR Program has evolved over time and resources, and built a foundation on which state- stakeholder interviews suggested that the program federal partnership work can grow. could be further adapted to address stakeholder 32 Monitoring Investments in Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program, FY 2014–2019 Endnotes 1 Oregon’s fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30. FY14, for 5 Documented in-kind investments include $4.0 million from example, spans July 2013–June 2014. federal and local government partners, collaborative group members, NGOs, foundations, and other partners; however, in- 2 This total includes both regular FFR Program budget funds as kind contributions were undocumented for many FFR Program well as $400,000 in supplemental funds designated through investments. Additional contributions may not be captured Oregon Legislature House Bill 4118 to be used in conjunction here. with FFR Program funding to advance cross-boundary restoration work completed under the Good Neighbor 6 Salerno, J., H. Huber-Stearns, K. Jacobson, A. Ellison, and C. Authority. Moseley. 2017. Monitoring Oregon’s Investments in the Federal Forest Restoration Program. Ecosystem Workforce Program, 3 Salerno, J., H. Huber-Stearns, K. Jacobson, A. Ellison, and C. University of Oregon.Working Paper #78. Available at https:// Moseley. 2017. Monitoring Oregon’s Investments in the Federal ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_78.pdf. Forest Restoration Program. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon.Working Paper #78. Available at https:// White, E., E.J. Davis, D. Bennett, and C. Moseley. 2015. ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_78.pdf Monitoring of Outcomes from Oregon’s Federal Forest Health Program. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oreogn. Salerno, J., H. Huber-Stearns, K. Jacobson, A. Ellison, Working Paper #57. Available at https://ewp.uoregon.edu/ and C. Moseley. 2017. Monitoring Restoration Progress sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_57.pdf. on Oregon’s Eastside National Forests During the Federal Forest Restoration Program. Ecosystem Workforce Program, 7 Davis, E.J., A. Santo, and E. M. White. 2019. Collaborative University of Oregon. Working Paper #79. Available at https:// Capacity and Outcomes from Oregon’s Federal Forest ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_79.pdf Restoration Program. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Working Paper #92. https://ewp. Salerno, J., H. Huber-Stearns, and C. Moseley. 2017. Oregon’s uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/ files/WP_92.pdf. Federal Forest Restoration Program. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Fact Sheet #12. https://ewp. 8 GNA Foresters and GNA Timber Sale Mentor/Evaluator are uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/FS_12.pdf. ODF employees whose salaries are primarily provided by the USFS through GNA agreements. Partial funding by ODF Santo, A., H. Huber-Stearns, A. Ellison, Policy Analysis Group allows these individuals to participate in activities that federal at University of Idaho, A. Rhodewalt, and E.J. Davis. 2019. funding cannot support, such as attending forest collaborative Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program: FY 2014–2019 meetings. Cumulative Accomplishments. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Fact Sheet #15. https://ewp.uoregon. 9 $40K was designated to EWP at Oregon State University edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/FS_15.pdf. for monitoring collaborative capacity grants and examining collaborative funding sources. $100K went to EWP at Santo, A., H. Huber-Stearns, A. Ellison, Z. Koutnik, and E.J. University of Oregon, $40K of which was subcontracted to the Davis. 2019. Federal Forest Restoration Program Use of the University of Idaho to conduct economic analyses. Good Neighbor Authority: 2016–2018 activities and outcomes. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Fact 10 Details about Washington’s 20-year Forest Health Strategic Sheet #16. https://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/ Plan are available at https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ForestHealthPlan. files/FS_16.pdf. 11 https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/toward-shared- White, E., E.J. Davis, D. Bennett, and C. Moseley. 2015. stewardship.pdf. Monitoring of Outcomes From Oregon’s Federal Forest Health Program. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. 12 Santo, A., H. Huber-Stearns, A. Ellison, Z. Koutnik, and E.J. Working Paper #57. Available at https://ewp.uoregon.edu/ Davis. 2019. Federal Forest Restoration Program Use of the sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_57.pdf. Good Neighbor Authority: 2016–2018 activities and outcomes. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Fact 4 GNA was authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill and allows federal Sheet #16. https://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/ and state agencies to work in partnership to implement files/FS_16.pdf. watershed and forest management activities on federal lands. It further enables federal agencies to purchase restoration services from state agencies using the value of wood products captured through timber sales administered by the state. 0 oREaoN EcosystemWorkforce Program ~ Oregon State University of Idaho I V' University I Policy Analysis Group