Oregon Department of Forestry’s Landscape Resiliency Program: Assessing implementation and outcomes for the 2021-2023 Biennium NAOMI SERIO, MICHAEL R. COUGHLAN, HEIDI HUBER-STEARNS, ANNA SANTO, ANDY MCEVOY, AND ERIC M. WHITE SPRING 2023 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 1 1 5 O loREaoN EcosystemWorkforce Program ~ Or~gon_State y'umvers1ty ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 1 About the authors Naomi Serio is a faculty research assistant at the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, University of Oregon. Michael R. Coughlan is an assistant research professor and associate director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, University of Oregon. Heidi Huber-Stearns is an associate research professor and director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, University of Oregon. Anna Santo is a faculty research assistant at the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, University of Oregon. Andy McEvoy is a faculty research associate at the College of Forestry, Department of Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management, Oregon State University. Eric M. White is a research social scientist with the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. About the Ecosystem Workforce Program: The Ecosystem Workforce Program is a bi-institutional program of University of Oregon’s Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments and the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. We conduct applied social science research and extension services at the interface of people and natural resources. Our publications aim to inform policy makers and practitioners, and contribute to scholarly and practical discourse. Acknowledgements Funding for this study was provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry to the University of Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce Program (Agreement number M0177, Task order #5). We thank interviewees for sharing their time and in- sights with us, as well as project leads for assisting with the recruitment process and hosting site visits. Peer review was provided by Ch'aska Huayhuaca, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute and Susan Charnley, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Additionally reviewed by Jenna Trentadue, ODF. Cover photo: Laurel Butte Landscape Resiliency Program's contractor, Inbound LLC., pile burning. Credit: Dustin Rymph, SWFC. For questions, please contact: Ecosystem Workforce Program Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments 5247 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-5247 resilient.uoregon.edu/ewp 0 The University of Oregon is an equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act. This publication will be made available in accessible formats upon request. 2020 University of Oregon. OREGON ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 1 Lower Rogue Oak Resiliency’s USFS site. Credit: Matthew Timchak Executive Summary Key Findings The Oregon Department of Forestry’s (ODF) Land- • Accomplishments: Nine cross-boundary range- scape Resiliency Program (LRP) is a grant program land and forest restoration projects across the established by Senate Bill 762 (SB762), Section 18- state received a total of $20 million and lever- 20 (2021), to support cross-boundary restoration aged $12 million in matching funds and in- of landscape resiliency and fuels reduction within kind contributions for the 2021-2023 biennium. Oregon. In fall 2021, ODF requested the Ecosystem Together, these projects accomplished a total Workforce Program (EWP) at the University of Ore- of 201,000 acres of activities including thin- gon (UO) to devise and carry out a plan for monitor- ning, prescribed burning, piling, pile burning, ing investments and outcomes of the LRP. The full chipping, mastication, encroachment control, monitoring plan can be found on the University of invasive grass treatment, stream restoration, Oregon, Scholar’s Bank website1. The LRP monitor- and native grass seeding. A total of 45 federal, ing plan focused on three stages: Project Selection, state, local, and non-profit organizations3, along Implementation, and Outcomes. The purpose of this with 177 private landowners, were involved working paper is to report the results of the Imple- as collaborators across the nine LRP projects. mentation and Outcomes monitoring phases. Results from the Project Selection phase can be found in a • Co-benefits: Each project accomplished ex- separate report2. This report presents 1) an overview tensive outreach and engagement with the lo- of selected projects, 2) project participants' experien- cal community and many interviewees indi- ces with project implementation successes, challen- cated the LRP spread awareness within their ges, and lessons learned, 3) on-the-ground accom- community about the importance of active plishments of LRP projects, and 4) an assessment of forest management. Interviewees across all the economic aspects of LRP. LRP projects indicated that project treat- ments would benefit habitat for species such as mule deer, elk, and spotted owl. Tree en- 1. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/27937 3. Number of collaborators is based on proposals and discussions with 2. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/28062 project leads. While ODF was counted as one organization, each USFS unit involved was separately counted. ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 2 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 3 croachment control and fine fuels treatments All project activities were required to be complete will likely also benefit native plant restoration. by June 30, 2023, which allowed projects a year and a half for implementation. In fall 2021, ODF re- • Successes: Interviewees indicated that the LRP quested the Ecosystem Workforce Program (EWP) filled a critical funding gap and was an in- at the University of Oregon (UO) devise and carry tegral part of their communities' restoration out a plan for monitoring investments and outcomes strategy. They discussed how collaboration, of the LRP. To enhance capacities and capabilities, particularly between coordinating organiza- EWP partnered with the USDA Forest Service Pacific tions and private landowners, played a key role Northwest Research Station to provide expertise on in project success. Most interviewees reported natural resource economics and Oregon State Uni- positive interactions with ODF and found versity (OSU) to provide expertise on wildfire risk ODF contacts to be supportive and respon- reduction. sive throughout the implementation process. The monitoring plan addresses three program phas- es: • Challenges: Interviewees indicated that the two-year biennium timeline for grant implemen- 1. Project selection tation was too short and led to implementation 2. Project implementation challenges. Many interviewees expressed con- 3. Project outcomes cern about longer-term maintenance and mon- itoring of project treatments. Projects with pre- This working paper reports monitoring results for scribed burn plans found that air quality regula- project implementation and outcomes. A working tions restricting smoke emissions and short burn paper with results from the project selection mon- weather opportunities, along with the USFS itoring phase can be found elsewhere 2. agency-wide 90-day pause on prescribed fires in 2022, created challenges for meeting project Approach deadlines. Several organizations participating in the LRP struggled with administering the grant In January 2023, EWP initiated data collection for and keeping up with data requests from ODF monitoring the implementation and outcomes phas- and the LRP monitoring team due to lack of staff es of the LRP. Data collection focused on the follow- capacities. ing topics: Introduction Implementation: 1. Overview of projects: characterization of pro- The Oregon Department of Forestry’s (ODF) Land- ject structure, funding awarded, participating scape Resiliency Program (LRP) is a grant program organizations, land ownerships, and contractors established by Senate Bill 762 (SB762), Section 18- involved in implementation. 20 (2021) to support cross-boundary restoration of 2. Program participants' experiences with imple- landscape resiliency and fuels reduction within Ore- mentation of LRP activities, including successes, gon. As directed by SB762, ODF organized a work- challenges, and lessons learned. group composed of representatives of stakeholder 3. Program participants’ experiences working with organizations to guide the LRP program develop- ODF. ment and to facilitate the project proposal review and selection process. In early 2022, the grant program Outcomes: announced funding in the amount of $20 million 1. Assessment of on-the-ground accomplishments. for the 2021-2023 biennium awarded to nine land- 2. Assessment of economic aspects. scape-scale fuels reduction projects across the state. 3. Social and ecological outcomes of LRP activities. The 2021 request for proposals outlines elibigility criteria, program rules, and the program timeline4. 4. https://www.oregon.gov/odf/programs/lrp-request-for-proposals-2021-2023.pdf ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 3 Interviews two interview protocols, one for LRP project leads and another for activity area key informants. In cases To understand program successes, challenges, and where the LRP project lead was also identified as an outcomes, we interviewed LRP program participants activity area informant, we utilized both protocols ("key informants") who we identified as persons af- during interviews. Interview questions were a mix of filiated with grantee organizations, partner organiz- multiple choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions. ations named on the grant applications, contractors, and any others who our initial contacts suggested The LRP project lead interview protocol included were knowledgeable about the LRP project activities. questions about the following topics: By design, the 2021-2023 LRP projects were intended to be landscape scale wildfire mitigation projects, • Identification of relevant contacts for activity with each involving multiple activities, partners, and areas. landownerships. Organizations funded by the LRP • Experiences communicating with ODF program program were most often managing other ongoing administration. forest restoration projects using multiple funding • Challenges, successes, and opportunities for streams. To avoid project participants conflating ac- improvement in coordination between ODF and tivities funded through different mechanisms, we project partners. sought to link program participants' experiences with an LRP-funded "activity area.” We defined "ac- The activity area key informant interview protocol tivity area" units as one or more LRP grant-funded included questions about the following topics: (or matched) activities undertaken by the same set of collaborating partners and occurring on a spatially • Activities accomplished, land ownerships in- bounded location or set of locations. Because of the cluded, and partners involved in activity area. diversity of projects that were funded, we relied on • Activity co-benefits, planned use, and outreach program participants to help further define and oper- efforts. ationalize the "activity area" in ways that were most • Direct, match, and in-kind funding received. consistent with the local project contexts. • Employment for technical services and contract- ing. To collect data on program participants' experien- • Successes, challenges, and opportunities for ces with project implementation and outcomes, we improving LRP implementation and outcomes. aimed to recruit at least one key informant per ac- tivity area. We considered activity area key inform- We piloted the two protocols with one project lead. ants to be individuals who were knowledgeable about Interviews were conducted both in-person and vir- activity outcomes and heavily involved in project tually from January through April 2023. We digitally implementation. The number of activity areas per recorded interviews, with interviewee consent, and project ranged from one to seventeen. To recruit key used automated transcription features available on informants for each activity area, we first requested a digital recording applications. We took notes during list of activity areas and appropriate, knowledgeable the interview through a password protected online contacts from each LRP project lead via email. For data collection instrument that complemented the most projects, the LRP project leads were the individ- interview protocol. These notes were cross-checked uals listed on the LRP grant proposals. However, for with interview transcriptions to ensure accurate and the Central Oregon project, which included 17 agree- comprehensive capture of interviewee responses. ments, we considered the primary contacts for each agreement to be the project leads. Based on activity For analysis, we partitioned the interview responses area information that project leads shared with us, we into two datasets based on the structure of open- emailed at least one contact from each activity area and closed-ended questions within the interview to recruit key informants for interviews. We created ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 4 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 5 protocol. We used the qualitative analysis software, interviews with project leads listed on proposals. Dedoose, to apply an inductive coding structure These interviews focused on project structure, or- that identified emergent themes in the responses to ganizational relationships, and collaborative history open-ended questions. To establish intercoder reli- among partners. To gain a deeper understanding of ability, we cross checked the coding application of two project structure and organizational roles within each different researchers, iteratively correcting codes that LRP project, we conducted 1-2 day in-person site vis- were unclear or ambiguous (see Appendix C for the its with eight projects5 between fall 2022 and spring codebook). We summed and reported the number of 2023. During site visits, we completed in-person interviewees who mentioned themes identified within interviews and visited various activity areas. In some responses to understand the proportion of responses cases, we were able to meet private landowners and reflecting each identified code. In some cases, factual see contractors implementing treatments in real time. information discussed in interviews, such as key pro- These site visits provided deeper context for projects ject changes or activities completed, was verified with and served to verify project details discussed in prior ODF’s records. We analyzed closed-ended (yes/no) interviews. We initially utilized project proposals to and scalar response questions using IBM SPSS ver- assess how funding and match were distributed, and sion 28, and report these results as percentages. to assess target acres treated. We then updated these numbers with data from ODF and they were up to Additional data collection date as of June 23 2023. However, because projects were able to complete activities through June 30, final In fall 2022, prior to our implementation and out- numbers may differ slightly from those we report. comes interviews, we conducted brief and informal Prescribed burn warning sign, adjacent to wildfire evacuation route sign, for the Ashland Forest All-lands LRP. Credit: Michael Coughlan 5. Our site visit for the Southeast Oregon Wildfire Resiliency Project was cancelled due to late season snow cover. ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 5 Results Overview of projects and participanting organizations The nine funded LRP projects (Figure 1) are characterized by a range of ecosystems and organizational structures. While each project included cross-boundary activities and collaboration across organizations, the nature and history of collaboration varied greatly across projects. Some projects leveraged their LRP award towards longer-term projects with established collaborations, while others utilized it as a springboard to foster new collaborations. In most cases, local forest collaboratives or restoration-based non-profits were highly involved in coordinating and leading LRP activities. This section highlights the unique structure of each LRP project. Here we use both the terms “collaborator” and "partner" to refer to any organization mentioned in project proposals or interviews that was involved in project planning or implementation, and “public entities” as any federal, state, county, or city agency, district, or governing body- including public universities. Figure 1. Overview of LRP project locations, match funding, LRP award funding, and total investment.*    …€ƒ ­€‚ƒ                               ‚€„ƒ   ­€…ƒ        ‡€‡ƒ †€…ƒ           „€„ƒ            ‡†ˆ  ‡ Ž  ‰Š ‹  Š     Œ *Laurel Butte and Lower Rogue Oak Resiliency project areas slightly enlarged for visual clarity. ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 6 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 7 Ashland Forest All-Lands Restoration Project 10 key The Ashland Forest All-Lands Restoration (AFAR) project is an ongoing collaborators effort that began in 2010 when the City of Ashland, RRSNF, The Nature (1 agreement) Conservancy, and Lomakatsi Restoration Project signed the Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Agreement. This LRP-funded phase of -including- the AFAR project is led by the City of Ashland, in collaboration with the aforementioned partners. Project activities include thinning, pile burning, prescribed underburning, and mastication on 150 acres of private, federal, 2 Non-profits and city lands. The project area encompasses the cities of Ashland and Talent, which are classified within the highest wildfire risk class, and includes densely populated wildland urban interface (WUI) communities. 4 Public entities 4 Private landowners Above: Abraham Contracting crews pile burning on private lands in the neighborhood above Lithia Park, Ashland. Credit: Michael Coughlan Right: Lithia Park (city lands) hillside following thinning treatments with LRP funding. Credit: Naomi Serio (148--~ ~ acres treated ( p rescribed underburning, =--thinn-ing, pile bu-rning) ] ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 7 Central Oregon Shared Stewardship Landscape Resiliency Project The Central Oregon Shared Stewardship Landscape Resiliency Project (COSSLRP) consisted of 17 different agreements between ODF and project partners. The Central Oregon Forest Stewardship Foundation (COFSF), a non-profit established in 2011, led COSSLRP’s monitoring efforts and coordinated partner collaboration by hosting meetings and field trips. 17 Bend Parks and Recreation, Deschutes Land Trust, La Pine State Park, agreements Deschutes County, Black Butte Ranch, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District, and several private landowners held individual -with- agreements with ODF, together constituting the COSSLRP. Match was provided by the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The 3 Non-profits project partners treated approximately 32,000 acres of federal, state, county, tribal, and private rangelands and forests adjacent to watersheds classified within the highest wildfire risk classes. Project activities included noxious 4 Public entities weed removal, thinning and fuel breaks, stream restoration, prescribed burning, a residential site assessment, and the development of a defensible space plan. 9 Private landowners 1 Tribe Above: Project partners gather at the Upper Deschutes Watershed site to view stream restoration efforts. Right: Pile burning on Glynn Properties, a private partner. Both photos taken by Michael Coughlan during fall 2022 field trip organized by ODF. [_3 9,0_00_acre_s treat e _d (thin_ning, f_uel breaks, invasives removal, prescribed bur_ning)] ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 8 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 9 Landscape Resiliency in the Upper Applegate Watershed Lomakatsi Restoration Project, an Ashland-based non-profit that has been implementing collaborative restoration initiatives for 25 years, led the Landscape Resiliency in the Upper Applegate Watershed (UAW) project. In 2020, Rogue Forest Partners (RFP), which is composed of four non-profits and six public agencies, began implementing wildfire risk 10 key reduction treatments within the UAW through a six-year Oregon Watershed collaborators Enhancement Board (OWEB) Focused Investment Partnership (FIP) grant. (1 agreement) Lomakatsi leveraged the LRP funding to contribute 354 acres of thinning on National Forest System lands that are connected to already treated portions of the longer-term UAW Restoration Project area. The LRP project area is -including- adjacent to communities classified within the highest wildfire risk class and is composed of previously managed Douglas-fir plantations and natural 4 Non-profits young conifer-hardwood stands. Following the LRP work, Lomakatsi and project partners plan to use OWEB funding to pile and burn the thinned materials. 6 Public entities Above: GE Forestry crews, contracted by Lomakatsi, cutting and piling on National Forest Service lands. Credit: Michael Coughlan Right: Thinned National Forest Service lands in the Upper Applegate. Credit: Michael Coughlan [_ 432 acre_s treated (thinni_ng and piling)] ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 9 (_- Laur_el -Bu_tte L_-ands_cap-e_ Resil_i-ency_ Pr)o_ ject 15 key Southern Willamette Forest Collaborative (SWFC), an Oakridge-based collaborators collaborative, along with its fiscal sponsor, South Willamette Solutions (1 agreement) (SWS), led project planning and implementation for the Laurel Butte Landscape Resiliency Project. The 150-acre project area bisects Oakridge and -including- Westfir communities. Project activities included understory thinning, brush removal, and piling on private non-commercial lands. Five landowners, ODF, OSU, the USFS, the Cities of Oakridge and Westfir, Oakridge Air, and a 3 Non-profits RARE Americorps service member at the University of Oregon collaborated on project planning and outreach. Lane Regional Air Protection Agency and Oakridge Air helped with public communications regarding prescribed 7 Public entities burns. This group of partners has a history of collaboration focused on improving forest health, reducing wildfire risk, and coordinating wildfire smoke response. 5 Private landowners Above: Inbound LLC. burn crew member pile buring. Top right: Northwest Youth Corps crew removing invasive blackberries. Bottom right: ASI crew from Salem, Oregon. All photos taken by Dustin Rymph, SWFC. 153 acres treate d (thinning, piling, pile burning, invasives removal) J ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 10 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 11 ( L_ower Ro_gue Oak R_esiliency_ Project ) 8 key The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF), along with Wild collaborators Rivers Coast Forest Collaborative (WRCFC) and its fiscal sponsor, Cascade (1 agreement) Pacific Resource Conservation and Development, led project planning and implementation for the Lower Rogue Oak Resiliency Project. The project area, which primarily lies in the RRSNF, is adjacent to the communities -including- of Agness, Oak Flat, and Illahe. Project activities include thinning, piling, and meadow enhancement on 840 acres of National Forest Service and 4 Non-profits private non-commercial lands. The Lower Rogue Watershed Council, in collaboration with the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians and landowners, led planning and implementation for the private lands portion of the project. Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative, the Lower 2 Public entities Rogue Watershed Council, and RRSNF additionally contributed to the USFS portion of the project. This group of partners has been collaborating since 2012 and is currently working together on additional projects outside the 1 Private LRP, such as the Shasta Agness Landscape Restoration Project. landowner 1Tribe Above: Agness community members gather for a public meeting coordinated by the USFS to discuss LRP activites. Credit: Tabatha Rood Right: National Forest Service lands treatment area in December (20=22 . Cre-dit-: Ma-tthe-w T_imch_ak ____.,-, 996 acres treated (hand thinning and piling) ==---] ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 11 (_-Southea_-----st Oreg_on Wild_fire Resi_liency P_roject) 38 key The Southeast Oregon Wildfire Resiliency (SOWR) project is led by collaborators High Desert Partnership, a non-profit that supports and convenes six collaboratives, including the Harney County Wildfire Collaborative (1 agreement) (HCWC), whose members came together to develop the LRP proposal. The BLM, Harney Soil and Water Conservation District, Oregon Department of -including- State Lands, Burns Paiute Tribe, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pheasants Forever, Harney County Cooperative Weed Management Area, 4 Non-profits NRCS, and EcoSource Native Seed and Restoration are the core partners implementing LRP activities. The project area includes 76,000 acres of federal, state, private, and tribal land, mainly composed of sagebrush steppe, and is adjacent to two Sage-Grouse Priority Areas of Conservation. 6 Public entities Treatments include aerial spraying of invasive annual grass, native grass seeding, and juniper encroachment control. 27 Private landowners 1 Tribe Above: Aerial spraying of invasive grasses. Right: Juniper stand following encroachment control treatment. Both photos taken by Brand McMullen, BG Michael Images [1 33,000 acres of ann u al grass treatment, Juniper removal, and native grass seeding J ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 12 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 13 Upper John Day Valley Landscape Resiliency Project The Upper John Day Valley LRP, led by Grant Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), builds upon existing fire resiliency work initiated in 2016 with funding from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 63 key and OWEB. The LRP funding provided three programmatic expansions to collaborators the existing project—23,000 acres of fine fuels treatment on private lands, (1 agreement) 204,000 acres of private land assessment, and the development of a story map. Leading Edge Aviation was the operator for the fine fuels component of the project, which targeted invasive annual grasses with aerial herbicide -including- application. OSU led the private land assessment, which measured forest conditions, stand density, and other information that proved useful for future 1 Non-profit risk reduction project proposals, such as the Joint Chiefs. The assessment first utilized remote sensing methods and then ground-truthed 114,000 of those acres. OSU created the story map, which summarizes project efforts and outcomes. 7 Public entities 55 Private landowners Above: Matt Wenick, Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, walking the line between treated and untreated plots. Credit: Envu Right: John Rizza, OSU Extension, explaining how to take measurements for the private lands assessment. Credit: Aaron Roth [_2 3,000_ acres fine 20_4,000 pr_ivate lands fuels treatment assessed ] ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 13 (W-a_sc-o C_o-u n_ty -F o_res-t R_es-il ie_nc-e P_ro-je c_t ) 6 Wasco County Forest Resilience Project is a collaboration among The Dalles agreements ODF Unit, Mt. Hood National Forest, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Lupine Forests LLC, Columbia Land Trust, East Cascades Oak -with- Partnership, and OSU Extension Service. Project activities included thinning, piling, mastication, road improvement for access, fine fuels treatment, and native plant restoration on approximately 13,000 acres of federal, state, and 3 Non-profits private mixed conifer and pine/oak stands. Additionally, the Columbia Land Trust, along with other partners in the East Cascades Oak Partnership, led white oak monitoring efforts, which focused on understanding oak system 3 Public entities response to disturbance events, such as wildfire and prescribed burning. The project area lies within three high priority, high risk wildland urban interfaces and is adjacent to several other cross boundary risk reduction and restoration projects. Above: Thinning and piling in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area near historic barn. Credit: Naomi Serio Top right: Thinning and piling on land trust property near Friend, OR. This property was managed by The Conservation Fund during the LRP grant period and includes healthy white oak stands. Credit: Naomi Serio Bottom right: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife refuge near Tygh Valley, post-mastication. Credit: Michael Coughlan [1-,6=00=ac=res tre = ated (=thinn=ing, p~iling, ---===m=asti=cati-o-n,- r-oa-d improvem]ent) ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 14 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 15 (_West- Bear A-ll-_Lan-ds Res-torat_io-n Proj-ect ) 92 key The West Bear All-Lands Restoration Project, led by Lomakatsi Restoration collaborators Project, began in 2020 with a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program award for (1 agreement) hazardous fuels reduction and community wildfire resiliency coordination. Lomakatsi is planning and implementing West Bear alongside its partners -including- at Rogue Forest Partners (RFP), which is composed of four non-profits and six public agencies with over two decades of restoration collaboration. The LRP award, which complements several additional federal, state, and private 6 Non-profits funding sources, was utilized for cutting, piling, and burning 2,275 acres across private, federal, and city lands. There are 138 private landowners involved in the project footprint, with 76 receiving treatments funded 6 Public entities through the LRP award. The project area lies within the highest wildfire risk class and is immediately adjacent to areas burned in the 2020 Alameda Fire. 76 Private landowners 4 Tribes Above: Thinning and piling in white oak forest on private lands in the hills above Talent, Oregon. Right: Contractors thinning on private lands near Jacksonville, Oregon. Both photos taken by Naomi Serio during April 2023 site visit. [ 2,48 5 acres thinned and piled (including 500 acres of pile burning) J ~* ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 15 Program participant experiences interview requests, which also contributed to the uneven distribution. Population description We conducted 33 interviews with 44 individuals6 who Sixty-eight percent of interviewees identified as male, were involved in one, and in some cases two, of the nine and 32 percent identified as female. No one in our sample LRP projects. Our interviewee population represented population identified as non-binary or transgender. 26 activity areas. The number of interviewees were not Most interviewees worked for non-profit organizations equally distributed among projects because our research or federal, state, tribal, or local agencies that were design focused on activity areas rather than “projects” as involved in one or more LRP projects (Figure 3). Four a unit of analysis. Thus, larger projects with more activity interviewees were private land owners taking part in the areas, such as the Central Oregon Shared Stewardship LRP and one was a private contractor for an LRP project. LRP and Wasco County Forest Resilience Project have Within these organizations, sixteen interviewees worked more representation within our sample (Figure 2). as project managers or coordinators, while others were Additionally, some projects were more responsive to foresters, land managers, or scientists. Figure 2. Distribution of interviewees by project affiliation.                                  Figure 3. Number of interviewees per organizational affiliation.  I    j    I    I    I     j    D   D 6. In some cases, we interviewed two project participants from the same activity area or organization together in the same interview. ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 16 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 17 Implementation successes contracting, accounting, and monitoring processes— which they indicated would have been bottlenecks, par- We asked interviewees what went well throughout the ticularly for federal agencies, without this collaboration. project implementation process, and several themes The topic of collaboration is covered in more detail in a emerged. Many interviewees (n=28) mentioned that the separate section below. LRP filled a critical funding gap and was an integral part of their community’s restoration strategy. As Lastly, many interviewees (n=15) discussed the generally one interviewee responded, “It [the LRP] allowed us to smooth and successful nature of project implementation. proactively treat areas that we've been trying to fund for For example, they identified hiring contractors, over 5 years.” Specifically, they mentioned that the LRP’s monitoring project outcomes, and project billing as flexible qualifications allowed several types of land processes that went well. Some interviewees described ownerships and ecosystems that often don’t qualify for how implementation went nearly as planned and how other grant opportunities. For example, some private contractors had effectively and efficiently implemented landowners that participated in the LRP were excluded prescriptions, which in some cases were quite complex. from applying for the Joint Chief’s Landscape Restoration Overall, most interviewees spoke positively about Partnership opportunities due to grant restrictions. project implementation and expressed that the projects were successful in multiple ways. Interviewees discussed how the LRP was successful in pushing the boundaries, in terms of pace and scale, Collaboration of landscape restoration work. For instance, many interviewees indicated that the LRP was the largest Forty-five organizations, excluding contractors, and restoration project they had ever been involved in, both 177 private landowners were involved in the nine in terms of acreage and number of collaborators. Two LRP projects, according to project proposals and data interviewees pointed out their appreciation for the LRP’s obtained from project leads. To further understand the inclusion of resilience and restoration-based goals, rather nature of collaboration, we asked interviewees to list than fuels reduction targets alone. partners involved in implementation of their activity area and to indicate their level of involvement on a scale Additionally, some interviewees (n=5) discussed the ranging from not involved to very involved. Interviewees critical role that private landowners played in ensuring mentioned a total of 117 partners, with contractors and successful project implementation. They emphasized non-profits being the most commonly listed partner how involved, trusting, and helpful these landowners (Figure 4). Interviewees that listed contractors as were, and stressed that the project would not have partners primarily indicated that they were very involved been possible without these strong relationships. For in implementation or took the lead. instance, one interviewee described how, "the trust that they [private landowners] put into us is really what made We asked interviewees how, if at all, partnerships and the project work. In some cases, we were treating hundreds collaboration influenced the pace, scale, or quality of acres- maybe a thousand on someone’s place. For these of the work accomplishment. Nearly all interviewees working landscapes, that's a lot of trust. They're relying on (n=39) emphasized the helpful and critical role that grass that we're spraying to run livestock on." that collaboration played in project planning and implementation. However, some (n=6) mentioned Nearly all interviewees mentioned aspects of collabora- drawbacks to the collaborative nature of the LRP. tion and partnership that contributed to project success. Specifically, they discussed how including so many Specifically, some interviewees (n=4) discussed how hav- organizations in decision-making processes slowed ing a coordinating organization for their project, such progress and occasionally led to conflict. One interviewee as the local forest collaborative or a leading non-profit, pointed out that partnerships struggled to decide how was critical to project success. Interviewees found it help- to share credit for accomplishments resulting from ful when these coordinating organizations administered collaborative processes. ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 17 Figure 4. Number of partners interviewees mentioned by level of involvement and type. ­      €       ƒ„    ƒ„  - ƒ   -- ƒ  - ƒ  ƒ… -- ƒ†  I ƒ  =:J ƒ I I I I       ­ ‚  More positive comments described how partnerships idea-sharing, and allowed partners to leverage each helped projects gain community acceptance and other’s expertise. Interviewees emphasized that the scale provided support by increasing the efforts’ public trust and pace of work would not have been possible without and credibility. For instance, one interviewee explained strong collaboration. As one interviewee highlighted, how community members who often distrusted a “The group discussions with various stakeholders are giving participating organization decided to support the project a holistic view and showing the scale of what's getting when they learned that other organizations, which they done. We're able to see what our neighbors are getting were familiar with, were also involved. Many of these accomplished.” interviewees pointed out that partnerships that were Challenges created or strengthened through the LRP are planning to collaborate on future grant opportunities. Although We asked interviewees what challenges and bottlenecks many partnerships were pre-existing, interviewees arose during the project implementation phase, and mentioned that the LRP made them more cohesive as several common themes emerged. The most common a group and allowed them to plan more strategically. challenge mentioned (n=17) was the LRP grant timeline, For example, an interviewee said, “The ability to get which posed a challenge for implementation since it something on the ground treated, like a large acreage for required proposed work to be completed by the end of multiple resource objectives, really brought some life back the state fiscal biennium, giving projects less than two into members who maybe had gotten a little tired of being years to administer the funding and complete the work. part of the collaborative.” Two interviewees suggested that ODF could announce the available funding and open applications as soon as They discussed how involving diverse partners brought possible in the future, so that projects could plan ahead. different viewpoints to the planning process, encouraged They additionally suggested that ODF stagger their ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 18 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 19 various grants initiatives, so that different funding streams noted, "The challenge is that we're on the heels of a five- did not end on the same date. Interviewees additionally to-seven-year drought, and it's been really challenging mentioned that many internal administrative processes, as to implement prescribed fire both from a public concern well as processes related to compliance with the National perspective, because of recent wildfires and heightened fears Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), take longer than is over fires getting away, but mainly because we have so many feasible within the two-year grant timeline. Interviewees trees dying and being weakened by the drought." discussed how the short timeline limited the extent to which they could be thoughtful with extensive outreach Organizational challenges were frequently mentioned as and ecological considerations. In relation to the short additional challenges that slowed implementation. Some timeline, two interviewees also mentioned concern over interviewees (n=5) discussed how internal administrative long-term maintenance of the treatments, particularly on capacity was a challenge for project implementation, private lands. One interviewee's comment highlighted this particularly for non-profits. They described having sentiment, "In 10 years, we'll be right back where we are limited grant administrative capacity to respond to project without maintenance." They indicated that they saw the requests, including data requests from ODF and the LRP projects as more of a “band-aid” than a long-term landscape monitoring team. One interviewee suggested removing resilience solution, and suggested funding be allocated the ten percent limit on monitoring and planning, which for long-term ecological monitoring and maintenance of ODF set for project budgets, to address the capacity treatments. Another interviewee described how, “This is a bottleneck. Several interviewees (n=8) mentioned that problem over a century in the making, it's going to require agency regulations, such as those related to threatened 20 years to tilt the balance in a favorable direction and and endangered species and culturally sensitive areas, also then ongoing investments in maintenance. The short-term slowed project implementation processes. expectation of expenditures is a serious impediment to doing the best possible work." Lastly, a few interviewees (n=6) discussed weather as a challenge for implementation, particularly when paired Interviewees also discussed budget and finance related with the short grant timeline. Many project sites were challenges. Several individuals (n=8) mentioned bottle- inaccessible for several months due to the long snow necks related to supply-chain issues, labor shortages, or season in 2023, delaying implementation processes. inflation. Specifically, the rise in fuel costs during the 2021- 2023 grant timeline caused actual supply and labor costs to Some interviewees mentioned key changes to their be higher than anticipated, and a couple of interviewees project’s proposed work resulting from unanticipated indicated they wished they had budgeted for higher costs challenges. For example, two interviewees discussed in the original proposal to account for this issue. how the Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) die off in southern Oregon was worse than expected over the project Some interviewees (n=7) mentioned challenges that timeline, leading to changes in treatment prescriptions. impacted their ability to carry out prescribed burning Two projects were unable to carry out prescribed burn plans. These issues included strict air quality regulations plans due to the agency burn pause previously described. and short windows of appropriate burning conditions, Two interviewees mentioned that their project ended up both of which were especially problematic for projects reducing the amount of acreage originally planned due adjacent to urban areas. Many planned prescribed burns to unanticipated challenges such as high fuel prices and had to be put off due to the USFS 90-day burn pause in regulatory setbacks. 20227. Some project partners were not able to complete their planned prescribed burns by the end of the grant Experience working with ODF timeline. Interviewees also mentioned the issue of public We asked interviewees to rate the extent to which ODF concern over burning during fire season reducing burn program administration recognized and filled needs windows; for example, they discussed how the public is in partner capacities. Most interviewees (80 percent) often nervous about burns occurring after June 1st, which indicated that ODF recognized and filled needs in is when fire season is typically declared. As one interviewee partner capacities well, while the rest were unsure (Figure 7. https://www.fs.usda.gov/news/releases/statement-forest-service-chief-randy-moore-announcing-pause-prescribed-fire ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 19 5). We also asked interviewees to rate the extent to which from ODF took longer than anticipated, which some- ODF program administration executed implementation times put organizations in difficult financial positions with processes effectively. Most interviewees (87 percent) their contractors. For instance, one interviewee explained indicated that ODF executed processes well, and 13 that “One time there was an eight-week lag for us to get percent were neutral (Figure 5). compensated, and we had to lean on a line of credit to pay contractors.” Some interviewees also mentioned that for Additionally, we asked interviewees what went well when participating organizations and private landowners, the communicating with ODF. Many interviewees (n=21) OregonBuys website, which was used for reimbusements, discussed positive experiences interacting with ODF was difficult to navigate. during project implementation. They described the communication process as easy, smooth, and simple. Two interviewees discussed how staff turnover at ODF led Specifically, interviewees appreciated that ODF was to some confusion with knowing who to go to for various responsive to questions and available for problem questions, and one suggested that ODF create a staff solving, such as helping projects find contractors. Two organizational chart for project participants to reference. interviewees highlighted that they found the in-person Another individual mentioned that their organization ODF project site visits helpful. As one interviewee said, found the award reallocation process challenging. They “Everybody that we talked to at ODF always seemed really described how ODF allocated their project’s unused funds willing to help.” to the statewide pool, although the project had requested those funds be reallocated to a different agreement within We asked interviewees what challenges they experienced their project. Lastly, one interviewee suggested that it when communicating with ODF. The most common issue would be helpful for local ODF foresters to be involved interviewees discussed was the reimbursement process. in LRP projects, rather than primarily staff at the Salem Several individuals (n=9) found that reimbursements office. Figure 5. Interviewees’ responses regarding the extent to which ODF program administration filled partner needs and implemented processes effectively.                       €           ­ ­ € ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 20 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 21 Perspectives on social and wildfire risk reduction on rangelands. Another project ecological outcomes repurposed logs from thinning treatments for stream habitat restoration efforts. A few interviewees (n=3) Attitudes towards ecosystem management discussed how the involvement of Tribal Nations, as well the demographic diversity of their crews, were unique Throughout interviews, interviewees discussed how aspects of their projects. the LRP impacted private landowner and community member attitudes towards ecosystem management In addition, some interviewees (n=4) indicated that some approaches. For instance, we asked interviewees if, and of the project locations and ecosystems were unique how, they thought their LRP project would lead to increased in the context of fuels reduction work and were often use of prescribed fire in their region. Most interviewees excluded from similar programs. For example, one (78 percent) thought that the LRP project they were individual identified the proximity of their project to an involved in would increase the use of prescribed fire, and urban center as novel. Another described the Oregon many attributed that to the impact the LRP had on social white oak ecosystem characterizing their project area as, awareness of prescribed fire. Many interviewees involved “A unique ecosystem that usually gets forgotten about and in projects that did not implement burning described how isn’t top priority because it doesn’t fit well for commercial prescribed burning was part of the longer-term plan for work.” the project areas. Twenty-two percent of interviewees indicated they did not think their LRP project would lead Co-benefits to increased use of prescribed fire. When we asked interviewees about co-benefits of project treatments, other than fuels reduction, several themes Some interviewees (n=5) discussed how their LRP proj- emerged. Benefits to habitat and wildlife resulting ect was raising awareness among landowners and com- from project treatments was the commonly mentioned munity members about the importance of prescribed (n=22) co-benefit. Specifically, many individuals working fire and active land management for fire resilience. One on projects in Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) interviewee said, "People are really welcoming of this effort ecosystems emphasized their vulnerability to conifer and want to get involved. They see their neighbor’s property encroachment. Treatments that included thinning and treated and they say, 'please do mine too!'” Another noted encroachment control reduced resource competition that there’s been a recent cultural shift in their area, in for native oaks. Of interviewees who mentioned habitat which the community is beginning to recognize that thin- enhancement, many specifically indicated that treatments ning is not clear cutting, but ecological management. would likely improve browsing for deer and elk and benefit Innovation spotted owls and migratory birds. A couple of interviewees discussed how their project had improved stream habitat, Innovation was one criterion for LRP project selection4. benefiting aquatic species and overall watershed health. We asked interviewees to describe what, if anything, they Many interviewees viewed these ecological “co-benefits” found to be novel, unique, or innovative about the LRP as primary objectives, described by one interviewee as, project they were involved in. Several interviewees (n=9) “We bring to the table that ecological lens. We’re not just out described how the scale of the LRP project they were there reducing fuels for the sake of reducing fuels, though involved in was beyond anything their organization that’s an important aspect. Our prescriptions are very site- had participated in before; specifically, they mentioned specific and meant to enhance habitat for wildlife.” the large scale of collaboration, funding, and acreage as unique defining qualities of the LRP. Two individuals who mentioned potential habitat improvements stressed that the true impact of these Many interviewees (n=10) said their project’s treatments, treatments on wildlife would not be clear for several activities, and methods of engagement were novel, unique, years down the line, and that funding for longer-term or innovative. For example, one project created a story ecosystem monitoring associated with fuels reduction map to highlight their work and spread awareness about treatments was necessary. One interviewee pointed out ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 21 that, “30 years ago, people were taking wood out of streams for private landowners, and stream restoration. Several to try to make it easier for fish to go upstream, and now projects reported that they will burn piles and carry out they’re putting the wood back. I’m hoping we aren’t making prescribed burning plans after the 2021-2023 LRP grant that same mistake with some of our projects now, but we timeline using separate funding. won’t know for a long time.” Over half of the activity areas represented in interviews A few interviewees (n=3) mentioned co-benefits specific completed technical and professional services to sup- to rangeland-based projects, which generally focused port restoration work. These activities included bio- on invasive annual grass treatment. They pointed out the logical monitoring, a private land assessment, heritage benefit to native grasses and shrubs, which will no longer and botany surveys, and mapping. Some of this work, need to compete for resources with invasive annual grasses including surveys required for NEPA compliance, if treatments are successful. Interviewees explained how was completed in prior years with separate funding. these native grasses typically stay green throughout fire season, improving the watershed’s ability to absorb and Project activities were completed across a range of store precipitation, which benefits the habitat in addition to ecosystems, including rangelands, oak forests, and promoting wildfire resilience. One interviewee specifically mixed-conifer forests. As described in the co-benefits pointed out that treatments on private rangelands should section of this report, interviewees described many of improve grazing for cattle. these ecosystems as critical habitat for species such as mule deer, elk, sage-grouse, and spotted owls. Project Some interviewees (n=5) mentioned that treatments, areas spanned multiple landownerships, including particularly those involving fuel breaks or taking place federal, state, county, tribal, and private lands. The adjacent to roads, improved evacuation routes and access planned use of these areas varied greatly and included for firefighters. This improved access was particularly private ranching lands, hunting areas, recreational critical for project areas adjacent to densely packed parks, conservation areas, and private backyards. neighborhoods or critical infrastructure. Outreach and engagement A couple of interviewees mentioned that treatments would Each LRP project engaged their local community and enhance landscape aesthetics and recreation opportu- surrounding landowners, sharing their accomplish- nities. One individual highlighted the problem of illegal ments with the public in a variety of ways. We asked hunting and fishing within their project boundaries and interviewees to describe any outreach their project con- discussed how the treatments would improve visibil- ducted to share updates and involve community members. ity within the forest, allowing for better law enforcement. Many interviewees (n=18), discussed field trips, forums, Lastly, one interviewee shared that their project included and events their project organized. For instance, one co-benefits related to Indigenous cultural revitalization ef- project sponsored an event in which community mem- forts, such as improving access to traditionally important bers picnicked together and learned from guest speak- sources of food. ers and wildfire-related film screenings. Interviewees described field trips and site visits that included a broad Assessment of on-the-ground range of collaborators, including potential contractors, accomplishments ODF, the legislature, Tribal representatives, forest col- Treatments completed laborative members, federal agencies, potential private funders, landowners, homeowners’ associations, and Across all nine LRP projects, at least 201,000 acres8 were other community members. Larger projects with mul- treated with various restoration treatments (Table 1). tiple agreements held internal field trips, so that part- These treatments and activities included thinning, piling, ner organizations could see each other’s work first-hand. pile burning, invasive species removal, native grass seed- ing, prescribed burning, fuel breaks, mastication, pruning, Interviews from projects that recruited private landowners encroachment control, chipping, rapid forest assessments described various methods for landowner outreach. For 8. Acreage is reported here as of June 23 2023, and does not reflect work reported to ODF after that date. ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 22 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 23 Table 1. Total acres and activities accomplished by project. Project Total acres Activities completed completed example, projects held workshops and gave presentations to educate landowners about landscape management for “It’s really helped people not panic when they see smoke.” wildfire resilience and forest health. Some interviewees de- scribed sending postcards to private landowners and speak- While every project conducted some sort of outreach, ing on the local radio to share the opportunity and describe in some cases, projects completed outreach for activities how landowners could involve their property in the project. funded by LRP prior to the grant timeline with funding Many interviewees (n=15) indicated that their proj- from other sources. ect shared updates to the community through news- letters, social media posts, newspaper articles, text Economic aspects of the LRP alerts, and in one case, a story map. Newsletters usu- Work crews ally served as general updates to share project prog- ress and goals. Social media posts and opt-in text alerts We asked interviewees if the LRP project they were were real-time notifications indicating that work, such involved in kept workers employed who may otherwise as prescribed burning, was being done in the area. have not had work. Most interviewees (71 percent) One interviewee described how these alerts helped the indicated that they believed their project kept workers public be more comfortable with prescribed burning: employed who may have otherwise had trouble finding work, a few (seven percent) indicated that it did not, as ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 23 there was plenty of other work available, and some (21 existing relationships with the contractors they hired. percent) were unsure (Figure 6). We additionally asked Some indicated that they found the process easier because interviewees to estimate the number of people working their projects were located in areas with large pools of on the ground, on average, throughout the grant period. contractors, and others mentioned that ODF helped them In total, they estimated 324 workers were employed for identify contractors. some portion of the project timeline in the field across the nine projects, although interviewees stressed that the Some interviewees (n=6) discussed the difficulty they had number varied greatly throughout the grant period. The finding contractors, either because local crews did not exist average number of workers reported by interviewees for or they were busy with other projects. A few interviewees each crew was 13. specifically discussed how the recent influx in fuels reduction and restoration funding has led to high demand Figure 6. Interviewee responses regarding whether for contractors, resulting in a shortage in some parts of their LRP project kept workers employed who would the state. One interviewee mentioned problems retaining have otherwise had trouble finding work. contractor crews from June through December, due to fire season and the fact that some crews in Southwest Oregon      travel to California to respond to fires as late as December.   Investments We asked interviewees if any LRP grant funds were  invested in resources, such as development of new  infrastructure, that would be useful for future fuels reduction and landscape restoration projects. A couple     of interviewees mentioned investments in large pieces of equipment, such as a utility all-terrain vehicle, and a large piece of equipment (an excavator) to use for making fuel breaks. Others mentioned investments in workforce training or development of new methods, such as a monitoring protocol that one interviewee described as a useful investment for future projects. Evaluating Wildfire Risk Contractors Outcomes At least thirty-eight contractors9 conducted activities As detailed in the LRP program-wide monitoring plan1, for LRP projects across the state- all but one of these we originally intended to provide a quantitative evalua- contractors were based in Oregon. In addition, two LRP tion of wildfire risk reduction outcomes. As proposed, projects employed youth crews and one utilized internal the outcome indicators would have contributed to a bet- work crews from the project’s leading organization. ter understanding of whether LRP-funded activities were implemented in the optimal locations and at sufficient We asked interviewees if they had trouble finding scale to achieve measurable risk reduction for nearby contractors for the project they were involved in. Many structures. Specifically, we proposed to evaluate the per- (n=21) interviewees reported they did not have issues cent change in wildfire exposure to structures that could finding contractors, a few (n=6) reported that they did, be attributed to LRP-funded activities. We also proposed and the rest were not sure. Of the interviewees that did to evaluate how the spatial arrangement of LRP-funded not have challenges finding contractors, some (n=9) activities related to social vulnerability characteristics. attributed this to the fact that their organization had pre- Spatially explicit and quantitative estimates of exposure 9. Total number of contractors is based on number reported by interviewees and may not be complete. ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 24 ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 25 reduction would have been useful to the project partners evaluate the impact of LRP funding on risk reduction and themselves, who might use it to refine their strategies or resiliency: plan next steps. The outcome indicators would have simi- larly benefited LRP administrators who might have used 1. Third-party monitoring of LRP project wildfire risk them to inform future iterations of the program. reduction outcomes coordinated by ODF would en- sure consistent and sufficient data collection and However, conducting a wildfire risk outcome assessment analysis across diverse projects. A third-party moni- requires specific spatial data that was not collected or re- toring group with the capacity to collect and analyze ported in most LRP projects . At a minimum, the outcome detailed spatial activity data would ensure that all assessment would have required spatially explicit descrip- LRP projects are able to contribute and that results tions of where LRP-funded activities took place and what are analyzed in a way that supports future decisions kind of activities were conducted (e.g., mechanical treat- about LRP as a whole. ments, prescribed burning, piling, etc.). To accurately as- 2. A clear set of expectations and plans for monitoring sess outcomes, the spatial data would need to specify all (a monitoring protocol) from the time of the award activities that had been completed to-date. In addition to would help ensure that each LRP project has the time tracking activity locations and descriptions, an outcome to develop a monitoring plan that not only meets assessment would benefit from an evaluation of pre- and their own unique needs but will also support efforts post-treatment fuel conditions. For both activity tracking to evaluate outcomes across all LRP projects. We sug- and reporting fuel conditions, it is ideal for all projects to gest that this monitoring protocol should include use the same methods for collecting and reporting data. instructions detailing the specific spatial data and In reality, most LRP projects had tabular data tracking data formats to be collected for each project activity their accomplishments but few had spatial data. Spatial as well as setting requirements of where and when to data that was available was often incomplete and did not report that data. reflect the full scope of activities that had taken place. As part of the requirements of the LRP funding, each Conclusion awarded project was required to use a portion of their award amount (no more than ten percent) to monitor out- The Oregon Department of Forestry’s Landscape Resil- comes. However, there was no unified guidance provided iency Program resulted in approximately 201,000 acres of by ODF or anyone else on what to monitor, what data to cross-boundary fuels reduction and landscape restoration collect and how, and how or when to report findings. As a work across nine projects. A variety of federal, state, local, result, each project collected data according to their proj- and non-profit organizations implemented successful en- ect needs and capacity. Accordingly, the data collected to gagement with private landowners and strengthened exist- date and methods for collecting it varied widely across ing collaborations. Our results indicate that the program projects and even within projects where multiple part- fills a critical funding gap and served as an integral part ners were responsible for monitoring. This experience in of program participants' restoration strategies. Results ad- trying to evaluate wildfire risk reduction and improved ditionally identified that interviewees found the two-year forest resiliency shows how challenging it can be, espe- grant timeline too short, leading to rushed implementa- cially for a new program, to coordinate monitoring and tion. We suggest ODF give future applicants as much data collection across multiple projects each with differ- time as possible to prepare project plans prior to the ent methods and goals. selection process. If possible, ODF should consider a longer-term model for the LRP that extends beyond the In the future, evaluating quantitative wildfire risk reduc- single biennium. Some organizations involved in the LRP tion and improved resiliency will be essential to better un- struggled with the capacity to administer and coordinate derstand the impact that LRP is making across the state grant activities. We suggest that ODF remove or amend and identify areas for improvement for future funding the ten percent limit for monitoring funding, to help cycles. We propose two ways for future efforts to better fill capacity burdens with data collection. Lastly, we sug- ODF Landscape Resiliency Program: Implementation and Outcomes 25 gest that ODF communicate clear expectations with projects regarding data sharing for program-wide monitoring efforts to help improve transparency and monitoring efficacy. Overall, qualitative and quantita- tive monitoring indicated significant social, economic, and ecological benefits of the LRP. Interviewees empha- sized that many of the challenges associated with pro- gram implementation were typical for the first round of any new grant program and they overwhelmingly felt the program filled a critical need across the state. Juniper stand within Southeast Oregon Wildfire Resiliency Project prior to treatment. Credit: High Desert Partnership Ecosystem Workforce Program Appendix A: Activity Area Interview Protocol Basic Questions: (1) Project name______________ (a) Activity area name _____________ (2) Interviewee name: _____________ (3) Is there anything you’d like to share with us about your identity? (a) What is your gender identity?  Prefer not to share  Non-binary  Female  Male  Self-describe: ______________ (4) Organizational affiliation  Federal agency  State agency  Local agency/government  Non-profit organization  Property owner  Contractor  Other: ___________ (a) What is the name of your organization(s)? ___________ (5) Job description/specialty  Natural resources scientist  Other type of researcher  Forester/Fuels manager  Other type of natural resources/land management technician  Planner  Program manager/coordinator  Business administrator  Educator  Other: ___________ 1) What are the activities that were undertaken in the specified location and what was the acreage for each (select all that apply)?  Broadcast burning  Burning of piled material  Chipping fuels  Compacting/crushing fuels  Fuel break  Fuel inventory  Grazing and range management for hazardous fuels reduction  Jackpot burning-scattered concentrations  Piling of fuels- hand or machine  Post-treatment exam fuels management  Pruning to raise canopy height and discourage crown fire  Range seeding and planting  Rearrangement of fuels  Hand thinning for hazardous fuels reduction  Machine thinning for hazardous fuels reduction  Tree encroachment control  Underburn-low intensity  Pre-commercial thinning  Commercial timber sale  Salvage timber sale 1a) Is the activity complete? 2) Is the activity a commercial sale or preparation for an anticipated future commercial thinning?  Yes  No  If it is commercial, what is the volume to be sold (estimated board feet)?  Who is doing the harvesting work? (Contractor and contact info/business location).  Where is the timber going to be milled/processed?  If known, what products will be made? 3) What are the land ownership(s) types for this activity area? Select all that apply.  US Forest Services  US Fish and Wildlife  Bureau of Land Management  National Park Services  State Parks  Tribal Reservation (BIA)  Tribal (non-reservation)  Oregon Department of Forestry  County Public lands  Private (non-commercial)  Private commercial (working lands)  Homeowners’ association  Commercial resort  Municipal  Other, please describe 4) Please list of all partners directly involved in this activity, including all contractors and sub- contractors and business locations (or who we could contact for this information). Partner name: Partner type: Please estimate their  Non-profit involvement with  Sub- seeing the activity contractor through from start to  Local finish: government  Not involved  State  Somewhat government involved  Federal  Not sure  Private citizen  Very involved  Tribe  Took the lead 5) What are the primary planned use(s) for the area? Select all that apply.  Recreation, please describe  Habitat, please describe  Timber production, please describe species  Scenery/Aesthetics a) Are there other co-benefits involved with the activity area? (e.g., habitat enhancement, recreational enhancement) 6) Was there any outreach (e.g., information sharing with those outside of the implementation and planning efforts) conducted that specifically included this activity and/or this specific activity area?  No  Yes a) If so, please describe: ______________ (What kind of outreach? Field trips? Informational dissemination? ) 7) Has this activity area received (or will receive) funding as part of another program like the Joint Chiefs or Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program CFLRP?  No  Yes, please describe: 8) What are the total direct funds invested in the activity area by ODF? 9) How many agreements with contractors were involved in this activity? 10) Are there any match or in-kind investments from stakeholders? Funder Amount 11) If known, what is the estimated number of people working in the field on this activity area? a) Did this activity keep workers employed in this industry that might otherwise have needed to find other employment?  No  Yes  Don’t know 12) Were there any technical or professional services directly supporting the specific activity? (e.g., mapping, heritage or biological surveys, timber marking, etc.).  No  Yes a) If yes, please describe type b) What amount and % of funding went to those services? 13) [If activity is not a Rx burn or burn prep] Do you think this activity will increase or accelerate the use of Rx fire on this landscape?  No  Yes a) If yes, why? (i.e., fuels reduction, road/infrastructure construction, cross-boundary relationships built?) 14) Was there development of infrastructure or acquisition of new equipment for this activity that will enable future activities?  No  Yes a) If so, who purchased it? b) And with what funds? 15) What, if anything, do you think worked well or went smoothly during this project? a) Did partnerships increase scale or pace of the work? (If so, how?) b) Were there aspects - other than funding -of being part of the overall project that enhanced the quality of this work? (If so, how?) 16) If you think about this entire process, and all the people and organizations you interacted with through this process, what did you find to be a bottleneck? a) Is there anything you know now that you wish you could have told yourself at the beginning of this project? b) Was it difficult to find contractors to do this work?  No  Yes c) In your opinion, why or why not? d) Were there other factors that slowed progress? E.g., supply chain issues, labor shortages, regulatory issues, navigating challenges with other stakeholders 17) Were there any key changes in the project area or changes to the work being done since it was originally planned? (For example, have there been any changes on landscape such as large disturbances or other factors that led to sudden changes in contractor or equipment availability?) 18) Is there anything else you think is important to know about this activity area in order to really tell the story of this effort? 19) Was this activity an integral part of your group/community’s restoration strategy? If so, how? a) What (if anything) did you find to be particularly novel, innovative or unique about this activity? 20) Is there anything else we should know that we haven’t covered? Appendix B: Project Lead Interview Protocol Basic Questions: (1) LRP project name: _____________ (2) Interviewee name: _____________ (3) Is there anything you’d like to share with us about your identity? (a) What is your gender identity?  Prefer not to share  Non-binary  Female  Male  Self-describe: ______________ (4) Organizational affiliation  Federal agency  State agency  Local agency/government  Non-profit organization  Property owner  Contractor  Other: ___________ (a) What is the name of your organization(s)? _____________ (5) Job description/specialty  Natural resources scientist  Other type of researcher  Forester/Fuels manager  Other type of natural resources/land management technician  Planner  Program manager/coordinator  Business administrator  Educator  Other: ___________ Activity Area Questions: (1) We were provided with the activity areas for the LRP project you are involved with. Upon review, is this information accurate?  Yes  No  Please provide corrections or additions (2) Are there any activity areas missing?  Yes  No (3) Who is best/lead contact for each activity area? (4) To what extent did ODF program administration… Poorly Neither Well Unsure poorly nor well Recognize and fill needs in partner     capacities? Execute implementation processes     efficiently? (5) Please describe any challenges or bottlenecks in the communication process with ODF from project selection through implementation. (6) Please describe any opportunities for improving communication between ODF program administration and project partners. (7) What went well with communication between ODF program administration and project partners? Appendix C: Qualitative Codebook LRP Implementation and Outcomes Interview Codebook for Open-Ended Questions 1. ODF communication challenges: Describes challenges or bottlenecks with regard to working with and communicating with ODF. Includes reallocation requests, reimbursement), etc. Includes relevant answers to Project Lead Protocol questions 5. a) Reimbursements: Describes issues with reimbursements, such as taking a long time to get money back to contractors. Includes problems with OregonBuys. 2. ODF communication suggestions: Describes suggested areas for improvement related to ODF’s communication. Includes relevant answers to Project Lead Protocol questions 6. 3. ODF communication successes: Describes positive experiences in communication process with ODF. Includes relevant answers to Project Lead Protocol question 7. 4. Co-benefits: Describes benefits of project activities aside from primary objective of wildfire risk reduction (habitat enhancement, aesthetics, recreation, access). Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 5a. a) Habitat: mentions habitat enhancement or protection resulting from activities, including general mentions of “forest health.” b) Access: mentions improved access to the area for firefighting, etc. c) Awareness: mentions how the project is spreading awareness about forest management and fire resilience to the public or stakeholders. 5. Outreach: Describes outreach efforts related to project, such as field trips, newsletters, or meetings with stakeholders or the public. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 6. a) Field trips: Describes any in-person event or field trip related to outreach on project. Includes meetings like community forums, presentations, etc. b) Newsletters: Describes any newsletter or alert related to project, includes alerting people door to door about activities, text alerts, or websites. 6. Funding: Describes qualitative description of additional funding sources contributing to activity areas or elaborates on match and in-kind investments. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol questions 7 and 10. 7. Technical Services: Describes any technical or professional services directly supporting project activities, such as mapping, heritage or biological surveys, etc. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 12. 8. Rx Fire: Describes if, and how, the project may or may not contribute to increased use of prescribed fire in the region. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 13a. Does not include problems implementing prescribed fire, which belongs in the “burn window” child code under “challenges.” 9. Successes: Describes aspects of the project that went well or worked smoothly. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 15. a) Integral: Describes how the LRP funding and project has been an integral part of their group’s strategy. Includes anything that indicates the LRP filled a critical gap or that the activities would not have happened without this grant. b) Landowners: Mentions successful involvement of landowners or describes how helpful landowners were during implementation process. c) Coordination: Describes how having a coordinating body, such as the local forest collaborative, ODF, or leading non-profit, has contributed to easier implementation. d) Smooth implementation: Describes any implementation processes that went quickly or smoothly. Uses words like “efficient” or “effective” to generally describe how implementation went. 10. Innovative: Describes aspects of the project noted as innovative, unique, or novel. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 19a. a) Scale: Describes how the scale of collaboration, funding, or acres is unique or goes beyond what they have done before. b) Novel activities: Describes how the treatment itself or other supporting activities are unique or goes beyond what they have done before (e.g., the story map or use of slash for stream restoration). c) Place: Describes how activity area is unique due to the place being unique (e.g., unique ecosystem, proximity to urban center, etc.) 11. Challenges: Describes aspects of the project that were bottlenecks or challenges. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 16 and 16d. a) Economy/labor/supply chain: Describes challenges related to the economy, such as labor shortages, supply chain issues, or inflation that impacted project implementation. b) Short timeframe: Describes the challenge of the short grant timeline and the need to spend all money before June 2023. c) Weather: Describes challenges navigating field work with the weather. d) Burn windows: Describes challenges relating to navigating burn windows, smoke regulations, burn pauses, or social acceptance of burns. e) Maintenance: Describes the problem of treatment maintenance, such as concern that treatments will be ineffective without longer-term maintenance. f) Capacity: Describes internal capacity-related problems, such as the lack of time or staff to administer the funding or respond to monitoring requests. Does not include contractor capacity. g) Regulations: Describes bottlenecks related to regulations, such as NEPA permitting. Does not include mentions of burn windows and burn regulations, which should go under “burn windows” code. 12. Contractors: Describes search for contractors, working with contractors, etc. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 16b. a) Contractor successes: Mentions reasons it was easy to find contractors (pre- existing relationships, strong contractor pool in area, ODF helped), or things that went well with contractors throughout the process. b) Contractor challenges: Mentions reasons it was difficult to find contractors, or difficulties they had with contractors throughout the process. Doesn’t include issues with reimbursement or labor shortages, which have their own child code under the Challenges parent code. 13. Key Project Changes: Describes aspect of the project implementation that ended up differing from original proposal. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 17. 14. Infrastructure: Describes investments in infrastructure or substantial equipment that will allow for future work. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 14. 15. Partnerships: Describes benefits or drawbacks of the partnership and collaborative aspects of LRP. Includes relevant answers to Activity Area Protocol question 15a. a) Partnership successes: Describes positive aspects of collaboration, such as how partnerships increased the scope of work. b) Partnership challenges: Describes negative aspects of collaboration, such as having “too many cooks in the kitchen.” 16. Activities: Qualitative answers regarding what activities were undertaken. This is the text response portion, but not the multiple choice portion, of Activity Area Protocol question 1. 17. Planned use: Qualitative answers regarding the planned use of the area. This is the text response portion, but not the multiple choice portion, of Activity Area Protocol question 3.