29
The Effectiveness of Forest Collaborative Groups at Reducing Project Appeals and Objections in Eastern Oregon Brent Summers [email protected] 1
The Effectiveness of Forest Collaborative Groups at Reducing Project Appeals and
Objections in Eastern Oregon
Brent Summers
1
Acknowledgments
• Forest Collaborative Group and USFS contacts
• Dynamic Ecosystems and Landscapes Lab members
• Family and friends 2
Dr. Max Nielsen-Pincus ESM, PSU
Dr. Nathan Poage Clackamas Stewardship
Partners (formally)
Dr. Robert Scheller Committee Chair
ESM, PSU
Outline
• Background
– Forests in the American West
– Federal Regulation
– Forest Collaborative Groups
• Research Question
• Methodology
• Results
• Discussion
• Management Implications
3
Forests in the American West
• Federal ownership
• Fire suppression
• Decline of timber harvest
4
Source: USFS
5
Fremont-Winema
Deschutes
Ochoco Malheur
Wallowa-Whitman
Umatilla
Timber Sale Projects
• Provides jobs and economic inflow to surrounding communities
• Removal of fuels reduces fire risks
• NEPA Regulation code 215
6
Fuel Treatment Projects
• Many different activities
– Prescribed burn
– Thinning
– Remove fuels from site
– Chipping of fuels
• Reduces potential damage and loss from wildfires
• NEPA Regulation code 218 (HFRA)
7
Federal Policy • National Environmental Policy Act 1970
– Planning and environmental impact disclosure document for projects
– Required where Federal nexus exists
• Healthy Forest Restoration Act 2003
– Response to increasing wildfire threat and damage
– Designed to streamline NEPA process for fuel treatment projects (avoid “analysis paralysis”)
8
Federal Project Process
9
NEPA (215)
HFRA (218)
Timber Sale or Fuel Treatment Project
NEPA Process
Final Review
Appeal/Objection
Agency Action
Comment Period
Scoping
Monitoring
Collaboration on Federal Forest Lands
• Project appeals can stall projects
– Appeals: need legal standing, timely, not geographically restricted
– Timber and fuel treatment projects traditionally highly appealed
• Collaboration - popular way to address issues
10
Forest Collaborative Groups
• 23 State recognized collaborative groups
• Members: – Federal, State, and local government agencies
– Environmental, industrial, and recreational groups
– Private citizens
• 1996 – Wallowa County NRAC
• 2012 – Two groups formed – Ochoco Forest Restoration Collaborative
– Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Collaborative
11
Deschutes (2 FCGs)
Fremont-Winema (2 FCGs)
Ochoco (2 FCGs)
Malheur (2 FCGs)
Wallowa-Whitman (2 FCGs)
Umatilla (1 FCG)
12
Oregon’s Forest Collaborative Groups
Research Question
Are NEPA documents with input from Eastern Oregon forest collaboratives less likely to be appealed or objected?
13
Methodology: Data Collection
• USFS Databases
–PALS: NEPA document records
–FACTS: Forest activities for projects
• Forest Collaborative Groups
–Note NEPA documents involved with
14
Summary of NEPA Documents 2006 - 2012
Non-Timber / Fuel NEPA
Documents
Appealed or
Objected
Timber / Fuel NEPA
Documents
Appealed or
Objected
TOTAL 193 31 202 67
15
~16% ~33%
Summary of NEPA Documents 2006 - 2012
Timber / Fuel NEPA Documents
Appealed or Objected
% Appealed or Objected
Deschutes 41 11 27%
Fremont-Winema 32 8 25%
Malheur 32 11 34%
Ochoco 23 8 35%
Umatilla 37 18 49%
Wallowa-Whitman 37 11 30%
TOTAL 202 67 33%
16
Forest Collaborative Group NEPA Documents, 2006 - 2012
NEPA Documents
Appealed / Objected
% Appealed / Objected
Deschutes 4 1 25%
Fremont-Winema 9 3 33%
Malheur 5 3 60%
Ochoco 1 0 0%
Wallowa-Whitman 11 1 9%
TOTAL 30 8 27%
17
Eastern Oregon Summary by Year 2006 – 2012
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Documents 35 36 51 35 19 7 19
Appeals and Objections 11 16 9 10 10 4 7
Collaborative Documents 4 5 7 7 4 0 3
Appeals and Objections 0 2 1 2 3 0 0
18 Year
Nu
mb
er
Od
ds
Rat
io
Results: Individual National Forests
19
6.61 9.15 7.52 18.62
Eastern Oregon Deschutes Ochoco Wallowa-Whitman
Fremont-Winema
Malheur
n = 165 n = 41 n = 32 n = 32 n = 23 n = 37
Results Summary
• Eastern Oregon value suggest Forest Collaborative Groups may be having effect
• Forest Collaborative Group
– Deschutes, Ochoco, and Wallowa-Whitman
– Wallowa-Whitman closest to significant different
• Non-Forest Collaborative Group
– Fremont-Winema and Malheur
20
Discussion • Forest Collaborative Groups narrowly defined
– Does not look at collaboration of USFS with groups outside the Forest Collaborative Groups
• Timber sale and fuel treatment projects are controversial by nature
• Appeals and objections can come from external parties
• Number of NEPA documents groups can be engaged with seems to be limiting factor
21
Collaboration • Forest Collaborative Groups found in Oregon
Solutions Statewide Inventory (2013)
• USFS engages in collaborative planning with other groups
– Malheur Forest Collaborative Groups: 5 Projects
– Malheur USFS: 17 Projects
22
Timber Sale and Fuel Treatment Projects
23
Teich et al. 2004
• Among most often appealed
• Fuel treatment projects more common with HFRA
20
05
2
01
0
External Appellants/Objectors
• An outside appeal/objection can stall a project that had great local collaboration
• Appeals and objections can come from anywhere as long as timely
• Local chapters of national organizations can hold off state or national chapters
24
Time and Number of Projects
• Appears to be a time lag
– Approximately 2 years from establishment to first NEPA document
• Approximately 1 NEPA document a year
– Can be none, can be more
– Appears true for collaborative groups of any age
25
Management Implications
• Collaboration takes time
– Right group of stakeholders together
– Trust needs to be built
– Time and capacity are limiting factors
• Collaboration should be encouraged
– Better planning documents
– Build relationships and trust
– Can reduce appeals and objections
26
Management Implications
• More than counting appeals and objections
– Social and political context
– External parties
• Implemented projects can lead to better ecological and economic conditions
27
Remaining Questions
1. Do collaborative groups help reduce the NEPA process timeline?
2. How do collaborative groups fit into the 2012 USFS planning rule?
28
