Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOIC UpdateFebruary 5, 2013 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Andrew Spread borough and Phil Chang, COIC Re: Governor's Proposed Budget Item to Support Forest Collaboratives COUNCIL Overview: Central Oregon is home to two large landscape-scale forest restoration collaboratives • Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project (www.deschutescollaborativeforest.org) • Ochoco Forest Restoration Collaborative (https:!/sites.google.com!site!ochococollaborativel) These collaboratives are helping to resolve past conflicts and gridlock around national forest management and to forge new agreements that allow us to get more acres treated and make our communities safer and our forests more healthy and resilient. Forest restoration also makes a large contribution to our local economy, providing work in the woods for local contractors and timber and biomass for local sawmills and processing facilities. A recent state analysis commissioned by the Governor found that investing $1 million in forest restoration generates 57 local jobs. While our local collaboratives have made a real difference in allowing active management to proceed in our national forests, it is a constant challenge to find the funds to operate the collaboratives. Stable funding would allow our collaboratives to have an even greater impact. Investing in collaborative agreement helps generate additional funds for on-the-ground work. The Deschutes Collaborative took years to build but was then able to secure one of ten Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program grants awarded nationally, adding $10.1 million to the Deschutes National Forest's implementation budget over a 10 year period. Grant funds like these can implement the agreements developed by the Collaboratives, but they cannot be used to run the Collaboratives and build the agreements in the first place. Because Central Oregon is recognized for leadership in the collaborative forest restoration movement, our region would be poised to secure a substantial amount of the grant funding from the Small Grant Program included in the Governors proposed budget. Grants to Central Oregon collaborative would result in more agreement, more acres treated, healthier forests, lower fire risk to communities, more wood for mills, and better habitat for fish and wildlife. The region could also benefit if the Technical Assistance component is funded and provides more stable resources to Nature Conservancy staff based in and serving Central Oregon. This is a key moment for collaborative projects in Central Oregon. Deschutes Collaborative work in the West Bend and Popper project areas will enhance and protect key recreational assets, reduce fire risk to Bend and Sisters, and produce significant amounts of saw log volume for industry. The Ochoco Collaborative has had some early successes in its first year of operation but is just reaching the point where collaboration will payoff in more and better work on the ground in the Forest. See attached legislative policy draft (dated 11/20/12) for more detail. Request: Regional support for this concept/state budget item. Discussion Draft 1 Federal Forestland Advisory Committee – Implementation Working Group Funding Subcommittee Recommendations for the 2013 Legislative Policy Option Proposal DISCUSSION DRAFT – 11/20/12 I. Goal Statement Provide a base level of state-provided staff and budget to support efforts to restore forest health and resiliency of “dry side” national forests in Oregon – the Dry Forest Zone – by providing staff support and financial assistance to collaborative groups. Success is defined as the accelerated pace and scale of science-based treatments (often referred to as “landscape-scale”) that restore ecological function and reduce fire risk while producing forest-related jobs, commercial wood products and usable biomass. This proposal is aimed squarely at assisting collaborative groups serving Oregon’s seven dry side national forests (Appendix B). It has no specific attempt to address wet side national forests, land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, private land or state land unless identified by a collaborative as an action to complement efforts in the dry forest. II. Background More than a century of management actions – including, but not limited to fire suppression and timber harvest and grazing practices – combined with current legal, regulatory and financial constraints – are threatening the health and resiliency of Oregon’s eastside national forests and rural communities. This legacy of past practices and exclusion of periodic, low-intensity fires has altered the structure and composition of forests, creating higher, uniform stocking densities, increased fuel loads, and a higher proportion of fire- intolerant tree species. These conditions heighten the risk and susceptibility of these forests to uncharacteristically large, intense wildfires, in addition to disease and abnormal populations of insects that attack stressed stands of trees. Efforts to address these conditions have been unsuccessful over the past two decades, although recent efforts by Congress and the U.S. Forest Service to initiate and fund Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Projects nationally, including three CFLRP sites in Oregon, show promise. Despite the intentions and work of Oregon’s congressional delegation, the need to double or triple the rate and scale of restoration in the Dry Forest Zone is urgent. The solution lies in putting Oregonians to work restoring the ecological health and resiliency of our public forests while producing jobs, forest products and woody biomass. Doing this will help restore rural economic and community health by creating a base of wealth to attract and retain workers, families and other industries. Restoration efforts will protect Oregon’s old growth forest heritage, as well as protect communities in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Restoration activities may include thinning small trees, removing merchantable timber and reintroducing prescribed fire where appropriate. It may also include reducing the adverse Discussion Draft 2 effects of unmanaged roads, invasive weeds and unregulated grazing. Along with these vegetation management activities, forest restoration presents opportunities to improve the overall condition of our forested watersheds and related habitat. These activities include: upgrading stream crossing structures, improving and reducing road networks, stabilizing stream banks and reintroducing native plant species. Retaining ecologically important older trees is also important. These often large-diameter trees have high ecological value and are more resistant to natural disturbance such as fire because of their thick bark and high canopy. As well, these trees sequester large amounts of biogenic carbon, which can contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change. In recent years, collaboration has emerged as an effective way to rebuild trust and foster local agreement among forest workers, scientists, environmentalists, government officials and others on how to sustainably manage public forests. In Oregon, there are now at least 20 community-based collaboratives working to inform sustainable forest management on public lands (all 11 national forests in Oregon) by ensuring local resources are managed in concert with community values. Though not new, the collaborative model has experienced increasing success in Oregon to broaden stakeholder participation and increase stakeholder agreement on how to address emerging forest health issues. To date, collaboratives have made significant headway across the state in developing stand-level forest restoration projects that have resulted in the implementation of thinning projects and watershed improvements. Successful collaboration can and has effectively sped the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and avoided costly appeals and litigation. Effective collaboration and implementation of landscape-scale restoration and long-term stewardship depends on strong local organizations to shepherd the collaborative agreement through implementation and larger landscape planning efforts. Local collaborative groups that have organizational and collaborative capacity are better able to work with federal land managers to ensure creation of local jobs, restoration of healthy and resilient forests, and identification of cost and energy savings through the utilization of local forest and other resources. To be effective, collaborative groups require access to existing and emerging ecological and social science to both inform their work and build solutions that are rooted in a deep understanding of their landscape. Community based economic development and forest restoration depends on community capacity for long-term stewardship. Some federal legislation requires the USDA Forest Service to engage forest collaboratives as part of the forest planning process. III. Rationale The Federal Forest Advisory Committee – Implementation Work Group works to implement the recommendations from the Achieving Oregon’s Vision for Federal Forestlands report adopted by the Board of Forestry in 2009. Among those is the recommendation to support local collaboratives to ensure Oregon’s forests contribute to the health of local economic, ecological and social aspects of communities statewide. To achieve these goals, the report recommends engaging local collaborative groups in cooperation with state and federal agencies to assess forest health conditions and plan projects at the landscape scale in order to address high priority needs. The FFAC IWG is working to develop more stable funding Discussion Draft 3 mechanisms to contribute to organizational stability and support the scaling up of landscape level agreement, treatment, restoration and monitoring and evaluation activities. IV. Proposal Overview A. Area of proposed focus – Oregon’s Dry Forest Zone Deschutes NF Fremont-Winema NF Malheur NF Ochoco NF Rogue River-Siskiyou NF (dry-side only) Umatilla NF Wallowa-Whitman NF B. Agency request 1. Staffing – Deputy Natural Resources Advisor for East Side National Forest Health Restoration1 (Deputy), associated staff (see detail in V) 2. Technical Assistance – Provision to fund statewide organizations that support forest collaborative groups to effectively participate and contribute to landscape- scale restoration in the Dry Forest Zone of eastern and southwest Oregon (see detail in VI) 3. Small Grant Program – Establishment of a Small Grant Program to directly fund DFZ collaboratives’ own needs (see detail in VII) V. Staffing A. Deputy Natural Resources Advisor for East Side National Forest Health Create a new position, Deputy Natural Resources Advisor for East Side National Forest Health Restoration budgeted within the Oregon Department of Forestry, who reports to the Governor’s Natural Resources Office. The deputy will be a champion of dry forest zone restoration using the collaborative process. The position’s purpose is to ensure local, state and federal coordination that will result in accelerating landscape-scale restoration in the dry forest types of eastern Oregon in a manner that will retain and create local jobs and associated existing and emerging industries. The deputy position will be responsible for: 1. Policy outreach and advocacy 2. Main point of contact and coordination with USDA Forest Service and Region 6 3. State agency communications and coordination 4. Communication with and support for forest collaborative groups 5. Hold collaboratives accountable for use of any state funds 6. 1 Placeholder only. Title should fit within GNRO organizational structure. Discussion Draft 4 The deputy will receive part-time staff support to ensure effective and efficient delivery of their work. The deputy would have the following duties: 1. Policy outreach and advocacy a. Serves as the Governor’s expert on federal and state policies affecting dry side national forest management policies, especially those related to forest health restoration. b. Advocates for funding and adoption of administrative and legislative policies that support landscape scale restoration of dry side forests in a manner that will retain and create local jobs. c. Builds alliances and coordinates with relevant county, state, and federal and tribal agencies, as well as elected officials and their staff. Coordinates with Oregon Department of Forestry legislative staff in these efforts. 2. Main point of contact with USDA Forest Service and Region 6 a. Serves as the state’s primary contact with USDA Forest Service in Washington, D.C., as well as with the Regional Forester for Region 6. b. Seeks out and applies for federal funding c. Ensures that the priorities of the state for all forestlands in dry side national forests are understood by and well-coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management d. Represents the Governor’s Natural Resources Office in negotiations with the USDA Forest Service regarding a Memorandum of Agreement that could provide state funds to the Forest Service for funding Forest Service work that results in additional acreage treated for forest health and fire resiliency 3. Agency communications and coordination a. Creates opportunity for the State to enhance landscape-scale restoration of dry forests through regular communication and partnership with relevant county, state, and federal and tribal agencies. b. Directs and supports state agency participation in forest collaborative groups and the related projects they are advancing. ODF, ODOE, ODFW, DEQ, OWEB, Oregon Solutions and other state agencies could play a role in national forest health restoration projects. These roles will require interagency direction and leadership to create unified state input into the restoration process, including considering how local groups such as forest collaboratives, watershed councils, and soil and water conservation districts may engage in forest restoration. c. Works interagency and across state lines (e.g., Western Governors Association) to influence stakeholders toward forest restoration projects d. Attends meetings of the FFAC-IWG to keep group informed of collaborative activities, restoration projects, etc. Discussion Draft 5 e. As appropriate and needed, briefs the Board of Forestry on the status of national forest health restoration f. Represents agency positions in presentation at conferences and other forums g. Prepares a biennial report to the Board of Forestry and the Legislature on the investments and outcomes of collaborative work 4. Communication with and support for forest collaborative groups a. Creates and maintains relationships with local community based organizations, collaborative groups, interest groups, and others with the aim to provide assistance and problem solve in their effort to develop projects that improve forest health and resiliency. b. Promotes and encourages strengthening the work of existing local collaborative groups to address forest health problems on federal forestland. Assists in the formation of new collaborative groups if warranted. c. Meets with established and emerging collaborative groups that serve dry side national forests, identifies funding needs identifies opportunities to leverage additional funds and resources in discussion with the IWG and others. d. Identifies resource and funding needs of collaborative groups, and then uses knowledge, experience, the expertise of government, nonprofit, and private professional expertise, programs, and network to help them increase their capacity to meet their own needs. 5. Hold collaboratives accountable for use of any state funds a. Assists the collaboratives in establishing benchmarks by which they can hold themselves accountable for use of any state funds B. Other staffing 1. 0.25 FTE administrative support 2. 0.4 FTE grant administrator or contract the administration out to a separate entity Discussion Draft 6 VI. Science Support and Technical Assistance A. Overview On a competitive basis using the state procurement process, contract with non- governmental organizations that have experience working with collaboratives to make the groups more effective and successful in reaching state goals. It is envisioned that the Deputy Advisor would lead the procurement process, aided by the Department of Forestry. B. Rationale Given the breadth and strength of these relationships, we believe it would be counter- productive for the state to step in with a new actor/process. C. Specific duties may include: Science support and technical assistance; facilitation services; peer-to-peer learning; development of regional networks that will enhance the work of landscape-scale collaborative groups; ecological and social science support to inform rationale for project prioritization and development of project, design, and implementation, and appropriate monitoring of ecological, social and economic impacts of collaborative efforts; outreach, education and media relations and illustration of the aggregated impact of multiple collaborative groups. D. Generally duties may include Promote work consistent with and as prescribed by the Governor’s Federal Forest Advisory Council action plan by developing restoration principles and guidelines; evaluating approaches to improve planning and implementation efficiencies; providing science, technical assistance and facilitation; and completing research on innovative funding strategies to accelerate forest restoration and implementation of science based treatments across the landscape, including on both public and private lands. Discussion Draft 7 VII. Small Grant Program A. Overview A small grant program called the “Collaborative Capacity Fund” (CCF) will be established by the State of Oregon to provide small grants (e.g., up to $50,000 per biennium) to forest collaborative groups to effectively participate and contribute to landscape scale restoration in the DFZ of eastern Oregon. The provision of state funds will underscore the importance that the State of Oregon places on collaboratives as a means of restoring forest health and resilience, while improving local economies. This program is anticipated to augment the capacity-building grant programs of the National Forest Foundation (NFF). The NFF supports community-based conservation (funding, technical assistance, mentoring, capacity-building workshops, and facilitation of peer learning opportunities to enable sharing of stories and best practices). B. Rationale Collaboratives are self-governing and self-funding; therefore, for the state to play a role in their development, it must be able to offer tangible support. Collaboratives are often organized as non-profit organizations and seek out grants from private and public foundations, individuals and governments. A small grant program would ensure stronger linkages between state government and Oregon citizens who serve on collaborative groups. C. Administration 1. Administration of the grant program will be of the highest integrity: fair, transparent, and result in outcomes that support the overall goal of accelerating the scale and pace of forest restoration. 2. Possibilities for grant administration and oversight include a state agency such as ODF or OWEB, or a third party. 3. The entity administering the CCF shall develop evaluative criteria to prioritize the distribution of CCF grants. The criteria will reflect prioritization of groups involved in multi-year, landscape-scale efforts that are supported by a collaboratively agreed to landscape strategy. 4. The CCF will be administered on a rolling application basis in order meet the needs of the collaborative groups without making them dependent on the funds for long-term operating expenses. 5. The CCF will be a small grant fund with a set maximum to be determined 6. The CCF will endeavor to have a straightforward and simple application format with clear instructions, reporting requirements and fiscal responsibilities. Discussion Draft 8 D. Examples of Eligible Activities and Expenses Eligible Activities Eligible Expenses 1. Collaborative group meetings, field tours, project committees and other activities related to the design of forest restoration projects 2. Facilitation, project management, and coordination 3. Scientific (ecological, social and economic) analysis and mapping 4. Monitoring and evaluation 5. Outreach and communication activities 1. Personnel 2. Consultants 3. Meetings 4. Travel 5. Office space and equipment 6. Printing 7. Communications (phone, website) 8. Database management 9. Equipment 10. Other justified expenses VIII. Suggested Outcomes A. Base capacity for collaborative groups: 1. Local collaborative groups are well staffed and supported to meet their goals 2. Collaborative groups have a diversified funding base derived from at least three different sources (e.g., philanthropic, individual, corporate, state, federal) 3. Collaboratives have recruited and maintained diverse local and distant stakeholder participation in the collaborative landscape planning process 4. The collaborative has supplied a continuum of collaboratively agreed-to recommendations to the National Forest it represents B. Specific landscape-level project outcomes: 1. The National Forest has a landscape scale strategy informed by involvement and support of the collaborative that will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and enhance ecological and economic resiliency of the forest and the local community. 2. Over 10 years, key indicators reflecting implementation of forest management projects show positive upward trend, and the landscape experiences a change in the Fire Regime Condition Class toward the desired future condition 3. There is an increase in the number of acres treated annually within the collaboratively agreed to landscape strategy IX. Future The problem of our national forests was 100 years in the making; it will not go away in a biennium. The IWG anticipates support for forest collaboratives – one or two per national forest – will be an ongoing need; however, outcomes must justify the investment.