CFLRP COLLABORATION INDICATOR 2014 SURVEY RESULTS
ABOUT THIS SUMMARY
The following responses reflect a survey administered in 2014 by the National Forest
Foundation. The purpose of the survey was to gather information on the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program “collaboration indicator,” one of five national indicators
designed to report on whether or not CFLRP is meeting the legislation’s intent. The responses
below reflect the thoughts of individual members from all twenty-three CFLRP collaboratives.
PARTICIPATING CFLRP PROJECTS
Project:
Number of Survey Responses:
Accelerating Longleaf Pine Restoration
1
Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group Cornerstone Project
11
Burney-Hat Creek Basins Project
3
Colorado Front Range
8
Deschutes Skyline
9
Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project
11
Four Forest Restoration Initiative
15
Grandfather Restoration Project
5
Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative
10
Lakeview Stewardship Project
7
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
3
Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020
3
Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration
7
Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration Project
6
Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater
3
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community Project
3
Southern Blues Restoration Coalition
6
Southwest Jemez Mountains
3
Southwestern Crown of the Continent
27
Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative
6
Uncompahgre Plateau Collaborative Restoration Project
20
Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters Project
4
Zuni Mountain Project
9
TOTAL NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONSES:
180
1|Page
QUESTION 1: ORGANIZATIONS WITH A STAKE IN OUR CFLR PROJECT ARE ENGAGED OR HAVE
BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COLLABORATIVE GROUP.
“There are two separate questions embedded in this one question. Yes, some organizations with a stake
are engaged, while others aren't. All have been invited to participate, but not all do.”
Disagree, 1.7%
Don't Know, 3.3%
Strongly Disagree,
2.8%
Agree, 34.4%
Strongly Agree,
57.8%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
QUESTION 2: PEOPLE IN OUR COLLABORATIVE ARE WILLING TO WORK TOWARD AGREEMENT
ON IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF OUR PROJECT.
“We are moving toward an extraordinary agreement on restoration and detailed methods of
implementing across the landscape with extensive…monitoring.”
Disagree, 2.8%
Strongly Disagree,
2.2%
Don't Know, 6.1%
Strongly Agree,
40.6%
Agree, 48.3%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2|Page
QUESTION 3: PEOPLE IN THIS GROUP COMMUNICATE OPENLY WITH ONE ANOTHER
“…I'd like to hear more from the non-scientists, more regular people from the community or user groups.
Also, the Forest Service managers need to speak up more!”
Strongly Disagree,
3.3%
Disagree,
10.0%
Don't Know, 4.4%
Strongly Agree,
32.8%
Agree, 49.4%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
QUESTION 4: THE PEOPLE WHO LEAD THIS COLLABORATIVE GROUP COMMUNICATE WELL
WITH THE MEMBERS.
“We noticed a real fall-off in communication when one group leader moved on. It’s amazing how
important good leadership is to good communication.”
Disagree, 7.8%
Don't Know, 5.0%
Strongly Disagree,
1.7%
Strongly Agree,
40.6%
Agree, 45.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
3|Page
QUESTION 5: THE CFLRP IS UP TO DATE ON HOW IMPLEMENTATION IS PROGRESSING.
“The way in which the 4FRI and the USFS have collaborated through NEPA [is a success story]. It's not
perfect but it represents an example of a two-way conversation about land management…”
Strongly Disagree, 3.9%
Disagree, 6.7%
Don't Know, 10.0%
Strongly Agree,
26.7%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Agree, 52.8%
QUESTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATMENTS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR CFLR PROJECT
OBJECTIVES.
“The Barry Point Fire…completely changed the schedule of work. In some ways we are still recovering
from those impacts but we are moving ahead with objectives that have to be followed.”
Disagree, 6.1%
Strongly Disagree,
5.0%
Don't Know,
12.2%
Strongly Agree,
29.4%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Agree, 47.2%
4|Page
QUESTION 7: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION IS MOVING THE LANDSCAPE TOWARDS MORE
RESILIENT ECOSYSTEMS.
“Landscape scale restoration met and in some instances exceeded anticipated annual accomplishments
providing for accelerated longleaf pine ecosystem restoration while stimulating local economies through
active forest management. The success of this project was energizing and resulted in very engaged
partnerships and a strong collaborative.”
Disagree, 5.6%
Strongly Disagree,
4.4%
Don't Know,
14.4%
Strongly Agree,
34.4%
Agree, 41.1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
QUESTION 8: MORE RESTORATION IS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND AS A RESULT OF THE
COLLABORATION.
“Our watershed/Forest Service District is home to many endangered and threatened critters & fish. We
have sold and will implement the first projects in 17 years that will be on the ground without litigation!”
Strongly Disagree,
4.4%
Disagree, 8.3%
Don't Know,
19.4%
Strongly Agree,
37.2%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Agree, 30.6%
5|Page
QUESTION 9: CFLR PROJECT PARTICIPANTS DO A GOOD JOB OF FOLLOWING THROUGH ON
COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENTS.
“I expected that an individual or organization that joined the collaborative wanted to accelerate
restoration using the best available science. Unfortunately some members were
obstructionist…impeding the quality and pace of collaboration.”
Strongly Disagree,
2.2%
Disagree, 5.0%
Strongly
Agree,
21.7%
Don't
Know,
15.6%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Agree, 55.6%
QUESTION 10: THE COLLABORATIVE GROUP’S PARTICIPATION IMPROVES THE FOREST
SERVICE’S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
“We supported the Forest Service as they successfully prepared an Environmental Assessment for
136,079 gross National Forest acres. The interdisciplinary team solicited the feedback of our
collaborative… and they took our advice to heart… We felt comfortable allowing them flexibility in the
EA because they showed the economic and ecological factors that would influence their decisions.”
Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, 8.9% 4.4%
Don't Know, 12.2%
Strongly Agree,
31.1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Agree, 43.3%
6|Page
QUESTION 11: THE COLLABORATIVE GROUP’S PARTICIPATION IMPROVES THE FOREST
SERVICE’S PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.
“To be honest, I do not know if we are helping increase the pace of restoration...The projects I have
seen implemented would have been done without the collaboration. I don't see how our
recommendations have changed what the Forest Service would have done otherwise…Perhaps the
collaboration process provides the Forest Service buy in from environmental groups and that can help
get projects implemented quicker. It of course does not prohibit other individuals or groups from
litigating projects. Often, when there is litigation on projects supported by the collaborative, deals are
cut with the litigants without the knowledge of the collaborative. That is an important issue in my
mind that needs to be addressed.”
“We did a follow-up on the Burn Canyon Salvage Logging Monitoring project which helps keep this
longitudinal citizen science study underway. It has been helpful in understanding the need for
monitoring and the value of including citizens in forest management actions.”
Strongly Disagree,
6.7%
Disagree, 5.6%
Strongly Agree,
28.9%
Don't Know, 21.7%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't Know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Agree, 37.2%
If you have questions about this summary please contact the
National Forest Foundation at (406) 830-3352.
7|Page