Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Report of the workforce capacity group

  Through several two-day meetings the workgroup and invited subject matter experts discussed each objective in detail. Specific workforce capacity issues facing the ODF Protection from Fire Program were ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Report of the workforce capacity group Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon Fire Program Review Workforce Capacity Workgroup, Oregon Department of Forestry Through several two-day meetings the workgroup and invited subject matter experts discussed each objective in detail. Specific workforce capacity issues facing the ODF Protection from Fire Program were identified. Recommendations were developed to ensure adequate numbers of qualified and experienced personnel to supervise and perform essential tasks in the ODF wildland fire prevention and suppression system. Title: Report of the workforce capacity group Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon Fire Program Review Workforce Capacity Workgroup, Oregon Department of Forestry Through several two-day meetings the workgroup and invited subject matter experts discussed each objective in detail. Specific workforce capacity issues facing the ODF Protection from Fire Program were identified. Recommendations were developed to ensure adequate numbers of qualified and experienced personnel to supervise and perform essential tasks in the ODF wildland fire prevention and suppression system. Close

• 2. [Article] Workforce Capacity Work Group Final Report

  Report completed by the Workforce Capacity Work Group for the 2004 Oregon Fire Program Review. Technical editing by the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Workforce Capacity Work Group Final Report Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon Fire Program Review Workforce Capacity Workgroup Report completed by the Workforce Capacity Work Group for the 2004 Oregon Fire Program Review. Technical editing by the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University Title: Workforce Capacity Work Group Final Report Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon Fire Program Review Workforce Capacity Workgroup Report completed by the Workforce Capacity Work Group for the 2004 Oregon Fire Program Review. Technical editing by the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University Close

• 3. [Article] An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning Volume 2

  This report is intended to help transportation and environmental professionals apply ecological principles early in the planning and programming process of highway capacity improvements to inform later ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning Volume 2 Author: CH2M HILL, NatureServe, Institute for Natural Resources, Transposition Research Board of the National Academies, Parametrix, Inc. This report is intended to help transportation and environmental professionals apply ecological principles early in the planning and programming process of highway capacity improvements to inform later environmental reviews and permitting. Ecological principles consider cumulative landscape, water resources, and habitat impacts of planned infrastructure actions, as well as the localized impacts. The report introduces the Integrated Ecological Framework (Framework or IEF), a nine-step process for use in early stages of highway planning when there are greater opportunities for avoiding or minimizing potential environmental impacts and for planning future mitigation strategies. Success requires some level of agreement among stakeholders about prioritization of resources for preservation or restoration. This implies long range environmental planning as a companion to long range transportation planning so that there is a basis and methodology for prioritization. This report provides a structured collaborative way to approach these issues. It does not address environmental mitigation and permitting actions required by current law or regulation. The report provides technical background on cumulative effects assessment, ecological accounting strategies, ecosystems services, and partnership strategies, along with a summary of the available ecological tools that are most applicable to this type of work. The appendices document three pilot projects that tested the approach during the research. The Framework details steps to enhance ecological considerations and efficiency in the early stages of planning highway capacity projects. Transportation professionals must routinely interact with numerous agencies in the course of planning highway expansions. These materials are intended to help each stakeholder better understand the missions and responsibilities of the other stakeholders and provide a structured and repeatable framework for interaction, thus allowing for agreement on ecological priorities. Use of the Framework can streamline the delivery of highway projects and improve water resources and habitats. The research from SHRP 2’s Capacity Project C06 produced two volumes of reports and a companion guide. Volume 1 (forthcoming) covers institutional issues and provides examples of techniques such as banking and programmatic agreements that can be used in the highway planning process. The guide (forthcoming) provides step-by-step information to help practitioners use the Framework. Essential content from the C06 project is available on the Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects through Partnerships website (www.transportationforcommunities.com). Title: An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning Volume 2 Author: CH2M HILL, NatureServe, Institute for Natural Resources, Transposition Research Board of the National Academies, Parametrix, Inc. This report is intended to help transportation and environmental professionals apply ecological principles early in the planning and programming process of highway capacity improvements to inform later environmental reviews and permitting. Ecological principles consider cumulative landscape, water resources, and habitat impacts of planned infrastructure actions, as well as the localized impacts. The report introduces the Integrated Ecological Framework (Framework or IEF), a nine-step process for use in early stages of highway planning when there are greater opportunities for avoiding or minimizing potential environmental impacts and for planning future mitigation strategies. Success requires some level of agreement among stakeholders about prioritization of resources for preservation or restoration. This implies long range environmental planning as a companion to long range transportation planning so that there is a basis and methodology for prioritization. This report provides a structured collaborative way to approach these issues. It does not address environmental mitigation and permitting actions required by current law or regulation. The report provides technical background on cumulative effects assessment, ecological accounting strategies, ecosystems services, and partnership strategies, along with a summary of the available ecological tools that are most applicable to this type of work. The appendices document three pilot projects that tested the approach during the research. The Framework details steps to enhance ecological considerations and efficiency in the early stages of planning highway capacity projects. Transportation professionals must routinely interact with numerous agencies in the course of planning highway expansions. These materials are intended to help each stakeholder better understand the missions and responsibilities of the other stakeholders and provide a structured and repeatable framework for interaction, thus allowing for agreement on ecological priorities. Use of the Framework can streamline the delivery of highway projects and improve water resources and habitats. The research from SHRP 2’s Capacity Project C06 produced two volumes of reports and a companion guide. Volume 1 (forthcoming) covers institutional issues and provides examples of techniques such as banking and programmatic agreements that can be used in the highway planning process. The guide (forthcoming) provides step-by-step information to help practitioners use the Framework. Essential content from the C06 project is available on the Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects through Partnerships website (www.transportationforcommunities.com). Close

• 4. [Article] Fleet and owner-operator capacity for utilizing idle reduction technology: a report to the US Environmental Protection Agency

  In order to reduce long-term idling along the Oregon I-5 corridor, the US Environmental Agency entered into a collaborative research and implementation program with Oregon State University, the Oregon ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fleet and owner-operator capacity for utilizing idle reduction technology: a report to the US Environmental Protection Agency Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Sanford, Stephanie, Lach, Denise, Ham, Clifford L. In order to reduce long-term idling along the Oregon I-5 corridor, the US Environmental Agency entered into a collaborative research and implementation program with Oregon State University, the Oregon Climate Trust, and Shurepower (producers of truckstop electrification equipment) to install Shurepower stations at truck stops in Oregon. This research component • characterizes the existing capacity of the fleets and owner-operators who idle in Oregon to use the Shurepower technology and • describes the incentives and constraints for fleets and owner-operators to invest in technology that allows their drivers to use Shurepower technology. In-depth, face-to-face interviews were completed with owner-operator truck drivers at three truck stops in Oregon and phone interviews with equipment buyers at fleets with trucks driving in Oregon. Notes were taken during the interviews and analyzed to answer the research questions described above. In general, we found that all respondents were concerned about long-term idling for a variety of reasons including cost, driver health, noise, and pollution. The most widely used idle reduction technology currently in use by owner-operators are additional batteries and inverters that allow the use of on-board amenities including (among other things) microwaves, TVs, VCR-DVDs and computers. About 40% of the respondents were familiar with Idleaire technology; and while most respondents have heard of Shurepower, none have ever used it and only a few have even seen it. One fleet has equipped their trucks with Shurepower retrofits, the other fleets were experimenting with other idle reduction options including incentive programs, APUs, and automatic shut-off technology. Both fleet representatives and owner-operators perceive the largest drawback to the Shurepower technology is the small number of planned spaces at a few truck stops. They see this place-based technology as limiting to drivers who cannot find a technology equipped space, cannot reach an equipped truck stop due to rest regulations, and/or who are not driving regularly along the I-5 corridor. Once a truck is equipped with the enabling technology, however, Shurepower is perceived as an inexpensive, easy to use option for reducing idling. Recommendation for promoting and increasing the use of Shurepower technology in Oregon include targeted marketing of the benefits, services, and locations of Shurepower- equipped sites, low-interest loan programs for retrofitting trucks, and promotion of the anti-pollution and health benefits of Shurepower over currently used technologies. Title: Fleet and owner-operator capacity for utilizing idle reduction technology: a report to the US Environmental Protection Agency Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Sanford, Stephanie, Lach, Denise, Ham, Clifford L. In order to reduce long-term idling along the Oregon I-5 corridor, the US Environmental Agency entered into a collaborative research and implementation program with Oregon State University, the Oregon Climate Trust, and Shurepower (producers of truckstop electrification equipment) to install Shurepower stations at truck stops in Oregon. This research component • characterizes the existing capacity of the fleets and owner-operators who idle in Oregon to use the Shurepower technology and • describes the incentives and constraints for fleets and owner-operators to invest in technology that allows their drivers to use Shurepower technology. In-depth, face-to-face interviews were completed with owner-operator truck drivers at three truck stops in Oregon and phone interviews with equipment buyers at fleets with trucks driving in Oregon. Notes were taken during the interviews and analyzed to answer the research questions described above. In general, we found that all respondents were concerned about long-term idling for a variety of reasons including cost, driver health, noise, and pollution. The most widely used idle reduction technology currently in use by owner-operators are additional batteries and inverters that allow the use of on-board amenities including (among other things) microwaves, TVs, VCR-DVDs and computers. About 40% of the respondents were familiar with Idleaire technology; and while most respondents have heard of Shurepower, none have ever used it and only a few have even seen it. One fleet has equipped their trucks with Shurepower retrofits, the other fleets were experimenting with other idle reduction options including incentive programs, APUs, and automatic shut-off technology. Both fleet representatives and owner-operators perceive the largest drawback to the Shurepower technology is the small number of planned spaces at a few truck stops. They see this place-based technology as limiting to drivers who cannot find a technology equipped space, cannot reach an equipped truck stop due to rest regulations, and/or who are not driving regularly along the I-5 corridor. Once a truck is equipped with the enabling technology, however, Shurepower is perceived as an inexpensive, easy to use option for reducing idling. Recommendation for promoting and increasing the use of Shurepower technology in Oregon include targeted marketing of the benefits, services, and locations of Shurepower- equipped sites, low-interest loan programs for retrofitting trucks, and promotion of the anti-pollution and health benefits of Shurepower over currently used technologies. Close

• 5. [Article] Bringing the River Back: Working with Landowners on Willamette River Restoration

  The Willamette River has gone through extensive changes since Euro American settlement – changes that have reduced channel connectivity, destroyed important habitat for species and vastly undermined floodwater ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bringing the River Back: Working with Landowners on Willamette River Restoration Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Greenbelt Land Trust, McCune, Myrica, Lurie, Sue, River Design, Duncan, Sally The Willamette River has gone through extensive changes since Euro American settlement – changes that have reduced channel connectivity, destroyed important habitat for species and vastly undermined floodwater storage capacity. Efforts to preserve portions of the river have a controversial legacy that has left lingering suspicions of government involvement in any activity that includes private lands. Nonetheless, there are opportunities for willing landowners to work with governmental and non-governmental partners to design and implement voluntary restoration projects which can provide financial and land use benefits. The river’s floodplain can be an asset and a resource beyond its usefulness for agricultural production. This report is part technical guide, part story based on interviews we conducted with different interests. We have separated out the landowners’ viewpoints and experience to make clear the importance of understanding that critical central element in restoration planning. The Harkens Lake area of the Willamette River near Monroe, Oregon, is a priority conservation area detailed in the 2002 Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Change. The Horning families who own property in the Harkens Lake area have teamed with several partners to design and implement a restoration project as a way to, in their words, bring what was once a living area back to life as a way to give back to the river. If the potential for restoration is to be realized, landowners and their partners need to be aware of the multiple associated challenges and ways to work through them. Restoration is still new to many landowners, and projects can become complicated fairly quickly. The concept of lead project partners as case managers for landowners is critical. This approach will help landowners define their needs and expectations, develop the level of trust essential to project success, and ensure that landowners are not overwhelmed with the complexity of financing, the demands of design and permitting, and the challenge of incorporating good science. Landowners also need to know that there is a broad range of restoration programs and tools available, along with associated funding. The sweep of these programs and tools can be confusing. Though the Harken’s Lake project has not yet required permits from regulatory agencies, many stakeholders interviewed for this report identified permitting as one of the most perennially vexing parts of project implementation. It typically requires cooperation among different agencies at different levels of government, and can take from three months to three years, requiring a great deal of patience on the part of landowners and matching perseverance on the part of project partners. Finally, as the Harkens Lake story illustrates, a vital concept that may help ensure successful processes is making certain project partners and landowners discuss critical timing issues, align process steps accordingly, and develop two-way assurances that serve as accountability measures and benchmarks for progress. Those involved with the Harkens Lake restoration project expressed clear hopes: that the project will be a model for more restoration on the mainstem of the Willamette, that restoration will provide good compensation to property owners so that restoration represents a practical addition to agricultural business portfolios, and that landowners will feel good about their legacy in its benefits to the health of the river. The report should be of interest to landowners, agencies and others in the conservation community, and academics. We emphasize that it is a case study of one landowner’s experience, and the pool of associated interview participants was limited. Typical of single case studies, the experiences and outcomes cannot be generalized. There are nonetheless many elements of the study that represent long-standing landowner issues and concerns still shared by many, as indicated by the landowners and by several of the people we interviewed. Title: Bringing the River Back: Working with Landowners on Willamette River Restoration Author: Institute for Natural Resources, Greenbelt Land Trust, McCune, Myrica, Lurie, Sue, River Design, Duncan, Sally The Willamette River has gone through extensive changes since Euro American settlement – changes that have reduced channel connectivity, destroyed important habitat for species and vastly undermined floodwater storage capacity. Efforts to preserve portions of the river have a controversial legacy that has left lingering suspicions of government involvement in any activity that includes private lands. Nonetheless, there are opportunities for willing landowners to work with governmental and non-governmental partners to design and implement voluntary restoration projects which can provide financial and land use benefits. The river’s floodplain can be an asset and a resource beyond its usefulness for agricultural production. This report is part technical guide, part story based on interviews we conducted with different interests. We have separated out the landowners’ viewpoints and experience to make clear the importance of understanding that critical central element in restoration planning. The Harkens Lake area of the Willamette River near Monroe, Oregon, is a priority conservation area detailed in the 2002 Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Change. The Horning families who own property in the Harkens Lake area have teamed with several partners to design and implement a restoration project as a way to, in their words, bring what was once a living area back to life as a way to give back to the river. If the potential for restoration is to be realized, landowners and their partners need to be aware of the multiple associated challenges and ways to work through them. Restoration is still new to many landowners, and projects can become complicated fairly quickly. The concept of lead project partners as case managers for landowners is critical. This approach will help landowners define their needs and expectations, develop the level of trust essential to project success, and ensure that landowners are not overwhelmed with the complexity of financing, the demands of design and permitting, and the challenge of incorporating good science. Landowners also need to know that there is a broad range of restoration programs and tools available, along with associated funding. The sweep of these programs and tools can be confusing. Though the Harken’s Lake project has not yet required permits from regulatory agencies, many stakeholders interviewed for this report identified permitting as one of the most perennially vexing parts of project implementation. It typically requires cooperation among different agencies at different levels of government, and can take from three months to three years, requiring a great deal of patience on the part of landowners and matching perseverance on the part of project partners. Finally, as the Harkens Lake story illustrates, a vital concept that may help ensure successful processes is making certain project partners and landowners discuss critical timing issues, align process steps accordingly, and develop two-way assurances that serve as accountability measures and benchmarks for progress. Those involved with the Harkens Lake restoration project expressed clear hopes: that the project will be a model for more restoration on the mainstem of the Willamette, that restoration will provide good compensation to property owners so that restoration represents a practical addition to agricultural business portfolios, and that landowners will feel good about their legacy in its benefits to the health of the river. The report should be of interest to landowners, agencies and others in the conservation community, and academics. We emphasize that it is a case study of one landowner’s experience, and the pool of associated interview participants was limited. Typical of single case studies, the experiences and outcomes cannot be generalized. There are nonetheless many elements of the study that represent long-standing landowner issues and concerns still shared by many, as indicated by the landowners and by several of the people we interviewed. Close

• 6. [Article] Local Ecosystem Services Marketplaces: Public Utilities as Development Drivers

  Executive Summary The Institute for Natural Resources (INR) received funding from the Bullitt Foundation in 2009 for Financing Mechanisms that Advance Ecosystem Services Markets and Promote Rural Sustainability. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Local Ecosystem Services Marketplaces: Public Utilities as Development Drivers Author: Lurie, Sue, Duncan, Sally, Fishler, Hillary, Bennet, Drew, Institute for Natural Resources Executive Summary The Institute for Natural Resources (INR) received funding from the Bullitt Foundation in 2009 for Financing Mechanisms that Advance Ecosystem Services Markets and Promote Rural Sustainability. 1 That research strongly suggested that, at least for the short- and possibly medium-term, payment for ecosystem services (PES) may best be framed at the local and regional levels. INR therefore proposed examining policy and program options that could facilitate and support local and regional marketplaces, pertaining to all forms of PES, rather than more narrowly conceived credit markets. To pursue this approach, INR proposed expanding its work with the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). EWEB is the chief supplier of water for the city of Eugene, Oregon, and its source water protection program coordinator is in the process of developing an innovative voluntary incentive program (VIP) to maintain and restore healthy riparian forests along the McKenzie River. EWEB’s envisioned VIP is a distinct departure from typical restoration and PES models in that it gives highest payment—or dividend—priority to those properties with intact, healthy riparian forests. In other words, it pays for good stewardship, not for restoration. It can be a model for other utilities, which could duplicate or adapt the program in part or in full depending on variables such as watershed ownership patterns, authorizing authorities for such programs, potential partners, and other features. INR’s Bullitt Foundation funding has used the EWEB program to examine institutional aspects that act as both opportunities and constraints to greater public utility PES program development and administration. Also in 2011, INR was awarded a National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) grant to examine public utilities as local PES marketplace drivers. The research includes a case study of the EWEB program, examining funding and structural aspects, testing PES buyers’ and sellers’ preferences and developing a corporate engagement model. Concurrent work on the two projects has enabled INR to leverage information from each to mutually enrich the knowledge and context for both projects. Few, if any, legislative or legal barriers surfaced during our research. However, a number of pivotal institutional issues have emerged; most are administrative and funding related. While there was consistent interest in the concept of PES, there was fairly consistent lack of knowledge and support regarding the use of PES and green or living infrastructure as a cost avoidance strategy and lack of knowledge regarding how to create and fund such programs. (Note that this report uses the terms “green infrastructure” and “living infrastructure” interchangeably. Both refer in this case to the targeted riparian forests doing the job of supporting the utility’s clean drinking water requirements.) Interviews and focus groups provided information for the following recommendations. Greater details can be found in the body of the report. • Knowledge regarding how to design a PES program is a resource. Although many utilities may have heard about PES and living infrastructure, staff may not know where to turn for help and information. • Education for inreach (internal management communications) as well as public outreach will be critical to building support for funding and implementing EWEB-like programs. • Utilities might benefit from expanding the partnership concept to other organizations and agencies that might not be part of the watershed investment district or partnership. This could include larger landowners, other utilities, or additional investors. • All utilities potentially face different resource constraints such as technical support or funding. Larger utilities working with and mentoring the smaller systems can provide comprehensive program ownership and subsequent source protection awareness and actions, to help them face staff, ratepayer base and budget constraints. Regardless of partnership opportunities, utilities and other organizations should think about how PES might be integrated strategically with or into other programs. • Program design should proceed whether or not funding is immediately available, but always with funding options in mind. An effective approach may be to design the program first in concert with landowners and potential partners and follow that with stakeholder education. • Finding the right price point as well as other potential non-monetary incentives to encourage participation is a variable that will be area specific and will differ among landowner types and available alternatives. • Interested utilities will need to acquire realistic valuation of the ecosystem services the program will use. • Creating a watershed investment partnership or similar interorganizational collaborative arrangements will help all partners add capacities and increase efficiencies through sharing program funding for infrastructure, aligning goals, and utilizing existing competencies. Title: Local Ecosystem Services Marketplaces: Public Utilities as Development Drivers Author: Lurie, Sue, Duncan, Sally, Fishler, Hillary, Bennet, Drew, Institute for Natural Resources Executive Summary The Institute for Natural Resources (INR) received funding from the Bullitt Foundation in 2009 for Financing Mechanisms that Advance Ecosystem Services Markets and Promote Rural Sustainability. 1 That research strongly suggested that, at least for the short- and possibly medium-term, payment for ecosystem services (PES) may best be framed at the local and regional levels. INR therefore proposed examining policy and program options that could facilitate and support local and regional marketplaces, pertaining to all forms of PES, rather than more narrowly conceived credit markets. To pursue this approach, INR proposed expanding its work with the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). EWEB is the chief supplier of water for the city of Eugene, Oregon, and its source water protection program coordinator is in the process of developing an innovative voluntary incentive program (VIP) to maintain and restore healthy riparian forests along the McKenzie River. EWEB’s envisioned VIP is a distinct departure from typical restoration and PES models in that it gives highest payment—or dividend—priority to those properties with intact, healthy riparian forests. In other words, it pays for good stewardship, not for restoration. It can be a model for other utilities, which could duplicate or adapt the program in part or in full depending on variables such as watershed ownership patterns, authorizing authorities for such programs, potential partners, and other features. INR’s Bullitt Foundation funding has used the EWEB program to examine institutional aspects that act as both opportunities and constraints to greater public utility PES program development and administration. Also in 2011, INR was awarded a National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) grant to examine public utilities as local PES marketplace drivers. The research includes a case study of the EWEB program, examining funding and structural aspects, testing PES buyers’ and sellers’ preferences and developing a corporate engagement model. Concurrent work on the two projects has enabled INR to leverage information from each to mutually enrich the knowledge and context for both projects. Few, if any, legislative or legal barriers surfaced during our research. However, a number of pivotal institutional issues have emerged; most are administrative and funding related. While there was consistent interest in the concept of PES, there was fairly consistent lack of knowledge and support regarding the use of PES and green or living infrastructure as a cost avoidance strategy and lack of knowledge regarding how to create and fund such programs. (Note that this report uses the terms “green infrastructure” and “living infrastructure” interchangeably. Both refer in this case to the targeted riparian forests doing the job of supporting the utility’s clean drinking water requirements.) Interviews and focus groups provided information for the following recommendations. Greater details can be found in the body of the report. • Knowledge regarding how to design a PES program is a resource. Although many utilities may have heard about PES and living infrastructure, staff may not know where to turn for help and information. • Education for inreach (internal management communications) as well as public outreach will be critical to building support for funding and implementing EWEB-like programs. • Utilities might benefit from expanding the partnership concept to other organizations and agencies that might not be part of the watershed investment district or partnership. This could include larger landowners, other utilities, or additional investors. • All utilities potentially face different resource constraints such as technical support or funding. Larger utilities working with and mentoring the smaller systems can provide comprehensive program ownership and subsequent source protection awareness and actions, to help them face staff, ratepayer base and budget constraints. Regardless of partnership opportunities, utilities and other organizations should think about how PES might be integrated strategically with or into other programs. • Program design should proceed whether or not funding is immediately available, but always with funding options in mind. An effective approach may be to design the program first in concert with landowners and potential partners and follow that with stakeholder education. • Finding the right price point as well as other potential non-monetary incentives to encourage participation is a variable that will be area specific and will differ among landowner types and available alternatives. • Interested utilities will need to acquire realistic valuation of the ecosystem services the program will use. • Creating a watershed investment partnership or similar interorganizational collaborative arrangements will help all partners add capacities and increase efficiencies through sharing program funding for infrastructure, aligning goals, and utilizing existing competencies. Close