Comparison of USDA Forest Service and Stakeholder Motivations and Experiences in Collaborative Federal Forest Governance in the Western United States.

In the United States, over 191 million acres of land is managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, a federal government agency. In several western U.S. states, organized collaborative groups have become a de facto governance approach to providing sustained input on management decisions on much public land. This is most extensive in Oregon, where at least 25 "forest collaboratives" currently exist. This affords excellent opportunities for studies of many common themes in collaborative governance, including trust, shared values, and perceptions of success. We undertook a statewide survey of participants in Oregon forest collaboratives to examine differences in motivations, perceptions of success, and satisfaction among Forest Service participants ("agency participants"), who made up 31% of the sample, and other respondents ("non-agency") who represent nonfederal agencies, interest groups, citizens, and non-governmental groups. We found that agency participants differed from non-agency participants. They typically had higher annual incomes, and were primarily motivated to participate to build trust. However, a majority of all respondents were similar in not indicating any other social or economic motivations as their primary reason for collaborating. A majority also reported satisfaction with their collaborative-despite not ranking collaborative performance on a number of specific potential outcomes highly. Together, this suggests that collaboration in Oregon is currently perceived as successful despite not achieving many specific outcomes. Yet there were significant differences in socioeconomic status and motivation that could affect the ability of agency and nonagency participants to develop and achieve mutually-desired goals.

The meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act within the U.S. Forest Service.

We conducted a survey of 3321 Forest Service employees involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) followed by five focus groups to investigate agency views of the purpose of agency NEPA processes and their appropriate measures of success. Results suggest the lack of a unified critical task for Forest Service NEPA processes and that employees' functions relevant to NEPA influence their views of its meaning. Compared to other agency personnel, members of interdisciplinary teams who carry out most day-to-day NEPA-related tasks placed greater emphasis on minimizing negative environmental and social impacts, satisfying multiple stakeholders and avoiding litigation and appeals. Line officers, who typically serve as the decision makers following NEPA processes, placed greatest emphasis on efficient implementation and least emphasis on minimizing impacts. Advisory personnel placed greatest emphasis on effective disclosure of analyses and decision-making. We discuss the structural origins of these differences as well as their implications.

From the office to the field: areas of tension and consensus in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act within the US Forest Service.

We conducted an online survey (n = 3321) followed by five focus groups with Forest Service employees involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to explore agency views of how NEPA should be implemented within the agency. We filter these perceptions through the lenses of different functional groups within the agency, each with its own role in agency compliance with NEPA and its own suite of perceived accountabilities. In doing so, we uncover areas of consensus regarding valued practices as well as tensions between employees with different roles in NEPA compliance. General consensus exists regarding the importance of the effective functioning of interdisciplinary teams, but opinions about what constitutes an effective team vary. Findings suggest that NEPA serves as a playing field for competing accountabilities felt by line officers, disciplinary specialists, and advisory personnel within the agency, as each attempts to exert influence over NEPA processes and their outcomes.