Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership Collaborative Forestry in Northern Arizona

1
Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership
Collaborative Forestry in Northern Arizona

• Steve Gatewood
• Former Program Director and Currently Program
  Advisor
• October 8, 2007

2
Why Form a Partnership?
1996 Record Fire Season in Flagstaff Urban
Interface
3
Foundations of the GFFP

• STRUCTURE
• Partnership Advisory Board
• Board of Directors
• Working Teams
• 1. Project Design
• 2. Utilization Economics
• 3. Monitoring Research
• 4. Strategic Planning Implementation
• Staff GFFP, Inc.
• Memorandum of Understanding with USFS, both
  Coconino NF and Research Stations/Forest Products
  Lab

• Restore Natural Ecosystem Functions Within
  Flagstaff Wildland/Urban Interface
• Reduce Catastrophic Wildfire Risk to Communities
• Research, Test, and Demonstrate Key Ecological,
  Economic, and Social Dimensions of Restoration

4
PT Project Team UET Utilization and Economics
Team PIT Public Information/Involvement
Team MMT Multi-Party Monitoring Team
5
Partnership Advisory Board
NAU Ecological Restoration Institute NAU College
of Engineering NAU School of Forestry NAU Social
Research Laboratory
Arizona Game and Fish Arizona State Land
Department City of Flagstaff Coconino
County Coconino County Farm Bureau and Cattle
Growers Association Coconino NRCD Coconino Rural
Envvironment Corps Highlands Fire
Department Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council US
Fish and Wildlife Service
Arboretum At Flagstaff AZ Forest Restoration
Products Arizona Public Service Grand Canyon
Trust H K Consulting LLC The Nature
Conservancy Society of American Foresters,
Northern AZ Chapter WildWood Consulting LLC
6
Project Design

• All 6 Large Blocks of FS Land Collaboratively
  Planned Jack Smith/Schultz final one
• 113,850 Acres Analyzed, 78,750 FS Owned, and
  60,350 of FS Land to be Treated
• Coordination on Community Wildfire Protection
  Plan Implementation
• Continuation of Private Land Cost Share
  Treatments over 385 acres treated with
  100,000 distributed to over 73 different
  landowners (259/acre), who matched with over
  160,000 of their resources

7
Utilization Economics

• Working to establish wood products campus at
  Camp Navajo Ind. Park
• Completed Analysis of Wood Supply Within 60 Mile
  Radius Participating in N. AZ Wood Supply
  Analysis
• Coordination with Arizona Forest Restoration
  Products Proposed OSB Plant
• Successful Inclusion of Biomass in the New
  Renewable Energy Standard Tariff Passed by ACC
• Tracking Local Bioenergy Plants
• Coordinating Economics/Utilization Aspects of
  Statewide Strategy to Restore Arizonas Forests
• Working to secure long-term, large-scale
  Stewardship Contracts from USFS

8
Monitoring Research

• Extensive Research on Ft. Valley Project
• Limited Federal/State/Local Monitoring Resources
• Completed NFF Monitoring Project to Evaluate Fire
  Behavior Differences Between Treatments
• Apply Protocol to Partner Mark Prescription at
  Several Demonstration Sites
• Present Data to Annual ERI Ponderosa Pine
  Conferences
• Applying Adaptive Management to New Projects
  Lessons Learned

9
Public Information Involvement

• GFFP is a General Forum for Collaborators, the
  Public Government Agencies to Discuss Issues
• Community Forest Forum
• Private Land Cost-Share
• CWPP Implementation
• Continuous Education of New Residents Visitors
• Wildfire, Prescribed Burning Smoke Are Hot
  Issues

10
General Operations

• Annual Budget 252,500 with 120,000 Operations
  132,000 for Programs (Pass Through or
  Contracts)
• Extensive Fundraising Since No More Large Federal
  Grants Received
• City County Funds Total 35,000 Significant
  Because It Can Address Operations or Any Program
  Area
• All Funds Expended to Collaboratively Protect
  Communities and Restore Forest Ecosystems in the
  Greater Flagstaff Area

11
Successes and Failures

• Previous adversaries now collaborating
• Continuous operation for over 10 years
• Community Wildfire Protection Plan developed
• Extensive research monitoring accomplished
• Adaptive management implemented
• Forests restored and communities protected

• Not enough acreage treated yet
• No new small diameter wood utilization
  enterprises established
• Never attracted some environmental groups as
  members
• Adaptive management hasnt resulted in better
  treatment practices in some instances
• Fundraising insufficient to support organization

12
Thank You! Any Questions?