Four Forest Restoration Initiative: A landscape-scale solution
• Amy Waltz • Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University
Overview • 4FRI Collaborative • Background & Objectives • Scope & NEPA • Innovations & Lessons Learned
Old Ponderosa pine in Monument Canyon RNA, New Mexico photo: Sánchez Meador
Hart Prairie, AZ
Historical Perspective 1990s – Southwest Timber Wars 1998 – Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership 2002 – Rodeo-Chediski Fire 2007 – Statewide Strategy 2008 – Wood Supply Study 2009 – Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 2010 – Initiation of 4FRI 2011 – Wallow Fire
What’s at Risk?
Ecosystem Restoration Need
• Uncharacteristic disturbance regimes: fire, insects • Decreasing understory diversity, increasing homogeneity at all levels of the ecosystem • Spread of invasive exotic plants • Lack of resiliency to adapt to climate change
Goal of 4FRI To restore ecological resilience and function across northern Arizona’s ponderosa pine forests and to attract appropriately sized industry to the region
Stakeholders Arizona Eastern Counties Association Arizona Elk Society Arizona State Forestry Division Coconino County Ecological Restoration Institute Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership National Wild Turkey Federation Northern Arizona Logging Association
Arizona Forest Restoration Products
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona Wildlife Federation
Center for Biological Diversity
Coconino Natural Resources The Nature Conservancy Conservation District City of Flagstaff – FFD
Coconino Rural Environment Corps
Graham County
Forest Energy Corporation
Gila County
Grand Canyon Trust
Greenlee County
Mottek Consulting
The Natural Resources Working Group
Navajo County
Pioneer Association
NAU Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis
Southwest Sustainable Forests Partnership
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Northern Arizona Wood Products Association U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sierra Club
We must act at scale and pace in keeping with the character of the crises at hand. Large, collaborative landscape scale projects are our best hope.
•2.4M Acres •4 National Forests
Why so big? Ecological
Increasing size of severe wildfires Safe reintroduction of fire to landscape Comprehensive watershed management
Economic
Dependable, long-term wood supply Ability to use fire to maintain treatments
Legal and Socio-Political NEPA planning efficiencies Community protection
LARGE-SCALE NEPA • Not programmatic (what is programmatic?) • 1 million acre analysis area and Environmental Impact Statement meeting all NEPA requirements • Site specificity • Cumulative effects
• Stakeholder thoughts/ history • “dial – a – friend” – Agency partner contacts at end of talk
FIRST ANALYSIS AREA ~998,000-Acre Analysis Area Proposed Action – August 2011 ~390,000 acres of mechanical thinning ~600,000 acres of prescribed burning ~1,000 miles of road decommissioning ~80 springs restored ~40 miles of ephemeral channels restored ~80 miles of aspen fencing
4FRI Timeline Spring 2012- Award first Stewardship Contract – 300,000 acres over 10 years – Pioneer Forest Products
Spring 2013 - Draft 1st EIS (1M acre analysis) Summer 2013- Begin issuing task orders under first Stewardship Contract
Fall 2013 – Contract transferred to Good Earth Power Winter 2013/2014- Prepare final EIS Winter of 2014/2015- Begin next EIS (Eastern) 2014 - 2030- Full implementation of 4FRI
Overall Objectives Mechanical restoration treatments across ~1 million acres over ~20 years, at a significantly reduced cost to USFS
Provide for the re-establishment of natural fire patterns across the landscape
Close over 1,000 miles of roads Restore springs and ephemeral channels
EIS Development and Stakeholder Participation Stakeholder Engagement
“Drafty-draft” EIS Materials Official Comment Process Analysis of EIS Draft recommendation Stakeholder endorsement of recommendation
“Drafty-draft” EIS Materials (Fall 2012)
Utilized for learning and identification of potential “Stakeholder Issues or concerns”
Encouraged individual stakeholder conversations with ID Team’s “open-door” policy
No officially endorsed “stakeholder recommendation”
4FRI Stakeholder Comment
Process
Analysis of EIS- key successes
Request for extension received, increased to 60 days; also received “web version” approx 30 days earlier than federal registry release
Small group organized and process developed to develop draft recommendations and comments
Use of facilitator for small group work accomplished with extra funding raised by stakeholders
Key issues from “drafty-draft” utilized to focus efforts
Planners perspective Streamline using the latest eMNEPA tools – CARA, Mailing List Management Document Review Periods – Break the Mold
Personalizing a Formal Comment Period
USFS Planners perspective Approximately 180 comments Issue Themes Scope and intensity of treatments within TES habitat – do less, do nothing Retention of Large and Old Trees – no exceptions Smoke – not acceptable The Hard Look – not site-specific
Science and Collaboration to the Rescue
Challenges & Solutions Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Retention of old and large trees
Funding Needs Smoke from prescribed fire
Operations & NEPA •
A lot of moving parts to get from planning to implementation
•
For mechanical treatments, 4FRI is using multiple contract mechanisms Stewardship contracting Regular timber sales Agreements (Flagstaff Watershed Protection Plan)
4FRI Outreach and Communications
• USFS 4FRI planning documents • USDA FS website – www.fs.usda.gov/4fri
• Stakeholder Working Group Outputs • Stakeholder Group website – www.4fri.org
Questions Discussion
