Democratizing federal forest management through public participation and collaboration.

Public participation and collaboration in federal forest management has evolved over the last century. Currently, the federal land management agencies are encouraged through statutes and regulations to actively and meaningfully collaborate with the public during project development and implementation. The hope is that through greater public engagement, the management gridlock that has impeded forest restoration and thinning since the 1990s will be reduced. It is also assumed that as a result of collaboration, environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be improved leading to better natural resource management decisions. The Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), a collaborative effort to restore 2.4 million acres of ponderosa pine forest across four national forests in northern Arizona, is an example of how collaboration can lower conflict and create agreements that help avoid delays caused by litigation

Fact sheet: Lessons learned from the Wallow Fire (ERI)

Lessons learned from the Wallow Fire, 201

Fact sheet: Efficacy of hazardous fuel treatments: A rapid assessment of the economic and ecologic consequences of alternative hazardous fuel treatments

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the United States Congress have repeatedly asked the Office of Wildland Fire in the Department of Interior (DOI) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) to critically examine and demonstrate the role and effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments for addressing the increasing severity and cost of wildland fire. Federal budget analysts want to know if and when investments in fuel reduction treatments will reduce federal wildland fire suppression costs, decrease fire risk to communities, and avert resource damage

Fact sheet: Lessons learned from the Wallow Fire - final

The fires we face today continue to be bigger and more severe than those that occurred historically. In the Southwest the situation is predicted to get worse

Old-growth Policy

Most federal legislation and policies (e.g., the Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act) fail to speak directly to the need for old-growth protection, recruitment, and restoration on federal lands. Various policy and attitudinal barriers must be changed to move beyond the current situation. For example, in order to achieve the goal of healthy old growth in frequent-fire forests, the public must be educated regarding the evolutionary nature of these ecosystems and persuaded that collaborative action rather than preservation and litigation is the best course for the future of these forests. Land managers and policy makers must be encouraged to look beyond the single-species management paradigm toward managing natural processes, such as fire, so that ecosystems fall within the natural range of variability. They must also see that, given their recent evidence of catastrophic fires, management must take place outside the wildland—urban interface in order to protect old-growth forest attributes and human infrastructure. This means that, in some wilderness areas, management may be required. Land managers, researchers, and policy makers will also have to agree on a definition of old growth in frequent-fire landscapes; simply adopting a definition from the mesic Pacific Northwest will not work. Moreover, the culture within the federal agencies needs revamping to allow for more innovation, especially in terms of tree thinning and wildland fire use. Funding for comprehensive restoration treatments needs to be increased, and monitoring of the Healthy Forest Initiative and Healthy Forest Restoration Act must be undertaken

Southwest fire initiative final report: December 31, 2005

The Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University used the Fiscal Year 2001 funds to design, implement and test scientifically credible ecological restoration treatments designed to reduce hazardous fuels while simultaneously restoring the ecological and economic integrity of frequent fire landscapes. The approach we used integrated the best research-based evidence with the practical experience of natural resource management professionals and the values of stakeholders. These treatments are the first replicated ponderosa pine restoration treatments at a landscape scale. This funding prompted many new discoveries and action on the ground. These discoveries span a wide spectrum of disciplines from bio-physical to social science. Restoration requires the integration of many forms of knowledge in a practical hands-on approach. The diversity of information in this report reflects that fact. Such an interdisciplinary approach has resulted in a broad range of advances, including, for example: the link between treatment design and fire behavior, the economic benefits of treatments and wildfire avoidance, ecosystem health changes resulting from removal of hazardous fuels, the relationship between wildlife and restoration, and especially the expanded public acceptance of, and support for, restoration treatments

Backyard wildlife habitat and fire safety: A guide for residents of Flagstaff

This booklet describes how to design our backyards and larger properties to promote wildlife habitat, reduce water use, and minimize risk to property from unnatural wildfire. It also provides information about local and state resources that can be useful in such efforts

If the Trees Don’t Pay for Restoration What Will?

In the late 1990s proposals to mechanically thin and restore public land forests generated intense conflict and litigation. Yet today, there are over 500,000 acres of restoration-based mechanical thinning treatments approved by NEPA in northern Arizona. This accomplishment is evidence for the level of support that exists for restoration. Having lowered much of the social conflict associated with restoration thinning the next barrier to success is economic. When the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) began in 2009 the stakeholders and Forest Service believed that wood harvested during forest restoration would pay-for, or at a minimum, substantially offset some of the cost of treatments. At the time, the 4FRI set an ambitious goal of accomplishing 50,000 acres of mechanical treatments 9 annually. Unfortunately, the number of acres completed annually during the intervening time has never exceeded 16,000 acres. Why? The trees removed from forest restoration treatments in the Southwest are a combination of small, mostly unmerchantable logs and huge volumes of biomass. The low value of the wood is a function of both quality and size. Without significant investment in value-added processing making a profit is difficult. Entrepreneurs are reticent to invest in expensive value-added infrastructure without guaranteed large volumes of wood, risk-sharing and contracts that exceed 10 years. This presentation will examine different approaches for improving the economics of restoration and explore whether or not it is time to create a different economic model to achieve restoration goals