1. Introductions	4. Action Items
	2. Approval of Minutes	5. Other Business
	3. Updates	6. Adjourn

1. Introductions

Brad Ack                Grand Canyon Trust
Megan Van Horne   Grand Canyon Forests Foundation
Brian Cottam           Grand Canyon Forests Foundation
Jim Wheeler             Flagstaff Fire Department
Michael Macauley    Natural Resource Conservation District/Cattle Growers
Doc Smith                NAU-ERI
Don Bertolette          Society of American Foresters
Mike Wagner           Centennial Forest/School of Forestry
Peter Frederici          NAU-ERI
Heather Green          USFS
Ed Smith                   The Nature Conservancy
Taylor McKinnon      Grand Canyon Trust
John Aber                 Coconino County Community Development
Kent Bushman           APS
Kevin Boness            Arizona State Land Department
Paul Summerfelt         Flagstaff Fire Department
Dirch Foreman           Highlands Fire Department

[Top]

2. Approval of December Meeting Minutes

Motion - Doc Smith
2nd - Mike Macauley
January PAB meeting minutes approved [Top]

3. Updates

Fort Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project
Brian reported that James Perkins continues to thin in Fort Valley. Unit 15 was completed in January, so the unit is closed and James has been paid. Unit 14 is near completion. James estimates he will be done in the next week.
Doc inquired about the trees on ground by Chimney Springs Meadow.
Brian responded that they came from the next unit James is starting on. It is a Phase 1 unit (24), and that's where he'll go when Unit 14 is complete. He's been moving around a little over the past few months due to weather and trying to prepare for Goshawk restrictions in Unit 24. These restrictions go from March 1 to Sept 30.
Jim W asked if the logs are to be taken out prior to fire season.
Brian assumes so.
Jim W also asked how many total acres have been treated in Fort Valley.
Brian noted that this figure is available, but did not know off the top of his head.
Jim W asked to have an acreage treated update from now on.
Mike W inquired on the cost per acre.
Brian recalled $200/ac for those units conveyed to the GCFFoundation (Units 14-16), and a bit higher for the rest of Phase One.
Heather wondered if that figure includes slash treatment
Brian said it just covered the operator's piling, and the FS is responsible for burning. [Top]

Kachina Village Forest Health Project
Heather reported that the IDTeam is working on finishing the DEIS.
Brad informed PAB that the PAB will receive a presentation from the FS before DEIS goes out to the public.
Taylor asked if the Region (R3 attorneys) is going to review the DEIS before it goes out.
Heather didn't know.
Brad explained that Taylor's question was probably prompted by what happened with Fort Valley when the region reviewed the DEIS before it was released.
Heather stated that it is not standard operating procedure and she didn't think it would happen that way again.
She will look into this and provide an answer.

Airport Project-nothing new to report; same as last month

PIT-the PIT has not met since last PAB meeting; therefore, there is nothing new to report
Brian noted that the PIT has not met since last PAB meeting. They will meet tomorrow to finalize the current draft of the "communications blueprint" they have been creating. Brian will forward this, along with the PIT meeting minutes, to the PAB when complete.
Brian also reminded the PAB about the Radio Fire Tabloid that Bonnie Holmes has been working on that and he'll keep PAB informed on progress. The PIT meeting minutes will contain an update. [Top]

MMT
Brian announced that the MMT will meet for the 3rd time today and keep things moving quickly on the monitoring plan as they are hoping to get work done this field season.
They hope to finalize the Plan in the next 3 meetings/months. Brian will forward it to PAB as it develops.

Other
Brad brought up the President's proposed 2003 budget and that funding for particular components of the Rocky Mountain Research Station's research is not proposed to continue. Brad stated that lobbying efforts are in order.
Mike W agreed that political support is helpful, but there's no need to be alarmists. These types of deletions are often included in the initial drafts and funding is often restored during the negotiations process.
Brad also noted that Senator Kyl will be in town this week and urged the PAB to attend the dinner and speak with him.
Brad gave some background on the Biomass Feasibility study. He then briefed the PAB on the problem finding the right site for the study. There were 3 preliminary sites, but only one, Camp Navajo, is in the pine belt, the other 2 are too far away from the resource to be economically feasible. The problem with Camp Navajo is that it is politically and organizationally complex. Brad invited interested PAB members to a meeting today at Camp Navajo with a General from Phoenix who can further detail the decision process for Camp Navajo and if the project is actually feasible there.
Brad is now looking into Bellemont and private property as a possible site for the study.
Mike M noted that another project has lowered the water table there and hasn't recovered as expected, and was concerned about the impact of this project.
Mike W reminded PAB that NAU was considered, but couldn't follow through due to air quality and emissions issues.
PAB discussed what would happen with the power.
APS could buy power at the rate of the cheapest alternative.
Brad stated that the base needs energy, so some of it could be used there.
It won't be sold at cost of nuclear, it will be compared to other renewable sources.
Doc reminded that cogeneration is an alternative (utilizing both power and steam).
Brad said that it would be difficult to have the site in town.
Doc thought that the airport business development might be a possibility with recycled water.
Jim W said that zoning might not allow it.
John A asked if the water supply could come from Camp Navajo but put the plant on private land.
A few informed that it was the same water source in the Bellemont area.[Top]

4. Action Items

Annual Retreat Work Groups' Reports to PAB:

Restoration/Fire Risk Reduction Work Group
Brian handed out a document of the work group conclusions and recommendations.
He explained that the work group recommends the GCFP continue to plan as has been done in the past. The principal reason is the FS is already doing comprehensive planning, encompassing both fire risk reduction and the many elements of restoration. The work group agreed that we simply need to work out the kinks and continue as we have with a better understanding of the planning process.
The follow-up recommendations were to hold a meeting about level of detail allowed from PAB to ID team, to finalize guidelines for project planning and to use adaptive management.
Doc highlighted the word 'satisfied' and explained the goal is to increase the level of satisfaction by GCFP participants even though 100% satisfaction might not be reached by everyone.
Taylor pointed out the importance of using adaptive mgt.
Brad noted that he was the one who put it on the table to "split things up," but is happy about the outcome to keep things together and on track, as envisioned within the Cooperative Agreement.
Brad asked for a formal endorsement from the PAB. [Top]
Jim commented that this is the second visioning where this issue has arisen. It is a key point. He is satisfied with the outcome of the work group, but thinks this is a peripheral approach to the overall issue (of fuels reduction and restoration). He believes the key to keep this from arising again is for the proponents for each of these issues to respect the other's needs. Realize that we've completed two fuels reductions projects-Elden & Arboretum. These two types of projects are complimentary to each other and this should be the approach of the GCFP. If we have a periodic reminder, we should be able to move forward as a whole.
Mike W asked about the NAU researcher missing component, as listed in the work group's recommendations document.
Brian explained that NAU researcher participation occurred in Ft Valley but not so much in Kachina. Tammy Randall-Parker expressed that this type of expertise was helpful in Ft Valley planning. She liked and welcomed the expertise even if there wasn't a research component as is found throughout Ft Valley.
Deb pointed out that she has been working with Tammy on Kachina.
Mike M motioned to approve the working group's recommendations, but there was further discussion.
Brad asked if we need further definition of these terms-restoration and fuels reduction?
Doc felt that they are taken care on a site-specific basis.
Heather wondered what does "on the shelf" mean, as noted in the document? Brian noted that it was a suggestion from Gene Waldrip that planning should continue to occur even if implementation sometimes can't keep up, if only due to a lack of markets for the logs being removed. It is better to continue planning as envisioned and get these projects "on the shelf" for when markets do develop.
Brad suggested our coop agreement could be revised to reflect this point. Having planning follow directly after the previous implementation, or vice versa, may not be realistic.
Mike M disagrees, and thinks we are making changes as we go, even though we are doing planning and implementation at the same time. It is not segregated and fixed.
Heather said that her impression was that we are doing a good job with the timing and sequence.
Jim W referred to the document and said that the bold recommendation comment was too general, it doesn't speak to the issue. He suggested adding to the motion the follow-up suggestions listed by the work group as quantifiable objectives for the GCFP.
There was some confusion on what was being approved by the motion.
Jim W proposed an amendment that was more objective oriented.
Brad suggested endorsing the entire recommendation document as presented with Jim's additional comment of respect being shown between camps within the GCFP. This sentence will be added to the document and forwarded to the GCFP (PAB and FS).
PAB agreed. [Top]

Restructure Work Group
Jim Wheeler, as the spokesman for working group, handed out a Foundation budget (FY 2002) reflecting independence along with other supporting documents.
He explained that the work group met numerous times and met with the current foundation board to get approval for this recommendation.
In the work group they asked the question, "Is the next step in GCFF evolution to gain independence?"
One change they recommended was a new name for GCFF because it communicates something other than what is desired. Greater Flagstaff Forests Foundation was suggested.
Some reasons supporting independence is that independence is economically viable. An independent foundation would be more attractive for funders.
Mike W asked about core support, how are funds divided and how have the funders demonstrated their commitment?
Jim said there is no guarantee for financial sustainability.
Brad pointed out that the current budget is known, and that funding is secure through 2003.
Tom asked if the Bush proposed budget would have an effect.
Brad said that the fire plan $$ continued. [Top]
Jim spoke more specifically on city and county - they have the most to lose.
He also noted that someone else (e.g., from the Foundation) asking for money from these entities is better than the inside guy requesting. Jim would like to see the city and county support increased funding.
Don inquired about the name change and wondered if it would have any effect on the Grand Canyon Trust.
Dirch was concerned about having "Flagstaff" in the name and the ramifications for those being outside city limits.
Jim proposed the common sense definition of "Greater Flagstaff" referencing the 180,000-acre Partnership project area.
Deb suggested having the PIT team come up with some options.
Jim reminded PAB that this task is aimed at the foundation board.
Mike W asked about financial sustainability and if there has been any discussion about expanding funding base besides public subsidies. This is something the board has to consider.
Taylor asked who was on this work group and to hear from them and Brian.
The working group was Jim Wheeler, Kent Bushman, Doc Smith and Nancy Morin and Bob Arambula.
Kent feels that this is the next step that has to be made.
Doc spoke about economics, money is available right now.
The strength of the board would increase, be more participatory.
Brian asks that whatever decisions are made about independence, the Partnership and Foundation must be open, honest and transparent in what we do; the Partnership must do what we say we are going to do and independence should allow for this.
Deb also supports this, but thinks we need to define the expectations for the foundation board, make a clear-cut plan for sustainability. [Top]
Jim suggested that instead of having 19 members attempt to resolve this, to have the new foundation board address these issues (of economics).
Tom asked what we might be losing as we become more distant from the Trust. What is the $11,000 line item?
Brad charges time on fundraising and other time related to partnership.
Tom verbalized that we would retain the information linkages by having the Trust in the partnership. He asked what would be Brian's time spent on fundraising in the new structure.
Jim stated again that this would be decided by the foundation board, this has been addressed in the working group, but not resolved yet.
Mike W asked if anyone has talked about scaling up the budget to cover the basic costs.
Jim addressed the key concern about money: there are current monies already being spent to operate the Foundation; these costs for independence are not additional monies that we have to go find. It is simply a matter of reallocating funds.
Brad pointed out that we are half way through the budget year.
Doc said we can't have it both ways: independence and leaning on the Trust.
There is no function proposed changed right now.
Tom asked what role ERI will play in the funding.
Doc said they would like to continue to provide funds for this project.
Deb asked if we could get 5 people for the new board that could work that hard.
Doc said he envisioned something like the Management Team, they work hard and some of that work could be handed up.
Deb asked for some clarification about NAU being represented on the board.
It was explained that representation would come from agencies who are members in good standing of the PAB.
Mike W asked what the costs are to set up a foundation. [Top]
Jim said that it is already set up (legally).
The restructure team and GCFF board is asking for endorsement of independence (eliminate GCT subsidiary status), relocate the office, expand the board.
Tom said that who can sit on the board is critical.
Many members affirmed that they could serve on the board.
There was some discussion about liability
Mike W motioned to move forward with this, presuming that there is another step in the process.
2nd :Don B.
The motion was to approve and to follow the timeline and framework document presented by Jim.
Brian noted that this does not lock us into the timeline, but provides the approval to move forward accordingly, and to contract with the listed contractors.
Don B asked for an organizational chart for how we are and how we will be.
Jim said that organizational changes haven't been recommended; this change just affects the foundation board.
There is an organizational chart available on the website.
PAB approved the motion to accept the timeline "Next Steps for Independence" [Top]

2002 Annual Plan/FY 2002 Budget
A draft of the 2002 Annual Plan was discussed at the last meeting and circulated for comments.
Rob Breen submitted the only PAB comment, aside from the MT and staff's changes, over the course of the past month. He asked about adding a provision for a GCFP-dedicated work crew as was in the 2001 Annual Plan. Because there is no dedicated money for this project (as there was thought there might be last year due to the Fire Plan monies), MT decided not to add this.
All other changes from the previous draft-primarily added detail to the objectives and activities from that draft--are redlined in the document distributed to the PAB.
Brad asked that if there were any outstanding issues, but did not want to entertain line by line edits. There were none.
Motion to accept 2002 Annual Plan as presented: Jim W
2nd: Kent B
PAB approval unanimous [Top]

Guide for Standardized Restoration Project Planning
This was supported by the PAB at the January meeting with the stipulation that FS approves it.
Brian explained that over the course of the past month three different meetings were held that got to the key issues of GCFP project planning. The changes that have occurred within the Planning Guidelines are in the shaded boxes and 1) outline how PAB members communicate with FS ID team. 2) This Guide will be used for Woody Ridge and then we will revisit the Guide to see if it should be adapted based on that experience (adaptive management!). 3) Gene will manage the planning process for Woody Ridge. If there is something that is not outlined in the Guide, Gene will have the final say on what is acceptable. 4) The preferred alternative will come to the PAB before it goes to the public. This is also to occur with Kachina Village. 4) Another clarification was made to allow for sufficient time for interactions before FS enters the NEPA process and the IDTeam works apart from the GCFF & PAB participants.
It was emphasized that this is not a disclosure document that FS is responsible for. They are elements that partnership would like to see incorporated into all restoration project planning. The GCFF coordinator and FS liaison are responsible for its completion.
Brad noted that we are committed to use this on Woody Ridge, and that changes may be made to improve the document.
Heather affirmed that FS input to this document is complete and thought that this will be helpful in Big Mountainaire.
Motion to accept document as presented: Jim W
2nd: Kent B
PAB approval unanimous [Top]

5. Other Business

Brad brought up the issue of chairing future PAB meetings in light of the changes approved for the Foundation and the Board of Directors. It has been suggested that the new Board of Directors will designate a PAB meeting chair from the directors. This position will then be on a rotating basis at an interval determined by the board.
For the next couple of meetings, until independence is finalized and a new Board of Directors is established, Brad will continue to chair the PAB meetings. [Top]

6. Adjourn

Back to About the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership