Fort
Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project
Brian showed the overflight video that Tammy Randall-Parker
took last month.
He updated the PAB that Units 14-16 were completed
Feb 26 and have been paid in full. This completes
the contract GCFF has with the FS and Perkins Timber
Harvesting.
There were 227 acres cut, 300 acres analyzed in these
units.
James Perkins' father, Wes, is operating in unit 28
near Hwy 180. 30 acres have been cut in that unit
where there's a total of 40 acres. He started end
of Feb and is almost done.
Other Ft Valley field accomplishments include 200
acres completed in minimal thin units (from last summer).
Jim W asked if that means there is a total of 457
acres for the past year.
Taylor reminded that county crews had been thinning
also.
PAB thought that another 100 acres were thinned by
the county crews.
Kachina
Village Forest Health Project
Brian informed that the Draft EIS is being reviewed
by the R3 WUI/National Fire Plan representative located
at the Coc SO.
A Coc NF meeting will be held April 15th to select
the preferred alternative.
Brian said that Tammy asked if it would be possible
to get a special PAB meeting to present the preferred
alternative as soon as possible following the 15th.
PAB made some scheduling suggestions.
Concerns were about depth of material presented on
such a short notice.
Brian relayed that Tammy suggested meeting the following
day, April 16th, as Tammy already has a PowerPoint
presentation for the KV alternatives.
It was decided that the regular PAB meeting be postponed
until April 16.
Brian will contact Tammy ASAP and verify this schedule,
then send a notice to the GCFP of the new date and
location. [Top]
Arboretum
Project
Brian reported that the Arboretum Project is under
contract to James Perkins.
There are 600 acres of analysis in this project. 15
acres are complete so far.
James hopes to be done within 3 weeks (by early/mid
April).
38 acres have also been hand-thinned by the FS.
Jim W wondered why the city's efforts on the Arboretum
aren't considered in the GCFP Arboretum Project.
Brian responded that it is because it is not FS land.
He is only reporting on projects/acreage that are
"formal" Partnership projects-those on USFS
land.
Jim W asked how many acres have been thinned by city.
Paul S answered 100 acres.
Brad suggested tracking it, even though it is not
a formal GCFP project.
Jim W also asked about the A1 Project and thought
that it should be a GCFP project.
He suggested that the purpose for this discussion
is to report to the community the accomplishments
of this group (the GCFP). Let's include all areas
that are inside the FUWI boundary.
Brad A added that as a member of the Governor's taskforce
on forest health, the elements they are looking at
are acres treated and acres protected. He suggested
that we consider this type of measurement as well.
Jim W said that acres treated is quantitative, acres
protected is subjective. Let's hang our hat on something
definitive. The FD would not be able to support an
"acres protected" status.
Heather G suggested 'acres analyzed' to include land
that has been analyzed, but where no treatment is
needed.
Jim W supported this as long as we continue to measure
stumps and smoke.
Taylor M wanted to keep track of acres thinned and
acres burned separately.
Jim W said to also include acres researched.
Dick F asked what format this would take.
Jim wants a monthly update to the PAB where all acres
throughout the interface are reported on, not just
simply formal GCFP projects.
After some discussion it was determined that a useful
"accomplishments report" would include ALL
interface areas treated, including a regularly updated
map. Track acres analyzed (including, managed for
restoration), thinned, and burned.
MT will begin to work on this. [Top]
Airport
Project-nothing new to report; same as last month
This agenda item will be dropped until there is something
new to report concerning the proposed land swap.
PIT
Brian informed PAB that Forest Festival participation
forms are available. They were forwarded to the GCFP
last week and he has a couple of copies available
today. They are due tomorrow to Bonnie Holmes-Stephens.
Jim asked if the controversy potential (controversial
agenda items, as were found last year) has been significantly
reduced.
Brian feels that it has.
Jim feels that it is easier to avoid controversy than
fix it after it occurs.
The dates of the Forest Festival are April 27-May
4.
The Partnership is directly participating in a couple
of different events including a small wood utilization/emerging
technologies forum and Fort Valley Project tour.
Brian
reminded PAB about the Radio Fire anniversary newspaper
tabloid.
An updated and more detailed outline of the tabloid
was handed out.
The tabloid is going to the printer in a couple weeks,
so any suggestions from the PAB are needed ASAP.
Bonnie has been very positive about the participation
and is excited about the final product.
Jim referred to the outline and wondered where the
city's $3000 is coming from, who's the contact on
that.
Brian didn't know, and answered that Bonnie was the
principal contact for the tabloid and associated fundraising.
[Top]
The
next time PIT meets is a working group to gather info
and determine contents for outreach packets for media,
general public, and new PAB members.
1:30 Friday, March 22 PM at the GCT
Brian
updated PAB on the Communications Blueprint that PIT
has been working on and recently completed (the first
draft!).
There were some changes proposed at the last PIT meeting
that have been made.
Brian reminded PAB that this is a living document--not
a Partnership policy document--that provides internal
guidance primarily for PIT, and for the PAB as a whole.
Brian assured that any input from the PAB is and will
be incorporated, but as it is not a "hard"
policy there is no need to edit it line by line. The
PIT will constantly utilize and continue to update
the blueprint as necessary. [Top]
MMT
Brian said that the MMT has met 3-4 times and is working
on the monitoring plan.
In the next month, the chart (found within the full
plan) based on the team's brainstormed "issues
& concerns" will be scaled back due to limited
resources: manpower, time constraints, and available
funding.
Brian expressed that this is a positive team, and
highlighted that he is already receiving requests
from throughout the country of people interested in
the MMT and the resulting multi-party monitoring plan.
He has distributed the plan, still in draft form,
accordingly.
Jim W said that on the topic of people requesting
information, the FFD has developed a small notebook
to send out when people inquire. This would be good
for the GCFP. Brian referred to the PIT work group
meeting this week to address the very issue of information
packets (for media, new PAB members, and general public).
Doc added that the website is a good tool for this
purpose. Brian responded that Megan has put a LOT
of effort into updating and making the website user-friendly
and that it is the first place he directs people seeking
GCFP info.
Brian announced that the next MMT meeting is Thurs,
March 28, 2PM at the Chamber of Commerce.
Taylor added that we need to think about how to get
money to do monitoring. Very little from the fire
plan has been allocated to monitoring.
Brian said that internally the MMT does not have a
budget yet, but will have $4000 from the Pinchot Institute
and the staff continues to look for other funding
for this team, as well as PIT and other specific Partnership
projects. [Top]
Biomass
Energy Feasibility Study
Brian announced that the three original sites assessed
for this study did not work out. TSS Consultants worked
with us on finding a new site, as well as with the
State Land Dept and a local realtor. A site in the
Bellemont business park (appropriately zoned as light-industrial)
was selected. The contract with TSS was signed last
week and they expect to complete the study within
120 days.
Brian has the scope of work available if anyone is
interested. Contact him for more information. Another
TSS employee will be in Flagstaff on Tuesday April
30th, and he will update the MT on that day.
Brian will continue to update the PAB at the monthly
meeting over the course of the next 4 months. [Top]
Mater
Report
Brian noted that lots of outreach to FS has been done
recently, specifically regarding the supply recommendations.
On April 15, Catherine Mater and Brian will make a
presentation to folks at the R3 office in Albuquerque.
She and Brad A will then go to Washington DC for presentations/meetings
on the following day.
Brad A mentioned that the testing of the Fort Valley
wood is positively progressing.
The logs were milled in Oregon and they did very well.
Brian can provide the mill report if requested.
Brad A said that the boards were sent out for specific
product testing, as detailed in the report.
Kevin B asked if it was kiln dried and that in AZ
we might consider air-drying that would produce a
different characteristic.
Brian said the wood from the OR mill run was kiln-dried
and did well; however, he also took a pickup truck
load of Fort Valley wood to Escalante to run through
their new MicroMill. They are unsure if it will be
kiln-dried; it depends on current supply.
Kevin B requested that state land be considered in
the supply discussion. Brian assured him that state
lands are being considered in all of the supply assessments
being undertaken by these Foundation studies (both
Mater and biomass energy). [Top]
Other
Brian reminded PAB about the Small Wood conference
in Albuquerque next month.
Brian
announced that the Foundation is looking for a new
employee to replace Megan to hire in April. The job
announcement has been distributed and applications
are coming in but any assistance on the PAB's part
is appreciated in helping find good candidates.
Brad
A asked if Carl E had any indication of the Research
Station's funding situation.
Carl E answered that there was nothing yet, but the
president's budget might get put on hold. [Top]
Elden
has 193 acres treated.
The piles haven't been burned.
Jim W said that people have been stopping him and
telling him how great it looks.
This needs to get into the tabloid.
Ft Valley has 557 acres done to date.
Research & Demonstration plots add an extra 334
acres thinned and burned.
Jim W highlighted the importance of talking in these
terms: acres treated or managed for restoration.
Paul S said that two weeks ago, they shipped three
log trucks to ICE for Hogan construction. Ribelin
transported it. [Top]
Foundation Independence
Jim W informed PAB that the Foundation Board of Directors
recently met and made some decisions regarding Foundation
independence and asked for some additional input from
the PAB.
Brian covered the 4 things the Foundation board brings
to the PAB:
1) Changes in Articles of Incorporation
A new/different name for the Foundation.
Kevin B asked if agencies instead of individuals could
be named on the board.
Brad A said no, that this has to list individuals.
No other changes were made to the redline articles
that were distributed at the meeting.
2)
Changes in Bylaws
A number of minor changes:
Subsidiary status of GCFF to GCT, and number and appointment
of directors.
PAB reviewed these changes summarized below.
Article 2; section 2
The current board will name the new board.
Ed S asked to clarify the different colors of editing
marks. Brian responded that they were simply different
proposed changes by the Restructure Team and Board
of Directors over time.
Jim W pointed out an oddity on page 2, section 3 at
the bottom after the strikeouts, second sentence.
Brian noted the change then PAB decided to remove
the whole mention of past board.
Brian pointed out that in section 4, legally the board
will represent themselves, not their organizations.
Brad A said that the definition of director didn't
sufficiently cover the public agencies. PAB discussed
that 'Employee' covers it, but add 'officer' to clarify.
Section 6, board meetings open to public, foundation
board may hold executive sessions.
Section 13, committees of the board, nominating, finance,
personnel committees. The new board will add details
about the finance and personnel committees. [Top]
Strike "except the …" under the description
of the nominating committee.
New foundation board will review the PAB charter and
propose any necessary changes.
Chair of the PAB will be appointed by Foundation board.
Jim W explained that this provides a secondary linkage
between PAB and Foundation.
Taylor M said that in section 6 there is leftover
langauge.
Brian assured that langauge continues, but there will
be no executive director, the "staff" indicates
the coordinator.
Taylor M feels that leaving the door open for an executive
director is the reason we are having this restructuring
decision.
Jim W said this was discussed and as long as the flexibility
was maintained and the structure is unchanged, the
responsibility and accountability is placed on Foundation
board.
Brad A suggested changing the wording to reflect that
coordinator is our staff person of choice, but leaving
the flexibility with "other staff".
Dick F asked if consideration has been given to changing
the coop agreement to reflect the changes.
PAB felt that there were no major changes that had
to be made, but it will be reviewed.
Kevin B asked about the role of the committees.
There was some discussion about the duties of the
finance committee and treasurer.
Jim W said that the responsibilities rest with the
whole Foundation board.
Kevin's concern was that the responsibilities of the
new board members, now and in the future, was spelled
out in the bylaws. [Top]
It was agreed that the new board would detail the
duties of both the Finance and Personnel Committees
in the revised bylaws.
Brad A asked about the nominations received for the
new board.
Brian said that there have been 5 nominees, but these
are not yet set as the new board.
Jim said that the nominations were still open, but
need to be expedited.
The current nominees are:
Jim Wheeler
Doc Smith
Brad Ack
Tom Kolb
Paul Babbitt
Jim W said that this process is not meant to be exclusionary
in any way.
Bob Arambula would like to nominate Nancy Morin, but
she is not here to represent herself, so he will follow
up on this. [Top]
3)
name change - proposed Greater Flagstaff Forests Foundation
(from both current board and Restructure Work Group).
Jim W commented that the name was a source of discussion
for the board and PIT.
Brad A answered a question about eliminating Grand
Canyon from the name, that the GCT doesn't need more
competition for funds focused on the Grand Canyon.
Ed S asked about the 'foundation' designation, and
about 'greater Flagstaff'
Jim W said that these both had been addressed and
other options had been considered by the board.
Brad A asked if the PIT came up with any suggestions.
Other suggestions were considered, though the team
wasn't able to agree on one particular.
Jim W said that the PIT, among other recommendations,
had noted that the name should attempt to include
'who', 'what' and 'where'.
It was also suggested that coming to one name that
everyone agreed upon would be difficult, if not impossible,
just as the PIT had found out.
There was discussion about using "Partnership"
to designate both the formal partnership (between
the FS and nonprofit) and foundation.
Jim W though that it would be too confusing. [Top]
Taylor thinks there is an opportunity to name the
foundation 'partnership' and this body the 'partnership
advisory board'
Jim asked how the group feels about this change.
Nobody objected to 'partnership', and it was agreed
that the name Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership
would apply to both the formal Partnership and to
the nonprofit entity.
The foundation will confirm this with the lawyers
and will run this by the FS ASAP.
4)
nominations for new board
discussed earlier
Next
steps are for the proposed changes in the Articles
of Incorporation, including the name change, to be
reviewed by an attorney. Once they are reviewed the
current board will convene to approve them and the
name change for submission to the state, and name
the new board of directors.
The new board will then convene to accept the proposed
changes of the bylaws (also to be reviewed by an attorney
for consistency) and begin any other immediate business.
[Top]
