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

1. Introductions

Brian Cottam - GFFP
Jackie Marlette - GFFP
Emily Lethenstrom - NAU
Jim Wheeler - GFFP Board of Directors
Cathy Hemenway - NAU
Tammy Randall-Parker - USFS
Charlie Denton - NAU/ERI
Brad Ack - Grand Canyon Trust
Taylor McKinnon - Grand Canyon Trust
Kevin Boness - State Land Department
Tom Kolb - GFFP Board of Directors
Paul Summerfelt - City of Flagstaff
Carl Edminster - FS-Rocky Mountain Research Station
Debbie Kill - USFS
John Aber - Coconino County Community Development
Mike Macauley - NRCD/ Cattle Growers
JJ Smith - NAU School of Forestry
Don Bertolette - SAF
Mark Shiery - Flagstaff Fire Department
Ken Frederick - USFS
Shaula Hedwall - USFWS
Deb Larson - NAU- CET
Brett KenCairn - Indigenous Community Enterprises

[Top]

2. Approval of May Meeting Minutes

Motion - Mike Macauley
Second - John Aber
Approved by unanimity

[Top]

3. Action Items:Kachina Village Project outreach strategy(including PIT and MT recommendations)

Brian introduced this item from last month's meeting. The PIT (Public Information/Involvement Team) has met and come up with recommendations to give to the PAB. Over the course of last month, prior to and after the PIT meeting, some input was provided by the MT (Management Team). Brian handed out minutes from those past three meetings (MT, PIT, MT). The MT agreed with the PIT recommendations.

Ken gave an overview of the FS (Forest Service) public outreach strategy for the KV DEIS (draft Environmental Impact Statement). He said that the outreach strategy is still a work in progress. Forest health restoration, fuel reduction, and wildlife habitat are some of the main goals that the FS has with this project. The FS also wants to explain why they desire to cut larger trees. For this explanation and public outreach, the FS wants to have field tours, open houses, website information, and briefings to various groups. Ken had thought about having a virtual open house where the public can call in to a group of people during a given time frame to discuss or ask questions about the DEIS. [Top]

Brad asked what the FS would say when the public asks why the FS didn't take the GFFP recommendation to have a cap. Ken responded by saying that the FS is not out there to ruin the forest and wants the public to know the difference between cutting a yellow pine and a larger black jack. Ken wants to have a pie chart showing the distribution of large trees because there is not a significant amount of them. There is also not a significant amount of large trees that would be cut. Ken stated that there is a value to cut the large trees, not for financial reasons but for social & ecological aspects. The intent is not to have large-scale commercial logging- the intent is for thinning, habitat restoration, and other ecological reasons. John Aber commented that the distinction between a 16" yellow pine and a 16" black jack is an important item to emphasize. This is a supportable piece of evidence to cut for ecological reasons. Kevin says we should be careful about labeling "commercial logging" as a negative action because we need commercial logging to cut the demonstration plots and it is a tool to achieve our objectives. Ken clarified that statement and said he meant that the need to cut larger trees is not profit driven.

Paul raised another concern- that this is not an ecological issue as much as it is a social issue. He thinks that the FS is going to incur added scrutiny and criticism because they are cutting large trees. It will not matter to those people that raise that problem what type of tree is cut (yellow pine versus black jack). Paul said that because it is such a small fraction of trees that will be cut- is it worth it? Tammy said that thinking back about 5-7 years ago the public was not supportive of prescribed fire or thinning for fuel reduction efforts. It has taken the FS awhile to gain public support and this issue is similar. There are ecological and habitat improvement reasons to remove the larger trees. What they are proposing at this time is to only remove those trees that aid in those ecological and habitat reasons. She suggested that we work with the public to gain their support so that if the media makes a statement about the FS cutting large trees (in a negative tone) the public understands why those trees are really being cut. She has confidence that we can work through this issue. [Top]

Brad commented back to Paul's statement about what the GFFP will say about the FS having a preferred alternative different than the PAB's recommendations. He agrees with the PIT recommendations about leading with our similarities with the FS project, however unless we change our cap recommendation we should not state that we support their preferred alternative. This may be a trial balloon about where the politics stand. Brad continued to state that there is still time to change the FS opinion. Jim said we must remember that our recommendation came out May 2001 and the FS recommendation came out in May 2002. Jim reiterated our recommendation from May 2001. Taylor wants to revisit our recommendation, specifically about the FS having reasons to cut larger trees, whatever the reason. Our recommendation doesn't raise the issue of whether the trees could be cut- it was whether they could be sold. Jim read the actual language from our recommendation from May 2001. Jim suggested that we should state that we mostly agree with the FS and have the PIT develop the language to phrase our differences. Mike wants to have a healthy discussion on adaptive management and about the FS discretion to cut large trees. Tom believes we should stick to our original language, which had unanimity, because any deviation from that may not reach unanimity now.

Brad believes that we should give Brian and anyone else who will be speaking to the press clear direction as what to do. Brian said that if we agree with the PIT recommendations he could reconvene the PIT to determine the actual wording. Jim doesn't know if we all agree with the exact wording of the PIT recommendations presented today. He recommended saying that the glass is mostly full and that there is only one disagreement (the cap). Tom said that this disagreement should be viewed as positive component because it is healthy to discuss & comment. Mike said that the word "disagreement" is a bit negative for outreach purposes. Brad wants an additional message to be given to the press relating to the role of engaging the broader public in the comment period. He wants to emphasize that this is a draft and at every opportunity we should encourage the public to give feedback to the FS about this. Paul said that we could use this as a learning experience for us and the Partnership's Project Planning Guidelines. [Top]

Brian said that the PIT had discussed making 3 x 5 cards (similar to the Fire Information Cards) for KV. Jim suggested having the PIT come up with messages to say to the public and bring them back to the PAB. Debbie Kill said that the DEIS has been given to the printer and needs to be given to the registrar to come out in time (at the end of June- before the next PAB meeting). Jim said the process should continue and we should let the PIT make messages. Brad suggested that the messages that will be made from the PIT can be distributed to the PAB and if the PAB has any problems with it we can revisit it in July. Tammy asked if the PIT would come up with a response to the 16" cap that the PAB can see? (YES) She said that we should remember the divisions within the GFFP and how the media portrayed them on previous Ft Valley issues (e.g. road closure). Tammy said that we haven't had discussions about agreeing on science, biological, and ecological issues and if she was asked about that topic she will say that the GFFP hasn't had that discussion yet. Jim said that we should emphasize the positive and that there is only one little area of discussion. We can also say that we support the project but there is one area in the preferred alternative that we do not support.

Mike commented that we should put on the agenda the discussion of the science of the cap. Brad thought that we had agreed that this is a social and political issue- not an issue of the science behind it. Jim suggested that if there are partners that have discrepancies about the science they should discuss it with Tammy. Paul reaffirmed that it is a social and political issue. Tammy said that they are cutting the trees for science and ecological reasons.
[Top]

4. Updates

Kachina Village Project DEIS
Tammy said that the DEIS will be released by the end of June and it will be followed by a 45 day comment period. Brian said that we have previously participated in the FS public meetings. Brad thought that it would be positive to still participate and to have our own meeting on KV. Jim agrees with Brad and said that the meeting would be an opportunity to show the positive aspects of our work. We can tell the public about our accomplishments. Paul was wondering what time frame we should have our meeting- mid to late July? Jim and Brad asked Brian to have the PIT form a timeline of when to have the meeting. Jim clarified that the GFFP staff and PAB members are allowed/encouraged to participate in the public outreach for the DEIS.

Fort Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project
Brian said that there was a blend prescription tour yesterday, June 10. There will be another tour this coming Friday, June 14 at 12:30 pm. Meet at the Grand Canyon Trust office. The intent of this tour is to decide on the specific prescription and location of the blend project. There are 200 acres to do this blend. Unit 13 (a different blend) already has on the ground work with a prescription that is a mixture of ERI and SWFA recommendations. This other "premium" blend prescription and location is yet to be determined. Brad said that the blend was originally broken into 2 parts to accommodate the different recommendations. Brian was asked to write a letter informing the involved blend groups-particularly the SWFA--that we are deciding on the next blend prescription. The purpose of this letter is to include them in the decision and to see if they want to be involved. Brad suggested that the letter could come from the Board of Directors and they could draft it. Brian will deliver this letter ASAP as the prescription will soon be finalized and the site selected. [Top]

Blend Block Field Tour
It is this Friday, June 14, 2002. Meet at the Grand Canyon Trust office at 12:30 pm. The intent is to finalize the location for the final blend block and to come to agreement on the blend prescription.

Woody Mountain Field Tour
This is on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 from 9:00 am- 3:00 pm. Meet at the Mormon Lake Ranger Station at 9:00 am, it is an all day tour. Tammy asked if NAU or anyone else has a van available for transport. JJ said he would check for a van once we have a count of people that are going.

Biomass Energy Feasibility Study
Brian said this is coming along but is not fully complete. TSS Consultants has asked for a 60-day extension to complete the supply assessment (to get the necessary supply data from the FS). Many of the key FS contacts for this data are gone fighting fires. Brian has asked Tom K. (President of the GFFP, Inc. and has contract authority) for approval allowing the extension. The PAB does not object to this extension. [Top]

Mater Report
The final draft is here- Brian has it in the mail and will distribute it to people. Brad said that the basic conclusion is that there is no market or technology obstacle to process small diameter wood. The obstacle is that there is no infrastructure in the Southwest to do this processing. This is because of investors' uncertainty of supply. Brad said to get this accomplished there needs to be a consortium to get the supply going over the three federally managed forests on the Mogollon Rim. To demonstrate to investors that there is a stable and steady wood supply there must be a clear structure for coordinating the supply. Mater already has investors that are interested in this process but they are only going to stay interested with the coordinated, stable supply. Perhaps government support (e.g. loan guarantees or a tax write off) would help.

Brad's recommendation to the corporate board is to hire a full time staff person to work on this issue. This person could work with the FS on this issue as well. Mike mentioned a group called the Coordinated Resource Management Team that exists with the federal agencies in AZ and NM. Should we bring this to their attention? Brad thinks they are a good group to bring this up to. Mike has the contact information for that group and will follow up on this. Brett hopes the GFFP doesn't overlook the potential of existing, local enterprises to work on this project. He does appreciate all the work that the GFFP has done. Jim and Brad want to make the job description for this new full time employee soon so that someone can get hired. The Board of Directors will develop the description. Brad said that the contract with Mater is over after this report and that there is no binding agreement to stay with them. Mike said that the hired person could look into local efforts. [Top]

Jim suggested a Partnership team be developed to address these issues of utilization and business development. Brad believes the team to do this will be larger than the GFFP. Mike mentioned that the Cocopai RC&D should be kept in mind. Jim asked if anyone here would want to be on this team? Deb said yes. Mike suggested having Cocopai being involved. Brian said that he spends much of his time working on this issue. He supports the formation of this new team. He says that what is needed is direction for staff from the full Partnership concerning these issues, and that he has already convened a group from those across Northern AZ interested in this topic (as outlined in the Annual Plan). If we want to do this we should start the utilization working group within the GFFP and the hired person can also steer the larger regional group. Deb commented on Brian's actions saying that we may have not been understanding all the efforts that are going on and perhaps it should be an agenda item. Deb will work with Brian to form this team. Jim asked who wants to be on the team. These individuals mentioned interest: Brett, Mike, JJ, Brad, Dennis Becker (mentioned by Carl E.).

Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership, Inc. (restructure)
Brian said that the office is completely moved. The team and working group meetings will begin to meet at the new office: Positive Impressions, 1300 S. Milton Road, Suite 218.

PAB Charter
Jim said that the corporate board of directors began discussing the Charter with the Restructure Committee. Jim asked the PAB if anyone wants to convene to update the PAB Charter. Paul and Taylor volunteered to serve on this working group. The timeframe to alter the Charter is open. Brad asked what reasons there are to re-look at it. Jim answered that the needed alterations are mainly editorial, structure of decision-making process, and transitional changes. Brian said the intent is to get the Charter updated and to be more in line with what the PAB is actually doing. [Top]

Other
Brian brought up the discussion of the MT and the Large Tree Policy (LTP). At the MT meeting last week it came to a point where the Team could make no more progress on the policy. A Team discussed dropping the policy as various team members had drawn positions and were unwilling to move from those positions in order to find consensus. The Team suggested to instead develop a process, guideline, or key questions to ask to determine a cap recommendation for each project, such as the Project Planning Guideline. Tammy questioned would we ask if the cap is a "social issue" every time? Brian said this would certainly be part of the key questions to address, but also to ask key ecological questions. Tammy asked if it would depend on each project. Brian said that the MT hadn't really discussed this yet- he had only asked the MT to talk with their respective voting members to determine if it was even possible to form guidelines for this topic. Jim wondered if this could wait until after the DEIS for KV. Mike said that we could build the questions out of the comments from the DEIS. Jim asked Tammy when she would expect a recommendation from the GFFP for Woody Ridge. She answered by Sept. 30, 2002 she wants desired future conditions input from the GFFP (not the proposed action). This can be broad and general. Jim asked what should we do about the Large Tree Policy. Brad said that referring to KV, we should not say that the cap is only a social and political issue. At some point we should figure out how to deal with the science part of this discussion. Brian said that the LTP started out as a cap policy. The intention was to form a policy so that the PAB did not have this discussion on each project. The working group started with a cap policy and then shifted to a LTP to stay away from a diameter number. He said that the initial working group and then the MT were working on the ecology angle but now we are at a stand still with the MT. Tom said that it is not helpful to distinguish science and social because those items are linked and influence one another. He suggested that we put the LTP on hold and wait until we learn from the KV process. Don agreed that we should work out the KV issues first. Jim confirmed that the LTP would be dropped off the MT agenda.
[Top]

5. Other Business

New PAB members (3)
The three new PAB members are: Indigenous Community Enterprises, Perkins Timber Harvesting, and the Ecological Restoration Institute. We now have 21 formal Partnership Advisory Board members. The restructure group can readdress the quorum voting member requirements. Paul said that he wants to have a list of the organizations, voting member, and alternate voting member. This will be included in the PAB member handbook that Jackie is finalizing.

GFFP Survey
Brian said that the GFFP is getting studied left and right. He passed out a survey from Chris Lugenbill, a graduate student in Colorado that has been studying the GFFP, for those to fill out that haven't filled out yet.
Another survey will be distributed next month from another student.
[Top]

6. Adjourn

Back to About the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership