The Cooperative Agreement requires an annual review by the Forest Service and the Grand Canyon Forests Foundation. In 1999, the Partnership Advisory Board and the Forest Service completed the review. Likewise, in 2001, the review was conducted by the Forest Service and the Partnership Advisory Board. The review was held on April 24. The morning session met at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor's Office, and the afternoon review was held in the field at the Elden and Fort Valley project sites. Members of the public were invited to attend the afternoon session in conjunction with the Forest Festival (two persons did).

The Cooperative Agreement states that the review look at activities carried out the previous year; and that planned projects for the following year be identified. The Partnership's Annual Plan for 2001 (with involvement of all the members of the Partnership Advisory Board and coordination with the Forest Service) describes the planned projects and thus meets the intent of the Cooperative Agreement. Therefore, these notes only pertain to the review of activities carried out.

Activities completed or undertaken in 2000 and early 2001 that are the subject of this review are:

• Fort Valley Research and Demo slash piling/burning on units 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and the broadcast burning of blocks 1, 2, and 4.

• Elden fuels reduction project.

Those attending in whole or part were: Brad Ack, Bob Arambula, Brain Cottam, John Gerritsma, Hady Hampton, Michele James, Taylor McKinnon, Mimi Merhof, Keith pajkos, Doc Smith, Jerry Smith, and Rodger Zanotto.

Fort Valley R&D

Blocks 5-7 and 10-12 were "rough piled" in the fall of 2000 after it was determined that resulting slash left onsite was too much to safely dispose of during broadcast burning operations. This piling was the subject of several field trips by members of the Partnership and researchers when rough piling techniques were interfering with ongoing research. Subsequent changes by the Forest Service in "rough piling" techniques resulted in satisfaction by both the research and prescribed fire groups. These sites were not visited in the field on this day of review, but briefly reviewed to give perspective on today's review. The Partners were satisfied with the outcome of the rough piling event, but would rather continue to explore methods that result in not having to "rough pile" in the first place.

Blocks 1, 2, and 4 were broadcast-burned in April 2000. Despite being burned in drought conditions, there was minimal mortality to the residual stand. Actual mortality was estimated at less than 1% of the stand. The result was far below the 10% mortality allowance in the EA. Two of the three pockets of mortality were outside of the thinning area, because the fire control lines were placed there. The group felt that better coordination was needed with the prescribed fire specialist to align thinning units and burn blocks in the future. The other pocket of mortality occurred in a small drainage where heavier concentrations of nonharvest related debris had accumulated, and where tree densities were slightly more dense. In addition, this was an area that was burned towards the afternoon in warmer and drier conditions. In an attempt to finish the firing for the day, the burners created wider strips, which resulted in slightly greater heat production. The group recommended to begin burning operations earlier in the day to enhance burn techniques that produce low flame and heat intensities. Nonetheless, the burn met EA objectives for these units.

The group noted the presence of nonnative weeds (mostly dalmation toadflax). This unit was whole-tree skidded, causing soil disturbance from the logging equipment. It was noted that other units in which trees were not whole-tree skidded, the nonnative weed presence was much less. The Partnership's continued quest for low impact machinery, and low ground disturbance to accomplish thinning should reduce the amount of nonnative plants that result after a treatment. Because these units are being monitored for nonnative weed production, the team made no further recommendations.

The group noted the roads into this block were still open, an apparent conflict with the Partnership's desire to reduce road density (and the EA). It was noted that the road was left open to accommodate research activities. Now that the broadcast burning is complete, the group recommended to begin closing such roads, except those needed to access adjacent units under Fort Valley phase 1 and 2.

Elden Fuels Reduction Program

The Partnership has struggled with a philosophical issue: restoration v. fuels reduction-are either or both consistent with the goals of the Partnership. The fundamental link between the two approaches has to do with levels of thinning. Both approaches utilize prescribed fire for the reduction of ground fuels and the reintroduction of low intensity fire. While both approaches use tree thinning and prescribed fire to attack forest fuel characteristics (ground, ladder, and aerial fuels), restoration goes further by providing tree patterns and densities more historically present. Fuels reduction is usually couched in terms of ladder and ground fuel reduction, while restoration additionally thins heavily in the general tree canopy of the forest.

Fort Valley Research and Demonstration Units (R&D) explored restoration techniques, while Elden was presented as a fuels reduction project. When the debate over forest restoration stalled the Fort Valley project, the Partnership became concerned that no fire risk reduction was happening. As a result, the Flagstaff Area Fire Risk Assessment was completed, high fire risk areas identified, and four fire risk reduction projects (including Elden) were created to allow thinning to take place outside of the controversy of "restoration".

The review team looked at the Elden project in the field. The treatment consists of thinning by chainsaw, lopping slash into piles, and cutting tree boles into firewood size pieces for dissemination to the public. A "bobcat" is being utilized on portions of this unit to skid tree boles to the pipeline for firewood distribution by the public. Trees up to 12 inches diameter are being cut. The review team was very pleased with the outcome of this cut, especially with the groups of yellow pines that were highlighted by the removal of tree thickets. It was noted that many positive comments have been received from the neighborhood. A much bigger test of social acceptance will occur after the broadcast burn.

After the broadcast burn is completed, the team felt that the risk of catastrophic fire will be greatly reduced. However, the team noted that the current density and pattern of trees is still more dense than what would have occcurred in a one-step restoration prescription. Nonetheless, the Flagstaff Fire Department is comfortable with the fire risk reduction that has occurred.

The team did note the high price of such manually intensive work, and that such treatment across the landscape or even the rest of the urban interface is likely not practical. Such a treatment fits this stand well because of the lack of access for logging equipment, the small diameters of trees needing to be removed, and the high recreational values demonstrated by the numeous well-used trails and neighborhood use of the area.

The team suggested the same array of research being done at the Fort Valley R&D be implemented on one or several of the noncommercial thinning units like Elden. This will give the Partnership a more clear picture of tradeoffs and benefits for a noncommercial thinning approach like Elden.

Other Topics

As noted above, the annual review under the Cooperative Agreement is intended as an activity between the Foundation Board and the Forest Service. The team suggested that in the future, the annual review occurs both as envisioned in the Cooperative Agreement (i.e. between the Foundation Board and Forest Supervisor), and as currently completed between the Forest Service and the Partnership Advisory Board.

The Partnership can facilitate an effective review between the Foundation Board and the Forest Service (Forest Supervisor) by providing key talking points associated with the ongoing projects, and providing an updated annual plan which sets direction for the Partnership for the following year. The team also noted that any review process could be improved by providing other means besides all day participation in an office and/or field review, as other members of the Partnership are not able to commit to a full day's involvement.

The review team discussed the need to update the Guide to the Partnership to reflect changes in philosophy and processes that better reflect the current operations of the Partnership. One change needed is to describe how restoration is implemented-is it a single or multi-step process?

The team noted that the process by which the Partnership interacts with the Forest Service in project planning needs to be more clearly defined. It was noted that the Partnership's role in the current project planning for Kachina Village has been, at times, confusing. It was noted that the Cooperative Agreement does not clearly define a process by which the Partnership engages with the Forest Service during project planning. The Partnership needs to be more active in facilitating broad community discussion to gauge the public's desired conditions in the urban interface (per Cooperative Agreement direction).

Another need is to pursue volunteer efforts to implement the nontree thinning portion of restoration like trail building and meadow and riparian restoration. It was noted that the Grand Canyon Trust will be hiring a paid volunteer coordinator to help in the effort to limit the infusion of public money for restoration projects.

Finally, it was suggested that the Management Team review the numerous topics proposed for the annual review that were not discussed and continue to bring issues to the Partnership Advisory Board that increases the effectiveness of the Partnership's operations and in reaching its goals and objectives. Many of these topic areas are already or have been points of discussion.