front range cflrp 2011 social and economic monitoring results november 14, 2012 kathie mattor, kawa...
TRANSCRIPT
Front Range CFLRP2011 Social and Economic Monitoring Results
November 14, 2012
Kathie Mattor, Kawa Ng, Julie Schaefers, Tony Cheng, and Carrie Tremblatt
Outline• Overview of social and economic monitoring goals and
indicators
• Findings
– Economic impacts
– Wood utilization
– Collaboration
– Public perceptions
• Conclusions
• Proposed Monitoring & Outreach Recommendations
• Discussion
2011 Social & Economic Monitoring Goals
1. Determine the economic contributions associated with the FR-CFLRP funded task orders
2. Measure types and amounts of wood utilization
3. Determine public acceptance for increased pace and scale of forest management
4. Identify levels of collaboration
Measuring Economic ImpactsGoal: Determine the economic contributions associated with
the FR-CFLRP funded task orders
Indicators: • Labor income & value-added economic impacts• Employment generated by the project• Location of employees and sub-contractors
Methods:• Input-output modeling of pertinent operational
expenditure and labor information obtained from the contractor
• “Front Range Model” project-level monitoring differs from national reporting using TREAT model
FR CFLRP 2011 Economic Impacts
• Total of 6 task orders initiated: 3 fulfilled, 3 partially completed
• $1.8 million in labor income (2010 US)
• $1.6 million in GDP to the local economy (2010 US)
FR CFLRP 2011 Economic Impacts
• Total of 38 full- and part-time jobs estimated• All company employees reside within CO • Contractor was responsible for 70% of the
total number of hours billed– all mechanical work being completed by the
contractor – majority of the manual work (92%) completed by
out-of-state subcontractors
Measuring Wood Utilization
Goal: Measure types and amounts of wood utilization
Indicators:• Amount of mechanical and manual work• Location of businesses purchasing materials• Amount and type of materials generated• Types and relative value of products created from
these materials
Methods: • Statistical analysis of data obtained from contractor
FR CFLRP 2011 Wood Utilization
• 3,170 acres were treated under the FR-CFLR project in 2011– 1,468 acres treated on the Pike-San Isabel • 93% through mechanical treatments
– 1,592 acres treated on the Arapaho-Roosevelt• 75% through manual treatments
• 99% mechanical treatment materials available for value-added uses but none of manual treatment
FR CFLRP 2011 Wood Utilization
• All CFLR value-added materials purchased by 12 Colorado businesses in 2011– Purchased sawtimber, blue stain wood, small
diameter timber, products other than logs, limbs and brush, and bark fines
– Created pallets and crates, landscaping material, dimensional lumber, firewood, and wood fuel pellets
Measuring Public Perceptions
Goal: Determine public acceptance of forest treatments
Indicators:• Acceptance of prescribed fire and/or other mechanical
treatments• Perceived benefits or issues of restoration activities (pace
and scale) • Public attitudes toward the project and collaborators
Methods:• Literature review focused on research (across U.S.)
pertaining to public acceptance of prescribed fire
2011 Findings – Public Perceptions• By understanding public perceptions towards
forest management the FRR will be better equipped to effectively collaborate with local stakeholders
• Existing research identifies general support for the use of prescribed fires in forest management
2011 Findings – Public PerceptionsKey concerns
1. Escaped catastrophic fire2. Harm to wildlife and fish habitat3. Poor air quality4. Impacts on aesthetics
Factors influencing public perceptions:5. Contextual and location based factors6. Beliefs and attitudes7. Knowledge and experience
Effective outreach methods 8. Positive message framing and interactive methods are generally more
successful in building trust and acceptance9. As public learns more they tend to become more tolerant of the use of
prescribed fire
Measuring Collaboration
Goal: Identify Levels of Collaboration
Indicators:• Levels of collaboration, communication, and group
learning• Extent stakeholders previously in conflict are working
together• Fairness, transparency and timeliness of information
sharing among all participants
Methods:• Based on case study CFRI conducted• Interviews with 15 FRR members
Collaboration - Achievements• Diverse representation of interests in the larger FRR and the CFLR
science and monitoring team
• The FR-CFLR project has had a positive effect on relations among members, as well as relations between the FRR and other organizations
• There are relatively high levels of trust and strong commitment to work toward agreement on important decisions related to the project
• Most partners agreed the collaborative was having an influence on the current implementation of the FRCFLR project by providing feedback and additional resources, and helping to shape future FR-CFLRP forest treatments
Collaboration - Challenges• Several members identified missing interests and/or groups unable
to fully participate – currently being addressed by reaching out to missing interests
• Many members of the FRR expressed they did not have a clear sense of their roles or responsibilities. – Attributed to not having a defined process for how the FRR collaborative communicates
recommendations for the CFLRP by the USFS– Currently being addressed through the development of the adaptive management process
• Some members felt the FRR collaborative had little influence on the implementation of current projects (they were NEPA-ready prior to the FRR’s involvement), but were optimistic of the FRR involvement in future CFLRP projects
• Regardless of these challenges, members were optimistic about the collaborative effort and regard the FR-CFLRP as a significant opportunity to achieve common objectives across diverse interests
Conclusions
Economic Contributions• The FR-CFLRP is contributing to the local economy through labor,
expenditures, and wood utilization
Wood Utilization• Mixture of treatments provided affects the availability of value-added
materials;
• All value-added materials associated with the 2011 FR-CFLRP task orders went to CO businesses
Public Perceptions• Recommend developing and implementing public outreach plan
Collaboration• There have been high levels of collaboration throughout the development
and implementation of the FR-CFLRP
Future Social & Economic MonitoringEconomic
• Collect and analyze additional job information • Collect and analyze leveraged funds data
Wood utilization• Collect additional information to better calculate the economic effects of
wood utilization
Public Perceptions• Identify perceptions specific to FR-CFLR region • Consult literature on perceptions toward other forest management tools
Collaboration• Continue to track the challenges, achievements, and lessons learned
associated with the collaborative process• Limit data collection to every 3-5 years, using these findings as a baseline
Discussion
Recommendations of the LR monitoring team to the Front Range Roundtable?
1. Conclusions and recommendations to meet goals?
2. Future monitoring recommendations?
Thank you!