Front Range CFLRP 2011 Social and Economic Monitoring Results November 14, 2012 Kathie Mattor, Kawa Ng, Julie Schaefers, Tony Cheng, and Carrie Tremblatt.

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!

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Discussion

Recommendations of the LR monitoring team to the Front Range Roundtable?

1. Conclusions and recommendations to meet goals?

2. Future monitoring recommendations?