Download PowerPoint version - Front Range Roundtable

Front Range CFLRP
2011 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 Impacts
Goal: 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 Perceptions
Key concerns
1.
2.
3.
4.
Escaped catastrophic fire
Harm to wildlife and fish habitat
Poor air quality
Impacts on aesthetics
Factors influencing public perceptions:
1.
2.
3.
Contextual and location based factors
Beliefs and attitudes
Knowledge and experience
Effective outreach methods
1.
2.
Positive message framing and interactive methods are generally
more successful in building trust and acceptance
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 Monitoring
Economic
• 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?