1. A Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona’s Forests A 20-YEAR ACTION PLAN

2. The Problem

5. 1970-1979: 282,170 acres Total: 282,170 acres The Problem

6. 1970-1979: 282,170 acres 1980-1989: 95,410 acres Total: 377,580 acres The Problem

7. 1970-1979: 282,170 acres 1980-1989: 95,410 acres 1990-1999: 278,640 acres Total: 656,220 acres The Problem

8. 1970-1979: 282,170 acres 1980-1989: 95,410 acres 1990-1999: 278,640 acres 2000-2006: 1,541,350 acres Total: 2,197,570 acres The Problem

9. 1970-1979: 282,170 acres 1980-1989: 95,410 acres 1990-1999: 278,640 acres 2000-2006: 1,541,350 acres Total: 2,197,570 acres The Problem

10. The Solution

12. What the document includes Executive Summary Part One Vision Statement Purpose Key Strategies Part Two The State of the Forest The Policy Context Economic Considerations A Collaborative Framework Part Three A Landscape-by-Landscape Approach Arizona’s Forested Landscapes: Arizona Strip, Basin and Range, Central Highlands, Chuska Mountains, Kaibab Plateau, Northeastern Woodlands, Sky Islands, Western Mogollon Plateau, White Mountains

13. Strategies Recommendations Action items Vision / purpose Landscape-specific recommendations Social, political, and economic context

14. Strategies Recommendations Action items Vision / purpose Landscape-specific recommendations Social, political, and economic context

15. The vision includes: Forests of large trees in diverse stands, Supporting abundant populations of native plants and animals; Thriving communities in attractive landscapes that do not pose a threat of destructive wildfire; And sustainable forest-based businesses.

16. Strategies Recommendations Action items Vision / purpose Landscape-specific recommendations Social, political, and economic context

17. Social, political, and economic context: Establishing a collaboration foundation essential Existing policies provide ample support for doing the right thing Appropriately-scaled industry is vital to realizing landscape-scale restoration goals

18. Strategies Recommendations Action items Vision / purpose Landscape-specific recommendations Social, political, and economic context

19. Landscape-level information and recommendation synthesis

20. Information collected: Land ownership, forests, current conditions, communities, wildlife, fire, watersheds, collaborative efforts, economics, future restoration needs

22. Strategies Recommendations Action items Vision / purpose Landscape-specific recommendations Social, political, and economic context

23. Key Recommendations 1. Increase capacity 2. Coordinate action at landscape scales 3. Increase strategic efficiency 4. Support sustainable forest-based economic activities 5. Improve Public Awareness

24. Increase Capacity Congress should increase funding to federal and state land management agencies to rebuild the capacity essential for collaboratively planning, implementing and monitoring restoration treatments. Congress should re-establish funding to enable communities, stakeholder groups and tribes to collaborate in utilization and small diameter wood and biomass marketing activities. The Arizona State Legislature should provide funding for restoration treatments, community protection, and fire management on non-Federal lands. Congress and the Arizona State Legislature should increase funding for developing and translating best available ecological, biophysical and social science into forms needed by land managers and stakeholders.

25. Coordinate Action at Landscape Scales Federal land management agencies should collaboratively develop and implement integrated landscape-scale restoration, community protection and fire management for forests across the state. The Arizona State Legislature, county and local governments, tribal governments, and state agencies should develop land use policies and practices that support forest restoration, community protection, and fire management efforts.

26. Increase Strategic Efficiency Federal land management agencies should develop short-term and longer-term treatment plans that reflect priorities developed at the landscape scale Federal and state land management agencies should prioritize and strategically locate treatments to increase efficiency and maximize benefits

27. Increase Support for Sustainable Forest-based Economic Activities Land managers should work with stakeholders to clarify the amount, availability, and location of restoration, community protection, and fire management-generated wood and biomass across the region. Federal, state, and local units of government should identify and enhance opportunities for using small-diameter wood and biomass generated from forest treatments. All levels of government should work together to support wood products industries capable of utilizing small diameter wood and biomass.

28. Increase Public Awareness The Arizona State Legislature should fund public education, and work with, the State Forester and local units of government should to educate the public about restoration, sustainable restoration- based forest and wood products businesses, fire management, and community protection needs and responsibilities. Citizens should take actions to make their communities Firewise communities, and to protect their homes and properties from fire The Governor's Forest Health Council, working closely with the State Forester, the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies, should develop and administer a biennial "Forest Health Scorecard" based in part upon the Western Governor's Association's 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan.

29. Key points / conclusion Formalized social agreement (especially consensus) provides a backstop and reference point in otherwise uncontrollable, contentious discussions The Statewide Strategy formalized the notion that appropriately- scaled industry can, should, and must play a role in forest restoration efforts Appropriately-scaled industry has been hindered by insufficient and/or discontinuous supply at landscape scales The Statewide Strategy identified and legitimized a mechanism for increasing supply continuity at landscape to regional scales The vitality of any plan relies on its implementation. Through the wood supply study, we are one significant step closer to on-the- ground implementation.

30. Why do this? To identify and describe the steps needed to get from where we are now to where we want to be To share relevant information – the “State of the Forest” that Arizonans need to know To communicate a “common voice” on forest management to all Arizonans and federal officials To guide the state towards comprehensive forest health restoration (and away from a reactive focus to catastrophic fire and other single focus symptoms) To provide a logical underpinning to development of annual recommendations by the Governor’s Forest Health Oversight Council

31. More reasons The Governors’ Forest Health Councils have formally recommended this for several years Legislature is interested in understanding the whole picture To provide the logic for increasing resources for the work of the State Forester The State Legislature requires the State Forester to provide a biennial update on the condition of Arizona’s forests

32. And if those weren’t exciting what about these? Advances thinking at the landscape scale Advance ideas about multi-jurisdictional responsibilities and strategies for a coordinated approach to restoration Creates the logic for state legislation to establish the Community Wildfire Protection Fund for fuel reduction projects tied to CWPPs Provides another opportunity to educate the public