Vegetation Management FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE OTES

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Vegetation Managementand Protection Research

Fire and Aviation Management

Washington, D.C.

Proceedings RMRS–P–1

WILDLAND FIRE RESEARCHFUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE NOTES

PARK CITY, UTAH

OCTOBER 6 – 8, 1997

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The USDA Forest Service funded theconference and publication of this report. Nofee was charged to encourage conferenceattendance.

I thank Future Search Conference facilita-tors, Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff, fortheir hard work, interest, and commitment towildland fire research. A special thanks to theconference organizers and documentationteam; these people are listed in Appendix A.

Jim Saveland, Conference OrganizerUSDA Forest ServiceVegetation Management andProtection Research

You may order printed copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in labelform through one of the following media. Please include the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1719

E-mail rschneider/[email protected]

Forest Service Intranet Richard.Schneider/rmrs:fs

FAX (970) 498-1660

Mailing Address Publications DistributionRocky Mountain Research Station3825 E. Mulberry StreetFort Collins, CO 80524-8597

A web page for this Future Search Conference will be located on the Forest Service homepage at http://www.fs.fed.us/land/#fire. Users may make comments and receive feedback aboutthe conference via a chatroom that will be available spring 1998.

OUTCOMES

This conference provided an arena foridentifying common key issues that areshaping wildland fire research. Commonlyidentified desired outcomes include:• Research, integrated across disciplines,

and management form partnerships.

• Communication between managementand research is effective and continu-ous.

• Responsive and proactive researchbalances long-term scientific goals withrapidly changing management issues.

• The success of research and develop-ment is measured by on-the-groundimplementation.

• Fire research is responsive to nationalgoals and receives long-term, stablepolitical support.

Action plans were developed around thefollowing five key themes:

1. Create an interdepartmental competitivegrant program.

2. Create a coordinated response tomanaging fire regimes for ecosystemhealth.

3. Create an environment for managementand research collaboration.

4. Integrate social science expertise.

5. Assess ecological risk.

Saveland, Jim; Thomas, Dave, tech coord.1998. Wildland Fire Research: Future SearchConference Notes; October 6-8, 1997; ParkCity, Utah. Proceedings RMRS-P-1. FortCollins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation. 48 p.

NOTE:To quickly publish these meeting notes, the

drafts did not receive conventional ForestService editorial processing. Views expressedare those of meeting attendees and not neces-sarily those of the Forest Service or otherorganizations represented at the meeting. Tradenames are used for information purposes anddo not imply endorsement or preferentialtreatment by the Forest Service or otherorganizations represented at the meeting.

WILDLAND FIRE RESEARCHFUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE NOTES

PARK CITY, UTAH

OCTOBER 6 – 8, 1997

SPONSORS:

USDA Forest Service, Vegetation Management and Protection ResearchWashington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation ManagementWashington, D.C.

PUBLISHER:

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Fort Collins, Colorado

Proceedings RMRS-P-1

April 1998

PREFACE

The USDA Forest Service sponsoredthe Future of Wildland Fire ResearchConference held in Park City, Utah, onOctober 6-8, 1997. The participants,scientists and decision and policy makerscame from various government agenciesand non-government organizations. Theseindividuals gathered to discuss the past,present, and future of wildland fireresearch in a unique and innovativesetting. The conference was an experi-ment, a beginning.

Due to size limitations and conflictingschedules, many who might have contrib-uted to this effort were unable to do so.We hope this report accurately expresses thecommitment and work of those attending.

Government and non-government organi-zations represented included USDA ForestService, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, National ParkService, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Man-agement, Los Alamos National Laboratory,National Center for Atmospheric Research,National Weather Service, National Aero-nautic and Space Administration, CanadianForest Service, California Department ofForestry and Fire Protection, Colorado StateForest Service, Florida Forest ProtectionBureau, Tall Timbers Research Station, Uni-versity of Washington, University of Idaho,University of Montana, University of Wyo-ming, University of Arizona, Fire ProtectionResearch Foundation, and The NatureConservancy.

CONFERENCE GOALS

This Future Search Conference was atask-focused planning effort that relied onthe knowledge, expertise, and experienceof individuals interested in improvingwildland fire research. The goals of thisconference were to:

• discover common ground in thewildland fire research community;

• develop a future vision of wildlandfire research; and

• devise a set of action plans toachieve that vision.

To accomplish these goals, all confer-ence attendees participated in a series ofactivities to increase their common pool ofinformation about wildland fire research.Some exercises focused on the past,others looked at the present, still othersprojected the future.

CONFERENCE STRUCTURE

Each participant was a member of twogroups: a stakeholder group and a mixedgroup. The group type was appropriate tothe exercise. The conference planningcommittee identified eight stakeholdergroups and eight mixed groups. Thestakeholder groups were:

• Administration/Policy (two groups)

• Fire Behavior/Risk Management

• Fire Behavior/Physical Science

• Biology/Ecology/Watershed Sciences(two groups)

• Air Issues

• Social Science/Wilderness

Within these groups were key stake-holders in wildland fire research whocould commit to actions and plans. Confer-ence participants were identified andrecruited by a conference steering com-mittee (Appendix A) to attend the confer-ence. Stakeholder and mixed group mem-bers are listed by group in Appendix A.Conference participants are listed indi-vidually in Appendix B.

Each group generated information andideas on flip-charts and made presenta-tions. Two facilitators helped keep thegroups focused, the tasks on schedule,and highlighted the major themes.

iii

CONTENTS

I. THE CHALLENGE ........................................................ 1

II. THE PAST ................................................................. 2

III. THE PRESENT............................................................ 6

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS ................................................... 18

V. COMMON GROUND ..................................................... 25

VI. ACTION PLANS........................................................... 27

VII. CLOSING ................................................................... 30

VIII. CONCLUSIONS............................................................ 33

APPENDIX A. CONFERENCE COMMITTEES,

STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, AND MIXED GROUPS ..... 34

APPENDIX B. CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS ............................. 37

APPENDIX C. TIMELINE....................................................... 40

APPENDIX D. FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE PRINCIPLES........ 48

iv

ACRONYMNS

The following is a list of some of the acronyms used during this conference. No attempt was made toinclude an exhaustive list or to verify each meaning.

AQ Air QualityBEMRP Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research

ProjectBLM Bureau of Land ManagementCAA Clear Air ActDOI Department of the InteriorEPA Environmental Protection AgencyFACA Federal Advisory Committee ActFS Forest ServiceGIS Geographic Information SystemGPRA Government Performance and Results ActIMRT Interagency Management Review TeamICRB Interior Columbia River BasinICS Incident Command SystemI&M Inventory and MonitoringIPA Integrated Planning and Assessment

LMP Land Management PlanLTERS Long-Term Ecological Research SiteNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNF National ForestNFS National Forest SystemNP National ParkNFDRS National Fire Danger Rating SystemNSF National Science FoundationOH OverheadPL Project LeaderPNF Prescribed Natural FireRx Prescribed FireRD&A Research, Development, and ApplicationsUSFS United States Forest ServiceUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyWFAS Wildland Fire Assessment System

I. THE CHALLENGE

1

The challenge for the wildland fireresearch community is to meet the rapidlychanging and diverse needs of fire manag-ers, ecosystem scientists, and society.Traditionally, this close-knit communityhas had a well-defined mission; to supporteffective fire protection and the use of fireby land management agencies. Recentlythat mission and output have becomemore diffuse, just as the demand fortraditional support has expanded.

As the importance of natural disturbancehas become more widely appreciated, firescience has become increasingly relevantto the ecological, social, and physicalsciences. In conjunction, fire scientists areoften aligning themselves with colleaguesin other disciplines. This beneficial trendcan lead to a perception that fire scientistsare unresponsive to traditional clients orthat they lack a common sense of purpose.

Fire managers, faced with the greatestchallenges in their history, struggle to:

• restore and maintain ecosystem health;

• decrease fire hazard, especially in thewildland-urban interface;

• improve cost effectiveness of suppres-sion, especially reduce the cost of largefires;

• improve safety of fire operations;

• anticipate effects of global change; and

• protect environmental quality.

Management action increas-ingly depends on scientificknowledge and on the abilityto mobilize scientific talents inresponse to on-the-groundneeds.

Who constitutes the wild-land fire research community asit moves into this new era? Dothey retain a common sense ofpurpose, shared values, andmission? What past influences,perceived trends, and futurevisions guide wildland fireresearch? Who will take aleadership role in defining andaccomplishing the needs ofwildland fire research in futuredecades? And, most critically,what is the relationship ofwildland fire research to itsclients and how will it provideresearch support for the newFederal Wildland Fire Policyand other strategic direction?

This conference assembledrepresentatives of the fireresearch community, alongwith principal clients, col-leagues, and managers ofresearch, to discuss future challenges. Anenergetic dialogue was conducted to beginthe important work of sharing ideas, formingrelationships, and initiating action. Partici-pants shared visions of the future and made

personal commitments to meet future chal-lenges. There is dedication, partly throughthis document, to reach out to othersparticipating in the future of wildland fire.

—Conference Steering Committee

II. THE PAST

2

Participants were asked to bring to theconference items or artifacts symbolizingwildland fire research. Some items werepersonal, others had universal meaning.

The anemometer with bullet holes(below), symbolizes the chronic problemsin collecting weather data. Tree ringscontinue to be useful records of firehistory. The BEHAVE program disksremind us how far we have come incomputer modelling.

Giant sequoias in the SierraNevada of California containnumerous fire scars that recordthe years of past surface burns.These tree-ring records extendback more than 2,000 years andshow that fires were frequent (atleast twice per decade beforecirca 1860) and were oftencorrelated with droughts. Photoby A.C. Caprio, Laboratory ofTree-Ring Research, Universityof Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

II. THE PAST

3

Over the decades, global events, ad-vances in technology, government regula-tions, and society’s expectations havechanged dramatically. To find commonground for the future of wildland fireresearch, it is important to look at the pastnot as a static chain of events, but as anevolutionary activity.

In the first conference exercise, mem-bers of the wildland fire community wereasked to share their histories. Single, briefevents may shape one’s future; a RockyMountain ski trip may lead to a long,accomplished career in natural resources; afleeting encounter with a charismaticleader may inspire a successful publiccareer. For many participants, looking atthe past helped identify trends, defineroles, detect patterns, and recall personaldelights and sorrows.

The conference began with mixedgroups that included at least one memberfrom each stakeholder group. The assign-ment was to describe the past to discoverwhat has influenced the evolution ofwildland fire research. What brought thecommunity to its present state?

The conference room walls were linedwith large sheets of paper used to createtimelines. Each participant listed personal,global, and wildland fire research eventson a timeline. The sheets of paper weresoon filled with personal recollections, key

global events,and the history ofwildland fireresearch.

When thetimelines werecompleted, manythemes andpatterns emerged.Despite the widerange of stake-holders, theresults of thisexercise empha-sized the com-monality ofexperience andperspective. Thefollowing is asummary of thetimelines (Appendix C).

PERSONAL

Most participants were born before 1960and many grew up in the Western U.S. onfarms or in rural towns. Participants com-monly had significant outdoor experiencesleading to job and career choices. Manyfirst jobs were firefighting or fire-related.Participants had lived in many places and

had a wide range of professional experi-ence in geographically diverse areas.

Most group members were earningadvanced degrees during the 1960s and1970s. Several had contact with charismaticnatural resource leaders such as HenryWright, Harold Weaver, and Harold Biswell.

In the 1980s many members’ careersincluded bio-political experience with afocus on and responsibility for firepolicy and research. Career tracks appearmore evolutionary than revolutionary;few individuals had changed careersrapidly.

II. THE PAST

4

By the 1990s, this well-educated grouphad a significant amount of fire experienceand a high level of influence in fire man-agement and research. Responsibility formanaging large land areas and numerouspublished books and articles are indicatorsof this group’s wealth of fire knowledge.

Although the group is highly influential,most individuals recognize limits andconstraints. Some who consider theirpositions bureaucratic, expressed discon-tentment stemming from the desire formore hands-on research. Many, feeling asense of renewed energy, were willing todevote more of themselves toward oppor-tunities for integrated problem solving.

GLOBAL

In the past, increased focus and concen-trated resources helped scientists deliverresults promptly. The bombing of PearlHarbor galvanized and focused the coun-try. Research activities surrounding theManhattan Project, which produced thefirst atomic bomb, exemplifies the urgentdemand for scientific answers and technol-ogy.

The post-World War II period saw majortechnological and social changes. Much ofmodern fire technology arose from thewar; surplus aircraft, improved fire sup-

pression and aerial detection becameavailable. Use of and competition fornatural resources increased as soldiersenrolled in colleges, built homes, andworked outdoors. The spirit of controllingnature was prevalent.

The Soviet Union challenged the U.S. inspace exploration in the 1950s. The spacerace led to an infusion of research moneyto universities and government-controlledtechnological development. Electronicequipment, such as remote sensing, aircraft,satellites, global positioning systems, andinfrared were being developed. Seeing theearth from space initiated a global per-spective.

The Civil Rights and Women’s Move-ment gathered momentum in the 1960s. Asthe Vietnam War continued, people beganto question the government’s authority.Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring sounded theenvironmental alarm. Richard Nixon waselected president.

The 1970s gave rise to greater environ-mental awareness and increased environ-mental actions. Love Canal, Three MileIsland, and other human-induced disastersrevealed our vulnerability to technological“accidents.” Population growth and gaso-line shortages focused attention on theearth’s resource limitations. The NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and the Endan-gered Species Act were enacted.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the worldeconomy continued to grow, while the

earth’s natural resources continued todecline. There were more competinginterests and a lack of common socialfocus. Communication technology assistedthe fall of the Eastern bloc. The Internetand other technologies are increasingpersonal freedoms but also creating adichotomy; those on the informationhighway and those looking for it.

WILDLAND FIRE RESEARCH

Fire research is an evolutionary process.Suppression has received the longest andmost consistent research attention. Latercame activity-fuels research. Recently,research activities have included theecological role of fire and natural fuels,the results of which are being applied byland managers to benefit ecosystems.

Fire research has historically beentightly coupled with fire management andthe critical events that drive it. Researchprojects, funding, and new managementpolicies typically follow fire-related disas-ters. These disasters are usually followedby a policy review, along with increasedsafety awareness, increased funding, andemphasis on the need for fire research. Anearly critical event was the the 1910 fires.This event led to the beginning of firemanagement. Following the Selway fires in

II. THE PAST

5

IMPLICATIONS

Physical, technological, and socialtrends have implications for fire poli-cies: How are we a part and how willwe evolve with the trends? We haveseen fire research and managementmove toward ecosystem research andmanagement.

Political conservatism has resulted inconservative fire research. Innovativeand creative research is often stifled byprioritization. Forced into “safe” re-search, scientists are unlikely to ven-ture out of traditional arenas. Becausefire research historically responds toevents, there is a need to generate asustained demand and proactive com-munication with the public and media.

Communications technology has hada time-compressing effect; rapid solu-tions are expected. Although muchneeded research is long-term andhighly complex, the managementexpectation is to produce significantresults quickly.

A nationally coordinated fire researchprogram that establishes priorities,tracks success, and builds programsupport is needed. The program wouldfoster integrating and monitoring oflong-term ecological changes.

the 1930s, the 10 AM policy (fires will beextinguished by 10 AM or a plan will beinitiated to extinguish the fire by 10 AMthe following day) went into effect. In1988, Western fires, especially those inYellowstone, caused another examinationof fire policy; and the extensive andnumerous catastrophic fires in 1994 and1996 were followed by further scrutiny offire policy and direction.

Other external drivers of fire researchinclude commodities, disaster, technology,demographics, environmental politics, andbudgets. These are relatively short-termevents that commonly receive short peri-ods of intense attention. Internal fireresearch drivers include habit, tradition,professionalism, individual bodies ofknowledge, myth, specialization, institu-tionalization, and chaos (response toshort-term events; no organized approach).Safety awareness is fairly constant and hasincreased slowly over time.

Fire labs were opened in the 1950s andresearch shifted from data generalizationsto model simulations. Fire research pro-grams and funding continues to be reac-tive to disaster.

The pre-1960s approach to fire researchand management was a focused attempt toscientifically control nature. Prediction offire potential, behavior, and danger ratingsystems were emphasized.

During the 1960s, seeds of the ecologi-cal use of fire were planted with the first

Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference andthe Leopold Report on Fire and Wildlife inNational Parks.

There was a transition from firefightingscience to fire ecology during the 1970s.Formalized ecological research looking atthe role of fire restoration, regimes, andecology became widespread. The fuelsproblem gained recognition as did thenatural role of fire. The environmentalmovement brought several new laws,regulations, and policies (e.g., NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and the Wilder-ness Act) that directly or indirectly affectedfire management.

During the 1980s, the Yellowstone firesignited debate about “let it burn” policies;the public began to question fire-management policies.

Federal agency reorganization anddownsizing in the 1990s resulted in adecreased capacity to conduct research.Simultaneously, increased public in-volvement in policy making and theincorporation of social factors in researchoccurred.

Fire research has become more inte-grated with related disciplines and inter-ests; yet, further integration is needed.Fire research remains dominated bypublic-land fire management needs ratherthan private needs. Current fire researchis increasingly complex and is incorpo-rating various degrees of the socialdimension.

III. THE PRESENT

6

Increasing awareness of social issuesis a key trend.

Increasing socialvalue of air qualityand escalatingclimate change arecurrent trends.

III. THE PRESENT

7

Looking at the past created a context toview the present. To analyze the presentsituation, participants formed eight stake-holder groups.

• Administration/Policy (two groups)

• Fire Behavior/Risk Management

• Fire Behavior/Physical Science

• Biology/Ecology/Hydrology (twogroups)

• Air Issues

• Social Science/Wilderness

The stakeholder groups used the analy-sis of the past to better understand thepresent status of wildland fire research.

Looking at the present consisted of fourexercises: article summaries, group mindmap, stakeholder perspectives on trends,and “prouds” and “sorries.”

Participants were asked to bring anewspaper or magazine article that re-flected an event, trend, or developmentthat is shaping the future of fire research.Each person shared their article with theirgroup and discussed its significance.Using this information, each group thenfocused on the trends, events, anddevelopments shaping wildland fireresearch today and in the future.

Next, all participants gathered to createa mind map (page 8). The mind map

soon became a complex branched struc-ture reflecting the diverse interrelatedissues relevant to wildland fire research.Participants identified key issues andtrends in wildland fire research.

The next task for the stakeholdergroups was to identify which trends theycared about, what actions they are taking,and what actions they want to take.Group findings were reported back to thelarger group in terms of what is beingdone and what needs to be done abouteach issue (pages 10-14).

The final task focused on how partici-pants feel about the current situation,each stakeholder’s contribution to what isworking, and their contribution to what isnot working. Each stakeholder grouplisted issues and activities that they arecurrently associated with that they areproud of and issues and activities thatthey are currently associated with thatthey are sorry about. Each group selectedtheir proudest “prouds” and sorriest“sorries” to present to all conferenceparticipants (pages 15-17).

Wildland UrbanInterface issues

continue toincrease

III. THE PRESENT

8

A mind map illustrates a collectiveview of complex factors influencing acore issue. Participants determinedthe factors and pathways that repre-sented their individual concerns andthose developed in their stakeholdergroups.

III. THE PRESENT

9

KEY TRENDS IDENTIFIED ON THE MINDMAP

• Increasing wildland urban interface problems.

• Increasing fuel buildup and decreasing ecosystem health.

• Fire management becoming more integrated and complicated.

• Data acquisition and analysis advancing faster than the ability to put the informationto practical use.

• Increasing air quality requirements and concerns.

• Need for system integration by taking existing models and data and applying them tomanagement decision systems.

• Desire to bridge the gap between today’s fuel problems and tomorrow’s solutions.

• Increasing social value of air quality at local and global scales.

• Escalating climate change.

• Increasing occurrence of prescribed and wildland fire.

• Increasing communication and collaboration among all interested wildland fire stake-holders.

• Increasing need to understand the relationship between society and wildland fire(e.g., research on fire issues such as prescribed fire and the media).

• Increasing recognition of the need for wildland ecosystem restoration.

• Increasing emphasis on ecosystem sustainability.

• Escalating concerns about restoring natural fire regimes.

• Increasing prescribed fire and fuel management treatments to affect fire hazard,regime, and restoration.

• Increasing public resistance to fire, smoke emissions, resource loss, and treatments.

• Lack of trust in government.

III. THE PRESENT

10

ADMINISTRATION / POLICY (GROUPS 1 & 2)

Trend What we’re doing now What we need to do

• Increasing Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)problems.

• Fire management is becoming more integratedand complicated. There is a broader recognitionof social and environmental concerns includingthe physical and biological sciences. There is adesire to join together on an interagency basisto solve problems.

• Data analysis is advancing faster than the abilityto put the information to practical use.

• Some assessment of conditions.

• Federal, state, and local efforts to improveawareness, training, and coordination.

• Some broad-scale public education programs.

• Federal fire policy provides direction concerningthe WUI.

• Better clarify the federal fire policy concerningWUI issues.

• Incorporate WUI into land use planning and firemanagement planning.

• Train firefighters to work in interface conditions.

• Develop a clearer message to communitiesabout WUI strategies.

• Increase in funding and fuels planning andtreatments.

• Gradual increase in prescribed fire accomplish-ments.

• Assessment of fuel conditions, risks, andpriorities vary nationwide.

• Southeastern states have enacted “right to burn”laws that protect prescribed fire activities.

• Federal Fire Science plan established.

• Fuel management strategies are being devel-oped by various agencies.

• Public is more aware of and concerned aboutfuel management issues.

• Increase fuel treatment.

• Develop fire plans that support appropriatemanagement actions.

• Establish a better understanding of fuel treat-ment alternatives in relation to science, politics,and social concerns.

• Better understand go/no-go decision conditionsand options.

• Increasing fuel buildup and decreasing ecosys-tem health.

• Not explored due to time




III. THE PRESENT

11

ADMINISTRATION / POLICY (GROUPS 1 & 2) (CONTINUED)


• Increasing air quality requirements and con-cerns.

• Increasing regulatory requirements.

• Measuring smoke emissions.

• Controlling emissions through smoke manage-ment.

• Educating the public about regulations.

• Using dispersion models.

• Create better air quality monitoring.

• Establish better control measures.

• Develop better tools for predicting emissionsand impacts.

• Make data easily available.

• Managers are looking for integrated systemsthat are useful in land management.

• Fuels management is an increasing concern.

• Using outside research for system developmentand integration.

• Bringing information to the field through training.

• Increasing participation from other stakeholdersand managers.

• Forming management alliances at regionallevels.

FIRE BEHAVIOR / RISK MANAGEMENT / PHYSICAL SCIENCE (GROUPS 3 & 4)


• Develop an integrated system using existingmodels and data and apply it to a managementdecision system.

• Produce technology transfer from fire research.

• Find more money from nontraditional sources.

• Manage the land with a consistent purpose.

• Provide quality external and internal educationprograms.

• Determine accurate science-based programsfor short- and long-term solutions.

• Using pilot projects and demonstrations to helpmanage forests.

• Using prescribed fire as a long-term solutionwhen we may need short-term solutions.

III. THE PRESENT

12

FIRE BEHAVIOR / RISK MANAGEMENT / PHYSCIAL SCIENCE (GROUPS 3 & 4) (CONTINUED)


BIOLOGY / ECOLOGY / WATERSHED SCIENCES (GROUPS 5 & 6)


• Increasing feeling that it is possible to develop asystematic model that captures knowledge andintegrates physical and social models.

• Moving from art to science in terms of firebehavior. Dealing with physical and socialaspects of the wildland urban interface problem.Introducing local and regional fire modeling intofire operations.

• Coupling weather and fire modeling.

• Studying fire dynamics.

• Developing a physical understanding of satellitedata.

• Build a perfect fire model.

• Understand how to implement an integrated fire-weather model anywhere.

• Develop physically-based satellite-derived datasets.

• Reorganize current knowledge and problems.

• Evaluate model-based predictions with real datafor any time or place.

• Develop a feedback path from behavior to datato help understand fuel-fire links.

• Repackage existing knowledge for practical useby land managers and those in the field.

• Increasing concern about fuels. • Simulation modeling of forest fuels.

• Accomplishing many isolated studies.

• Recognizing that we have type conversion,exotic species, and structure changing fireregimes.

• Running static fuel models.

• Establish comprehensive dynamic inventories ofthe entire fuel profile (including grasses, shrubs,trees).

• Better understand historic conditions.

• Clearly communicate with fire managers andhelp them with biological applications.

• Increase the amount of ecological work onnonforest ecosystems.

III. THE PRESENT

13

• Increasing recognition of the need for restora-tion.

• Increasing emphasis on ecosystemsustainability.

• Escalating concerns about restoring natural fireregimes.

• Increasing prescribed fire and fuel managementtreatments to affect fire hazard, regime, andrestoration.

• Public resistance to fire hazard, smoke emis-sions, resources loss, and treatments.

• Lack of trust in government.

BIOLOGY / ECOLOGY / WATERSHED SCIENCES (GROUPS 5 & 6) (CONTINUED)


• Producing demonstration projects.

• Accomplishing large-scale spatial assessments.

• Using fire as a restoration tool in local pre-scribed fire projects.

• Starting to address ecosystem integrity.

• Increasing the amount of local fire projects.

• Beginning to define disturbance regimes.

• Identifying knowledge about historic fire regimesin relation to vegetation and climate includinghuman interventions.

• Gaining support, administratively and financially.

• Increasing the amount of monitoring, fuelsmapping, and assessments.

• Linking fire management with land managementplans.

• Recognize variability.

• Communicate differences between restorationand commodity production.

• Integrate fire and other disturbances.

• Establish clear communication between re-searchers and managers.

• Accomplish long-term studies.

• Integrate fire into ecosystem management.

• Assess fire affects on biodiversity.

• Increase training and professional development.

• Increase fire-history database compilation.

• Compile adequate vegetation maps.

• Engage in more long-term studies and experi-ments.

• Evaluate the cost and benefit of post-firerehabilitation efforts.

• Evaluate the post-fire potential for mass erosionon regional and landscape scales.

• Develop more interagency cooperative research.

• Expand the study of exotics in relation to fireaffects and behavior.

III. THE PRESENT

14

AIR ISSUES (GROUP 7)


• Increasing social value of air quality at local andglobal scales.

• Escalating climate change.• Increasing occurrence of prescribed and

wildland fire.

• Continuing to develop dispersion models thatare disjointed and lack clear guidance.

• Establishing many significant, joint problem-solving efforts.

• Producing a proliferation of meteorologicalmodels.

• Understanding better how weather and streamsof mesoscale weather affect fire regimes.

• Creating source-strength models.• Linking current meteorological, fire behavior,

smoke production, and dispersion models.

• Better demonstrate how to use models andobtain technical support.

• Directly apply tools to land managementprojects.

• Increase model development rather than modelsystem development.

• Expand public outreach for decision making.• Increase collaboration between and among

agencies.• Foster university curriculum in mountain meteo-

rology.• Better understand the role of fire in increasing or

decreasing carbon sink.

SOCIAL SCIENCE / WILDERNESS (GROUP 8)


• Social components, which exist in all previouslyidentified trends, are being recognized.

• Need for increased communication and collabo-ration is being recognized.

• Increasing need to understand how societydrives wildland fire research.

• Recognizing that a significant amount ofanecdotal social science evidence exists.

• Acknowledging the need to establish systematicsocial science research within fire managementprograms.

• Identify social science researchers and build acommunity.

• Obtain funding for social science researchregarding fire research issues.

• Systematically identify social science researchneeds.

• Better understand how society influenceswildland fire issues.

• Complete field visits to observe applied re-search; obtain feedback from field users.

• Identify fire lab customers and assess theirneeds.

• Integrate social science into fire research.

III. THE PRESENT

15

FIRE BEHAVIOR / RISK MANAGEMENT (GROUP 3)

Prouds Sorries

ADMINISTRATION / POLICY (GROUPS 1 & 2)

Prouds Sorries

• Moving toward a balanced, nationalfire management program.

• Progress in developing the firediscipline and professionalism.

• Fire is in the mainstream of nationaland global ecosystem views.

• Taking a leadership role in inter-agency training and cooperation.

• The Incident Command System andall that has derived from it.

• Budget process is more costefficient, unified, and interagency;Choosing-By-Advantage.

• Diversity in fire knowledge (physics,math, ecology, social science).

• Increasing use of risk analysis.• Fire is included in other research

communities.• North American fire research

community remains a world leader.• Putting fuels on the national

agenda.• Serving customer needs.• Landscape and regional scale

efforts (Columbia Basin) andintegrated assessments areoccurring.

• Packaging research, development,and application.

• Land managers are using researchinformation.

• Collaborating at local levels.• Gaining political support and

understanding.

• Missed opportunities to provide fireresearch leadership on emergingnatural resource issues.

• Connection between similar workis limited.

• Organized around functions notgoals.

• Risk aversion makes it difficult toadapt to changing conditions andsituations.

• Lack of fiscal accountability.• Do not mobilize for opportunities

as well as we do for threats.• Do not commit resources based on

long-term net benefits as is done forshort-term risks.

• Opportunities missed to contributeto rehabilitation and restoration.

• A crisis is required to spur action.• Research is not meeting manage-

ment needs.• Not insisting on thorough fire

investigations.• Lack of accountability.• Lack of integrated research and

integrated planning.• Not supporting visionaries, risk

takers, and the Federal WildlandFire Policy.

• Not burning enough acres/hectares.• Not enough objective monitoring.

• Building a business process thatcombines management, science,and social aspects.

• Effort of multiple disciplines tointegrate fire into land manage-ment.

• Progress in software integration.• Moving from macroscale support to

mesoscale support.• Quality educational programs to

increase stakeholder knowledge.• Bringing tools to the field for

application, training, and collabora-tion.

• Fire is not fully integrated in theland management process.

• Doing things for the wrong reason;activity accomplishment is moneydriven.

• Prescribed fire operations arecommonly discounted as a part-time job that occurs between theprimary jobs (suppression).

• Using yesterday’s technology ontoday’s issues.

• Unable to move faster to upgradetechnologies.

• Some want to do business the waywe used to.

• Management decisions are madewithout adequately understandingthe ecological consequences.

• Decisions are often based onproduct attractiveness rather thanon a sound scientific foundation.

Each stakeholder group listed issues and activitiesthat they are currently associated with that they areproud of and issues and activities that they arecurrently associated with that they are sorry about.Each group selected their proudest “prouds” andsorriest “sorries” to present to all conferenceparticipants.

III. THE PRESENT

16

FIRE BEHAVIOR / PHYSICAL SCIENCE (GROUP 4)

Prouds Sorries

• Working in a cross-disciplinarymanner in fire research.

• Initiating steps to help understandfire-line dynamics.

• Developing a significant quantityand quality of models and products.

• Supporting remote sensing withphysical science.

• Recognizing where technologystops and social science begins.

• Canadian Forest Service has metthe current need of fire and landmanagers.

• Attracting external cooperators toresearch problems.

• Unable to understand researchcomplexities fast enough.

• Have not communicated modellimitations to nonmodelers.

• Model use is limited.• Not expressing concerns to land

management agencies.• Distracted by administrative policy

and technological “red herring.”• Canadian Forest Service delayed

necessary groundwork for long-term work.

• Inability to effectively and efficientlyget products from research tousers.

BIOLOGY / ECOLOGY / WATERSHED SCIENCES (GROUPS 5 & 6)

Prouds Sorries

• Informative demonstration projects.• Successful new treatments.• Increased communication between

researchers and managers isfostering a climate of cooperationand collaboration.

• Complex and integrative projects,long-term planning models, andmultiple temporal/spatial data.

• Implementing managementprograms based on research.

• National key message about fire.• Increased use of natural history

experiments and long-term studies.• Increased interagency and

multiagency collaboration effort.• Integrated resource and fire

management objectives.• Educating public, peers, managers.• Improved understanding of fire and

climate relations.• Leadership in fire and watershed

effects and in engaging USGSscientists.

• Successful international andinteragency cooperation on fire andfuels management.

• Research results are influencingmanagement.

• Ignoring hydrologic impacts of fire.• Hazard reduction is rationale for

prescribed fire.• Inadequate communication be-

tween researchers and landmanagers.

• Money being unnecessarily spenton fire suppression.

• Conducting expensive, unneces-sary rehabilitation operations.

• Limited spatial- and temporal-scale work.

• Single discipline approach contin-ues to be the norm.

• Lost public trust.• Lack of consideration about political

and social events related to fire.• The five national key messages

about fire are not widely known.• The overhead proportion of

funding is increasing.• A small percentage of agency

budget is obligated to research.• Rewards for innovation are few.• Not using field offices to help

identify research needs.

III. THE PRESENT

17

AIR ISSUES (GROUP 7)

Prouds Sorries

• Successfully linking fire, climate,and social values.

• Joint problem solving between theEPA and other agencies related tothe Clean Air Act and visibilitystandards.

• High level of professionalism.• Interagency cooperation on a local

scale.

• Bureaucratic inertia / provincialism.• Weak link with social science.• Government mistrust.• Disconnected between reality and

public opinion; chaotic science.• Lack of long-term focus on priorities.• Less willing to take risks

associated with fire.• Lack of focus and agency

expertise in monitoring.

• Human factors are being promoted(ad-hoc work).

• Variety of demonstrations exist.• Helping agency people work with

media.• Improving our professional commu-

nication.• Accomplishing much with little.• Value of and what social science

can offer is being recognized.• Included as stakeholders in this

conference.

SOCIAL SCIENCE / WILDERNESS (GROUP 8)

Prouds Sorries

• Lack of public understanding.• Promoting safety has negative

consequences.• Firefighter safety is a third or fourth

priority.• Funding is being channeled away

from human dimensions.• No mechanism exists to relay

research funding to the ground.• Inadequate social science data.• Ineffective identification work.• Not managing across boundaries.• Limited understanding of other

disciplines.• No unified statement on the role of

social scientists.• Constrained time.

“The absence of social science integration in wildlandfire research is a systems problem. Communicationacross disciplines is rare. Misunderstandingscontinue.”

— Social Science Group Participants

Participants were somewhat impressed when they realized the broad commonality of their interests and concerns about wildland fire research and management. Two key questions emerged. What do we want to see in the future? What are we prepared to do to achieve this future vision?

Conference facilitators asked participants to imagine a future for wildland fire research and management that they would want to help make a reality. Participants were asked to design a story, a play, or some other creative way of communicating their future vision. Using flip charts, participants described current events in fire research and the barriers that must be overcome to reach their envisioned future of wildland fire research and management.

The assignment was to imagine 13 years into the future-October 7, 2010- and dramatize the changes in the wildland fire community that had taken place. Attendees were encouraged to exercise creative dreaming. Visions could include anything possible, desirable, or motivat- ing.

The activity was challenging. Partici- pants developed outlines and made props to dramatize an often humerous story about their group's future vision. Each mixed group produced its own scenario of an ideal future wildland fire research and management situation.

We dared to dream and were pleased by the commonalities of our dreams.

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS

18

The setting: It is the year 2020. The Fire Wizard walks among a group of sleeping people. In 2997, the Fire Wizard had cast a sleep spell on these people. It's now the moment of awakening.

Firstperson: I must call Don Latham and Jack Cohen to tell them how effectively the frre lab is transferring information to the field.

Second person: Our flip charts? They've been updated! I'm going to accept ecosystem change as a part of every- day life. The wildland urban interface is a social space, not just a geographic zone. Management and research communicate well.

Thirdperson: My, what day is it? 2010! I'd better check my long-range forecast. I now have the ability to make better seasonal forecasts and excellent small-scale forecasts.

Fourth person: I just had this amazing experience. We spent a day with the House Committee on Natural Re- sources and they supported everything we are doing. They understand that science has a role in making rnanage-

ment decisions, and they met our funding requests!

Fifth person: Wow, the International Cooperative Interagency Committee has a new way to obtain funding. I'll apply right away!

Sixth person: I wouldn't get any sleep at all if it weren't for these meetings. More decisions are based on high-quality risk assessments than they were 13 years ago. Now we're relying mostly on remote sensing for the majority of our monitoring and inventory work. We have a reliable small-scale wind model and better ability to forecast seasonal trends. And finally, social research is fully integrated with other disciplines.

Seventh person: I'm meeting with the new Forest Service Chief today to discuss the issue of looking at biodiversity more holistically rather than just in regard to threatened and endangered species. I expect that we'll be collaborating more based on shared information, too!

Fire Wizard: What do you think? Should I put them back to sleep?

Additional future vision:

Interact more directly with the public.

Discussions include below and above- ground processes.

Make appropriate management decisions and establish a better balance between prescribed fire and wildfire.

Single interface between fire behavior, fire effects, etc., at all scales.

Research filters and packages information and models are effectively used by managers.

More "seamless" research community; fire research is no longer a separate community.

Public trust of management is restored.

International .cooperation is expanded with a global focus.

Large, international research projects are ongoing.

More competitive, peer reviewed funding is open to all.

Blurred distinction between research and management funding sources.

Prescribed fire is fully integrated into land management practices.

Land managers view themselves as risk managers.

Science is used as the foundation for a national, natural resource policy.

Sustainable resource and forest management indicators are the accepted criteria used as a framework for full stakeholder involvement.


19

The setting: Five men and three women sit around a table at the front of a room. The meeting is called to order. . .

The Interagency, International Coop- erative Research Consortium is convened. This consortium exists because many barriers have been broken. We're all united under the Department of Natu- ral Resources. Funding barriers have been eliminated; we can use suppression money for research. Fear is gone; we can make decisions and take risks without worry. Communication barriers do not exist. This agency is funding competitive grants.

Member: My interest in this work goes back to the 1990s when the cost of ineffective fire suppression and the risk to human health was high. Now we have cost effective, ecologically sound systems.

Member: I'm concerned about restoration ecology. I want to see competitive research. I want to see research on ecosystem structures and processes to reduce hazard of catastrophic fires.

Member: I'm interested in ways to educate ourselves and others. I think people should spend a year doing work that is

outside the realm of what they currently do to unleash and harvest their creative potential.

Member: Good communication is very important. I think that good communication will ensure that the general public continues to understand the role of fire.

Member: It seems to me that the real success stories from land management have come from mutual, personnel exchanges.

Member: My interest is building cohesive, yet diverse communities that take effective action. I'm always looking for management/research partnerships that integrate management and social sciences.

Welcome to your new board!


Institutional barriers to research/ management exchange and interdisciplinary research are eliminated.

All budget opportunities are fully investigated.

Substantial progress in ecosystem restoration and reduction of damaging and undesirable wildfire through a research and management partnership.

Public understanding and acceptance of the cost of fire management.

Research has initiated work on the next generation of problems.

Fire community is integrated, coordinated, and flexible with a common understanding of problems and priorities. International Fire Science Plan is in place.

Setting: A freak, early-season snowstorm in the year 2010 has isolated Park City, Utah.

Isolated individuals, known as the Saveland Party, develop a new vision and establish a new land management planning process that becomes the "north star" for fire research. One aspect of the process defines a new fire research triangle involving federal, state, and private entities. People are approaching land management as an an integrated, holistic process.

Land management objectives combine research and management components. We're evaluating the progress made on the next generation of land management plans.


20

We had a significant paradigm shift; it is no longer important to achieve tenure and promotion. We understand that fire plays a fundamental land-management role. We realize that we must target our research to the larger issue and ask, "Does this work influence the way we manage our public lands?"


Teams are working on objectives that are monitored and evaluated by a wide range of disciplines.

Events are not crisis driven nor are disciplines isolated.

Fire impacts on watershed and vegetation are considered when making fire management decisions.

Monitoring air quality.

Accomplishing basic and applied research.

Greater firefighter safety because of increased knowledge and technology.

Complex models are running on laptop computers.

Strong technology transfer program.

Land-management plans connect monitoring, research, and management objectives with strategies and activities.

Land management is ecosystem based.

National policy guides efforts but allows local decisions.

Public support for land management policy, specifically fire.

Integrated atmospheric fire model is used onsite to forecast fire behavior.

Work is accomplished in multidisciplinary teams.

My name is Sue and I'm the legal representative for Group #4, which has been doing subversive research for the past 15years. They launched a satellite to eliminate all unwantedfires. In 1998, they found a whippersnapper who said the use offire for rehabilitation was minimized. The fire research community is completely dis- banded. Just kidding!

Our future vision of an ideal organization is one that:

uses an adaptive system that includes managers and researchers symbiotically;

is based on fluid teams that identify, sort, and prioritize problems; and

has institutionalized the concept of integrative thought (beginning in university curriculums).


Fire manager's role is to light fires, aided by realtime tools.

Risk takers are rewarded.

Honest, safe interaction. People meet in cyberspace and face-to-face.

The setting: A group of people are sitting at a bar at the Intergalactic Inn . . .

Bartender: In 1997, there were many major barriers. We didn't know how to project a common future and couldn't agree on what indicators to use. There was a lack of appreciation for science in the decision-making process. Incentives for monitoring, funding, and staffing were inadequate to support research and development. So, what are the issues today?

Group: Well, we are developing a statement of our vision for 2020-10 years from now. We decided where we want


21

our terrestrial, aquatic, economic, and social systems to go, but to accomplish our desires, we had to sufficiently understand the systems. We designed a monitoring and feedback system to track variables and indicators, which was agreed to by all.

We now have a coordinated, balanced intergalactic approach. We discovered forest ecosystems on Titan and are conducting fire and emissions tests on them there. We can now easily transfer money between agencies, and agency managers conduct in-house monitoring, outside of research.


Clear perception of reality and understanding of how to think productively.

Highly effective knowledge transfer from research to field users and managers at all levels.

Neutralization of past conditioning; more creativity.

Institutionalized ways, techniques, and procedures to establish common ground.

The setting: A television jeeporter p~oceeds with the news broadcast . . .

Today's headlines:

El Nino forecasts were successful.

990,000 acres in the Southwest treated for fuel hazard.

We interrupt your regularly scheduled program for a special National Weather Service report. There will be an accept- able, prescribed burning window two weeks from today. Combined burns by federal and state agencies will produce smoke that will affect local areas for up to four hours per day.

(Viewer changes channel.)

Tonight we're talking about the history of fire science and Colin Hardy's role in creating an intergalactic consortium that:

reduced the average response time of research from 3 years to 9 months with no quality reduction when addressing management questions;

taught researchers to operate on paral- lel tracks providing unpublished answers versus productivity as peer review; and

established an Internet site where users can visit and research any local area of interest.

Colin established Society's Use of Infor- mation as Developed by the University Community. A wealth of knowledge is continuously mined by researchers and collected in this knowledge pool. The public and decision makers may dip into this pool and use information. The information is not controlled by any government.


Basic and applied science are equally valued in all communities.

Improved climate and weather forecast capability, with a better ability to integrate information.

Weather forecasts are linked to satellite technology using a toolbox of models.

The setting: A gentleman sits at a table holding a sheaf ofpapers. He speaks . . .

Good afternoon ladies and gentleman, this is Tom Brokaw. The President will


22

present the State of the Environment Address. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

She speaks: Good afternoon, its wonderful to be here again after so many years. As I close my second term, I want to reflect on a major Presidential accomplishment. My first initiative, back in 2003, was creation of the Department of Natural Resources, which merged the Depart- ment of Interior and the USDA Forest Service. This Department is under the leadership of our Secretary of Natural Resources. Under her fine leadership, we have reached a broad public consensus on management of natural resources and have created a broad public trust. Additionally, we developed a new integrated research management division responsible for natural resource management research in the United States and international issues such as global climate change.

We doubled the Natural Resources budget. This larger budget allowed us to:

maintain a strong, basic federal research program;

develop an extensive network of long- term ecological research; and

initiate a large, competitive grant program for rapid response to changing needs.

We are in a new era of collaboratively setting research priorities among states, the federal government, and non- government organizations.

I am here at Yellowstone Natural Re- source Area, the site of the 1988 fires, to tell you that fire is a key component in managing natural resources.

Additional future vision

Balanced approach to public, state, and private research needs on all wildlands, with a commitment for basic and applied research.

Comprehensive definition of missions and goals with broad input.

Balance between basic and applied research.

U.S. is an international leader in fire research and management.

Solid support for maintaining long-term research demonstrations representative of all regional ecosystems on a landscape and watershed scale.

Applying results of fire and fuel research started in the 1990s.

Full collaboration and cooperation among scientists, disciplines, and agencies.

Research programs are fully integrated and interdisciplinary (including social sciences).

Department of Natural Resources is committed to long-term university activities and involvement of scientists.

Universities are committed to holistically teaching basic natural resource management to majors and non-majors.

The setting: A group of people are at a meeting. The chailperson speaks . . .

Welcome to the 5th annual meeting of the National Fire Research Council. We are meeting to consider competitive grant proposals.

Speaker: This proposal is on behalf of the Boise Team, a consortium of various agencies and researchers, which will develop proactive measures to protect the city from flood and fire. This team wants to develop knowledge about fire, water, and geomorphological processes and to involve the community in taking responsibility for managing its vegetation.


23

Question: How does that fit into the national goals that we've set as research priorities?

Group chair Let's review those priorities.


Nationally, fire research supports forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. Annual goals drive this support. Priorities are developed collaboratively with stakeholders. Fire research is proactive and responsive to issues.

Group chair: The Research, Development and Application Program has been modi- fied to:

implement specific integrated multiagency objectives that 'are responsive to national goals within specified time frames;

be jointly funded from research design through applied technology implementation; and - make a difference.

Fire research is an inte- gral part of national policy and program goals for natural resource management.

Bringing the best of science to decisions that are applied on the ground is valued.

Fire research program attracts the best scientists by its clear focus, a renowned program, and support for innovative solutions.

"The time is right for things to come together." -Susan Conard


24

V. COMMON GROUND

25

ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONS

• Establish a Department of NaturalResources to eliminate interagencycompetition and foster interdiscliplinarycollaboration.

• Create an integrated research structure to:

- increase communication and collabo-ration between researchers andmanagers among federal, state, andprivate entities;

- foster research and managementintegration; and

- address issues across boundaries andfrom regional to global scales.

• Establish an oversight council to:

- eliminate institutional and organi-zation barriers and initiate seamlessmanagement structures;

- enact an adaptive managementsystem with long-term research; and

- use research results in adaptivemanagement, develop a true learningcommunity, and relay results to theground.

• Develop a common and compellingdefinition of wildland fire research andmanagement to:

- bring wildfire researchers together and

- establish universal coordination of allwildfire research.

DECISION–MAKING VISIONS

• Science, fire science in particular, has arole in management decisions.

• Prescribed fire is part of resource man-agement, which creates a better balancebetween prescribed fire and wildfire.

• Risk assessment is a primary decision-making tool.

• Remote sensing is a major tool forintegrating state-of-the-art weather fore-casting into decision making and formonitoring.

PROCEDURAL VISIONS

• Make competitive research moneyavailable to all researchers to:

- emphasize integrated research and

- allow greater discretionary fund use.

• Construct a feedback process withstakeholders to:

- improve communication;

- provide better technology transfer;

- improve research implementationthrough the use of feedback fromstakeholders; and

- filter, package, and disseminatefindings.

• Fully integrate social research into fireresearch and management.

DESIRED OUTCOMES

• Research, integrated across disciplines,and management form partnerships.

• Communication between managementand research is effective and continuous.

• Responsive and proactive researchbalances long-term scientific goals withrapidly changing management issues.

• The success of research and develop-ment is measured by on-the-groundimplementation.

• Fire research is responsive to nationalgoals and receives long-term, stablepolitical support.

V. COMMON GROUND

26

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Participants began brainstorming poten-tial projects based on the identifiedcommon ground. Projects ranged fromadministrative reorganization to discipline-specific programs and included the fol-lowing.• Federal land agencies establish a re-

search branch for collaboration andincreased effectiveness.

• Establish a Department of NaturalResources.

• Devise a reward system to creditresearchers for working with manage-ment and vice versa.

• Establish a national, competitive grantprogram, with integrated research as arequirement.

• Support long-term research.

• Multiagency research development andapplications that are issue-driven withspecific objectives and are jointlyfunded, designed, and implemented byresearch and management.

• Project responsive to issues articulatedby Congress and the White House (e.g.,global change, catastrophic fire).

• Adapt National Science Foundation oran equivalent process for competitivegrants.

• Lobby for support (dollars, programchanges).

• Establish an International Wildland FireAcademy.

• Adopt a long-term, integrated researchplan that supports long-term goals.

• Charter a committee of national firemanagers to define national fire re-search goals and coordinate fire re-search.

• Establish an interdepartmental scienceteam.

• Develop large, field-research cam-paigns involving multiple institutions.

• Produce an interagency budget initia-tive.

• Develop a shared vision of a “seam-less” learning community.

• Evaluate existing processes, programs,and models.

• Finish information databases (GIS).

• Establish a geographical fire researchlibrary, information, and communicationsystem on the World Wide Web.

• Develop technology transfer mecha-nisms.

• Institutionalize technology transfer.

• Seek money for more technologytransfer.

• Integrate remote sensing.

• Obtain support for long-term monitoringand research of social and adaptivemanagement.

• Apply EPA Ecological Risk Assessmentguidelines to fire management.

• Develop long-term, landscape-scalevegetation management research inselected ecosystems.

• Survey public values related to pre-scribed fire and wildfire.

• Use the newly created council orinstitute for natural resource inventoryand monitoring including fuels inven-tory and fire monitoring.

• Develop an internal and externaloutreach campaign.

• Study firefighter behavior.

• Complete a Wildland Fire AssessmentSystem-integrated modeling system.

• Develop a short- and long-term firemodeling project.

VI. ACTION PLANS

27

NEXT STEPS

With common themes and potentialprojects identified, participants wereasked to begin planning action steps forthe items they felt strongly about. Fivegroups organized around the followingthemes:1 . Create an interdepartmental

competitive grant program.

2 . Create a coordinated response tomanaging fire regimes for ecosystemhealth.

3 . Create an environment for managementand research collaboration.

4 . Integrate social science expertise.

5 . Assess ecological risk.

1. Create an interdepartmentalcompetitive grant program

(Group members: Bell, Leehouts,Cahoon, Sieg, van Wagtendonk, Biehl,Brennon, Hutto, Mitchell, Conard,Botti)

This group determined a preliminaryframework for an integrated programfunction and outlined some chief ob-stacles to overcome. Their frameworkconsisted of two new organizational

groups working in tandem to establish anational coordinated research agenda andaward funds accordingly. The first groupwould include participation from manystakeholders at multiple levels andwould meet at least annually. The pur-pose of this first group would be todefine a 10-year vision and update itannually.

This vision would be conveyed to asmaller working group, a Fire SciencesTeam, consisting of high-level managersand researchers who would transform thevision into a workable grant program thatinvites and reviews proposals, awardsfunds, and provides useful performancefeedback to funding agencies.

The group will convene an ad hocteam including themselves and represen-tatives of other agencies, such as theDepartment of Defense, EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), Federal Emer-gency Management Agency, and NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, onNovember 5th. At that time, they willbegin to detail a strategy to obtain acommitment from the leadership of theinteragency partners.

Any new mechanism will requirecontrol of a substantial portion of researchdollars to affect the direction of thesystem. Thus, agencies must be willing tocede some of their authority and re-sources. Legislative action may be neces-sary. The ad hoc team will examine and

learn from other successful, competitivegrant processes such as those at theNational Science Foundation. They hopeto submit a plan to agency leadershipwithin a year.

Although similar efforts have beenmade and have failed, this group feelsstrongly that a mechanism for coordinatedagenda setting and awarding of funds isnecessary. They see a renewed commit-ment to this end, especially among thosein attendance at the Future Search Confer-ence .

2. Create a coordinated responseto managing fire regimes forecosystem health

(Group members: Sandberg, Swetnam,Sutherland, Agee, Ferry, Alexander,Bossert, Sugihara, Fujioka, Gorski,Blackwell, Atkinson, Hardy, Carlile)

This group outlined key researchablequestions that could be addressed by acoordinated research program consideringmanagement sector needs. The questionswere :

• What were the historical fire regimes?

• How have the historical fire regimeschanged over time?

• What are the benefits and risks of fire/nonfire management alternatives?

VI. ACTION PLANS

28

• What are the spatial and temporalrelationships?

• How do we prioritize the use of fireamong other manipulations?

• How will fire regimes look in the future?The group devised a preliminary plan

for action after the Future Search Confer-ence. They will form an ad hoc manage-ment and research team at the nationallevel to articulate the issues collaborativelyand to define end products. Teammembership will include federal, state,and private land managers and federalresearchers and academics. The groupwill be organized by geographic regionand commonality of objectives. The goalof this group will be to define two ormore options based on time, resources,and success probability.

In the first three months, efforts will bemade to assemble the team and link itswork to current administrative and landmanagement activities. They will definethe problem subsets, identify what isknown, and determine the commonalityof different issues. Members envision thatthe coordinated team will eventuallyundertake specific research problems andprovide valuable feedback nationwide.

3. Create an environment formanagement and researchcollaboration

(Group members: Parsons, Anderson,Patton-Mallory, Hubbard, Braun, Cohen,Maloney, Williams, Sweet)This group outlined many of the general

strategic obstacles that prevent greatercollaboration. They suggested that a generallack of consensus about the role of basicresearch versus applied research and theabsence of an overall common agenda atthe top hampered communication. Spe-cifically, they asked, “What is the researchagenda, and how does it support landmanagement planning objectives?”

The group suggested further action toidentify instances of better coordinationamong managers and researchers at locallevels .

4. Integrate social science expertise

(Group members: Sorenson, Iverrson,Shaw, Putnam, Wood, Osterstock,Smith, Saveland, Thomas, Latham,Driessen)

This group agreed that the wildland fireresearch community had crossed somesignificant thresholds in its understandingof social issues and the potential benefitof social science expertise. There exists agrowing recognition that ecosystemmanagement includes people and theirbehavior. Technical solutions alone arenot sufficient to deal with the socialaspects of implementation. However, they

also recognized that the absence of socialscience integration in wildland fire researchis a systems problem. Social science iscurrently not well represented in thesystem. Funding and opportunities forcommunication across disciplines are rare.Misunderstandings continue to occur. Forexample, of the many different disci-plines within the social sciences, whichare the most relevant and germane towildland fire research and management?

The group is committed to identify,within three months, an ongoing research/management project as a candidate fornew collaboration. They hope socialscientists will collaborate to discover whatneeds could be met through their involve-ment. For example, although the physicalparameters of smoke, inherent in pre-scribed burning, are known and are thesubject of continuing research, the socialparameters, such as its affect on neighbor-hoods, the likelihood of communityopposition, and how best to educate anduse the media, are not well understood.

This group sees social/physical scienceintegration as a process that requiressufficient time for members of the differ-ent disciplines to communicate effec-tively. By the end of the year, they grouphope to produce a case study that reportsthe successes and failures of one suchintegration. They will continue discussingpotential projects until they have identi-fied a few candidates.

VI. ACTION PLANS

29

5. Assess ecological risk

(Group members: Morgan, Quigley,Miller, Betancourt, Wills)

This group focused on the problem ofecological risk assessment in watersheds.They determined that a national theoreti-cal framework that assesses ecologicalrisk, capitalizes on regional differences,focuses on ecological integrity, andpermits analysis at multiple scales shouldbe a goal.

The group noted that work on such aframework had begun under the auspicesof the EPA. On October 19, 1997, JulioBetancourt began a series of watershedtours for the U.S. Geological Survey. He

will use the EPA framework to beginidentifying research needs consistent withthe framework. This activity will be partof an ongoing refinement of nationalissues and research needs concerningpost-fire storm probability, hydrophobic-ity, nitrification of water, and the effectsof post-fire rehabilitation.

Other action items include the incorpo-ration of the EPA framework withincurrent continuing education classes andthe Forest Ecosystem Management Assess-ment Team watershed assessment. Withina year, the group hopes to have as-sembled sufficient information to writeproposals and obtain funding for specificresearch.

“...people fail to adapt because of the distress provoked by the problemand the changes it demands. They resist the pain, anxiety, or conflictthat accompanies a sustained interaction with the situation. Holdingonto past assumptions, blaming authority, scapegoating, externalizingthe enemy, denying the problem, jumping to conclusions, or finding adistracting issue may restore stability and feel less stressful than facingand taking responsibility for a complex challenge.”

—Ronald Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers

PERSONAL INTENTIONS

Jim Douglas—“The actions listed todayare NOT the only actions that will betaken. The short time didn’t allow us tofully develop actions.”

Enoch Bell—“On November 5, 1997 at1 PM in Riverside, CA, Bill Leenhouts,Sue Conard, and myself will discussways to coordinate fire research nation-ally. All are invited.”

Kathy Malone—“I will work harder withresearch folks and try to be a catalyst forconnectivity and cohesion.”

Lori Osterstock—“I’ll share this informa-tion with fire people. A lot of people reallycare about fire research but don’t know howto provide input; I’ll try to facilitate theprocess.”

Jim Saveland—“I will get documentationof this conference out for review andestablish an Internet site where thesegroups can work.”

Conrad Smith—“I will apply my knowl-edge in a research team. I’m available toserve on any of the teams resulting fromthis conference.”

Curt Topper—“I will conduct a secondsurvey to assess changes and determinewhere action items have gone. I willsummarize trends and disseminateresults in the spring.”

VII. CLOSING

30

“We met in a microcosm that gave us a glimpseof the macrocosm. Although I saw movement inthe conference, many stakeholders avoided orwere hesitant to make a personal commitment.We’re all wrestling with that. This group is areflection of society at large.”

— Jim Saveland

“We have to accept the time limitations of thisconference. Personally, I had no idea that thingswere so disorganized. ”

— Lori Osterstock

“The success of this conference will be determined bythe ripple effect in the fire community

over the coming months.”— Conference facilitators

“Let’s integrate research into the establishedmanagement processes. The timing is right, andthe issues are dead-on. The opportunity exists tocast a wide net across the scientific community.”

— Jerry Williams

VII. CLOSING

31

ence. Others believed that those inattendance were notable members of theirdisciplines and represented a sufficientlycomplete spectrum of stakeholders.

Opinions about the action plans weremixed. The degree of agreement,commitment, and closure within eachgroup was variable. A positive result ofthe action plans is that no action itemswere assigned to people not in atten-dance .

This conference provided an opportu-nity to identify and refine wildland fireresearch and management issues and todetermine how science can contribute tothese issues. More common ground hadbeen discovered than some thought waspossible. But there was also a sense offrustration and confusion. Acknowledgingthat this meeting was only a beginning,participants asked: How can we best takeadvantage of this meeting of stakeholders?

The Future Search method forcedparticipants to admit that they often didnot understand the needs of many of theother disciplines. What is our understand-ing of the state-of-the-art in each disci-pline? How is collaboration possiblewithout fully understanding what othersare doing and what their needs are?

Participants admitted that organizationalstructures and processes have beenbarriers to achieving desired results, andsome felt that duplication and “hobby”research should stop. Several specialistsin attendance expressed disappointmentthat the workshop did not provide a plat-form to resolve many critical scientificissues such as evaluation of the use or nonuseof fire history information. Identificationof the difference between applicationneeds and the research of problems is fun-damental. Too often the focus of researchis long-term and is concentrated on futurefundamentals. Some thought funding must

be spent to develop andcommunicate research tothe ground.

Researchers statedthat they must convincemanagers to obtainresearch funding forwhat they need. Manag-ers expressed concernthat fire managementstaffs do not have anorganized way to collectthe data and the quali-fied crews to accom-plish the work. Theybelieve that it is theresponsibility of re-search to ensure thatlocal units are suppliedwith what they need.Managers expressed theimportance of mobiliz-ing to meet the chang-ing needs of society.They are concerned that integration willdiffuse their energy and focus.

Some participants felt that the decreas-ing budget is a myth. They believe suffi-cient funding exists but is being shiftedaround. There was concern that thesurvival of research is threatened. Howwill research obtain money to survive overthe long term? Also, some participants feltthat a deliberate, broad consideration ofstakeholders was absent for this confer-

A process was initiated, new allies formed, anddirections taken.

VII. CLOSING

32

Many participants were frustrated by the process becauseof thelimited time available, not knowing the desired out-come, or being unsure of the actual outcome.

Regardless of the issue addressed, the process must beinterdisciplinary and coordinated. The question remains,“What is the role of fire research in the context of futurenatural resource management?”

“Things get fixed because leaders take personalresponsibility. Integrating research is crucial for thesuccess of our ability to manage the land.”

— Jerry Williams

A Future Search Conference requires us to explore differentaspects of our perceptions, intellect, and emotions. In“contentment” we accept things the way they are. Unfamiliarexperiences disturb the status quo. When we’d rather notadmit or deal with change, we go into the “denial” roomwhere we act as if things are okay. At some point though weadmit that we are frustrated and unsure; we have entered the“confusion” room. Roughly half of Future Search Conferenceis spent in “confusion”, which creates high anxietyand areadiness for new opportunities. Renewal becomes awelcome possibility after identifying a common future andbeginning action plans.

— Marvin R. Weisbord and Sandra Janoff, Future Search:An Action Guide to Finding Comming Ground in

Organizations and Communities

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

33

The rapidly changing fire researchenvironment, competition for existingresources, and new client expectations setthe stage for an energetic exchange ofideas in a compressed, two-day forum.Fire scientists, colleagues from other disci-plines, and fire managers, met to envisionand chart the course of wildland fire researchand to commit to its successful future.

Each participant carried personal frus-trations and ideals and found others whoshared or challenged their beliefs andfeelings. They gained a better understand-ing of why some things are not workingand brain-stormed possible solutions.Success stories were shared and ways tocapitalize on them were discovered. Newapproaches to research administration,funding, and accountability were dis-cussed. Attendees gained a better under-standing of the major strategic decisionsthat are being weighed by managers andformed new research alliances to supportthe decision process. The group wasinvigorated by an intense and rapidexchange of ideas. Many participantsbecame more aware of the positive trendsthat will affect the future.

The success of the conference, and thesuccess of the research community, canonly be measured by what occurs in the

future. Quality science must be used tosolve real problems.

Looking toward the future:

• Will better competitive interagencymechanisms to solicit new ideas andfund integrated research be implemented?

• Will a sharper definition of the future ofwildland fire actually emerge to guidethe direction of creative thought, scien-tific investigation, and the developmentof knowledge systems?

• Will the integration of social sciencesinto the fire research community pro-vide better alignment to rapidly chang-ing social values with regard to ecosys-tems, fire safety, air quality, the globalenvironment, and economic efficiency?

• Will the integration of fire research withother science disciplines and emergingtechnologies add quality and efficiencyto our delivery of knowledge systems?

• Will the science community be able tomobilize in support of the new dimen-sions of fire management?

• Will we be able to better anticipate thefuture and plot a course for fire research,or will we continue to be reactive?

• Will participants as individuals and innew alliances, do what is necessary toachieve what was jointly envisioned?

A need exists to find a way to coher-ently respond and adapt to changingconditions such as climate change and therole of fire in response to ecosystemchange. In addition, there is a need for acoordinated expression of how landmanagers view research problems andwhere the lack of information limitsdecision making.

The process of dialogue and competi-tion for ideas will take months and yearsto be fully translated into action. Thereare many tactical results that will comeout of this conference; specifically,communicating and organizing.

A modest set of actions were identifiedand individual commitments were made.The new relationships formed and thevisions shared will lead to significantfuture action. Several events over thenext few months will bring the wildlandfire research community a few stepscloser to a shared vision of the future.This conference was not conceived as asingle event but instead as a small, criticalpart of a lifetime process.

APPENDIX A — CONFERENCE COMMITTEES, STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, AND MIXED GROUPS

34

Jim Saveland, ChairUSDA Forest ServiceVegetation Management and Protection ResearchWashington, DC

Leslie AndersonUSDA Forest ServiceBitterroot National ForestStevensville, MT

David (Sam) SandbergUSDA Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationCorvallis, OR

CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

Karen MoraUSDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research StationFort Collins, CO

Madelyn DillonUSDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research StationFort Collins, CO

Ellen EberhardtUSDA Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationCorvallis, OR

Linda WadleighUSDA Forest ServiceRegion 4Ogden, UT

Dave ThomasUSDA Forest ServiceRegion 4

Fire, Aviation, and Air Management

Ogden, UT

Leslie Anderson, assisted byBitterroot National Forest,Stevensville Ranger District staff

Marvin Weisbord and SandraJanoff, conference consultants andauthors of Future Search: AnAction Guide to Finding CommonGround in Organizations andCommunities

Dave ThomasUSDA Forest ServiceRegion 4Fire, Aviation, and Air ManagementOgden, UT

Denny TruesdaleUSDA Forest ServiceFire and Aviation ManagementWashington, DC

Steering Committee

Major Organizers

Report Committee

Jim SavelandUSDA Forest ServiceVegetation Management and Protection ResearchWashington, D.C.

David (Sam) SandburgUSDA Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationCorvallis, OR

Curt TopperH. John Heinz II School of Policy and ManagementCarnegie Mellon UniversityPhiladelphia, PA

James StoneUSDA Forest ServiceRegion 4Ogden, UT

Dave Thomas (USDA ForestService, Region 4) assisted byTrish Haines (Wasatch-CacheNational Forest), Jody Farrell(USDA Forest Service, Region 4),and Charlene Reed (USDAForest Service, Region 4).


35

STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

Administration/Policy (Group 1)

Agee, JamesBotti, SteveCarlile, LyleIverson, DaveMaloney, KathrynPatton-Mallory, MarciaSommers, WilliamWilliams, Jerry

Administration/Policy (Group 2)

Bell, EnochBlackwell, MelissaDouglas, JimHubbard, JimLeenhouts, BillOsterstock, LoriQuigley, TomWebb, Jim

Fire Behavior/Risk Management

Albright, DorothyBiehl, GaryFerry, GardnerGoens, DavidMitchell, WayneMulhaupt, RickShaw, Bodie

Fire Behavior/Physical Science

Alexander, MartyBossert, JamesCahoon, DonCoen, JaniceCohen, JackFujioka, FrancisLatham, Don

Biology/Ecology/WatershedSciences (Group 1)

Anderson, LeslieHardy, ColinHull-Sieg, CarolynMorgan, PenelopeSugihara, Neilvan Wagtendonk, JanWills, Robin

Biology/Ecology/WatershedSciences (Group 2)

Betancourt, JulioBrennon, LennyConard, SusanHutto, RichardMiller, MelanieSutherland, Elaine KennedySwetnam, TomThomas, James

Air Issues

Acheson, AnnAtkinson, R. DwightFerguson, SueGorski, CarlSandberg, SamSorenson, WinnieSweet, WilliamWood, Larry

Social Science/Wilderness

Braun, CurtDriessen, JonParsons, DavePutnam, TedSaveland, JimSchmidt, GordonSmith, ConradThomas, Dave


36

MIXED GROUPS

Group 1

Anderson, LeslieDouglas, JimGoens, DavidHutto, RichardSandberg, SamSommers, WilliamThomas, DaveWills, Robin

Group 2

Acheson, AnnAlexander, MartyCarlile, LyleOserstock, LoriSaveland, JimSwetnam, Tomvan Wagtendonk, Jan

Group 3

Braun, CurtBrennon, LennyCoen, JaniceFujioka, FrancisHubbard, JimHull-Sieg, CarolynSweet, WilliamWilliams, Jerry

Group 4

Driessen, JonFerguson, SueIverson, DaveLatham, DonLeenhouts, BillMulhaupt, RickSugihara, NeilThomas, James

Group 5

Blackwell, MelissaBotti, SteveCohen, JackMiller, MelaniePutnam, TedQuigley, TomSorenson, Winnie

Group 6

Albright, DorothyAtkinson, R. DwightBetancourt, JulioHardy, ColinMitchell, WaynePatton-Mallory, MarciaSmith, ConradWebb, Jim

Group 7

Agee, JamesCahoon, DonConard, SusanFerry, GardnerParsons, DaveShaw, BodieWood, Larry

Group 8

Bell, EnochBiehl, GaryBossert, JamesGorski, CarlMaloney, KathrynMorgan, PenelopeSchmidt, GordonSutherland, Elaine Kennedy

APPENDIX B — CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

37

Ann AchesonAir Resource SpecialistFire, Aviation & Air ManagementNorthern RegionUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 7669Missoula, MT 59807(406) 329-3402

James AgeeProfessor of Fire EcologyCollege of Forest ResourcesUniversity of WashingtonP.O. Box 352100Seattle, WA 98195-2100(206) 543-2688

Dorothy AlbrightFire GIS Program ManagerFire and Aviation ManagementUSDA Forest ServicePacific Southwest Region3735 Neely WayMather, CA 95655(916) 364-2823

Marty AlexanderFire Research OfficerCanadian Forest Service5320 122nd St.Edmonton, Alberta T6H355(403) 435-7346

Leslie AndersonAsst. District Fire Management

OfficerUSDA Forest ServiceStevensville Ranger Station88 Main St.Stevensville, MT 59870(406) 777-7425

R. Dwight AtkinsonDirector, Multimedia AnalysisEPA401 M St., SWMail code 2123Washington, DC 20460(202) 260-2771

Enoch BellAssistant Station DirectorUSDA Forest ServicePacific Southwest Research StationP.O. Box 245Berkeley, CA 94701(510) 559-6316

Julio BentancourtPhysical ScientistU.S. Geological SurveyDesert Laboratory1675 W. Anklam Rd.Tucson, AZ 85745(520) 670-6821 ext 112

Gary BiehlFire PlannerUSDA Forest ServiceStanislaus National Forest19777 Greenley Rd.Sonora, CA 95370(209) 532-3671 ext 315

Melissa BlackwellManagement AnalystUSDA Forest ServiceWasatch-Cache National Forest125 S. State StreetSalt Lake City, UT 84138(801) 524-6501

James E. BossertMeteorology Team LeaderMail Stop D401Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM 87545(505) 667-6268

Steve BottiFire Program Planning ManagerNational Park Service3833 S. Development Ave.Boise, ID 83705(208) 387-5210

Curt BraunAssistant Professor of PsychologyUniversity of IdahoMoscow, ID 83844-3043(208)885-2540

Lenny BrennanDirector of ResearchTall Timbers Research StationRoute 1, Box 678Tallahassee, FL 32312(850) 893-4153 ext 229

Don CahoonNASA Satallite & Remote Sensing

ResearchAtmospheric Sciences DivRadiation Sciences BranchMail Stop 420Hampton, VA 23681(757) 864-5615

Lyle CarlileFire Use SpecialistBureau of Indian AffairsNatl. Interagency Fire Center3833 S. Development Ave.Boise, ID 83705(208) 387-5640

Janice CoenScientist, National Center for

Atmospheric Research3450 Mitchell LaneBoulder, CO 80301(303) 497-8986

Jack CohenResearch Physical ScientistIntermountain Fire Sciences LaboratoryP.O. Box 8089Missoula, MT 59807(406) 329-4821

Susan ConardFire Ecologist, Vegetation Manage-

ment and Protection ResearchUSDA Forest Service201 14th St., SWWashington, DC 20250(202) 205-1561

Jim DouglasFire Policy, Dept. of the InteriorOffice of Managing Risk and Public

Safety1849 C St., NW; MS 7356Washington, DC 20250(202) 208-7963

Jon DriessenChair, Dept. of SociologyUniversity of MontanaMissoula, MT 59812(406) 243-2855

Sue FergusonAtmospheric ScientistUSDA Forest ServiceSeattle Forestry Sciences Laboratory4043 Roosevelt Way NESeattle, WA 98105(206) 553-7815

APPENDIX B— CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

38

Gardner FerrySenior Program AnalystBureau of Land Management3833 Development Ave.Boise, ID 837055354(208) 387-5161

Francis FujiokaProject Leader, Fire MeteorologyUSDA Forest ServicePacific Southwest Forest Fire Lab4955 Canyon Crest DriveRiverside, CA 92507(909) 680-1552

David GoensMeterologist in ChargeNational Weather Service1320 Beechcraft Ave.Pocatello, ID 83204(208) 232-9306

Carl J. GorskiWestern Region Fire Weather

Program ManagerNational Weather ServiceWestern Region Headquarters125 South State Street, Room 1235Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1102(801) 524-4000

Colin HardySupervisory Research ForesterUSDA Forest ServiceIntermountain Fire Sciences

LaboratoryP.O. Box 8089Missoula, MT 59807(406) 329-4978

Jim HubbardDirector, Colorado State Forest

Service/National Association ofState Foresters Colorado StateUniversity

Fort Collins, CO 80523(970) 491-6303

Carolyn Hull–SiegResearch Wildlife BiologistUSDA Forest Service Forestry

Sciences LaboratoryS. Dak. School of Mines and Tech.501 E. St. Joseph StreetRapid City, SD 57701(605) 394-1960

Richard L. HuttoProfessor, Division of Biological

SciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoula, MT 59812(406) 243-4292

Dave IversonSocial Science CoordinatorPlanning, Appeals, and LitigationUSDA Forest serviceIntermountain Region324 24th St.Ogden, UT 84401(801) 625-5278

Don LathamProject Leader, Fire Behavior UnitIntermountain Fire Sciences

LaboratoryUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 8089Missoula, MT 59807(406) 329-4848

Bill LeenhoutsEcologistU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service3833 S. Development Ave.Boise, ID 83702(208) 387-5584

Kathryn MaloneyDirector, Resources Program and

AssessmentUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 96090Washington, DC 20090-6090(202) 205-1031

Melanie MillerEcologistBureau of Land Management3833 Development Ave.Boise, ID 83705-5354(208) 387-5165

Wayne MitchellFire Protection PlannerCA Dept. of Forestry & Fire ProtectionP.O. Box 944246Sacramento, CA 94244-2460(916) 653-7472

Penelope MorganAssociate ProfessorDept. of Forest ResourcesUniversity of IdahoMoscow, ID 83844-1133(208) 885-7507

Rick MulhauptPresident, Fire ProtectionResearch FoundationOne Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02269(617) 984-7282

Lori OsterstockDistrict RangerUSDA Forest ServiceEspanola Ranger DistrictSanta Fe National ForestExpanola, NM 87532(505) 753-7331

Dave ParsonsDirector, Aldo LeopoldResearch InstituteUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 8089Missoula, MT 59807(406) 542-4193

Marcia Patton–MalloryAssistant Director for ResearchUSDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research Station240 W. Prospect RoadFort Collins, CO 80526(970) 498-1157

Ted PutnumEquipment Specialist/PsychologistUSDA Forest ServiceMissoula Technology and Develop-

ment CenterBuilding 1, Fort MissoulaMissoula, MT 59804(406) 329-3965

Tom QuigleyProgram ManagerUSDA Forest Service Forestry and

Range Sciences Laboratory1401 Gekeler LaneLa Grande, OR 97850(541) 962-6534

APPENDIX B — CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

39

David (Sam) SandburgResearch Forester, Team LeaderFire and Global Change ResearchUSDA Forest ServicePacific Northwestern Research StationForestery Sciences Laboratory3200 SW Jefferson WayCorvallis, OR 97331(503) 750-7265

Jim SavelandFire EcologistVegetation Management and

Protection ResearchUSDA Forest Service201 14th St., SWWashington, DC 20250(202) 205-1561

Gordon SchmidtDeputy Director, Fire and Aviation

ManagementPacific Northwest RegionUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 3623Portland, OR 97208(503) 326-2391

Bodie ShawForest Manager for Confederated

TribesBureau of Indian Affairs1110 Wasco St.Warm Springs, OR 97761(541) 326-2391

Conrad SmithProfessor and Chairperson, Com-

munication and Mass Media Dept.University of WyomingP.O. Box 3904Laramie, WY 82071-3904(307) 766-6273

William SommersDirector, Vegetation Management

and Protection ResearchUSDA Forest Service201 14th St., SWWashington, DC 20250(202) 205-1561

Wilhelmina “Wini” SorensonFire Planning SpecialistUSDA Forest ServiceIntermountain Region324 25th St.Ogden, UT 84401(801) 625-5403

Neil SugiharaFire EcologistPacific Southwest RegionFire and Aviation ManagementUSDA Forest Service3735 Neely WayMather, CA 95655(916) 364-2854

Elaine Kennedy SutherlandResearch EcologistUSDA Forest ServiceForestry Sciences LaboratoryNortheastern Forest Experiment

Station359 Main RoadDelaware, OH 43015-8670(614) 368-0090

William SweetFMSOUSDA Forest ServiceGeorge Washington & Jefferson

National Forests5162 Valleypoint ParkwayRoanoke, VA 24018(540) 265-5210

Tom SwetnamAssociate ProfessorDendrochronology and Watershed

ManagementLaboratory of Tree Ring ResearchUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ 85721(520) 621-2112

Dave ThomasRegional Fuels SpecialistFire and Aviation ManagementUSDA Forest ServiceIntermountain Region324 25th St.Ogden, UT 84401(801) 625-5505

James P. ThomasAviation and Fire Staff OfficerUSDA Forest ServiceSuperior/Chippewa National ForestsMinnesota Interagency Fire Center402 11th St., SEGrand Rapids, MN 55744(218) 327-4568

Jan van WagtendonkResearch ScientistU.S. Geological SurveyYosemite Field StationP.O. Box 700El Portal, CA 95318(209) 379-1885

Jim WebbForest SupervisorUSDA Forest ServiceSan Juan/Rio Grande National

Forest1803 W. Hwy 160Monte Vista, CO 81144(719) 852-6247

Jerry WilliamsDirector; Fire, Aviation & Air Man-

agement, Northern RegionUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 7669Missoula, MT 59807(406) 329-3402

Robin WillsCalifornia Fire Program ManagerThe Nature Conservancy13700 Monte Vista Road LakeElsinore, CA 82530(909) 329-3402

Larry WoodChief, Forest Protection Bureau3125 Conner Blvd.Tallahassee, FL 32399-1630(904) 488-6595

APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

Global FirePersonal

40

Time period

Pre-1960 Learn to ski and become awareof forests, mountains andsnow

Rock and roll lives

Travel around the world

Born!

Growing up babyboomer

Growing up in a small, safeSwedish community

Basic values in a small, ruralcommunity

Soldiers back from WWII; goingto school; working in forests;increased use of naturalresources; major events drivenby regional overpopulation

Federal agencies (USFS, NPS)born

1910 Weeks Act

1933 10 AM policy

National planning and manage-ment

1930s public works projects inthe West

Industrial revolution

Sand County Almanac by AldoLeopold

Gandhi dies

Holocaust

1910 Fires in northern Rockies1922 Forest Service hires Harry

Gisborne as fire scientistBeginning of fire prevention;

suppressing “all” fires; aerialfirefighting

1925 Fire research at PriestRiver

Gisborne develops fire dangermeter

Fire environmental studies1912 Plummer compiles fire

statistics and maps of 1910fires and lightning fire mono-graph

1910 Frederick Clements studiesand publishes reports on fireand succession on lodgepolepine

Pulaski and radios used in firefightingFires in the Selway1937 Journal of Forestry states

that lightning-caused fires are<5%

Personal Global Fire


41

Time period

Pre-1960 1937 Blackwater Canyon fire, 15dead, leads to research and,after WWII, to professionalfirefighting

1940s & 1950s Harold Weaverworks on the relationshipsbetween fire and ponderosapine ecosystems

1949 Mann Gulch1950s Modern Wildland Fire

Science born1950s droughts in Southern U.S.

affect fire policyFire labs established1954 Southern Fire Lab startedRegional fire danger systemsChainsaw and brush hook1959 Forest Fire: Control and

Use publishedNFDRSApplication of WWII technology

to fire suppression1958 Tall Timbers founded

Atomic age; U.S. bombing ofJapan; “stop, drop and hide”

1957 Sputnik testing in NewMexico

Atomic testing in New Mexico

Smokey Bear

Technology to attack fire

Large fire events shape firemanagement policy

See houses along mountainsfrom Denver to Pueblo

See father’s dissatisfaction withsocial perception that all fire isbad; father a district ranger

Immigrate from Cuba

Grow up in New York City;experience Eastern U.S.forests

Fight forest fires


Global FirePersonal

42

Time period

1960-1974 College graduation, marriage,and children

Teach at universities

JFK; Peace Corps in Nepal

Education; anti-war demonstra-tions; learn about agentorange and tropical forestdestruction.

MS fire science; ties to fire lab

Ph.D fire

First position in the ForestService

Attend Biswell Field Day atWhitaker Forest

Fight first wildfire as a 15-yearold Boy Scout

Hot Shot Crew job

Permanent position in fireresearch

Graduate high school, headWest

Dad takes me on my first wildfire

Jet aircraft

Bay of Pigs

Reality check

U.S. civil rights movementbegins

Kennedy assassination

Apollo program

Scientific proof of global change

Silent Spring by Rachael Carson

Wilderness Act

Vietnam; distrust of large organi-zations; belief that government(authority) would lie and thatthose not in authority couldchallenge effectively

Sleeping Child fireCooper’s fire ecology paper

publishedEarly 1960s CE Van Wagner

begins experimental crownfires at Petawawa

1962 First Tall Timbers FireConference

Northern Fire Lab dedicated1964 Synoptic Weather Types

Associated with Critical FireWeather published

Rx burning, Vietnam styleRetarded drops, helitorchNPS and USFS experiments on

prescribed natural fireLeopold report on fire and

wildlife in parksFirst “Let Burn” policy in WestControversies: FS clearcuttingRothermel fire modelClean Air Act



43

Time period

1960-1974 Johnson “credibility gap”

Flower children vs. mainstream

Feminist movement

Feminine Mystique by BettyFriedan

First humans on the moon

Environmental laws

Earth Day

Satellites, reality of earth limits

Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich

Love Canal

FIRESCOPE and Interagencycooperative fire management

Career appointment

Live in South Africa; see howinfluential culture is to thechoices we make

First fire jumpPh.D. in fire ecologyLeave Chicago; begin to experi-

ence outdoors firsthandBeckwith fire escapesStart smokejumpingJob in YosemiteWork on USFS Fire CrewStart of a lifetime friendshipCollege textbook learningFind natural science; leave homeCamping in the RockiesBurn with Henry Wright’s crewStill teaching atmospheric

scienceChance to do thingsMeet some of the “gods” of fire

research

FIRESCOPE ICS due to fires inCalifornia

First university fire programsFire shelters; foam; NomexAmerica Burning report issued

by National Fire Protectionand Control Administration

First wilderness fire manage-ment plans

NPS fire program challengedResearch moves into large-scale

fire systemsFire Danger Rating System in

useKessell’s gradient modeling

research at Glacier NPAVHRR monitoring of fire eventsDMSP-OLS mapping of active

firesFire histories developed in SWPine barrens in New Jersey

burned regularly to managepitch pine ecosystems

Effects of Fire series published


Global FirePersonal

44

Time period

1975-1985 AVHRR launched

Increase in sensitivity to tropicalforest destruction

Nixon, first confirmation that thegovernment lied; governmentcredibility declines

Sustained economic growtherodes sense of individualresponsibility

1976-1997 Pacific has higheraverage SSTs; tropical landmasses drying out and accel-erating deforestation

Computer Age, PCs give com-puting power to the masses

Consumption increases

CFCs tagged to ozone decline

1981 U.S. has huge budgetdeficits; Graham-Ruddman Act

Star wars/Space shuttle

1982-1983 El Nino alters climateand biomass burning

Raise 2 children; conduct re-search; USFS appointment

First fire season

Finish college

Active fire research

Graduate high school

First FS job, fire lookout

Involved in snow and avalancheforecasting and control; FSmanagement

Begin physiology/fire effects

Decide upon career with FS

Luke & McArthur (1978) publishBushfires in Australia

BEHAVE system

FIRECAST

Peak funding for fire research

New fire policy recognizesnatural role

Interdisciplinary research em-phasis, mostly site focus

1981 first woman smokejumper

Recognition of “exotics” problem

1982 S. Pyne begins publishingfire info

Exploding interest in and fundingfor fire ecology research

Urban interface issue escalates



45

Time period

1985-1990 Career change

Seasonal job with FS

On first overhead team

Move to Missoula, begin study-ing lightening and fire

Master’s degree in forestry

Work with pine beetle crew inColorado Front Range

Move to DC

Mop-up fires at Moose Creek

Build house

Booming economy

Domestic use of space technol-ogy

Persian Gulf War, burning oilwells

Terrorism

Global awareness increases

Recognition of climate change,Global Change Program

Clean Air Act

Earth Summit at Rio, growingrecognition of deforestationconcerns and global intercon-nections

Iron curtain falls, define a newenemy

Access to former USSR andChina opens

Global economy develops

Bull stockmarket

1986 Urban interface, “WildfireStrikes Home”

Crow’s 1988 Forest Sciencepaper on fire and oaks

1988 news coverage of Yellow-stone fires shows lack ofunderstanding of fire as anatural process and sets backthe reintroduction of thenatural role of fire

Major wildland/urban interfacetrials began to rollback “goodsamaritan” protections for firemanagers

Satellite maps, fuels, and NFDRSIntegration of fire/vegetation

research interestGrand Canyon Visibility Trans-

port CommissionDude fireMajor reorganization of FS Fire

ResearchMore complex ecological models

incorporating disturbanceDevelopment of fire remote

sensing approaches accelerates


Global FirePersonal

46

Time period

1991-Present Teach ecosystem managementand disturbance regimes

Join FS research; shift emphasisfrom snow to fire

Discover whole systemdynamics

Kids are gone!

Fire effects project leader

One child out of college, one togo

Clean Air Act, 1990 amend-ments

Republicans take over Houseand Senate; contract withAmerica

National Defense drive forscience declines

Human population growth curvesteepens

Softening of nationalism

DOI Wildland Fire ResearchInitiative

Real-time georeferenced infor-mation on fire spread avail-able, but rarely used

South Canyon fatalitiesMajor interface fires; Spokane,

OaklandRecord fire seasonsFirefighters trapped at Dome

and SheppardFire policy recognizes natural

role; leads to more confusionPublic distrust of FS ecosystem

management goalsWide recognition of paradox:

suppressing fires now meansmore intense fires later

Integration of human values withfire effects begins

Focus on global effects of fire/fuel/climate interactions

Landscape context of fire beginsto be considered

Basic behavior research andeducation



47

Time period

1991-Present Become fire management staffofficer

Start work in Russia

Competitive grants

Moved to Washington Office, FSFire Research

Plan for second half of career

Laptop computers; Internet; GIS,GPS; information overload

1995 hurricanes

Increased micromanagement byCongress (prescribed fire, firesuppression, and commodityproduction)

Brazil and Indonesia on fire

El Nino

Recognition of human factors inaccidents and fatalities

IMRT ReportsWFAS on netFARSITE; 3D fireRecognition of relationship

between oak regenerationfailure and fire suppressionrecognized

Grand Canyon Visibility Trans-port Commission

Application of GIS to land-basedobservations of fire history andfire behavior

Reintroducing fire to ecosystemFire shelter studyTridata study of firefighter cultureFire Policy ReviewSNEPAVIRIS fuels databaseNWT Crown Fire ExperimentRegional-scale estimates of

change in fire regimesEPA; FACA air quality

APPENDIX D — FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE PRINCIPLES

48

PRINCIPLES

1 . An attempt is made to get the “wholesystem” into the same room. The wholesystem consists of stakeholders frominside and outside government fireresearch. Whereever they are from, allstakeholders should have a stake in theoutcome of the Future Search Conference.

2 . Stakeholders are asked to think globallybut act locally.

3 . Stakeholders, through participation inthe conference, seek “common ground” —issues that everyone agrees on. Theonly issues that move forward are issuesthat can be labeled “common ground.”

4 . The Future Search Conference is dividedinto smaller working groups. Thesegroups are “self-managing” in that theycome up with their own methods oftime and conflict management.

5 . Even though there are experts at theconference, no one person or group isseen or used as an expert.

6 . A Future Search Conference is not atraditional problem-solving meeting.The goal of a Future Search Conferenceis to produce “ideal future scenarios”that stakeholders are willing to worktoward in the future.

CONFERENCE STRUCTURE

1 . At the Wildland Fire Research FutureSearch Conference, participants wereasked to focus on their individualhistory and as a fire community. Thishistory was recorded on a wall chart inthe meeting room.

2 . Fire Research stakeholders were askedto view the present. A large “mindmap” with all the fire research trendson it was produced. The stakeholderswere asked to vote on the most impor-tant issues.

3 . The Future Search Conference facilita-tors asked the stakeholders to constructa list of “prouds” and “sorries”—thingsthey feel good about and things theyfeel sorry about in relation to the trendspreviously identified.

4 . An ideal future scenario for fire re-search was developed and presented asa skit by each mixed stakeholder group.

5 . From the ideal future scenarios, com-mon themes were listed.

6 . Action plans were developed from thelist of common themes, but only if thefire research stakeholders were willingto individually commit to working onthem.

REFERENCES

Bunker, Barbara Benedict and Billie T.Alban. 1997. Large Group Interventions:Engaging the Whole System for RapidChange. Jossey-Bass Publishers. SanFrancisco.

Weisbord, Marvin and Sandra Janov. 1995.Future Search: An Action Guide toFinding Common Ground for Organiza-tions and Communitites. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

“Certainly the most exciting and richlytextured organizational event I haveparticipated in recently are “FutureSearch Conferences . . . ” The richnessof interpretations and the multi-layeredcomplexity of the future scenarios thatare created have convinced me of thepowers of observation and perceptionthat participation brings forth. In theseconferences, wave functions collapseinto all sorts of strange and powerfulinterpretations because the wholesystem is in the room, generatinginformation, thinking about itself andwhat it wants to be.”

— Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and theNew Science: Learning about

Organizations from an Orderly Universe

“To be a bureaucrat is to experience ourself as a victim. Ittakes strength and courage to acknowledge that the successand failure of our project, our function, our business, in factour lives, is our own creation. . . . Having the courage to seethe part of the problem that we have created, that is our rakewe have stepped on, empowers us to take action to fix it.”

— Peter Block, The Empowered Manager:Positive Political Skills at Work

“Don’t get too prepared . . . . A lot of people who want to go into business wantto know everything. They never do anything. My idea . . . is get out on the damnfield and start kicking the ball . . . . All I had was the inspiration. I didn’t knowthat much about soccer. I didn’t know there were even two sizes of soccerballs . . . . So the next thing with inspiration is “get out and start doing some-thing.” The doing part of it is picking up the phone, calling a few friends, andsaying, “Why don’t you meet me over on Mercer Island and I’ve got an ideahere. I really feel it.” So when they come over, I pull out the soccer ball. Theyalready have their crutches, and we start kicking it . . . . Then things start hap-pening.”— Don Bennett, businessman and first amputee to climb Mount Ranier, on the

Founding of the Amputee Soccer League; from The Leadership Challenge

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimina-tion in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibitedbases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who requirealternative means for communication of program information (Braille,large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office ofCivil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper

Vegetation Management FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE OTES

Documents

Transcript of Vegetation Management FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE OTES