Prescribed Fire



| |

|Prescribed Fire |

|Influences on community support and management decisions in northwestern California |

| |

|Lenya N. Quinn-Davidson |

|1/12/2009 |

|Mid-term report prepared for the Community Forestry and Environmental Research Partnerships program. |

Introduction

Fire management, like landscape management more generally, is based on myriad layers of knowledge and perception. Such intimacies inform and sculpt the actions that managers and communities take with regard to fire, and the exploration of them is, therefore, essential to both the integrity and progress of management activities. Many studies have investigated perspectives on fire management; studies of both communities and managers have illuminated impediments to the emergence of proactive management strategies and the collaborative processes which are necessary for them to be realized. Of particular interest in this project are perceptions of prescribed fire as a fuels treatment and landscape restoration tool, and much research has likewise explored perceptions of prescribed fire and impediments to its use. In fire-prone communities, research has shown, for example, that misunderstandings of the role of fire in local ecosystems, air quality concerns, and lack of trust in land managers can impede support for prescribed fire activities (Shindler and Reed 1996, Kneeshaw et al. 2004, Winter et al. 2005, Liljeblad and Borrie 2006). Amongst fire managers, perceived impediments to the implementation of prescribed fire include environmental laws, air quality and smoke management regulations, public opinion, and lack of adequate funding and personnel, among others (Haines et al. 1998). The identification of issues and impediments to proactive fire management offers an essential platform for informed action and stewardship. Such issues must be identified and discussed on multiple levels, including both the community and management contexts.

In Hayfork, a small forest community in northern California and my hometown, fire is an incessant concern—whether an issue of forest health or community safety, the fire discourse emerges frequently enough to be considered a definitive component of life in Hayfork. This research project, originally developed to assess community members’ perceptions of prescribed fire as a fuels management and forest restoration tool, has evolved after an unprecedented 2008 wildfire season in northern California and sensitivity to the issues that surfaced in its wake. Though the project maintains a focus on perceptions of prescribed fire, it now necessarily weaves such perceptions into two larger contexts. In the Hayfork community, perceptions of prescribed fire are embedded in discussions of fire suppression tactics and forest management more generally. The project in Hayfork is, then, embedded in a regional context of the opportunities for and impediments to proactive fire use. Thus, this project aims to capture—at least to some extent—the essence of context and scale in the production of both fire knowledge and perception.

Perceptions of Fire Management in Hayfork, CA

Though my research in Hayfork has evolved somewhat in the last five months, it is the content rather than the structure that is most transformed. In concert with the ideas outlined in my original research proposal, the bulk of the project remains focused on community members’ perceptions of prescribed fire as a proactive fire management tool. The potential ecological, social, and financial benefits of prescribed fire render it a true possibility in the Hayfork area, especially given the community’s past and present interest in fuels management.[1]

The Watershed Research and Training Center (WRTC), a local non-profit and the community partner in this research, is interested in exploring opportunities for prescribed fire use in the area’s fuels treatment and fire hazard reduction efforts. Though the physical and environmental need for such fuels treatments may be clear to the WRTC, it is the social component which is unclear. This project will address questions developed in collaboration with the WRTC. Do landowners in the Hayfork area support the use of prescribed fire? Is there interest among landowners in a locally-based prescribed fire program, wherein information and resources could be made available? Within these broad questions, many interesting themes emerge. Interviews with community members will explore their experiences with both wildfire and fuels treatments, cultural and historical components of fire use, and perceptions of both the role of fire in local ecosystems and the ability of regional land managers to address fire management concerns.

Field work during the 2008 wildfire season distilled many issues of trust in local fire management, and it necessitated the inclusion of such topics as central to the project. In community meetings,[2] letters to the local newspaper, and informal interviews with me, community members expressed dissatisfaction with management actions this summer. There is widespread concern in the community over specific fire suppression tactics, including the extensive use of heavy equipment to build fire lines and the application of back-burning techniques. Both strategies were widely perceived as being indiscriminately and haphazardly employed. Likewise, there is extensive concern over the organization of fire suppression activities in which fire management teams are brought in from out of the area to direct operations. Community concern hinges on the lack of local knowledge and experience harbored in such teams.

As demonstrated above, the 2008 fire season engendered many questions within the Hayfork community. Many of these questions relate to fire suppression tactics, a subject not originally considered pertinent to my research on prescribed fire. Yet the participatory nature of this project necessarily creates a space for dialogue around these issues, and, in fact, their inclusion appears to round off the discussion of prescribed fire quite well. Fire suppression and proactive fuels management are two sides of the same coin, and discussion of proactive strategies may only be enriched by discussion of the alternative. Thus, in addition to the research questions outlined above, there now exist more questions, necessarily developed with sensitivity to the issues that community members have articulated. How do community members perceive the connection between fire suppression and proactive management activities? Does their frustration with the management of the 2008 fires stimulate consideration and discussion of proactive alternatives?

Methods

As explained above, preliminary research was performed during the 2008 fire season. Informal interviews and community participation served to elucidate issues of relevance in the community with regard to fire management. Though much of the published research on perceptions of fire management and prescribed fire has been quantitative and survey-based (Gardner et al. 1985, Manfredo et al. 1990, Winter et al. 2002, Kneeshaw et al. 2004, Brunson and Shindler 2004), I feel that qualitative research best suits the level of complexity and context inherent to the situation in Hayfork. The bulk of my research will consist of open-ended interviews with Hayfork-area landowners. Interviews will address the themes and questions outlined above, and when possible, they will be walking interviews wherein landowners may point out areas of interest or concern on their properties. Many landowners have had experiences with wildfire, fire suppression, and fuels treatments, and several landowners desire the opportunity to exhibit important areas. Interviewees are from a diverse set of backgrounds, including local ranchers, loggers, Native Americans, back-to-the-landers, more recent residents, and more. Interviews are scheduled for early- to mid-February. A community meeting in April or May will offer opportunities for discussion and interpretation of results.

Impediments to Prescribed Burning and the Formation of a

Northwestern California Prescribed Fire Council

Prescribed fire councils have formed in many parts of the country in order to identify and address impediments to the use of prescribed fire. Such councils aim to facilitate interaction and collaboration between agencies and communities, to provide support and resources for fire use practitioners, and to connect fire science and fire management communities. Other objectives of prescribed fire councils include the proliferation of information pertinent to fire use, litigation and lobbying on behalf of fire restoration, and other general fire advocacy work. Prescribed fire councils are common in several parts of the country, including the Southeast and the Midwest, yet there is not a single prescribed fire council on the west coast. Interest in and use of prescribed fire amongst both scientists and managers in northwestern California has inspired the founding of a prescribed fire council for the region. The idea was spawned by Dr. Morgan Varner, a professor at Humboldt State University, former participant in Florida Prescribed Fire Councils, and member of my graduate committee.

My interest in prescribed fire and my connection to Dr. Varner made my choice to become involved in the formation of the council a natural one. In a meeting with several interested individuals (including staff from the WRTC), a draft of council objectives was developed. A primary objective of the Northwestern California Prescribed Fire Council, at least at this point, is the identification of impediments to prescribed fire use in the council region. Thus, as a complement to my research with Hayfork-area landowners, I’ve decided to do a brief survey of fire managers in the council region. The survey will identify impediments to fire use in the region, offer a platform for the nascent prescribed fire council, and provide a valuable context for my work in Hayfork.

Methods

Though public perceptions of prescribed fire are well-researched, research on the perceptions and influences on decisions within the fire management community is relatively limited. In a 1998 study, Haines et al. explored influences on prescribed burning in the national forest system. They surveyed fuels management officers (FMOs) from each U.S. national forest, asking them to rate the importance of a range of impediments to prescribed fire. In a more recent study, Martha Williamson identified influences on the authorization of wildland fire use by US Forest Service (USFS) district rangers (2006). In this study, district rangers were asked to classify the importance of a range of variables in their decisions to authorize wildland fire use. Both of these studies focused solely on influences within a particular management agency (in both cases, the USFS). My survey will focus on management activities and influences in a particular geographic area (the Northwestern California Prescribed Fire Council region). The survey will therefore include the range of management agencies and NGOs for which prescribed fire is a potential management action. In order to capture local subtleties and issues, surveys will be distributed on as local a level as possible. For the USFS, this will mean contacting managers on a district level rather than on a national forest level; organization of other agencies is similar and should allow for an analogous approach.

The survey of fire managers will provide a general picture of prescribed fire activities in the region of the budding council. It will summarize the planned acreage of prescribed burns for each of the last three years, the actual acreage burned for those years, and the perceived impediments to prescribed fire by managers. As in the study by Haines et al. (1998), the survey will ask fire managers to rate impediments by their relative levels of importance. The survey will also ask managers to identify their personal levels of support or commitment to prescribed fire use. As research by Williamson shows, personal commitment to the restoration of fire can be the most important determinant of management decisions (2006). It will be interesting to similarly explore the values inherent to fire management decisions in our region.

Fire managers will be contacted by phone and surveys will be distributed by the beginning of February. An initial meeting of the Northwestern California Prescribed Fire Council is being planned for late March, and it is my intent that the information gathered in this survey be presented and discussed at the meeting. Meeting attendees will include local and regional fire managers and representatives from the National Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils.

The Role of Participatory Research

Participatory processes have been vital to this project. The original research question was developed with the WRTC, my community partner, and it has progressed with the help and interest of many other community members. I feel that my being a Hayfork community member also augments the participatory nature of this project, as it allows for increased understanding and sensitivity to context. The addition of the Northwestern California Prescribed Fire Council component to my project was also a participatory process, as both the identification of a need for the council and the idea for the survey came either from members of the fire science/management communities or from my collaboration with them.

Though I am currently just beginning the bulk of my research, I feel that the participatory processes leading up to this point have been crucial to the integrity of the project. As mentioned previously, my research questions have evolved somewhat since their inception; much of this evolution can be attributed to community input and participation. Interview questions and project goals have been discussed with and critiqued by diverse community leaders (from Native American, environmentalist, and logging groups) throughout the process. I feel that community members are happy with their levels of involvement, and I’ve received several comments to that effect. Perhaps the biggest challenge has been consideration of ways to include community members in the collection and analysis of data. The CFERP workshop in Vermont offered valuable insight into participatory methods. I often refer back to the participatory bulls-eye provided in one of the workshops, as it is a useful tool for self and project evaluation. I have not devised fruitful ways to include community members in the data collection, but I feel that their involvement in both the development and analysis (to occur in the iterative interview process and the meeting planned for late spring) of the project offers them meaningful partnership in the research. There are inherent challenges to participatory research, such as precious time commitments from community members, yet I feel that my approach offers a balance that is neither exclusive nor an imposition.

Both aspects of my project—the exploration of fire management issues in Hayfork and the development of a regional prescribed fire council—pose exciting possibilities for both the involved communities and the landscape. In Hayfork, community members are anxious for the opportunity to discuss their experiences and ideas, and the management community may be more open to such input if it is articulated in a cohesive manner. In this way, I hope that my project may increase communication and collaboration between the community and local land management agencies. Community-agency collaboration in a nearby national forest has recently led to the mandated inclusion of community liaisons in future fire response activities. I hope that such progress is contagious and that similar arrangements may soon be made in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and beyond. My project will also give the WRTC a platform for the development of a landowner-based prescribed fire program. Continued and expanded work by the WRTC may only benefit the community, as they consistently emphasize the connections between job creation, community access to resources, fuels treatments, and forest restoration. I see the inception of the Northwestern California Prescribed Fire Council as a more regional step in a proactive direction. I hope that this council, and my survey in service of the council, will also engender increased communication and collaboration around impediments to prescribed fire in the region. Research that illuminates public and management perceptions of prescribed fire is instrumental to efforts aimed at increasing support, and increased support for prescribed fire will be instrumental to the restoration of fire regimes, landscape resilience, and vital community-place interactions.

  

Works Cited

Brunson, Mark and Bruce Shindler. 2004. “Geographic Variability in Social Acceptance of Wildland Fuels Management in the Western United States.” Society and Natural Resources. 17: 661-678.

Gardner, Philip D.; Cortner, Hanna J.; Widaman, Keith F.; and Kathryn J. Stenberg. 1985. “Forest-user Attitudes toward Alternative Fire Management Policies.” Environmental Management. 9(4): 303-312.

Haines, Terry K.; Martinez, Jorge; and David A. Cleaves. 1998. “Influences on Prescribed Burning Activity in the United States National Forest System.” International Forest Fire News. 19: 43-46.

Kneeshaw, Katie; Vaske, Jerry J.; Alan D. Bright; and James D. Absher. 2004. “Situational Influences of Acceptable Wildland Fire Management Actions.” Society and Natural Resources. 17: 477-489.

Liljeblad, Adam and William T. Borrie. 2006. “Trust in Wildland Fire and Fuel Management Decisions.” International Journal of Wilderness. 12(1): 39-43.

Manfredo, Michael J.; Fishbein, Martin; Haas, Glenn E.; and Alan E. Watson. 1990. “Attitudes Toward Prescribed Fire Policies: the public is widely divided in its support.” Journal of Forestry. July: 19-23.

Schindler, Bruce and M. Reed. 1996. Forest management in the Blue Mountains: Public perspectives on prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Williamson, Martha A. 2006. “Influences on USFS District Rangers’ Decision to Authorize Wildland Fire Use.” USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-41.

Winter, Gregory J.; Vogt, Christine; and Jeremy S. Fried. 2002. “Fuel Treatments at the Wildland-Urban Interface: Common Concerns in Diverse Regions.” Journal of Forestry. January/February: 15-21.

Winter, Greg; Vogt, Christine; and Sarah McCaffrey. 2005. “Community views of fuels management on the Mark Twain National Forest and comparisons to other study sites.” USDA Forest Service Survey Data Report. North Central Research Station.

-----------------------

[1] The Watershed Research and Training Center and many other Hayfork community members have long been involved in community-based fire and fuels management projects. Though many fuels treatments have been implemented in the Hayfork area by these groups, prescribed fire has yet to be effectively integrated into local fire management activities.

[2] The US Forest Service held a series of community meetings to discuss fire suppression activities during the 2008 fire season. In these meetings, they explained suppression strategies and tactics, and they addressed community concerns and questions.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download