Back to Main Page
 Wildland Fire Research
Future Search Conference Notes
Park City, UT - October 6-8, 1997

VI. Action Plans

------------------------------------
Next Steps
------------------------------------

With common themes and potential projects identified, participants were asked to begin planning action steps for the items they felt strongly about. Five groups organized around the following themes:

1. Create an interdepartmental competitive grant program.

2. Create a coordinated response to managing fire regimes for ecosystem health.

3. Create an environment for management and research collaboration.

4. Integrate social science expertise.

5. Assess ecological risk.

1. Create an interdepartmental competitive grant program

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

This group determined a preliminary framework for an integrated program function and outlined some chief obstacles to overcome. Their framework consisted of two new organizational groups working in tandem to establish a national coordinated research agenda and award funds accordingly. The first group would include participation from many stakeholders at multiple levels and would meet at least annually. The purpose of this first group would be to define a 10-year vision and update it annually.

This vision would be conveyed to a smaller working group, a Fire Sciences Team, consisting of high-level managers and researchers who would transform the vision into a workable grant program that invites and reviews proposals, awards funds, and provides useful performance feedback to funding agencies.

The group will convene an ad hoc team including themselves and representatives of other agencies, such as the Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, on November 5th. At that time, they will begin to detail a strategy to obtain a commitment from the leadership of the interagency partners.

Any new mechanism will require control of a substantial portion of research dollars to affect the direction of the system. Thus, agencies must be willing to cede some of their authority and resources. Legislative action may be necessary. The ad hoc team will examine and learn from other successful, competitive grant processes such as those at the National Science Foundation. They hope to submit a plan to agency leadership within a year.

Although similar efforts have been made and have failed, this group feels strongly that a mechanism for coordinated agenda setting and awarding of funds is necessary. They see a renewed commitment to this end, especially among those in attendance at the Future Search Conference.

2. Create a coordinated response to managing fire regimes for ecosystem health

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

This group outlined key researchable questions that could be addressed by a coordinated research program considering management sector needs. The questions were:

The group devised a preliminary plan for action after the Future Search Conference. They will form an ad hoc management and research team at the national level to articulate the issues collaboratively and to define end products. Team membership will include federal, state, and private land managers and federal researchers and academics. The group will be organized by geographic region and commonality of objectives. The goal of this group will be to define two or more options based on time, resources, and success probability.

In the first three months, efforts will be made to assemble the team and link its work to current administrative and land management activities. They will define the problem subsets, identify what is known, and determine the commonality of different issues. Members envision that the coordinated team will eventually undertake specific research problems and provide valuable feedback nationwide.

3. Create an environment for management and research collaboration

(Group members: Parsons, Anderson, Patton-Mallory, Hubbard, Braun, Cohen, Maloney, Williams, Sweet)

This group outlined many of the general strategic obstacles that prevent greater collaboration. They suggested that a general lack of consensus about the role of basic research versus applied research and the absence of an overall common agenda at the top hampered communication. Specifically, they asked, "What is the research agenda, and how does it support land management planning objectives?"

The group suggested further action to identify instances of better coordination among managers and researchers at local levels.

4. Integrate social science expertise

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

This group agreed that the wildland fire research community had crossed some significant thresholds in its understanding of social issues and the potential benefit of social science expertise. There exists a growing recognition that ecosystem management includes people and their behavior. Technical solutions alone are not sufficient to deal with the social aspects of implementation. However, they also recognized that the absence of social science integration in wildland fire research is a systems problem. Social science is currently not well represented in the system. Funding and opportunities for communication across disciplines are rare. Misunderstandings continue to occur. For example, of the many different disciplines within the social sciences, which are the most relevant and germane to wildland fire research and management?

The group is committed to identify, within three months, an ongoing research/management project as a candidate for new collaboration. They hope social scientists will collaborate to discover what needs could be met through their involvement. For example, although the physical parameters of smoke, inherent in prescribed burning, are known and are the subject of continuing research, the social parameters, such as its affect on neighborhoods, the likelihood of community opposition, and how best to educate and use the media, are not well understood.

This group sees social/physical science integration as a process that requires sufficient time for members of the different disciplines to communicate effectively. By the end of the year, they group hope to produce a case study that reports the successes and failures of one such integration. They will continue discussing potential projects until they have identified a few candidates.

5. Assess ecological risk

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

This group focused on the problem of ecological risk assessment in watersheds. They determined that a national theoretical framework that assesses ecological risk, capitalizes on regional differences, focuses on ecological integrity, and permits analysis at multiple scales should be a goal.

The group noted that work on such a framework had begun under the auspices of the EPA. On October 19, 1997, Julio Betancourt began a series of watershed tours for the U.S. Geological Survey. He will use the EPA framework to begin identifying research needs consistent with the framework. This activity will be part of an ongoing refinement of national issues and research needs concerning post-fire storm probability, hydrophobicity, nitrification of water, and the effects of post-fire rehabilitation.

Other action items include the incorporation of the EPA framework within current continuing education classes and the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team watershed assessment. Within a year, the group hopes to have assembled sufficient information to write proposals and obtain funding for specific research.

"...people fail to adapt because of the distress provoked by the problem and the changes it demands. They resist the pain, anxiety, or conflict that accompanies a sustained interaction with the situation. Holding onto past assumptions, blaming authority, scapegoating, externalizing the enemy, denying the problem, jumping to conclusions, or finding a distracting issue may restore stability and feel less stressful than facing and taking responsibility for a complex challenge."
--Ronald Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers

------------------------------------
Personal Intentions
------------------------------------

Jim Douglas -- "The actions listed today are NOT the only actions that will be taken. The short time didn't allow us to fully develop actions."

Enoch Bell -- "On November 5, 1997 at 1 PM in Riverside, CA, Bill Leenhouts, Sue Conard, and myself will discuss ways to coordinate fire research nationally. All are invited."

Kathy Malone -- "I will work harder with research folks and try to be a catalyst for connectivity and cohesion."

Lori Osterstock -- "I'll share this information with fire people. A lot of people really care about fire research but don't know how to provide input; I'll try to facilitate the process."

Jim Saveland -- "I will get documentation of this conference out for review and establish an Internet site where these groups can work."

Conrad Smith -- "I will apply my knowledge in a research team. I'm available to serve on any of the teams resulting from this conference."

Curt Topper -- "I will conduct a second survey to assess changes and determine where action items have gone. I will summarize trends and disseminate results in the spring."

Main Page | Preface | Acronyms | I. The Challenge | II. The Past | III. The Present
IV. Future Scenarios | V. Common Ground | VI. Action Plans | VII. Closing | VIII. Conclusions
Appendix A. | Appendix B. | Appendix C. | Appendix D. | Ordering A Printed Copy

Title: RMRS-P-1: Wildland Fire Research - Future Search Conference Notes: VI. Action Plans
Electronic Publish Date: December 16, 1998
Expires: Indefinite
Last Update: August 19, 2008

RMRS Publications | Order a publication | Contact Us