United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Vegetation Management

and Protection Research

Fire and Aviation Management

Washington, D.C.

Proceedings RMRS–P–1

WILDLAND FIRE RESEARCH

FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE NOTES

PARK CITY, UTAH

OCTOBER 6 – 8, 1997
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The USDA Forest Service funded the

conference and publication of this report. No

fee was charged to encourage conference

attendance.

I thank Future Search Conference facilitators, Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff, for

their hard work, interest, and commitment to

wildland fire research. A special thanks to the

conference organizers and documentation

team; these people are listed in Appendix A.

Jim Saveland, Conference Organizer

USDA Forest Service

Vegetation Management and

Protection Research

You may order printed copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label

form through one of the following media. Please include the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1719

E-mail rschneider/rmrs@fs.fed.us

Forest Service Intranet Richard.Schneider/rmrs:fs

FAX (970) 498-1660

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

3825 E. Mulberry Street

Fort Collins, CO 80524-8597

A web page for this Future Search Conference will be located on the Forest Service home

page at http://www.fs.fed.us/land/#fire. Users may make comments and receive feedback about

the conference via a chatroom that will be available spring 1998.

OUTCOMES

This conference provided an arena for

identifying common key issues that are

shaping wildland fire research. Commonly

identified desired outcomes include:

• Research, integrated across disciplines,

and management form partnerships.

• Communication between management

and research is effective and continuous.

• Responsive and proactive research

balances long-term scientific goals with

rapidly changing management issues.

• The success of research and development is measured by on-the-ground

implementation.

• Fire research is responsive to national

goals and receives long-term, stable

political support.

Action plans were developed around the

following five key 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.

Saveland, Jim; Thomas, Dave, tech coord.

1998. Wildland Fire Research: Future Search

Conference Notes; October 6-8, 1997; Park

City, Utah. Proceedings RMRS-P-1. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 48 p.

NOTE:

To quickly publish these meeting notes, the

drafts did not receive conventional Forest

Service editorial processing. Views expressed

are those of meeting attendees and not necessarily those of the Forest Service or other

organizations represented at the meeting. Trade

names are used for information purposes and

do not imply endorsement or preferential

treatment by the Forest Service or other

organizations represented at the meeting.
WILDLAND FIRE RESEARCH

FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE NOTES

PARK CITY, UTAH

OCTOBER 6 – 8, 1997

SPONSORS:

USDA Forest Service, Vegetation Management and Protection Research

Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management

Washington, D.C.

PUBLISHER:

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Fort Collins, Colorado

Proceedings RMRS-P-1

April 1998
PREFACE

The USDA Forest Service sponsored

the Future of Wildland Fire Research

Conference held in Park City, Utah, on

October 6-8, 1997. The participants,

scientists and decision and policy makers

came from various government agencies

and non-government organizations. These

individuals gathered to discuss the past,

present, and future of wildland fire

research in a unique and innovative

setting. The conference was an experiment, a beginning.

Due to size limitations and conflicting

schedules, many who might have contributed to this effort were unable to do so.

We hope this report accurately expresses the

commitment and work of those attending.

Government and non-government organizations represented included USDA Forest

Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Park

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Los Alamos National Laboratory,

National Center for Atmospheric Research,

National Weather Service, National Aeronautic and Space Administration, Canadian

Forest Service, California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection, Colorado State

Forest Service, Florida Forest Protection

Bureau, Tall Timbers Research Station, University of Washington, University of Idaho,

University of Montana, University of Wyoming, University of Arizona, Fire Protection

Research Foundation, and The Nature

Conservancy.

CONFERENCE GOALS

This Future Search Conference was a

task-focused planning effort that relied on

the knowledge, expertise, and experience

of individuals interested in improving

wildland fire research. The goals of this

conference were to:

• discover common ground in the

wildland fire research community;

• develop a future vision of wildland

fire research; and

• devise a set of action plans to

achieve that vision.

To accomplish these goals, all conference attendees participated in a series of

activities to increase their common pool of

information about wildland fire research.

Some exercises focused on the past,

others looked at the present, still others

projected the future.

CONFERENCE STRUCTURE

Each participant was a member of two

groups: a stakeholder group and a mixed

group. The group type was appropriate to

the exercise. The conference planning

committee identified eight stakeholder

groups and eight mixed groups. The

stakeholder 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 stakeholders in wildland fire research who

could commit to actions and plans. Conference participants were identified and

recruited by a conference steering committee (Appendix A) to attend the conference. Stakeholder and mixed group members are listed by group in Appendix A.

Conference participants are listed individually in Appendix B.

Each group generated information and

ideas on flip-charts and made presentations. Two facilitators helped keep the

groups 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 to

include an exhaustive list or to verify each meaning.

AQ Air Quality

BEMRP Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research

Project

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAA Clear Air Act

DOI Department of the Interior

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FS Forest Service

GIS Geographic Information System

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

IMRT Interagency Management Review Team

ICRB Interior Columbia River Basin

ICS Incident Command System

I&M Inventory and Monitoring

IPA Integrated Planning and Assessment

LMP Land Management Plan

LTERS Long-Term Ecological Research Site

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NF National Forest

NFS National Forest System

NP National Park

NFDRS National Fire Danger Rating System

NSF National Science Foundation

OH Overhead

PL Project Leader

PNF Prescribed Natural Fire

Rx Prescribed Fire

RD&A Research, Development, and Applications

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WFAS Wildland Fire Assessment System
I. THE CHALLENGE

1

The challenge for the wildland fire

research community is to meet the rapidly

changing and diverse needs of fire managers, ecosystem scientists, and society.

Traditionally, this close-knit community

has had a well-defined mission; to support

effective fire protection and the use of fire

by land management agencies. Recently

that mission and output have become

more diffuse, just as the demand for

traditional support has expanded.

As the importance of natural disturbance

has become more widely appreciated, fire

science has become increasingly relevant

to the ecological, social, and physical

sciences. In conjunction, fire scientists are

often aligning themselves with colleagues

in other disciplines. This beneficial trend

can lead to a perception that fire scientists

are unresponsive to traditional clients or

that they lack a common sense of purpose.

Fire managers, faced with the greatest

challenges in their history, struggle to:

• restore and maintain ecosystem health;

• decrease fire hazard, especially in the

wildland-urban interface;

• improve cost effectiveness of suppression, especially reduce the cost of large

fires;

• improve safety of fire operations;

• anticipate effects of global change; and

• protect environmental quality.

Management action increasingly depends on scientific

knowledge and on the ability

to mobilize scientific talents in

response to on-the-ground

needs.

Who constitutes the wildland fire research community as

it moves into this new era? Do

they retain a common sense of

purpose, shared values, and

mission? What past influences,

perceived trends, and future

visions guide wildland fire

research? Who will take a

leadership role in defining and

accomplishing the needs of

wildland fire research in future

decades? And, most critically,

what is the relationship of

wildland fire research to its

clients and how will it provide

research support for the new

Federal Wildland Fire Policy

and other strategic direction?

This conference assembled

representatives of the fire

research community, along

with principal clients, colleagues, and managers of

research, to discuss future challenges. An

energetic dialogue was conducted to begin

the important work of sharing ideas, forming

relationships, and initiating action. Participants shared visions of the future and made

personal commitments to meet future challenges. There is dedication, partly through

this document, to reach out to others

participating in the future of wildland fire.

—Conference Steering Committee
II. THE PAST

2

Participants were asked to bring to the

conference items or artifacts symbolizing

wildland fire research. Some items were

personal, others had universal meaning.

The anemometer with bullet holes

(below), symbolizes the chronic problems

in collecting weather data. Tree rings

continue to be useful records of fire

history. The BEHAVE program disks

remind us how far we have come in

computer modelling.

Giant sequoias in the Sierra

Nevada of California contain

numerous fire scars that record

the years of past surface burns.

These tree-ring records extend

back more than 2,000 years and

show that fires were frequent (at

least twice per decade before

circa 1860) and were often

correlated with droughts. Photo

by A.C. Caprio, Laboratory of

Tree-Ring Research, University

of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
II. THE PAST

3

Over the decades, global events, advances in technology, government regulations, and society’s expectations have

changed dramatically. To find common

ground for the future of wildland fire

research, it is important to look at the past

not as a static chain of events, but as an

evolutionary activity.

In the first conference exercise, members of the wildland fire community were

asked to share their histories. Single, brief

events may shape one’s future; a Rocky

Mountain ski trip may lead to a long,

accomplished career in natural resources; a

fleeting encounter with a charismatic

leader may inspire a successful public

career. For many participants, looking at

the past helped identify trends, define

roles, detect patterns, and recall personal

delights and sorrows.

The conference began with mixed

groups that included at least one member

from each stakeholder group. The assignment was to describe the past to discover

what has influenced the evolution of

wildland fire research. What brought the

community to its present state?

The conference room walls were lined

with large sheets of paper used to create

timelines. Each participant listed personal,

global, and wildland fire research events

on a timeline. The sheets of paper were

soon filled with personal recollections, key

global events,

and the history of

wildland fire

research.

When the

timelines were

completed, many

themes and

patterns emerged.

Despite the wide

range of stakeholders, the

results of this

exercise emphasized the commonality of

experience and

perspective. The

following is a

summary of the

timelines (Appendix C).

PERSONAL

Most participants were born before 1960

and many grew up in the Western U.S. on

farms or in rural towns. Participants commonly had significant outdoor experiences

leading to job and career choices. Many

first jobs were firefighting or fire-related.

Participants had lived in many places and

had a wide range of professional experience in geographically diverse areas.

Most group members were earning

advanced degrees during the 1960s and

1970s. Several had contact with charismatic

natural resource leaders such as Henry

Wright, Harold Weaver, and Harold Biswell.

In the 1980s many members’ careers

included bio-political experience with a

focus on and responsibility for fire

policy and research. Career tracks appear

more evolutionary than revolutionary;

few individuals had changed careers

rapidly.
II. THE PAST

4

By the 1990s, this well-educated group

had a significant amount of fire experience

and a high level of influence in fire management and research. Responsibility for

managing large land areas and numerous

published books and articles are indicators

of this group’s wealth of fire knowledge.

Although the group is highly influential,

most individuals recognize limits and

constraints. Some who consider their

positions bureaucratic, expressed discontentment stemming from the desire for

more hands-on research. Many, feeling a

sense of renewed energy, were willing to

devote more of themselves toward opportunities for integrated problem solving.

GLOBAL

In the past, increased focus and concentrated resources helped scientists deliver

results promptly. The bombing of Pearl

Harbor galvanized and focused the country. Research activities surrounding the

Manhattan Project, which produced the

first atomic bomb, exemplifies the urgent

demand for scientific answers and technology.

The post-World War II period saw major

technological and social changes. Much of

modern fire technology arose from the

war; surplus aircraft, improved fire suppression and aerial detection became

available. Use of and competition for

natural resources increased as soldiers

enrolled in colleges, built homes, and

worked outdoors. The spirit of controlling

nature was prevalent.

The Soviet Union challenged the U.S. in

space exploration in the 1950s. The space

race led to an infusion of research money

to universities and government-controlled

technological development. Electronic

equipment, such as remote sensing, aircraft,

satellites, global positioning systems, and

infrared were being developed. Seeing the

earth from space initiated a global perspective.

The Civil Rights and Women’s Movement gathered momentum in the 1960s. As

the Vietnam War continued, people began

to question the government’s authority.

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring sounded the

environmental alarm. Richard Nixon was

elected president.

The 1970s gave rise to greater environmental awareness and increased environmental actions. Love Canal, Three Mile

Island, and other human-induced disasters

revealed our vulnerability to technological

“accidents.” Population growth and gasoline shortages focused attention on the

earth’s resource limitations. The National

Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act were enacted.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the world

economy continued to grow, while the

earth’s natural resources continued to

decline. There were more competing

interests and a lack of common social

focus. Communication technology assisted

the fall of the Eastern bloc. The Internet

and other technologies are increasing

personal freedoms but also creating a

dichotomy; those on the information

highway and those looking for it.

WILDLAND FIRE RESEARCH

Fire research is an evolutionary process.

Suppression has received the longest and

most consistent research attention. Later

came activity-fuels research. Recently,

research activities have included the

ecological role of fire and natural fuels,

the results of which are being applied by

land managers to benefit ecosystems.

Fire research has historically been

tightly coupled with fire management and

the critical events that drive it. Research

projects, funding, and new management

policies typically follow fire-related disasters. These disasters are usually followed

by a policy review, along with increased

safety awareness, increased funding, and

emphasis on the need for fire research. An

early critical event was the the 1910 fires.

This event led to the beginning of fire

management. Following the Selway fires in
II. THE PAST

5

IMPLICATIONS

Physical, technological, and social

trends have implications for fire policies: How are we a part and how will

we evolve with the trends? We have

seen fire research and management

move toward ecosystem research and

management.

Political conservatism has resulted in

conservative fire research. Innovative

and creative research is often stifled by

prioritization. Forced into “safe” research, scientists are unlikely to venture out of traditional arenas. Because

fire research historically responds to

events, there is a need to generate a

sustained demand and proactive communication with the public and media.

Communications technology has had

a time-compressing effect; rapid solutions are expected. Although much

needed research is long-term and

highly complex, the management

expectation is to produce significant

results quickly.

A nationally coordinated fire research

program that establishes priorities,

tracks success, and builds program

support is needed. The program would

foster integrating and monitoring of

long-term ecological changes.

the 1930s, the 10 AM policy (fires will be

extinguished by 10 AM or a plan will be

initiated to extinguish the fire by 10 AM

the following day) went into effect. In

1988, Western fires, especially those in

Yellowstone, caused another examination

of fire policy; and the extensive and

numerous catastrophic fires in 1994 and

1996 were followed by further scrutiny of

fire policy and direction.

Other external drivers of fire research

include commodities, disaster, technology,

demographics, environmental politics, and

budgets. These are relatively short-term

events that commonly receive short periods of intense attention. Internal fire

research drivers include habit, tradition,

professionalism, individual bodies of

knowledge, myth, specialization, institutionalization, and chaos (response to

short-term events; no organized approach).

Safety awareness is fairly constant and has

increased slowly over time.

Fire labs were opened in the 1950s and

research shifted from data generalizations

to model simulations. Fire research programs and funding continues to be reactive to disaster.

The pre-1960s approach to fire research

and management was a focused attempt to

scientifically control nature. Prediction of

fire potential, behavior, and danger rating

systems were emphasized.

During the 1960s, seeds of the ecological use of fire were planted with the first

Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference and

the Leopold Report on Fire and Wildlife in

National Parks.

There was a transition from firefighting

science to fire ecology during the 1970s.

Formalized ecological research looking at

the role of fire restoration, regimes, and

ecology became widespread. The fuels

problem gained recognition as did the

natural role of fire. The environmental

movement brought several new laws,

regulations, and policies (e.g., National

Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act) that directly or indirectly affected

fire management.

During the 1980s, the Yellowstone fires

ignited debate about “let it burn” policies;

the public began to question firemanagement policies.

Federal agency reorganization and

downsizing in the 1990s resulted in a

decreased capacity to conduct research.

Simultaneously, increased public involvement in policy making and the

incorporation of social factors in research

occurred.

Fire research has become more integrated with related disciplines and interests; yet, further integration is needed.

Fire research remains dominated by

public-land fire management needs rather

than private needs. Current fire research

is increasingly complex and is incorporating various degrees of the social

dimension.
III. THE PRESENT

6

Increasing awareness of social issues

is a key trend.

Increasing social

value of air quality

and escalating

climate change are

current trends.
III. THE PRESENT

7

Looking at the past created a context to

view the present. To analyze the present

situation, participants formed eight stakeholder groups.

• Administration/Policy (two groups)

• Fire Behavior/Risk Management

• Fire Behavior/Physical Science

• Biology/Ecology/Hydrology (two

groups)

• Air Issues

• Social Science/Wilderness

The stakeholder groups used the analysis of the past to better understand the

present status of wildland fire research.

Looking at the present consisted of four

exercises: article summaries, group mind

map, stakeholder perspectives on trends,

and “prouds” and “sorries.”

Participants were asked to bring a

newspaper or magazine article that reflected an event, trend, or development

that is shaping the future of fire research.

Each person shared their article with their

group and discussed its significance.

Using this information, each group then

focused on the trends, events, and

developments shaping wildland fire

research today and in the future.

Next, all participants gathered to create

a mind map (page 8). The mind map

soon became a complex branched structure reflecting the diverse interrelated

issues relevant to wildland fire research.

Participants identified key issues and

trends in wildland fire research.

The next task for the stakeholder

groups was to identify which trends they

cared about, what actions they are taking,

and what actions they want to take.

Group findings were reported back to the

larger group in terms of what is being

done and what needs to be done about

each issue (pages 10-14).

The final task focused on how participants feel about the current situation,

each stakeholder’s contribution to what is

working, and their contribution to what is

not working. Each stakeholder group

listed issues and activities that they are

currently associated with that they are

proud of and issues and activities that

they are currently associated with that

they are sorry about. Each group selected

their proudest “prouds” and sorriest

“sorries” to present to all conference

participants (pages 15-17).

Wildland Urban

Interface issues

continue to

increase
III. THE PRESENT

8

A mind map illustrates a collective

view of complex factors influencing a

core issue. Participants determined

the factors and pathways that represented their individual concerns and

those developed in their stakeholder

groups.
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 information

to practical use.

• Increasing air quality requirements and concerns.

• Need for system integration by taking existing models and data and applying them to

management 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 stakeholders.

• 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 integrated

and complicated. There is a broader recognition

of social and environmental concerns including

the physical and biological sciences. There is a

desire to join together on an interagency basis

to solve problems.

• Data analysis is advancing faster than the ability

to put the information to practical use.

• Some assessment of conditions.

• Federal, state, and local efforts to improve

awareness, training, and coordination.

• Some broad-scale public education programs.

• Federal fire policy provides direction concerning

the WUI.

• Better clarify the federal fire policy concerning

WUI issues.

• Incorporate WUI into land use planning and fire

management planning.

• Train firefighters to work in interface conditions.

• Develop a clearer message to communities

about WUI strategies.

• Increase in funding and fuels planning and

treatments.

• Gradual increase in prescribed fire accomplishments.

• Assessment of fuel conditions, risks, and

priorities 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 developed by various agencies.

• Public is more aware of and concerned about

fuel management issues.

• Increase fuel treatment.

• Develop fire plans that support appropriate

management actions.

• Establish a better understanding of fuel treatment alternatives in relation to science, politics,

and social concerns.

• Better understand go/no-go decision conditions

and options.

• Increasing fuel buildup and decreasing ecosystem health.

• Not explored due to time

• Not explored due to time

• Not explored due to time

• Not explored due to time
III. THE PRESENT

11

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

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

• Increasing air quality requirements and concerns.

• Increasing regulatory requirements.

• Measuring smoke emissions.

• Controlling emissions through smoke management.

• Educating the public about regulations.

• Using dispersion models.

• Create better air quality monitoring.

• Establish better control measures.

• Develop better tools for predicting emissions

and impacts.

• Make data easily available.

• Managers are looking for integrated systems

that are useful in land management.

• Fuels management is an increasing concern.

• Using outside research for system development

and integration.

• Bringing information to the field through training.

• Increasing participation from other stakeholders

and managers.

• Forming management alliances at regional

levels.

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

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

• Develop an integrated system using existing

models and data and apply it to a management

decision 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 education

programs.

• Determine accurate science-based programs

for short- and long-term solutions.

• Using pilot projects and demonstrations to help

manage forests.

• Using prescribed fire as a long-term solution

when we may need short-term solutions.
III. THE PRESENT

12

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

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

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

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

• Increasing feeling that it is possible to develop a

systematic model that captures knowledge and

integrates physical and social models.

• Moving from art to science in terms of fire

behavior. Dealing with physical and social

aspects of the wildland urban interface problem.

Introducing local and regional fire modeling into

fire operations.

• Coupling weather and fire modeling.

• Studying fire dynamics.

• Developing a physical understanding of satellite

data.

• Build a perfect fire model.

• Understand how to implement an integrated fireweather model anywhere.

• Develop physically-based satellite-derived data

sets.

• Reorganize current knowledge and problems.

• Evaluate model-based predictions with real data

for any time or place.

• Develop a feedback path from behavior to data

to help understand fuel-fire links.

• Repackage existing knowledge for practical use

by 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 fire

regimes.

• Running static fuel models.

• Establish comprehensive dynamic inventories of

the entire fuel profile (including grasses, shrubs,

trees).

• Better understand historic conditions.

• Clearly communicate with fire managers and

help them with biological applications.

• Increase the amount of ecological work on

nonforest ecosystems.
III. THE PRESENT

13

• Increasing recognition of the need for 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.

• Public resistance to fire hazard, smoke emissions, resources loss, and treatments.

• Lack of trust in government.

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

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

• Producing demonstration projects.

• Accomplishing large-scale spatial assessments.

• Using fire as a restoration tool in local prescribed fire projects.

• Starting to address ecosystem integrity.

• Increasing the amount of local fire projects.

• Beginning to define disturbance regimes.

• Identifying knowledge about historic fire regimes

in relation to vegetation and climate including

human interventions.

• Gaining support, administratively and financially.

• Increasing the amount of monitoring, fuels

mapping, and assessments.

• Linking fire management with land management

plans.

• Recognize variability.

• Communicate differences between restoration

and commodity production.

• Integrate fire and other disturbances.

• Establish clear communication between researchers 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 experiments.

• Evaluate the cost and benefit of post-fire

rehabilitation efforts.

• Evaluate the post-fire potential for mass erosion

on regional and landscape scales.

• Develop more interagency cooperative research.

• Expand the study of exotics in relation to fire

affects and behavior.
III. THE PRESENT

14

AIR ISSUES (GROUP 7)

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

• Increasing social value of air quality at local and

global scales.

• Escalating climate change.

• Increasing occurrence of prescribed and

wildland fire.

• Continuing to develop dispersion models that

are disjointed and lack clear guidance.

• Establishing many significant, joint problemsolving efforts.

• Producing a proliferation of meteorological

models.

• Understanding better how weather and streams

of 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 and

obtain technical support.

• Directly apply tools to land management

projects.

• Increase model development rather than model

system development.

• Expand public outreach for decision making.

• Increase collaboration between and among

agencies.

• Foster university curriculum in mountain meteorology.

• Better understand the role of fire in increasing or

decreasing carbon sink.

SOCIAL SCIENCE / WILDERNESS (GROUP 8)

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

• Social components, which exist in all previously

identified trends, are being recognized.

• Need for increased communication and collaboration is being recognized.

• Increasing need to understand how society

drives wildland fire research.

• Recognizing that a significant amount of

anecdotal social science evidence exists.

• Acknowledging the need to establish systematic

social science research within fire management

programs.

• Identify social science researchers and build a

community.

• Obtain funding for social science research

regarding fire research issues.

• Systematically identify social science research

needs.

• Better understand how society influences

wildland fire issues.

• Complete field visits to observe applied research; obtain feedback from field users.

• Identify fire lab customers and assess their

needs.

• 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, national

fire management program.

• Progress in developing the fire

discipline and professionalism.

• Fire is in the mainstream of national

and global ecosystem views.

• Taking a leadership role in interagency training and cooperation.

• The Incident Command System and

all that has derived from it.

• Budget process is more cost

efficient, 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) and

integrated assessments are

occurring.

• Packaging research, development,

and application.

• Land managers are using research

information.

• Collaborating at local levels.

• Gaining political support and

understanding.

• Missed opportunities to provide fire

research leadership on emerging

natural resource issues.

• Connection between similar work

is limited.

• Organized around functions not

goals.

• Risk aversion makes it difficult to

adapt to changing conditions and

situations.

• 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 for

short-term risks.

• Opportunities missed to contribute

to rehabilitation and restoration.

• A crisis is required to spur action.

• Research is not meeting management 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 Wildland

Fire Policy.

• Not burning enough acres/hectares.

• Not enough objective monitoring.

• Building a business process that

combines management, science,

and social aspects.

• Effort of multiple disciplines to

integrate fire into land management.

• 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 collaboration.

• Fire is not fully integrated in the

land management process.

• Doing things for the wrong reason;

activity accomplishment is money

driven.

• Prescribed fire operations are

commonly discounted as a parttime job that occurs between the

primary jobs (suppression).

• Using yesterday’s technology on

today’s issues.

• Unable to move faster to upgrade

technologies.

• Some want to do business the way

we used to.

• Management decisions are made

without adequately understanding

the ecological consequences.

• Decisions are often based on

product attractiveness rather than

on a sound scientific foundation.

Each stakeholder group listed issues and activities

that they are currently associated with that they are

proud of and issues and activities that they are

currently associated with that they are sorry about.

Each group selected their proudest “prouds” and

sorriest “sorries” to present to all conference

participants.
III. THE PRESENT

16

FIRE BEHAVIOR / PHYSICAL SCIENCE (GROUP 4)

 Prouds Sorries

• Working in a cross-disciplinary

manner in fire research.

• Initiating steps to help understand

fire-line dynamics.

• Developing a significant quantity

and quality of models and products.

• Supporting remote sensing with

physical science.

• Recognizing where technology

stops and social science begins.

• Canadian Forest Service has met

the current need of fire and land

managers.

• Attracting external cooperators to

research problems.

• Unable to understand research

complexities fast enough.

• Have not communicated model

limitations 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 longterm work.

• Inability to effectively and efficiently

get products from research to

users.

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

 Prouds Sorries

• Informative demonstration projects.

• Successful new treatments.

• Increased communication between

researchers and managers is

fostering a climate of cooperation

and collaboration.

• Complex and integrative projects,

long-term planning models, and

multiple temporal/spatial data.

• Implementing management

programs 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 USGS

scientists.

• Successful international and

interagency cooperation on fire and

fuels management.

• Research results are influencing

management.

• Ignoring hydrologic impacts of fire.

• Hazard reduction is rationale for

prescribed fire.

• Inadequate communication between researchers and land

managers.

• Money being unnecessarily spent

on fire suppression.

• Conducting expensive, unnecessary rehabilitation operations.

• Limited spatial- and temporalscale work.

• Single discipline approach continues 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 the

EPA and other agencies related to

the Clean Air Act and visibility

standards.

• 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 communication.

• 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 wildland

fire research is a systems problem. Communication

across disciplines is rare. Misunderstandings

continue.”

— 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 motivating. 

The activity was challenging. Participants 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 everyday 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 Resources and they supported everything 

we are doing. They understand that 

science has a role in making rnanagement 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 aboveground 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. 

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS

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 Cooperative Research Consortium is convened. 

This consortium exists because many 

barriers have been broken. We're all 

united under the Department of Natural 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! 

Additional future vision: 

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. 

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS

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?" 

Additional future vision: 

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 disbanded. 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). 

Additional future vision: 

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 

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS

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. 

Additional future vision: 

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 acceptable, 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 parallel 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 Information 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. 

Additional future vision: 

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 

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS

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 Department 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 longterm 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 nongovernment organizations. 

I am here at Yellowstone Natural Resource 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. 

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS

23
Question: How does that fit into the 

national goals that we've set as research priorities? 

Group chair Let's review those priorities. 

Additional future 

vision: 

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 modified 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 integral 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 

IV. FUTURE SCENARIOS

24
V. COMMON GROUND

25

ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONS

• Establish a Department of Natural

Resources to eliminate interagency

competition and foster interdiscliplinary

collaboration.

• Create an integrated research structure to:

- increase communication and collaboration between researchers and

managers among federal, state, and

private entities;

- foster research and management

integration; and

- address issues across boundaries and

from regional to global scales.

• Establish an oversight council to:

- eliminate institutional and organization barriers and initiate seamless

management structures;

- enact an adaptive management

system with long-term research; and

- use research results in adaptive

management, develop a true learning

community, and relay results to the

ground.

• Develop a common and compelling

definition of wildland fire research and

management to:

- bring wildfire researchers together and

- establish universal coordination of all

wildfire research.

DECISION–MAKING VISIONS

• Science, fire science in particular, has a

role in management decisions.

• Prescribed fire is part of resource management, which creates a better balance

between prescribed fire and wildfire.

• Risk assessment is a primary decisionmaking tool.

• Remote sensing is a major tool for

integrating state-of-the-art weather forecasting into decision making and for

monitoring.

PROCEDURAL VISIONS

• Make competitive research money

available to all researchers to:

- emphasize integrated research and

- allow greater discretionary fund use.

• Construct a feedback process with

stakeholders to:

- improve communication;

- provide better technology transfer;

- improve research implementation

through the use of feedback from

stakeholders; and

- filter, package, and disseminate

findings.

• Fully integrate social research into fire

research and management.

DESIRED OUTCOMES

• Research, integrated across disciplines,

and management form partnerships.

• Communication between management

and research is effective and continuous.

• Responsive and proactive research

balances long-term scientific goals with

rapidly changing management issues.

• The success of research and development is measured by on-the-ground

implementation.

• Fire research is responsive to national

goals and receives long-term, stable

political support.
V. COMMON GROUND

26

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Participants began brainstorming potential projects based on the identified

common ground. Projects ranged from

administrative reorganization to disciplinespecific programs and included the following.

• Federal land agencies establish a research branch for collaboration and

increased effectiveness.

• Establish a Department of Natural

Resources.

• Devise a reward system to credit

researchers for working with management and vice versa.

• Establish a national, competitive grant

program, with integrated research as a

requirement.

• Support long-term research.

• Multiagency research development and

applications that are issue-driven with

specific objectives and are jointly

funded, designed, and implemented by

research and management.

• Project responsive to issues articulated

by Congress and the White House (e.g.,

global change, catastrophic fire).

• Adapt National Science Foundation or

an equivalent process for competitive

grants.

• Lobby for support (dollars, program

changes).

• Establish an International Wildland Fire

Academy.

• Adopt a long-term, integrated research

plan that supports long-term goals.

• Charter a committee of national fire

managers to define national fire research goals and coordinate fire research.

• Establish an interdepartmental science

team.

• Develop large, field-research campaigns involving multiple institutions.

• Produce an interagency budget initiative.

• Develop a shared vision of a “seamless” learning community.

• Evaluate existing processes, programs,

and models.

• Finish information databases (GIS).

• Establish a geographical fire research

library, information, and communication

system on the World Wide Web.

• Develop technology transfer mechanisms.

• Institutionalize technology transfer.

• Seek money for more technology

transfer.

• Integrate remote sensing.

• Obtain support for long-term monitoring

and research of social and adaptive

management.

• Apply EPA Ecological Risk Assessment

guidelines to fire management.

• Develop long-term, landscape-scale

vegetation management research in

selected ecosystems.

• Survey public values related to prescribed fire and wildfire.

• Use the newly created council or

institute for natural resource inventory

and monitoring including fuels inventory and fire monitoring.

• Develop an internal and external

outreach campaign.

• Study firefighter behavior.

• Complete a Wildland Fire Assessment

System-integrated modeling system.

• Develop a short- and long-term fire

modeling project.
VI. ACTION PLANS

27

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:

• What were the historical fire regimes?

• How have the historical fire regimes

changed over time?

• What are the benefits and risks of fire/

nonfire management alternatives?
VI. ACTION PLANS

28

• What are the spatial and temporal

relationships?

• How do we prioritize the use of fire

among other manipulations?

• How will fire regimes look in the future?

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.
VI. ACTION PLANS

29

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.”
VII. CLOSING

30

“We met in a microcosm that gave us a glimpse

of the macrocosm. Although I saw movement in

the conference, many stakeholders avoided or

were hesitant to make a personal commitment.

We’re all wrestling with that. This group is a

reflection of society at large.”

— Jim Saveland

“We have to accept the time limitations of this

conference. Personally, I had no idea that things

were so disorganized. ”

— Lori Osterstock

“The success of this conference will be determined by

the ripple effect in the fire community

over the coming months.”

— Conference facilitators

“Let’s integrate research into the established

management processes. The timing is right, and

the issues are dead-on. The opportunity exists to

cast a wide net across the scientific community.”

— Jerry Williams
VII. CLOSING

31

ence. Others believed that those in

attendance were notable members of their

disciplines and represented a sufficiently

complete spectrum of stakeholders.

Opinions about the action plans were

mixed. The degree of agreement,

commitment, and closure within each

group was variable. A positive result of

the action plans is that no action items

were assigned to people not in attendance.

This conference provided an opportunity to identify and refine wildland fire

research and management issues and to

determine how science can contribute to

these issues. More common ground had

been discovered than some thought was

possible. But there was also a sense of

frustration and confusion. Acknowledging

that this meeting was only a beginning,

participants asked: How can we best take

advantage of this meeting of stakeholders?

The Future Search method forced

participants to admit that they often did

not understand the needs of many of the

other disciplines. What is our understanding of the state-of-the-art in each discipline? How is collaboration possible

without fully understanding what others

are doing and what their needs are?

Participants admitted that organizational

structures and processes have been

barriers to achieving desired results, and

some felt that duplication and “hobby”

research should stop. Several specialists

in attendance expressed disappointment

that the workshop did not provide a platform to resolve many critical scientific

issues such as evaluation of the use or nonuse

of fire history information. Identification

of the difference between application

needs and the research of problems is fundamental. Too often the focus of research

is long-term and is concentrated on future

fundamentals. Some thought funding must

be spent to develop and

communicate research to

the ground.

Researchers stated

that they must convince

managers to obtain

research funding for

what they need. Managers expressed concern

that fire management

staffs do not have an

organized way to collect

the data and the qualified crews to accomplish the work. They

believe that it is the

responsibility of research to ensure that

local units are supplied

with what they need.

Managers expressed the

importance of mobilizing to meet the changing needs of society.

They are concerned that integration will

diffuse their energy and focus.

Some participants felt that the decreasing budget is a myth. They believe sufficient funding exists but is being shifted

around. There was concern that the

survival of research is threatened. How

will research obtain money to survive over

the long term? Also, some participants felt

that a deliberate, broad consideration of

stakeholders was absent for this conferA process was initiated, new allies formed, and

directions taken.
VII. CLOSING

32

Many participants were frustrated by the process because

of thelimited time available, not knowing the desired outcome, or being unsure of the actual outcome.

Regardless of the issue addressed, the process must be

interdisciplinary and coordinated. The question remains,

“What is the role of fire research in the context of future

natural resource management?”

“Things get fixed because leaders take personal

responsibility. Integrating research is crucial for the

success of our ability to manage the land.”

— Jerry Williams

A Future Search Conference requires us to explore different

aspects of our perceptions, intellect, and emotions. In

“contentment” we accept things the way they are. Unfamiliar

experiences disturb the status quo. When we’d rather not

admit or deal with change, we go into the “denial” room

where we act as if things are okay. At some point though we

admit that we are frustrated and unsure; we have entered the

“confusion” room. Roughly half of Future Search Conference

is spent in “confusion”, which creates high anxietyand a

readiness for new opportunities. Renewal becomes a

welcome possibility after identifying a common future and

beginning 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 research

environment, competition for existing

resources, and new client expectations set

the stage for an energetic exchange of

ideas in a compressed, two-day forum.

Fire scientists, colleagues from other disciplines, and fire managers, met to envision

and chart the course of wildland fire research

and to commit to its successful future.

Each participant carried personal frustrations and ideals and found others who

shared or challenged their beliefs and

feelings. They gained a better understanding of why some things are not working

and brain-stormed possible solutions.

Success stories were shared and ways to

capitalize on them were discovered. New

approaches to research administration,

funding, and accountability were discussed. Attendees gained a better understanding of the major strategic decisions

that are being weighed by managers and

formed new research alliances to support

the decision process. The group was

invigorated by an intense and rapid

exchange of ideas. Many participants

became more aware of the positive trends

that will affect the future.

The success of the conference, and the

success of the research community, can

only be measured by what occurs in the

future. Quality science must be used to

solve real problems.

Looking toward the future:

• Will better competitive interagency

mechanisms to solicit new ideas and

fund integrated research be implemented?

• Will a sharper definition of the future of

wildland fire actually emerge to guide

the direction of creative thought, scientific investigation, and the development

of knowledge systems?

• Will the integration of social sciences

into the fire research community provide better alignment to rapidly changing social values with regard to ecosystems, fire safety, air quality, the global

environment, and economic efficiency?

• Will the integration of fire research with

other science disciplines and emerging

technologies add quality and efficiency

to our delivery of knowledge systems?

• Will the science community be able to

mobilize in support of the new dimensions of fire management?

• Will we be able to better anticipate the

future and plot a course for fire research,

or will we continue to be reactive?

• Will participants as individuals and in

new alliances, do what is necessary to

achieve what was jointly envisioned?

A need exists to find a way to coherently respond and adapt to changing

conditions such as climate change and the

role of fire in response to ecosystem

change. In addition, there is a need for a

coordinated expression of how land

managers view research problems and

where the lack of information limits

decision making.

The process of dialogue and competition for ideas will take months and years

to be fully translated into action. There

are many tactical results that will come

out of this conference; specifically,

communicating and organizing.

A modest set of actions were identified

and individual commitments were made.

The new relationships formed and the

visions shared will lead to significant

future action. Several events over the

next few months will bring the wildland

fire research community a few steps

closer to a shared vision of the future.

This conference was not conceived as a

single event but instead as a small, critical

part of a lifetime process.
APPENDIX A — CONFERENCE COMMITTEES, STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, AND MIXED GROUPS

34

Jim Saveland, Chair

USDA Forest Service

Vegetation Management and

 Protection Research

Washington, DC

Leslie Anderson

USDA Forest Service

Bitterroot National Forest

Stevensville, MT

David (Sam) Sandberg

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Corvallis, OR

CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

Karen Mora

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research

 Station

Fort Collins, CO

Madelyn Dillon

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research

 Station

Fort Collins, CO

Ellen Eberhardt

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research

 Station

Corvallis, OR

Linda Wadleigh

USDA Forest Service

Region 4

Ogden, UT

Dave Thomas

USDA Forest Service

Region 4

Fire, Aviation, and Air

 Management

Ogden, UT

Leslie Anderson, assisted by

Bitterroot National Forest,

Stevensville Ranger District staff

Marvin Weisbord and Sandra

Janoff, conference consultants and

authors of Future Search: An

Action Guide to Finding Common

Ground in Organizations and

Communities

Dave Thomas

USDA Forest Service

Region 4

Fire, Aviation, and Air

 Management

Ogden, UT

Denny Truesdale

USDA Forest Service

Fire and Aviation Management

Washington, DC

Steering Committee

Major Organizers

Report Committee

Jim Saveland

USDA Forest Service

Vegetation Management and

 Protection Research

Washington, D.C.

David (Sam) Sandburg

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research

 Station

Corvallis, OR

Curt Topper

H. John Heinz II School of

 Policy and Management

Carnegie Mellon University

Philadelphia, PA

James Stone

USDA Forest Service

Region 4

Ogden, UT Dave Thomas (USDA Forest

Service, Region 4) assisted by

Trish Haines (Wasatch-Cache

National Forest), Jody Farrell

(USDA Forest Service, Region 4),

and Charlene Reed (USDA

Forest Service, Region 4).
APPENDIX A — CONFERENCE COMMITTEES, STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, AND MIXED GROUPS

35

STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

Administration/Policy (Group 1)

Agee, James

Botti, Steve

Carlile, Lyle

Iverson, Dave

Maloney, Kathryn

Patton-Mallory, Marcia

Sommers, William

Williams, Jerry

Administration/Policy (Group 2)

Bell, Enoch

Blackwell, Melissa

Douglas, Jim

Hubbard, Jim

Leenhouts, Bill

Osterstock, Lori

Quigley, Tom

Webb, Jim

Fire Behavior/Risk Management

Albright, Dorothy

Biehl, Gary

Ferry, Gardner

Goens, David

Mitchell, Wayne

Mulhaupt, Rick

Shaw, Bodie

Fire Behavior/Physical Science

Alexander, Marty

Bossert, James

Cahoon, Don

Coen, Janice

Cohen, Jack

Fujioka, Francis

Latham, Don

Biology/Ecology/Watershed

Sciences (Group 1)

Anderson, Leslie

Hardy, Colin

Hull-Sieg, Carolyn

Morgan, Penelope

Sugihara, Neil

van Wagtendonk, Jan

Wills, Robin

Biology/Ecology/Watershed

Sciences (Group 2)

Betancourt, Julio

Brennon, Lenny

Conard, Susan

Hutto, Richard

Miller, Melanie

Sutherland, Elaine Kennedy

Swetnam, Tom

Thomas, James

Air Issues

Acheson, Ann

Atkinson, R. Dwight

Ferguson, Sue

Gorski, Carl

Sandberg, Sam

Sorenson, Winnie

Sweet, William

Wood, Larry

Social Science/Wilderness

Braun, Curt

Driessen, Jon

Parsons, Dave

Putnam, Ted

Saveland, Jim

Schmidt, Gordon

Smith, Conrad

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

36

MIXED GROUPS

Group 1

Anderson, Leslie

Douglas, Jim

Goens, David

Hutto, Richard

Sandberg, Sam

Sommers, William

Thomas, Dave

Wills, Robin

Group 2

Acheson, Ann

Alexander, Marty

Carlile, Lyle

Oserstock, Lori

Saveland, Jim

Swetnam, Tom

van Wagtendonk, Jan

Group 3

Braun, Curt

Brennon, Lenny

Coen, Janice

Fujioka, Francis

Hubbard, Jim

Hull-Sieg, Carolyn

Sweet, William

Williams, Jerry

Group 4

Driessen, Jon

Ferguson, Sue

Iverson, Dave

Latham, Don

Leenhouts, Bill

Mulhaupt, Rick

Sugihara, Neil

Thomas, James

Group 5

Blackwell, Melissa

Botti, Steve

Cohen, Jack

Miller, Melanie

Putnam, Ted

Quigley, Tom

Sorenson, Winnie

Group 6

Albright, Dorothy

Atkinson, R. Dwight

Betancourt, Julio

Hardy, Colin

Mitchell, Wayne

Patton-Mallory, Marcia

Smith, Conrad

Webb, Jim

Group 7

Agee, James

Cahoon, Don

Conard, Susan

Ferry, Gardner

Parsons, Dave

Shaw, Bodie

Wood, Larry

Group 8

Bell, Enoch

Biehl, Gary

Bossert, James

Gorski, Carl

Maloney, Kathryn

Morgan, Penelope

Schmidt, Gordon

Sutherland, Elaine Kennedy
APPENDIX B — CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

37

Ann Acheson

Air Resource Specialist

Fire, Aviation & Air Management

Northern Region

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 329-3402

James Agee

Professor of Fire Ecology

College of Forest Resources

University of Washington

P.O. Box 352100

Seattle, WA 98195-2100

(206) 543-2688

Dorothy Albright

Fire GIS Program Manager

Fire and Aviation Management

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Region

3735 Neely Way

Mather, CA 95655

(916) 364-2823

Marty Alexander

Fire Research Officer

Canadian Forest Service

5320 122nd St.

Edmonton, Alberta T6H355

(403) 435-7346

Leslie Anderson

Asst. District Fire Management

Officer

USDA Forest Service

Stevensville Ranger Station

88 Main St.

Stevensville, MT 59870

(406) 777-7425

R. Dwight Atkinson

Director, Multimedia Analysis

EPA

401 M St., SW

Mail code 2123

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-2771

Enoch Bell

Assistant Station Director

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Research Station

P.O. Box 245

Berkeley, CA 94701

(510) 559-6316

Julio Bentancourt

Physical Scientist

U.S. Geological Survey

Desert Laboratory

1675 W. Anklam Rd.

Tucson, AZ 85745

(520) 670-6821 ext 112

Gary Biehl

Fire Planner

USDA Forest Service

Stanislaus National Forest

19777 Greenley Rd.

Sonora, CA 95370

(209) 532-3671 ext 315

Melissa Blackwell

Management Analyst

USDA Forest Service

Wasatch-Cache National Forest

125 S. State Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84138

(801) 524-6501

James E. Bossert

Meteorology Team Leader

Mail Stop D401

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, NM 87545

(505) 667-6268

Steve Botti

Fire Program Planning Manager

National Park Service

3833 S. Development Ave.

Boise, ID 83705

(208) 387-5210

Curt Braun

Assistant Professor of Psychology

University of Idaho

Moscow, ID 83844-3043

(208)885-2540

Lenny Brennan

Director of Research

Tall Timbers Research Station

Route 1, Box 678

Tallahassee, FL 32312

(850) 893-4153 ext 229

Don Cahoon

NASA Satallite & Remote Sensing

Research

Atmospheric Sciences Div

Radiation Sciences Branch

Mail Stop 420

Hampton, VA 23681

(757) 864-5615

Lyle Carlile

Fire Use Specialist

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Natl. Interagency Fire Center

3833 S. Development Ave.

Boise, ID 83705

(208) 387-5640

Janice Coen

Scientist, National Center for

Atmospheric Research

3450 Mitchell Lane

Boulder, CO 80301

(303) 497-8986

Jack Cohen

Research Physical Scientist

Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 329-4821

Susan Conard

Fire Ecologist, Vegetation Management and Protection Research

USDA Forest Service

201 14th St., SW

Washington, DC 20250

(202) 205-1561

Jim Douglas

Fire Policy, Dept. of the Interior

Office of Managing Risk and Public

Safety

1849 C St., NW; MS 7356

Washington, DC 20250

(202) 208-7963

Jon Driessen

Chair, Dept. of Sociology

University of Montana

Missoula, MT 59812

(406) 243-2855

Sue Ferguson

Atmospheric Scientist

USDA Forest Service

Seattle Forestry Sciences Laboratory

4043 Roosevelt Way NE

Seattle, WA 98105

(206) 553-7815
APPENDIX B— CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

38

Gardner Ferry

Senior Program Analyst

Bureau of Land Management

3833 Development Ave.

Boise, ID 837055354

(208) 387-5161

Francis Fujioka

Project Leader, Fire Meteorology

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Forest Fire Lab

4955 Canyon Crest Drive

Riverside, CA 92507

(909) 680-1552

David Goens

Meterologist in Charge

National Weather Service

1320 Beechcraft Ave.

Pocatello, ID 83204

(208) 232-9306

Carl J. Gorski

Western Region Fire Weather

Program Manager

National Weather Service

Western Region Headquarters

125 South State Street, Room 1235

Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1102

(801) 524-4000

Colin Hardy

Supervisory Research Forester

USDA Forest Service

Intermountain Fire Sciences

Laboratory

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 329-4978

Jim Hubbard

Director, Colorado State Forest

Service/National Association of

State Foresters Colorado State

University

Fort Collins, CO 80523

(970) 491-6303

Carolyn Hull–Sieg

Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service Forestry

Sciences Laboratory

S. Dak. School of Mines and Tech.

501 E. St. Joseph Street

Rapid City, SD 57701

(605) 394-1960

Richard L. Hutto

Professor, Division of Biological

Sciences

University of Montana

Missoula, MT 59812

(406) 243-4292

Dave Iverson

Social Science Coordinator

Planning, Appeals, and Litigation

USDA Forest service

Intermountain Region

324 24th St.

Ogden, UT 84401

(801) 625-5278

Don Latham

Project Leader, Fire Behavior Unit

Intermountain Fire Sciences

Laboratory

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 329-4848

Bill Leenhouts

Ecologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3833 S. Development Ave.

Boise, ID 83702

(208) 387-5584

Kathryn Maloney

Director, Resources Program and

Assessment

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, DC 20090-6090

(202) 205-1031

Melanie Miller

Ecologist

Bureau of Land Management

3833 Development Ave.

Boise, ID 83705-5354

(208) 387-5165

Wayne Mitchell

Fire Protection Planner

CA Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection

P.O. Box 944246

Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

(916) 653-7472

Penelope Morgan

Associate Professor

Dept. of Forest Resources

University of Idaho

Moscow, ID 83844-1133

(208) 885-7507

Rick Mulhaupt

President, Fire Protection

Research Foundation

One Batterymarch Park

Quincy, MA 02269

(617) 984-7282

Lori Osterstock

District Ranger

USDA Forest Service

Espanola Ranger District

Santa Fe National Forest

Expanola, NM 87532

(505) 753-7331

Dave Parsons

Director, Aldo Leopold

Research Institute

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 542-4193

Marcia Patton–Mallory

Assistant Director for Research

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W. Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1157

Ted Putnum

Equipment Specialist/Psychologist

USDA Forest Service

Missoula Technology and Development Center

Building 1, Fort Missoula

Missoula, MT 59804

(406) 329-3965

Tom Quigley

Program Manager

USDA Forest Service Forestry and

Range Sciences Laboratory

1401 Gekeler Lane

La Grande, OR 97850

(541) 962-6534
APPENDIX B — CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

39

David (Sam) Sandburg

Research Forester, Team Leader

Fire and Global Change Research

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwestern Research Station

Forestery Sciences Laboratory

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97331

(503) 750-7265

Jim Saveland

Fire Ecologist

Vegetation Management and

Protection Research

USDA Forest Service

201 14th St., SW

Washington, DC 20250

(202) 205-1561

Gordon Schmidt

Deputy Director, Fire and Aviation

Management

Pacific Northwest Region

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 3623

Portland, OR 97208

(503) 326-2391

Bodie Shaw

Forest Manager for Confederated

Tribes

Bureau of Indian Affairs

1110 Wasco St.

Warm Springs, OR 97761

(541) 326-2391

Conrad Smith

Professor and Chairperson, Communication and Mass Media Dept.

University of Wyoming

P.O. Box 3904

Laramie, WY 82071-3904

(307) 766-6273

William Sommers

Director, Vegetation Management

and Protection Research

USDA Forest Service

201 14th St., SW

Washington, DC 20250

(202) 205-1561

Wilhelmina “Wini” Sorenson

Fire Planning Specialist

USDA Forest Service

Intermountain Region

324 25th St.

Ogden, UT 84401

(801) 625-5403

Neil Sugihara

Fire Ecologist

Pacific Southwest Region

Fire and Aviation Management

USDA Forest Service

3735 Neely Way

Mather, CA 95655

(916) 364-2854

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland

Research Ecologist

USDA Forest Service

Forestry Sciences Laboratory

Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station

359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8670

(614) 368-0090

William Sweet

FMSO

USDA Forest Service

George Washington & Jefferson

National Forests

5162 Valleypoint Parkway

Roanoke, VA 24018

(540) 265-5210

Tom Swetnam

Associate Professor

Dendrochronology and Watershed

Management

Laboratory of Tree Ring Research

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 85721

(520) 621-2112

Dave Thomas

Regional Fuels Specialist

Fire and Aviation Management

USDA Forest Service

Intermountain Region

324 25th St.

Ogden, UT 84401

(801) 625-5505

James P. Thomas

Aviation and Fire Staff Officer

USDA Forest Service

Superior/Chippewa National Forests

Minnesota Interagency Fire Center

402 11th St., SE

Grand Rapids, MN 55744

(218) 327-4568

Jan van Wagtendonk

Research Scientist

U.S. Geological Survey

Yosemite Field Station

P.O. Box 700

El Portal, CA 95318

(209) 379-1885

Jim Webb

Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service

San Juan/Rio Grande National

Forest

1803 W. Hwy 160

Monte Vista, CO 81144

(719) 852-6247

Jerry Williams

Director; Fire, Aviation & Air Management, Northern Region

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 329-3402

Robin Wills

California Fire Program Manager

The Nature Conservancy

13700 Monte Vista Road Lake

Elsinore, CA 82530

(909) 329-3402

Larry Wood

Chief, Forest Protection Bureau

3125 Conner Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1630

(904) 488-6595
APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

Personal Global Fire

40

Time period

Pre-1960 Learn to ski and become aware

of forests, mountains and

snow

Rock and roll lives

Travel around the world

Born!

Growing up babyboomer

Growing up in a small, safe

Swedish community

Basic values in a small, rural

community

Soldiers back from WWII; going

to school; working in forests;

increased use of natural

resources; major events driven

by regional overpopulation

Federal agencies (USFS, NPS)

born

1910 Weeks Act

1933 10 AM policy

National planning and management

1930s public works projects in

the West

Industrial revolution

Sand County Almanac by Aldo

Leopold

Gandhi dies

Holocaust

1910 Fires in northern Rockies

1922 Forest Service hires Harry

Gisborne as fire scientist

Beginning of fire prevention;

suppressing “all” fires; aerial

firefighting

1925 Fire research at Priest

River

Gisborne develops fire danger

meter

Fire environmental studies

1912 Plummer compiles fire

statistics and maps of 1910

fires and lightning fire monograph

1910 Frederick Clements studies

and publishes reports on fire

and succession on lodgepole

pine

Pulaski and radios used in firefighting

Fires in the Selway

1937 Journal of Forestry states

that lightning-caused fires are

<5%
Personal Global Fire

APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

41

Time period

Pre-1960 1937 Blackwater Canyon fire, 15

dead, leads to research and,

after WWII, to professional

firefighting

1940s & 1950s Harold Weaver

works on the relationships

between fire and ponderosa

pine ecosystems

1949 Mann Gulch

1950s Modern Wildland Fire

Science born

1950s droughts in Southern U.S.

affect fire policy

Fire labs established

1954 Southern Fire Lab started

Regional fire danger systems

Chainsaw and brush hook

1959 Forest Fire: Control and

Use published

NFDRS

Application of WWII technology

to fire suppression

1958 Tall Timbers founded

Atomic age; U.S. bombing of

Japan; “stop, drop and hide”

1957 Sputnik testing in New

Mexico

Atomic testing in New Mexico

Smokey Bear

Technology to attack fire

Large fire events shape fire

management policy

See houses along mountains

from Denver to Pueblo

See father’s dissatisfaction with

social perception that all fire is

bad; father a district ranger

Immigrate from Cuba

Grow up in New York City;

experience Eastern U.S.

forests

Fight forest fires
APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

Personal Global Fire

42

Time period

1960-1974 College graduation, marriage,

and children

Teach at universities

JFK; Peace Corps in Nepal

Education; anti-war demonstrations; learn about agent

orange and tropical forest

destruction.

MS fire science; ties to fire lab

Ph.D fire

First position in the Forest

Service

Attend Biswell Field Day at

Whitaker Forest

Fight first wildfire as a 15-year

old Boy Scout

Hot Shot Crew job

Permanent position in fire

research

Graduate high school, head

West

Dad takes me on my first wildfire

Jet aircraft

Bay of Pigs

Reality check

U.S. civil rights movement

begins

Kennedy assassination

Apollo program

Scientific proof of global change

Silent Spring by Rachael Carson

Wilderness Act

Vietnam; distrust of large organizations; belief that government

(authority) would lie and that

those not in authority could

challenge effectively

Sleeping Child fire

Cooper’s fire ecology paper

published

Early 1960s CE Van Wagner

begins experimental crown

fires at Petawawa

1962 First Tall Timbers Fire

Conference

Northern Fire Lab dedicated

1964 Synoptic Weather Types

Associated with Critical Fire

Weather published

Rx burning, Vietnam style

Retarded drops, helitorch

NPS and USFS experiments on

prescribed natural fire

Leopold report on fire and

wildlife in parks

First “Let Burn” policy in West

Controversies: FS clearcutting

Rothermel fire model

Clean Air Act
Personal Global Fire

APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

43

Time period

1960-1974 Johnson “credibility gap”

Flower children vs. mainstream

Feminist movement

Feminine Mystique by Betty

Friedan

First humans on the moon

Environmental laws

Earth Day

Satellites, reality of earth limits

Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich

Love Canal

FIRESCOPE and Interagency

cooperative fire management

Career appointment

Live in South Africa; see how

influential culture is to the

choices we make

First fire jump

Ph.D. in fire ecology

Leave Chicago; begin to experience outdoors firsthand

Beckwith fire escapes

Start smokejumping

Job in Yosemite

Work on USFS Fire Crew

Start of a lifetime friendship

College textbook learning

Find natural science; leave home

Camping in the Rockies

Burn with Henry Wright’s crew

Still teaching atmospheric

science

Chance to do things

Meet some of the “gods” of fire

research

FIRESCOPE ICS due to fires in

California

First university fire programs

Fire shelters; foam; Nomex

America Burning report issued

by National Fire Protection

and Control Administration

First wilderness fire management plans

NPS fire program challenged

Research moves into large-scale

fire systems

Fire Danger Rating System in

use

Kessell’s gradient modeling

research at Glacier NP

AVHRR monitoring of fire events

DMSP-OLS mapping of active

fires

Fire histories developed in SW

Pine barrens in New Jersey

burned regularly to manage

pitch pine ecosystems

Effects of Fire series published
APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

Personal Global Fire

44

Time period

1975-1985 AVHRR launched

Increase in sensitivity to tropical

forest destruction

Nixon, first confirmation that the

government lied; government

credibility declines

Sustained economic growth

erodes sense of individual

responsibility

1976-1997 Pacific has higher

average SSTs; tropical land

masses drying out and accelerating deforestation

Computer Age, PCs give computing power to the masses

Consumption increases

CFCs tagged to ozone decline

1981 U.S. has huge budget

deficits; Graham-Ruddman Act

Star wars/Space shuttle

1982-1983 El Nino alters climate

and biomass burning

Raise 2 children; conduct research; USFS appointment

First fire season

Finish college

Active fire research

Graduate high school

First FS job, fire lookout

Involved in snow and avalanche

forecasting and control; FS

management

Begin physiology/fire effects

Decide upon career with FS

Luke & McArthur (1978) publish

Bushfires in Australia

BEHAVE system

FIRECAST

Peak funding for fire research

New fire policy recognizes

natural role

Interdisciplinary research emphasis, mostly site focus

1981 first woman smokejumper

Recognition of “exotics” problem

1982 S. Pyne begins publishing

fire info

Exploding interest in and funding

for fire ecology research

Urban interface issue escalates
Personal Global Fire

APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

45

Time period

1985-1990 Career change

Seasonal job with FS

On first overhead team

Move to Missoula, begin studying lightening and fire

Master’s degree in forestry

Work with pine beetle crew in

Colorado Front Range

Move to DC

Mop-up fires at Moose Creek

Build house

Booming economy

Domestic use of space technology

Persian Gulf War, burning oil

wells

Terrorism

Global awareness increases

Recognition of climate change,

Global Change Program

Clean Air Act

Earth Summit at Rio, growing

recognition of deforestation

concerns and global interconnections

Iron curtain falls, define a new

enemy

Access to former USSR and

China opens

Global economy develops

Bull stockmarket

1986 Urban interface, “Wildfire

Strikes Home”

Crow’s 1988 Forest Science

paper on fire and oaks

1988 news coverage of Yellowstone fires shows lack of

understanding of fire as a

natural process and sets back

the reintroduction of the

natural role of fire

Major wildland/urban interface

trials began to rollback “good

samaritan” protections for fire

managers

Satellite maps, fuels, and NFDRS

Integration of fire/vegetation

research interest

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

Dude fire

Major reorganization of FS Fire

Research

More complex ecological models

incorporating disturbance

Development of fire remote

sensing approaches accelerates
APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

Personal Global Fire

46

Time period

1991-Present Teach ecosystem management

and disturbance regimes

Join FS research; shift emphasis

from snow to fire

Discover whole system

dynamics

Kids are gone!

Fire effects project leader

One child out of college, one to

go

Clean Air Act, 1990 amendments

Republicans take over House

and Senate; contract with

America

National Defense drive for

science declines

Human population growth curve

steepens

Softening of nationalism

DOI Wildland Fire Research

Initiative

Real-time georeferenced information on fire spread available, but rarely used

South Canyon fatalities

Major interface fires; Spokane,

Oakland

Record fire seasons

Firefighters trapped at Dome

and Sheppard

Fire policy recognizes natural

role; leads to more confusion

Public distrust of FS ecosystem

management goals

Wide recognition of paradox:

suppressing fires now means

more intense fires later

Integration of human values with

fire effects begins

Focus on global effects of fire/

fuel/climate interactions

Landscape context of fire begins

to be considered

Basic behavior research and

education
Personal Global Fire

APPENDIX C — TIMELINE

47

Time period

1991-Present Become fire management staff

officer

Start work in Russia

Competitive grants

Moved to Washington Office, FS

Fire Research

Plan for second half of career

Laptop computers; Internet; GIS,

GPS; information overload

1995 hurricanes

Increased micromanagement by

Congress (prescribed fire, fire

suppression, and commodity

production)

Brazil and Indonesia on fire

El Nino

Recognition of human factors in

accidents and fatalities

IMRT Reports

WFAS on net

FARSITE; 3D fire

Recognition of relationship

between oak regeneration

failure and fire suppression

recognized

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

Application of GIS to land-based

observations of fire history and

fire behavior

Reintroducing fire to ecosystem

Fire shelter study

Tridata study of firefighter culture

Fire Policy Review

SNEP

AVIRIS fuels database

NWT Crown Fire Experiment

Regional-scale estimates of

change in fire regimes

EPA; FACA air quality
APPENDIX D — FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE PRINCIPLES

48

PRINCIPLES

1. An attempt is made to get the “whole

system” into the same room. The whole

system consists of stakeholders from

inside and outside government fire

research. Whereever they are from, all

stakeholders should have a stake in the

outcome of the Future Search Conference.

2. Stakeholders are asked to think globally

but act locally.

3. Stakeholders, through participation in

the conference, seek “common ground” —

issues that everyone agrees on. The

only issues that move forward are issues

that can be labeled “common ground.”

4. The Future Search Conference is divided

into smaller working groups. These

groups are “self-managing” in that they

come up with their own methods of

time and conflict management.

5. Even though there are experts at the

conference, no one person or group is

seen or used as an expert.

6. A Future Search Conference is not a

traditional problem-solving meeting.

The goal of a Future Search Conference

is to produce “ideal future scenarios”

that stakeholders are willing to work

toward in the future.

CONFERENCE STRUCTURE

1. At the Wildland Fire Research Future

Search Conference, participants were

asked to focus on their individual

history and as a fire community. This

history was recorded on a wall chart in

the meeting room.

2. Fire Research stakeholders were asked

to view the present. A large “mind

map” with all the fire research trends

on it was produced. The stakeholders

were asked to vote on the most important issues.

3. The Future Search Conference facilitators asked the stakeholders to construct

a list of “prouds” and “sorries”—things

they feel good about and things they

feel sorry about in relation to the trends

previously identified.

4. An ideal future scenario for fire research was developed and presented as

a skit by each mixed stakeholder group.

5. From the ideal future scenarios, common themes were listed.

6. Action plans were developed from the

list of common themes, but only if the

fire research stakeholders were willing

to individually commit to working on

them.

REFERENCES

Bunker, Barbara Benedict and Billie T.

Alban. 1997. Large Group Interventions:

Engaging the Whole System for Rapid

Change. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San

Francisco.

Weisbord, Marvin and Sandra Janov. 1995.

Future Search: An Action Guide to

Finding Common Ground for Organizations and Communitites. BerrettKoehler, San Francisco.

“Certainly the most exciting and richly

textured organizational event I have

participated in recently are “Future

Search Conferences . . . ” The richness

of interpretations and the multi-layered

complexity of the future scenarios that

are created have convinced me of the

powers of observation and perception

that participation brings forth. In these

conferences, wave functions collapse

into all sorts of strange and powerful

interpretations because the whole

system is in the room, generating

information, thinking about itself and

what it wants to be.”

— Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the

New Science: Learning about

Organizations from an Orderly Universe
“To be a bureaucrat is to experience ourself as a victim. It

takes strength and courage to acknowledge that the success

and failure of our project, our function, our business, in fact

our lives, is our own creation. . . . Having the courage to see

the part of the problem that we have created, that is our rake

we 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 want

to know everything. They never do anything. My idea . . . is get out on the damn

field and start kicking the ball . . . . All I had was the inspiration. I didn’t know

that much about soccer. I didn’t know there were even two sizes of soccer

balls . . . . So the next thing with inspiration is “get out and start doing something.” The doing part of it is picking up the phone, calling a few friends, and

saying, “Why don’t you meet me over on Mercer Island and I’ve got an idea

here. I really feel it.” So when they come over, I pull out the soccer ball. They

already have their crutches, and we start kicking it . . . . Then things start happening.”

— 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 discrimination 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 prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative 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 of

Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence

Avenue, 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