Factors in United States Forest Service district rangers’ decision to manage a fire for resource benefit
Martha A. Williamson
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
Department of Forest Management, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana. Email: marthaawilliamson@yahoo.com
International Journal of Wildland Fire 16(6) 755-762 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF06019
Submitted: 15 February 2006 Accepted: 30 April 2007 Published: 17 December 2007
Abstract
United States wildland fire policy and program reviews in 1995 and 2000 required both the reduction of hazardous fuel and recognition of fire as a natural process. Despite the fact that existing policy permits managing natural ignitions to meet resource benefits, or Wildland Fire Use (WFU), most fuel reduction projects rely on mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Budget constraints suggest that successful fuel and ecosystem management hinges on expanding WFU. The decision to authorise WFU in the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) rests with line officers, and the so-called ‘go/no go’ decision constitutes a time-critical risk assessment. Factors influencing this decision clearly impact the viability of WFU. The present study examined influences on line officers’ go/no go decision. A telephone survey was conducted of all USFS district rangers with WFU authority in the Northern, Intermountain, and Southwestern Regions. The census was completed during February 2005 and obtained an 85% response rate. Data were analysed using Classification and Regression Tree analysis. Personal commitment to WFU provided the primary classifier for 91% of the district rangers who authorised WFU. External factors, negative public perception, resource availability, and a perceived lack of support from the USFS were the main disincentives to authorising WFU.
Additional keywords: Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis, Wildland Fire Use (WFU).
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Carl Fiedler, John Chandler, Dave Jackson and John Baldridge for their invaluable assistance throughout this project. Thank you also to Anne Black, Jane Cottrell, Craig Goodell, Mike Johnson, Carol Miller, Deb Mucklow, Laura Ward, and George Weldon for their comments and insight. The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute provided financial assistance for the publication of this paper.
References
AAPOR (2004) ‘Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys.’ 3rd edn. (AAPOR: Lenexa, KS)
Arno SF , Brown JK
(1991) Overcoming the paradox in managing wildland fire. Western Wildlands 17, 40–46.
Arno SF, Fiedler CE (2005) ‘Mimicking Nature’s Fire.’ (Island Press: Washington, DC)
Black A (2004) Wildland fire use: the ‘other’ treatment option. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Note RMRS-RN-23–6-WWW. (Missoula, MT)
Bonney BJ (1998) Use of alternative suppression strategies during 1994 on the Clearwater National Forest. In ‘Fire in Ecosystem Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription’. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 20. 7–10 May 1996, Boise ID. (Eds TL Pruden, LA Brennan) pp. 280–283. (Tall Timbers Research Station: Tallahassee, FL)
Calkin D, Gebert K, Jones G , Neilson R
(2005) Forest Service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends, 1970–2002. Journal of Forestry 103, 179–183.
Cleaves DA, Martinez J, Haines TK (2000) Influences on prescribed burning activity and costs in the National Forest System. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report GTR-SRS-37. (New Orleans, LA)
Cortner HJ, Taylor JG, Carpenter EH , Cleaves DA
(1990) Factors influencing Forest Service fire managers’ risk behavior. Forest Science 36, 531–548.
Daniels OL (1991) A Forest Supervisor’s perspective on the prescribed natural fire. In ‘High Intensity Fire in Wildlands: Management Challenges and Options’. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 17. 18–21 May 1989, Tallahassee FL. (Ed. SM Hermann) pp. 361–366. (Tall Timbers Research Station: Tallahassee, FL)
Dillman DA (1978) ‘Mail and Telephone Surveys: the Total Design Method.’ (Wiley: New York)
GAO (2005) Wildland fire management: important progress has been made, but challenges remain to completing a cohesive strategy. Government Accountability Office Report GAO-05–147. (Washington, DC)
Groves RM, Fowler FJJr, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2004) ‘Survey Methodology.’ (Wiley: Hoboken, NJ)
Miller C, Landres P (2004) Exploring information needs for wildland fire and fuels management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-127. (Fort Collins, CO)
NIFC (2006) ‘Wildland Fire Statistics.’ (National Interagency Fire Center: Boise, ID) Available at http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/fire_stats.htm [Verified 16 November 2007]
NWCG (1995a) ‘1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review.’ (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, National Interagency Fire Center: Boise, ID)
NWCG (1995b) Prescribed fire and fire effects working team 1995 user needs survey summary. (National Wildfire Coordinating Group: Boise, ID) Available at http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/fuwt/customer.htm [Verified 16 November 2007]
Pyne SJ (1995) Vestal fires and virgin lands: a reburn. In ‘Proceedings: Symposium on Fire in Wilderness and Park Management’. 30 March–1 April 1993, Missoula, MT. (Tech. coords JK Brown, RW Mutch, CW Spoon, RH Wakimoto) pp. 15–21. (USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station: Ogden, UT)
Shindler B , Toman E
(2003) Fuel reduction strategies in forest communities: a longitudinal analysis of public support. Journal of Forestry 101, 8–14.
Steinberg D, Colla P (1997) ‘CART – Classification and Regression Trees.’ (Salford Systems: San Diego, CA)
Sudman S, Bradburn NM (1982) ‘Asking Questions.’ (Jossey-Bass, Inc.: San Francisco, CA)
Tomascak W
(1991) Improving a prescribed natural fire program: the Northern Region’s approach. Fire Management Notes 52, 6–8.
USDA-FS (2000) FSM-5100 – Fire management. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm5000.html [Verified 18 April 2005]
USDA-FS (2004) ‘Forest Service Performance and Accountability Report – Fiscal Year 2003.’ (USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC)
USDA/USDI (2003) ‘Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.’ National Wildfire Coordinating Group, National Interagency Fire Center. (USDA Forest Service and US Department of the Interior: Washington, DC)
USDA/USDI (2005) ‘Wildland Fire Use: Implementation Procedures Reference Guide.’ National Wildfire Coordinating Group. (National Interagency Fire Center: Boise, ID)
Weible C, Sabatier P , Nechodom M
(2005) No sparks fly: policy participants agree on thinning trees in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Journal of Forestry 103, 5–9.
White DH (1991) Legal implications associated with use and control of fire as a management practice. In ‘High Intensity Fire in Wildlands: Management Challenges and Options.’ Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 17. 18–21 May 1989, Tallahassee, FL. (Ed. SM Hermann) pp. 375–384. (Tall Timbers Research Station: Tallahassee, FL)
1 Until January of 2005, including the fire season preceding the present study, line officers operated under a 2-h time constraint.
2 ‘What do you think is needed to manage a non-suppression fire to meet your objectives?’ and ‘Thinking about the decision-making behind the go/no go decision on WFU as a whole, what are the top three factors that influenced your decision on every project?’
