factors affecting interagency wildland fire management …
TRANSCRIPT
FACTORS AFFECTING INTERAGENCY WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE COLLABORATIVE ENDEAVORS
by
Ethan Robert Stapp
FACTORS AFFECTING INTERAGENCY WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE COLLABORATIVE ENDEAVORS
by
Ethan Robert Stapp
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
SCHOOL OF PLANNING
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN PLANNING
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2003
STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanceddegree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be madeavailable to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided thataccurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extendedquotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted bythe head of the Graduate Planning Program or Dean of the Graduate College when in hisor her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In allother instances, however, the permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED:
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
2
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge those people who encouraged and supported me in the work to
complete this report. Thank you to Dr. Lucie Laurian for her interest, enthusiasm, and her
willingness to push, cajole, prod, and guide me through this effort. Thanks to Dr. Barbara
Becker for her valuable insight and expertise, and her quiet (and sometimes not so quiet)
example during my time in graduate school. A special thanks to Brooke Gebow, without
whom my interest in this subject would have never developed into its current capacity.
Her support, patience, and friendship have been invaluable to me.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the people in each case study who provided critical
information to this research. Their hard work and lasting dedication to collaborative
natural resource management and to achieving the goals of their organizations is
motivating and inspiring.
4
DEDICATION
To Jennie—your encouragement, laughter and love have played a vital role in this work
in ways that are impossible for me to measure.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................8
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................10
1.1 Research Objectives...........................................................................................16 1.2 Report Organization..........................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: THE POLICY CONTEXT..................................................................18 2.1 Agencies Involved In Fire Management............................................................18
2.2 Fire Management Operations and Planning.....................................................25 2.3 Federal Fire Management Policy ......................................................................31
2.4 Other Policies .....................................................................................................36 2.5 National-Level Coordination Mechanisms .......................................................38
2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................42
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................44
3.1 Collaboration: Definition and Rationales .........................................................44 3.2 Factors Influencing Interagency Collaboration ................................................47
3.2.1 Organizational Factors................................................................................47 3.2.2 Factors in Perceptions and Attitudes..........................................................52
3.2.3 Factors Related to the Collaboration Process ............................................56 3.3 Research Questions............................................................................................59
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES ..................................................................................60 4.1 Methodology.......................................................................................................60
4.2 General Description of Study Areas ..................................................................63 4.3 Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group.................................................68
4.4 Malpai Borderlands Group ...............................................................................72 4.5 Summary of Interview Results ..........................................................................78
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
CHAPTER 5: POLICY IMPLICATIONS ................................................................ 84
APPENDIX A: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED................................................ 92
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW SCRIPT...................................................................... 93
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY....................................................................................... 99
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 102
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparison of Federal Land Management Agency Missions .....................27 Table 2: Prescribed Fire Statistics...............................................................................28 Table 3: Total Expenditures on Wildfire Suppression and Prescribed Fire ...............29Table 4: Factors influencing Interagency Collaboration .............................................48 Table 5: Comparison of Case Study Areas ................................................................67 Table 6: Comparison of Interview Results by Study Area ........................................78 Table 7: Questions to Consider In Seeking Out a Collaborative Effort .....................91
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Case Study Areas ......................................................................................... 64 Figure 2: Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group Study Area....................... 69 Figure 3: Malpai Borderlands Group Study Area ..................................................... 73
9
ABSTRACT
Collaborative interagency planning is recognized in both political and scientific circles as
a necessary component of comprehensive fire management at the local level. Despite the
widespread recognition that interagency fire management planning is a necessary
component to individual agency fire management programs, the status of such
collaboration at the local level has been characterized as inadequate, incomplete and
inconsistent. This report identifies the factors that influence the success of local
collaborative fire management efforts. Information for this study was gathered from a
review of the natural resource and public policy collaboration literature as well as two
case studies. The factors of successful collaboration are identified for two case studies:
the Malpai Borderlands Group in southwest New Mexico and southeast Arizona, and the
Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group in southern Arizona. Thirteen factors that
influence collaboration were identified from the literature and confirmed for cross-
boundary fire management through the case studies. This report concludes with a
discussion of how fire managers and agency planners may overcome administrative,
social, and political obstacles to collaborative fire management at the local level. Five
factors common to both case studies of particular importance to collaborative process
success are identified.
10
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION For much of the 20th century, federal land management agencies actively suppressed all
fires on public lands. Over time, the policy of fire suppression altered ecosystems and
increased the risk of more serious wildfires. By suppressing all fires, the agencies
interfered with the naturally occurring process of frequent low-intensity fires and less
frequent high-intensity stand replacement fires.1 This interference has led to the
accumulation of large quantities of burnable vegetation, including dense small diameter
tree stands, vast undergrowth, accumulated dead materials, and less fire-tolerant species.
This interference has also caused an increase in fire-intolerant species and a reduction in
the diversity of age classes within timber stands, both adding to the risk of serious
damage in the event of a catastrophic fire.2 The problem is particularly acute in the
western United States (General Accounting Office 1998). Fire suppression is not the only
cause of altered ecosystems3 and fuel build up. Other important factors include:
overgrazing, past timber harvesting methods, and invasion by non-native species. Experts
agree, however, that the primary factor contributing to unhealthy forests in the region has
1 A stand replacement fire is one of sufficient intensity to kill most or all of the dominant vegetation on a site, changing the vegetation structure substantially. Such fires may occur as a result of severe fire conditions, such as prolonged drought and extreme fuel build-up. However, certain vegetation types exhibit a stand replacement “fire regime;” that is, the role of fire in the vegetation type naturally includes such fires. California chaparral and sub-alpine forest both exhibit a stand replacement fire regime. 2 Also termed a “severe wildland fire,” a catastrophic fire is one that burns more intensely than the natural or historical range of variability, thereby fundamentally changing the ecosystem, destroying communities and/ or rare or threatened species/ habitat, or causing unacceptable erosion ( GAO/ T-RCED-99-79) ( Society of American Foresters, 1998) . 3 An ecosystem is defined as “a spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the Earth that includes all interacting organisms and components of any part of the natural environment within its boundaries (Society of American Foresters 1998).
11
been a decades-old policy of suppressing fire in the national forests, particularly in
those which depend on frequent fires (Covington and Moore 1994; Covington et al.
1994).
In the 1960s, federal land management agencies began to recognize the shortcomings of
the long-standing suppression policy (Parsons 1996). In the process, they also began to
look more favorably on management-ignited prescribed fire4 as a natural resource
management tool. In this sense, a prescribed fire is a deliberate and carefully planned
periodic burning of a selected site to achieve preplanned or resource management
objectives (Wakimoto 1989). Land management agencies conduct prescribed fires for
several reasons. Prescribed fires reduce accumulated fuel loads to decrease the likelihood
of severely damaging wildfires. They also prepare sites for re-planting and natural
vegetative regeneration, and they can improve wildlife habitat and result in a more
sustainable ecosystem5 (Pyne 1996). The role of naturally-ignited fires in ecosystem
function has also gained widespread understanding and support as a natural resource
management tool, particularly for use in wilderness areas (Parsons 2000). In 1968, the
National Park Service revised its management policies to formally recognize lightning-
ignited fire as a natural process. Soon, a number of national parks had operational
4 Prescribed fires are used to meet prescriptions: measurable criteria that define the conditions under which a prescribed fire will be ignited. Prescription criteria may include safety, economic, public health, and environmental, geographic, administrative, social, or legal considerations. 5 Ecosystem sustainability is the capacity to maintain ecosystem health, productivity, diversity, and overall integrity, in the long run, in the context of human activity and use.
12
wildland fire use6 programs, under which lightning –ignited fires were permitted to
burn under predetermined conditions (Parsons and Botti 1996).
In every management action an agency undertakes, whether suppression, prescribed fire,
or wildland fire use for resource benefits, or a combination of all three, working with
adjacent land managers is critical. Because ecosystems operate on scales defined by
nature, which may be larger or smaller than the artificial, human-imposed boundaries of
public and private lands, fire management requires collaboration between federal, state,
and local agencies as well as private parties. Wildfire cannot distinguish, nor does it
recognize, borders. One agency’s actions can influence the natural processes on adjacent
lands. Prescribed fire, for example, may pose a threat to neighboring lands, in the event
the fire was to escape control.
One particular resource management philosophy that has gained general acceptance
embraces collaboration as an important element for resource stewardship. Ecosystem
Management, first treated in depth by Agee and Johnson (1988), is a resource
management paradigm which focuses on the need to protect and restore ecological
components, functions, and structures in order to sustain resources in the long term
(Grumbine 1994; Moote et al 1994; Christensen et al 1996). Ecosystem management has
led to a much wider understanding of the ecological role of fire and its importance in the
6 Naturally-ignited fires that are allowed to burn for resource management purposes are termed Wildland Fire Use for Resources Benefits, or WFURB
13
functioning of ecosystems. Concerns over air quality, control of fire, and costs, as will
be discussed later, remain major constraints to the application of prescribed fire and
wildland fire use. The responsibility to see that fire is properly managed as a component
of the ecosystem is now greater than ever because land managers have the power to delay
and exclude fire as well as an understanding of fire’s important ecological role. All the
federal land management agencies7 have initiated efforts to adopt ecosystem management
principles into their resource management efforts.
Proponents of ecosystem management believe that coordinating fire management
activities across large geographic areas would do more to maintain or restore the health of
ecosystems than the current practice of managing legislatively or administratively
established land units (Government Accounting Office 1994; Hann and Bunnell 2001;
Sample 1992). They also believe that this approach would better ensure the sustainable
long-term use of natural resources, including the production of natural resource
commodities such as timber and forage and other uses such as recreational activities
(Government Accounting Office 1994).
In fire management, and resource management in general, interagency collaboration
fulfills several goals. First, collaboration promotes more informed decisions about the
future of a landscape (Bingham 1986; Grumbine 1994; Moote et al 1994). Second,
7 These agencies include: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) under the Department of the Interior (DOI); and the USDA Forest Service (USFS) under the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
14
collaboration builds agencies’ understanding of other agencies’ management
objectives, through information sharing and education (Yaffee and Wondolleck 1996).
Information sharing and joint data collection and research efforts also help to fill
information gaps or resolve uncertainties in scientific understanding. The coming
together of agency experts through a collaborative planning process can help resolve
problems common among participating agencies. Solving common problems is an
important goal for collaboration in fire management planning in particular. For example,
in southwestern New Mexico, a coalition of ranchers called the Malpai Borderlands
Group (discussed in detail in Chapter 4) has teamed with federal, state, and local agencies
to address the loss of native grasslands and ecological diversity seen in the region. A
hundred-year history of fire suppression has been a major influence in the decline in
ecosystem health. Together, the participants are developing strategies to promote
prescribed burning across public and private lands within the joint planning area. Third
among fire management goals, collaboration allows for more coordinated sharing of
resources, such as equipment and personnel for prescribed fire and suppression activities.
The first formal federal-level interagency policy effort took place in 1995. Following a
very severe and costly fire season in 1994, an interagency working group comprised of
members of each of the major federal fire management agencies formed to re-examine
their agencies’ individual fire programs. The 1994 fire season raised concerns that the
potential for catastrophic wildfires was increasing beyond the nation’s capability to
respond. Their report, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy & Program Review,
15
became the first interagency policy for federal wildland fire management (US
Department of Interior and US Department of Agriculture 1995). The policy stated that
fire program implementation at the administrative unit should occur on a joint,
interagency basis wherever possible to ensure consistency, and that each agency should
coordinate with other federal agencies and the affected tribal, state, local and private
entities adjacent to the administrative unit.8 Despite the recognition that interagency
collaboration is a necessity for coordination of fire management activities administrative
unit level, the number and extent of such collaborative efforts has been determined
inadequate (Interagency Working Group 2001; National Academy of Public
Administration 2001). Collaboration presents unusual, if not unique, challenges to
traditional organizational arrangements.
Local agency units are ultimately responsible for collaborative fire management
activities. They are responsible for adopting and implementing fire management
programs, and for selecting how fire is to be addressed by the program. However, few
collaborative efforts, at a scale as envisioned for ecosystem management, have been
initiated by local land management units in the federal agencies. Why has this been the
case? What are the factors that influence the success of collaborative fire management
efforts and the adoption of collaborative fire management plans or agreements?
8 The smallest administrative land unit within the land management agencies, e.g. park, monument, forest, or reserve
16
This report identifies the factors that affect the adoption of collaborate fire
management arrangements for implementing fire policy and ecosystem management
principles.
1.1 Research Objectives
This report explores interagency collaboration in fire management at the local level. It
has two primary objectives: (1) to identify the factors contributing failure or success in
collaborative fire management through an assessment of two current case studies, and (2)
to provide the background understanding necessary for fire management agencies that
want to promote the development of collaborative fire management in the future. This
report identifies how federal land management agency planners and fire managers may
overcome administrative, social, and political obstacles to collaborative fire management.
1.2 Report Organization
This report is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 has provided an overview of the
situation and presented the questions addressed by this report. Chapter 2 presents the
policy context and is divided into four sections. The first and second sections describe
current federal fire management policy pertaining to collaboration and the status of policy
implementation. The third section provides a brief description of the federal agencies
responsible for fire management and policy implementation, and summarizes federal fire
management policy and the national-level coordination mechanisms relevant to the
report. Chapter 3 presents the information found in the literature from a variety of fields
17
on the factors that influence collaborative decision making. The chapter focuses on the
literature relevant to natural resource management in particular. Chapter 4 presents two
case studies of collaborative fire management. The first section describes the methods
used to assess the collaboration in the two case studies. The second through the fourth
sections describe the situation in each study area, and present the findings from
interviews conducted among participants in each. Finally, Chapter 5, the author proposes
recommendations to fire managers and other stakeholders who want to foster
collaboration.
18
CHAPTER 2: THE POLICY CONTEXT
The changing nature of wildfires, as well as changes in the policies and philosophies
guiding resource management, require local agency unit administrators and fire managers
to seek out their local partners to solve resource management problems collaboratively.
Although interagency collaboration is a relatively new approach to fire management
policy making and implementation, it has not been totally excluded in fire management
policies in the past, particularly at the national levels within the land management
agencies. This chapter discusses fire policies relevant to collaborative fire management,
beginning with the individual agencies involved.
2.1 Agencies Involved In Fire Management
Five major land management agencies have responsibility for federal wildland fire
management on more than 90 percent of all federal lands (National Academy of Public
Administration 2001). Still many other federal departments and agencies play important
roles in fire management. State, county, municipal, and tribal governments, as well as the
private and nonprofit sectors, are also involved in fire management. This section
describes the complex administrative environment for fire management in the United
States. The challenges of undergoing collaborative fire management ventures cannot be
fully understood without first considering the differing origins, missions, practices, and
cultures of these many federal agencies and other parties. A brief summary is provided
for each of the five major agencies, and several of the nonfederal parties.
19
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The BIA administers 54.5 million acres of land held in trust for American Indians, Indian
tribes, and Alaska Natives9. This land includes 443,000 acres of federally-owned land, 11
million acres of individually-owned land, and 43 million acres of tribally-owned land.
The BIA’s fire management program includes wildland fire suppression, and prescribed
burning for ecosystem health and hazardous fuel treatment. Prescribed burning has been a
long-standing practice among the tribes. A major difference between BIA and the other
agencies is that tribes are involved in all fire management phases. Indian self-
determination legislation in 1975 changed BIA’s role from direct service provider to
administrator for programs contracted to the tribes (National Academy of Public
Administration 2001). The individual tribes now run most BIA programs, including the
agency’s fire programs.
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM was established in 1946 and manages 270 million acres of land,10 most of
which is located west of the Mississippi. The BLM has a multiple use mission, as
9 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) traces its roots to the earliest days of the U.S. government. One of the first actions taken by the Continental Congress in 1775 was to name a Committee on Indian Affairs. In 1786, the Secretary of War assumed responsibility for Indian affairs. An 1849 act established the Department of the Interior and shifted Indian affairs from military to civilian control. Development of the reservation system gained momentum in the mid-1850s following California’s experimentation with the reservation policy. The BIA’s mission of educating young Native Americans came to the forefront in 1879 when the first off-reservation boarding school was established at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Around this time, the BIA also became increasingly involved with specialized activities such as irrigation, forestry, Indian employment, law enforcement, health, and construction. 10 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) traces its roots to two previous agencies: the General Land Office established by Congress in 1812 to oversee the disposition and settlement of federal lands under the
20
described under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (Glicksman and
Coggins 2001). Multiple use requires the agency to manage resources under the best
combination of uses to benefit the American people while ensuring the productivity of the
land and protecting the quality of the environment The BLM has wildland fire
management responsibility for the land it administers, as well as for an additional 124
million acres of state and private land throughout the western States.
Unlike the other agencies which generally manage large tracts of contiguous land, BLM’s
land is intermingled with private and state lands. Although this has been a management
challenge, it has also encouraged the BLM to develop strong relationships with a broad
range of state, local, and private groups (National Academy of Public Administration
2001). In addition, because the BLM’s field structure is organized state-by-state, the
agency is in a better position to develop cooperative relationships through standard
political channels (i.e. within a single State) than the other agencies, whose structure
overlaps political boundaries.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The FWS oversees 91 million acres of refuges and bird sanctuaries throughout the
Homesteading Laws and the Mining Law of 1872; and the U.S. Grazing Service established in 1934 under the Taylor Grazing Act to manage public rangelands. The BLM was formally established in 1946, when the two agencies were joined (Glicksman and Coggins 2001).
21
country.11 With its ecosystem-oriented mission and land types, FWS uses fire routinely
to preserve and protect its fish and wildlife habitat. The agency has long had an
aggressive prescribed fire program to achieve these ends. The FWS later was authorized
to serve an important regulatory role, unlike that of any other land management agency.
Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 for the purpose of
protecting threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The FWS, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) located in the Department of Commerce, both
assumed responsibility for administering ESA. This regulatory role, discussed later in this
chapter, is an increasingly important constraint on fuels management programs.
Outside of its regulatory functions, FWS does not have a strong interagency role within
the fire community; it participates in but seldom initiates interagency activities. Its closest
relationships are with state fish and wildlife agencies about matters such as habitat
protection and enhancement, including prescribed burning (NAPA 2001). FWS also has a
strong relationship with The Nature Conservancy since both institutions share the same
mission for land management: preserving biodiversity (NAPA 2001).
USDA Forest Service
The USDA Forest Service was formally created in 1905 manage the National Forest
System created eight years earlier with the passage of the Organic Administration Act.
11 The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) can trace its origin to the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries in the Department of Commerce, and the Bureau of Biological Survey in the Department of Agriculture. In 1939, these two agencies were moved to the Department of the Interior and joined to form the FWS.
22
The Service’s mission was to act as the caretaker of the forest reserves to provide
quality water and timber for the nation’s benefit. Today, its formal mission is to manage
its 191 million acres under a multiple use approach similar to the BLM.
The USDA Forest Service is the dominant agency in the federal wildland fire
management community as measured by both its staff and budget, and controls roughly
two-thirds of all federal fire management resources (National Academy of Public
Administration 2001). Fire suppression has long been a significant part of the USDA
Forest Service’s fire management efforts, but the agency now uses fire for ecological
restoration and fuels reduction. In 1999, the USDA Forest Service treated more acres
using prescribed fire than all the other agencies combined, or 0.81 percent of its total land
area (National Academy of Public Administration 2001).
The USDA Forest Service has three distinct program areas: the National Forest System,
State and Private Forestry, and Research. Each of these areas has developed and
maintained a unique but overlapping set of partners. Individual land management units
within the National Forest System have developed relationships with the local and state
governments where they are located (NAPA 2001). The Resource Advisory Committees,
recently established by Congress to increase local influence over federal land
management activities, strengthened these intergovernmental relationships.12
12 Sec. 205, P.L. 106-393 (Oct. 30, 2000).
23
National Park Service
In 1916, the National Park Service Organic Act established the National Park Service
(NPS) within the Department of Interior and the current system of national parks.13 The
NPS is responsible for promoting and regulating the use of national parks, monuments,
and reservations to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment for the same in such manner and by such
means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (National
Park Service 2000). Besides the Organic Act of 1916, governing laws include the
Antiquities Act of 1906, which governs management of national monuments in particular,
and the individual statutes that create each park system unit. Park system units may differ
in their respective missions, depending on the purpose for which the unit was established.
This in turn can dictate how a particular unit uses fire as a management tool. In units
where natural resource conservation is the primary mission (versus historic preservation,
for example), an important element is to restore the land to its historical condition, i.e.
before it was altered by human activity (Alberti 2003, interview). NPS uses prescribed
fire in park units where fire occurs naturally to help meet this land use and resource
management objective.
Under the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by NPS, federal assistance
has created state and local parks. These projects are conceived and carried out by state
13 The first national park in the United States, Yellowstone National Park, was designated by Congress in 1872, and originally administered by the U.S. Army.
24
and local governments to serve their own needs (NAPA 2001). Those needs can
include any type of state or local parks purchased with federal grants and matching
dollars from state and local levels. NPS’ Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Grant
Program supports recreation in urban areas and rewards creative thinking with
“innovation grants” (NAPA 2001). NPS also is the key federal agency for working with
state historic preservation offices and state archaeologists nationwide. These state
officials are important stakeholders in fire planning efforts.
Non-Federal Governments and Private Landowners
State, local, and tribal governments and private landowners are key stakeholders in the
federal fire program. Often, their lands are adjacent to the nation’s public lands and all
respond when wildland fire occurs. Usually, municipal, county, and volunteer fire
departments are the first responders to fire emergencies.
One particular private entity has a significant role in fire management at the local level.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to
“preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life
on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive” (The Nature
Conservancy 2001, p.1). TNC manages approximately 700,000 acres nationwide and is
the only conservation organization with its own in-house fire management staff (National
Academy of Public Administration 2001). When needed, TNC fire crews participate in
wildland fire suppression efforts. TNC is particularly active in the use of prescribed fire;
25
the organization annually burns 10% of its managed land area for ecological
objectives. The Nature Conservancy’s long and close working relationship with
governmental and private partners has given it a reputation for building strong
community-based public-private partnerships. Many of its prescribed burns are conducted
in partnership with federal, state, and/or local governments.
2.2 Fire Management Operations and Planning
Fire management is largely the responsibility of administrative unit within the federal
land management agencies (National Academy of Public Administration 2000). Fire
management programs, and the use of fire for management purposes, must be based on
fire management plans (FMP). The FMP is a strategic plan that defines a program to
manage wildland and prescribed fires for an administrative unit. The FMP describes the
functional activity for the unit fire management program. Regardless of ignition source, if
a fire is out of prescription, initial attack14 is required. If a fire is in prescription, it will be
managed according to the unit’s FMP. Units without an FMP are required to suppress
fires on their land until an approved FMP is in place.
The FMP is also supplemented by operational plans. Operational plans include the most
detailed step in the fire management process, and provide the strategic information
14 Initial Attack—a aggressive suppression response to a wildland fire based on resources to be protected, benefits of suppression, and potential cost of suppression.
26
necessary for implementation of the fire management program (National Park Service
2000). Examples of operational plans include: prescribed fire plans, wildland fire
implementation plans, and the wildland fire situation analysis (WFSA). There may be
other operational plans depending on program complexity, such as preparedness plans,
preplanned dispatch plans, and prevention plans (National Park Service 2000).
The mission of each land management agency shapes its management practices and
organizational culture. Table 1 summarizes the missions of these five agencies. The
USDA Forest Service and BLM have multiple-use missions, whereas NPS and FWS have
dominant-use missions. The BIA is different from the other agencies discussed; it has to
deal with multiple sovereigns because the tribes are recognized in law and treaties as
separate sovereign governments. Indian lands are managed for the benefit of Indian
populations rather than all Americans.
Agencies’ approaches to wildland fire management vary according to their different
missions. Some of the differences are described previously. These different approaches to
wildland fire suppression and to the use of fire for resource management purposes can
complicate their ability to collaborate in fire management planning and ecosystem
management on a broad scale, while magnifying the need to do so. These obstacles
cannot be addressed during a fire when there is no time to negotiate agreements between
agencies managing adjoining lands. Rather, cooperation needs to the object of proactive
planning efforts.
27
Table 1: Comparison of Federal Land Management Agency Missions
Use of prescribed fire
Table 2 shows the prescribed fire statistics for the period from 1995 to 2000 for each of
the federal land management agencies. The FWS burned 0.3% of its total land holdings in
1999, making it the second to the USDA Forest Service in its use of prescribed fire.
However, excluding lands in Alaska (where very large proportions of all the federal
agency lands are located, and where fire suppression has not been as rigorously applied in
the past) changes this pattern significantly. In the lower 48 states, the FWS burned 4.26
percent of its land in 1999 (National Academy of Public Administration 2001). By that
calculation, the FWS is the largest user of prescribed fire.
Agency Mission
Bureau of Indian Affairs
“Fulfill its trust responsibilities and promote self-determination on behalf of Tribal Governments, American Indians and Alaska Natives.”
Bureau of Land Management
“Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”
Fish and Wildlife Service
“Conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
USDA Forest Service
“To achieve quality land management under the sustainable, multi-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people.”
National Park Service
“Conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment for the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
Source: Department of the Interior (http://www.doi.gov); USDA Forest Service (http://www.fs.fed.us)
28
Table 2: Prescribed Fire Statistics
Although the long-term trend is toward more prescribed burns, the number of acres
burned by wildfire in a typical year is significantly higher than the number burned by
prescribed fire. In 1999, for instance, the agencies burned 2.2 million acres with
prescribed fire. That same year, wildfires burned about 5.6 million acres. Consequently,
the federal land management agencies—both individually and collectively—have
continued to spend much more on wildfire suppression than on managing prescribed
fires. As Table 3 reveals, the agencies spent more than five times as much in 1999 for
wildfire suppression as they spent on prescribed fires.
Agency Number of
acres managed (in millions)
Total acres burned 1995-
2000
Average number of
acres burned per year
Percent of land area burned
per year
Bureau of Indian Affairs 54.5 209,505 34,917.50 0.06
Bureau of Land Management 270 812,323 135,387.17 0.05
Fish and Wildlife Service 91 1,500,318 250,053.00 0.27
USDA Forest Service 191 5,882,611 980,435.17 0.51
National Park Service 81 424,639 70,773.17 0.09
Total 687.5 8,829,396 1,471,566 0.21
Source: National Interagency Fire Center (2003), Prescribed Fire Statistics
29
Table 3: Total Expenditures on Wildfire Suppression and Prescribed Fire
On a per-acre basis nationwide, prescribed fire costs less than wildfire suppression. But
the costs of prescribed fire vary considerably by region and within regions. Burns in the
southeast cost much less than burns elsewhere (National Academy of Public
Administration 2000). Costs also vary by agency. In 1999, agency costs ranged from $25
per acre to $75 per acre. These data are important for budgeting, but should not be taken
as indicative of agencies’ relative efficiency in conducting prescribed burns because of
the very different characteristics of lands being managed and for other reasons.
The question of economic efficiency in light of these figures must be addressed by fire
managers at the administrative unit level. Due to the alternation of ecosystem conditions
Year Acres
burned by wildfire
Wildfire suppression costs ($ in thousands)
Expense per acre
($)
Acres burned by prescribed
fire
Prescribed fire costs
($ in thousands)
Expense per acre
($)
1995 2,315,730 340,050 146.84 918,300 20,446 22.27
1996 6,701,390 679,167.6 101.35 915,163 29,550 32.29
1997 3,672,616 256,000 69.71 1,601,158 36,146 22.57
1998 2,329,709 328,526 141.02 1,889,564 70,793 37.47
1999 5,661,976 523,468 92.45 2,240,105 99,104 44.24
Total for 5-year period
20,681,421 2,127,211.6 110.27 (5-yr avg)
7,564,290 256,039 31.77 (5-yr avg)
Source: National Interagency Fire Center (2003), Prescribed Fire Statistics
30
from nearly 80 years of fire suppression, an unnatural state of high fuel loads in which
the potential for larger, more destructive wildfires exists. Management activities need to
question the effectiveness of suppression efforts and the costs associated with them, for
the future of resource management. Application of prescribed fire programs allows
managers the opportunity to restore ecosystem health and sustain resources in the long-
run even though these management actions incur short-term costs.
Moreover, with the increased intensity and damage from wildfires due to past suppression
policies, managers must now engage in massive rehabilitation efforts, which entail costs
extending far after the fire itself. With agencies amassing fire suppression expenses of
over one billion dollars for one fire season, managers and policy makers must look for
proactive rather than reactive means with which to address the wildfire problem.
Prescribed fire offers managers a preventative, prescriptive, and cost-effective solution to
addressing wildfire protection.
Due to the nature of the current political environment, funding and support for prescribed
fire operations have been vulnerable to cutbacks in recent years. Agency prescribed burn
programs and operating procedures have faced increased criticism (National Academy of
Public Administration 2000). One of the major impediments to use of prescribed fire
continues to be a lack of long-term financial support (Parsons 1994). As the government
limits resources available to prescribed fire activities, while at the same time providing
tremendous funds for fire suppression activities, a situation is created in which ecosystem
31
health will continue to decline and an increase in fire suppression expenditures in the
long-term will be realized.
The risks and costs associated with the use of prescribed fire in restoring ecosystem
health represent short-term expenditures in efforts to sustain desired long-term
management goals and objectives. While fire escapes may occur, such as the Cerro
Grande fire in Los Alamos, New Mexico in 2000, increased control associated with the
use of prescribed fire, when compared to wildfires, allows managers the opportunity to
address multiple concerns among the myriad landowners that may comprise an
ecosystem. Working with, and involving all agency administrative units in the
development and application of prescribed fire programs assures managers the best
means to conduct fire management as efficiently and carefully as possible to prevent
large-scale wildfires in the future.
2.3 Federal Fire Management Policy
The importance of collaboration among federal land management agencies, and between
federal agencies and state, local, and private land management partners, was first
recognized at the federal level in the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.
The 1995 Federal Fire Policy came after the 1994 fire season during which 34 firefighters
died, including 14 on the South Canyon Fire in Colorado (Brown 2001). That severe fire
season raised concerns that the potential for catastrophic wildfires was increasing beyond
the nation’s capability to respond. At the request of the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
32
Interior, the federal wildland fire agencies15 closely re-examined their programs to
ensure that uniform Federal policies and cohesive interagency and intergovernmental fire
management programs existed (US Department of Interior and US Department of
Agriculture 1995).
The 1995 Federal Fire Policy affirmed the valuable role fire plays in managing ecosystem
health and reducing the risk of catastrophic fires. It required the land management
agencies to more strongly consider whether fires should be allowed to burn for resource
management purposes. Also, the 1995 Federal Fire Policy aimed to ensure that fire
policies between the fire management agencies were uniform and that agency programs
were cooperative and consistent for all aspects of fire management, from wildfire
suppression operations to fire effects monitoring, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use.
Uniformity was identified as necessary to insure program compatibility when sharing
information, resources, and personnel.
The 1995 Federal Fire Policy noted that wildland fire respects no boundaries, and that
uniform federal policies and coordinated programs are essential for the protection and
management of natural resources. It also said: “While unique agency missions may result
in minor operational differences, having, for the first time, one set of ‘umbrella’ federal
15 The members of the interagency steering group that generated the 1995 Federal Fire Policy represented the land management agencies of the Department of the Interior (DOI), the USDA Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Fire Administration, the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
33
fire policies will enhance effective and efficient operations across administrative
boundaries and improve our capability to meet the challenges posed by current wildland
fire conditions” (US Department of Interior and Us Department of Agriculture 1995,
p.iii).
Following the Cerro Grande Fire in May 2000—which destroyed 235 structures in and
around Los Alamos, NM, and burned over 47,000 acres—the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior requested that the federal wildland fire community review the 1995
policy and its implementation. An interagency work group was formed that included
several individuals from the 1995 team.16 The new work group found that the 1995 policy
was basically sound but that some aspects were unclear, incomplete, unrealistic, or no
longer appropriate (Interagency Working Group 2001). This prompted recommendations
for several modifications and additions to the 1995 policy.
Both the 1995 and 2001 Policies emphasized the importance of collaboration among
federal land management agencies, and between federal agencies and state, local, and
private land management partners. The 2001 Federal Fire Policy again emphasized that
the implementation of policy should occur on a joint, interagency basis wherever possible
to ensure consistent application; and that each agency should collaborate with other
16 The number of signatory agencies that signed the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001 Federal Fire Policy) was expanded from 1995 to incorporate several additional agencies that have planning, funding, research, or firefighting responsibilities, including the Departments of Commerce, Defense and Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Association of State Foresters (NASF).
34
federal agencies and the affected tribal, state, and local partners (Interagency Working
Group 2001). It reiterated seven goals in the 1995 Federal Fire Policy that speak directly
to the need for collaboration among these parties:
1. Federal planning for land management (of which fire management planning is one
component) should be a collaborative effort, which includes all interested partners
working together to develop and implement management objectives that cross
jurisdictional boundaries.
2. Agencies should collectively and cooperatively develop and maintain an organization
that can effectively plan and safely implement prescribed fire and fuel management
programs.
3. Wildland/urban interface fire protection policies should be compatible among federal
agencies and promote partnerships with tribal, state, and local governments and the
private sector.
4. Federal agencies should address wildland/urban interface protection needs in the
vicinity of their lands through collaborative planning, analysis, and action among the
stakeholders.
5. Fire protection agreements and partnerships should be developed, approved, and
promoted to clarify responsibilities and to provide for pre-fire hazard and risk
mitigation activities, in addition to suppression preparedness.
6. Public fire protection roles, responsibilities, and activities within the wildland/urban
interface should be identified through a partnership among federal, tribal, state, local,
and private entities.
35
7. Federal agencies should create and maintain a coordinated fire information
database that supports critical decisions related to the fire management program.
A major theme in the Federal Policy is that the former practice of suppressing wildland
fires is to be replaced by one where fire will be used for natural resource management
purposes. To make this a reality, the policy recommends that every area with burnable
vegetation must have an approved fire management plan based on land use and resource
management goals. Communication and collaboration are highlighted throughout the
policy by provisions that recommend fire be integrated into fire management plans on a
“landscape” scale that would often cross agency boundaries. Fire management planning,
preparedness, suppression, fire use, monitoring, and research are to be conducted on an
interagency basis with the involvement of all appropriate partners.
Despite the compelling incentives to collaborate, as described in the previous section,
several studies found collaboration for fire management to be inadequately implemented
by federal land management agencies at the administrative unit level. In assessing
implementation of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy, the 2001 review team found that 24 of
the 83 action items listed in the 1995 policy had either not been started or had major
deficiencies that required special attention.17 According to the review team, interagency
17 The 2001 Interagency Working Group assessed implementation using the following principal sources: 1) each of the five management agencies (USFS, BLM, NPS, BIA, FWS) was asked to report on the status of the Action Items, and their responses were tabulated and reviewed; 2) the Brookings Institution was commissioned to survey a random sample of fire managers, resource managers, and agency administrators
36
collaboration was most successful in areas related to fire suppression and organization
of firefighting resources. Implementation was least successful in areas that required
collaboration and agreement among agencies during the pre-fire planning stage,
particularly with regards to coming to joint agreement on planning for the use of fire as a
management tool (Interagency Working Group 2001).18 These findings were consistent
with a subsequent study conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA), which determined that the 1995 Federal Fire Policy items requiring
collaboration of suppression resources had been adequately met—but that collaborative
interagency planning varied “greatly in quality from place to place and agency to agency”
(National Academy of Public Administration 2001, p.50).
2.4 Other Policies
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires federal agencies to
apply an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) in
decision-making related to their actions, and make provisions for public involvement and
in each agency regarding their views on adequacy and implementation of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy; 3) agency employees were invited to provide their views on the 1995 Federal Fire Policy; 4) letters were sent to non-governmental organizations requesting their views on the 1995 Federal Fire Policy and its implementation; and 5) a variety of internal and external reports, reviews, studies, and presentations on various aspects of wildland fire were reviewed (Interagency Working Group 2001). 18 Of the review team’s conclusions, ten relate to interagency collaboration at the administrative unit level. They found that: too few ecosystem-based fire management programs have been implemented; compatible ecosystem, interagency land management plans have not been developed; no formal systems have been created to facilitate coordination and cooperation among land managers and regulators; involvement of public health and environmental regulators early in the process had been narrow; no interagency strategic plan for educating the public and agency personnel about the role of fire has been developed; standardizing fire statistics and developing a common database of fire information are incomplete, and have a low priority; and interagency criteria for evaluating ecosystem condition have not been developed. Some of these action would take place at a national level within the agencies, but have direct bearing on administrative unit cross-boundary activities.
37
input. Fire management plans (FMPs) and even individual burn plans maybe subject to
NEPA requirements. NEPA ensures that environmental information is first made available
to public officials and citizens before any decision is made or any action occurs, and
strives to coordinate interagency NEPA compliance when a project involves multiple
agencies (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). Also, the Council on Environmental
Quality, established under NEPA to carry out the functions of the statute, views
ecosystem management as an important component of sustainable land management
(Council on Environmental Quality 1997; Phillips and Randolph 2000). However,
different agencies follow different procedures in meeting these requirements (National
Academy of Public Administration 2001).
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is a comprehensive wildlife conservation
law. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) share responsibility administering the ESA. Generally, NMFS deals with species
occurring in ocean environments while FWS is responsible for land animals, freshwater
species, and birds. Section 7 of ESA requires the land management agencies to consult
with FWS regulators about any proposed action that could impact any endangered
species. These lengthy and complex consultations have frustrated the land management
agencies because of concerns about a fire program’s adverse short-term effects on
specific species, although research suggests that most endangered and threatened plant
and animal species either benefit from or are found in ecosystems that regularly
experience fire (Brown and Smith 2000). ESA thus poses a challenge to fire management.
38
Collaborative fire management arrangements often compound the problem, given that
an expansion in landscape scale frequently means an increase in number of species
requiring attention under ESA.
Other laws affecting fire management programs include the Clean Water Act and the Clean
Air Act, which are meant to protect the quality of air and water resources for health and
welfare purposes (Environmental Protection Agency 2003). Prescribed and naturally-
ignited fire can have impacts on air and water quality. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) shares responsibility with state air and water quality agencies for
administering these laws. Air quality regulations in particular can hamper the use of fire
for resource management purposes.
2.5 National-Level Coordination Mechanisms
No single federal, state, local, tribal, or volunteer fire agency alone can handle all
wildland fire that occurs in its jurisdiction, particularly during severe fire seasons.
Therefore, they must work together to exchange support, fire protection, information, and
training services. Strong coordination exists for suppression efforts at the national level
through the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), which in turns aids the fire
operations at the administrative unit. Developed in the mid-1960s, NIFC provides support
for wildland firefighting efforts and assists with other disasters when requested by
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory
39
Commission (NRC).19 NIFC houses the National Interagency Coordinating Center
(NICC), a highly automated facility that quickly locates and mobilizes emergency
personnel, equipment, supplies, and aircraft.
Although not a coordinating body per se, the Incident Command System (ICS) is a
coordinating mechanism used during times of national fire emergencies (National
Academy of Public Administration 2001). The ICS provides an organizational structure
for managing wildland fires that intensify and grow large enough to require the use of the
fire fighting resources from many jurisdictions. In such cases, ICS places all the needed
resources under the operational command of an on-site incident commander. ICS also
provides a system for coordinating personnel qualification standards, training
requirements, procedures, and terminology enabling personnel of participating agencies
to function together during large emergencies.
In addition to preparedness and suppression efforts, pre-fire planning is important, and
several groups help to coordinate the various stakeholders on pre-fire planning issues.
Fire management planning is the process of making land-use decisions for the future,
setting objectives for fire management, implementing the correct actions to accomplish
objectives, and performing evaluations comparing results to objectives (Hann and
19 The first national level coordination occurred in 1965, when the BLM and USDA Forest Service joined efforts to form the Interagency Fire Center. The center’s purpose was to improve fire and aviation support for wildfire suppression in the Great Basin and Intermountain West. The NPS, FWS, and BIA also joined the center in the 1970s to form what is now known as the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC).
40
Bunnell 2001). Two notable entities have arisen to address fire management planning
issues: the National Wildfire Collaboration Group and the Fire Learning Network.
In 1976, the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture created the National Wildfire
Collaboration Group (NWCG) to serve as a forum for developing policies, guidelines,
and standards to benefit the participating agencies20 (National Academy of Public
Administration 2001). NWCG has 10 working teams that examine various issues related
to fire management. The Fire Use Working Team is an important example for interagency
collaboration. Its mission is to coordinate and advocate the use of wildland fire to achieve
land management objectives; promote a greater understanding of the role of wildland fire
and its effects; and recommend and maintain a fire-use qualification system (National
Academy of Public Administration 2001). However, each agency determines whether and
in what manner it will adopt NWCG proposals, limiting the effectiveness of the NWCG
in directing planning at the administrative unit within each agency (National Academy of
Public Administration 2001). This fact may slow progress toward achieving desired
results and can result in setting aside some difficult issues. Without a direct connection to
unit level, NWCG cannot directly affect what actually occurs in the field.
20 Participants in NWCG include members from USDA Forest Service, BLM, NPS, BIA, FWS, and state forestry agencies (represented by the National Association of State Foresters). The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have recently joined the NWCG.
41
These obstacles to cooperation are beginning to be addressed. For example, a work
group was chartered by the USDA Forest Service and Interior Department in October
2001 to develop a standard FMP template for all agencies (US Department of Interior
2002). The charter calls for “a single, standardized, seamless, cross-boundary process that
is landscape-based, ecosystem focused, and oriented toward collaboration with
nonfederal partners” (US Department of Interior 2002, p.1). On July 11, 2002, the
Interagency Fire Management Plan Template was approved by all land management
agencies under the Department of the Interior, and the USDA Forest Service (US
Department of Interior 2002). The agencies have begun to use the FMP template at the
unit level, but based on personal observation it does not appear that collaboration has
increased as a direct result of the new FMP format.
A national-level cooperative arrangement with specific application to collaboration at the
administrative unit level has recently come to the forefront. The Nature Conservancy
(TNC), the Department of the Interior wildland fire agencies and the USDA Forest
Service Fire and Aviation Management have entered into a cooperative agreement in
2002, titled Restoring Fire Adapted Ecosystems. The project, developed by TNC, focuses
on outreach, training and education for the use and reintroduction of fire in fire-adapted
ecosystems.21 This collaborative and innovative agreement is meant to help the agencies
21 A fire-adapted ecosystem is defined as an arrangement of plant and animal populations that have made long-term genetic changes in response to the presence of fire in the environment. Ponderosa pine is a classic example of a species adapted to fire, with its thick bark and high-branching habits, and seeds that require bare soil (as provided by fire consuming the ground litter) for germination.
42
and TNC accomplish fuels treatment objectives across landscapes and jurisdictions,
while educating the public on the benefits of fire use for resource management. A
significant part of the cooperative project is the Fire Learning Network (FLN). The FLN
is designed to help isolated unit-level projects proceed toward implementing fire projects
on landscape scales. To date, 25 areas have been targeted by the FLN for concentrated
effort in enabling collaborative fire management efforts. The USDA Forest Service and
Department of the Interior agencies have provided significant financial assistance, and
are represented as major participants in most of the collaborative projects. Landscapes in
the Network include mixed federal, state and private land. Projects are led by teams that
cross organizational boundaries.
2.6 Summary
In the fire management arena, two federal departments—Agriculture and Interior, and the
five largest land management agencies within them—have primary responsibility for
implementing fire management policies. Still many other departments and agencies play
important roles in fire management. State, county, municipal, and tribal governments, as
well as the private and nonprofit sectors, are also affected. Therefore, the challenges of
implementing the fire policies cannot be fully understood without first considering the
differing origins, missions, practices, and cultures of these many federal agencies and
other parties.
43
The 2000 Interagency Working Group and NAPA study found that collaboration had
been largely absent from federal fire management (Interagency Working Group 2001;
National Academy of Public Administration 2001). Those who took part in developing
the 1995 Federal Fire Policy may have underrated how the differences among agencies’
authorizing legislation, missions, regulations, operating practices, and cultures might
influence the agencies’ ability to implement collaborative fire management programs.
The policy poses a difficult challenge that calls for transforming agency cultures,
integrating fire and resource management decisions, and involving diverse participants in
wildland fire management. It is not surprising that the interagency working group formed
to reassess the 1995 policy concluded: “Implementation of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy
has been incomplete, particularly in the quality of planning and in interagency and
interdisciplinary matters” (Interagency Working Group 2001, p.iii).
44
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter summarizes the current state of knowledge about interagency collaborative
arrangements in practice. The first section defines collaboration and describes the
rationales for collaboration in natural resource management, particularly for fire
management. The second section presents the barriers and opportunities described by the
literature when considering the topic of interagency collaboration. The literature review
includes selected references about collaboration from the business and public
administration fields, but concentrates mainly on the literature that addresses
collaboration in natural resource management. The chapter identifies specific factors that
influence the creation of interagency groups and the use of collaboration among them.
3.1 Collaboration: Definition and Rationales
Collaboration is a process through which a group of individuals come together and share
their knowledge, expertise and/or resources for a common goal. By engaging each other
to meet a common goal or resolve a shared problem, the groups can devise solutions that
go beyond their own limited vision or abilities to address the problem in question
(Bingham 1986; Gray 1989). Those parties with an interest in the problem are termed
stakeholders. Stakeholders include all individuals, groups, or organizations that are
directly influenced by the problem, or actions taken to address the problem. Yaffee and
Wondolleck (1996) discuss four major uses of collaborative processes in resource and
environmental management:
45
1. building understanding by fostering exchange of information and ideas among
agencies, organizations, and the public and providing a mechanism for resolving
uncertainty;
2. providing a mechanism for effective decision making through processes that focus on
common problems and build support for decisions;
3. generating a means of getting necessary work done by coordinating cross-boundary
activities, fostering joint management activities, and mobilizing an expanded set of
resources; and
4. developing the capacity of agencies, organizations, and communities to deal with the
challenges of the future.
The need for collaboration across administrative boundaries is reinforced by the literature
on ecosystem management, which unanimously advocates management at broader
geographic and temporal scales (Grumbine 1994; Moote et al 1994; Christensen et al
1996). According to University of Arizona researchers Moote and others (1994), who
summarized much of ecosystem management literature, “Ecosystem management must
work over larger spatial and longer temporal scales than has been the norm in resource
management. It requires management across ecological, political, generational, and
ownership boundaries” (p.7).
Collaboration acknowledges the wide set of public values and interests in management of
wildland fire, and actively involves representatives of those interests in decision making
46
and implementation. Participation provides for the expansion of what Robert Putnam
calls “social capital” (Putnam 2000) that flows from trust, reciprocity, information, and
cooperation developed through personal interaction in social and professional settings.
However, effective participation can be achieved only by involving multiple interests in
collaborative decision-making processes (Innes 1996).
The literature on environmental regulation argues that collaboration is a way to
counteract the traditional top-down, command-and-control system prevalent in
environmental regulation. John and Mlay (1999) link this argument most closely to the
need for collaborative initiatives at the local level. They state that top-down regulation
works well for controlling pointsource pollution and preservation of individual species
(where the risks and responsibilities are more easily identified) but fails when attempting
to deal with issues such as nonpoint source pollution22 and management of ecosystems
with the higher complexity that is involved. They argue for the use of a more
“collaborative, integrative approach to environmental policy that is an ad hoc process of
custom designing answers to complex environmental problems in a specific location”
(p.355). However, they recognize that this is “profoundly different from the processes by
which our government usually does its work.”
22Nonpoint source pollution is the result of diffuse or widespread pollution, such as water that gathers contaminants as it flows over urban lands and empties into a stream. Pointsource pollution result from an identified source, such as a wastewater treatment plant that discharges treated water into a stream.
47
3.2 Factors Influencing Interagency Collaboration
Despite existing motivations for collaborative participation, many factors exist that may
serve as barriers to effective collaboration. Collaboration barriers can be grouped into
three major categories (Gray 1989; Yaffee and Wondolleck 1996). First, problems can
result from the way in which the organizations involved in collaboration are structured,
their policies, mission, and approach to collaboration. Second, the ways that individuals
and groups involved think about collaboration and each other can influence their ability
to work together. Third, the manner in which a collaborative process is managed, and the
aptitude of the individuals involved, may have ultimate bearing on the outcome of
collaboration. These broad categories are used as a framework for discussion of the
information taken from the literature. Table 4 lists the three categories, and the specific
factors that fall under each category.
3.2.1 Organizational Factors
Certain collaboration barriers in natural resources may grow out of some mix of
divergent legal mandates, incompatible organizational structure, and conflicting policies.
These obstacles may influence the ability or willingness of stakeholders to participate in
collaborative processes (Grumbine 1991; Moote et al 1994).
48
Table 4: Factors influencing Interagency Collaboration
Agencies’ structures may act as a barrier to collaboration. For example, many of these
agencies follow a top-down structure not conducive to interagency work. When the
USDA Forest Service is involved in collaboration at the unit level, or district, a single
district may be involved. The agency administrator at the unit-level, the district ranger,
has limited authority to make decisions involving other agencies. USDA Forest Service
policy states that only a forest supervisor may approve decisions involving agreements
with outside parties (Gunzel 2003, interview). This situation adds an additional level of
Organizational Factors • Clarity and compatibility of goals and missions • Clarity and compatibility of agency policies and procedures • Time and funds available for collaboration • Commitment of agency and participants to collaboration efforts
Factors in Perceptions and Attitudes • Trust between agencies and participants • Distribution of power among participants • Perceptions by individuals or groups for each other • Perceptions of information comprehensiveness and veracity
Factors Related to the Collaboration Process • Capacity of agencies to collaborate • Effort spent toward relationship building • Clear leadership in process • Shared purpose between agencies/participants • Proper representatives involved
Source: Author
49
bureaucracy requiring harmonization with the collaborative process, which may
hamper efforts at the unit level to establish relationships across agency boundaries.
Agency policies also influence collaborative efforts. For example, if a joint or landscape
scale fire management plan is the ultimate goal for a collaborative arrangement between
two or more agencies, it must often also fit into the framework of the agencies’ other
planning documents, including the general management plans for specific parks and
forests that guide how these lands are to be managed (National Park Service 2000). To
accommodate the joint plan, these agency plans may have to be amended, which is a
time-consuming task.
Personnel policies within an agency can impede the development of collaboration as
well. Wondolleck and Yaffee (1997) note in their study of USDA Forest Service
collaborative partnerships that the continuity, or a low turnover rate, of key individuals is
critical to partnership success. Of the partnerships they found to be successful, three-
fourths of those did not experience a change or loss in key agency participants. However,
public land management agencies typically transfer employees regularly from one agency
unit to another (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993).
An agency’s level of commitment to collaborative process will certainly impact the
outcome of collaboration. Collaborative processes require managers to view their roles
differently. For example, they may need to move from a position as administrator and
50
subject expert to mediator or facilitator. These changes may threaten the managers'
traditional views of their roles in their organization and make their jobs more demanding
and uncertain (Selin and Chavez 1995; Yaffee and Wondolleck 1996). Even when
individuals within agencies have pushed cooperative approaches forward, a lack of
commitment from higher levels of management can hamper their efforts (Grumbine
1991; Wondolleck and Yaffee 1997). One example of this lack of commitment may be
found in the way that agencies may view collaborative activities when faced with
resource shortages. While cooperative efforts can be seen as one way to cope with fiscal
shortages by sharing resources among partners, they are often the first projects cut when
agencies face budget shortages (Gray 1989; Yaffee and Wondolleck 1996).
Aside from agency budget shortages, agencies’ overall time and resources devoted to
collaborative efforts may pose as other barriers to collaboration. Often, participation in
collaborative endeavors is seen as a drain on time and financial resources (Yaffee and
Wondolleck 1996). The NAPA study reports that their staff heard repeatedly that
personnel capacity within the land management agencies is already being stretched to
achieve other agency mandates. The additional time needed to effectively coordinate with
other parties may reduce the staff’s willingness to undertake the cooperative efforts
envisioned in the 1995 Federal Fire Policy.
The fact that collaborative efforts in resource management are exercised in interagency
relations and involve relationships among multiple agencies and groups means that such
51
efforts often do not fall under the traditional funding structure of any one agency—
either no one possesses clear responsibility for funding a project, or the traditional
budgeting process does not accommodate projects across agencies (Gray 1989). Lag
times associated with the federal budget process and budgeting year by year also may
hinder federal agencies from participating in multiyear collaborative efforts. This
situation can impact an agency’s credibility when funding for a project is postponed or
reduced.
Overall, lack of administrative flexibility in agency procedures for implementing
agreements frustrates many individuals in collaborative efforts (Selin and Chavez 1995).
Problems due to procedural inflexibility are not limited to public agencies.
Nongovernmental organizations (both nonprofit and for-profit) are also bound by
standard operating procedures. For example, Kanter observes that “because collaborative
ventures often make new demands, managers involved in the effort must be able to vary
their own companies' procedures to make venture-specific decisions” (Kanter 1994,
p.97). However, few companies or organizations are willing to provide individuals with
the leeway and flexibility necessary to participate fully in collaborative problem solving.
At the interagency level, differences between agencies’ mission and goals may also serve
as barriers to collaboration. As described in the previous chapter, the elements that define
an agency are often quite different. One senior NPS regional official told NAPA staff that
on a particular joint fire planning process with the USDA Forest Service, during
52
negotiations and development of alternatives, it became obvious “just how different we
[the NPS and the USDA Forest Service] were philosophically” (National Academy of
Public Administration 2000, p.39). The NPS official went on to say that the differences
led to a failure of the process when the agencies tried to jointly develop land use
strategies. Differences stem from the way in which each agency approaches resource
management. For example, the USDA Forest Service follows the philosophy of “multiple
use” codified under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and which calls for the
USDA Forest Service to provide the “greatest good for the greatest number in the long
run” (Glicksman and Coggins 2001). Multiple use, however, is not the philosophy
followed by the National Park Service. Instead, the Park Service philosophical roots are
preservation-oriented. According to the 1916 National Park Organic Act, parks are meant
to preserve nature “unimpaired for future generations” (Glicksman and Coggins 2001).
An ideological conflict stems from multiple-use versus preservation-oriented resource
management practices (Grumbine 1991).
3.2.2 Factors in Perceptions and Attitudes
Even when the formal objectives of organizations do not conflict, informal norms of
behavior, values, and traditions lead groups to resist cooperation. As Selin and Chavez
(1995) note, “The institutional culture within many agencies often hinders collaboration”
(p.193). Individuals develop cognitive models that help them understand and act in their
world, and other individuals with whom they socialize reinforce those models (Kaplan
and Kaplan 1982, in Gray 1989). The tendency to explain others’ behavior using
53
stereotypes “denigrates individuals and therefore diminishes their incentive to bridge
troubling differences….Stereotyping polarizes the partners, setting up us-versus-them
dynamics that undermine the desire to collaborate” (Kanter 1994, p.105).
Often, these perceptions manifest themselves as wariness or skepticism. For example,
Wondolleck and Yaffee (1997) report that perceptions held by USDA Forest Service line
officers and management toward the public and environmental groups can limit
participation of these groups in agency programs. Inversely, the public often perceives the
government as not taking seriously the public’s interests and concerns. For example,
McCool and Guthrie (2001) note the perception of one member of the public for the
USDA Forest Service’s planning process; “‘anybody that’s worked out in the world for a
while…knows that they [USDA Forest Service] thrive on process. And process doesn’t
equate to common sense and good decisions. It only involves a certain degree of
participation by the public…’” (p.315).
Preconceived notions between disciplines also foster the creation of attitudes that can
affect the outcome of a collaborative process. Members of particular disciplines have
different biases that influence their values and affect the way they interact (Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993). For example, Tim Clark and Richard
Reading note that “Effective information transfer is…hampered by the different ways in
which professionals from different fields communicate and learn.... The highly
54
specialized training of experts can thus prevent them from understanding other
perspectives” (Clark and Reading 1994, p.359).
Lack of trust is one common reason cited for the failure of strategic alliances in the
private sector (Lorange and Roos 1991). Among public land management agencies,
mistrust can exist at a variety of levels: between agencies, within agencies (unit-level
personnel versus national level personnel, unit managers versus staff, management versus
research), between agencies and citizens groups, and among citizen groups (Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993). While a lack of trust takes several
forms, including skepticism and fear, opposition to joint efforts by those who feel they
may have something to lose by cooperation is one of the most common (Gray 1989;
Wondolleck 1988). Lack of trust also translates into suspicions about others' motives and
methods, and even the veracity of each other's data and approaches to analysis (Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993). Several authors identify lack of trust as
a result of limited interaction among the participants, and insufficient time given to
relationship-building (Gray 1989; Wondolleck 1988).
Mistrust is also a result of long-standing adversarial interactions among agencies and
parties (Gray 1989; Wondolleck and Yaffee 1996). A history of political conflict
characterizes the relationship between the National Park Service and USDA Forest
Service. Most of the early national parks were carved out of USDA Forest Service lands.
As the Park Service tried to expand its authority and the USDA Forest Service worked to
55
protect its domain, interactions between the two agencies became particularly
contentious. After the 1920s recreation use on public lands increased and both agencies
sought exclusive control over recreation management. Passage of the 1964 Wilderness
Act meant the potential transfer of even more USDA Forest Service lands to the Park
Service. Various authors argue that the USDA Forest Service adopted a strong wilderness
preservation stance to minimize Park Service acquisitions. For instance, if a given area
was already designated wilderness, Congress would have no reason to turn it over to the
Park Service. Any collaborative effort between these two agencies must acknowledge
their history of political conflict. As Selin and Chavez (1995) note, “Organizations that
have been bitter adversaries in the past often find it impossible to reach consensus on
anything” (p.193).
Problems due to disparities in perceived levels of power between agencies were identified
by various authors as significant barriers as well (Bingham 1986; Gray 1989; Kanter
1994). Concerns about preserving an institution’s power base provoke reluctance in the
participants to move forward in a collaborative process if they feel they are at a
disadvantage in representing their interests or that their interest will be deemed
secondary. Environmental groups, for example, may view collaborative processes as
counter to their traditional advocacy role, or feel that they lack representation and the
resources need to participate effectively (Gray 1989). Strong advocacy also serves the
institutional needs of these organizations since they depend on support from membership
contributions to sustain their work. Litigation is a highly visible form of commitment to
56
environmental objectives—and the traditional avenue used by environmental groups to
influence public agency land management policy (Gray 1989). Conversely, a participant
may worry about losing resources in a collaborative effort if they or their agency
contributes more time to the process. They may fear giving more to the project than other
participants.
3.2.3 Factors Related to the Collaboration Process
Even when groups decide to attempt a collaborative approach, the process can be
difficult. The lack of capacity to manage the process, a limited focus on building
relationships, lack of leadership, lack of shared purpose, and failure to get the proper
representatives involved are important barriers to collaboration. Since collaborative
resource management fundamentally is a process of communication, problem solving,
and decision making, it is not surprising that process-related barriers can hamper
collaboration.
Capacity for collaborative processes is identified as a significant factor in collaboration
success. Collaboration scholar Barbara Gray observes that “convenors and negotiators
frequently underestimate the critical role of process in ensuring successful collaboration;”
as a result, “process considerations are frequently overwhelmed by substantive ones”
(Gray 1989, p.265). Barbara Gray describes a long list of tasks that mediators must
perform to assist in collaborative problem-solving processes, including such tasks as
establishing ground rules, managing data, creating a safe climate, and displaying empathy
57
(Gray 1989). These problems in managing cooperative efforts suggest the need for
effective process management and interpersonal relations skills, yet few resource man-
agers at the unit level have been selected or trained with those skills in mind (Wondolleck
and Yaffee 1997). Natural resource managers are technically educated people who
typically do not have training in public relations or facilitation to the extent that people in
social science fields do.
Collaboration ultimately takes the form of interpersonal relationships. Axelrod (1984)
and Putnam (2000) mention reciprocity as the key to most collaborative interactions.
Participation by groups that are hastily organized or have little shared history can be
problematic if implementation of the final product requires the involvement of all
participants (Gray 1989). Wondolleck and Yaffee (1997) state that relationship building is
just as important as the specific projects a collaborative group can undertake. Further, “a
network of relationships is often a legitimate objective so that problems are identified,
values are expressed, trust is developed, and working arrangements are forged that allow
the management of…resources to proceed more effectively and with less conflict” (p.22).
The literature on collaboration also highlights the importance of a strong leader or
interested party “whose energy and vision mobilizes the others to participate” (Selin and
Chavez 1995). Likewise, Yaffee and Wondolleck (1996), in their study of 35
collaborative partnerships between the USDA Forest Service and other public and private
groups, observed that many relied on the efforts of a small set of individuals. They found
58
that the type and position of the leaders varied from case to case; project leaders,
community leaders, agency field staff, landowners, and elected officials all served as
leaders in the partnerships they studied. In several cases, they found that the leader kept
the project alive, in spite of lack of resources, political support, or agency guidance.
A shared sense of purpose is absolutely necessary to collaborative project success. Often
a prerequisite to groups coming together, Wondolleck (1988), Gray (1989), and Lorange
and Roos (1991) all note examples where groups have tried to work together, only to find
they had little or nothing in common and failed to establish shared purpose amongst
themselves. It is important that stakeholders know up front and agree to the scope the
collaborative effort, since differing goals and expectations upset its progress quickly.
Several authors identify relationship-building and the amount of time given to allowing
participants to deliberate as important factors in the development of shared purpose
(Bingham 1986; Gray 1989; Wondolleck and Yaffee; 1997; Putnam 2000).
Not including key stakeholders is another serious limitation on the long-term success of a
collaborative effort (Bingham 1986). Barbara Gray (1989) illustrates how failure to
include all the necessary stakeholders can impact implementation using a youth
employment project initiated by public-private partnership: “Elite planners from several
major corporations and the city school system were unable to solicit the participation of
principals and counselors in the project, largely because these ‘lower-level’ stakeholders
were not included in designing the program” (p.262). People support what they help to
59
create (Wondolleck 1988). Inclusion may also mean seeking out the participation of a
wider public audience to whom the collaborative effort is ultimately responsive. In
addition to involving stakeholders, it’s effective to educate them and show them the
connection between a collaborative effort and the benefits they receive from it.
Collaborative projects need to build in mechanisms for participants to confer with and
gain the commitment and support of the effected public before any final agreements are
reached (Gray 1989).
3.3 Research Questions
There has been little systematic documentation or research into collaborative processes
for fire management at the administrative unit level. To clarify the factors that influence
collaborative processes in interagency fire management at the unit level this report
investigates participant perceptions of fire management collaboration in two study areas.
In this report, interviews are used to answer four questions: what key factors are defined
by participants as important to collaboration for interagency fire management; what are
the conditions that give rise to those factors; what are the implications of those factors for
the outcome of collaboration; and what are the overall lessons for future collaborative
projects for fire management?
60
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES
The literature review revealed that little has been written about collaborative processes
for interagency fire management. This study focuses on examples of collaborative
processes for interagency fire management at the administrative unit level and compares
them to the existing literature on collaborative processes in the natural resources and
other fields to specifically identify those factors that influence interagency collaboration
for fire management. A case study approach (Yin 1994) is used to illuminate the factors
affecting collaborative fire management. In this chapter, the first section summarizes the
case study areas. The second section describes the methods used for case study selection
and data collection. The third and fourth sections describe the case studies selected. Each
description includes a general summary of the case study area, the major public and
private participants, the circumstances bringing the participants together, and the
significant outcomes of the collaboration. The fifth section presents the findings from the
interviews conducted in the case study areas and compares the factors identified to the
factors derived from the literature review in Chapter 3.
4.1 Methodology
A case study approach is used. Case studies are the preferred method when dealing with
critical problems of practice and extending the knowledge base into areas with little
related literature (Yin 1994). Two case studies are selected—one representing a
successful collaborative fire management effort, the other an unsuccessful one. A
61
program effects case study technique is chosen for its usefulness in inferring reasons
for success or failure in an effort or practice (Davey 1991). Limitations in this approach
when using a narrow number of sites are overcome by selecting cases for their
representativeness and then verifying any findings through interviews of case study
participants (Davey 1991).
Information about the case study sites was collected using The Nature Conservancy’s Fire
Learning Network, and through discussions with practitioners in collaborative processes
in southern Arizona. “Success” for a collaborative fire management effort is defined by
two criteria: (1) development of relationships that foster collaborative work and
information-sharing, and (2) if the collaboration has resulted in development and
application of specific projects or programs. Given the time required to conduct case
studies at just two sites, considerable effort was devoted to choosing cases that are
exemplary and provide a range of worthwhile examples for the issues surrounding
collaborative processes.
The Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group (HMIFG) represents a case that has
had difficulties in the past. In the mid-1990s, a group comprised of individuals from each
of the land management agencies in the Huachuca Mountains began a series of meetings
to discuss fire management. After two years and lack of direction, the group disbanded.
The HMIFG has re-formed recently, and the group is making progress toward defining
and meeting its goals.
62
Malpai Borderlands Group (MBG) represents a collaborative enterprise with a
relatively long history of successful collaboration. The Malpai Borderlands is considered
one of the most heavily researched and monitored ecosystem in the Southwest, and the
MBG has received endorsement from the highest scientific, governmental, and
conservation circles (McDonald 1998). Numerous awards have been given to the various
organizations and individuals involved in the project. Several prescribed fires have been
initiated as a cooperative effort among the participants, and an interagency fire
management plan is currently being drafted to guide fire management for the entire
Peloncillo Mountain range within the Malpai Borderlands planning area.
Four representatives of the major participating agencies in each case were interviewed in
February 2003. The persons interviewed were chosen based on their direct involvement
in their collaborative project. A list of individuals interviewed and the agencies they
represent is provided in Appendix A.
The interview questionnaire was administered via telephone and included a range of
questions. A brief explanation of the study was given at the beginning of each interview,
reiterating an overview provided by email prior to the interviews. Thirty-two questions,
based upon the factors of collaboration identified in the literature provided a common
framework for all the interviews. Twenty of the questions were constructed as open ended
so that the interviewees would not be limited by the structure of the question. The
questionnaire included items related to the respondent’s job, education, and experience;
63
the extent of their participation in collaborative planning activities; their opinions
about the benefits, barriers, and level of support for collaborative planning; their
suggestions for to collaborative processes; and the role of the interviewee’s agency in
collaborative planning. Interviews took 30-60 minutes to complete, providing an in-depth
discussion in which the interviewees shared their insights on the collaborative project.
See Appendix B for a script of the interview questions. Additional information for the
case studies was collected through unstructured interviews and reports, and minutes from
meetings of each collaborative group.
4.2 General Description of Study Areas
The two case studies selected represent two aspects of collaborative interagency fire
management at the local level. As can be seen in Figure 1, both case studies lie on the
Mexican border in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. The Huachuca
Mountains Interagency Fire Group (HMIFG) case study area is approximately 75 miles
southeast of Tucson, Arizona, and encompasses the Huachuca Mountains, Patagonia
Mountains, and surrounding region. The 500,000-acre planning area is managed by a mix
of agencies; the USDA Forest Service manages roughly 60% of the planning area (See
Table 5 on page 64 for a comparison of the case study areas). The northwest-southeast
trending Huachuca Mountains rise above the San Pedro and Santa Cruz river valleys. The
tallest peak in the Huachuca Mountains, Miller Peak, is also the southernmost major peak
in the U.S., with an elevation of 9,466 feet. Grasslands flanking the mountain range give
way to oak-juniper and oak woodlands near the base and extending to mid-elevations,
64
where oaks mix with piñon and ponderosa pine. At the highest elevations on north-
facing slopes can be found spruce and fir.
Figure 1: Case Study Areas
Source: ESRI online database server (www.geographynetwork.com)
The west side of the range, from summits to valley bottoms, is largely undeveloped, but
one of the largest urban areas in southeastern Arizona, consisting of Sierra Vista, Fort
Huachuca, and Huachuca City, lie to the north and east of the Huachuca Mountains. The
HMIFG came together in 1996 around what they saw as a serious resource management
and public safety issue. Approximately 80 years of fire suppression in the Huachucas
resulted in a buildup of excessive fuel loads, which in turn has resulted in high-intensity,
65
stand-replacing fires, such as fires documented in the 1970s and 1980s (Danzer 2003,
interview). Group participants are concerned about high-intensity fires that may cause
severe change to vegetative communities, loss in species richness, and high risk situations
for area residents. The HMIFG is working to develop and implement a programmatic fire
management plan for the Huachuca Mountains planning area that will coordinate
agencies’ efforts to address these issues; however, the group has had difficulties in its
seven years, and even disbanded for a length of time. The HMIFG was impelled to
regroup and begin again by the 2002 fire season and the Ryan Fire the same year that
burned 38,000 acres on the Coronado National Forest and Fort Huachuca and threatened
the community of Huachuca City. It is still too early to draw conclusions from the group’s
recent efforts, but all indications evidence a renewed initiative and willingness to
establish a collaborative interagency fire management program.
The Malpai Borderlands Group (MBG) case study area is located in the endmost corners
of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. The 800,000-acre region, called
the Malpai Borderlands by residents, is roughly triangular in shape encompasses an
almost pristine range ecosystem. The terrain is high desert upland, composed of wide
valleys dotted with volcanic mesas, with limestone and granite mountains on the east and
west side of the area. Only one small year-round stream occurs in the region, and very
few other natural water sources. Dominant vegetation includes desert grassland trending
toward piñon, juniper, and oaks at higher elevations. The study area is rural and includes
approximately 30 privately-owned ranches and fewer than 100 permanent residents.
66
Roughly half of this land is privately owned with the remainder owned by the USDA
Forest Service and the BLM.
Some of the ranchers in the borderland area began meeting regularly in the early 1990s to
discuss issues such as federal fire management, decreasing open spaces, the growing
opposition towards ranching, and how to improve communication with policy makers. In
1994 the MBG officially became a non-profit organization with a nine member Board of
Directors made up of eight ranchers and one scientist. So far the group is developing (1) a
joint fire management plan for much of the area; (2) a "grass banking" program to help
drought-stricken ranchers and protect overgrazed land; (3) re-seeding and good
management practices programs; and (4) cooperative relationships with research and
management entities interested in resource management and protection.
67
Mal
pai B
orde
rlan
ds G
roup
199
4 D
rafti
ng a
pro
gram
mat
ic fi
re m
anag
emen
t pla
n fo
r th
e Pe
lonc
illo
Mou
ntai
ns w
ithin
the
plan
ning
are
a
The
Ani
mas
Fou
ndat
ion
The
Arid
Lan
d Pr
ojec
t A
rizon
a D
epar
tmen
t of G
ame
and
Fish
A
rizon
a St
ate
Land
Dep
artm
ent
Bur
eau
of L
and
Man
agem
ent
Loc
al S
oil a
nd W
ater
Con
serv
atio
n D
istri
cts
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es C
onse
rvat
ion
Serv
ice
N
ew M
exic
o D
epar
tmen
t of G
ame
and
Fish
N
ew M
exic
o St
ate
Land
Off
ice
New
Mex
ico
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
T
he N
atur
e C
onse
rvan
cy
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f Ariz
ona
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f New
Mex
ico
US
Fish
and
Wild
life
Serv
ice
USD
A F
ores
t Ser
vice
800
,000
5
7% p
rivat
e la
nd
20%
stat
e la
nd
11%
USD
A F
ores
t Ser
vice
man
aged
land
7
% B
LM m
anag
ed la
nd
5%
Fis
h an
d W
ildlif
e Se
rvic
e m
anag
ed la
nd
Hua
chuc
a M
ount
ains
Inte
rage
ncy
Fire
Gro
up
199
6 H
ave
adop
ted
goal
s for
the
colla
bora
tive
grou
p
Ariz
ona
Dep
artm
ent o
f Gam
e an
d Fi
sh
Ariz
ona
Stat
e La
nd D
epar
tmen
t B
urea
u of
Lan
d M
anag
emen
t F
ort H
uach
uca
Fry
Fire
Dep
artm
ent (
Fry,
AZ)
N
atio
nal A
udub
on S
ocie
ty A
pple
ton-
Whi
ttell
Res
earc
h R
anch
N
atio
nal P
ark
Serv
ice
The
Nat
ure
Con
serv
ancy
T
he U
nive
rsity
of A
rizon
a U
S Fi
sh a
nd W
ildlif
e Se
rvic
e U
SDA
For
est S
ervi
ce
500
,000
6
0% U
SDA
For
est S
ervi
ce m
anag
ed la
nd
18%
Dep
artm
ent o
f Def
ense
1
3% B
LM m
anag
ed la
nd
8%
stat
e/pr
ivat
e la
nd
1%
Nat
iona
l Par
k Se
rvic
e m
anag
ed la
nd
Tab
le 5
: Com
pari
son
of C
ase
Stud
y A
reas
Dat
e S
tatu
s of
Pro
ject
Age
ncie
s In
volv
ed
Are
a (a
cres
) C
ompo
sitio
n o
f Pla
nnin
g A
rea
Sour
ce: H
uach
uca
Mou
ntai
ns In
tera
genc
y Fi
re G
roup
, Mal
pai B
orde
rland
s Gro
up
68
4.3 Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group
The Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group (HMIFG) was created by individuals
from each of the major land management agencies responsible for the 500,000-acre area
in the Huachuca Mountains and surrounding region, located in south-central Arizona
abutting the Mexican border (Figure 2). Administration of the Huachuca Mountains is
under numerous public agencies and private landowners. The majority of the range is
under the management of the USDA Forest Service (Coronado National Forest, Sierra
Vista Ranger District), with other public agencies including the National Park Service
(Coronado National Memorial), Bureau of Land Management (Las Cruces and Safford
Districts), Arizona State Land Department, and Fort Huachuca under the US Department
of Defense (DOD). Other entities include The Nature Conservancy (Ramsey Canyon
Preserve), the National Audubon Society (Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch), and
numerous private landowners. All of these agencies face similar issues concerning fire,
such as an increasing wildland/urban interface problem, hazardous buildup of wildland
fuels, minimal funding, and limited resources (Danzer 2002, interview).
The HMIFG began with a series of meetings in 1996 for several purposes the participants
identified as requiring joint action: (1) the participants recognized that fire cannot be
expected to remain within individual agency boundaries; (2) fire suppression and fire
management is a common element in each agencies’ efforts; (3) Each agency needs to
know what the other is doing, especially in regards to sharing of agency resources; and
(4) fire is a high-profile, personal issue for the local public, and the participating agencies
69
responsible for fire management in the Huachuca Mountains identified the need to
conduct a coherent and unified public relations campaign (Alberti 2003, interview).
Figure 2: Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group Study Area
Source: ESRI online database server (www.geographynetwork.com)
The group also came together to discuss developing a “mountain-wide, ecosystem-based”
fire management plan for the entire mountain range to coordinate each agency’s
management efforts and allow for greater resource and cost-sharing. After two years and
Study area boundaries are approximate
70
lack of direction, the group disbanded. The reasons for the group’s separation were
identified as due to the reluctance among members of the group to any decisions that
would undermine their agency’s autonomy in decision making, loss of several agency
participants to transfers out of the region, and a lack of a strong sense of purpose among
the members.
As a direct result of the Ryan Fire in 2002 that threatened lands managed by a majority of
the agencies, the agencies involved in the previous collaborative attempt have regrouped
with renewed initiative. The HMIFG held a meeting in October 2002, at which time the
group again discussed developing an interagency, landscape-scale fire management plan.
Based on the positive response from the group participants, a core group was developed
representing five of the twelve agencies (USDA Forest Service, National Park Service,
Fort Huachuca, University of Arizona, and The Nature Conservancy) who were willing to
take on a leadership role in this project. Carol Lambert, TNC manager of the Ramsey
Canyon Preserve, has taken the lead in facilitating group meetings and efforts.
The HMIFG core group has decided to pursue its objective and work to develop an
interagency fire plan. The group has approved goals for the interagency working group as
a whole, and is currently drafting goals and objectives for the interagency fire plan. The
group feels that an interagency plan would bring consistency, greater ease and timeliness
in implementation of crossboundary fire projects, and give the individual local agency
units higher influence to acquire fund for fuels reduction projects in the Huachuca
71
Mountains (Gunzel 2003, interview). The HMIFG is developing its programmatic
“umbrella” fire management plan so that each agency’s individual fire plans and
prescribed fire projects can tier23 from it. An EIS done for a plan covering an entire
landscape can meet the compliance requirements for any future action consistent with the
plan, reducing the redundancy of conducting a NEPA process for each action under the
plan (Ortolano 1997). Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered
species protection can proceed the same way, reducing “overhead” in each agency’s
Endangered Species Act compliance.
The group is making progress and moving forward, but it has been a long and difficult
process. The lack of staff capacity and time to work on the plan were identified as major
barriers to group collaboration efforts (Lambert 2003, interview). Most participants have
only limited time or financial resources to devote beyond coming to a series of working
meetings. The hesitancy to “jump in with both feet” is understandable given that the
group began discussing the need for a range-wide fire plan seven years ago and has failed
to achieve significant progress (Lambert 2003, interview). High turnover in the
individuals involved has also been a factor for the HMIFG (Alberti 2003, interview). Due
to transfer of individuals, only two individuals among the five agencies represented on
the core group were involved in the earlier efforts of the HMIFG. The actual effect of
discontinuity on the group’s success is speculative; however, as Wondolleck and Yaffee
23 Tiering is the ability, when completing a NEPA document for an action under a program, to summarize impact assessments that appear in the EIS for the program (COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1997).
72
(1997) showed, participant continuity can provide stability in the level of effort and
“philosophy of approach” that can mean the difference between a success and failure of a
collaborative project.
4.4 Malpai Borderlands Group
The Malpai Borderlands Group (MBG) is a rancher-led nonprofit organization in the
“bootheel” of New Mexico and Arizona, on the Mexican border (See Figure 3). The
MPG formed in 1994 in response to concerns over the future of public-lands grazing
policy and the increasing loss and subdivision of private ranchland throughout the
Southwest. The group also came together out of shared frustration with federal and state
fire suppression policies that contributed to the spread of woody shrubs and loss of forage
grasses. In response to these issues the group started ecosystem management planning for
the entire 800,000 acre area with the assistance of the state and federal land management
agencies in the planning area.
Regarding fire suppression, there was an “unofficial” understanding early on between
ranchers and agency personnel that fires should be allowed to burn if private property
wasn’t threatened and burning would improve the condition of the range (Warren 2003,
interview). This understanding changed in July 1991, after a fire that began on private
ranchland spread to an adjoining state grazing lease. The USDA Forest Service team
called in a fire crew despite the ranch manager’s objection. This incident sparked a series
of meetings between ranchers that resulted in the formation of the MBG three years later.
73
Figure 3: Malpai Borderlands Group Study Area
Source: ESRI online database server (www.geographynetwork.com)
In 1994, representatives from nine federal, state and county agencies signed a joint
memorandum of understanding (MOU) stating that “prescribed fire will play a major part
to enhance and to restore the use of natural processes in these ecosystems.” Local agency
representatives, Larry Allen of the Coronado National Forest and Ron Bemis of the
Natural Resource Conservation Service, were extremely effective at promoting the MBG
within their respective agencies (Warren 2003, interview). They knew the difficulty of
Study area boundaries are approximate
74
moving to a bottom-up decision making structure, and recognized the potential of
constructive collaborative efforts. Allen and Bemis used their long tenure and many
contacts within their respective agencies to gain support for the MBG. In 1993, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service assigned Ron Bemis to work exclusively with
the group. The Coronado National Forest likewise assigned Larry Allen to the MBG. And
through the process, relationship-building, maintaining an open process and a focus on
interests and not positions (such as the interest to restore ecosystem health shared by the
Malpai members and environmental groups) has been the practice of the group (Curtin
2003, interview). However, a lack of continuity among individuals involved in the MPG’s
collaborative process has been considered “burdensome” (McDonald 1998). Turnover
within the agency, particularly in key positions, has resulted in much effort being spent
by the group in bringing new agency personnel “up to speed” on the group’s efforts
(McDonald 1998).
The MBG has partnered with environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) and scientists who help in advising and coordinating research and monitoring
programs in the study area. Some monitoring programs that will serve as future baseline
studies include studying the species that live in grassbank areas (discussed below),
prescribed fire areas, and range rehabilitation areas that have been fenced off and seeded
with native grasses (Curtin 2002). Much of the research in this area centers on the
encroachment of woody shrubs. In addition to these research and monitoring projects,
there are many independent studies and surveys occurring in the study area. The MBG
75
Science Advisory Committee tracks these studies and the information is made
available to ranchers (Curtin 2002). Funding for the MBG is provided largely through
private contributions. In addition, MBG receives grant funding provided by the Fire
Learning Network (FLN) through the Nature Conservancy.
The mission of the MBG is “to restore and maintain the natural processes that create and
protect a healthy, unfragmented landscape to support a diverse, flourishing community of
human, plant, and animal life in our borderlands region” (McDonald 1998, p. 291).
One area of general agreement is that the exclusion of wildfire from the borderlands was
contributing to a decline in herbaceous plant cover with resulting loss of watershed
stability, wildlife habitat, and livestock forage. The MBG produced a regional fire map
indicating areas where naturally occurring fires should be allowed to burn and areas
where prescribed fires should be burned. Because fires cross property lines and
jurisdictions, months of coordination between the MBG, ranchers, and federal agencies
took place before the first prescribed fire, the Baker Burn, was set in 1995 (Bemis 2003,
interview).
The MBG has embarked on a number of other related programs to help accomplish their
goals. One of these programs, “grassbanking,” was made possible when the Animas
Foundation (created by local rancher, Drummond Hadley) purchased a 320,000-acre
ranch (Gray Ranch) in the borderlands area from the Nature Conservancy. The objective
of the Animas Foundation is to demonstrate sustainable agriculture in harmony with the
76
environment—a goal completely compatible with the MBG goals. The Animas
Foundation then became one cooperating landowner within the MBG. The foundation is
particularly important to the group in that they own more than a third of the planning area
(Curtin 2003, interview).
The Animas Foundation allows ranchers in the borderlands region to rest their land by
allowing their cattle to graze on Gray Ranch. In exchange for grazing privileges on the
Gray Ranch, the ranchers sell conservation easements on their land to the MBG who in
return pays for the grass used by the cattle. Conservation easements are contracts placed
by landowners that limit future land use while retaining ownership and control over their
property. Currently the MBG holds five conservation easements from ranchers in the
borderlands area. The grassbanking program is particularly important to fire management
within the planning area in that it allows ranchers a means to remove their cattle from
lands planned for prescribed burning (Curtin 2003, interview).
Two prescribed fires have occurred since 1994, the Baker Burn and the Maverick Burn.
Both were extremely successful in bringing an increase in desert grass to the area, but the
Maverick burn proved to be controversial in other ways. The 12,000-acre Maverick burn,
originally targeted for June 1996, was finally set in June 1997. The Maverick Burn, as it
was called, took three years to plan and carry out. The difference from the Baker Burn
was the need to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which
requires that a federal agency (the Coronado National Forest in this case) formally
77
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to insure that any agency action
will not jeopardize the existence of an endangered species or result in destruction of
critical habitat to the endangered species (Bemis 2003, interview). The FWS wanted to
know how fire would affect the endangered New Mexico ridgenosed rattlesnake, the
threatened Mexican spotted owl, and the Palmer agave plants that are a critical food
source for the endangered long-nosed bat, all of which occur in the planned Maverick
burn area.
Questions and concerns raised during the consultation process and in the aftermath of the
fire itself have been problematic. The provisions of the ESA greatly complicated the
landscape-scale, habitat-based management planning that the MBG hoped to implement.
At the same time, the cost of complying with those provisions was substantial. The
12,000-acre Maverick burn cost $4 an acre to carry out, but cost the USDA Forest
Service alone an estimated $25 per acre to plan (Smith 2003, interview).
Partly as a response to ESA requirements, fund raising needs, and the 1995 Federal Fire
Policy, the personnel of the public land management agencies located within the planning
area are working on a programmatic fire plan specifically for the 100,000 acre Peloncillo
Mountains of the Coronado National Forest and adjacent BLM and state lands. The
Peloncillo Mountains Fire Management Plan is currently in draft stage with finalization
expected sometime in 2003 (Warren 2003, interview).
78
What can be learned from the Malpai experience? Several conditions in the MBG case
demonstrate the power of people to an effective collaborative process: (1) the MBG’s
initiative and continuing leadership, and its ability to create partnerships; (2) The Nature
Conservancy’s willingness to invest considerable time and effort in the whole process;
and (3) the ability and commitment of local, state, and federal land managers to get
beyond potential jurisdictional conflicts, overcome bureaucratic barriers, and work
together to achieve management objectives shared across different agency mandates. The
political weight of the combined public- and private-sector efforts in the MBG case
demonstrates that collaborative approaches in resource management can lead to effective
interagency fire management.
4.5 Summary of Interview Results
The information collected through the interviews supports the validity of the factors of
collaboration success identified by the literature. The factors are applicable to the two
case studies. While each interviewee did not identify all the factors cited in the literature,
all the factors were identified by at least one person and most by several people. Table 6
compares the interview results between study areas. In the two studies, several factors of
collaboration success emerged as crucial: developing a shared sense of purpose among
the group for the collaborative effort; promoting participants’ desire to act; developing
relationships among participants and maintaining stability in agency representation;
increasing flexibility in participating agency policies and procedures; and the importance
of leadership.
79
Table 6: Comparison of Interview Results by Study Area
Number of individuals identifying the factor in each case
Factors of successful cooperation Huachuca Mountains
Malpai Borderlands
Total number of individuals interviewed 4 4
Organizational Factors
Clarity and compatibility of goals and missions
1 2
Clarity and compatibility of agency policies and procedures
2 4
Time and funds available for collaboration 4 3
Commitment of agency and participants to collaboration efforts
3 3
Factors in Perceptions and Attitudes Trust between agencies and participants 3 4
Distribution of power among participants 1 2 Perceptions by individuals or groups for each other
2 2
Perceptions of information comprehensiveness and veracity
1 2
Factors Related to the Collaboration Process
Capacity of agencies to collaborate 3 3
Effort spent toward relationship building 4 4
Clear leadership in process 3 2
Shared purpose between agencies/participants
3 4
Proper representatives involved 1 2 Source: Author
80
It is interesting to note that the MBG case study yielded a higher number of
confirmatory responses to factors identified in the literature. Also, the participants in the
MBG case unanimously agreed that four of the factors identified in the literature were
significant, while only two factors were identified by everyone in the HMIFG case. The
four factors receiving an affirmative response by the MBG participants highlight the
importance of developing relationships among the participants and the need to have a
shared sense of purpose. The members of the HMIFG also identified relationship
building as important, but also recognize time and funding as an significant determinant
to collaboration success.
Participants expressed similar opinions about the participation of their individual agency
or group. Each agency saw the collaboration as an opportunity to share resources, gather
new ideas and fulfill their missions and mandates in the process. Uniformly, participants
interviewed believe that the common goal of improving the ecosystem health is the
strongest contributor to the group's success. Non-governmental organizations also saw
collaboration as an opportunity to fulfill their missions—and, as stakeholders in fire
management, they viewed the higher level of involvement with land managers as a way
to gain representation in land management decisions. Most of the participants' work or
livelihood is directly tied to the condition of the land, so they have a strong interest in
seeing this project work. The ranchers in the MBG case, in particular, stand to gain a lot
from the improvements. Above all, the desire to be good stewards of the land and
improve the situation for people and ecosystems motivates participants.
81
It is also clear that motivations and barriers are different for different stakeholder
groups. In the case studies, private landowners tended to see partnering as an opportunity
to minimize further regulation and influence agency decisions, governmental agencies
were attracted to the partnership as a means to share resources and expertise, and
nongovernmental agencies saw it as a chance to fulfill their mission. Private landowners
and governmental agencies both resisted participation due to concerns over losing control
over decision making, while nongovernmental agencies saw few barriers to their
participation.
While the collaborative groups were similar in many respects, a few differences emerged.
Participant responses may differ due to the circumstances present in each case. For
instance, in the HMIFG case, where the majority of the study area is comprised of federal
lands, time was a major barrier cited, and information sharing was mentioned as an
feature keeping participants and their agencies interested. Yet in the MBG case, where
private landownership dominates, apprehension and distrust appeared as a significant
factor hindering collaboration among the participant responses.
The participants generally are in agreement about the fundamental motivations, threats
and promoters of success, whereas they differ greatly on barriers they face. They also
differ on what they consider to be factors of success, depending on the dominant
landowners. Most notably, the Malpai Borderlands Group did not have a single, unified
group with an individual leader. This may be because of the diverse private interest (not
82
all ranchers in the study area have accepted the MPG and its efforts), and the fact that
land restoration is not the only objective sought by the group. Nevertheless, there appears
to be a strong sense of shared purpose, of trust building, and mutual understanding among
those members committed to the MPG’s efforts. This may be the reason why the MPG
has accomplished so much more than the Huachuca Mountains group.
The two cases also differed on what participants felt held the group together. One
member of the MPG suggested that the “informal, non-threatening approach” to
collaboration was a major factor to the group’s present success. The HMIFG identified
funding opportunities as a major cohesive force.
Finally the groups differed in what they considered threats to collaborative success.
Members of the HMIFG felt any factor that would undermine individual agency
autonomy in decision-making represented a threat to the group. Interestingly, the MPG
identified actions by the Fish and Wildlife Service to implement the Endangered Species
Act as possible limits to the group’s success. Application of the Act, in the MPG case,
could invalidate the group’s efforts to implement certain projects. For the HMIFG, the
development of a mountain-wide fire management plan was viewed as a means to
provide the agencies more control over implementation of the Endangered Species Act in
general.
83
In retrospect, collaborative groups are alike in many respects and different in others.
This is to be expected since each group forms through a variety of circumstances to
address different issues and with different cultural settings. Therefore, while a model for
success might be constructed from the examples highlighted here, it cannot be applied in
a "cookie cutter" approach to all developing collaborative groups since each new group
must adapt to its circumstances.
These cases have shown that the factors of collaboration success identified in the general
collaboration literature are applicable to local collaboration for wildland fire
management. Because there has been little systematic documentation or research into
local interagency collaboration for fire management, this work should be of assistance to
both researchers and local fire management policy-makers.
84
CHAPTER 5: POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Based on the findings of these case studies, this report proposes recommendations to fire
managers and other stakeholders who want to foster interagency collaboration. Five
factors of collaboration success should guide agencies or individuals wanting to
encourage the development of collaboration initiatives in fire management: (1) develop a
shared sense of purpose for the collaborative effort; (2) promote participants’ desire to
act; (3) develop relationships among participants and maintaining participant continuity;
(4) increase flexibility in agency policies and procedures; and (5) support effective
leadership. These five factors provide a basic conceptual framework to help stakeholders
work collaboratively. These factors can provide the setting in which interested parties are
most likely to achieve their goals in collaborative fire management efforts. Each of these
five factors is discussed below.
Seek a Shared Sense of Purpose
The first factor of successful collaboration is a shared purpose or specific goal that the
parties are invested in but cannot achieve on themselves. In the absence of a purpose or
goal, collaboration is unnecessary. The shared purpose of involved parties in the Malpai
Borderlands Group (MBG) is their agreement on a short vision statement stating the
purpose of their efforts and the role of collaboration in achieving them. The vision
statement of the MBG is long term in nature and defines the principal benefits of
collaboration to stakeholders. Further, the MBG formalized their integrated vision in a
85
memorandum of understanding. The Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group
(HMIFG) realized the importance of committing to shared goals and objectives, and
recently has been able to accomplish some concrete tasks as a result.
To develop a shared sense of purpose, it may be necessary to allow the parties a certain
amount of time to determine their shared interests or goals. The purpose may not emerge
for several meetings, as the members learn about each other's operations and explore their
possibilities for joint action. Whether through such direct discussion or more formal
written statements as mentioned above, the parties need to openly agree on the respective
interests of their organizations and key stakeholders, and what they hope to gain from the
collaborative effort.
Promote a Desire for Action
The second factor that emerged from two the case studies is that the stakeholders desire a
collaborative solution and are willing to contribute to that collective effort. The
contribution might be staff time, money, or other resources. Desire may be internal, as in
the commitment of agency personnel involved in the collaborative effort, or it may be
external or at a higher level, such as agency or regulatory mandates. Without a desire to
act, the group may find it difficult to accomplish anything concrete. This situation is most
evident in the MBG case, but also came to light in the HMIFG case later on as well. The
stakeholders in the HMIFG recognized the merit of collaborating for sharing of
information and resources, but the desire to do so was absent early on.
86
Success may depend on a core team of stakeholders who want to pursue a collaborative
solution. A core team may also be necessary if the whole collaborative group is large. The
MBG board of directors served as a core group in their case. Likewise, the HMIFG group
recognized the need for a smaller set of participants to focus time and effort on
accomplishing specific tasks that others weren’t willing to undertake. In a collaboration
effort, if there is a core team of supporters, then the others who may be reluctant to act or
who aren’t fully committed will not impact the achievement of short-term objectives in
the collaborative effort.
Timing is also critical to the desire to collaborate. The saliency of an issue can be a
critical determinant of stakeholders’ readiness to commit to group efforts. Issues that have
not yet attained a measure of public attention may be premature for collaboration. The
2002 fire season stood out as a significant factor that brought the HMIFG group back
together. In the MBG case, ripeness of the issues at large was reached when the fire in
1991 burning on a state grazing lease was suppressed, despite the rancher’s wish to let it
burn.
Continuity of Participants and Participant Relationships
Collaboration occurs within a context of institutional and individual relationships, and
staff turnover often breaks up those relationships. Commitment is demonstrated by
maintaining continuity, and personnel transfers damage continuity unless the are
managed carefully (Wondolleck and Yaffee 1997). Cooperation benefits from keeping the
87
same key individuals in place. This is not always preferable or possible from an agency
and individual standpoint; however, there are ways to minimize the impact of
discontinuity on the collaborative process. A collaborative effort may be sustained when
individuals who retire or transfer are replaced with individuals with the same philosophy
toward collaborative activities and will choose to continue with the same approach and
expectations in the process. Because only two among the five agencies in the HMIFG
case represented on the core group were involved in the earlier efforts of the HMIFG,
discontinuity may have played a role in difficulties the group had prior to 2002.
Establishing and maintaining procedural ground rules is also important. Participants need
to articulate and consistently follow the standards of behavior they want to maintain. One
important ground rule to adopt is to make all decisions and changes with the participation
of the whole group—making decisions with the involvement and deliberation of all
participants creates an open and credible process that fosters collaboration. Statements,
commitments, disagreements should be maintained in the open. When the process is
transparent, it builds trust and confidence, allowing a successful collaboration to develop.
The Malpai Borderlands Group has exemplified this type of process: they have
maintained strong alliances with environmental groups and agency personnel with whom
ranchers have traditionally viewed as opponents. As Bill McDonald, longtime rancher
and executive director of the MBG, said in an interview, "I immediately recognized that
these meetings were different, people weren't there for political reasons. They were there
to try to learn - that we were listening to each other.” Peter Warren, a biologist with the
88
TNC who works with the MBG concurs. He says, “At times it's difficult. At times you
have to kind of bite your tongue when someone else is saying something that you might
not quite agree with, but you've got to talk about it, and work through those things, and
focus on the things that you agree on" (Warren 2003, interview).
Increase Flexibility
Because collaborative processes are not the traditional planning process in hierarchical,
top-down organizations, it is not surprising that flexibility in agency requirements and
norms is needed to enable effective collaboration for fire management. Collaboration
works best when tailored to people, contexts, and issues at hand. Wondolleck and Yaffee
(1996) note that many agency participants at the administrative-unit level complain of
being micro-managed, most often on activities seen outside the scope an agency’s
traditional mode of operations. Agencies need to provide more discretion at the local
level to allow collaborative participants to pursue innovative efforts. The MPG case
exemplifies what can happen when agencies loosen traditions and allow for agency staff
to seek new practices. The Coronado National Forest recognized the Malpai Borderlands
case as an important ecosystem management project with the means to integrate the
sometimes conflicting issues of grazing, fire management, and environmental protection.
Because it is required for federal actions that cause impacts to the environment, the NEPA
process has also become the basic template for fire management planning in many cases.
It has inadvertently locked agencies into one model of decision-making. Ideally, ways can
89
be found to join the NEPA process with the efforts of a collaborative fire management
effort to promote interagency goals across agency boundaries. The HMIFG is developing
its programmatic “umbrella” fire management plan so that each agencies’ individual fire
plans and prescribed fire projects can tier from it.
Support Effective Leadership
Lastly, as both cases make clear, collaboration requires effective leadership. A leader is
someone with real passion for the issue, with credibility and clout who makes the effort a
high priority and who can articulate the goal of collaboration and demonstrate its
importance. Leaders are members of the core group responsible for implementation and
decision making. Leadership has been particularly important to the MBG’s success.
Members of the MBG such as Executive Director Bill McDonald have been outspoken
supporters of the group and have used their “neighborly” approach to develop political
and logistical support for the group’s efforts. Besides serving a motivational role, a leader
may serve as facilitator. For instance, Carol Lambert with TNC has been an excellent
facilitator for the Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group. She is a member of the
HMIFG core group and has been critical in the group’s recent successes. This function
can be performed by one of the individual participants, shared among several
participants, or it can be performed by an outside consultant (Gray 1989).
Finding a leader for a collaborative project can be difficult. Leaders may emerge in one
of two ways (Putnam 2000): they nominate themselves, or they're already at the table and
90
are invited to play a key role in the project. Carol Lambert fits the former model—she
was instrumental in bringing the HMIFG back together after its brief hiatus. Sometimes,
no one takes the leadership role. If no leader emerges, it may be a condition of premature
timing for collaboration (Gray 1989).
In conclusion, the recommendations presented above represent the combined information
gathered through questionnaires and case studies, and show several factors that contribute
to the success of interagency collaboration for fire management which should be
considered when forming a collaborative group. Overall, there is no template for success
since each collaborative group is unique because it forms around individual
circumstances, issues, and cultures. However, the following checklist provides a starting
point for considering if the fundamental building blocks for a collaborative effort are in
place. With these building blocks in place, collaborative groups can develop the mutual
understanding, shared goals, and effective process that lead to successful action.
91
Table 7: Questions to Consider In Seeking a Collaborative Effort
Source: Author
1. Discussed the parties' interests and goals regarding the collaborative effort?
2. Agreed that there is a compelling, shared interest that the parties want to pursue, now?
3. Feel comfortable asking questions and discussing doubts and concerns?
4. Got participants at the table who can speak for all of the stakeholder organizations, and has the impact of loss in participant continuity been addressed?
5. Considered forming a smaller core group to take on certain leadership and management tasks, if the number of people in the full group is unwieldy?
6. Spent time outside the effort getting to know one another?
7. Is the process is clear, and are the parties are comfortable with it?
8. Established a ground rules?
9. Considered the role/impact of existing agency mandates, procedures, and norms on the potential effort?
10. Identified and supported those who will function as leaders in the effort?
92
APPENDIX A: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED
Huachuca Mountains Interagency Fire Group • Barbara Alberti, Resources Management Specialist, Coronado National Memorial,
National Park Service • Shelly Danzer, ITAM Coordinator for Fort Huachuca, University of Arizona • Steve Gunzel, District Ranger, Coronado National Forest, USDA Forest Service • Carol Lambert, Preserve Manager, The Nature Conservancy Malpai Borderlands Group • Ron Bemis, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service • Charles Curtin, Advisor, Arid Lands Project • Randall Smith, Natural Resources Staff Officer, Coronado National Forest, USDA
Forest Service • Peter Warren, Program Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy
93
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW SCRIPT
Case Study Project: _______________________________________________________ Agency: ____________________________ Location: ___________________________ Name: _____________________________ Date of Interview: ____________________ Title: ______________________________ Via: Phone or Face-to-face
I am going to ask you thirty questions regarding the collaborative fire management effort you are involved in. You are not obligated to answer any of these questions. Feel free to pass on any question at any time.
I. BACKGROUND
First off, I’d like to ask a few questions to get some background on the project.
1. When did the collaborative group form? _____________ 2. In what stage do you feel the project is in currently? (start-up / middle-age / mature) (IF A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED) 3. Have any of the plan’s goals been accomplished since its adoption? If so, which ones?
If not, why? 4. Do you think the landscape scale being considered is adequate? Yes/No Why? 5. Why do you think collaboration has been necessary? What issues/circumstances
brought the group together?
6. What are the primary goals for collaboration? (Check all that apply) Solving common problems Data sharing Resource sharing Ecosystem management purposes Fuel reduction across boundaries Coordinate public outreach/education efforts Develop a consistent message Other (describe) ______________________________________ Other (describe) ______________________________________ Other (describe) ______________________________________
7. Do you feel any of the goals have been achieved to-date? Yes/No Which ones?
94
II. INDIVIDUAL AGENCY
Now I’d like to ask you several questions about the role of you agency in the effort. 8. What percentage of land does your agency manage within the planning area? _____ 9. How is your agency’s mission consistent with the purpose of this collaborative effort?
a) Very consistent b) Somewhat consistent c) Somewhat not consistent d) Completely not consistent e) Don’t know f) Don’t wish to answer
10. To participate in this collaborative effort, do you feel your agency has enough?
Time? Yes/No Funding? Yes/No Staff? Yes/No Sufficient training in collaboration processes? Yes/No Education/training efforts of others? Yes/No Strength of mandate? Yes/No Flexibility of agency policies/procedures? Yes/No
11. Are there any policies or regulations that support or limit your participation? Yes/No
What are they? Support: Limit:
12. Do you feel mistrust within your agency has been a problem? Yes/No Would you care
to elaborate? 13. How committed is your agency to collaborative projects of this type?
A. Your agency unit? a) Very committed b) Somewhat committed c) Somewhat not committed d) Completely not committed e) It depends f) Don’t know g) Don’t wish to say
B. The regional office? a) Very committed b) Somewhat committed c) Somewhat not committed d) Completely not committed e) It depends f) Don’t know g) Don’t wish to say
C. The national office? a) Very committed b) Somewhat committed c) Somewhat not committed d) Completely not committed e) It depends f) Don’t know g) Don’t wish to say
95
14. What is the role of your agency in assisting with this collaborative effort? Originating sponsor or initiator Leadership Decision-maker Funding agency Contract Manager Participant Technical Advisor Regulatory Other (describe) ______________________________________ Other (describe) ______________________________________
15. Should the agency have a different role than it does presently? Why or why not? III. PROCESS
The next series of questions address the collaborative process itself. 16. A. Who are the major participants in the collaborative project?
B. How do you perceive their role in the process? C. Do you think any key stakeholders are absent? D. Has anyone left the group? Why?
17. Do you feel there exists a shared sense of purpose among the participants? Yes No
IF YES: A. What do you feel is the shared purpose for the participants involved in the project?
B. How important has the shared sense of purpose been to the outcome of the project?
a) Very important b) Somewhat important c) Somewhat not important d) Completely not important
IF NO:
A. To what would you ascribe the lack of shared purpose?
96
B. How important is a lack of shared purpose to the outcome of the project? a) Very important b) Somewhat important c) Somewhat not important d) Completely not important
18. What specific collaboration tools have been used in the project so far? (Check all that apply)
Building on existing government programs/mandates Joint fact-finding Sharing of resources among participants Information-sharing Memorandums of understanding (MOUs) Regularly scheduled meetings of key stakeholders Designation of a project coordinator Other (describe) ______________________________________ Other (describe) ______________________________________
19. Which of the collaborative tools do you think are the most important to the success of
this project? Why? 20. How much do you feel the following have been factors in the success of the project,
now or in the past? (Please rate on a scale of 1=least important to 5=most important.) Least Most
1 2 3 4 5 Conflicts in agency goals/mission (with other agencies) 1 2 3 4 5 Attitudes toward other agencies or participants 1 2 3 4 5 Regulations/mandates 1 2 3 4 5 Trust among parties 1 2 3 4 5 Individual effort from participants 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership 1 2 3 4 5 Funding 1 2 3 4 5 Time available for participation (given responsibilities to agency) 1 2 3 4 5 Participant expertise 1 2 3 4 5 Personnel changes (retirement, transfer) 1 2 3 4 5 Standards of review or evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 Commitment of the project group 1 2 3 4 5 Public support for the project 1 2 3 4 5 Other (describe) ___________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Other (describe) ___________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Other (describe) ___________________________________
97
21. What are the sources of funding for the project? 22. A. Are there sufficient funds for the project? Yes/No IF NO:
B. Where are the gaps in funding, would you say? IV. INTERAGENCY RELATIONSHIPS
Finally, I would like to ask several questions about the relationship between your agency and the other participating groups. First, I would like to get your opinion on the following:
23. How would you define the mission of the other participating agencies, particularly in
regard to this project? Lets begin with: Agency #1-6 _________________________________________________________ Do you feel their mission is compatible with your agency’s mission? Why? 24. In general, how good is the relationship of your agency to the other agencies
involved? Agency #1 _____________
a) Very good b) Somewhat good c) Somewhat poor d) Completely poor e) Don’t know f) Don’t wish to say
Agency #2 _____________
a) Very good b) Somewhat good c) Somewhat poor d) Completely poor e) Don’t know f) Don’t wish to say
Agency #3 _____________ a) Very good b) Somewhat good c) Somewhat poor d) Completely poor e) Don’t know f) Don’t wish to say
Agency #4 _____________
a) Very good b) Somewhat good c) Somewhat poor d) Completely poor e) Don’t know f) Don’t wish to say
Agency #5 _____________
a) Very good b) Somewhat good c) Somewhat poor d) Completely poor e) Don’t know f) Don’t wish to say
Agency #6 _____________ a) Very good b) Somewhat good c) Somewhat poor d) Completely poor e) Don’t know f) Don’t wish to say
98
(IF (C) OR (D) SELECTED FOR QUESTION #26) 25. Do you feel mistrust is a factor in your agencies relationship with __? (Ask this for
each response of C or D above) Why? 26. A. How equally do you feel power is distributed among the participants?
a) Balanced b) Somewhat balanced c) Somewhat not balanced d) Completely not balanced e) It depends f) Don’t know g) Don’t wish to say
(IF (C) OR (D) SELECTED)
B. In your opinion, who has the most power? Why?
(IF (E) SELECTED) C. In your opinion, how does power play out in decision-making? Why do you think that is?
29. Has there been any change in interagency communication over time because of this collaborative group? Yes/No How so?
V. PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Finally, I’d like to ask you a couple questions about you. 30. What is your professional background, training? 31. Do you have experience with similar cooperative efforts? 32. What has been your length of involvement in this cooperative effort?
99
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY
1995 Federal Fire Policy 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.
2001 Federal Fire Policy 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.
Agency Federal agencies that have direct fire management or land management responsibilities or that have programs and activities that support fire management activities.
Agency Administrator The official responsible for the management of a geographic unit or functional area.
Appropriate Management Response
Response to a wildland fire based on an evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety, the circumstances under which the fire occurs, including weather and fuel conditions, natural and cultural resource management objectives, protection priorities, and values to be protected. The evaluation must also include an analysis of the context of the specific fire within the overall local, geographic area, or national wildland fire situation.
Catastrophic fire See Severe Wildland Fire.
Ecosystem A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the Earth that includes all interacting organisms and components of any part of the natural environment within its boundaries. An ecosystem can be of any size, e. g., a log, pond, field, forest, or the Earth s biosphere.
Ecosystem Management A holistic approach to managing natural systems recognizing the inter-connections of species and habitat.
Ecosystem Sustainability The capacity to maintain ecosystem health, productivity, diversity, and overall integrity, in the long run, in the context of human activity and use.
Fire Management Program to protect and restore natural resources to meet land management objectivities. Management actions include fire suppression, the use of prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and mechanical fuel reduction.
100
Fire Management Activities
Includes fire planning, fire management strategies, tactics, and alternatives, prevention; preparedness, education, and addresses the role of mitigation, post-fire rehabilitation, fuels reduction, and restoration activities in fire management.
Fire Management Plan Strategic plans that define a program to manage wildland fires based on an area’s approved land management plan. Fire Management Plans must address a full range of fire management activities that support ecosystem sustainability, values to be protected, protection of firefighter and public safety, public health and environmental issues, and must be consistent with resource management objectives and activities of the area.
Fire Regime The combination of fire frequency, predictability, intensity, seasonality, and size characteristics of fire in a particular ecosystem.
Fire Resources All personnel and equipment available for use in prescribed fire activities and for assignment to suppression incidents.
Fire Suppression All work activities connected with fire extinguishing operations, beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely out.
Initial Attack The aggressive response to a wildland fire based on values to be protected, benefits of response, and reasonable cost of response.
Interagency Collaboration and communication among agencies.
Multiple Use Managing resources under the best combination of uses to benefit the American people while ensuring the productivity of the land and protecting the quality of the environment (Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960).
Prescribed Fire Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. Prescribed fires are conducted in accordance with prescribed fire plans.
101
Prescribed Fire Plan A plan for each prescribed fire. Plans are documents prepared by qualified personnel, approved by the agency administrator, and include criteria for the conditions under which the fire will be conducted (a prescription).
Severe Wildland Fire Fire that burns more intensely than the natural or historical range of variability, thereby fundamentally changing the ecosystem, destroying communities and/ or rare or threatened species/ habitat, or causing unacceptable erosion.
Stand Replacement Fire regime where the role of fire naturally includes regular fires of sufficient intensity to kill most or all of the dominant vegetation on a site, changing the vegetation structure substantially. Also describes such fires that may occur in other fire regimes as a result of severe fire conditions, such as prolonged drought and extreme fuel build-up.
Wildfire A fire occurring on wildland that is not meeting management objectives and requires a suppression response.
Wildland Fire Any non-structural fire that occurs in vegetative fuels.
Wildland Fire Use (for Resource Benefits)
The use of naturally-ignited wildland fires to accomplish resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas.
Wildland Urban Interface
The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels
102
REFERENCES
Agee, J. K., and D. R. Johnson. 1988. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Axelrod, R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience.
Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation. Brown, H. 2001. Policy Initiatives in Wildland Fire Management. Fire Management
Today 61: 4-10. Brown, J. K., and J. K. Smith (Eds). 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire
on Flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis,
J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, and R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6: 665-691.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. The National Environmental Policy Act: A
Study of its Effectiveness after Twenty-Five Years. Executive Office of the President. Washington, D.C.
Clark, T. W., and R. P. Reading. 1994. A Professional Perspective: Improving Problem
Solving, Communication and Effectiveness. In Clark, T. W., R. P. Reading, and A. L Clarke (Eds.), Endangered Species Recovery: Finding the Lessons, Improving the Process (pp. 351-369). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Covington, W. W., R. L. Everett, R. Steele, L. L. Irwin, T. A. Daer, and A. Auclair. 1994.
Historical and Anticipated Changes in Forest Ecosystems of the Inland West of the United States. In Sampson, N., and D. L. Adams (Eds.), Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West (pp. 13-63). New York: Haworth Press.
Covington, W. W., and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern Ponderosa Forest Structure:
Changes since Euro-American Settlement. Journal of Forestry 92: 39-47. Curtin, C. G. 2002. Integration of Science and Community-Based Conservation in the
Mexico/U.S. Borderlands. Conservation Biology 16:880-886.
103
Davey, L. 1991. The Application of Case Study Evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(9). <http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=2&n=9>
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. US Environmental Protection Agency. 10
February 2003 <http://www.epa.gov> ESRI. 2003. Geography Network Information Database. 18 March 2003
<www.geographynetwork.com> Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management:
An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
General Accounting Office. 1994. Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to
Adequately Test a Promising Approach. Testimony before the House Committees on Natural Resources; Merchant Marine and Fisheries; and Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Government Accounting Office.
---- 1998. Western National Forests: Catastrophic Wildfires Threaten Resources and
Communities. Statement of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, RCED. Washington, D.C.: Government Accounting Office .
Glicksman, R. L., and G. C. Coggins. 2001. Modern Public Land Law, 2nd Ed. St. Paul,
MN: West Group. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grumbine, R. E. 1991. Cooperation or Conflict? Interagency Relationships and the
Future of Biodiversity for US Parks and Forests. Environmental Management 15: 27-37.
Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology 8: 27-38. Hann, W. J. and D. L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and
implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10: 389-403.
Innes, J. E. 1996. Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the
Comprehensive Planning Ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association 62: 460-472.
104
Interagency Working Group. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Boise, ID: National Interagency Fire Center.
John, D., and M. Mlay. 1999. Community-Based Environmental Protection: Encouraging
Civic Environmentalism. In Sexton, K., A. A. Marcus, K. W. Easter, and T. D. Burkhardt (Eds.), Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses and Communities (pp. 331-352). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kanter, R. M. 1994. Collaborative Advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Business
Review July/August: 96-109. Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain
World. New York: Praeger. Lorange, P. and J. Roos. 1991. Why some strategic alliances succeed and others fail.
Journal of Business Strategy January/February: 25-30. McCool, S. F., and K. Guthrie. 2001. Mapping the Dimensions of Successful
Participation in Messy Natural Resources Management Situations. Society and Natural Resources 14: 309-323.
McDonald, B. 1998. Malpai Borderlands Group: Ecosystem Management in Action. In
Tellman, B., D. Finch, C. Edminster, and R. Hamre (Eds.), The Future of Arid Grasslands: Identifying Issues, Seeking Solutions (pp. 289-295). 1996 Proceedings RMRS-P-3. U.S. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Moote, M. A., S. Burke, H. J. Cortner, and M. G. Wallace. 1994. Principles of Ecosystem
Management. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center. National Academy of Public Administration. 2000. Study of the Implementation of the
Federal Wildland Fire Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration.
---- 2001. Managing Wildland Fire: Enhancing Capacity to Implement the Federal
Interagency Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration. National Interagency Fire Center. Prescribed Fire Statistics. 24 February 2003
<http://www.nifc.gov> National Park Service. 2000. 2001 Management Policies. 26 December 2000
<http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/mp/>
105
Ortolano, L. 1997. Environmental Regulation and Impact Assessment. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Parsons, D. J. 1994. Prescribed Fire: Current Status and Future Directions. Park Science
14: 26. ---- 2000. The Challenge of Restoring Natural Fire to Wilderness. In Cole, D. N., S. F.
McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O'Loughlin (Eds.), Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference—Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, And Management (pp. 276-282).1999 Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Parsons, D. J. and S. J. Botti. 1996. Restoration of Fire in National Parks. In Hardy, C.,
and S. F. Arno (Eds.), The use of fire in forest restoration (pp. 29-31). Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Phillips, C. G., and J. Randolph. 2000. The Relationship of Ecosystem Management to
NEPA and Its Goals. Environmental Management 26: 1-12. Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon and Schuster. Pyne, S. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sample, V. A. 1992. Building Partnerships for Ecosystem Management on Forest and
Range Lands of Mixed Ownership. In American Forestry: An Evolving Tradition (pp. 334-339). Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters National Convention. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.
Selin, S. and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental
Planning and Management. Environmental Management 19: 189-195. The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission
Success. Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy. US Department of Interior. 2002. Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-249: Interagency
fire management plan template. August 27 <http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy02/im2002-249.html> (November 11, 2002)
US Department of Interior and US Department of Agriculture. 1995. Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy & Program Review Report. Washington, D.C.
106
Wakimoto, R. H. 1989. National Fire Management Policy: A Look at the Need for Change. Western Wildlands 15: 35-39.
Wondolleck, J. M. 1988. Public Lands Conflict and Resolution: Managing National
Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Publishers. Wondolleck, J. M. and S. L. Yaffee. 1997. Sustaining the Success of Collaborative
Partnerships, Revisiting the Building Bridges Cases. Research report submitted to the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, July 15, 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Yaffee, S. L., and J. M. Wondolleck. 1996. Building Bridges across Agency Boundaries.
In Kohm, K., and J. F. Franklin (Eds.), Creating a Forestry for the Twenty-First Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management (pp. 381-396). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.