All-lands management

133 Pages·2017·2.14 MB·English

ALL-LANDS MANAGEMENT: CONVENING COMMUNITIES AND THEIR
LANDS AROUND FIRE MANAGEMENT

By

Jodie Pixley

A Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of Humboldt State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Social Science: Environment and Community

Committee Membership
Dr. Erin Kelly, Committee Chair
Dr. Yvonne Everett, Committee Member
Dr. Susan Charnley, Committee Member
Dr. Yvonne Everett, Graduate Coordinator

July 2017
ABSTRACT
ALL-LANDS MANAGEMENT: CONVENING COMMUNITIES AND THEIR
LANDS AROUND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Jodie Pixley

Broadly defined, All-lands Management (ALM) is a land management approach
involving collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration at the landscape scale,
across ownership and jurisdictional boundaries. My research investigates collaborative
groups working to reduce wildfire risk by applying ALM. Fire risk in the Pacific West
(California and Oregon) is increasing in severity and extent due to fire suppression and is
exacerbated by the effects of drought, climate change, and expanding residential
development. For decades federal, state, and local entities have expressed the need to
work collaboratively, across boundaries and ownerships to reintroduce fire back onto the
landscape to restore forest resiliency. This research reveals barriers that prevent broader
ALM utilization, framing the implementation difficulties as bureaucratic rigidity
problems. Ultimately, the goal of my research is to reveal the capacities of the cases this
study is based that enable ALM.
I conducted in-depth interviews, participant observation, and document analysis
with two case studies: the Western Klamath Restoration Partnership (WKRP) and the
Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project (AFR). The cases demonstrate how ALM
is being implemented in different contexts, as well as existing social, economic, and
political barriers to its effective implementation. Both cases have employed principles of
ii
the 2010 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy – by following these
principles both groups aim to shift out of a full suppression model of fire management
into a more resilience based model. Both have faced a plethora of challenges, but have
problem-solved differently. I explore the ways the two cases developed strategies to
enhance their capacities for ALM.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Erin Kelly for her faith in me to take on this
research, as well as her dedication, motivation, and excitement with the topic of fire
restoration and forest management. Her passion and the passion of many of the
interviewees, who so graciously gave their time to contribute to this study, was
infectious. They encouraged me and infused me with their passion. The connection to
place and the concern that many have for their home in a fire-adapted environment is a
weighty topic. Interviewees shared their abilities with me to remain inspired throughout
complicated challenges. They are tasked to think outside the box and systematically
better the natural environment while improving social conditions to enhance the quality
of community life. It has been an honor to witness their drive to make positive social and
environmental change. I thank my committee members for their input and insight into
making my thesis something I am truly proud of, as well as to the USFS for its funding
contributions. I’m so thankful for the Environment and Community program, all the staff,
and my 2014 cohort for their camaraderie and helping me get through such an arduous,
but incredible graduate school journey. I’ll miss our discussions very much.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 7
The Changing Policies of Fire Management ...................................................................... 7
The dominant model: suppression .................................................................................. 8
The turn toward the resilience model .............................................................................. 9
Implementing resilience through collaboration ............................................................ 12
The rigidity trap: despite resilience policies, suppression persists ............................... 13
Collaboratives: Learning from Success in Local Places ................................................... 16
Key insights CBNRM offers to ALM ........................................................................... 18
CBNRM groups in the Pacific West ............................................................................. 20
Challenges of Collaborations ............................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODS ....................................................................... 23
A Comparative Case Study ............................................................................................... 23
The Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project, AFR .......................................... 24
The Western Klamath Restoration Partnership, WKRP ............................................... 26
Methods: Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................... 27
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................ 31
Early, Innovative Collaboratives Creating Social Capital ................................................ 33
AFR: How it Developed ................................................................................................... 36
AFR becomes the solution for the HazRed conflict ..................................................... 38
v
The AFR group and restoration accomplishments........................................................ 41
Capacity building of TNC, Lomakatsi, City of Ashland, and the RRSNF ................... 49
WKRP: How it Developed................................................................................................ 53
Conflict leads to clarity and goals for the WKRP......................................................... 56
The WKRP Partners and Restoration Plan ....................................................................... 60
Community-based all-lands projects anchoring WKRP ............................................... 66
Changing relationships among managers of the WKRP............................................... 72
Growing capacity for ALM in the Klamath also reveals barriers ................................. 74
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 79
Top-Down Support in Shifting to a Forest Resilience Model .......................................... 79
The challenges of developing a resilience model ......................................................... 80
Funding ALM through programs and economic generation......................................... 82
Constraints to ALM funding ......................................................................................... 82
Bottom-Up Support for ALM: Social, Cultural and Human Capital ................................ 83
Diverse stakeholders build capacity for ALM .............................................................. 84
Human and cultural capital: reinforcers of social capital ............................................. 86
Enabling Factors and Constraints of ALM ....................................................................... 90
Institutions for ALM encouraged by The Nature Conservancy .................................... 90
Challenges to diverse stakeholder collaboration in ALM ............................................. 93
Challenges and problem solving of ALM by local stakeholders .................................. 95
Lessons provided by challenges to ALM...................................................................... 98
Sustaining ALM by Formalizing Communication and Coordination ............................. 100
CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 104
LITERATURE SOURCES ............................................................................................. 107

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Primary differences between ALM cases ........................................................... 24
Table 2. AFR watershed values and strategies to accomplish project work. .................... 25
Table 3. WKRP landscape scale restoration strategies from fire history map targeting
high risk areas. .......................................................................................................... 27
Table 4. Interviewees by case study and affiliation .......................................................... 28
Table 5. ALM case study similarities shared by AFR and WKRP ................................... 31
Table 6. Differentiating characteristics between ALM cases ........................................... 31
Table 7. AFR funding contributions by organization ....................................................... 47
Table 8. WKRP priorities developed collectively through the Open Standards Process . 64
Table 9. WKRP funding mechanisms and/or resource contributions ............................... 66

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Geographic locations of ALM cases ................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Klamath-Siskiyou region extent .......................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Ashland Creek Watershed outlined by blue dashed line. Note the pink parcel
inside the watershed boundary - constitutes 1000 acres of Ashland municipal lands.
Black dash outlines expansion project. ..................................................................... 37
Figure 4. Timeline of policy events leading to the development of the AFR collaborative
and project ................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 5. Timeline of events with the commencement of AFR's project work ................ 44
Figure 6. WKRP planning area outlining Karuk ancestral territory, and spanning .......... 55
Figure 7. Timeline of events in the WKRP’s development through working programs,
gathering tools, and resources ................................................................................... 59
Figure 8. WKRP's group partners and the communities they are based in ....................... 61
Figure 9. The WKRP community-based ALM project areas ........................................... 63
Figure 10. WKRP pilot projects slated for restoration work in 2017. Note light colored
parcels of private lands within each project area ...................................................... 68
Figure 11. Happy Camp pilot project. Note dark gray shading on eastern edge showing
private lands .............................................................................................................. 71
Figure 12. Pilot project taking place out of Sawyers Bar in the Salmon River subbasin . 72
Figure 13. WKRP partners across multiple scales unifying partners for collective
agreement .................................................................................................................. 75

viii
ABBREVIATIONS
AFR: Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project

ALM: All Lands Management

AMA: Adaptive Management Area

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

CAL FIRE: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

DNR: Department of Natural Resources

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

FAC: Fire Adapted Communities

FSC: Fire Safe Council

FLN: Fire Learning Network

MKWC: Mid Klamath Watershed Council

MSA: Master Stewardship Agreement

NFP: National Fire Plan

NFPA: National Fire Protection Association

NSO: Northern spotted owl

OSB: Orleans-Somes Bar

NGO: Non-governmental organization

S&PF: State and Private Forestry

SRRC: Salmon River Restoration Council

TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
ix
TNC: The Nature Conservancy

TREX: Prescribed Fire Training Exchange

USFS: United States Forest Service

WKRP: Western Klamath Restoration Partnership

WRTC: Watershed Research and Training Center
x