- Email: [email protected]
A ranking system for prescribed burn prioritization in Table Mountain National Park, South Africa
Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Research article
A ranking system for prescribed burn prioritization in Table Mountain National Park, South Africa Carly Ruth Cowell a, *, Chad Cheney b a b
Cape Research Centre, P.O. Box 218, Scientific Services, South African National Parks, Steenberg, 7945, Cape Town, South Africa Planning Department, Conservation Services, Tokai Manor House, Table Mountain National Park, South African National Parks, Cape Town, South Africa
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 11 April 2016 Received in revised form 22 December 2016 Accepted 29 December 2016
To aid prescribed burn decision making in Table Mountain National Park, in South Africa a priority ranking system was tested. Historically a wildfire suppression strategy was adopted due to wildfires threatening urban areas close to the park, with few prescribed burns conducted. A large percentage of vegetation across the park exceeded the ecological threshold of 15 years. We held a multidisciplinary workshop, to prioritize areas for prescribed burning. Fire Management Blocks were mapped and assessed using the following seven categories: (1) ecological, (2) management, (3) tourism, (4) infrastructure, (5) invasive alien vegetation, (6) wildland-urban interface and (7) heritage. A priority ranking system was used to score each block. The oldest or most threatened vegetation types were not necessarily the top priority blocks. Selected blocks were burnt and burning fewer large blocks proved more effective economically, ecologically and practically due to the limited burning days permitted. The prioritization process was efficient as it could be updated annually following prescribed burns and wildfire incidents. Integration of prescribed burn planning and wildfire suppression strategies resulted in a reduction in operational costs. We recommend protected areas make use of a priority ranking system developed with expert knowledge and stakeholder engagement to determine objective prescribed burn plans. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fynbos Fire management Priority planning Prescribed burning Wildfire Mediterranean
1. Introduction The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) in the Western Cape Province of South Africa known for its species richness and ecological diversity, and is one of the most biodiverse in the world (Van der Niet and Johnson, 2009). Within the CFR the major habitat types of fynbos are classified as fire-prone and fire-adapted (Van Wilgen, 2013) a major factor shaping the structure and composition of fynbos (Rutherford et al., 2011). This is a typical example of the vegetation in a Mediterranean-type climate (MTC) (Bond and Keeley, 2005; Van Wilgen et al., 2010). Fire is an important ecological process and driver in the MTC region (Keeley et al., 2011) and many of the world's ecosystems (Van Wilgen et al., 2010). It creates the conditions necessary for healthy ecosystems providing reproduction and persistence of plant communities by removing above ground biomass, and recycling nutrients back into the system (Cowling, 1987; Bond and Keeley, 2005). Many fire-adapted plant species
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.R. Cowell), chad.cheney@ sanparks.org (C. Cheney). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.070 0301-4797/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
are ideally adapted to a certain fire regime (Keeley et al., 2011) and dependent on the fire regime particular to a vegetation type (Bond and Van Wilgen, 1996). The exclusion of fire from this system can lead to the expansion of other vegetation types or alien plant invasion, at the expense of endemic and niche species (Manders and Richardson, 1992; Cowling et al., 1997a,b; Higgins et al., 1999; Van Wilgen, 2013). A buildup of fuels from both annual grasses and perennial woody vegetation increases the risk of wildfire. Alternatively, too short intervals between fires can negatively affect diversity and species persistence, populations of obligate reseeding plants have insufficient time to reach maturity and set seed between fires (Van Wilgen and Forsyth, 1992; Heelmann et al., 2008). The result of either too frequent or too lengthy fire intervals is a decrease in floral diversity (Bond and Van Wilgen, 1996; Vlok and Yeaton, 1999).
1.1. Current status of prescribed burning in Table Mountain National Park South African National Parks (SANParks) seek to maintain high species diversity and species-richness through the application of
284
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
prescribed burns in fire-adapted ecosystems (; Whelan, 1995; Gill et al., 1999; Van Wilgen et al., 2010). Yet are required to adhere to the National Veld and Forest Fire Act of 1998, aimed at wildfire management via the prevention and suppression of vegetation, forest and mountain fires. Due to human interventions and requirements, alterations to fire recurrence interval, intensity and seasonality necessitate prescribed burning and monitoring as essential management actions (Van Wilgen et al., 2012). Prescribed burning is therefore, an important tool for maintaining biodiversity in national parks and ensuring the safety of residents, visitors, staff and neighboring properties.
Wildfire: An unplanned vegetation fire (natural or illegal) burning in an undefined area. Prescribed burn: A planned vegetation fire, having a demarcated area bounded by fire breaks, where firefighting resources are at the site prior to ignition.
Protected areas worldwide are increasingly experiencing budgetary constraints when replacing aging fire engines and limited trained crew for extended wildfire suppression and prescribed burning activities. Additionally conservation organizations are under increasing pressure to reduce costs and be self-sustainable (Spenceley, 2008). Although its mandate is to conserve and maintain ecological systems (NEMBA: Protected Areas Act) prescribed burns in TMNP took place on an ad hoc basis, based on relative ease of burning and low budgetary costs. Park management and academics have highlighted the need for a formalised and systematic implementation of a prescribed burn plan and prioritization system to support socio-ecological objectives for TMNP (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004; Forsyth et al., 2007; Van Wilgen, 2013).
A TPC is a measure or indicator triggering a warning that certain ecological thresholds are at risk of being reached and continued activity could negatively affect the conservation of the target species or ecosystem being managed.
The predominant vegetation of TMNP is evergreen, mountain fynbos shrub lands, with pockets of Afromontane forests occurring in sheltered areas (Cowling et al., 1996; Van Wilgen et al., 2011). Approximately 89% of TMNP has fire-adapted vegetation consisting of fynbos (86%) and renosterveld (3.6%) (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004). TMNP occurs in the western coastal region of the fynbos biome where historically natural wildfires took place from November to March when fires burnt hot and moved quickly through the vegetation (Van Wilgen and Richardson, 1985a,b). Individual species and/or community loss can result when vegetation is burnt in the incorrect fire season due to the lack of germination stimulants and post germination growth regulators (Bond et al., 1990; Kraaij et al., 2011; Kraaij et al., 2013). Fynbos vegetation needs to burn at a frequency of between 8 and 15 years in order for plant species to flower and produce seed for regeneration. Fifteen years is used as the fire frequency Threshold of Potential Concern (TPC). Owing to the Park's locale in close proximity to the metropolitan area, wildfires cannot be allowed to burn as they would naturally (Van Wilgen et al., 2012). This has resulted in an un-natural fire regime, with altered burn size affecting vegetation patterns due to the urban setting of the park (Milton et al., 1999). As a consequence
of this fire suppression strategy one third of the fire-dependent vegetation within the park has exceeded the TPC of 15 years (Van Wilgen, Biggs et al., 1998; Forsyth et al., 2007). For safety reasons prescribed burns are prohibited within the Cape Town metropolitan area from 1 November to 31 January, and TMNP is subject to these restrictions (Van Wilgen et al., 2011). Prescribed burning is only permitted in Cape Town from February to early April depending on the cessation of the summer winds and the onset of the winter rains, in the southern hemisphere, leaving a small window of opportunity to conduct prescribed burns within the ideal ecological season (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004). Other protected areas situated in or close to urban areas face similar challenges when planning and implementing prescribed burns. 1.2. Stakeholder engagement with expert knowledge Many ecological decision support tools exists in Australia, the United States of America, Malaysia and Europe to assist protected area and forestry managers with resource allocation, planning for wildfire suppression (Machin and Hentze, 2007; McDaniels, 2007; Assilzadeh et al., 2012; Sanchez et al., 2013) and fuel management (Arthaud et al., 2003; French et al., 2013). Fewer decision support aids exist to prioritize areas to burn using prescribed burns (Oliveras and Bell, 2008; Salgueiro, 2010). Examples in the literature using expert knowledge have increased in the past three decades. Stakeholder engagement includes approaches using expert knowledge to obtain consensus in decision making and planning. Drescher et al. (2013) provide a summary of areas where expert knowledge is used to inform ecological management. Expert knowledge of fire ecology and management can be scientific and non-scientific, and not limited to academia only. Resistance to the use of expert knowledge by stakeholder groups, including scientists and local communities, can be a perceived lack of transparency and personal bias or previous disillusionment of the stakeholder process. Research shows large groups of stakeholders can derail workshops with a multitude of opinions and certain group dynamics may discourage all participants from voicing their perspectives. Certain stakeholder participation processes can even reinforce the privileges of a minority over the wider community and broader management aims. The approach of selecting experts to participate in workshops to develop and plan management actions enables conservation organizations to take appropriate actions to meet all mandates and expectations (Ferreira et al., 2011). To address the lack of prescribed burn aids and remedy the ad hoc use of prescribed burns in TMNP, we held an expert knowledge workshop at the Cape Research Centre, to prioritize areas of the park for prescribed burning for conservation and safety management reasons. The aim of this paper is to present the approach used by TMNP that could be adopted and adapted by other protected areas with similar needs and challenges. 2. Methods 2.1. Study area Table Mountain National Park is situated on the Cape Peninsula at the south-western tip of the Western Cape Province in South Africa. It is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean in the south (34 210 S, 18 290 E), and by the City of Cape Town in the north (33 540 S, 18 24’ E) it is approximately 25 000 ha (Fig. 1). In order to implement biodiversity management across TMNP, the Park is divided into three working sections, North, Central and South (Fig. 1). In terms of fire ecology TMNP must consider the fynbos fire regime, fire sizes greater than 24 ha (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004) and conduct burns
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
285
Fig. 2. Table Mountain National Park showing the irregular shape and size of Fire Management Blocks (numbers in terms of priority rank as per Table 2).
Fig. 1. The Cape Peninsula, South Africa, showing Table Mountain National Park with in dark and light green, co-managed land in orange and the restricted Marine Protected Area in dark blue. Urbanized areas remain white. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
in late summer and early autumn. 2.2. Workshop methods Given the importance of burning fynbos vegetation for
biodiversity conservation and safety factors, we convened a workshop with expert stakeholders. The workshop aimed to objectively separate out the factors affecting prescribed burning (biodiversity, human safety, management, legislation), using a prioritization system. Participants invited to the workshop included personnel from across SANParks divisions, academics, fire ecologists, heritage specialists and social scientists. This multi-disciplinary team provided expertise in all the aspects related to fire ecology, management and prescribed burning in TMNP. Using stakeholder selection and engagement steps we aimed to achieve a collaborative workshop with all parties contributing equally to the prioritization of prescribed burning in the park within a transparent and sciencebased framework. Firstly we mapped all previous fires to determine the vegetation age. We combined GIS layers of natural features, management
286
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
Table 1 Attribute determination in prioritizing prescribed burns. Category
Attribute
Description
Score
Ecological
Veld Age
All fires in the Park from 1964 to present mapped.
Vegetation Type Status
National Vegetation Map and Red List status of the vegetation type.
Area susceptible to change
Unnatural transition from one vegetation type to another or dominance of a vegetation type.
Restoration
Restoration requiring fire to rejuvenate disturbed or senescent vegetation.
Loss of obligate seeders
When fire is excluded from fynbos certain of the Proteaceae and other serotonous species are lost from the system.
Access
Assessment of the existing access points and potential new ones, impact is on the vegetation and related costs.
Water Availability
Ease of access to water for wet-lines, control and safety.
Fire Breaks
Use of existing fire breaks, natural landscape features and identification of new breaks.
Tourism
Human safety and impacts to income
Risk to human safety and tourism income. A high risk score was allocated in areas with high tourism visitation.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure flammability
Risk to infrastructure from wildfires due to the potential flammability of the materials.
Invasive Alien Species
Alien Plant Management
Alien infestations and clearing operations past and planned.
Alien Plant Biomass
Type of alien biomass, relates to fire intensity and fuel load.
Wildland-Urban Interface
Urban Edge
Proximity to the urban edge considered due to negative effects of smoke and fire risk.
Heritage
Heritage Sites
Fire can negatively affect heritage sites. Buildings and artifacts are irrevocably damaged by fire, while sites of cultural or spiritual significance may be unaffected.
Age Classes: 5: >40 years 4: 20e39 years 3: 13e20 years 2: 5e12 years 1: <5 years 5: Critically Endangered 4: Endangered 3: Vulnerable 2: Near Threatened and 1: Least Concern Percentage change if fire excluded 5: 75e100% 4: 50e75% 3: 25e50% 2:5e25% 1:<5% 5 - severe need to ‘jump start’ a system 4 clear alien vegetation or biomass accumulation (rating 4) and for 3- natural rejuvenation of a system (rating 3), 2 or 1 no fire for ecosystem processes Percentage loss of species. 5:75e100% 4:50e75% 3: 25e50% 2: 5e25% 1: <5% Ease of access for vehicles to FU. 3: no access, damage to natural veld 2: difficult access along tracks/fire breaks 1: moderate access along old roads/tracks 0: easy access along existing roads 3: no water need helicopter buckets 2: no water but can use trucks 1: Water nearby 0: Water available on site State of Fire Breaks: 3: No fire breaks, need new 2: Existing fire breaks need upgrading 1: Existing fire breaks used 0: Natural landscape used as fire break 4: No risk 3: Low risk 2: Moderate risk 1: High risk 4: High flammability of buildings (wood, thatch, ammunitions, chemicals) 3: Moderate flammability of buildings 2: Low flammability of buildings 1: Open veld 4: Cleared areas 3: Follow-up areas 2: Initial clearing required 1: Heavily infested/no clearing planned 4: no aliens affecting burn 3: standing material 2: moderate amount of stacked material 1: large amounts of dried material spread around 3: 0e0.5 km 2: 0.5e1 km 1: 1.1e5 km 0: 5.1e50 km 4: Has historical buildings 3: Has cultural sites and artifacts 2: Has cultural significance 1:No heritage sites
Management
roads, the existing wildland-urban interface (WUI) and fire breaks to create a baseline map. Then we divided the park into logical management areas, called Fire Management Blocks (FMB). FMB are irregular in size and shape and defined by physical boarders (e.g.,
cliffs and management roads) and age of the vegetation (Fig. 2). Workshop participants decided on seven key prescribed burn categories, defined by fire ecologists and managers who consider them important for prescribed burning. The categories were
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
287
Table 2 Top 26 Priority Fire Management Blocks, ranking scores are listed in sequence according to category and the lower the final ranking score the higher the priority to burn. Fire Block
Cape Point Peers Hill Cecilia Back Table Groote Schuur Tokai Paulsberg Skeleton Gorge Buffelsfontein Signal Hill Little Lions Head 12 Apostles Devils Peak Noordhoek Karbonkelberg Orangekloof Back Table 3 Western Table Klawer Valley Elsies Peak Klaasjagersberg Front Table Oudekraal Rooihoogte Lions Head Back Table 2
Category Ecological
Management
Infrastructure
Tourism
Alien
WUI
Heritage
Final ranking
Priority
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 2 2
4 1 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 4
1 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 4 4 1 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 2 4 3 1 2 2 4 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 3
4 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3
3 2 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3
1141143 1313112 1332213 1332423 1333313 1342114 2132231 2212221 2212431 2222313 2224121 2233322 2241223 2314221 2314232 2321324 2332333 2341214 2344111 2424111 2431111 3121212 3131333 3141223 3232312 3242333
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
determined by their importance to achieving the three core strategic pillars of SANParks, Biodiversity, Tourism and Heritage. We listed them according to consensus of priority from most to less important: ecological (conservation mandate), management (conservation mandate), tourism (safety & income), infrastructure (safety), invasive alien vegetation (conservation mandate), wildland-urban interface (safety) and heritage (conservation mandate). To determine attributes on how fire affects each category constructed a mechanistic diagram in the workshop (Ferreira et al., 2011). The ecological attributes are key to conservation, followed by the management attributes characteristic of the elements fire managers consider. The key focus for the tourism category was the safety of staff, users and tourists in the Park and the potential loss of revenue. As the Park has a large WUI the safety of residences and businesses were the main attribute considered. Table 1 provides a list of the attributes per category, the description and the score choices for each attribute. All the attributes were systematically allocated a score. Using the methods developed to categorize threatened species for the IUCN Red Data lists and selecting species of special concern in TMNP (De Grammont and Cuaron, 2006; Rebelo et al., 2011), we summed the scores of the attributes within each category and grouped the summed scores of each category. A rank was allocated according to the summed score resulting in a rank value for each category. Only 26 FMB selected from those exceeding the TPC of 15 years are shown in Table 2.
3. Results Defining FMB boundaries through existing fire breaks, roads and natural features reduced the ecological impact and cost of creating new fire breaks for prescribed burning. Another key outcome was that park management could objectively list FMBs with a high priority for ecological action and safety. A ‘final ranking code’ was used, rather than summing the rankings for each FMB, and determined by sequencing the categories (Rebelo et al., 2011). A rank
code of 1244512, is read from left to right where: Ecological rank 1, Management rank 2, Infrastructure rank 4, Tourism rank 4, Alien Plant Vegetation rank 5, WUI rank 1, and Heritage rank 2. The assignment of a 1 indicates a high risk and priority if a prescribed fire is not implemented. The Cape Point FMB was the highest priority having a vegetation age exceeding 50 years, a significantly high impact on wildfire management and an extremely high risk to human safety due to the large volume of visitors to Cape Point. Our second priority area, was Peers Hill, although not a highly threatened vegetation type it is senescent and has sufficiently large amounts of felled alien material posing a high risk of damage to the soil from the intense heat (Van Wilgen and Scott, 2001). A wildfire through here would be difficult to suppress and it is in close proximity to the urban edge. Cape Point, Groote Schuur, Signal Hill, Little Lions Head and Rooihoogte were selected for burning in 2013 at a prescribed burn planning meeting with Park Management. Although, the two plantation areas of Cecilia and Tokai resulted in a high priority listing, third and sixth respectively, they were excluded as the forestry company requested we delay the burns and allow felling of more blocks, thus enabling the Park to burn larger sections for restoration and safety.
4. Discussion Stakeholders have numerous requirements pertaining to fire management within TMNP. Engagement with experts was a valuable resource helping fill gaps in the scientific literature, which complimented the wealth of knowledge on fire ecology. We acknowledge when working with people inherent biases exist and therefore invited a spectrum of experts to overcome personal bias and make the process systematic and reliable. Stakeholder mistrust of expert workshops exists historically. The main causes usually are a lack of transparency, engagement and understanding. Following the development of our priority prescribed burn list, we presented it to the entire park management team and the wider stakeholders
288
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
of TMNP at the Park Management Plan review. Based on expert contributions prescribed burn plans were written for five FMB and submitted to the authorities for approval. Receiving the burn permits five months after submission adversely affected the planned burns, as the window for burning prior to the winter rains in Cape Town reduced it to seven weeks. Thus only three prescribed burns were completed, the remaining two rolledover to the following year. As prescribed burning forms an important element of the control of invasive plant species (Holmes et al., 2000) and the re-establishment of species as part of ecosystem repair (Hobbs and Harris, 2001). This backlog of prescribed burns put the Park under undue stress in regard to its responsibility to fulfill conservation and stakeholder mandates. Successful burns for three of the five FMBs took place in 2014, requiring another rollover of planned burns for 2015. Extensive wildfires in March 2015 burnt approximately 2500 ha including areas planned for prescribed burning. The expert assumption that Peers Hill FMB was a high risk, was accurate as in 2016 part of this site burnt in a wildfire, with a fierce intensity and took many resources and hours to contain. All of the roll-overs and wildfires were included and reprioritized for prescribed burning, illustrating the flexibility of our prioritization planning process. The prescribed fire ranking is updated with monitoring information, in addition to, new infrastructure and visitor information. This ensures the plan is always up-to-date and relevant. Our priority ranking for prescribe burning is an objective decision making process to moderate biodiversity, management and safety needs in a protected area. It ensures no one single need (e.g. reduction in alien fuel load) or a single individual's opinion dominates the use of resources for prescribed burning. This is a fundamental aspect of implementing an integrated Fire Management Approach as adopted by TMNP management in their Fire Management Plan (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004). While ecological research calls for fynbos burns anywhere between 10 and 15 year intervals in late summer (Van Wilgen et al., 1992; Van Wilgen et al., 2010; Kraaij et al., 2011) in reality management cannot achieve this (Van Wilgen, 2013). It may be required to burn outside the accepted ecological season for fynbos (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004; Van Wilgen et al., 2012; Van Wilgen, 2013). The TPC's for burn season are; 0% winter, 10% spring, 50% summer and 40% autumn fires (Forsyth et al., 2007). Selected areas within TMNP could burn in spring (September and October) reducing the pressure to burn all the planned FMB in the autumn season (Holmes et al., 2000), with a single team. The avoidance of cold winter burns is recommended as fynbos species require sufficient moisture to allow seedlings to survive the dry summers in the Cape (Van DeVenter, Robbertse et al., 1986; Holmes, 2001). We recommend prescribed burning of a few large areas as this will be more effective economically, ecologically and practical due to the limited number of good burning days on the Cape Peninsula (Forsyth et al., 2007). Expediting the burn permitting process must be addressed with the relevant authorities, as this could derail prescribed burning in TMNP. Current financial strains within SANParks result in reduced resources available to park managers in the form of staff, equipment and funding to carry out operations such as prescribed burning. Managers require simple efficient prioritization of tasks to use budgets effectively. Our methodology is applicable to SANParks and other conservation organizations with similar areas requiring burning for ecological maintenance and/or close to urban areas for human safety (Keeley, 1998). This process has reduced the cost of prescribed burns by 10% with better planning to integrate wildfire suppression and alien clearing practices. Prescribed burn costs were curtailed in 2015 by fighting wildfires from newly cut FMB fire breaks with the FMBs being burnt by the wildfire. Using FMBs burnt
in prescribed fires makes wildfire fighting safer. Given the importance of burning for biodiversity conservation, risk reduction and limited resources worldwide, we recommend the use of prioritization systems and expert knowledge workshops for prescribed burn planning. Acknowledgements We are grateful to workshop participants and experts who provided valuable input. SANParks provided logistical and financial support. References Arthaud, G., Barrett, T., et al., 2003. Combining Simulation and Optimization for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments for Four Different Fuel Conditions at Landscape Scales. Systems Analysis in Forest Resources, vol. 7. Springer Netherlands, pp. 35e46. Assilzadeh, H., de Groot, W.J., et al., 2012. Spatial modelling of wildland fire danger for risk analysis and conflict resolution in Malaysia: linking Fire Danger Rating Systems (FDRS) with Wildfire Threat Rating Systems (WTRS). Geocarto Int. 27 (4), 291e313. Bond, W.J., Keeley, J.E., 2005. Fire as a global 'herbivore': the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 387e394. Bond, W.J., Le Roux, D., et al., 1990. Fire intensity and regeneration of myrmecochorous Proteaceae. South Afr. J. Bot. 56, 326e330. Bond, W.J., Van Wilgen, B.W., 1996. Fire and Plants. Chapman & Hall, London. Cowling, R.M., 1987. Fire and its role in coexistance and speciation in Gondwanan shrublands. South Afr. J. Sci. 83, 106e110. Cowling, R.M., Kirkwood, D., et al., 1997a. Invasion and persistence of birddispersed, subtropical thicket and forest species in fire-prone coastal fynbos. J. Veg. Sci. 8 (4), 475e488. Cowling, R.M., MacDonald, I.A.W., et al., 1996. The Cape Peninsula, South Africa: physiographical, biological and historical background to an extraordinary hotspot of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 5, 527e550. Cowling, R.M., Richardson, D.M., et al., 1997b. In: Cowling, R.M., Richardson, D.M., Pierce, S.M. (Eds.), Fynbos Vegetation of Southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99e130. De Grammont, P.C., Cuaron, A.D., 2006. An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent’ categorization systems used on the American continent. Conserv. Biol. 20, 14e27. Ferreira, S., Deacon, A., et al., 2011. From numbers to ecosystems and biodiversity: a mechanistic approach to monitoring. Koedoe 53, 193e204. Forsyth, G., Bridgett, J., 2004. Table Mountain National Park Fire Management Plan. CSIR, Cape Town. Forsyth, G.G., VanWilgen, B.W., et al., 2007. An Assessment of the Current Fire Situation, Proposed Fire Monitoring and Recommendations for Future Fire Management Activities in the Table Mountain National Park. South African National Parks, Cape Town, p. 39. French, I., Cechet, B., et al., 2013. FireDST: fire impact and risk evaluation decision support tool-model description. In: 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM 2013), Adelaide, December. Gill, A.M., Woinarski, J.C.Z., et al., 1999. Australia's Biodiversity-responses to Fire. Plants, Birds and Invertebrates. Canberra, Australia. Department of the Environment and Heritage, p. 268. Heelmann, S., Proches, S., et al., 2008. Fire season effects on the recruitment of nonsprouting serotinous Proteaceae in the eastern (bimodal rainfall) fynbos biome, South Africa. Austral Ecol. 33 (2), 119e127. Higgins, S.I., Richardson, D.M., et al., 1999. Predicting the landscape-scale distribution of alien plants and their threat to plant diversity. Conserv. Biol. 13 (2), 303e313. Hobbs, R.J., Harris, J.A., 2001. Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor. Ecol. 9 (2), 239e246. Holmes, P.M., 2001. A comparison of the impacts of winter versus summer burning of slash fuel in alien-invaded fynbos areas in the Western Cape. South. Afr. For. J. 192, 41e45. Holmes, P.M., Richardson, D.M., et al., 2000. Recovery of South African fynbos vegetation following alien woody plant clearing and fire: implications for restoration. Austral Ecol. 25 (6), 631e639. Keeley, J.E., 1998. In: Moreno, J.M. (Ed.), Postfire Ecosystem Recovery and Management: the October 1992 Large Fire Episode in California Large Forest Fires. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 69e90. Keeley, J.E., Pausas, J.G., et al., 2011. Fire as an evolutionary pressure shaping plant traits. Trends Plant Sci. 16 (8), 406e411. Kraaij, T., Cowling, R.M., et al., 2013. Fire regimes in eastern coastal fynbos: imperatives and thresholds in managing for diversity. Koedoe 55. Kraaij, T., Cowling, R.M., et al., 2011. Past approaches and future challenges to the management of fire and invasive alien plants in the new Garden Route National Park. South Afr. J. Sci. 107 (9/10), 11. Machin, B., Hentze, M., 2007. Comments on the present and future of wildland fire
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289 suppression decision-making processes. Adv. Econ. Environ. Resour. 6, 211e223. Manders, P.T., Richardson, D.M., 1992. Colonization of Cape fynbos communities by forest species. For. Ecol. Manag. 48, 277e293. McDaniels, J., 2007. WFDSS: taking decision support into the 21st century. Adv. Fire Pract. 1e4. Milton, S.J., Bond, W.J., et al., 1999. A protocol for plant conservation by translocation in threatened lowland fynbos. Conserv. Biol. 13 (4), 735e743. Oliveras, I., Bell, T., 2008. An analysis of the Australian literature on prescribed burning. J. For. 106 (1), 31e37. Rebelo, T.G., Freitag, S., et al., 2011. Prioritising species of special concern for monitoring in Table Mountain National Park: the challenge of a species-rich, threatened ecosystem. Koedoe 53 (2), 14. Rutherford, M.C., Powrie, L.W., et al., 2011. Early post-fire plant succession in Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos: the first three years after disturbance. South Afr. J. Bot. 77 (3), 665e674. Salgueiro, A., 2010. In: Monteil, C., Kraus, D. (Eds.), The Portuguese National Programme on Suppression Fire: GAUF Team Actions Best Practices of Fire Use Prescribed Burning and Suppression Fire Programmes in Selected Case-study Regions in Europe, vol. 24, p. 123. Finland, European Forest Institute Research Report. Sanchez, J.J., Baerenklau, K., et al., 2013. Economics of forest fire management: spatial accounting of costs and benefits. In: International Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Climate Change and Wildfires, Citeseer. SANParks, 2015. Table Mountain National Park, Park Management Plan. South African National Parks, Pretoria, p. 35. Spenceley, A., 2008. Supporting Nature Conservation through Tourism: Developing Creative Financial Sources and Mitigating Environmental Impacts. Seminar on Ecotourism and Protected Areas in Africa. Mozambique, Maputo. Van der Niet, T., Johnson, S.D., 2009. Patterns of plant speciation in the Cape floristic region. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 51 (1), 85e93. Van Wilgen, B., Scott, D., 2001a. Managing fires on the Cape Peninsula, South Africa: dealing with the inevitable. J. Mediterr. Ecol. 2, 197e208. Van Wilgen, B.W., 2013. Fire management in species-rich Cape fynbos shrublands.
289
Front. Ecol. Environ. 11 (1), e35ee44. Van Wilgen, B.W., Biggs, H.C., et al., 1998. Fire management and research in the Kruger National Park, with suggestions on the detection of thresholds of potential concern. Koedoe 41, 69e87. Van Wilgen, B.W., Bond, W.J., et al., 1992. In: Cowling, R.M. (Ed.), Ecosystem Management. The Ecology of Fynbos: Nutrient, Fire and Diversity. Oxford University Press, Cape Town, pp. 345e371. Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.G., 1992. In: Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., Kruger, F.J., van Hensbergen, H.J. (Eds.), Regeneration Strategies in Fynbos Plants and Their Influence on the Stability of Community Boundaries after fire. Fire in South African Mountain Fynbos: Species, Community and Ecosystem Response in Swartboskloof. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.G., et al., 2010. Fire management in Mediterraneanclimate shrublands: a case study from the Cape fynbos, South Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 631e638. Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.G., et al., 2012. The management of fire-adapted ecosystems in an urban setting: the case of table mountain national park, South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 8. Van Wilgen, B.W., Govender, N., et al., 2011. Towards adaptive fire management for biodiversity conservation: experience in South African National Parks. Koedoe 53 (2), 102e111. Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., 1985a. The effects of alien shrub invasions on vegetation structure and fire behavior in South African fynbos shrublands: simulation study. J. Appl. Ecol. 22, 955e966. Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., 1985b. Factors influencing burning by prescription in mountain fynbos catchment areas. South Afr. For. J. 134, 22e32. Van DeVenter, H.A., Robbertse, P.J., et al., 1986. The Germination Physiology and Seed Morphology of Representatives of the Ericaceae, Restionaceae and Iridaceae. Fynbos Biome Project. National Programme for Environmental Sciences, Cape Town, p. 15. Vlok, J.H.J., Yeaton, R.I., 1999. The effect of overstorey proteas on plant species richness in South African mountain fynbos. Divers. Distrib. 5 (5), 213e222. Whelan, R.J., 1995. The Ecology of Fire. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Research article
A ranking system for prescribed burn prioritization in Table Mountain National Park, South Africa Carly Ruth Cowell a, *, Chad Cheney b a b
Cape Research Centre, P.O. Box 218, Scientific Services, South African National Parks, Steenberg, 7945, Cape Town, South Africa Planning Department, Conservation Services, Tokai Manor House, Table Mountain National Park, South African National Parks, Cape Town, South Africa
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 11 April 2016 Received in revised form 22 December 2016 Accepted 29 December 2016
To aid prescribed burn decision making in Table Mountain National Park, in South Africa a priority ranking system was tested. Historically a wildfire suppression strategy was adopted due to wildfires threatening urban areas close to the park, with few prescribed burns conducted. A large percentage of vegetation across the park exceeded the ecological threshold of 15 years. We held a multidisciplinary workshop, to prioritize areas for prescribed burning. Fire Management Blocks were mapped and assessed using the following seven categories: (1) ecological, (2) management, (3) tourism, (4) infrastructure, (5) invasive alien vegetation, (6) wildland-urban interface and (7) heritage. A priority ranking system was used to score each block. The oldest or most threatened vegetation types were not necessarily the top priority blocks. Selected blocks were burnt and burning fewer large blocks proved more effective economically, ecologically and practically due to the limited burning days permitted. The prioritization process was efficient as it could be updated annually following prescribed burns and wildfire incidents. Integration of prescribed burn planning and wildfire suppression strategies resulted in a reduction in operational costs. We recommend protected areas make use of a priority ranking system developed with expert knowledge and stakeholder engagement to determine objective prescribed burn plans. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fynbos Fire management Priority planning Prescribed burning Wildfire Mediterranean
1. Introduction The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) in the Western Cape Province of South Africa known for its species richness and ecological diversity, and is one of the most biodiverse in the world (Van der Niet and Johnson, 2009). Within the CFR the major habitat types of fynbos are classified as fire-prone and fire-adapted (Van Wilgen, 2013) a major factor shaping the structure and composition of fynbos (Rutherford et al., 2011). This is a typical example of the vegetation in a Mediterranean-type climate (MTC) (Bond and Keeley, 2005; Van Wilgen et al., 2010). Fire is an important ecological process and driver in the MTC region (Keeley et al., 2011) and many of the world's ecosystems (Van Wilgen et al., 2010). It creates the conditions necessary for healthy ecosystems providing reproduction and persistence of plant communities by removing above ground biomass, and recycling nutrients back into the system (Cowling, 1987; Bond and Keeley, 2005). Many fire-adapted plant species
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.R. Cowell), chad.cheney@ sanparks.org (C. Cheney). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.070 0301-4797/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
are ideally adapted to a certain fire regime (Keeley et al., 2011) and dependent on the fire regime particular to a vegetation type (Bond and Van Wilgen, 1996). The exclusion of fire from this system can lead to the expansion of other vegetation types or alien plant invasion, at the expense of endemic and niche species (Manders and Richardson, 1992; Cowling et al., 1997a,b; Higgins et al., 1999; Van Wilgen, 2013). A buildup of fuels from both annual grasses and perennial woody vegetation increases the risk of wildfire. Alternatively, too short intervals between fires can negatively affect diversity and species persistence, populations of obligate reseeding plants have insufficient time to reach maturity and set seed between fires (Van Wilgen and Forsyth, 1992; Heelmann et al., 2008). The result of either too frequent or too lengthy fire intervals is a decrease in floral diversity (Bond and Van Wilgen, 1996; Vlok and Yeaton, 1999).
1.1. Current status of prescribed burning in Table Mountain National Park South African National Parks (SANParks) seek to maintain high species diversity and species-richness through the application of
284
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
prescribed burns in fire-adapted ecosystems (; Whelan, 1995; Gill et al., 1999; Van Wilgen et al., 2010). Yet are required to adhere to the National Veld and Forest Fire Act of 1998, aimed at wildfire management via the prevention and suppression of vegetation, forest and mountain fires. Due to human interventions and requirements, alterations to fire recurrence interval, intensity and seasonality necessitate prescribed burning and monitoring as essential management actions (Van Wilgen et al., 2012). Prescribed burning is therefore, an important tool for maintaining biodiversity in national parks and ensuring the safety of residents, visitors, staff and neighboring properties.
Wildfire: An unplanned vegetation fire (natural or illegal) burning in an undefined area. Prescribed burn: A planned vegetation fire, having a demarcated area bounded by fire breaks, where firefighting resources are at the site prior to ignition.
Protected areas worldwide are increasingly experiencing budgetary constraints when replacing aging fire engines and limited trained crew for extended wildfire suppression and prescribed burning activities. Additionally conservation organizations are under increasing pressure to reduce costs and be self-sustainable (Spenceley, 2008). Although its mandate is to conserve and maintain ecological systems (NEMBA: Protected Areas Act) prescribed burns in TMNP took place on an ad hoc basis, based on relative ease of burning and low budgetary costs. Park management and academics have highlighted the need for a formalised and systematic implementation of a prescribed burn plan and prioritization system to support socio-ecological objectives for TMNP (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004; Forsyth et al., 2007; Van Wilgen, 2013).
A TPC is a measure or indicator triggering a warning that certain ecological thresholds are at risk of being reached and continued activity could negatively affect the conservation of the target species or ecosystem being managed.
The predominant vegetation of TMNP is evergreen, mountain fynbos shrub lands, with pockets of Afromontane forests occurring in sheltered areas (Cowling et al., 1996; Van Wilgen et al., 2011). Approximately 89% of TMNP has fire-adapted vegetation consisting of fynbos (86%) and renosterveld (3.6%) (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004). TMNP occurs in the western coastal region of the fynbos biome where historically natural wildfires took place from November to March when fires burnt hot and moved quickly through the vegetation (Van Wilgen and Richardson, 1985a,b). Individual species and/or community loss can result when vegetation is burnt in the incorrect fire season due to the lack of germination stimulants and post germination growth regulators (Bond et al., 1990; Kraaij et al., 2011; Kraaij et al., 2013). Fynbos vegetation needs to burn at a frequency of between 8 and 15 years in order for plant species to flower and produce seed for regeneration. Fifteen years is used as the fire frequency Threshold of Potential Concern (TPC). Owing to the Park's locale in close proximity to the metropolitan area, wildfires cannot be allowed to burn as they would naturally (Van Wilgen et al., 2012). This has resulted in an un-natural fire regime, with altered burn size affecting vegetation patterns due to the urban setting of the park (Milton et al., 1999). As a consequence
of this fire suppression strategy one third of the fire-dependent vegetation within the park has exceeded the TPC of 15 years (Van Wilgen, Biggs et al., 1998; Forsyth et al., 2007). For safety reasons prescribed burns are prohibited within the Cape Town metropolitan area from 1 November to 31 January, and TMNP is subject to these restrictions (Van Wilgen et al., 2011). Prescribed burning is only permitted in Cape Town from February to early April depending on the cessation of the summer winds and the onset of the winter rains, in the southern hemisphere, leaving a small window of opportunity to conduct prescribed burns within the ideal ecological season (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004). Other protected areas situated in or close to urban areas face similar challenges when planning and implementing prescribed burns. 1.2. Stakeholder engagement with expert knowledge Many ecological decision support tools exists in Australia, the United States of America, Malaysia and Europe to assist protected area and forestry managers with resource allocation, planning for wildfire suppression (Machin and Hentze, 2007; McDaniels, 2007; Assilzadeh et al., 2012; Sanchez et al., 2013) and fuel management (Arthaud et al., 2003; French et al., 2013). Fewer decision support aids exist to prioritize areas to burn using prescribed burns (Oliveras and Bell, 2008; Salgueiro, 2010). Examples in the literature using expert knowledge have increased in the past three decades. Stakeholder engagement includes approaches using expert knowledge to obtain consensus in decision making and planning. Drescher et al. (2013) provide a summary of areas where expert knowledge is used to inform ecological management. Expert knowledge of fire ecology and management can be scientific and non-scientific, and not limited to academia only. Resistance to the use of expert knowledge by stakeholder groups, including scientists and local communities, can be a perceived lack of transparency and personal bias or previous disillusionment of the stakeholder process. Research shows large groups of stakeholders can derail workshops with a multitude of opinions and certain group dynamics may discourage all participants from voicing their perspectives. Certain stakeholder participation processes can even reinforce the privileges of a minority over the wider community and broader management aims. The approach of selecting experts to participate in workshops to develop and plan management actions enables conservation organizations to take appropriate actions to meet all mandates and expectations (Ferreira et al., 2011). To address the lack of prescribed burn aids and remedy the ad hoc use of prescribed burns in TMNP, we held an expert knowledge workshop at the Cape Research Centre, to prioritize areas of the park for prescribed burning for conservation and safety management reasons. The aim of this paper is to present the approach used by TMNP that could be adopted and adapted by other protected areas with similar needs and challenges. 2. Methods 2.1. Study area Table Mountain National Park is situated on the Cape Peninsula at the south-western tip of the Western Cape Province in South Africa. It is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean in the south (34 210 S, 18 290 E), and by the City of Cape Town in the north (33 540 S, 18 24’ E) it is approximately 25 000 ha (Fig. 1). In order to implement biodiversity management across TMNP, the Park is divided into three working sections, North, Central and South (Fig. 1). In terms of fire ecology TMNP must consider the fynbos fire regime, fire sizes greater than 24 ha (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004) and conduct burns
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
285
Fig. 2. Table Mountain National Park showing the irregular shape and size of Fire Management Blocks (numbers in terms of priority rank as per Table 2).
Fig. 1. The Cape Peninsula, South Africa, showing Table Mountain National Park with in dark and light green, co-managed land in orange and the restricted Marine Protected Area in dark blue. Urbanized areas remain white. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
in late summer and early autumn. 2.2. Workshop methods Given the importance of burning fynbos vegetation for
biodiversity conservation and safety factors, we convened a workshop with expert stakeholders. The workshop aimed to objectively separate out the factors affecting prescribed burning (biodiversity, human safety, management, legislation), using a prioritization system. Participants invited to the workshop included personnel from across SANParks divisions, academics, fire ecologists, heritage specialists and social scientists. This multi-disciplinary team provided expertise in all the aspects related to fire ecology, management and prescribed burning in TMNP. Using stakeholder selection and engagement steps we aimed to achieve a collaborative workshop with all parties contributing equally to the prioritization of prescribed burning in the park within a transparent and sciencebased framework. Firstly we mapped all previous fires to determine the vegetation age. We combined GIS layers of natural features, management
286
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
Table 1 Attribute determination in prioritizing prescribed burns. Category
Attribute
Description
Score
Ecological
Veld Age
All fires in the Park from 1964 to present mapped.
Vegetation Type Status
National Vegetation Map and Red List status of the vegetation type.
Area susceptible to change
Unnatural transition from one vegetation type to another or dominance of a vegetation type.
Restoration
Restoration requiring fire to rejuvenate disturbed or senescent vegetation.
Loss of obligate seeders
When fire is excluded from fynbos certain of the Proteaceae and other serotonous species are lost from the system.
Access
Assessment of the existing access points and potential new ones, impact is on the vegetation and related costs.
Water Availability
Ease of access to water for wet-lines, control and safety.
Fire Breaks
Use of existing fire breaks, natural landscape features and identification of new breaks.
Tourism
Human safety and impacts to income
Risk to human safety and tourism income. A high risk score was allocated in areas with high tourism visitation.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure flammability
Risk to infrastructure from wildfires due to the potential flammability of the materials.
Invasive Alien Species
Alien Plant Management
Alien infestations and clearing operations past and planned.
Alien Plant Biomass
Type of alien biomass, relates to fire intensity and fuel load.
Wildland-Urban Interface
Urban Edge
Proximity to the urban edge considered due to negative effects of smoke and fire risk.
Heritage
Heritage Sites
Fire can negatively affect heritage sites. Buildings and artifacts are irrevocably damaged by fire, while sites of cultural or spiritual significance may be unaffected.
Age Classes: 5: >40 years 4: 20e39 years 3: 13e20 years 2: 5e12 years 1: <5 years 5: Critically Endangered 4: Endangered 3: Vulnerable 2: Near Threatened and 1: Least Concern Percentage change if fire excluded 5: 75e100% 4: 50e75% 3: 25e50% 2:5e25% 1:<5% 5 - severe need to ‘jump start’ a system 4 clear alien vegetation or biomass accumulation (rating 4) and for 3- natural rejuvenation of a system (rating 3), 2 or 1 no fire for ecosystem processes Percentage loss of species. 5:75e100% 4:50e75% 3: 25e50% 2: 5e25% 1: <5% Ease of access for vehicles to FU. 3: no access, damage to natural veld 2: difficult access along tracks/fire breaks 1: moderate access along old roads/tracks 0: easy access along existing roads 3: no water need helicopter buckets 2: no water but can use trucks 1: Water nearby 0: Water available on site State of Fire Breaks: 3: No fire breaks, need new 2: Existing fire breaks need upgrading 1: Existing fire breaks used 0: Natural landscape used as fire break 4: No risk 3: Low risk 2: Moderate risk 1: High risk 4: High flammability of buildings (wood, thatch, ammunitions, chemicals) 3: Moderate flammability of buildings 2: Low flammability of buildings 1: Open veld 4: Cleared areas 3: Follow-up areas 2: Initial clearing required 1: Heavily infested/no clearing planned 4: no aliens affecting burn 3: standing material 2: moderate amount of stacked material 1: large amounts of dried material spread around 3: 0e0.5 km 2: 0.5e1 km 1: 1.1e5 km 0: 5.1e50 km 4: Has historical buildings 3: Has cultural sites and artifacts 2: Has cultural significance 1:No heritage sites
Management
roads, the existing wildland-urban interface (WUI) and fire breaks to create a baseline map. Then we divided the park into logical management areas, called Fire Management Blocks (FMB). FMB are irregular in size and shape and defined by physical boarders (e.g.,
cliffs and management roads) and age of the vegetation (Fig. 2). Workshop participants decided on seven key prescribed burn categories, defined by fire ecologists and managers who consider them important for prescribed burning. The categories were
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
287
Table 2 Top 26 Priority Fire Management Blocks, ranking scores are listed in sequence according to category and the lower the final ranking score the higher the priority to burn. Fire Block
Cape Point Peers Hill Cecilia Back Table Groote Schuur Tokai Paulsberg Skeleton Gorge Buffelsfontein Signal Hill Little Lions Head 12 Apostles Devils Peak Noordhoek Karbonkelberg Orangekloof Back Table 3 Western Table Klawer Valley Elsies Peak Klaasjagersberg Front Table Oudekraal Rooihoogte Lions Head Back Table 2
Category Ecological
Management
Infrastructure
Tourism
Alien
WUI
Heritage
Final ranking
Priority
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 2 2
4 1 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 4
1 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 4 4 1 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 2 4 3 1 2 2 4 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 3
4 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3
3 2 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3
1141143 1313112 1332213 1332423 1333313 1342114 2132231 2212221 2212431 2222313 2224121 2233322 2241223 2314221 2314232 2321324 2332333 2341214 2344111 2424111 2431111 3121212 3131333 3141223 3232312 3242333
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
determined by their importance to achieving the three core strategic pillars of SANParks, Biodiversity, Tourism and Heritage. We listed them according to consensus of priority from most to less important: ecological (conservation mandate), management (conservation mandate), tourism (safety & income), infrastructure (safety), invasive alien vegetation (conservation mandate), wildland-urban interface (safety) and heritage (conservation mandate). To determine attributes on how fire affects each category constructed a mechanistic diagram in the workshop (Ferreira et al., 2011). The ecological attributes are key to conservation, followed by the management attributes characteristic of the elements fire managers consider. The key focus for the tourism category was the safety of staff, users and tourists in the Park and the potential loss of revenue. As the Park has a large WUI the safety of residences and businesses were the main attribute considered. Table 1 provides a list of the attributes per category, the description and the score choices for each attribute. All the attributes were systematically allocated a score. Using the methods developed to categorize threatened species for the IUCN Red Data lists and selecting species of special concern in TMNP (De Grammont and Cuaron, 2006; Rebelo et al., 2011), we summed the scores of the attributes within each category and grouped the summed scores of each category. A rank was allocated according to the summed score resulting in a rank value for each category. Only 26 FMB selected from those exceeding the TPC of 15 years are shown in Table 2.
3. Results Defining FMB boundaries through existing fire breaks, roads and natural features reduced the ecological impact and cost of creating new fire breaks for prescribed burning. Another key outcome was that park management could objectively list FMBs with a high priority for ecological action and safety. A ‘final ranking code’ was used, rather than summing the rankings for each FMB, and determined by sequencing the categories (Rebelo et al., 2011). A rank
code of 1244512, is read from left to right where: Ecological rank 1, Management rank 2, Infrastructure rank 4, Tourism rank 4, Alien Plant Vegetation rank 5, WUI rank 1, and Heritage rank 2. The assignment of a 1 indicates a high risk and priority if a prescribed fire is not implemented. The Cape Point FMB was the highest priority having a vegetation age exceeding 50 years, a significantly high impact on wildfire management and an extremely high risk to human safety due to the large volume of visitors to Cape Point. Our second priority area, was Peers Hill, although not a highly threatened vegetation type it is senescent and has sufficiently large amounts of felled alien material posing a high risk of damage to the soil from the intense heat (Van Wilgen and Scott, 2001). A wildfire through here would be difficult to suppress and it is in close proximity to the urban edge. Cape Point, Groote Schuur, Signal Hill, Little Lions Head and Rooihoogte were selected for burning in 2013 at a prescribed burn planning meeting with Park Management. Although, the two plantation areas of Cecilia and Tokai resulted in a high priority listing, third and sixth respectively, they were excluded as the forestry company requested we delay the burns and allow felling of more blocks, thus enabling the Park to burn larger sections for restoration and safety.
4. Discussion Stakeholders have numerous requirements pertaining to fire management within TMNP. Engagement with experts was a valuable resource helping fill gaps in the scientific literature, which complimented the wealth of knowledge on fire ecology. We acknowledge when working with people inherent biases exist and therefore invited a spectrum of experts to overcome personal bias and make the process systematic and reliable. Stakeholder mistrust of expert workshops exists historically. The main causes usually are a lack of transparency, engagement and understanding. Following the development of our priority prescribed burn list, we presented it to the entire park management team and the wider stakeholders
288
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289
of TMNP at the Park Management Plan review. Based on expert contributions prescribed burn plans were written for five FMB and submitted to the authorities for approval. Receiving the burn permits five months after submission adversely affected the planned burns, as the window for burning prior to the winter rains in Cape Town reduced it to seven weeks. Thus only three prescribed burns were completed, the remaining two rolledover to the following year. As prescribed burning forms an important element of the control of invasive plant species (Holmes et al., 2000) and the re-establishment of species as part of ecosystem repair (Hobbs and Harris, 2001). This backlog of prescribed burns put the Park under undue stress in regard to its responsibility to fulfill conservation and stakeholder mandates. Successful burns for three of the five FMBs took place in 2014, requiring another rollover of planned burns for 2015. Extensive wildfires in March 2015 burnt approximately 2500 ha including areas planned for prescribed burning. The expert assumption that Peers Hill FMB was a high risk, was accurate as in 2016 part of this site burnt in a wildfire, with a fierce intensity and took many resources and hours to contain. All of the roll-overs and wildfires were included and reprioritized for prescribed burning, illustrating the flexibility of our prioritization planning process. The prescribed fire ranking is updated with monitoring information, in addition to, new infrastructure and visitor information. This ensures the plan is always up-to-date and relevant. Our priority ranking for prescribe burning is an objective decision making process to moderate biodiversity, management and safety needs in a protected area. It ensures no one single need (e.g. reduction in alien fuel load) or a single individual's opinion dominates the use of resources for prescribed burning. This is a fundamental aspect of implementing an integrated Fire Management Approach as adopted by TMNP management in their Fire Management Plan (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004). While ecological research calls for fynbos burns anywhere between 10 and 15 year intervals in late summer (Van Wilgen et al., 1992; Van Wilgen et al., 2010; Kraaij et al., 2011) in reality management cannot achieve this (Van Wilgen, 2013). It may be required to burn outside the accepted ecological season for fynbos (Forsyth and Bridgett, 2004; Van Wilgen et al., 2012; Van Wilgen, 2013). The TPC's for burn season are; 0% winter, 10% spring, 50% summer and 40% autumn fires (Forsyth et al., 2007). Selected areas within TMNP could burn in spring (September and October) reducing the pressure to burn all the planned FMB in the autumn season (Holmes et al., 2000), with a single team. The avoidance of cold winter burns is recommended as fynbos species require sufficient moisture to allow seedlings to survive the dry summers in the Cape (Van DeVenter, Robbertse et al., 1986; Holmes, 2001). We recommend prescribed burning of a few large areas as this will be more effective economically, ecologically and practical due to the limited number of good burning days on the Cape Peninsula (Forsyth et al., 2007). Expediting the burn permitting process must be addressed with the relevant authorities, as this could derail prescribed burning in TMNP. Current financial strains within SANParks result in reduced resources available to park managers in the form of staff, equipment and funding to carry out operations such as prescribed burning. Managers require simple efficient prioritization of tasks to use budgets effectively. Our methodology is applicable to SANParks and other conservation organizations with similar areas requiring burning for ecological maintenance and/or close to urban areas for human safety (Keeley, 1998). This process has reduced the cost of prescribed burns by 10% with better planning to integrate wildfire suppression and alien clearing practices. Prescribed burn costs were curtailed in 2015 by fighting wildfires from newly cut FMB fire breaks with the FMBs being burnt by the wildfire. Using FMBs burnt
in prescribed fires makes wildfire fighting safer. Given the importance of burning for biodiversity conservation, risk reduction and limited resources worldwide, we recommend the use of prioritization systems and expert knowledge workshops for prescribed burn planning. Acknowledgements We are grateful to workshop participants and experts who provided valuable input. SANParks provided logistical and financial support. References Arthaud, G., Barrett, T., et al., 2003. Combining Simulation and Optimization for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments for Four Different Fuel Conditions at Landscape Scales. Systems Analysis in Forest Resources, vol. 7. Springer Netherlands, pp. 35e46. Assilzadeh, H., de Groot, W.J., et al., 2012. Spatial modelling of wildland fire danger for risk analysis and conflict resolution in Malaysia: linking Fire Danger Rating Systems (FDRS) with Wildfire Threat Rating Systems (WTRS). Geocarto Int. 27 (4), 291e313. Bond, W.J., Keeley, J.E., 2005. Fire as a global 'herbivore': the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 387e394. Bond, W.J., Le Roux, D., et al., 1990. Fire intensity and regeneration of myrmecochorous Proteaceae. South Afr. J. Bot. 56, 326e330. Bond, W.J., Van Wilgen, B.W., 1996. Fire and Plants. Chapman & Hall, London. Cowling, R.M., 1987. Fire and its role in coexistance and speciation in Gondwanan shrublands. South Afr. J. Sci. 83, 106e110. Cowling, R.M., Kirkwood, D., et al., 1997a. Invasion and persistence of birddispersed, subtropical thicket and forest species in fire-prone coastal fynbos. J. Veg. Sci. 8 (4), 475e488. Cowling, R.M., MacDonald, I.A.W., et al., 1996. The Cape Peninsula, South Africa: physiographical, biological and historical background to an extraordinary hotspot of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 5, 527e550. Cowling, R.M., Richardson, D.M., et al., 1997b. In: Cowling, R.M., Richardson, D.M., Pierce, S.M. (Eds.), Fynbos Vegetation of Southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99e130. De Grammont, P.C., Cuaron, A.D., 2006. An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent’ categorization systems used on the American continent. Conserv. Biol. 20, 14e27. Ferreira, S., Deacon, A., et al., 2011. From numbers to ecosystems and biodiversity: a mechanistic approach to monitoring. Koedoe 53, 193e204. Forsyth, G., Bridgett, J., 2004. Table Mountain National Park Fire Management Plan. CSIR, Cape Town. Forsyth, G.G., VanWilgen, B.W., et al., 2007. An Assessment of the Current Fire Situation, Proposed Fire Monitoring and Recommendations for Future Fire Management Activities in the Table Mountain National Park. South African National Parks, Cape Town, p. 39. French, I., Cechet, B., et al., 2013. FireDST: fire impact and risk evaluation decision support tool-model description. In: 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM 2013), Adelaide, December. Gill, A.M., Woinarski, J.C.Z., et al., 1999. Australia's Biodiversity-responses to Fire. Plants, Birds and Invertebrates. Canberra, Australia. Department of the Environment and Heritage, p. 268. Heelmann, S., Proches, S., et al., 2008. Fire season effects on the recruitment of nonsprouting serotinous Proteaceae in the eastern (bimodal rainfall) fynbos biome, South Africa. Austral Ecol. 33 (2), 119e127. Higgins, S.I., Richardson, D.M., et al., 1999. Predicting the landscape-scale distribution of alien plants and their threat to plant diversity. Conserv. Biol. 13 (2), 303e313. Hobbs, R.J., Harris, J.A., 2001. Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor. Ecol. 9 (2), 239e246. Holmes, P.M., 2001. A comparison of the impacts of winter versus summer burning of slash fuel in alien-invaded fynbos areas in the Western Cape. South. Afr. For. J. 192, 41e45. Holmes, P.M., Richardson, D.M., et al., 2000. Recovery of South African fynbos vegetation following alien woody plant clearing and fire: implications for restoration. Austral Ecol. 25 (6), 631e639. Keeley, J.E., 1998. In: Moreno, J.M. (Ed.), Postfire Ecosystem Recovery and Management: the October 1992 Large Fire Episode in California Large Forest Fires. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 69e90. Keeley, J.E., Pausas, J.G., et al., 2011. Fire as an evolutionary pressure shaping plant traits. Trends Plant Sci. 16 (8), 406e411. Kraaij, T., Cowling, R.M., et al., 2013. Fire regimes in eastern coastal fynbos: imperatives and thresholds in managing for diversity. Koedoe 55. Kraaij, T., Cowling, R.M., et al., 2011. Past approaches and future challenges to the management of fire and invasive alien plants in the new Garden Route National Park. South Afr. J. Sci. 107 (9/10), 11. Machin, B., Hentze, M., 2007. Comments on the present and future of wildland fire
C.R. Cowell, C. Cheney / Journal of Environmental Management 190 (2017) 283e289 suppression decision-making processes. Adv. Econ. Environ. Resour. 6, 211e223. Manders, P.T., Richardson, D.M., 1992. Colonization of Cape fynbos communities by forest species. For. Ecol. Manag. 48, 277e293. McDaniels, J., 2007. WFDSS: taking decision support into the 21st century. Adv. Fire Pract. 1e4. Milton, S.J., Bond, W.J., et al., 1999. A protocol for plant conservation by translocation in threatened lowland fynbos. Conserv. Biol. 13 (4), 735e743. Oliveras, I., Bell, T., 2008. An analysis of the Australian literature on prescribed burning. J. For. 106 (1), 31e37. Rebelo, T.G., Freitag, S., et al., 2011. Prioritising species of special concern for monitoring in Table Mountain National Park: the challenge of a species-rich, threatened ecosystem. Koedoe 53 (2), 14. Rutherford, M.C., Powrie, L.W., et al., 2011. Early post-fire plant succession in Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos: the first three years after disturbance. South Afr. J. Bot. 77 (3), 665e674. Salgueiro, A., 2010. In: Monteil, C., Kraus, D. (Eds.), The Portuguese National Programme on Suppression Fire: GAUF Team Actions Best Practices of Fire Use Prescribed Burning and Suppression Fire Programmes in Selected Case-study Regions in Europe, vol. 24, p. 123. Finland, European Forest Institute Research Report. Sanchez, J.J., Baerenklau, K., et al., 2013. Economics of forest fire management: spatial accounting of costs and benefits. In: International Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Climate Change and Wildfires, Citeseer. SANParks, 2015. Table Mountain National Park, Park Management Plan. South African National Parks, Pretoria, p. 35. Spenceley, A., 2008. Supporting Nature Conservation through Tourism: Developing Creative Financial Sources and Mitigating Environmental Impacts. Seminar on Ecotourism and Protected Areas in Africa. Mozambique, Maputo. Van der Niet, T., Johnson, S.D., 2009. Patterns of plant speciation in the Cape floristic region. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 51 (1), 85e93. Van Wilgen, B., Scott, D., 2001a. Managing fires on the Cape Peninsula, South Africa: dealing with the inevitable. J. Mediterr. Ecol. 2, 197e208. Van Wilgen, B.W., 2013. Fire management in species-rich Cape fynbos shrublands.
289
Front. Ecol. Environ. 11 (1), e35ee44. Van Wilgen, B.W., Biggs, H.C., et al., 1998. Fire management and research in the Kruger National Park, with suggestions on the detection of thresholds of potential concern. Koedoe 41, 69e87. Van Wilgen, B.W., Bond, W.J., et al., 1992. In: Cowling, R.M. (Ed.), Ecosystem Management. The Ecology of Fynbos: Nutrient, Fire and Diversity. Oxford University Press, Cape Town, pp. 345e371. Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.G., 1992. In: Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., Kruger, F.J., van Hensbergen, H.J. (Eds.), Regeneration Strategies in Fynbos Plants and Their Influence on the Stability of Community Boundaries after fire. Fire in South African Mountain Fynbos: Species, Community and Ecosystem Response in Swartboskloof. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.G., et al., 2010. Fire management in Mediterraneanclimate shrublands: a case study from the Cape fynbos, South Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 631e638. Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.G., et al., 2012. The management of fire-adapted ecosystems in an urban setting: the case of table mountain national park, South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 8. Van Wilgen, B.W., Govender, N., et al., 2011. Towards adaptive fire management for biodiversity conservation: experience in South African National Parks. Koedoe 53 (2), 102e111. Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., 1985a. The effects of alien shrub invasions on vegetation structure and fire behavior in South African fynbos shrublands: simulation study. J. Appl. Ecol. 22, 955e966. Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., 1985b. Factors influencing burning by prescription in mountain fynbos catchment areas. South Afr. For. J. 134, 22e32. Van DeVenter, H.A., Robbertse, P.J., et al., 1986. The Germination Physiology and Seed Morphology of Representatives of the Ericaceae, Restionaceae and Iridaceae. Fynbos Biome Project. National Programme for Environmental Sciences, Cape Town, p. 15. Vlok, J.H.J., Yeaton, R.I., 1999. The effect of overstorey proteas on plant species richness in South African mountain fynbos. Divers. Distrib. 5 (5), 213e222. Whelan, R.J., 1995. The Ecology of Fire. Cambridge University Press, New York.