IHRMP-Fourth Progress Report 2

Fourth
Progress Report
July 1990 - June 1991

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
College of Natural Resources, Berkeley
Department of Forestry & Resource Management

STATE of CALIFORNIA
Resources Agency
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

December 1991

THE EDUCATION PROGRAM

It was felt that the IHRMP could most effectively address the wide variety of diverse issues facing hardwood rangelands by placing broadly-trained natural resource specialists into regional locations, rather than housing them on the Berkeley or Davis campus. This would allow more interaction with existing county farm advisors, as well as a program more responsive to local problems and needs.

Ten individuals within UC and CDF spend a substantial portion of their time working with the IHRMP (Table 1). In addition, farm advisors from UC county Cooperative Extension offices, and resource managers from CDF ranger units, play active roles in implementing the IHRMP in local areas of the state.

Table 1. Key personnel in UC and CDF involved in the IHRMP.

NAME	AFILLIATION	REGIONAL ASSIGNMENT	RESPONSIBILITY
James Bartolome	UCB	Statewide	UC Research Coord., range ecology
Cathy Bleier	CDF	Statewide	CDF Hardwood Coord., Short-term monitoring
Robert Ewing	CDF-FRRAP	Statewide	FRRAP Head, Monitoring
Gregory Giusti	UCCE-Mendocino	North Coast	Wildlands Ecology
Gregory Greenwood	CDF-FRRAP	Statewide	CDF Research Coord., long-term monitoring
Douglas McCreary	UCB-CE	North Sierra	Oak regeneration, silviculture
Neil McDougald	UCCE-Madera	South Sierra	Range management
Thomas Scott	UCB-CE	Southern California	Conservation biology, wildlife ecology, land use
Richard Standiford	UCB-CE	Statewide/Central California	UC IHRMP manager, Resource economics
William Tietje	UCB-CE	Central California	Wildlife management, land use

One of the important aspects of a research and education strategy is to recognize the diverse audiences that need to be addressed to achieve the goals of the program. The seven major audiences identified are resource professionals, small landowners, ranchers, conservation groups, developers, local government, wood cutters, and youth.

In the first five years of the program, a variety of educational methodologies have been used. The newsletter, Oaks ’N’ Folks, keeps individuals interested in the IHRMP informed on current information and research results. The readership includes landowners, governmental officials, members of various conservation groups, and the general public.

Local educational field days have been directed at diverse audiences including ranchers, small landowners, county planners and developers, and the interested general public. Workshops have also been held for professional natural resource managers, including foresters, range managers, environmental consultants, arborists, restorationists, and planners.

A variety of published materials have also been prepared for several different audiences. The pamphlets, Living Among the Oaks and Wildlife Among the Oaks were specifically directed at owners with 3 to 40 acres of oak woodland (ranchettes).
Acorns

Impact of Educational Outreach Programs
To explore the range of attitudes concerning oak woodlands and measure at least some aspects of the effectiveness of public education and extension efforts for the first five years of the program, a survey of landowners and other interested parties was undertaken. Four major groups were sampled to represent the range of different clientele that impact management and conservation of hardwood rangelands. A random sample of each group was conducted and compared with members of that group who participated in IHRMP educational programs. The table below describes how the different groups were chosen.

Table 2. Selection system for survey participants

INTEREST GROUP	RANDOM SAMPLE BASIS	PARTICIPANTS IN IHRMP PROGRAMS:
Rancher	California Cattleman’s Association	IHRMP workshop participants who described themselves as ranchers
Professional range managers	Contacts describing themselves as range or wildlife specialist	Participants in technical IHRMP workshops
Conservation group/public	Members of an environmental group with active local chapters	Participants in IHRMP workshops focusing on residence related oak issues
Consultants	Arborists Landscape Architects Development consultants County Planners

A total of 532 surveys were mailed to individuals from the different groups. A concerted follow-up technique consisting of three waves of letters resulted in a 73 percent response rate. Some survey results are shown below.

A Basic Set of Shared Values
Although different groups support different oak conservation approaches, the results of this survey showed a surprisingly high level of agreement among the surveyed groups in oak woodland values. Natural beauty and maintaining wildlife diversity were typically the most important values. Maintaining wildlife and protecting stream quality were more important to the range, wildlife and agricultural consultants and members of conservation organizations. Ranchers were generally less concerned about the possibility of damage to soil and streams from tree removal and put greater importance on oak woodlands as a source of firewood.

Table 3. Positive value rating of oak woodlands for different interest groups

		Ranchers		Range managers		Gen population		Consultants
VALUES	TOTAL	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	Consultants
Natural beauty	88	84	79	81	90	96	94	96
Maint. wildlife diversity	85	84	67	93	97	82	92	86
Improve game habitat	77	72	70	91	75	75	81	75
Control soil erosion	76	68	71	86	78	76	80	76
Protect stream quality	68	56	51	72	89	57	77	74
Increase property value	64	59	61	56	64	73	64	71
Provide shade	57	49	43	62	56	69	55	63
Provide firewood	37	56	55	40	16	35	29	29
AVERAGE SCORE	69	62	62	73	71	70	72	71

Oak Problems
Although different groups hold substantially similar values, their interest in action is more closely related to the type of problems they see in their area. The following table illustrates the four main problems mentioned by the different interest groups. Ranchers are concerned about a different set of problems on their property than the other groups. Although three of the top four problems mentioned relate directly to a reduction in forage availability for livestock, the major problem is one common to all groups—poor regeneration.

Table 4. Four most important problems mentioned by interest groups

	Rancher		Range manager
40%	poor regeneration	63%	poor regeneration
27%	very dense oak stands	56%	overgrazing
25%	poor grass growth	44%	loss of stately oaks
21%	brush invasion	34%	brush invasion
		34%	construction removal

	General population		Consultant
41%	loss of stately oaks	69%	loss of stately oaks
39%	construction removal	64%	construction removal
34%	disease	45%	overgrazing
28%	poor regeneration	35%	poor regeneration

Ranchers and general population mention fewer problems than rural or suburban professionals. Poor regeneration is considered to be a much more serious problem by the rural participants. For suburban residents and consultants, loss of trees, either naturally or due to construction projects, is the major source of concern.
Acorn

Contacts: Organizations, Meetings and Discussions
The rationale for much of the education effort is to extend useful information to decision makers who may have some effect on oak woodlands. The following table shows what percentage of each group attended a meeting or read an oak-related publication.

Table 5. Percentage of interest groups attending meetings or reading publications about oak woodlands

	Ranchers		Range managers		Gen population		Consultants
SPONSOR	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	Consultants
Coop Extension	87%	49%	85%	69%	71%	48%	63%
Conservation	56%	29%	65%	92%	36%	98%	55%
Profess. Org.	41%	15%	65%	75%	17%	39%	74%
Livestock Org.	64%	69%	40%	25%	12%	15%	11%
Local govt	45%	23%	45%	77%	32%	73%	54%
State govt	46%	16%	43%	49%	20%	35%	39%
USFS	44%	32%	65%	41%	19%	44%	36%
Resid Assoc.	9%	7%	5%	25%	14%	22%	16%

Contact through meetings or publications may bring up new ideas but it is doubtful that meaningful changes can occur without follow-up discussions. The following table illustrates the pattern of discussions among the interest groups and organizations or consultants. The most noticeable difference is the percent of each sample who were taken from CE contact lists who also had individual discussions. While more than two-thirds of the ranchers and rangers followed up their general contacts with individual meetings, less than one third of the general population (suburban or ranchette oak owners) did so.

Table 6. Percentage of interest groups having oak related discussions with different individuals or organizations

	Ranchers		Range managers		Gen population		Consultants
CONTACT	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	Consultants
Coop Extension	74	34	70	59	31	42	42
Conservation	35	10	60	67	16	89	35
Profess. Org.	48	2	50	58	3	34	49
Livestock Org.	18	36	40	18	11	14	6
Local govt	24	14	30	50	14	57	40
State govt	35	6	52	39	13	31	31
USFS	33	19	75	18	15	36	26
Consultants	26	12	37	57	33	50	52
Range Profess	27	27	61	61	45	45	43
Resid Assoc.	14	0	25	17	16	20	19

Compared to the situation in 1985, documented by Huntsinger and Fortmann (1990), there is now a much higher proportion of ranchers having discussions with professionals regarding oak woodlands. Range consultants and Cooperative Extension personnel are their primary contacts. Ranchers whose names were taken from IHRMP meeting lists have considerably more contact now than five years ago with other groups. Professional range managers, both those who attended IHRMP technical workshops and those who were chosen from other lists, have a high level of contact with a wide range of groups. Those who attended IHRMP technical workshops have a much higher level of contact with farm and livestock associations than those who did not attend workshops. In keeping with earlier patterns, members of conservation organizations have significantly higher levels of contact with professionals of all types than those who were chosen from IHRMP meeting lists. Residents who attended meetings or requested IHRMP material had the least number of other contacts.

What do people value from IHRMP workshops?
An implicit assumption of the preceding analysis is that participants value workshops for the specific techniques that are discussed and demonstrated. Most of the exit surveys used at IHRMP extension programs also question participants about why they come to workshops and what aspects they consider to be the most valuable. The following table illustrates that different interest groups have significantly different relative interests. Among the seven sub-groups, learning or improving techniques was never the most important reason for attending and only twice was it the second most valuable aspect of IHRMP workshops. The most obvious pattern is that landowners, whether large or small, are most interested in learning about the biological issues, while professionals are most interested in having discussions with other professionals.

Table 7. Ranking of most valued characteristics of oak woodland related workshops

	Ranchers		Range managers		Gen population		Consultants
CHARACTERISTIC	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	IHRMP	Random	Consultants
Improved knowledge of biological issues	70	61	53	55	62	71	56
Discussions with other professionals	68	39	78	89	52	59	75
Learned new techniques from presentations	67	50	41	55	44	60	49
Helped improve my existing practices	61	46	52	57	48	44	25
Learned new approaches from other landowners	50	51	42	44	29	26	32

scoring: 100 - very important, 50 - fairly important, 0 - not important

Conclusion

ABOVE: Ranchers, range managers, consultants and the general population attend a wide variety of oak woodland related workshops. (Click on image for larger view.)

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this interim evaluation of the IHRMP education program. First, there are a number of fairly strong and consistent values held by different types of individuals regarding oak woodlands. Natural beauty and the protection of wildlife diversity are the most important. There is considerably less agreement on the seriousness of different threats to the oak woodlands and the values they provide to society. Overall, the greatest concerns revolve around the loss of individual trees, often because of road or building construction.

In terms of implementation strategies to conserve oak woodlands, the survey suggests that enormous progress has been made since the mid-1980s. The Cooperative Extension program is reaching a wide range of individuals and the "extension products" are of a quality that attract return customers. It is also apparent that Cooperative Extension is not the only channel promoting new approaches to oak woodland management. Other organizations, especially conservation organizations and professional associations, offer the opportunity of effective and relatively inexpensive avenues of communication. Closer coordination with these groups should promote greater educational outreach and result in more effective management activities

The decrease in acreage of oak tree harvesting and the reduction of complete tree clearing can be at least partially attributed to the success of the IHRMP educational programs (see section, "Short-term monitoring"). A major theme of all educational programs for landowners is to preserve your options by maintaining a canopy of oaks. Although political pressure and improved cattle markets may also be major reasons for the lack of tree harvesting, the fact that less than one-tenth of one percent of the total hardwood rangelands in the state has commercial-sized harvest activity points to success in getting this message across.

University of California Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program, UC Berkeley. Last modified: 4/16/02
©Copyright, 2001. The Regents of the University of California. For questions and comments, contact webmaster.