A unit of Lasting Forests
evolving since March 30, 1999
 
  

A Total Forest Management Plan
and Wildland Management
Decision Support System

 		 
[ HOME | The Trevey Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ]


Fire Force

Fire Structures
Firewood
Fire Breaks
References

A Fire Management System

Very current information is likely to be available at the federal fire site.

There is a great need for a fire management system. It is one of the most difficult systems to design because fire has both positive and negative elements and these are both (in part) very conspicuous and people have strongly held beliefs and deep-seated, perhaps innate, fear of them.

No other aspect of land management has caused more controversy, has taken precedence over more management activities, has involved more resources on the private, state, and federal levels, and has been more unpredictable than fire management. It involves every aspect of land management, thus of its plans. The very nature of fire behavior is responsible for these phenomena. As natural resources are continually utilized in a quest to provide for the needs and wants of people, the value of all factors of production, i.e., land, labor, and capital increases at unprecedented rates. Thus it is becoming increasingly important to identify the benefits and costs associated with decision making so that these resources are used in the most efficient and productive manner. For this reason, a fire management system is needed so that no more resources than necessary are used, that associated risks are identified and minimized, and that prescribed fire is used effectively. With this, post-fire land management is also essential.

While planning and prevention are critical, there are few activities more critical than supression. Wildlife supression may be necessary to meet the objectives of the owner from the land, especially from each compartment. The size and strength of initial attack forces for supressing wildlife needs to be preplanned. Precise costs of attack and unsure losses and costs of not supressing fire suggest prompt attack in most cases, then evanlaution. Attack rates are based on probable fire location, fire risk and intensity, possible resource losses or gains.

The many components of fire management, and their interrelationships, may form a complex system. Rothermel (1980) observed that a remarkable number of programs or systems were introduced in the past 10 years and listed subsystem topics of logging slash, flammable shrubs (season and age), fuel moisture, windspeed, fire spread and intensity, flame length, scorch height, burning time, spotting distance, fire containment requirements, and fire shape. Integrating all of these with comprehensive plans for resource areas is one of the greatest challenges of modern planning and is still beyond Guidance capability. A proposal to advance such work is available. Nevertheless, a beginning has been made.

Lotan (1977) noted the relations of fire management to planning are extremely complex and observed that Jack Borrows had formerly advocated a "systems approach" to fire management.

Chase (1987) lamented lack of public understanding of fire management and the need for clear expectations from a fire management program. It is so complex, that such understanding is unlikely except for a very few. The difficulty will be in replacing "number of fires", "acres burned", "deaths", "costs", and "days fought" with a more meaningful system performance measure. The need is to change R, the expression of how well the objectives of the larger system are being achieved. Requiring an economic efficiency criterion (begun in 1980) such as minimizing the sum of present discounted fire management system costs, plus the net change in present discounted resource value estimates due to fire (Flatman and Storey 1979; Chase 1987:62) has not simplified the problem. This is a loss/cost reduction criterion and does not address the potential positive effects of skillfully used fire. Althaus and Mills (1982) however did include willingness-to-pay criteria as estimates of benefits that may result from fire management(or the post-fire land management costs.

More and more homes are being built at the forest/urban interface. Suggestions for protecting homes and structures is available. There is inadequate adherence to safety rules. Current regulatory codes are inflexible. Specifications for building and site characteristics cannot be adjusted to accomodate homeowner values. An "ignition assessment" may be an alternative to current safety codes.

The problem areas:

Studies (Cohen, J. Forestry March, 2000) suggest home ignitions are unlikely if flames and firebrands occur within 40 meters of the structure. The fire-loss problem is that of the home and immediate surroundings, not forest activity such as prescribed burns, etc.

In many cases the components of the fire management system are handled independently. In order to introduce greater efficiency into the fire management process (something that is very desirable, given budgetary and other constraints), a system approach, which identifies the interrelationships between these components, is necessary. The approach that has been taken here is one that involves integrating economic concepts, resource availability, and risk reduction, and takes advantage of the capabilities of modern computer technology to analyze the vast quantity of very detailed and varied data available. Such a system utilizes the good that already exists in present fire management programs and builds upon this in a manner that recognizes the relationships between the system components. The system is a way of re-thinking the fire operations and planning from the micro level of the fire to the macro level of total resource management. An objective of a fire management system is to reduce the associated risks of fire by increasing the quantity and quality of information available to the manager and to increase his or her ability to predict areas and fires of high risk, thus helping the manager to make improved decisions. As such, the system emphasis is on being practical and functional.

Bratten et al. (1981) observed that fire control is very expensive (now over $300 million per year) and that a comprehensive total fire management system can potentially save enormous amounts of money. The system needs to include innovative, area-specific efforts.

The components of the fire system include:

Economic analyses are needed that include the costs of each of the above but also the effectiveness of each effort, the costs of preparedness, the organization and training needed, the difference in risks, the difference in incidence, and the extreme differences in land value and potential loss (on site and to adjacent property shown within the GIS). The above are very site specific. Many research findings of the dry Western forests are not readily applicable to moist Eastern forests. Reasonable damage assessment is needed. Major effects since 1972 have led to Fire Operational Characteristics Using Simulation (FOCUS).

Trying to discover the types of people who set fires or engage in high-risk behavior has been found to be useless. The costs are so great that an adequate sample size cannot be gotten due to variations in individual behavior, use, fuel, area, vegetation type, even season and year (Folkman 1977).

Fires are never simple. Their size, intensity, and effects relate to:

Some say plant adaptations have been made to fire intensity, frequency, and season. The land owner is concerned about fire damage. Clearly each fire varies and discovering differences within a burned area should not be a surprise. Fire intensity seems to have the most effect on trees, causing mortality or introducing wounds for disease. The season of each fire influences understory plants, invasives much more than native species. Fire intensity affects survival and regeneration of certain species.

Chase (1987) warned against optimism in new technology for fire suppression. He perceived increases in human population, their age structure, leisure time, and mortality and therefore increases in fire management needs. He was pessimistic about technology, its application, and the chances for reducing costs of equipment (e.g., air tankers). He advocated (as we do herein) improved analyses of methods and costs and sharing of resources and action among agencies. He made a strong case for an integrated planning approach such as attempted herein (The Trevey).

Anno and Brown (1989) suggested different strategies in wilderness, general forests, and the residential forest. We move past the custodial and strict fire control strategies of 20 years ago and seek, with fire scientists and others, management that includes cost-effectiveness as a criterion, using fire to "clean-up" and to achieve desired conditions, and allowing fire to operate as a natural factor in certain ecosystems. We move past seeing fire as a process, or as a tool, but as an entire general change system potentially laid over the land unit to be managed. Fire management means integrating efforts of many disciplines to assure that fire is a tool of change that does not prevent land managers from achieving their objectives; and that it participates cost effectively in achieving certain objectives.

Performance Criteria

An answer to "How does anyone know how and when they have a good system?" is the essence of the meaning of performance criteria. Performance criteria are expressed by indices. They will be an indication of how well any system meets the stated objectives for it. Some of these criteria for the system are:

  1. Risk is reduced
  2. Fewer fires occur than previously
  3. Fewer (or no) profits to landholders are lost from fires
  4. Lower adverse impacts occur on the land
  5. Public inputs and reactions to the system performance are favorable
  6. Potentially beneficial fires are identified and utilized to generate benefits.

Context

The system will be applicable over a large land tract and includes lands outside the boundary. The 50-year planning horizon used allows for evolution of the fire management system in relation to: 1) development on the property and 2) ecological succession and changes in forest management strategies. The system can be changed as the land changes, and as human values and goals change.

Problems throughout The Trevey are said to exist in the gap between the present condition and the desired condition. The latter is difficult to define and decide for a fire-related subsystem. Expressing that desired condition is a first task because it is perceived to be very difficult. Even then, the first efforts are expected (and encouraged) to be revised. After the objectives, an overview is presented with concepts and guidelines that are to be used in the fire management system for the Tract in the near future. The emphasis herein is on fires that do not originate in structures.

Objectives Type 1 objectives are:

  1. to control wildfires within acceptable limits
  2. to use prescribed fire to improve R.

Type 4 objectives are:

  1. To minimize trauma and death from wildfire
  2. To minimize structural and equipment loss to wildfire
  3. To minimize the financial loss of structures to wildfire
  4. To minimize soil quality loss to fire
  5. To minimize erosion related to fire
  6. To maximize wild plant and animal benefits from fires
  7. To maximize other benefits from fires
  8. To minimize air pollution from fires - wildland fire in ecosystems by Sandberg et al. 2002 (www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr_42_5.pdf)
  9. To use fire when cost-effective to achieve desired ecological conditions
  10. To minimize the total costs of the fire management system
  11. To minimize secondary effects of fire suppression and control (e.g., chemicals; excessive water)
  12. Minimize the number of fires that start from human and natural causes
  13. Minimize risk of fires starting from human sources (i.e., harvesting operations, recreation, incendiary), (e.g., by using media campaigns and patrols)
  14. Minimize the monetary loss from fires that start from natural fires
  15. Minimize the difference between actual burn, and allowable burn (the economic trade-off point)
  16. Maximize fire-control agency image (and minimize adverse social/emotional effects of fire)
  17. Develop effective use, development, and number of people and equipment over the fire management units
  18. Identify fire risk and damage potential associated with different management units (including value of land and property)
  19. Maximize the amount of economically feasible data taken on specific fires (allowing better future planning and improving evaluation of fire damage and fire crew performance)
  20. Minimize adverse impacts of fire management strategies themselves
  21. Maintain readiness to locate, attack, and control various sizes
  22. Minimize fuel hazard
  23. Minimize attack time (up to an economically feasible point or an optimal attack time).

Forest fires in the western states are commonplace and widespread. Many are started by lightning but others are important (even if it encompasses only a small area) and started by people accidentally and by arson. In the East, fires are commonplace, typically burn small areas, but losses can be very high. The threats to vacation homes and rural residences increase. The fires can be viewed as threats to life, health, and welfare. Other views are available such as those about ecosystem functions, monetary loss, and community collapse. Fire control is essential. Fire prevention is needed, but little is done. Recently-gained knowledge about wildland fire acknowledges fire is natural and needed for certain types of plant and animal communities to survive. Their extinction is certain unless there is fire. Fuel build-up resulting from fire prevention has resulted in changed conditions and hotter, more destructive fires than usually occurred in nature. There has been recognized that in well-analyzed areas, fires of particular types need to be prescribed. Fire can be a powerful tool, in fact the only tool available to meet certain wildland needs. It is the only force in nature that meets certain natural system requirements (those systems having evolved with fire). In other cases, it is the only one that can be used cost effectively to achieve the changes needed over broad areas (Fischer 1984). Each fire, no matter how it starts, needs to be assessed in terms of land conditions, management objectives, treatment potentials, resource values, costs, and potential damage.

Fire is difficult to discuss for it seems to be a natural human enemy and destructive. It may be a powerful human tool and, used properly, the only way to achieve creatively desired future wildland conditions.

To control its destructive forces, effective fire fighting is needed. To prevent and suppress human-caused fires, effective behavioral change is needed. To use fire, knowledgeable experts need to prescribe it accurately in time and space. All of this needs to be done cost-effectively and skillfully within the changing laws and mores of this society.

It cannot be done by a single unstable agency or by inexperienced people or without a growing knowledge base. Knowledge will not grow at the rates needed from classical scientific studies, but by new efforts at creating expert systems and by developing a select, well-trained team of specialists with modern tools and technology and integrating the knowledge of wildland fires that has been so hard-won by past researchers and fire-fighters. The new wildlands, often intermixed with human settlement, create complex problems that require computer-supported decision making.

Fire is a natural phenomenon in the region. It has been a product of lightning as well as pre-contact humans for over 10,000 years (the end of the Pleistocene). It, like disease, is natural, but must be controlled. In some areas, when well controlled, it can be used as a tool or process. Arno and Brown (1989) claimed that when fire suppression is very successful for many years, then bark beetle epidemics, defoliation by insects, and diseases increase as a byproduct and fuel build-up occurs. They claim that such fuel build-up is the condition needed for catastrophic fires.

In natural systems (parklands and areas served for their wilderness character) fires can be a factor in stimulating plant growth, retarding growth of other plants, and eliminating some species. Some plant species have disappeared from fire-protected areas. Fires obviously change moisture, chemical, physical and other factors having long-term effects on plants and animals. They consume organic matter, kill trees, and expose soil to rainfall.

Plants of many types have structured growth and reproductive modes, presumably in response to fire as a selective force in the environment. Some plants require fire for seed dispersal and germination, for seedling establishment; others require long fire-free periods to establish seedlings and fire-resistant barks or growth. Some seeds need fire to germinate. Some have rooting patterns that appear fire related. They rejuvenate the community but also provide rapidly a canopy. Some depend on fire-resistant species for shade in their early stage. Some (e.g., grasses) are abundant after a light fire, others are removed or seeds destroyed. Whether fire is "good" or not, or whether the post-fire condition is "good" is very much a human perception, and it varies. Biodiversity, discussed in the Variety chapter, a much-discussed objective, can be increased or decreased by fire.

A fire of a certain character may be prescribed. Skillful fire managers can cause such fires and associated conditions to occur. Fires offer, in many situations, a low cost-per-unit-area means to obtain desired vegetation and communities. Fires, do however, cause air pollution; may allow soil erosion; and cause losses of available nitrogen to plants. Fire cannot be allowed to destroy human structures, intensive land use (crops and tree farms), or human lives. The conflicts are evident, often profound, and increase as more and more human structures are built at the edge of areas preserved for their natural conditions (one of which may be infrequent fires).

After the Fire

Van Lear (1991) observed that fire suppression has allowed the composition of regional forests to change. Oak species may no longer dominate sites where fires have been suppressed. Species intolerant of fire (e.g., mockernut, hickory, scarlet oak, red maple, and blackgum) may grow, develop thick bark, and resist future fire damage. Laurel and rhododendron may become very dense and prevent trees becoming established after fire. Frequent fires over many years favor oak (Quercus) by reducing competition of the under and mid-story plants and improving conditions for acorn-cashing squirrels (Van Lear 1991). Acorn germination may be enhanced due to fire-caused insect losses. Fire, once common in the natural-events of stands, appears necessary to assure oak regeneration on sites. Suppressing fires results in other species gaining dominance. Oaks have many financial as well as soil, water, and wildlife advantages.

Van Lear (1991:17) observed that moist sites are converted to very dry sites by intense fires or by many low-intensity fires. Only "tenacious ability to resprout" explains the ability of oaks to dominate such dry sites.

In general, fire in eastern hardwoods:

Wildfires do occur and thus there are needs for discussing how to manage the land after a fire. Wilderness areas will revegetate after time passes due to seeds and rooting plant parts present and those that randomly disperse inward or invade.

The key reasons for removing trees after a fire are to reduce wood stain in boles and insect damage to wood value. Another reason is to redice potential fuel in the next forest. What is "potential fuel for later fires" to one person may be wildlife habitat and watershed protection to another. The difference may not be in the person but in the location and the rate of wood decomposition (largely a function of wood moisture). Wood that is fertilizer and mulch tomorrow may be seen as a saw log today. At least onlt likely future active areas should have trees removed. The costs and risks are very high for area-wide removals.

There are usually standing dead trees after a fire. The number or percentage influenced by:

Separating the effects of fire from effects of tree removal after the fire is difficult. The standing trees offer:

The likely negative dimensions are

Each site is unique. Fire severity tends to be unique and it is a function of:

Good answers are needed from forest experts on all items in the following list, and each must fit with the preceeding answers

To produce mixed hardwood and pine stands we will:

Periodic burns in mature forests in late winter can increase understory plants (grasses and forbs) richness, but predictions of effects of fire on individual species are impossible. Each response is probably unique. The same species is likely to respond differently in different areas. Managers are likely to get very different responses to some summer, some fall, and conventional late-winter or early-spring burning. Under the controls possible on the station, such burning in small areas on windless days soon after a rain can achieve plant (and related animal) richness.

The unknowns about the effects of fire on regional hardwoods suggest the need for a very conservative approach to its use. Only on better sites can fires be used that are

  1. low-intensity,
  2. in light fuels,
  3. during the dormant season,
  4. where spread density is low (no residential danger), and
  5. when all smoke management criteria can be met (cf Van Lear and Waldrop 1989).
Under such conditions, the expected returns per unit effort seem very low and rarely positive.

Waldrop and Lloyd (1991:45) found coastal pines unaffected by burning during 40 years of study. Small hardwoods are killed or re-sprout. Sprouts can be killed by annual or short-period (1 time every 3-4 years) burns. Sprouts are replaced by grasses and forbs.

Small areas of the wetland, when very dry, should be burned to assure natural conditions and resulting biodiversity. Of course tight controls are needed, but the resulting vegetative change and exclusion of invading woody shrubs will enhance the natural variety now being lost due to fire suppression. An alternative, though with slightly different results, is to use fences and intensive grazing of livestock to radically change small areas.

The biomass of herbs in grasses per m2 (B) can be estimated from the percent of herb cover (C) B=1.81;C=0.03 (Gilliam 1991:119)

There is usually about 20,000 kg of forest litter per hectare (17,800 pounds per acre) in the pine forests of the area. Fires reduce this in relation to their intensity. In some cases almost none is removed, in others, all of it. Fire intensity and the amount of litter present determines how much nutrient is made available from a fire.

Forest floor litter of value to plants and animals and erosion control is said to be a hazard and increases the influence of fires. The higher the fuel load, the greater the intensity (Dodge 1972). Thus another of the many conflicts within the fire management system.

Mycorrhizae are some of the soil fungi. Their "root-hair-like" hyphae are structures within soil. They are very important in determining how forest and cropland ecosystems function. They serve as additional "roots", transporting moisture and nutrients among other plants. Without them, many plants fail to develop beyond germination or they grow slowly. They and the relations in the soil, are easily distributed by grazing, recreational impacts, and fire. Dry soils reach higher temperature during fires and suffer the most mycorrhizal loss. Nevertheless, colonization is usually rapid. Effects are likely or most evident on the host plant, not the mycorrhizal colony.

Simard and Donoghue (1987) have found strong mathematical relations between fire occurrence and latitude, between length of fire season and latitude, between fires and non-metropolitan population and arson fires, debris-burners and enforcement effort. Acres burned is a function of escaped fires over the past 20 years. The extreme variation in costs of suppression, prevention, and other actions in fire management has prevented optimal solutions from being realistic. Fire is, after thought, realized to depend more on structures present in an area than on vegetation or land characteristics. Little is known of substitutabilities (e.g., prevention of arson fires vs debris burner fires) (Simard and Donoghue 1987). The plan is to spend limited effort on region-wide public education, then to concentrate on objectives, seeking ways to shift R the most per dollar. Strong use of incentives and rewards (at least announcements such as "no fire for 600 days") will replace much general education.

The conflicts that exist between the naturalness of fires, the role of fire in natural ecosystems, and the effectiveness and low cost of fire in achieving certain objectives (e.g., land clearing) and the threats and losses due to fire are great. The effectiveness of suppression actions decreases as wilderness fires increase in size, thus the manager's dilemma of managing a forest with natural means but increasing the danger of an "escaped fire." Resolving the conflicts is a profound task, only partially completed. A model, with the GIS computing fire risks and attack priority is needed and planing is underway for its development when funds become available.

Strategy

We have a list of elements of a fire-fighting strategy that we are now actively exploring. As always, there are tradeoffs and combinations of each listed part of the strategy. Together they may be considered a philosophy

  1. We have to have superior fire fighters for this variable manace to rural properties and their services (characteristics include
    1. physical strength
    2. stamina
    3. explosive strength
    4. sustained unit output
    5. safety attitude
  2. Workers have to have a desire to be on fires. They have to hate fire or love the effects of managed fire or, better, both. They have to be physically able at all times .. thus within a perpetual program of planned physical activity (in opposition to the national trends in fitness).
  3. There must be consistent superior leadership - trained and overlapping in tenure with experience on the local linb with seasonal as well as career workers
  4. We seek a game theoretic solution for uncertain fire occurrence creating problems for funding. Large staffs in a no-fire period seems wasteful of budgets; minimum staff cannot handle the multiple- or large-fire event.
  5. We know that fires are natural and that we need some. We fight those that threaten our welfare, especially our structures and those that threaten productive land and erosive land. All fires in wilderness -like areas are not allowed to burn. There are major differences in a let-burn policy for small or average-sized and very large wilderness areas.Wilderness fire management includes letting natural fires burn but also the constraints--only to the extent that we have the capability to continue it when and where we decide (Mutch 1976), and only to the extent that it does not greatly affect an anadromous fishery, air quality, or adjacent non-wilderness land units and structures (Mutch and Briggs 1976).
  6. We know that immediate attack is essential.
  7. Fire control includes evaluation of possible socio-political effects (e.g., do buildings qualify for disaster relief?)
  8. We cannot predict within useful time where fire bursts will occur. Fire danger indices are of value but that is limited.
  9. "unplanned ignition" prescribed fire may be used for ecological objectives on mapped forest areas
  10. Fire is a tool or a process toward objectives. Its use or supression may produce benefits or losses and the objective is net gains.
  11. The key elements of fire analyses are: fuels (amount, type, and moisture (see also Palmer drought index)) and topography. Eastern US and western US fuel loads and dynamic and very different. We need a good probable fuel availability index.
  12. Fire is of greatest concern in GIS-mapped areas with
  13. Areas with a long-fire-return interval have a different ecology than others and fire supression has little ecological effect.
  14. It is possible to describe controllable and uncontrollable fires and the difference must be known and used. An uncontrollable fire may result from fires joining, pre-cooking fuels, and building momentum to defy all control efforts. We can control some fires about as well as we control tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and ice storms.
  15. Mortality to regeneration trees and understory vegetation is lessened if timber harvests are conducted shortly after the fire. Wood commercial value is also increased.
  16. Removing low vigor trees from fire areas may reduce insect attack after fire.
  17. Wild faunal species are affected differently by post-fire tree and brush removals, some benefitting, others harmed.
  18. Aquatic systems are harmed (shortterm) by post fire operations. Special attention to roads and replanting riparian areas can speed recovery.

Nutrients

In precipitation falling through smoke from forest fire, the concentration of Na, K, Ca, Mg, and N is greater than in normal precipitation. Similar (and greater) contributions from fires are made to areas adjacent to fires in smoke and dry particulate matter (Clayton 1976).

Fires have one of their most significant effects on forests in causing losses of forest floor nitrogen. Two strategies to overcome this loss at low costs (i.e., not using commercial fertilizers or manures) is to retain large woody debris and to re-seed all burned areas rapidly with nitrogen fixing plants.

Estimates of wet deposition of nitrogen to forests are about from 5 to 10 kg per hectare. With dry deposition, the total is from 6 to 14 kg per hectare per year. Maximum fixative rates are probably 6 kg per year in eastern forests, but are more likely to be 1-2 kg per ha per year. Dead wood associations probably contribute about 1 kg per ha per year. These associates are the forest wildlife, the termites, beetles, and roaches, as well as the more conspicuous animals. Total insect biomass is about 3 to 4 kg. In burned stands arthropod densities in the litter one year later are usually reduced significantly, 20-80 percent. The old forests have fewer species (less richness) but more abundance than younger forests. (See the section on "Variety and Biodiversity"). The nitrogen-fixing legumes (of which there are 300 natural species in the Southeastern US) only contribute 1 to 9 kg of nitrogen per ha per year (1-8 pounds per acre) (Boring et al. 1991).

In coastal plain ecosystems, light fires only volatilize about 24 kilograms of nitrogen per ha (20 pounds per acre). Nevertheless, this is usually considered a growth-limiting nutrient, so even small losses may be important. In intense fires in mature stands, several hundred kilograms of nitrogen per ha can be lost. This is about equivalent to the amount brought in by precipitation (after losses to stream runoff).

Difficult to study, and thus poorly known, nitrogen remains one of the most important components of all ecosystems. The nitrogen budget of ecosystems needs further work but in the meantime, managers know what to do. Reduce its loss; augment its collection and fixation by any cost-effective means.

Fire generally increases nutrient availability in relatively nutrient-poor soils. Prime flatwoods are especially limited by phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), levels that are increased by fire. McKee (1991:405) claimed that without burning, calcium (Ca) may be immobilized in the forest floor and may lead in time to a magnesium:calcium imbalance and thereby alter the soil formation processes.

Smoke

Maintaining high air quality is a recognized objective. Minimizing smoke, ash, and odors are desired ends (Clean Air Acts of 1963 (P.L. 88-206) and 1970 (P.L. 91-604)). Maintaining ecological communities requiring fire. . .but not producing smoke, is an awesome demand. Maintaining communities as well as air quality are legal mandates not potentially at odds. In the future, the plan is to seek means to clarify the means (not the intent) of these laws. The management agencies need the rights, along with the mandates, to use fires when conditions are right to cause the desired ends. Trade-offs will be made to minimize soot, ash, smoke, odor, etc., but effective vegetation influence is needed based on soil conditions, fuel moisture, wind, likely future precipitations, and many other factors. When prescribed burning is done in areas where smoke may adversely affect air quality or where wildfire may create significantly reduced highway visibility, special measures must be taken to assure smoke dispersal or clear warnings made for highway travelers.

Fire is a natural and renewing force in many ecosystems. Smoke, however, is a natural component of fire. We must minimize fire to minimize smoke but realize smoke has minor other positive dimensions. We must encourage desired fires and their smoke, but at the appropriate time and conditions. Cramer and Graham (1971) demonstrated years ago that smoke-sensitive areas can be mapped, and that public licensing of burning allows burning (e.g., timber slash) when smoke does not exceed the atmospheric capacity, or when it will be dispersed well. They presented conditions under which smoke or its potential effects would be minimal (e.g., elevation, wind direction, precipitation, air stability, and burning techniques).

Specifically, when there is a negative answer to any one of the following questions, then prescribed burning, slash management, or fuel load management will not be done:

  1. Will relative humidity be 70 percent or less?
  2. Will visibility be 5 miles or more?
  3. Will downwind distance to a smoke-sensitive area be more than 40 chains (0.5 miles)?
  4. Will mixing height be at least 1500 feet with a transport windspeed of at least 9 miles per hour?
  5. Will ventilation be 100 or more (200 for head fires) times larger than the fuel factor?

In general, the plan for smoke management following Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook (USDA 1976) (Tangren 1976) includes the proper response to the above questions and then, using local weather information, adjusting for weather changes, avoiding nighttime burning (or only when winds exceed 4 mph), avoiding burning during unstable weather (to assure smoke lift and dispersal), not burning when morning winds are less than 9 mph, not burning when mixing height (from the National Weather Service) is less than 1500 feet), using backing fires, burning when fuels are dry and soil is moist, treating piled debris specially, burning small areas in sequence (using a rotation), and moping up stump and snags that are burning.

We do not minimize the contribution of smoke, any of it, to the global budget. The biosphere is smoke sensitive and may be under such change that climate changes may occur (e.g., warming). We do not believe we can reduce smoke to zero. We do, however, seek to minimize the contribution to the global atmosphere and call upon others to adopt a similar strategy.

Prescribed Fire Guides

Prescribed fires when well managed, consume specific portions of a fuel profile in a safe, carefully controlled, and environmentally acceptable fashion to obtain conditions that achieve objectives. Guidelines for doing so include:

  1. Prescribed fire will be considered for establishing and maintaining all ecosystems, particularly those determined to be partially or totally fire dependent.
  2. Each prescribed fire will be conducted in strict compliance with a timely area-specific plan approved by the manager.
  3. Each prescribed fire will contribute to achieving resource management objectives, namely improving the R value.
  4. Prescribed fires will all be conducted by qualified personnel.
  5. Planning and executing prescribed fires will typically be funded by benefiting function(s).
  6. A prescribed fire plan must address actions to be taken if conditions change resulting in a component of the prescription changing from that planned. A prescribed fire exceeding both prescription and line holding capabilities is a wildfire, and appropriate suppression action shall then be taken.

Plans are for education and open communication.

The planning elements include:

  1. Use fire as a management tool
  2. Make decisions about each fire, natural or prescribed; treat each as a unique entity. Forests are not classified as natural, wild, controlled, or prescribed. Each is unique.
  3. Use fires to achieve objectives of the area.
  4. Suppress fires that result in losses in R value.
  5. Allow fires to burn if they increase R value.
  6. Suppress fires that threaten life, cultural resources, physical facilities, success in endangered species management, or that are likely to incur high future suppression costs.
  7. Suppress lightning-caused or "natural fires" in wilderness or natural areas when soil moisture and conditions will not develop the high intensity fires needed to cause stand replacement.
  8. Develop and maintain grazed and other firebreaks where possible.
  9. Develop a GIS showing the need for suppression of a fire not ignited by a manager.
  10. Require monitoring of all fires, reporting of the fire situation, and reporting of the probability of control with available resource.

Experience in other fire management systems suggests that the following preparations be made to the extent that funds are available:

  1. An organization is needed that can prevent, detect, and suppress all fires so that they are no more than 10 acres on 90% of the days within the fire season - March/April and October/November.
  2. Educational signs need to be used. Educational efforts aimed at these owners should focus on
  3. Patrols will be intensified during the fire season.
  4. Camp and picnic fires are restricted to a few areas.
  5. Cooperation with other fire-fighting groups local, state, and Federal is needed.
  6. A boat-mounted pump will be useful for area-boundary fire suppression. Approved mufflers are needed on motor vehicles.
  7. A regional or station fire history is needed, at least, numbers, season, and areas burned.
  8. A risk map is needed in the future to include sources of water, equipment access, threats to life and property, and threats to endangered species and other resources of high value.
  9. Fire breaks need to be developed in conjunction with mowing. These areas can serve dual roles in fire containment, burn-area boundaries, as well as wildlife habitat. Strategic mowing seasons and alternating areas mowed can achieve desireable wildlife as well as adequate protection.

Egging at al. (1980) presented a conceptual framework for integrating a fire management system into an environmental plan. As resources become available, this concept can be implemented in a GIS-based model.

To achieve some of the above concepts, to meet some of the needs, and to expand to address problems and needs not yet clearly seen, the Fire Force needs to be created.(The following presents a concept, ideas for the future, that may materialize at A.P. Hill or may be developed off the area and by others.)

Fires occur naturally and people have brought fire under control for useful purposes. When fires occur that are not under control, they are called wildfires and, in addition to being harmful, such fires "touch off a basic frustration with nature." People generally believe that they have taken possession of fire and therefore control it, but then a wildfire that lasts for months snatches that authority away. The Fire Force is an expression of how wildfire will be prevented or controlled for maximum long-term benefits to people. It seeks to reduce the public tax burden, deaths, property damage, fire fighting costs, and frustrations that occur when people lose control.

This section of The Trevey outlines the general objectives and constraints of operating a total fire management system. The inputs and processes are treated briefly and are described in other documents. How to address future needs, not a projections of the needs themselves, is a part of this developing concept. Adaptive mechanisms are proposed for keeping the Fire Force vital and responsive to changing conditions and knowledge about fire and its role in achieving the objectives of the owner and the region.

The Fire Force is a proposed diverse fire prevention, control, management, and use group for this and other ownerships, throughout the region.
Its objectives are:

  1. To reduce to a standard estimated financial loss (current rates; 30-year horizon) from fires of all types
  2. To reduce to zero annual personal injuries and loss of life from fires
  3. To reduce costs of prevention and suppression of fires
  4. To reduce to a minimum-standard the number of reported fires requiring official suppression response
  5. To develop an ecosystem response simulation model and fire behavior prediction model for the region
  6. To develop skillful prescriptive fire applications.

The current (2001, USFS,Williams) objective is "to put the right kind of fire back into the woods within acceptable limits of risk."

This Fire Force is a U.S. Army Ranger-U.S. Navy Seal-"Mission Impossible" type group. Personnel and leaders are a "hot shot" fire fighting group (already known) but much more. They train daily, not only physically but also in all of the realms of fire - prevention, control, prescriptions, effects analyses, ecology, modeling, behavioral change, arson, air pollution, smoke control, and climatic relations.

The group helps meet the profound requirements of the land - to understand its past and to re-shape it for meeting the future needs. It may soon provide fire-fighting service, flying anywhere within a region to meet needs for large or critical fires.

The staff provide an educational and demonstration crew for people who come to learn the Lasting Forests total fire system, the Fire Force, and to gain continuing involvement and membership (education, service, staff training, demonstrations, research findings, computer software, arson work, sources and select equipment supply, consultation, internet service, and others). The educational and service functions fill the previously unmet problems of "seasonal work" for superior fire-fighters. At the area and surrounding forests, there are unlimited needs for meaningful physical work of some of the staff (e.g., trail building and maintenance, patrols, surveys and inventories, equipment development, experimental burns, etc.).

We shall utilize a vast literature on fires and fire fighting developed by the U.S. forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. A planned series of consultations with recently retired U.S.F.S. and Bureau of Land Management staff will endear that depressed group and allow us to use their knowledge. Interaction with the international weather services will be needed.

Intensive use of GIS and GPS will enhance the new work and provide an opportunity for world-class demonstrations of practical GIS use.

Many Army Rangers and Navy Seals may be recruited for this work and a select team with the attitudes and experience of these forces may allow a fire-fighting force with daily education ("learning the plays"), team building, and a high calling to be successful where others have failed.

Prescribed fire is an essential part of the future of the area and sustained forests. Lightning fires are a given factor, a natural part of the area's history. The Fire Force will not only provide a sophisticated fire fighting drew for the land, but will create a fire system, one that 1) uses fire creatively, (2) prevents fires, (3) serves other landowners for a fee, (4) serves other resource areas presently owned, and (5) conducts education and demonstrations for visitors to the area.

Planning elements include:

  1. Using fire as a management tool.
  2. Making decisions about each fire, natural or prescribed; treat each as a unique entity. Forests are not classified as natural, wild, controlled, or prescribed. Each is unique.
  3. Using fires to achieve objectives of the area.
  4. Suppressing fires that result in new losses in R value.
  5. Allowing fires to burn if they increase R value.
  6. Suppressing fires that threaten life, cultural resources, physical facilities, success in endangered species management or are likely to incur high future suppression costs.
  7. Suppressing lightning-caused or "natural fires" in wilderness or natural areas when soil moisture and conditions will not develop the high-intensity fires needed to cause stand replacement or the low-intensity fires capable of removing fuel loads.
  8. Developing grazed firebreaks where possible.
  9. Integrating existing software.
  10. Developing computer aids for the field force.
  11. Designing and maintaining structures to reduce fire hazards and fire spread (Moore 1981).
  12. Working with insurance agencies to improve corporate profits and improve citizen rates. This includes fire prevention, building codes, inspections, education and incentives and other strategies
  13. Demonstrating at local shows and events, attacks fires. The crew trains regularly, works on trails, and engages in physical-conditioning sports that promote the region, "novosports", and the Security Force.
  14. Unifying an elaborate trail system with fire breaks.
  15. Improving building materials, grounds maintenance, paint, structure shape and surfaces, all tested and developed to affect fire occurrence, magnitude and losses.
  16. Mapping past fires.
  17. Creating predictive models of fire spread.
  18. Experimenting with fire-lines (e.g., use of blowers) and superior equipment systems developed.
  19. Emphasizing prescribed burns. These burns will be well planned, legal, and will be done on contract but also with education and demonstration. These can be exciting memorable events and key moments of learning. They can be tied to succession, wildlife relations, and watershed management.
  20. Working with arsonists, giving attention to work forces and unemployment and strategies used to intercept or prevent such action. Threats, displays of force, and drama involving what happens to arsonists may be considered. Period (annual) displays of equipment and action-packed work will be made at schools and county meetings.
  21. Emphasizing air quality (all aspects), especially smoke management in prescribed burning. Wildfire "let burn" strategies relative to costs and consequences will be studied and tested for application.
  22. Developing models (with GIS base). Comprehensive ecosystem response to fire over time will be part of the studies. We seek knowledge of fire so it can be used with surgical precision to achieve computer-aided decided conditions over time (150 years). All are related needs in other units, e.g., wildlife, forestry, watersheds, and recreation. See Figure 1 and 2.

    Penn Va slopes map

    Figure 1. A slope steepness map can become an important factor in fire management, suggesting prevention priorities, burning rates, and costs of fire fighting and mop-up work. Here a 290,000 acre area is shown. The darker the cell, the steeper the land.

    erosion potential map-Tazewell Co 1975

    Figure 2. Erosion potentials are shown for a 290,000 acre area. The darker the map cell, the greater is the annual erosion in tons per acre. Such maps can become a factor in deciding on fire fighting effectiveness, attaching priorities, and in evaluating the effects of actual or potential fires.

  23. Working with the courts to develop a "community service" function. Working with convicted people in meaningful activities may provide new experiences and positive effects for them.
  24. Making ecotourism displays or events for their potential (education, attraction, trail work, fire breaks, the "experience factor",etc.).
  25. Responding to agency RIF's that have produced a need for experienced staff.

Fire Breaks

Fire breaks are a trivial aspect of a complex fire system but here a note is presented to suggest an early level of detail in planning, policy making and educational materials and programs needed for many, many components of the Fire Force. Fire04, mentioned in the following section is an example of a program already available for estimating potential firebreak lengths in select high-hazard areas. There are many programs in the public domain that we can acquire, modify, and integrate to make them useful throughout the region.

There is always the danger of fire in the forest. Fire prevention efforts have been notably successful but there is still the threat of vandals, arsonists, and, as always, lighting-caused fired.

Fires can be used successfully to control understory vegetation, prepare a seedbed, selectively remove species, and develop wildlife forage.

To help control unwanted fires and to position and control desired fires, it is useful to have created a system of fire breaks.

Forest roads or trails can serve as fire breaks and they need to be included in the area plan. They need to be on the contour to reduce chances for erosion as well as to stop fires as they tend to move uphill with upward moving ground winds.

The fire break can be a "brush hog" - mowed strip or a grazed/mowed grass strip. Trails may serve as fire breaks and be no more than a disk-width wide.

They should be prepared in winter or early spring as time permits. Roadside clearing or brush-hogging a swath through a recently cut area or fallow field is all that is needed. Existing fire breaks can be cleaned of tall vegetation by using a disk. Crossing fallen trees can be removed to prevent fire jumping the lane.

These lanes need to be put in a mowing-disking rotation of about 3 years. Vary the grass-clover seeding mix in shaded and exposed areas. These fire breaks are not lost from production, but are the backbone of foraging and nesting for game and songbirds included in the profit-producing potentials of most lands. These fire breaks are, in proper perspective and intensively managed, are faunal lanes that also serve as fire breaks.

In some areas (steep, high fuel load, areas with past fire experience, those with high risks), it make sense to create a wide lane. This can be readily done (with extra wildlife advantage) to put in parallel fire breaks about 10 feet apart. On a low-fire danger day, late in winter when the soil is moist, the middle area can be burned out. This gives a wide, fuel-less area.

A hexagonal (bee-hive) pattern of fire breaks or faunal lanes will enclose the most area for the least costs. A perfect pattern will not be possible or desirable, but a close fit will achieve the desired objectives at least cost. Our tentative recommendation is to attempt to enclose 2-5 acre tracts in primary areas. The approximate length of fire breaks needed can be computed on FIRE04.

The Development of the Force

Fire Force profits and its continuance (as well as reduced cost over time to each participating member of the forests supporting the force are found in:

Egging et al, 1980 said that fire is a factor often overlooked in planning for managing wildland resources. "It can be either devastating to or supportive of a planned management strategy." They claimed that fire considerations should be woven throughout the entire wildland system, including how they may influence the future system. The Fire Force is proposed as an effective means to assist in shaping that future and being creatively responsible to the future system.

The Fire Force, to our knowledge, does not exist. Based on our experience in the military, in fire fighting, in land management, in ecological research, and in computer applications, it is needed and it can be created and it can "harvest" the investments of equipment developers, programmers, and scientists over the past 75 years. Over a region, prescribed fire is needed to shape the area and achieve certain objectives consistently for 150 years. Also, effective fire control is needed, maintaining a superior, elite "waiting crew" is expensive and difficult. In the system proposed, the crew is learning, training, staying physically "ready", assisting in other area operations, and educating groups - all at "break-even" or (we believe within 10 years) at a profit.

A March, 2000 email suggesting technical and policy issues for the future:

Where there's smoke, there's controversy at Lake Tahoe SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer

RENO, Nev. (AP) -- Until now, it's been a no-brainer. The hottest, driest summer months were considered the worst time to set a fire to help thin overstocked forests around Lake Tahoe. In addition to concerns about a fire growing out of control, the summer tourist season swells Tahoe's population to five times the year-round numbers. A smoky haze isn't what the Chamber of Commerce sells in those postcards of the aqua, alpine lake.

But now comes a new take from the latest blue-ribbon scientific panel to assess the entire Tahoe watershed, the contributors to the lake's alarming loss of clarity and the steps that should be taken to improve the health of the forest surround it:

Seasonal wind patterns appear to make summer the best time for prescribed burning. Scientists say the burning program must be accelerated to rid the forests of dead and insect-infested trees.

"Controlled burning over the last several years has taken place in the autumn. They've decided to do the management when you don't get the tourists upset," said Dennis Murphy, a biology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, who was team leader of the latest watershed assessment.

"It turns out that the best time to burn so as to avoid tourists is not the best time to do burning in terms of health standards and the efficiency of the burns," he said.

Fall air is more stagnant. It takes a smaller burn with less smoke to reach the level of violating California's air quality standards, Murphy said.

In the summer, when fires traditionally burned before settlement of the basin, fires "produced a lot of smoke through the evening that sticks around until late morning, but then it is blown outside the basin," he said.

So does he think the burning season will change?

"That is a public policy dispute," Murphy said.

"We scrupulously avoided telling policy makers what it is they should do. We gave them the information they need to make those hard decisions," he said.

The scientific team says the prehistoric Tahoe basin was a smokier, but healthier ecosystem.

The relatively good, smoke-free air found during the summer at Lake Tahoe these days is an artificial phenomenon caused by years of fire suppression, said Tom Cahill and Steve Cliff, two researchers at the University of California, Davis.

"The recent conditions are an aberration, achieved by putting out naturally occurring fires," Cahill said. "Every square foot of forest of the basin used to burn every 30 years," he said. But tourists don't like smoke.

"And neither do the people who live here. It is going to have to be a balancing act," said Pam Drum, spokeswoman for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

"The tourism folks are going to want some assurances. We haven't really had any of those conversations yet," she said.

Forest Service officials are reviewing the latest findings.

The agency set fire to about 1,000 acres around the lake last year and plans a similar effort this year. Agency officials are already sensitive to complaints about smoke.

"Trying to find the right balance is a real challenge for us," said Linda Massey, a spokeswoman for the Forest Service's Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at South Lake Tahoe, Calif. "It is a very fine line we walk -- between some moisture and not too much moisture, some wind and not too much wind," she said.

In November, some residents on Lake Tahoe's north shore had to leave their homes when wind deviated from the forecast and a prescribed burn choked the area with smoke.

"The smoke just hung there. We got huge complaints. If you have to leave your home and go to a motel, you are not a happy camper, " she said.

Steve Teshara, executive director of the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance representing casinos and other tourism interests, understands why burning might be better done in the summer.

"But I can tell you, it does have an impact on tourism. It impacts the beauty of the area," Teshara said.

"If we are going to be persuaded that some modest burning should be done in the summer, they are going to have to do a better job of campaigning to tell people why," he said.

"And they will have to try it at a scale that doesn't mar what otherwise would have been someone's wonderful Tahoe experience if they hadn't been choked by smoke," he said.

Massey said most Tahoe residents "understand there are certain trade-offs". "If you are going to live in the forest, especially an unhealthy forest like this, you have to do whatever is necessary to restore the health," she said. "But if you're coming from Southern California for the weekend to get out of the smog and they end up in the smoke, they think their vacation has been ruined and our name as an agency is mud."

PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE can be downloaded from http://www.theforesttrust/forest_protection.html#fire

US Forest Service Fire Information

USDA Pacific Northwest Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Mellen, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann et.al. 2006. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon, Version 2. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID.nsf (20 February 2007)

References
Fire Structures
Firewood

A fire ecology data base of 11,000 publications is available at Tall Timbers.

Andrews, P.L. 1991. Use of the Rothermel Fire Spread Model for fire danger rating and fire behaviour prediction in the United States. In: Cheney, N.P.; Gill, A.M., eds. Conference on bushfire modeling and fire danger rating systems: Proceedings; 1988 July 110-12; Canberra, Australia. Yarralumla, Australia: CSIRO Division of Forestry: 1-8.

Daubenmire, R. 1968. Ecology of fire in grasslands p. 209-266, in J.B. Cragg (ed.) Advances in ecological research, Academic Press, London.

Egging, L.T., R.J. Barney, and R.P. Thompson. 1980. A conceptual framework for integrating fire considerations in wildland planning. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Note INT-278, Ogden, UT; 11pp.

Fischer, W.C. 1984. Wilderness fire management planning guide. U.S.D.A. Forest service, Gen. Tech Report INT-171, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Station, Ogden, UT; 56pp.

Flatman, G.T. and T.G. Storey. 1979. Decision techniques for evaluating fire plans using FOCUS simulation. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Res. Paper PSW-338, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Station, Berkeley, CA; 6pp.

Kozlowski, T.T. and C.E. Ahlgren. 1974. Fire and ecosystem. Academic Press, New York.

Moore, H.E. 1981. Protecting residences from wildfires: a guide for homeowners, lawmakers, and planners. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Station, Gen. Tech. Report, PSW-50, Berkeley, CA 44pp.

Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.; 501 pp.

Althaus, I. A., and T. J. Mills. 1982. Resource values in analyzing fire management programs for economic efficiency. USDA For. Serv., pacific Southwest Forest Exp. Sta., Berkeley, CA 9 pp.

Arno, S. F., and J. K. Brown. 1989. Managing fire in our forest: time for a new initiative. J. For. 87(12):44-46.

Boring, L. R., J. J. Hendricks, and M. Boyd Edwards. 1991. Loss, retention and replacement of nitrogen associated with site preparation burning in southern pine-hardwood forests. p. 145-153 in S.C. Nodvin and T. A. Waldrop, eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives. Conf. Proceedings, S.E. For. Exp. Sta., USDA, Ashville, NC 429 pp.

Bratlen, F. W., J. B. Davis, G. T. Flatman, J. W. Keith, S. R. Rapp, and G. S. Forey. 1981. Focus: a fire management planning system--final report. USDA Forest Serv., Pacific Southwest For. and Tange Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-49, Berkeley, CA 34 pp.

Chase, R. A. 1987. Planning the fire program for the third millennium, p. 61-65 in J. B. Davis and R. E. Martin. Proc. of the Symposium: Wildland Fire 2000. USDA For. Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-101, Berkeley, CA 257 pp.

Clayton, J. L. 1976. Nutrient gains to adjacent ecosystems during a forest fire: an evaluation. For. Sci. 22(2):162-166.

Cramer, O. P., and H. E. Graham. 1971. Cooperative management of smoke from slash fires. J. For. 69(6):327-331.

Dodge, M. 1972. Forest fuel accumulation--a growing problem. Sci 177:139-142.

Donaldson, B. G., and J. T. Paul. 1990. NFDRSPC: the national fire-danger rating system on a personal computer. USDA For. Serv. Southeastern For. Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. SE.61, Ashville, NC 49 pp.

Egging, L. T., and R. J. Barney. 1979. Fire management: a component of land management planning. Env. Manage. 3(1):15-20.

Egging, L. T., R. J. Barney, and R. P. Thompson. 1980. A conceptual framework for integrating fire considerations in wildland planning. USDA Forest Serv. Research Note INT-278, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah 11 pp.

Fischer, W. C. 1984. Wilderness fire management guide. USDA For. Serv. Intermount. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-171, Ogdon, Utah 56 pp.

Flatman, G. T. and T. G. Storey. 1979. Decision techniques for evaluating fire plans using FOCUS simulation. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note PSW-338, Pacific Southwest For. and Range Exp. Sta., Berkeley, CA 6 pp.

Folkman, W. S. 1977. High-fire-risk behavior in critical fire areas. USDA For. Service Research Paper PSW-125/1977, Pacific Southwest Forest Exp. Sta., Berkeley, CA 12 pp.

Gilliam, F. S. 1991. The significance of fire in an oligotrophic forest ecosystem, p. 113-122 in S. C. Nodvin and T. A. Waldrop, eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives. Conf. Proceedings, S.E. For. Exp. Sta., USDA, Ashville, NC 429 pp.

Halls, L. K., R. H. Hughes, and F. A. Peevy. 1960. Grazed firebreaks in southern forests. USDA For. Serv., Ag. Info. Bul. 226, Washington, DC 8 pp.

Johnson, V. J. 1984. Prescribed burning: requiem or renaissance? J. Forestry 82(2): 82-90.

Johnson, V. J. 1982. Ambivalent effects of fire in eastern broadleaf forests. Proc. of the 1982 Conf. of the SAF, Cincinnati, Ohio p 153-156.

Kozlowski, T. T., and C. E. Ahlgren, Eds. 1974. Fire and ecosystems, Academic Press, New York, NY 542 pp.

Lotan, J. E. 1976. Fire management perspective: USDA forest Service, Western Wildlands, Summer, 1977.

McKee, W. H., Jr. 1991. Long-term impacts of fire on coastal plain pine soils, p. 405-413 in Nodvin and T. A. Waldrop, eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives. Conf. Proceedings, S. E. For. Exp. Sta., USDA, Asheville, NC 429 pp.

Mutch, R. W. 1976. Fire management and land use planning today: tradition and change in the Forest Service. Western Wildlands, Winter, p. 13-19.

Mutch, R. W., and G. S. Briggs. 1976. The maintenance of natural ecosystems: smoke as a factor, p 255-281 in Air quality and smoke from urban and forest fires. Nat. Acad. Sci. Symposium (1975), Washington.

Pharo, J. A. 1976. Aid for maintaining air quality during prescribed burns in the south. USDA For. Serv. Res. paper SE-152, S. E. Forest Exp. Sta., Ashville, NC

Roussopoulos, P. J. and V. J. Johnson. 1975. Help in making fuel management decisions. USDA For. Serv. North Central Forest Exp. Sta. Res. Paper N C-112, St. Paul, MN 16 pp.

Rothermel, R. C. 1980. Fire behavior systems for fire management, p 58-64 in Proc. 6th Conf. on Fire and Forest Meteorology, Seattle, WA Soc. Am. For., Washington, DC

Schweitzer, D. L., E. V. Andersen, and T. J. Mills. 1982. Economic efficiency of fire management programs at six National Forests. (with revisions) USDA Forest Serv., Res. Paper PSW-157, Pacific Southwest For. Exp. Sta., Berkeley CA 29 pp.

Simard, A. J. and L. R. Donoghue. 1987. Wildland fire prevention today, intuition--tomorrow, management p. 187-198 in J. B. Davis and R. E. Martin. Proc. of the Symposium: Wildland Fire 2000. USDA For. Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-101, Berkeley, CA 257 pp.

Tangren, C. D. 1976. Smoke from prescribed fires, Forest Farmer 35(10):6-7.

USDA. 1976. Southern forestry smoke management guidebook. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report SE-10, Macon, GA 140 pp.

VanLear, D. H. 1991. Fire and oak regeneration in the Southern Appalachians, p. 15-21 in Nodvin and T. A. Waldrop, eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives. Conf. Proceedings, S. E. For. Exp. Sta., USDA, Asheville, NC 429 pp.

VanLear, D. H., and T. A. Waldrop. 1989. History, uses, and effects of fire in the Appalachians. USDA For. Serv. Southeastern For. Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. SE-54, Ashville, NC 24 pp.

Various authors. 1976. Teton Wilderness fire management plan. Budget-Teton National Forest, Jacobson, Wyoming (variously pages, approximately 200 pp).

Also see the list of references for firewood within The Trevey..

See also http://ice.ucdavis.edu/cafe

Other Resources:
[ HOME | Lasting Forests (Introductions) | Units of Lasting Forests | Ranging | Guidance | Forests | Gamma Theory | Wildlife Law Enforcement Systems | Antler Points | Species-Specific Management (SSM) | Wilderness and Ancient Forests | Appendices | Ideas for Development | Disclaimer]
Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision July 2, 2004.