United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-127

April 2004

Exploring Information Needs 

for Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Management

Carol Miller

Peter Landres

Biophysical variables Social variables

Fuels Economic

values

Social

values

Ecological

values

Topography

Weather Ignitions

Fire spread

patterns

Probability

of burning

Risk

Probability of a

negative outcome: ., loss of life or property,

degraded ecological

condition

e.g.,

Benefit

Probability of a positive

outcome:

improved ecological

condition, increased

management options

e.g.,

Expected

fire effects

Resistance

of adaptation

to fire

Heat of

fire
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Miller, Carol and Landres, Peter. 2004. Exploring information needs for wildland fire and fuels management.

RMRS-GTR-127. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 36 p.

Abstract

We report the results of a questionnaire and workshop that sought to gain a better and deeper understanding of 

the contemporary information needs of wildland fire and fuels managers. Results from the questionnaire indicated that the decision to suppress a wildland fire was most often influenced by factors related to safety and that 

the decision to allow a fire to burn was influenced by a variety of factors that varied according to land management objectives. We also found that managers anticipated an increase in the use of wildland fire, but that these 

increases will be moderate due to a variety of constraints that will continue to limit the use of wildland fire. From 

the workshop, we learned that managers will need to become increasingly strategic with their fire and fuels management planning, and that the information used to support tactical fire operations may prove to be insufficient. 

Furthermore, the managers participating in the workshop indicated the functional linkage between land management and fire management planning is lacking. We suggest that effective fire management planning requires information on the benefits and risks to a wide variety of values at landscape scales, integration with land management objectives, and a long-term perspective.

Keywords: strategic planning, wildland fire use, decision support

Authors

Carol Miller is a Research Ecologist with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute of the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station in Missoula, MT. After a brief career as an electrical engineer, she received a M.S. degree in 

Forest Sciences and a Ph.D. degree in Ecology at Colorado State University. She has studied various aspects of 

managing and restoring natural fire regimes.

Peter Landres is a Research Ecologist with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute of the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station in Missoula, MT. He received his B.S. degree in Natural Science from Lewis and 

Clark College and his Ph.D. degree in Biology and Ecology from Utah State University. His research aims to develop the knowledge, strategies, and tools for improving the management of wilderness.

This report is a product of Joint Fire Science Program project #99-1-3-16 

“Wildland Fuels Management: Evaluating and Planning Risks and Benefits.”
Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Questionnaire: Identifying Information Used and Challenges 

 for Fire and Fuels Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Wildland Fuels Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Management Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Management Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Workshop: Identifying Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Challenges and Planning Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Evaluating Risks and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Wildland Fire Use Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Management Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Fire Management Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Strategic Planning Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Linking Land Management and Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Appendix A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix B. Questionnaire Summary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix C. Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix D. Information Items That Affect Strategic Fuels Management

 and Wildland Fire Use Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

i

Exploring Information Needs for 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management

Carol Miller

Peter Landres
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 1

Introduction

The challenges for wildland fire and fuels managers have never been greater. Decades of effective fire 

suppression and land use change have led to fuel accumulations, uncontrollable wildland fires, increased risk 

to human life and property, and the deterioration of fire 

dependent ecosystems. The United States Forest Service 

estimates that 39 million acres of National Forest 

System land alone are at risk from catastrophic fire 

(U.S. General Accounting Office 1999). Managers must 

determine how to satisfy the legal and policy mandates 

to restore the natural role of fire in the face of extreme 

risks caused by accumulated fuels. To overcome these 

challenges, managers will need to base their decisions 

on solid science, relying on the information and tools 

provided by fire researchers. It is paramount that fire researchers, in turn, have a solid understanding of the most 

critical information needs of wildland fire managers. In 

this publication we report the results of a questionnaire 

and workshop that sought to gain a better and deeper understanding of the contemporary information needs of 

wildland fire and fuels managers.

Prior to the 1970s, fire suppression was the dominant fire management policy across all the federal land 

management agencies. For example, Forest Service fire 

management policy in 1926 was to contain any fire to 10 

acres or less, and in 1935, the 10-acre goal was coupled 

with the goal of controlling all fires by 10 a.m. of the 

day following initial detection. Fire managers did not 

have to decide whether to suppress an ignition – instead, 

fire management decisions applied to tactical suppression operations and risk assessments focused on short 

term consequences for socioeconomic values that may 

be threatened by fire. Any longer term planning that was 

done focused on preparedness.

Since then, the fire policies of the federal agencies 

have been revised and reviewed, ultimately evolving 

into the first comprehensive interagency fire policy: the 

1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. This 

interagency policy affirmed the essential role of fire for 

ecosystem sustainability, declaring, “Wildland fire, as a 

critical natural process, must be reintroduced into the 

ecosystem.” Although some wildland fires had previously been allowed to burn as “prescribed natural fires” 

in remote wildernesses and parks, the 1995 policy provided direction for extending these activities into areas 

outside parks or wilderness. A clear message from the 

policy was that the use of wildland fire on federal lands 

would increase and become one of the tools in a fire 

manager’s toolbox.

The 1995 policy also acknowledged that the preceding decades of fire suppression contributed to 

accumulations of hazardous fuels, changes in vegetation 

structure, uncontrollable wildland fires, and increased 

risk to human life and property. To reduce these threats, 

the policy encouraged a more proactive approach to fire 

management. It recommended that fire management decisions be based on sound assessments of all the risks 

and that the assessments include the analysis of tradeoffs 

against the benefits of fire use, including the consideration of long term consequences. In 2001, an update to 

the policy was released as the 2001 Federal Wildland 

Fire Management Policy. The update reaffirmed, in particular, the importance of risk assessment and strategic 

planning.

Such changes in federal fire policy undoubtedly affect the nature of a wildland fire manager’s job. The new 

policy directs managers to perform proactive, strategic 

planning, include the long-term consequences of their 

decisions in risk assessments, and consider explicitly the 

benefits of fire along with its risks. What specific challenges do wildland fire and fuels managers expect to 

face, and what kinds of information will they require, as 

they strive to accomplish these additional responsibilities and the increased application of wildland fire use? 

Have these challenges and information needs changed 

from those previously identified for traditional fire and 

fuels management (Barney 1979; Evison 1985; Schuster 

and others 1997; Cleaves and others 2000)?

To increase our understanding of today’s information 

requirements for wildland fire and fuels management, 

we (1) developed and administered a questionnaire and 

(2) actively engaged a small group of fire managers in a 

workshop. The purpose of the questionnaire was to better understand the types of information currently used 

for wildland fire and fuels management and to identify 

the challenges that many managers face. The workshop 

was designed to identify the most important information 

needs for strategic fuels management and wildland fire 

use. In this paper, we present results of this questionnaire and conclusions derived from the workshop.

Questionnaire: Identifying 

Information Used and Challenges for 

Fire and Fuels Management

Our objective with the questionnaire was to gain an 

understanding of the factors that influence fire and fuels 

management decisions and to identify the information 

that is currently used to support those decisions. We also 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

���

���������������� �����������

��������

������������

����������������

������������� ��������������

��������������

��������������

����������������

wanted to identify the specific kinds of challenges and 

constraints facing managers today. We developed the 

questions after discussions with several individuals with 

fire and fuels management experience and an extensive 

literature review of fire management and policy. We solicited feedback from these individuals on early drafts of 

the questionnaire. The purpose of the questionnaire was 

exploratory in nature, and for this reason we did not seek 

statistically significant results and therefore did not develop a formal pre-test survey instrument.

In February 2000, we solicited input from approximately 300 people from the USDA Forest Service 

and the USDI National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. A convenient sample of people employed in fire and fuels management positions was used.

Names and addresses were obtained from various paper and electronic directories. When both electronic and 

postal addresses were available, we sent both email and 

hardcopy versions of the survey. We were interested in 

understanding the decision-making environment from 

the perspectives of individual managers and made no 

attempt to apportion the number of questionnaires by 

administrative unit. As such, multiple individuals within the same unit may have been sent the questionnaire 

and our results represent fire and fuels managers rather 

than administrative unit or fire management programs. 

We allowed approximately five weeks for people to respond to the questionnaire, which contained questions 

in a variety of formats including numerical ranking and 

rating, check-off, short answer, and open-ended. We 

estimated that the questionnaire would require 30-60 

minutes to complete, depending on the thoroughness of 

the response. The questions were divided into four main 

topic areas: wildland fire management, wildland fuels 

management, management tools, and management challenges. The complete questionnaire is in Appendix A.

We received 146 responses, of which 140 were complete. The six incomplete questionnaires were at least 

partially usable and, where possible, we included these 

incomplete responses when we summarized results for 

each question. Five agencies and 23 states were represented: 47 responses from USDA Forest Service (USFS) 

employees, 32 from Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), 31 from National Park Service (NPS), 29 from 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and two from Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA). One respondent indicated affiliation with both USFS and BLM and four people failed 

to provide their agency affiliations; we did not include 

these responses in analyses of interagency differences. 

The managers who responded were involved in fire and 

fuels management at broad (e.g., FWS zones, USFS and 

NPS regions) and district levels (e.g., NPS park, USFS 

districts, FWS refuges). The experience level of respondents was high, with an average of 21 years of experience 

in fire and/or fuels management. The majority of respondents (55%) described themselves as fire management 

officers and many were fire and/or fuels specialists 

(18%). Almost half (46%) of the respondents described 

ecosystem restoration/preservation as the primary land 

management objective for their area. Fewer respondents 

indicated commodity (16%), wildlife (16%), recreation 

(13%) and cultural/historical heritage (3%) as primary 

land management objectives. A summary of the questionnaire results is provided in Appendix B.

Wildland Fire Management

To explore how the recent emphasis on wildland 

fire use (WFU) in federal fire policy might affect fire 

management activity levels, we asked respondents to estimate the percent of fire starts in the past 10 years that 

were managed under suppression, confinement, and fire 

use strategies. We also asked respondents to estimate 

these percentages for the next 1-3 years. Although respondents indicated that suppression has been (77% of 

fire starts in the past 10 years) and will remain (67% 

estimated for the next 1-3 years) the dominant fire management strategy, they predicted a moderate increase 

in WFU over the next 1-3 years (figure 1). In terms of 

number of fire starts, this is a modest shift from suppression towards WFU, but because a single fire can burn 

thousands of acres, this modest shift could result in a 

dramatic increase in number of acres burned by wildland fire.

Figure 1. Percent of fires managed using full suppression, 

confinement (limited suppression), and fire use (including WFU and prescribed fire) strategies over the past 10 

years compared with expected percentages over the next 

1-3 years.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 3

A variety of factors influence the decision whether 

or not to suppress a wildland fire. We asked managers 

to numerically rate 29 factors according to how often 

each factor influenced decisions to suppress wildland 

fire in the areas for which they are responsible. The rating system used was 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 

3= always, or N/A = not applicable; the mean values for 

each factor are listed by agency and primary land management objective in tables 1 and 2. In addition to the 29 

factors, we allowed “Other” as a valid response and 14 

respondents utilized this option; we did not attempt to 

summarize this category. Overall, the four highest rated 

factors were: firefighter safety, threats to private property, 

threats to developments and facilities, threats to human 

life in the urban interface, and visitor safety (mean values 2.34, 2.21, 2.19, 2.15, respectively). Respondents 

gave these high ratings to safety factors and potential 

threats to structures and private property regardless of 

their agency affiliations, primary land management objectives, or geographic locations. Visitor safety was 

also highly rated (mean value 1.99), although its rating 

was somewhat lower for BLM and USFS affiliations 

(1.87) and where the primary land management objective was commodity production (1.83). Also highly 

rated were indicators of fire behavior such as: weather 

forecasts, fire danger rating, and the presence of heavy 

fuels (1.95, 1.89, 1.81). The four lowest-rated factors 

were: lack of interagency cooperation, forest health, 

absence of a fire management plan, and conflicting 

management objectives (0.73, 0.88, 0.95, 0.99). Mean 

ratings varied by primary land agency mission (table 1) 

and by the primary land management objectives (table 

2). For example, timber values received a mean rating 

of 1.83 from respondents who worked for areas with 

commodity production as a primary land management 

goal, whereas respondents from areas with ecosystem 

objectives rated timber values 1.06 (table 2). Similarly, 

wildlife habitat was rated 2.04 by FWS and only 1.44 by 

USFS and 1.65 by BLM (table 1), reflecting the greater 

emphasis placed on wildlife management by the FWS 

than other agencies.

We asked respondents who work in areas where WFU 

is permitted to use the same rating system and rate 12 

beneficial effects of wildland fire according to how often 

Table 1. Average ratings for factors influencing decisions to suppress wildfires by agency, ordered by total average ratings.

Agency

Total 

Factor average (n) BIA (n) BLM (n) NPS (n) USFS (n) USFWS (n)

Firefighter safety 2.34 (140) 2.00 (2) 2.39(31) 2.13(31) 2.38(45) 2.62 (26)

Private property 2.21 (140) 2.00 (2) 2.23(31) 2.13(31) 2.29(45) 2.19 (26)

Developments/facilities 2.19 (138) 2.50 (2) 2.19(31) 2.16(31) 2.13(45) 2.32 (25)

Human life in the WUI 2.15 (140) 3.00 (2) 2.13(31) 2.06(31) 2.13(45) 2.31 (26)

Visitor safety 1.99 (139) 2.00 (2) 1.87(31) 2.13(31) 1.87(45) 2.23 (26)

Weather forecasts 1.95 (140) 2.00 (2) 2.06(31) 1.74(31) 1.87(45) 2.19 (26)

Crown fire potential 1.89 (136) 3.00 (2) 1.55(31) 1.29(30) 1.67(45) 1.71 (26)

Heavy fuels 1.81 (140) 1.50 (2) 1.97(31) 1.48(31) 1.84(45) 1.96 (26)

Multiple ignitions/nearby fire activity 1.74 (138) 2.50(2) 1.94(31) 1.55(31) 1.82(45) 1.56 (25)

Overextended staff/resources 1.66 (140) 2.00(2) 1.97(31) 1.52(31) 1.69(45) 1.27 (26)

Endangered/threatened species 1.63 (136) 1.00(2) 1.80(30) 1.53(30) 1.36(45) 2.08 (26)

High fire danger 1.59 (139) 2.50(2) 1.84(31) 1.73(31) 1.93(43) 2.00 (24)

Insufficient staff--national fire activity 1.56 (140) 1.50(2) 1.81(31) 1.48(31) 1.60(45) 1.15 (26)

Cultural sites 1.55 (139) 1.50(2) 1.70(30) 1.58(31) 1.44(45) 1.54 (26)

Wildlife habitat 1.53 (140) 1.50(2) 1.65(31) 1.19(31) 1.44(45) 2.04 (26)

Smoke and air quality 1.51 (138) 1.50(2) 1.45(31) 1.43(30) 1.39(44) 1.85 (26)

Recreational/scenic values 1.43(139) 2.00(2) 1.45(31) 1.17(30) 1.60(45) 1.46(26)

Political/public opposition to fire 1.37(138) 2.00(2) 1.16(31) 1.10(31) 1.57(44) 1.56(25)

Timber values 1.35(126) 2.00(2) 1.30(30) 0.64(22) 1.80(45) 1.21(24)

Soil erosion/stream water quality 1.35(138) 2.00(2) 1.65(31) 0.97(29) 1.29(45) 1.54(26)

Other unique natural resources 1.14(138) 1.50(2) 1.26(31) 1.10(31) 1.02(44) 1.27(26)

Insufficient time/staff--documentation 1.14(138) 0.00(2) 1.16(31) 1.13(31) 1.32(44) 0.92(26)

Controversial fire policy 1.08(138) 1.50(2) 1.10(31) 1.00(30) 1.05(43) 1.26(23)

Post-fire exotic weed invasion 1.07(136) 0.50(2) 1.63(30) 1.00(31) 0.82(44) 1.08(25)

Conflicting management objectives 0.99(137) 1.00(1) 1.03(30) 0.80(30) 1.16(45) 0.88(26)

Lack of fire management plan 0.95(134) 2.00(2) 0.96(28) 0.72(29) 1.22(45) 0.48(25)

Forest health 0.88(136) 0.50(2) 0.81(31) 0.66(29) 1.04(45) 0.96(25)

Interagency boundaries 0.73(135) 0.50(2) 0.97(29) 0.83(30) 0.69(45) 0.36(25)
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

each influenced the decision to use wildland fire. One 

hundred five individuals responded to this part of the 

questionnaire, and average ratings are listed by agency 

and primary land management objective in tables 3 and 

4. Overall, “allowing natural processes” most often influenced decisions to use wildland fire with a mean rating 

of 2.26. Several factors were rated very similarly (mean 

ratings between 1.77 and 1.83) including: reduced fuel 

hazards, enhanced wildness, improved wildlife habitat, 

reduced undesirable fire effects in the future, improved 

resource conditions, and increased vigor and growth. 

The reduction of crown fire potential, increased regeneration, and reduced smoke from future large unwanted 

wildfires influenced decisions to use wildland fire least 

often (1.08, 1.32, 1.33, respectively). The ratings varied 

across agencies (table 3) and primary land management 

Table 2. Average ratings for factors influencing decisions to suppress wildfire by primary land management objective, 

ordered by total average ratings.

Primary objective

Total 

Factor average (n) Recreation (n) Commodity (n) Cultural (n) Ecosystem (n) Wildlife (n)

Firefighter safety 2.34(140) 2.25(20) 2.65(23) 2.25(4) 2.23(63) 2.55(24)

Private property 2.21(140) 2.40(20) 2.39(23) 2.75(4) 2.10(63) 2.00(24)

Developments/facilities 2.19(138) 2.25(20) 2.35(23) 3.00(4) 2.08(62) 2.16(23)

Human life in the WUI 2.15(140) 2.25(20) 2.17(23) 3.00(4) 2.03(63) 2.15(24)

Visitor safety 1.99(139) 2.21(19) 1.83(23) 3.00(4) 1.95(63) 1.95(24)

Weather forecasts 1.95(140) 2.15(20) 2.35(23) 2.00(4) 1.77(63) 2.10(24)

Crown fire potential 1.89(136) 1.90(20) 1.87(23) 1.75(4) 1.42(62) 1.61(24)

Heavy fuels 1.81(140) 2.20(20) 2.26(23) 2.00(4) 1.53(63) 1.95(24)

Multiple ignitions/nearby fire activity 1.74(138) 1.60(20) 2.30(23) 2.00(4) 1.59(62) 1.58(23)

Overextended staff/resources 1.66(140) 1.95(20) 2.26(23) 1.75(4) 1.47(63) 1.25(24)

Endangered/threatened species 1.63(136) 1.39(18) 2.00(23) 1.50(4) 1.48(61) 2.00(24)

High fire danger 1.59(139) 2.10(20) 2.22(23) 2.50(4) 1.69(61) 2.00(22)

Insufficient staff--national fire activity 1.56(140) 2.05(20) 2.00(23) 1.50(4) 1.39(63) 1.10(24)

Cultural sites 1.55(139) 1.65(20) 1.61(23) 1.75(4) 1.56(62) 1.40(24)

Wildlife habitat 1.53(140) 1.45(20) 1.83(23) 1.25(4) 1.35(63) 1.95(24)

Smoke and air quality 1.51(138) 1.55(20) 1.52(23) 1.33(3) 1.52(62) 1.60(24)

Recreational/scenic values 1.43(139) 1.65(20) 1.61(23) 2.00(4) 1.26(62) 1.40(24)

Political/public opposition to fire 1.37(138) 1.60(20) 1.41(22) 1.50(4) 1.21(63) 1.53(23)

Timber values 1.35(126) 1.56(18) 1.83(23) 1.00(3) 1.06(54) 1.32(23)

Soil erosion/stream water quality 1.35(138) 1.60(20) 1.52(23) 1.50(4) 1.12(61) 1.55(24)

Other unique natural resources 1.14(138) 1.32(19) 1.17(23) 1.25(4) 1.07(62) 1.30(24)

Insufficient time/staff--documentation 1.14(138) 1.60(20) 1.39(23) 1.00(4) 1.01(62) 0.90(24)

Controversial fire policy 1.08(138) 1.05(19) 1.09(22) 1.33(3) 0.98(62) 1.41(21)

Post-fire exotic weed invasion 1.07(136) 0.95(19) 1.57(23) 1.25(4) 1.05(61) 0.95(23)

Conflicting management objectives 0.99(137) 1.35(20) 1.36(22) 1.00(3) 0.77(62) 0.90(24)

Lack of fire management plan 0.95(134) 1.37(19) 1.33(21) 0.75(4) 0.71(60) 0.65(24)

Forest health 0.88(136) 1.25(20) 1.09(23) 0.50(4) 0.75(60) 0.74(23)

Interagency boundaries 0.73(135) 1.05(20) 1.00(22) 0.50(4) 0.62(59) 0.35(24)

Table 3. Average ratings for factors influencing the decision to use wildland fire by agency, ordered by total 

average ratings.

Agency

Total

Factor average (n) BIA (n) BLM (n) NPS (n) USFS (n) USFWS (n)

Allowing natural processes 2.26(102) 1.00(1) 1.68(22) 2.79(24) 2.43(35) 1.94(18)

Improved wildlife habitat 1.83(103) 2.00(1) 1.86(22) 1.79(24) 1.63(35) 2.28(18)

Reduced fuel hazards 1.80(103) 2.00(1) 1.95(22) 1.71(24) 1.74(35) 1.78(18)

Improved resource conditions 1.80(103) 1.00(1) 1.82(22) 1.96(24) 1.54(35) 2.00(18)

Enhanced wildness/naturalness 1.79(102) 1.00(1) 1.36(22) 2.08(24) 1.91(35) 1.61(18)

Enhanced vigor and growth 1.78(103) 0.00(1) 2.00(22) 1.92(24) 1.46(35) 2.00(18)

Reduced undesirable effects in future 1.77(103) 2.00(1) 1.55(22) 1.75(24) 1.89(35) 1.83(18)

Reduced suppression costs 1.57(103) 2.00(1) 1.64(22) 1.33(24) 1.49(35) 1.89(18)

Increased future management options 1.52(103) 1.00(1) 1.59(22) 1.63(24) 1.37(35) 1.56(18)

Reduced smoke in future 1.33(101) 1.00(1) 1.29(21) 1.17(24) 1.20(35) 1.78(18)

Increased regeneration 1.32(102) 1.00(1) 1.41(22) 1.71(24) 0.97(34) 1.33(18)

Reduced crown fire potential 1.08(100) 1.00(1) 1.00(22) 1.00(22) 1.03(35) 1.35(17)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 5

objective (table 4). For example, the mean rating given 

to “allowing natural processes” by respondents whose 

primary land management objective was ecosystem-oriented was 2.63, whereas the mean ratings were lower 

for respondents with management objectives related to 

commodities and wildlife (1.75 and 1.79, respectively) 

(table 4). NPS and USFS respondents rated “allowing 

natural processes” higher than any other factor (2.84 and 

2.41, respectively), and FWS respondents rated wildlife 

habitat as the highest of all factors (2.35) (table 3).

We also asked these same 105 individuals to rate 

eight consequences of continued fire suppression according to how often each influenced the decision to 

use wildland fire. Average ratings are listed by agency 

and primary land management objective in tables 5 and 

6. Overall, four factors were rated similarly (mean ratings between 1.70 and 1.77): reduction of fire-dependent 

habitat, increased fuel hazards, increased future threats, 

and degradation of ecosystem or forest health. Increased 

crown fire potential, increased smoke from future large 

Table 4. Average ratings for factors influencing the decision to use wildland fire by primary land management objective, ordered 

by total average ratings.

Primary objective

Total

Factor average (n) Recreation (n) Commodity (n) Cultural (n) Ecosystem (n) Wildlife (n)

Allowing natural processes 2.26(102) 2.08(12) 1.75(16) 1.00(2) 2.61(51) 1.87(15)

Improved wildlife habitat 1.83(103) 2.00(13) 1.75(16) 1.50(2) 1.82(51) 1.93(15)

Reduced fuel hazards 1.80(103) 2.00(13) 1.88(16) 1.50(2) 1.78(51) 1.40(15)

Improved resource conditions 1.80(103) 1.77(13) 1.56(16) 1.00(2) 1.88(51) 1.53(15)

Enhanced wildness/naturalness 1.79(102) 1.42(12) 1.56(16) 1.00(2) 2.02(51) 1.73(15)

Enhanced vigor and growth 1.78(103) 1.85(13) 1.81(16) 0.50(2) 1.86(51) 1.73(15)

Reduced undesirable effects in future 1.77(103) 2.00(13) 1.44(16) 1.50(2) 1.78(51) 1.47(15)

Reduced suppression costs 1.57(103) 1.62(13) 1.75(16) 1.00(2) 1.61(51) 1.47(15)

Increased future management options 1.52(103) 1.62(13) 1.44(16) 0.50(2) 1.57(51) 1.33(15)

Reduced smoke in future 1.33(101) 1.33(12) 1.00(15) 1.00(2) 1.41(51) 1.47(15)

Increased regeneration 1.32(102) 1.33(12) 1.31(16) 1.00(2) 1.36(50) 1.43(14)

Reduced crown fire potential 1.08(100) 1.23(13) 0.88(16) 0.50(2) 1.12(49) 1.07(14)

Table 5. Average ratings for consequences of continued fire suppression that influence decisions to use wildland 

fire by agency, ordered by total average ratings.

Agency

Total

Factor average (n) BIA (n) BLM (n) NPS (n) USFS (n) USFWS (n)

Reduced fire-dependent habitat 1.77(102) 1.00(1) 1.52(23) 1.58(24) 1.89(35) 2.19(16)

Increased fuel hazards 1.74(103) 2.00(1) 1.96(24) 1.45(22) 1.66(35) 1.83(18)

Increased future threats to values 1.71(105) 1.00(1) 2.00(24) 1.63(24) 1.57(35) 1.78(18)

Degraded ecosystem health 1.70(102) 0.00(1) 1.52(23) 1.65(23) 1.83(35) 1.76(17)

Increased suppression costs 1.52(106) 2.00(1) 1.38(24) 1.33(24) 1.67(36) 1.50(18)

Reduced future mgmt options 1.38(102) 1.00(1) 1.17(24) 1.32(22) 1.63(35) 1.29(17)

Increased smoke in future 1.38(106) 2.00(1) 1.29(24) 1.08(24) 1.39(36) 1.78(18)

Increased crown fire potential 1.13(102) 1.00(1) 1.08(24) 1.00(21) 1.17(36) 1.18(17)

Table 6. Average ratings for consequences of continued fire suppression that influence decisions to use wildland fire by 

primary land management objective, ordered by total average ratings.

Primary objective

Total

Factor average (n) Recreation (n) Commodity (n) Cultural (n) Ecosystem (n) Wildlife (n)

Reduced fire-dependent habitat 1.77(102) 1.86(14) 1.41(17) 1.50(2) 1.80(50) 2.17(12)

Increased fuel hazards 1.74(103) 2.00(14) 1.94(18) 1.50(2) 1.69(48) 1.57(14)

Increased future threats to values 1.71(105) 1.79(14) 2.00(18) 2.00(2) 1.66(50) 1.57(14)

Degraded ecosystem health 1.70(102) 1.64(14) 1.53(17) 0.50(2) 1.76(49) 1.92(13)

Increased suppression costs 1.52(106) 1.79(14) 1.44(18) 1.50(2) 1.53(51) 1.47(15)

Reduced future mgmt options 1.38(102) 1.43(14) 1.50(18) 0.50(2) 1.38(48) 1.15(13)

Increased smoke in future 1.38(106) 1.50(14) 1.22(18) 1.50(2) 1.35(51) 1.67(15)

Increased crown fire potential 1.13(102) 1.36(14) 1.11(18) 0.50(2) 1.08(48) 1.29(14)
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

��������� ������� ����

���������� ����

�������� ��� ����������

����������� �� ����������

���������������

���������

�������

������� �� ���� �������

fires, reduced management options in the future, and increased fire suppression costs influenced WFU decisions 

least often (1.13, 1.38, 1.38, 1.52, respectively). These 

ratings also varied across agencies (table 5) and primary 

land management objective (table 6). For example, respondents whose primary land management objective 

was wildlife-oriented gave “reduction of fire-dependent 

habitat” fairly high ratings (mean value 2.17) whereas respondents with management objectives related to 

commodities rated this factor much lower (mean value 

1.41) (table 6).

Wildland Fuels Management

An increasingly important component of wildland 

fire management is fuels management and we asked the 

survey participants about the objectives, methods, and 

limitations of their fuels management programs. Ninetyfour percent (138) of the respondents had active fuels 

treatment programs to reduce or treat fuel hazards.

We asked these managers to use the 0 to 3 rating system (0 = never, 1=sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = always, or 

N/A = not applicable) and rate eight different objectives 

according to how often each was the primary objective for a fuel treatment. Reducing fuel loadings and 

resource enhancement were rated the highest (mean ratings 2.23 and 2.05, respectively), followed by reducing 

potential damage from wildfire, reducing future wildfire 

intensity, simulating the effects of natural disturbance, 

reducing future wildfire size, reducing potential suppression costs, and restoring historic scenes (1.87, 1.81, 

1.72, 1.60, 1.40, 1.05, respectively).

We asked which of six treatment methods (naturally ignited fire, prescribed fire, cuttings and mechanical 

treatments, herbicide, grazing, and a combination of cuttings, mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire) were 

included in their fuels management program, and what 

percentage of the acres treated to date had been treated 

by each method1. Of the six fuels management strategies, 

prescribed fire was the most widely used with an average of 60% of the treated acres (figure 2). Cuttings and 

mechanical treatments (13%) or a combination of cuttings, mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire (16%) 

were also responsible for a substantial portion of treated 

acres (figure 2). Respondents indicated that naturally ignited fire was used as a fuel treatment on an average of 

6% of treated acres and herbicide and grazing were used 

on 2% and 3% of the acres, respectively (figure 2). Use 

of different fuels treatment strategies also varied across 

agencies and primary land management objective. NPS 

and USFS respondents reported a much higher percentage of acres being treated with naturally ignited fire 

(average of 12% and 9%, respectively) when compared 

to either BLM or FWS respondents (about 1% reported 

by each group) (figure 3). Respondents whose primary land management objective was ecosystem-oriented 

treated more acres with naturally ignited fire (average 

10%) than the other respondents (figure 4).

To determine how managers prioritize fuels treatment efforts on the landscape, we asked respondents 

to use the 0 to 3 rating system on each of 11 factors according to how often it is considered when prioritizing 

fuels treatments. To prioritize treatments, the respondents most often used: vegetation type, fuel hazards, 

economic feasibility, type of values present, and proximity to boundaries (mean ratings were 2.29, 2.21, 2.09, 

1.99, 1.93, respectively). Considered less often were: 

likelihood of severe large fires, recovery potential of 

vegetation, topographic position, probability of ignition, 

pre-settlement fire frequency, and administrative designation of the area as wilderness (1.74, 1.71, 1.54, 1.46, 

1.39, 1.00, respectively).

To determine how well fuel treatment program 

goals are achieved, we asked for an estimate of how 

many acres per year are planned for fuel treatment 

and how many acres have actually been accomplished. 

Although we asked for annual averages and ranges for 

program goals and accomplishments, many respondents provided only a range or only a single value. We 

summarized the mean values and if only a range was provided, we took the midpoint to serve as a mean. Several 

1

 We removed six responses from our analysis of this question 

because of an error contained in some of the electronically 

formatted questionnaires that did not allow respondents to distinguish between naturally ignited wildland fire and management 

ignited prescribed fire. 

Figure 2. Percent of area treated for fuels reduction using six 

different strategies.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 7

respondents provided information on accomplishments 

for two or more separate time periods in the past. In such 

cases, we used the most recent time span because we 

felt that would be most representative of the current fuel 

treatment program. Fuel treatment programs ranged in 

magnitude from just a few acres treated per year to hundreds of thousands of acres. Approximately one-fourth 

of the managers (35) reported that they achieved or 

exceeded the acres planned for treatment. For those who 

did not achieve goals for fuels treatment acres, they fell 

short on average by about 40% of planned acres.

In those cases where the acreage treated each year 

falls short of the planned acreage, we asked managers 

to rate seven factors according to how often each factor 

was responsible for treated acres lagging behind planned 

acres. Unsuitable weather conditions were most often 

Figure 3. Differences among 

agencies in the percent of area 

treated for fuels reduction using 

six different strategies.

Figure 4. Differences among 

primary land management objective in the percent of area 

treated for fuels reductions 

using six different strategies.

Fuels Treatment Strategies by Agency

0 10 20 40 50 60

Herbicide

Grazing

Percent of area treated

USFWS

USFS

NPS

BLM

BIA

Combination of prescribed

fire/mechanical

Cuttings and mechanical

Prescribed fire

Naturally ignited fire

30 70

Fuels Treatment Strategies by Land

Management Objective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Grazing

Percent area treated

Wildlife

Ecosystem

Cultural

Commodity

Recreation

Herbicide

Combination prescribed

fire/mechanical

Cuttings and mechanical

Prescribed fire

Naturally ignited fire
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

the reason for non-attainment of fuel treatment goals 

(mean rating 1.86), followed by inadequate resources 

(i.e., money, personnel) to conduct the treatments (1.44), 

and air quality regulations (1.19). NEPA (National 

Environmental Policy Act) regulations, political issues, 

lack of internal support, and public opposition to treatments were less often responsible for non-attainment of 

fuel treatment goals (1.02, 0.95, 0.81, 0.73, respectively). There was little difference in ratings among agencies 

or among different primary land management goals.

Management Tools

Dozens of tools and various types of information can support wildland fire and fuels managers’ 

decisions. We listed 50 types of information and tools 

in nine different categories and asked respondents to indicate which ones were used to support fire and fuels 

management decisions in their management area. The 

seven categories were: fire history data, mapped data in 

GIS (Geographic Information System) format, mapped 

data not in GIS format (i.e., paper maps), computerized 

databases, computerized modeling tools, other computer 

tools, and other general tools. For the discussion of results below, we have grouped these categories into three 

general classes: data, computerized tools, and other noncomputerized tools. Results are summarized in table 7.

Respondents indicated a high use of data in a variety 

of forms. Data on post-settlement fire history (e.g., fire 

atlas data) are used to support decisions in the management areas of 83% of the respondents. Pre-settlement fire 

history data (e.g., from fire-scarred trees) are less widely used (65% of the respondents’ areas). Spatial data on 

fire perimeters, ignitions, vegetation, fuels, topography, 

roads and trails, and residences and other structures are 

being widely utilized in many areas (as many as 80% 

of respondents), and an impressive percentage of respondents indicated the use of these spatial data in 

digital GIS format (55-81%). Information contained in 

the computer database FEIS (Fire Effects Information 

System) is used to support decisions in 80% of the respondents’ management areas while NIFMID (National 

Integrated Fire Management Interagency Database) is 

used only in 30% of the areas.

Computerized tools available to fire and fuels managers are quite numerous, and we listed a total of 27 

computerized tools and databases. Of the five fire behavior computerized modeling tools listed, the fire behavior 

model BEHAVE is by far the most widely used (95%), 

followed by FARSITE (39%) and RERAP (Rare Event 

Risk Assessment Process, 36%). The most widely used 

fire weather analysis tool is Firefamily+, with 62% of 

respondents indicating the use of this or one of its modules FIRDAT (or PCFIRDAT) and CLIMATOLOGY. 

AFFIRMS (Administrative and Forest Fire Information 

Retrieval and Management System) is also widely used 

(47%) and several respondents volunteered WIMS 

(Weather Information Management System), as it was 

not provided on the survey form. Of the fire effects modeling tools, FOFEM (First Order Fire Effects Model) 

and SASEM (Simple Approach Smoke Estimation 

Model) were selected by the most respondents (55% and 

52%, respectively), followed by other models that estimate smoke emissions and/or dispersion: CONSUME 

(43%), NFSPUFF (17%), EPM (11%), VALBOX 

(5%), and PLUMP (3%). SIAM (Structure Ignition 

Assessment Model) was selected by only 2% of the 

respondents. Other computerized tools that are widely 

used are WFSA (Wildland Fire Situation Analysis, 67%) 

and two programs needed for the NFMAS (National 

Fire Management Analysis System) process: PCHA 

(Personal Computer Historical Analysis, 42%) and IIAA 

(Interagency Initial Attack Assessment, 40%).

Although the use of computer technology is high, 

“low tech,” non-computerized sources of information 

are still widely used. For example, 70% of respondents 

indicated that fuel model photo series are used, 67% indicated that research publications are used to support 

decisions in their area, 55% report the use of fire behavior nomograms, 38% report the use of fire danger rating 

pocket cards, and 20% reported using the HewlettPackard (HP) hand-held calculator.

Management Challenges

We asked three open-ended questions to gain insight into the challenges facing fire and fuels managers: 

(1) What is most likely to prevent attainment of your 

management objectives? (2) Which of your management objectives most severely conflict with each other? 

and (3) Is there a unique feature of your physical or social environment that makes decision-making especially 

difficult? Factors preventing attainment of management 

objectives that were often mentioned were: funding or 

budget issues (mentioned 45 times), staffing (41 times), 

smoke or air quality (42), weather or burn windows 

(30), public support or opinion (18), NEPA (10), and 

TES (Threatened and Endangered Species; mentioned 

15 times). Management objectives that severely conflict 

with fire or fuels management objectives that were most 

often mentioned were: TES protection (mentioned 18 

times), smoke or air quality (15), commodities including timber and grazing (11), wildlife (9), and cultural 

or historical site protection (9). Unique features of the 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 9

Table 7. Information and tools used to support fire and fuels management decisions.

Category/subcategory Information or tool Number of responses 

FIRE HISTORY DATA

Post-settlement fire records 121

Pre-settlement data 95

MAPPED DATA IN GIS FORMAT

Fire occurrence records 104

Ignitions 94

Vegetation 117

Fuels 92

Topography 104

Roads and trails 111

Residences 83

Other 23

MAPPED DATA NOT IN GIS FORMAT

Fire occurrence records 70

Ignitions 54

Vegetation 53

Fuels 64

Topography 52

Roads and trails 56

Residences 80

Other 12

COMPUTERIZED DATABASES

FEIS 111

NIFMID 42

Other computerized databases 19

COMPUTERIZED MODELING TOOLS 

Fire behavior/spread

BEHAVE 136

FARSITE 58

NExUS 16

RERAP 51

FBP 12

Other fire spread/behavior models 5

Fire danger/weather

AFFIRMS 67

CLIMATOLOGY 34

FIRDAT 40

Firefamily+ 90

MfFSF 5

CFFDRS 11

FWI 9

Other fire danger/fire weather models 26

Fire effects

CONSUME 62

EPM 14

FOFEM 80

NFSPUFF 25

PLUMP 6

SASEM 75

SIAM 2

VALBOx 8

Other fire effects models 5

OTHER COMPUTER TOOLS

FIRES 35

FORBS 43

FVS-FFE 10

IIAA 56

PCHA 59

WFAS 53

WFSA_Plus98 97

Other computer tools 11

OTHER TOOLS

HP 27

Fire danger rating cards 56

Fire behavior nomograms 81

Fuel model photo series 102

Research publications 98
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

physical or social environment that make decision-making especially difficult and that were mentioned most 

often were: smoke or air quality issues (mentioned 15 

times), fuels or fire behavior (13), public opinion (12), 

and private property or urban interface (10).

Summary

The factors most often influencing the decision to 

suppress a wildland fire were related to safety and fire 

behavior. This was true when results were summarized 

by agency, geographic region, or primary land management objective (e.g., tables 1 and 2). Given the emphasis 

on safety in agency policies and management plans, this 

was not surprising.

The questionnaire examined the influence of a variety 

of factors that may be considered in the decision to allow 

a wildland fire to burn, including a range of potential benefits from the fire and several consequences of continued 

fire suppression. The factors that most often influence decisions to allow a wildland fire to burn varied with the 

primary land management objectives. For example, in areas focused on ecosystem restoration or preservation, the 

decision to use wildland fire was most often influenced by 

fire’s ability to allow natural processes, whereas in areas 

with wildlife objectives, fire’s ability to improve wildlife 

habitat was rated as the most influential factor.

The most widely used fuels treatment strategy by 

the managers responding to this questionnaire was prescribed fire (figure 2). The use of naturally ignited fire 

for fuels management has not become very widespread, 

as indicated by the relatively low percentage of acres 

treated in this fashion. For managers responding to this 

questionnaire, WFU was implemented most often for 

the purposes of restoring natural processes, and it tended to be implemented on lands with ecosystem-oriented 

land management goals.

We found heavy reliance on computer technology by 

the managers responding to this questionnaire. Virtually 

all of the managers responding to the questionnaire reported the use of computerized tools and/or models. 

Approximately three-fourths of the respondents indicated the use of spatial data in GIS format for decision 

support. The fire behavior prediction model BEHAVE 

is used almost universally by the managers responding 

to our questionnaire. The computer models FARSITE 

(which predicts rate and direction of fire spread across 

a landscape) and RERAP (predicts the probability that a 

fire will travel a specified distance) are used more often 

where WFU is allowed. Similarly, managers from areas 

with WFU programs reported higher use of computer 

models that predict fire effects.

Respondents consistently expected a shift in fire management from suppression to WFU. Compared to the last 

10 years, managers responding to this questionnaire expected to implement more WFU in the next 1-3 years while 

relying less on full suppression (figure 1). The degree 

of this shift is expected to be relatively modest, however (<10 %), suggesting that many constraints to WFU 

remain. The types of constraints most often mentioned 

tended to be outside the manager’s control; these included 

weather, air quality concerns, funding, and staffing.

Many results from this questionnaire were similar to 

those from two recent surveys of USDA Forest Service 

fire staff, both of which focused primarily on the planning and use of management-ignited prescribed fire 

(Cleaves and others 2000, Barrett and others 2000). 

Although the questionnaire we used was broader than 

these previous studies and was not limited to the planning and use of prescribed fire, many of our findings 

were consistent. Both Barrett and others (2000) and 

Cleaves and others (2000) reported that the main objective for prescribed fire was hazard reduction, a finding 

consistent with the high rating given to “reducing fuel 

loadings” in our questionnaire. Reintroduction of fire 

and game habitat were rated as important objectives 

for prescribed fire in the two previous surveys and were 

also highly rated by the respondents to our questionnaire. Major barriers to prescribed burning reported by 

Cleaves and others (2000) and Barrett and others (2000) 

included air quality and smoke management, inadequate 

funding, inadequate staffing, and available time windows for burning. Respondents to our questionnaire 

also mentioned these same factors as being most likely 

to prevent attainment of management objectives. Barrett 

and others (2000) found that the level of use and training in GIS technologies was high despite its relatively 

recent development. We also found a strong dependence 

on GIS technology and information.

Workshop: 

Identifying Information Needs

To build on the insights gained from the questionnaire 

and improve our understanding of the information needed for strategic fuels and fire management, we convened 

a small workshop in April 2000 entitled Managing the 

risks and benefits of wildland fire: a workshop to identify common information needs for fuels management and 

wildland fire use. Our primary goal for the workshop 

was to solicit input from fire and fuels managers to help 

us identify critical information needs for implementing 

wildland fire use (WFU). Although this was the explicitly 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 11

stated goal around which we organized the workshop, a 

broader purpose of the workshop was to give us an opportunity to learn from the collective knowledge and 

experience of wildland fire and fuels managers. We 

sought to generate thoughtful and creative discussion 

about complex and difficult management challenges.

We selected 14 members of the fire and fuels management community to participate in the two-day workshop 

held in Missoula, Montana. We did not try to assemble 

a representative cross-section of the fire management 

community but instead emphasized depth of experience 

and knowledge. The group included fire management 

officers, wildland fire specialists, fuels specialists, 

fire planners, and agency fire ecologists (Appendix 

C). Employees of USFS, BLM, USFWS, and CDF 

(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 

were represented2, most of whom work in the northern 

Rockies. We encouraged the workshop attendees to approach discussions from a broad perspective and to be as 

inclusive as possible when discussing issues.

Prior to the workshop, we mailed out information 

packets that included background material on the workshop topics. The workshop relied heavily on group 

discussion, and it was from these discussions that we increased our understanding of the challenges surrounding 

WFU today. The discussions had four themes: (1) challenges and planning solutions, (2) evaluating risks and 

benefits, (3) WFU objectives, and (4) information needs. 

In the following sections, we summarize the most important points made in each of these discussions.

Challenges and Planning Solutions

As an introduction to the workshop, we asked two of 

our participants to present an overview of the challenges 

of using wildland fire and to discuss potential planning 

solutions. These presentations served to launch the topics for group discussion.

Wildland fire use hinges on the “go/no-go” decision: 

whether or not to suppress a wildland ignition once it is 

discovered. Myriad factors must be considered, resulting in an extremely complex decision-making process. 

The decision to use wildland fire needs to be made shortly after the detection of a fire (Zimmerman and Bunnell 

1998), and yet the decision calls for a thorough assessment of the risks. This risk assessment must also consider 

that risks will change during the many weeks an individual fire may burn. The managers attending the workshop 

pointed out that multiple ignitions make this analysis 

even more difficult. Administrative boundaries present 

some of the most difficult challenges from both planning 

and operational standpoints. For example, fires often do 

not obey a wilderness or National Forest boundary, and 

decision-makers often do not have the information available for a multi-unit cross-boundary risk assessment. 

The group agreed that an added challenge to fire and fuels management is the increasing number of homes and 

developments being built in and adjacent to wildlands.

An assessment of risk is central to the go/no-go decision, and there was considerable discussion about the 

risk aversion of decision-makers and how the risk posture of an individual can constrain the use of wildland 

fire. The risk-averse nature of many decision-makers 

may limit the amount of WFU and one member of the 

group stressed the importance of successfully implementing small, fail-safe fires for gradually building both 

experience and confidence in WFU. It was noted that, in 

time, an individual’s risk aversion could be reduced.

According to the managers attending this workshop, 

the challenges for WFU are compounded by potential 

conflicts with other resource management objectives. 

One of the most difficult conflicts is between WFU and 

air quality. The group predicted that this conflict would 

become an increasingly intractable problem in the future 

as the use of fire increases on public lands.

Several participants felt that, even if the major challenges for WFU could be surmounted, the long-term 

success of WFU is extremely tenuous. For WFU to be 

successful in the long-term, reliable monitoring of the 

fire program and the cumulative effects of WFU will be 

necessary. One major concern is that many wildland fire 

managers are working under the assumption that they 

are doing the right thing by implementing WFU, yet 

they currently lack information on the cumulative effects of WFU and do not have the ability to measure 

their success with restoring the natural process of fire. 

This concern is especially important in areas where fire 

exclusion has significantly altered the ecosystem state 

and where restoration of the natural role fire may be difficult, if not impossible, under such conditions.

The group also discussed challenges for wildland fuels management. Management staff may be uncertain 

about where to treat fuels and how to prioritize fuel 

treatments across a landscape with a variety of vegetation types, fire regimes, effects from fire exclusion, and 

fuel conditions. The group pointed out that as management goals diversify and strive to consider the values 

of a diverse public, treatments should no longer be prioritized according to a single dominant interest such 

as timber values. Areas need to be targeted with a variety of land management objectives in mind and must 

2 Several representatives from the National Park Service were invited 

but unable to attend due to conflicting NPS fire meetings.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

consider recreation, wildlife, ecosystem preservation, 

and commodity interests. These diverse objectives can 

be difficult to accomplish given the constraints of limited time and resource availability.

Given the complexities of the environment under 

which WFU decisions are made, the importance of having a pre-loaded plan in place was emphasized. The 

group agreed that a key component to this pre-planning 

is an assessment of the risks and benefits of WFU. GIS 

was suggested as a powerful technological tool for developing fire management plans. A variety of cultural, 

wildlife, and other information can be available in advance so when an ignition does occur, it is known what 

values could be at risk from that fire. Workshop members 

agreed that a landscape scale perspective is essential, but 

that it is difficult to maintain a landscape perspective in 

the heat of the moment. As a result, it was suggested that 

fire management plans be integrated with land management plans. Many participants voiced their frustration 

with land management planning processes that lag the 

development of fire management plans.

The fire management plan on the Bitterroot National 

Forest (BNF) was presented as an example of a program that has attempted to grapple with many of these 

challenges. The BNF implements fire management 

strategies according to type of fire regime, location, 

and values at risks. Areas closest to the wildland urban 

interface are also at the lowest elevation and are characterized by a high frequency natural fire regime. Here 

is where the BNF has been most active with prescribed 

fire fuels treatments but departure from the natural fire 

regime was still estimated to be 7-10 fire cycles. Current 

fire-free intervals also exceed historical intervals in the 

roaded, highly valued recreation areas that occur at 

slightly higher elevations. The high-elevation subalpine 

fir forests have not been affected by fire exclusion and 

are considered to be within their range of natural variation, but fires that do occur here can become quite large 

and difficult to control. In the wilderness portion of the 

management area, about 25% of the fire starts are managed as WFU. The other fire starts were suppressed for 

a variety of reasons, including the lack of available resources to manage the fire as WFU. This is especially 

the case during periods of high fire activity when resources are allocated to fire suppression activities in the 

other fire management zones that have more socioeconomic values-at-risk.

Evaluating Risks and Benefits

The 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy considered a 

sound risk assessment the foundation to fire management 

and clearly stated that wildland fire management decisions must rely heavily on an assessment of tradeoffs 

between fire risks and the net gains to public benefit. 

The managers attending this workshop concurred and 

pointed out that this occurs every time a go/no-go decision is made. For example, when deciding whether 

or not to suppress a wildland fire, a manager is aware 

that each decision carries with it probabilities of negative and positive outcomes. The decision to suppress a 

wildland fire is made when the social, economic, and 

ecological risks outweigh the potential benefits from the 

fire. Alternatively, wildland fires in remote wilderness 

areas may pose little risk when compared to the potential benefits and the decision may be instead to allow the 

fire to burn. Managers striving to restore the natural role 

of fire to fire-dependent ecosystems while protecting life 

and property weigh the short-term risks of fire against its 

long-term benefits.

We presented a conceptual framework for evaluating fire risks and benefits that integrates the biophysical 

environment and the social environment (figure 5). Fire 

risk was defined as the probability of loss or injury due 

to fire and can be quantified in terms of the probability of fire-damaged property, loss of life, or diminished 

air quality from smoke. We defined fire benefits as the 

probability of gain resulting from fire. These benefits 

could include removal of accumulated fuels, creation 

of plant establishment sites, enhancement of habitat diversity, creation of critical habitat for certain wildlife 

species such as black-backed woodpeckers, increased 

water yield, and other benefits. In this conceptual framework, risk and benefit are functions of three variables: 

(1) the probability of a fire occurring within a specific area, (2) the expected fire effects if a fire did occur, 

and (3) value of the area (Miller and others 2000). The 

workshop group liked this conceptual model because it 

helped clarify the issues involved in making the go/nogo decision and provided a logical and defensible set of 

guidelines for decision-making.

Wildland Fire Use Objectives

There was extensive discussion about the use of 

wildland fire for fundamentally different objectives. 

We encountered some confusion because several of the 

workshop participants felt that WFU was synonymous 

with natural process objectives. For example, one participant commented, “With fuels management, the end 

result is the objective of reduced fuels, and with WFU, 

the end result is allowing natural processes. Strategic fuels treatment is very different by nature than letting fire 

romp around.” Other group members disagreed with 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 13

��������

������������

�����������

����������

�����������

��������

����������

�������������

�������

�������

����

��������� �������

����������

����� ��������

������

������

������

����������

������

����

����������������

�����������������

�����

�������������������������

�������������������

���������

�������

�������������������������

��������

�����

�������������������

��������������������

������������

��������������������� ����������������

this statement because of the expanding role of WFU 

that is currently endorsed by federal policy. The group 

agreed that to date, most natural ignitions have been restricted to use within designated wilderness areas and 

national parks for the objective of allowing natural processes, but the Federal Wildland Fire Policy expands the 

role of WFU to explicitly include fuels management: 

“Wildland fire may be used to accomplish a number of 

resource management purposes, from the reduction of 

fuel hazards to achieving specific responses from firedependent plant species.” WFU has most often been 

applied in places where the primary land management 

goal is ecosystem preservation. As WFU is applied to 

other areas, the objectives for its implementation need 

to be consistent with the resource management objectives of those areas. For example, these objectives may 

include wildlife habitat, water yield, forage production, 

or fuel reduction. Several members of the group pointed 

out that in the past, fuels management may have been 

regarded as fundamentally different from WFU, but that 

the real difference was simply the land management 

goals. The objective for WFU will ultimately derive 

from land management goals.

Through the discussion, the group concluded that although land management goals and objectives drive the 

actions taken, it didn’t matter whether WFU was used 

for the objective of managing fuels or allowing natural processes. In either case, an evaluation of risks and 

benefits was necessary. As one attendee commented, 

“Management objectives will drive management actions. I want to understand the risks and benefit of either 

prescribed fire or wildland fire use actions. It doesn’t 

matter which.” Another participant made the point that 

the three legs of fire management (suppression, prescribed fire, and WFU) all required an evaluation of 

the risks and benefits, and an assessment of the consequences of action vs. no-action. The group agreed that 

the conceptual framework we presented applied equally 

well to suppression, prescribed fire, and WFU. We adopted it to help structure and focus many of the ideas 

that were raised in later discussions.

Information Needs

After the discussions on evaluating risks and benefits and WFU objectives, the group created a list of 

Figure 5. Conceptual framework for evaluating the risks 

and benefits of wildland fire.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

Table 8. Availability of critical information items that affect the evaluation of risks and benefits for strategic planning at the Forest 

or project level. Availability was assigned to one of five levels ranging from low (L) to moderate (M) to high (H).

Availability

 Information item L bM bH Comments

Fire Items 

Historical weather X

Location of fire X

Land and fire management objectives X

Fire danger rating (seasonality + departure) X

Fire behavior System dependent 

Expected fire effects (weeds, soil, wildlife, etc.) X

Items of Comparison Between Historic and Current Fire Regimes

Intensity /severity X

Fire return interval X System dependent

Size X

Size over time X

Occurrence pattern (periodicity) X

Time of season (fuels moisture, ecological effects) X

Fuels complex (horizontal/vertical) X

Species composition X

Land use practices (historic) X

Condition class X

Social Items

Air quality (nuisance, visibility) X

Aesthetics X

Commodity/non-commodity limitations (private property, cultural sites, X

 recreation, wildlife values)

Political pressure X Depends

Changes in public expectations for the land (agency understanding of public values) X

Public safety X

Differences in current land use (different uses + public perceptions) X

Consequences of failure (effects, management, social) X

Managerial Items1,2

Public/ agency/ employee understanding of policy and effects X

Management capacity (appropriate staffing, supervisory capability, resources) X

Administrative boundaries (proximity to boundary) X

Employee safety X

Desired Information Items

Fuels map (detailed, accurate, dynamic) with attribute data X

Vegetation map (detailed, accurate, dynamic) with attribute data that derives X

 fuels and wildlife habitat requirements

Probabilistic pixel-specific daily weather streams X

Multi-year drought index (10 yrs) X

Detailed map of cultural sites with zoom in ability and susceptibility to fire X

Detailed map of improvements (i.e., structures) with zoom in feature and X

 susceptibility to fire

Detailed map of T&E with attribute data X

Detailed map of weeds X

Model of noxious weed / invasive exotic/ type conversion potential X

Disturbance history X

Fire regimes Depends

Knowledge and predictive model of fire effects X

Historical vegetation and animal dynamics X

How to achieve natural fire effects in current unnatural fuels X

Probability of co-occurring fire weather, ignition, fuel conditions (probability of X

 management opportunities)

Value of non commodity resources X

Long term consequences of management decisions and actions X

Good fire behavior prediction in rangeland/woodland (non forest, non grass) fuels X

1

Risk aversion/posture/tolerance was discussed as being highly important, but not suitable for this list.

2

Need for monitoring was discussed, but not added to the list. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 15

information needed to evaluate the risks and benefits 

for strategic fire and fuels planning. It was agreed that 

a single list of information needs would suffice for multiple WFU objectives. The group initially brainstormed 

a list of items that affect strategic fuels management and 

WFU decisions. These fell into five general categories 

which we used to facilitate and organize discussion: (1) 

fire items, (2) items of comparison between historic and 

current fire regimes, (3) social items, (4) managerial 

items, and (5) desired or “wishful” information items. 

This last category included information that might not 

be very realistic or feasible to currently obtain, but that 

would be useful for fire planning. In all, participants 

identified 83 items that affect strategic fuels management and WFU decisions (Appendix D).

The group then narrowed this expansive list to include only those information items that affect the

evaluation of risks and benefits for strategic planning 

at the project level. Each item was scrutinized and discussed by the group and a decision was made to include 

or omit the item. In almost all cases this was a consensus 

decision, and in cases where there was disagreement, we 

included the item rather than deleting it. As a result of 

this refinement process, the group reduced the list of 83 

to 46 items (table 8). Items were dropped from the list 

for three major reasons. First, many items were determined to be solely tactical in nature rather than strategic. 

For example, weather forecasts are needed for tactical 

decisions but not for strategic planning. Second, several items affected fire and fuels management decisions 

but did not affect the evaluation of risks and benefits, 

so they were dropped. For example, the “Not In My 

Back Yard (NIMBY)” attitude and a manager’s risk 

posture may each ultimately influence fire management 

decisions, but neither directly affects the strategic evaluation of risks and benefits. Finally, several items were 

determined to be redundant and were subsumed by others. For example, “climate” was dropped from the list 

because it was seen as redundant with “historical weather.” The separate items of private property, commodity 

values, cultural resources, and recreation were aggregated into a single entry under Social Items (table 8): 

“Commodity/non-commodity limitations (private property, cultural sites, recreation, wildlife values).”

Critical information needs that are currently not being met are of special concern and may represent new 

priorities for fire research. As a final task, the group 

collectively rated the availability of each of the information items as low, moderate, or high (table 8). A few 

items could not be rated because the group felt that the 

availability of these information items varied too much 

by ecosystem or by the specific management situation. 

These items were annotated as “system dependent.” 

In general, items in the fire category were considered 

by the group to be more available than other information categories. Items of comparison between historic 

and current fire regimes were considered by the group 

to be relatively unavailable. The items in the “Desired 

information” category were considered to be the least 

available on average.

Summary

Through a combination of presentations and group 

discussions we explored the challenges of fire and fuels 

management and began to outline the most critical information needs for meeting those challenges. Our focus 

was on the information needed to strategically evaluate 

the risks and benefits of wildland fire to support the go/

no-go decision.

The group of managers attending this workshop 

agreed that there are not enough acres being burned 

(either with prescribed fire or WFU) to accomplish 

objectives of fuel reduction or restoration of natural 

processes. The use of fire is limited and constrained 

by a variety of factors including: a rapidly changing 

WUI, administrative boundaries, conflicting resource 

objectives, risk-averse managers, and lack of available 

resources. Given the complexity of the management 

environment and the time constraints on many management decisions, the group felt that pre-planning would 

be essential for substantially increasing the number of 

acres burned. These managers agreed that this planning needs to become increasingly strategic and should 

involve a thorough assessment of both the risks and benefits of wildland fire.

The implementation of WFU for objectives other 

than allowing natural processes was a source of confusion because the notion of using natural ignitions for 

fuel reduction is still a new one. In discussing the use of 

wildland fire for fuel reduction or other resource objectives, we found that it was essential to distinguish the 

WFU strategy or tool from the management objective.

The list of information items that were compiled at 

the workshop represents critical information needs for 

strategic fire and fuels planning. The information items 

rated as having high availability indicate information 

needs that are currently being met. These include information related to safety and fire behavior or fire danger. 

The information items that were rated as having low 

availability deserve particular attention because they 

indicate management needs that are currently unmet. 

These include information about how current fire regimes differ from historic regimes.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

Many important issues were discussed in a short period of time during the workshop and the resulting list 

of information needs should be considered preliminary. 

Although a different collection of people would have 

compiled a different list of information needs, we suspect that the major points raised in discussions would 

have been raised in most other groups. This list can 

serve as a launching point for more refined investigations, as well as for prioritizing research efforts.

Management Implications

Fire Management Challenges

The managers we contacted through the questionnaire 

and the two-day workshop expected to see an increase in 

the amount of WFU in their management areas. Whereas 

most of the WFU in the past had the objective of allowing natural processes (Parsons and others 1986; Agee 

1995), the current federal fire policy supports WFU as 

a tool for a variety of resource management objectives, 

including fuels management (USDA and USDI 1995). 

If this policy is successfully implemented and WFU is 

applied as a fuels treatment strategy, we expect to see 

the addition of WFU programs to areas outside the designated wilderness and national parks where they have 

been traditionally confined. The extension of WFU to 

include objectives other than allowing natural processes may initially cause some confusion among fire and 

resource managers. The specific management objectives for WFU will tier from the land management goals 

for the area--clearly defining these will be essential for 

avoiding confusion and ambiguities in planning.

The results from the questionnaire and the workshop 

indicate that smoke management poses a significant 

challenge to managers with WFU programs. The smoke 

produced by both prescribed fire and wildland fire can 

compromise air quality (Sandberg and others 2002) 

and can deteriorate the public support for fire and fuels management programs (Weldon 1996). Although 

the adverse impacts from smoke can be mitigated if the 

burning takes place under particular weather conditions 

(Sandberg 1988), these narrow windows of opportunity 

constrain the acreage that can be treated for fuels reduction and often occur during the height of the firefighting 

season when staffing is not available. Barrett and others (2000) and Cleaves and others (2000) reported that 

factors such as weather and air quality currently limit 

prescribed fire programs the most. Barrett and others 

(2000) suggested that the manager’s concern is not so 

much whether to use prescribed fire or how much, but 

rather how to prioritize and strategically plan the fires 

to achieve desired results. We expect WFU programs to 

face similar constraints.

Results also indicated that funding was a major constraint to achieving management objectives. Many of 

the questionnaire respondents specifically mentioned 

the difficulty of planning and administering fire management programs in the midst of annual budget fluctuations 

and uncertain future funding. We found that managers 

were concerned about adequate funding as well as having sufficient flexibility to use those funds. This finding 

is consistent with the results of two surveys on prescribed fire programs (Barrett and others 2000, Cleaves 

and others 2000), both of which found that funding was 

the third most important constraint (following weather 

and air quality concerns) to prescribed fire programs. 

The policy review in 2001 found that while budget 

structures had improved somewhat since the 1995 policy was adopted, overall funding was still inadequate to 

implement the policy (USDA and USDI 2001).

Staffing was also cited as a serious constraint to 

the accomplishment of fire and fuels management 

objectives. In addition to a general lack of personnel, inadequate training and expertise of employees was often 

described as an important barrier. The existing workforce is currently perceived to be insufficient to address 

the complexities of today’s fire management environment. The 2001 policy review also recognized that the 

need for qualified personnel to implement fire and fuels 

management programs has largely been unmet (USDA 

and USDI 2001).

As use of wildland fire increases, so will the number 

of challenges that fire and fuels managers face. Conflicts 

with management objectives such as smoke management 

and protection of threatened or endangered species are 

bound to intensify with increased WFU. Issues of inadequate funding and staffing are not likely to be resolved 

quickly. Furthermore, as the WUI expands, so may the 

diversity of social values that can be impacted by increased WFU (Burns and others 2003).

Strategic Planning Solutions

To meet the challenges of restoring the natural role of 

fire and reducing existing fuel hazards, managers must 

become increasingly strategic with their fuels management programs and their decisions to allow wildland 

fire. Fire management has its roots in tactical operations, 

and information developed for tactical purposes may 

prove to be insufficient for strategic planning. For example, while information related to firefighter safety is 

paramount to supporting incident management decisions 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 17

(Butler and Cohen 1998), it is not sufficient information 

for strategic decision-making. Strategic decision-making 

needs to consider the short- and long-term consequences of management actions on a wide variety of values 

and resources. Such an assessment may need to be done 

across large landscapes and across agency boundaries. 

Given the complexities involved, this strategic planning 

and assessment must be done well in advance of the start 

of a wildland fire (Poncin 1995).

The fire management plan can serve as the strategic 

planning document for this pre-planning and assessment process (Miller 2003). We suggest that effective 

strategic fire management planning requires: (1) information on benefits and risks to a wide variety of values, 

(2) information at landscape scales, and (3) a long-term 

perspective.

Traditional risk assessment approaches that focus 

solely on the negative impacts of fire (i.e., risks) will 

be inadequate for supporting the use of wildland fire. 

The risks and benefits to a wide spectrum of social and 

ecological values must be considered. Responses to the 

questionnaire indicated that the type of values present 

in an area do indeed influence the decision whether or 

not to suppress a wildland fire (e.g., table 1). The spectrum of values that need to be considered will widen as 

WFU is applied to areas other than designated wilderness that have diverse resource management objectives. 

The managers who participated in the workshop wanted 

to understand the advantages and disadvantages (i.e., the 

risks and benefits) of “action” and “no-action” management alternatives.

Management activities traditionally have focused on 

the scale of a single forest stand and the majority of tools 

that are currently used in fire and fuels management 

were developed at this scale (e.g., BEHAVE). Fires can 

spread across great distances, however, and across political and jurisdictional boundaries. Managers are now 

being asked to manage for multiple objectives (Cleaves 

and others 2000, Hann and Bunnell 2001) across large 

landscapes of interconnecting stands and habitats 

(Barrett and others 2000). Clearly, strategic planning 

will need to examine larger landscapes. Our findings 

suggest that the availability of needed information at 

these landscape scales has lagged behind management 

needs. The relatively recent emergence of GIS technology has the potential to rapidly close this gap. Although 

most of the managers we questioned used spatial data in 

a GIS, they may not be using these data to their fullest 

potential. For example, the landscape fire spread model 

FARSITE was not used nearly as often as the non-spatial 

fire behavior model BEHAVE.

GIS technology can provide managers with spatially 

explicit information on the risks and benefits of fire for 

entire landscapes. Managers participating in the workshop expressed a need for highly detailed, spatially 

explicit information on a variety of values and features 

that could be accessed via a simple mouse-click on a 

map. The need for detailed information on fuels, vegetation, cultural sites, structural improvements, threatened 

and endangered species, and weeds was specifically expressed. Although this sophistication is not currently 

available, continued advancements in GIS and computer 

technologies could allow this need to be satisfied in the 

not-too-distant future.

A long-term perspective of the future is also a key 

component to effective strategic planning and the managers participating in the workshop indicated a need for 

understanding the long-range impacts of their decisions. 

The most ecologically important and beneficial effects 

of wildland fire often occur over a much longer time 

frame than the more easily assessed immediate firstorder fire effects (e.g., Bisson and others 2003). The 

lack of a long-term perspective will almost certainly result in short-term risks and benefits overpowering the 

long-term consequences in the evaluation of risks and 

benefits. Tools that can project consequences of management plans and decisions into the future will be 

required so that long-term consequences can be considered and can enter into the decision-making process.

Strategic planning efforts can also benefit from a 

long-term perspective of the past. One of the best ways 

of understanding the current state and dynamics of an 

ecosystem is through a comparison with historic conditions (Swetnam and others 1999). Information allowing 

the comparison between historic and current fire regimes was identified as a critical need at the workshop 

and this type of information was also recognized as being unavailable. Obviously, if information is unavailable 

or inaccessible to a manager, it cannot be used to support 

decisions. Indeed, according to managers responding to 

the questionnaire, information on pre-settlement fire 

regimes is less often used to support planning and management than more recent fire history information.

Linking Land Management and 

Fire Management

The foundation for fire management is risk management (USDA and USDI 1995), and the key to sound risk 

management is strategic fire management planning that 

is integrated with the land management planning process (Hann and Bunnell 2001). Many of the results from 
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

the questionnaire varied according to the primary land 

management objective, which suggests that fire and fuels management currently do support land management 

goals to some degree. However, the managers participating in the workshop indicated that there is only a 

weak functional linkage between land management and 

fire management planning. They expressed the need for 

tools and information that would allow them to understand how fire and fuels management would affect other 

land and resource management goals.

We suggest that decision support tools for fire and 

fuels management should be developed that project consequences of decisions into the future in the context of 

land management goals. For example, one of the consequences of suppressing an ignition may be to increase the 

land area in an older forest age class. Computer models 

that simulate vegetation dynamics (Chew 1995; Keane 

and others 1997; Beukema and others 2003) could be 

used to map the cumulative consequences of suppression decisions in terms of forest age classes across the 

landscape. Consequences of WFU or fuel management 

programs could similarly be projected into the future 

and mapped. These maps could then be compared to 

the ecological targets or “desired future conditions” 

described in the land management plan, allowing managers to assess how different fire management strategies 

will make progress towards or away from long-range 

land management goals.

Conclusion

The direction of the most recent federal fire policy, 

in combination with current fuel hazards, condition of 

fire-dependent ecosystems, and growing wildland urban interface, has presented a complex set of challenges 

to wildland fire and fuels managers. We sought to better understand these challenges and to identify the types 

of information that managers require to address these 

challenges. We used a questionnaire and convened a 

workshop to determine the types of information that fire 

and fuels managers currently use, identify the challenges that many managers face, and understand the most 

important information needs for strategic fuels management and wildland fire use (WFU).

Based on the results from the questionnaire and workshop, we expect an increase in the use of wildland fire 

and application of WFU to some areas outside designated wilderness and national parks. However, we expect 

that these increases will be moderate due to a variety 

of constraints that are likely to continue to limit the 

use of wildland fire. These constraints include smoke 

impacts on air quality, inadequate and uncertain funding, 

and inadequate staffing. Conflicts with other resource 

management objectives, administrative boundaries and 

considerations of the wildland urban interface present 

additional constraints on the use of wildland fire.

The magnitude and scale of today’s fire management 

challenges will require strategic fire and fuels management planning. Effective strategic planning will require 

different information than fire and fuels managers have 

relied upon in the past for tactical operations. Strategic 

approaches need to be based upon a thorough evaluation of the risks and benefits of fire. This evaluation will 

need to consider large landscapes and long-term consequences of management actions. We also suggest that 

new decision support tools and modeling approaches 

will be needed to address long-term consequences of 

management actions to different resource values and to 

functionally tie fire and fuels management to the land 

management goals for the area.

Acknowledgments

We greatly appreciate the thoughtful comments and 

instructive feedback from fire and fuels management 

staff who responded to the questionnaire and participated in the workshop. Paul Gleason, MaryBeth Keifer, 

Tobin Kelley and Erin Law provided valuable feedback 

on early versions of the questionnaire. Anne Black and 

Greg Aplet provided helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

Agee, J.K. 1995. Alternatives for implementing fire policy. 

Pages 107-116 in J.K. Brown, R.W. Mutch, C.W. Spoon, 

R.H. Wakimoto, tech. coords., Proceedings: symposium on 

fire in wilderness and park management; March 30-April 

1, 1993; Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station.

Barney, Richard J. 1979. Wildland fire research needs in 

the West: Forest Service managers’ views. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-GTR-63. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station.

Barrett, T. M., Jones, J. G., and Wakimoto, R. H. 2000. USDA 

Forest Service use of spatial information in planning 

prescribed fires. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 15: 

200-207.

Beukema, S.J., Kurz, W.A., Klenner, W., Merzenich, J., and 

M. Arbaugh. 2003. Applying TELSA to assess alternative 

management scenarios. In: Arthaud, G.J., Barrett, T.M., 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 19

tech. comp. Systems analysis in forest resources, eighth 

symposium: proceedings; 2000 September 27-30; 

Snowmass Village, CO. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers: 145-154.

Bisson, P.A., Rieman, B.E., Luce, C., Hessburg, P.F., Lee, 

D.C., Kershner, J.L., Reeves, G.H., Gresswell, R.E. 

2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: 

current knowledge and key questions. Forest Ecology and 

Management 178: 213-229.

Burns, S., Porter-Norton, M., Mosher, M., and Richard, T. 

2003. People and fire in western Colorado, a working 

report. Durango, CO: Office of Community Services, Fort 

Lewis College. 74 p.

Butler, B.W., and Cohen, J.D. 1998. Firefighter safety zones: 

how big is big enough? Fire Management Notes 58:13-16.

Chew, J. D. 1995. Development of a system for simulating 

vegetative patterns and processes at landscape 

scales. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 182 p. 

Dissertation.

Cleaves, D. A., Haines, T. K., and Martinez, J. 2000. 

Influences on prescribed burning activity in the National 

Forest System. In: Fire and forest ecology: innovative 

silviculture and vegetation management, 21st Tall Timbers 

fire ecology conference: proceedings; Tallahassee, FL. Tall 

Timbers Research Station: 170-177.

Evison, B. 1985. What information is needed for wilderness 

fire management? Pages 299-301 in Proceedings: 

Symposium and Workshop on Wilderness Fire. General 

Technical Report INT-182. Ogden, UT: Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Hann, W. J. and Bunnell, D. L. 2001. Fire and land 

management planning and implementation across multiple 

scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10: 389-

403.

Keane, Robert .E., Long, D.G., Basford, D., and Levesque, 

B.A. 1997. Simulating vegetation. In: GIS 97, 11th 

annual symposium on geographic information systems - 

integrating spatial information technologies for tomorrow: 

proceedings; 1997 February 17-20; Vancouver, British 

Columbia, Canada. GIS World, Inc.: 310-315

Miller, C. 2003. Wildland fire use: a wilderness perspective 

on fuel management. Pages 379-386 in Omi, P.N., and 

Joyce, L.A., tech. eds. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological 

restoration: Conference proceedings; 2002 16-18 April; 

Fort Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Miller, C., Landres, P. B., and Alaback, P. B. 2000. Evaluating 

the risks and benefits of wildland fire at landscape scales. 

In: Neuenschwander, L. F., Ryan, K. C., tech. eds. Joint 

Fire Science Conference and Workshop: proceedings; 

1999 June 15-17; Boise, ID. Moscow, ID: University of 

Idaho: 78-87.

Parsons, D.J., Graber, D.M., Agee, J.K., van Wagtendonk, 

J.W. 1986. Natural fire management in national parks. 

Environmental Management 10: 21-24.

Poncin, D.E. 1995. Prescribed natural fire strategies and 

tactics. Pages 133-135 in J.K. Brown, R.W. Mutch, C.W. 

Spoon, R.H. Wakimoto, tech. coords., Proceedings: 

symposium on fire in wilderness and park management; 

March 30-April 1, 1993; Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR320. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Sandberg, D.V. 1988. Emission reduction for prescribed forest 

burning. Pages 372-386 in Mathai, V.C., Stonefield, D.H., 

eds. Transactions—PM-10: implementation of standards, 

an APCA/EPA International Specialty Conference. 1988 

February 23-24; San Francisco, CA. Pittsburgh, PA: Air 

Pollution Control Association.

Sandberg, D.V., Ottmar, R.D., Peterson, J.L., and Core, J. 

2002. Wildland fire on ecosystems: effects of fire on air. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 5. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Schuster, E. G., Cleaves, D. A., and Bell, E. F. 1997. 

Analysis of USDA Forest Service fire-related expenditures 

1970-1995. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-230. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station.

Swetnam, T. W., Allen, C. D., and Betancourt, J. L. 1999. 

Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for 

the future. Ecological Applications. 9: 1189-1206.

USDA and USDI. 1995. Federal wildland fire policy. [Online] 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/wdfire.htm [August 

16, 2002].

USDA and USDI. 2001. Review and update of the 1995 

federal wildland fire policy. [Online] Available: http://

www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/ [December 15, 2003].

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1999. Western National 

Forests: A cohesive strategy is needed to address 

catastrophic wildfire threats. U.S. General Accounting 

Office GAO/RCED-99-65. 60 pp., P.O. Box 37050; 

Washington, DC 20013; http://www.gao.gov.

Weldon, L.A. 1996. Dealing with public concerns in restoring 

fire to the forest. Pages 56-58 in Hardy, C.C., Arno, S.F., eds. 

The use of fire in forest restoration. Gen. Tech. Rep. INTGTR-341. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Zimmerman, T. and Bunnell, D.L. 1998. Wildland and 

prescribed fire management policy, implementation 

procedures reference guide. National Interagency Fire 

Center, Boise, ID.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

Appendix A. Questionnaire
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 21

SURVEY OF INFORMATION NEEDS FOR MANAGING

THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF WILDLAND FIRE

The purpose of this survey is to identify the critical information you use and need to manage 

wildland fuels and fire. Your response will help us build an effective and useful wildland 

fire decision support tool as part of a project funded by the USDA/USDI Joint Fire Science 

Program. Although you may have completed other fire management surveys in recent years, this 

survey is substantially different in focus and scope and is a valuable complement to previous 

survey efforts. 

Where survey questions ask for quantitative numbers, please give your best estimate; precise 

values are not necessary. We designed this survey to minimize writing, but if you would like to 

elaborate on any of your answers, please use the space provided or another sheet of paper. All 

your responses will be held in strict confidence. If you would like a copy of the survey results, 

please print your name and address on the back of the return envelope. Please do not put this 

information on the survey itself. 

If any of the questions are confusing or if you would like more information about this project, 

please contact Carol Miller at cmiller/rmrs@fs.fed.us or (970) 498-1387. There is additional 

information on our project to develop a wildland fire decision support tool at the end of this 

survey. 

You may already have received an identical survey in electronic form, and if you prefer 

to respond electronically, please disregard this paper version. If you have not received an 

electronic version, but would like one, please send your request to the email address above. 

Thank you in advance for your help and for returning the completed survey by March 10, 2000. 

Respectfully,

Carol Miller

School of Forestry, The University of Montana

and USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO

Peter Landres

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT

Paul Alaback

School of Forestry, The University of Montana
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

1. Limitations to wildland fire use.

Please rate each of the following factors according to how often it influences decisions to suppress wildland fire in your 

management area. By “management area” we are referring to the area for which you are primarily responsible, such as a Ranger 

District, National Forest, National Park, or Region. Rate as: 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, and 3 = always. Use N/A if the 

factor is not applicable to your situation. 

Resources Threatened Fire Behavior

_____Threats to developments and facilities Existence of heavy fuels, which may 

Threats to property in the urban interface or private _____increase threats to resources and safety

_____ inholdings _____Weather forecasts indicate worsening conditions

_____Threats to timber values _____Fire danger is too high

_____Threats to recreational or scenic values _____Extreme crown fire potential

_____Threats to cultural sites _____Multiple ignitions and/or nearby fire activity

_____Threat of soil erosion or degraded stream water quality Overhead and Administration

_____Threats to wildlife habitat Insufficient staffing and resources due to fire activity

_____Threats to endangered/threatened species _____and preparedness at the national level

_____Threats to forest health (for example, potential for insect Multiple ignitions and/or nearby fire activity have

_____ outbreaks may increase in fire-damaged trees) _____overextended available staff and resources

_____Threat of post-fire exotic weed invasion Insufficient time or staff to prepare required

_____Threats to other unique natural resources _____documentation

Safety _____Absence of fire management plan (FMP)

Threats to human life in the urban interface or private _____Lack of interagency cooperation across boundaries

_____ inholdings _____Conflicting management objectives

_____Threats to visitor safety

_____Threats to firefighter safety

External Influences

_____Controversial wildland fire management policy

_____Political pressures and/or public opposition to fire

_____Smoke emissions and air quality issues

_____Other (please describe:)

Is there an attempt to assess these factors? If so, which ones, and how is it done? 

Additional comments:
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 23

IF ANY PART OF YOUR MANAGEMENT AREA IS MANAGED FOR WILDLAND FIRE USE, 

PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 2 AND 3; OTHERWISE, GO TO QUESTION 4.

2. Benefits of wildland fire use.

Please rate each of the following benefits of wildland fire according to how often it influences decisions to use wildland fire in 

your management area. Rate as: 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, and 3 = always. Use N/A if the benefit is not applicable 

to your situation.

_____Reduced fuel hazards _____Enhanced naturalness or wildness qualities

_____Reduced undesirable fire effects in the future _____Allowing natural processes

_____Reduced crown fire potential _____Enhanced plant vigor and growth

Increased number and variety of future management _____Increased regeneration

options due to fuel hazard reduction and creation _____Reduced fire suppression costs

_____ of fuelbreaks Reduced smoke emissions from future

Improved resource conditions (for example, stand _____large unwanted wildland fires

_____ thinning, reset succession)

Improved wildlife habitat (for example, increased 

_____ herbaceous forage, snag creation)

_____Other (describe:) ________________________________________________________________________________

Is there an attempt to assess these potential benefits? If so, which ones, and how is it done?

3. Consequences of continued fire suppression.

Please rate each of the following consequences of continued fire suppression according to how often it influences decisions 

to use or suppress wildland fire in your management area. Rate as: 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, and 3 = always. Use 

N/A if the consequence is not applicable to your situation.

_____Increased fuel hazards Degradation of ecosystem or forest health 

Increased future threats to life, property, and other (for example, potential for insect outbreaks may 

_____ resource values _____increase with increasing stand densities)

_____Increased crown fire potential _____Increased fire suppression costs

Reduced management options in the future (for example, Increased smoke emissions from future

_____ narrower windows for prescribed burning) _____large unwanted wildland fires

Reduction of fire-dependent habitat (for example, loss of 

_____ ponderosa pine or aspen due to succession)

_____Other (describe:) _______________________________________________________________________________

Is there an attempt to assess these consequences? If so, which ones, and how is it done? 
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

4. Management objectives. 

What is the major focus of your management area’s land management goals (select all that apply)? By “management area” 

we are referring to the area for which you are primarily responsible, such as a District, Forest, Park, or Region.

_____Recreation

_____Commodity

_____Cultural/historical heritage

_____Ecosystem restoration/preservation

_____Wildlife

_____Other (describe:)

If you chose more than one, please indicate their priority by ranking them numerically, starting with 1 = most important: 

_____Recreation

_____Commodity

_____Cultural/historical heritage

_____Ecosystem restoration/preservation

_____Wildlife

_____Other (describe:) ______________________________________________________________________________

Additional comments:

5. Management strategies.

Which of the following fire management strategies are used in your management area (the area for which you are 

responsible, such as a District, Forest, Park, or Region)? 

_____Full suppression

_____Confinement

_____Wildland fire use (including former PNF and prescribed fire)

_____Other: _______________________________________________________________________________________

Estimate the percentage of fires (or fire starts) that have been managed by each of these strategies during the past 10 years.

_____% : Full suppression

_____% : Confinement

_____% : Wildland fire use (including former PNF and prescribed fire)

_____% : Other:

Try to guess the percentage of fires (or fire starts) that will be managed by each of these strategies in the next 1-3 years.

_____% : Full suppression

_____% : Confinement

_____% : Wildland fire use (including former PNF and prescribed fire)

_____% : Other: ___________________________________________________________________________________

Additional comments:
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 25

6. Fuels treatment program.

Does your management area currently have an active fuels treatment program to reduce or treat fuel hazards? By 

“management area” we are referring to the area for which you are primarily responsible, such as a District, Forest, Park, or 

Region. 

_____Yes _____No (SKIP TO QUESTION 7)

A. Please rate each of the following fuels treatment objectives according to how often it is the primary objective for a fuel 

treatment in your management area. Rate as 0= never, 1= sometimes, 2=often, and 3=always. 

_____Reduce fuel loadings _____Simulate the effects of natural disturbance

_____Reduce potential suppression costs _____Restore or maintain historic scenes

_____Reduce potential damage from wildfire _____Resource enhancement

_____Reduce future wildfire size _____Other:_____________________________________

_____Reduce future wildfire intensity

B. Which treatment methods or strategies are currently included in the fuels treatment program in your management area 

(select all that apply)?

_____Naturally ignited fire

_____Prescribed fire

_____Cuttings and mechanical treatments

_____Combination of prescribed fire/cutting/mechanical treatments

_____Herbicide

_____Grazing

_____Other:__________________________________________________________________________________________

Of the acres that have been treated to date, estimate the percentage that have been treated by each method:

_____% Naturally ignited fire

_____% Prescribed fire

_____% Cuttings and mechanical treatments

_____% Combination of prescribed fire/cutting/mechanical treatments

_____% Herbicide

_____% Grazing

_____% Other:_______________________________________________________________________________________

C. Please rate each of the following factors according to how often it is considered when prioritizing fuels treatments across 

the landscape in your management area. Rate as: 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, and 3 = always.

_____Economic feasibility of treating the area

_____Administrative designation of the area as wilderness

_____Proximity of area to wilderness boundary, urban interface, or private inholdings

_____Presettlement fire frequency and number of fire cycles missed

_____Current fuel hazards

_____Likelihood of severe, large wildfires

_____Probability of ignition

_____Type of values present that may be threatened by wildfire

_____Vegetation type

_____Topographic position

_____Post-treatment recovery potential of vegetation

_____Other:_________________________________________________________________________________________

D. General background

How many years has your area had an active fuels treatment management program?_____years

Approximately how many acres are planned for 

treatment each year in this program (estimate an average)?____________________________________________________

Approximately how many acres have actually been 

treated each year (give a range, and estimate an average)?_____________________________________________________
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

E. If your “actual” acres ever lag behind “planned” acres, please rate each of the following factors according to how often it is 

responsible for this discrepancy. Rate as: 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, and 3 = always.

_____Inadequate resources (money, personnel) to conduct treatments

_____Unsuitable weather conditions for treatments

_____Air quality regulations

_____NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) requirements

_____Political pressures

_____Lack of internal support or cooperation

_____Public opposition to treatments and treatment effects

_____Other:__________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional comments:

7. Tools and information.

Which of the following information and/or tools are currently used to support the fire and fuels management decisions in your 

management area (select all that apply)?

A. Fire history data

_____post-settlement fire records and observations (for example, fire atlas data)

_____pre-settlement data (for example, from fire-scarred trees)

B. Mapped data in GIS format (for example, ARC/Info, ArcView, GRASS)

_____fire occurrence records (fire perimeters)

_____ignitions

_____vegetation

_____fuels

_____topography

_____roads and trails

_____residences and other structures

_____other:___________________________________________________________________________________________

C. Mapped data not in GIS format (for example, paper maps)

_____fire occurrence records (fire perimeters)

_____ignitions

_____vegetation

_____fuels

_____topography

_____roads and trails

_____residences and other structures

_____other:___________________________________________________________________________________________

D. Computerized databases

_____FEIS (Fire Effects Information System)

_____NIFMID (National Integrated Fire Management Interagency Database)

_____Other computerized databases:_______________________________________________________________________
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 27

E. Computerized modeling tools

Fire behavior/spread:

_____BEHAVE

_____FARSITE

_____NEXUS

_____RERAP (Rare Event Risk Assessment Process)

_____FBP (Canadian Forest Fire Behavior Prediction System)

_____Other fire spread/behavior models:___________________________________________________________________

Fire danger/fire weather:

_____AFFIRMS (Administrative and Forest Fire Information Retrieval and Management System)

_____CLIMATOLOGY

_____FIRDAT (or PCFIRDAT)

_____Firefamily+

_____MfFSF (Meteorology for Fire Severity Forecasting)

_____CFFDRS (Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System)

_____FWI (Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System)

_____Other fire danger/fire weather models:_________________________________________________________________

Fire effects:

_____CONSUME

_____EPM (Emissions Production Model)

_____FOFEM (First Order Fire Effects Model)

_____NFSPUFF

_____PLUMP

_____SASEM (Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model)

_____SIAM (Structure Ignition Assessment Model)

_____VALBOX (Ventilated Valley Box Model)

_____Other fire effects models:___________________________________________________________________________

F. Other computer tools

_____FIRES (Fire Information Retrieval and Evaluation System)

_____FORBS (Fuels Out-year Request Budgeting System)

_____FVS-FFE (Forest Vegetation Simulator - Fire and Fuels Extension)

_____IIAA (Interagency Initial Attack Assessment)

_____CHA (Personal Computer Historical Analysis)

_____WFAS (Wildland Fire Analysis System)

_____WFSA_Plus98 (Wildland Fire Situation Analysis)

_____Other computer tools:______________________________________________________________________________

G. Other tools

_____HP

_____Fire danger rating pocket cards (FDRPC)

_____Fire behavior nomograms

_____Fuel model photo series

_____Research publications

_____Other:__________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional comments:
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

8. Management challenges.

A. What is most likely to prevent attainment of your management objectives?

B. Which of your management objectives most severely conflict with each other? 

C. Is there a unique feature of your physical or social environment that makes decision-making especially difficult?

Additional comments:
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 29

9. Natural or presettlement fire regime description.

A. Tell us about your fire season.

What month does your fire season typically start?_______________________________________________________________

What month does your fire season typically end?________________________________________________________________

In which month(s) is fire activity typically the highest?___________________________________________________________

B. Indicate which of the following mean fire intervals (i.e., average time between fires) describe the presettlement fire regime(s) 

in your management area (select as many as apply).

_____0-25 years

_____25-100 years

_____100-300 years

_____300+ years

_____ I’m not sure what the presettlement fire frequency was in any part of my management area.

If you selected more than one of the fire interval categories, please try to estimate the percentage of land area that each category 

applies to. (For example, if your area had only ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine vegetation types, and was equally divided 

between the two, you might put 50% in the 0-25 and 100-300 categories, and 0% in the 25-100 and 300+ categories.)

_____% : 0-25 years

_____% : 25-100 years

_____% : 100-300 years

_____% : 300+ years

C. Indicate which of the following fire severity classes* describe the presettlement fire regime(s) in your management area 

(select all that apply). Note that this is prior to any fire suppression that may have occurred and prior to unnatural fuel 

accumulations that may exist as a result. (*We define fire severity as the total effect of fire on all plants, measured by the percent 

mortality of overstory plants. If you prefer to use a different classification scheme for fire severity, please use it, but be sure to 

define it for us.)

_____low severity: 0-30% mortality in overstory

_____moderate severity: 30-70% mortality in overstory

_____high severity: 70-100% mortality in overstory

_____I’m not sure what the presettlement fire severity was in any part of my management area.

If you selected more than one fire severity category, please try to estimate the percentage of land area each category applies to. 

_____% : low severity

_____% : moderate severity

_____% : high severity

Comments:
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004

10. What else should we know about your fire management area and your management environment?

11. Please provide the following information about yourself. Your individual responses are confidential and will not be 

identified with you.

What is your official job title?_______________________________________________________________________________

For what agency do you work?______________________________________________________________________________

What is your telephone area code? (________)

How many years have you worked in fire and/or fuels management?______years

At what level are your primary management responsibilities?

_____District 

_____Zone (2 or more districts)

_____Forest or Park 

_____State

_____Region

_____Other:_____________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU very much for your time and thoughtful responses. To receive survey results please write your name and address 

on the back of the return envelope.

Comments about this survey:
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 31

QUESTION 1 (rate 0-3)

Developments/facilities 2.19 AVERAGE

Private property 2.21 AVERAGE

Timber values 1.35 AVERAGE

Recreational/scenic values 1.43 AVERAGE

Cultural sites 1.55 AVERAGE

Soil erosion/stream water quality 1.35 AVERAGE

Wildlife habitat 1.53 AVERAGE

Endangered/threatened species 1.63 AVERAGE

Forest health 0.88 AVERAGE

Post-fire exotic weed invasion 1.07 AVERAGE

Other unique natural resources 1.14 AVERAGE

Human life in the WUI 2.15 AVERAGE

Visitor safety 1.99 AVERAGE

Firefighter safety 2.34 AVERAGE

Controversial fire policy 1.08 AVERAGE

Political/public opposition to fire 1.37 AVERAGE

Smoke and air quality 1.51 AVERAGE

Heavy fuels 1.81 AVERAGE

Weather forecasts 1.95 AVERAGE

High fire danger 1.89 AVERAGE

Crown fire potential 1.59 AVERAGE

Multiple ignitions/nearby fire 

 activity 1.74 AVERAGE

Insufficient staff—national fire 

 activity 1.56 AVERAGE

Overextended staff/resources 1.66 AVERAGE

Insufficient time/staff—

 documentation 1.14 AVERAGE

Lack of fire management plan 0.95 AVERAGE

Interagency boundaries 0.73 AVERAGE

Conflicting management objectives 0.99 AVERAGE

QUESTION 2 (rate 0-3)

Reduced fuel hazards 1.80 AVERAGE

Reduced undesirable effects 

 in future 1.77 AVERAGE

Reduced crown fire potential 1.08 AVERAGE

Increased future management 

 options 1.52 AVERAGE

Improved resource conditions 1.80 AVERAGE

Improved wildlife habitat 1.83 AVERAGE

Enhanced wildness/naturalness 1.79 AVERAGE

Allowing natural processes 2.26 AVERAGE

Enhanced vigor and growth 1.78 AVERAGE

Increased regeneration 1.32 AVERAGE

Reduced suppression costs 1.57 AVERAGE

Reduced smoke in future 1.33 AVERAGE

QUESTION 3 (rate 0-3)

Increased fuel hazards 1.74 AVERAGE

Increased future threats to values 1.71 AVERAGE

Increased crown fire potential 1.13 AVERAGE

Reduced future management 

 options 1.38 AVERAGE

Reduced fire-dependent habitat 1.77 AVERAGE

Degraded ecosystem health 1.70 AVERAGE

Increased suppression costs 1.52 AVERAGE

Increased smoke in future 1.38 AVERAGE

QUESTION 4

Major focus of land management goals

Recreation 107 TOTAL

Commodity 63 TOTAL

Cultural 73 TOTAL

Ecosystem 128 TOTAL

Wildlife 117 TOTAL

Ranking of above (1=most important)

Recreation 2.97 AVERAGE

Commodity 2.84 AVERAGE

Cultural 3.30 AVERAGE

Ecosystem 1.75 AVERAGE

Wildlife 2.32 AVERAGE

QUESTION 5

Fire management strategies used

Full suppression 140 TOTAL

Confinement 90 TOTAL

Wildland fire use 93 TOTAL

Percent of fire starts managed by each 

strategy in last 10 years

% : Full suppression 78.03 AVERAGE

% : Confinement (limited 

 suppression) 7.41 AVERAGE

% : Wildland fire use 14.52 AVERAGE

Percent of fire starts managed by each 

strategy in next 1-3 years

% : Full suppression 68.27 AVERAGE

% : Confinement (limited 

 suppression) 9.35 AVERAGE

% : Wildland fire use 22.56 AVERAGE

Appendix B. Questionnaire Summary Results
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

QUESTION 6

Active fuels treatment program

Yes 137 TOTAL

No 9 TOTAL

Fuels treatment objectives (rate 0-3)

Reduce fuel loadings 2.23 AVERAGE

Reduce potential suppression costs 1.40 AVERAGE

Reduce potential damage from 

 wildfire 1.87 AVERAGE

Reduce future wildfire size 1.60 AVERAGE

Reduce future wildfire intensity 1.81 AVERAGE

Simulate effects of natural 

 disturbance 1.72 AVERAGE

Restore/maintain historic scenes 1.05 AVERAGE

Resource enhancement 2.05 AVERAGE

Fuels treatment methods included

Naturally ignited fire 62 TOTAL

Prescribed fire 132 TOTAL

Cuttings and mechanical 113 TOTAL

Combination of prescribed fire/

 mechanical 115 TOTAL

Herbicide 43 TOTAL

Grazing 32 TOTAL

Percent acres treated to date

Naturally ignited fire 6.66 AVERAGE

Prescribed fire 60.52 AVERAGE

Cuttings and mechanical 13.05 AVERAGE

Combination of prescribed 

 fire/mechanical 14.02 AVERAGE

Herbicide 2.27 AVERAGE

Grazing 3.78 AVERAGE

Factors for prioritizing fuels treatments (rate 0-3)

Economic feasibility 2.09 AVERAGE

Administration as wilderness 1.00 AVERAGE

Proximity to wilderness 

 boundary/WUI 1.93 AVERAGE

Presettlement fire frequency 1.39 AVERAGE

Current fuel hazards 2.21 AVERAGE

Likelihood of severe wildfires 1.74 AVERAGE

Probability of ignition 1.46 AVERAGE

Type of values to be threatened 

 by wildfire 1.99 AVERAGE

Vegetation type 2.29 AVERAGE

Topographic position 1.54 AVERAGE

Post-treatment recovery potential 1.71 AVERAGE

General background

Years with active fuels 

 treatment program 17.95 AVERAGE

Acres planned each year 20052.50 AVERAGE

Actual acres treated each year 12238.12 AVERAGE

Factors responsible for actual acres 

treated less than planned (rate 0-3)

Inadequate resources 1.35 AVERAGE

Unsuitable weather conditions 1.87 AVERAGE

Air quality regulations 1.22 AVERAGE

NEPA requirements 1.05 AVERAGE

Political pressures 0.99 AVERAGE

Lack of internal support/cooperation 0.77 AVERAGE

Public opposition to treatments 0.77 AVERAGE

QUESTION 7

Fire history data

Post-settlement fire records 121 TOTAL

Pre-settlement data 95 TOTAL

Mapped data in GIS format

Fire occurrence records 104 TOTAL

Ignitions 94 TOTAL

Vegetation 117 TOTAL

Fuels 92 TOTAL

Topography 104 TOTAL

Roads and trails 111 TOTAL

Residences 83 TOTAL

Mapped data not in GIS format

Fire occurrence records 70 TOTAL

Ignitions 54 TOTAL

Vegetation 53 TOTAL

Fuels 64 TOTAL

Topography 52 TOTAL

Roads and trails 56 TOTAL

Residences 80 TOTAL

Computerized databases

FEIS 111 TOTAL

NIFMID 42 TOTAL

Fire spread/behavior models

BEHAVE 136 TOTAL

FARSITE 58 TOTAL

NExUS 16 TOTAL

RERAP 51 TOTAL

FBP 12 TOTAL

Fire danger/fire weather models

AFFIRMS 67 TOTAL

CLIMATOLOGY 34 TOTAL

FIRDAT 40 TOTAL

Firefamily+ 90 TOTAL

MfFSF 5 TOTAL

CFFDRS 11 TOTAL

FWI 9 TOTAL

Fire effects models

CONSUME 62 TOTAL

EPM 14 TOTAL

FOFEM 80 TOTAL
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 200433

NFSPUFF 25 TOTAL

PLUMP 6 TOTAL

SASEM 75 TOTAL

SIAM 2 TOTAL

VALBOx 8 TOTAL

Other computerized tools

FIRES 35 TOTAL

FORBS 43 TOTAL

FVS-FFE 10 TOTAL

IIAA 56 TOTAL

PCHA 59 TOTAL

WFAS 53 TOTAL

WFSA_Plus98 97 TOTAL

Other tools

HP 27 TOTAL

Fire danger rating cards 56 TOTAL

Fire behavior nomograms 81 TOTAL

Fuel model photo series 102 TOTAL

Research publications 98 TOTAL

QUESTION 9

Mean fire interval category

0-25 years 98 TOTAL

25-100 years 94 TOTAL

100-300 years 74 TOTAL

300+ years 34 TOTAL

 I’m not sure 11 TOTAL

Percent land area in each fire interval category

0-25 years 42.74 AVERAGE

25-100 years 30.02 AVERAGE

100-300 years 18.22 AVERAGE

300+ years 9.13 AVERAGE

Fire severity classes

Low severity 95 TOTAL

Moderate severity 83 TOTAL

High severity 67 TOTAL

I’m not sure 19 TOTAL

Percent land area in each severity class

Low severity 48.19 AVERAGE

Moderate severity 30.70 AVERAGE

High severity 21.08 AVERAGE

QUESTION 11

Years in fire/fuels management 21.09 AVERAGE

Level of management 

District 24 TOTAL

Zone (2 or more districts) 23 TOTAL

Forest or Park 64 TOTAL

State 15 TOTAL

Region 10 TOTAL

Other: 28 TOTAL
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 

Lou Ballard, Zone Fire Management Officer, United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Joe Carvelho, Forest Fire Management Officer, United States Forest Service, Salmon-Challis NF (retired)

Randy Doman, Deputy Fire Staff Officer, United States Forest Service, Nez Perce NF (retired)

Rod Dykehouse, Zone Fire Management Officer, United States Forest Service, Bridger-Teton NF

Tobin Kelley, Fuels Specialist, United States Forest Service

Jack Kirkendall, Forest Fire Management Officer, United States Forest Service, Bitterroot NF

Rich Lasko, Fire Planning and Development, United States Forest Service, Region 1

Erin Law, Wilderness Fire Specialist, United States Forest Service, Nez Perce NF

Donald Long, Research Ecologist, United States Forest Service, Fire Sciences Laboratory

Melanie Miller, Fire Ecologist, Bureau of Land Management

Wayne Mitchell, Staff Chief Pre-fire Operations and Planning, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Tim Rich, Region/State Fuels Specialist, United States Forest Service, Region 6

Darrell Schulte, Forest Fire Management Officer (acting), United States Forest Service, Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

Chuck Stanich, Fire Fuels Specialist, United States Forest Service, Bitterroot NF

Appendix C. Workshop Participants
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 35

Fire items 

Historical weather

Fire activity (local, regional, national)

Location of fire

Weather forecasts

Departure from normal conditions

Projected fire size

Administration designation

Whether fire use is allowed

Land and fire management objectives (differences in land use; changes in administrative use in response 

 to public expectations)

Air quality

Fire danger rating (seasonality + departure)

Multiple ignitions

Fire behavior

Expected fire effects (weeds, soil, wildlife, etc.)

Items of Comparison Between Historic and Current Fire Regimes

Intensity/severity

Fire return interval

Size

Size over time

Occurrence pattern (periodicity)

Time of season (fuels moisture, ecological effects)

Fuels complex (horizontal/vertical)

Species composition

Land use practices (historic)

Climate

Condition class

Social items 

Air quality (nuisance, visibility)

Aesthetics

Not In My Back Yard

Alternative perceptions of effects

Recreation limitations

Commodity/economic limitations

Perception of law/liability

Perception of ability to control (public expectations)

Public understanding of policy and effects

Perception of who is responsible?

Political pressure

Public resistance to change

Changes in public expectations for the land (agency understanding of public values)

Public safety

Differences in current land use 

Differences in public perception of current land use

Appendix D. Information Items That Affect Strategic Fuels 

Management and Wildland Fire Use Decisions
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004

Consequences of failure (effects, management, social)

Private property

Cultural sites

Wildlife, T&E

Managerial items

Fire activity

Administrative designation

Fire management objectives

Agency/employee understanding of policy and effects

Agency understanding of public values

Risk tolerance of agency/line officer

Management capacity (appropriate staffing, resources, supervisory capability)

Ability to change in response to changes in public expectations for the land

Administrative boundaries (proximity to boundary)

Employee safety

Available resources

National preparedness levels

Proximity to boundary

Consequences of failure

Risk aversion/posture

Wildlife, T&E

Cultural sites

Land management objectives

Desired information items

Fuels map (detailed, accurate, dynamic) with attribute data

Vegetation map (detailed, accurate, dynamic) with attribute data that derives fuels and wildlife 

 habitat requirements

Probabilistic pixel-specific daily weather streams

Hourly long term weather forecasts (90 day)

Multi-year drought index (10 yrs)

Detailed map of cultural sites with zoom-in-ability and susceptibility to fire

Detailed map of improvements (i.e., structures) with zoom-in-ability and susceptibility to fire

Detailed map of T&E with attribute data

Detailed map of weeds 

Model of noxious weed/invasive exotic/type conversion potential

Disturbance history

Fire regimes

Knowledge and predictive model of fire effects

Historical vegetation and animal dynamics

How to achieve natural fire effects in current unnatural fuels

Probability of co-occurring fire weather, ignition, fuel conditions (probability of management opportunities)

Value of noncommodity resources

Long term consequences of management decisions and actions

What the public wants from federal lands in 30 years

Good fire behavior prediction in rangeland/woodland (nonforest) fuels
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-127. 2004 37

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination 

in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, Room 326 W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, protection, 

and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to 

meet the needs of the National Forest managers, Federal and 

State agencies, public and private organizations, academic 

institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving 

ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource 

inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest 

engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish 

habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted 

cooperatively, and applications may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper