PRESCRIBED FIRE

AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT

IN THE SOUTH:

Conference Proceedings

September 12-14, 1984

Atlanta, Georgia

.

Dale D. Wade, Compiler
PRESCRIBED FIRE AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH:

Conference Proceedings

September 12-14, 1984

Ramada Inn Central

Atlanta, Georgia

Dale D. Wade, Compiler

Published by

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station

Asheville, North Carolina

1985

CONTENTS

Page

vi

vii

1

9

13

19

23

29

33

. 39

43

Acknowledgments. ..............................

Foreword ................................. .

Keynote Address . Bent-on H. Box. ..................... .

Session I: Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management Overviews

Program Overviews

States

Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in Texas, Louisiana and

Mississippi - BruceR.Miles... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview of Prescribed Burning and Smoke Management Programs in

Alabama, Florida and Georgia - c. w. "Bill" Moody . . . . . . . . . .

A Summary of Prescribed Burning and Smoke Management Activities in

Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina - Horace J. "Boe" Green .

Status of Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in Arkansas, Kentucky,

Oklahoma and Tennessee - Roy Ashley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Industry

A WestvZco Perspective on Prescribed Burning and Smoke Management

- William D. Baughman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Use of Prescribed Fire on Industrial Lands in the Gulf Coastal Plain

and Uplands - Richard A. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Consultant

Prescribed Fire and Consulting Foresters in the South

- L.KevilleLarson..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal_

Prescribed Fire Use by Federal Agencies in the South - Dick A. COX. . .

iii
State-of-the-Art Presentations

Smoke Management - Hugh E. Mobley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Weather, Fire Danger Rating Systems and Fire Behavior Use in Prescribed

Burning and Smoke Management in the South - John G. Shepherd . . . . . 51

Prescribed Fire--Its History, Uses, and Effects in Southern Forest

Ecosystems - David H. Van Lear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Emerging Methodologies and Techniques

Legal Implications of Prescribed Burning in the South

. William C. Siegel. ........................ . 77

Aerial Ignition --Ping-Pong Balls . J. W. Gnann ............ . 87

Aerial Ignition --Flying Drip Torch'- Grady E. Stevens. ........ . 95

Research Update

USDA Forest Service--Southern Forest Fire Laboratory

Fire Science Adaptations for the Southeastern U.S.--A Research

Update 1980-1984 - Dale D. Wade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Combustion Processes in Wildland Fuels--A Research Progress Report

1980-1985 -Charles K.McMahon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 113

Weather and Prescribed Burning--What's New? - J. T. Paul . . . . . . . 139

Universities

Fire Research in Southern Universities - Norman L. CjFlristensen . l . . 145

Session II: Research Recommendations

Presentation of Survey Information - Michael c. Long . . . . . . . . . 159

Working Group Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Group 1 . Walter Hough ...................... . 171

Group 2 . Leonard A. Kilian, Jr. ................. . 173

Group 3 . Barry F. Malac ..................... . 175

Research ConcenSUs . John M. Bethea. ............... . 177

iv
Wrap-Up Remarks

Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in the South

- Jerry A. Sesco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Appendixes

I. Conference Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

I I . List of Attendees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

These proceedings contain the written versions of presentations at the

"Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in the South" held in

Atlanta, GA, September 12-14, 1984. Sponsors were the Southern State Foresters

Association; the Prescribed Fire and Fire Effects Working Team of the National

Wildfire Coordinating Group; the USDA, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station; and Region 8 of the USDA Forest Service.

Because of Hurricane Diane, the services of North Carolina State Forester

H.J. “Bee” Green and John Shepherd of his staff were required in their home

State. Leonard Kilian, South Carolina State Forester, and Joe Clayton, USDA

Forest Service R-8, volunteered to give their respective presentations. The

Planning Committee expresses its appreciation to the scheduled speakers, moderators, group leaders, and attendees who together made the conference a success.

Thanks also to the exhibitors, to General Electric Corporation for a donation,

and to Ken Hulick of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area who organized an evening raft float.

Committee Membership

Planning Committee: Gordon Lewis, James Lunsford, Hugh Mobley, J. Hugh Ryan,

and Deborah Williams. Dale Wade and Thomas Ellis, Cochairmen.

Technical Program Committee: Thomas Ellis, Gordon Lewis, James Lunsford, Hugh

Mobley, 3. Hugh Ryan, and Deborah Williams. Dale Wade, Chairman.

Local Arrangements Committee: Betty Bush, Gordon Lewis, J. Hugh Ryan, Dale

Wade, and Deborah Williams. James Lunsford, Chairman.

Finance Committee: James Lunsford, Hugh Mobley, and 3. Hugh Ryan. Dale Wade,

Chairman.

Publication Committee: Mary Ann Bennett and Robert Biesterfeldt. Dale Wade,

Chairman.
FOREWORD

The deliberate application of fire to produce desired wild-land benefits

has evolved through the centuries into the art of prescription burning.

Southern resource managers became expert at applying this art and practiced it

for decades with few operational constraints. However, as the available land

base shrank and management became more intensive, the value of these resources

along with the costs of tending and protecting them skyrocketed. These

increases have in turn necessitated an increase in the skill and sophistication

required to scientifically administer fire treatments. As the South becomes

more urban and its environmental values change, traditional fire and smoke management practices are being reevaluated. The benefits of underburning are also

now being heralded in many other regions of North America where, 10 years ago,

fire exclusion was the goal. All too often the overzealous application of this

tool without adequate training and/or due regard to natural and human considerations has resulted in news media events which have had far-reaching implications on our ability to efficiently use fire.

Factors such as the above led to the decision to hold a symposium and

workshop to document the current prescribed fire and smoke management state of

the art and to describe emerging problem areas. Besides the ubiquitous objectives of information exchange and continuing education, the conference was

designed to attract an experienced yet diverse group of prescribed burners,

supervisors, managers, and policy makers who would jointly identify the most

serious current and near-future problems, unknowns, and ambiguities regarding

the use of fire in the South.

The Planning Committee attempted to hold conference attendance to a size

that would allow working group leaders the latitude needed to encourage full

participation while maintaining a productive atmosphere. The 150 attendees came

from all management levels representing 18 private companies, 10 State agencies,

6 Federal agencies, 7 universities, 5 consultants, and a nonprofit wild-land

conservation group.

Session I comprises invited papers that summarize current southern fire

management practices and describe emerging methodology and technology. These

papers should prove to be an excellent source book for people desiring an overview of fire use in the South during the 1980's. Session II mirrors the needs

of a wide cross section of users who will ensure that the Southern Forest Fire

Laboratory maintains the leadership role in prescribed fire research it has

acquired since its inception 25 years ago.

The papers were submitted camera-ready, which greatly facilitated the work

of the Publication Committee; please overlook the minor inconsistencies in the

format caused by this procedure.

D.D.W.

vii

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

PRESCRIBED FIRE AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH

Benton H. BoxL'

I consider this a distinct honor to be included on such an outstanding

program which will investigate all of the aspects of prescribed burning and

smoke management as they affect the environment, as well as what can and

should be done to better use this most important tool in southern forestry.

Historical evidence points out that fire has been an important part of

the American Indians' life style as well as that of the early Europeans who

settled on this continent. They used fire as a tool in their daily lives and

had no concerns about setting fires or putting them out. In fact, they often

set fires to clear underbrush, to open up the forest for better travel, to

drive game, to destroy snakes, or to aid in the production of useful plants

or crops. These frequent fires in the forests of the Southeast which occurred

over long periods of time have been recognized by ecologists (Oosting 1942,

Braun 1950, Cooper 1961) as the principal reason for the subclimax forest

communities (mainly the pine types) throughout the region. Hansbrough (1963)

reported that stockmen in the wire grass country of the South have used fire

to encourage grass for cattle since the introduction of domestic herds in the

1770's. So, fire has been an important part of the scene in the South for a

long time, and it has been only in recent times that woods burning has become

defined by some people as deviant behavior. These "uncontrolled" burns have

become a part of the daily problems faced by a host of state foresters. In

this regard, a story is told about the serious illness of an old timer in one

of the rural areas of Louisiana. Seems he was about to die and all his children

had been called to his bedside. One of his sons asked the father if there was

anything he could do for him. He said, "Yes, son. I just want to smell the

woods burn one more time." I'm afraid in the area I grew up in back in

Louisiana, there was more truth than fiction to the story.

I am pleased that both prescribed burning and smoke management are

addressed in this conference. Smoke management was defined by Dieterich (1971)

as "a unified effort to eliminate the objectionable characteristics of smoke

through improved burning techniques, recognition of optimum weather conditions

for burning, and observance of smoke-sensitive areas that would be adversely

affected by reduced visibility." When you dissect that definition, we are

saying in effect that we must be careful in using this tool; otherwise, the

public will cry out with such a loud voice that the Environmental Protection

Agency might just limit its use. This, of course, would be most detrimental

to our collective efforts.

In regard to the public's attitude toward prescribed fire, Jim Montgomery

(1976) of the Southern Forest Institute indicated that the most recent research

on the subiect shows that 7 out of 10 people are aware that fire is used as a

tool in forest management. Also, 7.3%. are against

L/ Dean, College of Forest and Recreation

University.

using fires as a tool for

Resources, Clemson
any reason. One out of four said that fires should be started only under the

most necessary circumstances. The most encouraging point of the survey came

when two-thirds of the public interviewed believed that fires should be used

whenever the forester's judgement determines it necessary. He pointed out

that, lest we get caught up in the euphoria of these positive statements,

there was an underlying concern listed by those surveyed as to the ecological

impact of fire, whether wild or prescribed. This gets us back down to earth

and, more particularly, points up the importance of the public's concern about

particulates in the atmosphere and their effects on visibility, as well as

other potential problems to flora or fauna that could arise from poorly planned

and/or executed burning.

According to McMahon (1981) EPA moderated its concerns about the impairment of visibility in areas such as Class I, which includes international

parks, national wilderness areas, and both national and memorial parks, in

its May 1980 ruling which stated:

"EPA recognizes that prescribed fire is an ecologically sound forest and

range management tool used both inside and outside Class I areas. The Agency

does not intend that prescribed burningbe eliminated or unnecessarily

restricted, but rather, that its impacts on visibility be reduced where

feasible and appropriate. Prescribed burning is a necessary part of land

management but EPA believes there are techniques to limit its effect on

visibility."

So, we need to be very mindful of the public's perception and reactions

to the use of prescribed burning. While public attitude is generally favorable

toward prescribed burning at this point in time, it is possible for the tide to

turn very quickly through some adverse public reaction based upon the emotions

of the moment (e.g., the 1980 Mack Lake prescribed fire in Michigan which got

out of hand.) My advice to each practitioner is "be cautious." Pick the most

favorable weather and fuel conditions so that prescribed burning can be accomplished with the greatest efficiency and effective smoke dispersion.

As a young forester, I was quite anxious to incorporate prescribed burning

into our forest management program. An old timer who worked on my crew gave

me some sage advice when he said, "Be careful. The only time that fire is

under control is before you strike the match." The longer I worked with him,

the more I appreciated what he had to say about burning since most of his

experience had come through the school of hard knocks trying to put out fires

that others had set.

The Society of American Foresters in 1980 certainly recognized the

importance of smoke management as it put together its policy statement which

succinctly states the following important points:

"Prescribed burning does introduce emissions into the atmosphere. Through

smoke management, however, such emissions can be minimized and their effects

lessened by burning under appropriate fuel conditions and when the atmospheric

patterns promote dispersion. In some circumstances , prescribed burning may

result in a decline in air pollution by reducing the size and intensity of

wildfires. When utilization of potential fuels is economically possible, it

is preferable to burning as a means of reducing hazard accumulation of fuel."
This SAF policy statement thus looks upon prescribed burning as having

some problems, but at the same time, it is an excellent tool with many inherent

benefits that should be kept available to the forester.

In recounting the early history of wildfires and prescribed burning,

Riebold (1971) left little doubt that the South was the birthplace for prescribed burning. Early researchers recognized its potential for the purpose

of fuel reduction, hardwood control, site preparation, and disease control. It

was not until the early 1930's that the value of prescribed fire for developing

and maintaining vegetation control for wildlife habitat was recognized. But

also, and more importantly, many forest trees and other vegetation have adapted

to periodic fire.

The initial acceptance of prescribed burning by foresters seemed to be

tied to favorable research results in the longleaf pine forest type, according

to Riebold (1971). It was not until later that slash, loblolly, and shortleaf

pine forests were burned with any degree of regularity. This reluctance was

based in part on the fear of combining prescribed fire with the then prevalent

practice of selection cutting in the slash, loblolly, and shortleaf pine types.

Also, many of these foresters had grownup in areas which were hot beds for

arsonists, and they were not too inclined toward relinquishing ground gained

by fire exclusion. So, prescribed burning has had to wage an uphill battle

to become an acceptable forest practice in the South. We still have a lot to

learn. This is why meetings such as this are so important. They give us an

opportunity to take a look back into the past, to assess our present situation,

and to direct our attention toward the needs of the future.

Periodically we should review where we are in solving our problems relative to prescribed burning and smoke management. In this regard, the SAF

established certain research needs in its position paper on prescribed burning

(19SQ), including:

A. Effects of fire on forest and range ecosystems and soil nutrients and

structure need additional study.

B. Intensified research is also necessary to evaluate the cost and benefits

of prescribed burning for particular management purposes under various

conditions.

C. More precise knowledge is needed on the effects of weather and topography

on burning cost, on probability of prescribed fires escaping, and on the

risk of damage if escape occurs.

D. Quantitative information should also be obtained on how prescribed

burning affects air quality and production of water, forage, timber,

and wildlife habitat.

E. Study the effects or hazards of soil erosion and other damage from

wildfire.

F. Evaluate fire protection cost in general.

We might ask ourselves how are we progressing on this list as well as

what needs to be added to the list.

One thing that comes to mind is a possible adverse change in the public's

attitude toward prescribed burning. While this attitude seems to be favorable

at the moment, it could change and we could find ourselves defending the right

3
to use prescribed burning as a management tool. Hence, I feel we should immediately initiate an effort to educate the public on all aspects of prescribed

burning. This could be done by openly and truthfully expressing its merits.

Because when we evaluate the pros and cons , prescribed fire still emerges as

a sound economic and ecological practice which is currently widely accepted.

Let's build upon this idea by developing a tactical plan in concert with

communication experts who know how to effectively reach all audiences. A

possible scenario would be to:

A. Determine what the local opinion is toward the use of this tool

B. Select an audience to which to direct your messages

C. Determine the best approach(es) in light of the self interest of the

particular audience

D. Get the message(s) across before the problem reaches an epidemic

proportion, or heats up as an issue.

After Montgomery (1976)

If we wait until the public outcry causes people to take sides, then we

have compounded our problem. This approach could be augmented by positive

articles on the use of prescribed fire in selected media across the South as

well as feature stories, talk shows on radio and television, and so forth. We

also could utilize effectively "show me trips" for selected leaders such as

editors, legislators, and others who could become our allies after they have

been educated. And, of course, we need to continue to educate ourselves. Many

foresters are uncomfortable dealing with any controversial issue. It will behoove us to encourage as many foresters as possible to speak up on this subject

in a positive way to the various audiences that they have the opportunity to

address.

Of course, it is well for us to remind all foresters who are using prescribed burning as a tool to be very careful in selecting the time, weather

conditions, and locations for burning because smoke management and fire containment are two of the most important aspects of burning faced by foresters.

It is when we let our guard down in these two primary areas that problems

emerge.

In the February 1984 issue of the Journal of Forestry, Von Johnson (1984)

describes the managerial anxieties associated with burning, the professional

controversies that often crop up, and the technological ambiguities associated

with the use of fire by practitioners. One statement which caught my eye in

this article was:

"With risk and regulations rising, foresters would no longer have reason

to burn--if it weren't for the benefits."

With these thoughts in mind, we may very well be coming to a crossroads

which will require us as a group to defend this important forestry practice.

The detente or peaceful coexistence that we now enjoy with the environmental

community and others could quickly erode or fade away if concerns for air

pollution, health hazards, and personal well-being become emotional issues.

I would urge that, with this as a possibility, the forestry profession undertake a broad public relations/educational effort that would build a solid

foundation for foresters to continue to use this important tool. This planned
campaign would allow us to counteract or minimize possible adverse publicity.

The effectiveness and success of our efforts could determine the future of

prescribed burning in the South.

Thank you very much.

LITERATURE CITED

Braun, G. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. MacMillan,

New York. 596 pp.

Cooper, C. F. 1961. The ecology of fire. Sci. Amer. 204:150-160.

Dieterich, J. H. 1971. Prescribed burning and air quality. In, Proc.

20th Ann. Forestry Symp. Southern Pine Management - Today and Tomorrow,

A. B. Crow, Ed., La. State Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. pp. 115-129.

Forest Policy Guidebook. 1980. Sot. Amer. For., Washington, D.C. p. 40.

Hansbrough, Thomas. 1963. Human behavior and forest fires. In, Proc.

12th Ann. Forestry Symp., T. Hansbrough, Ed., La. State Press, Baton

Rouge, Louisiana. pp. 22-35.

Johnson, V. J. 1984. Prescribed burning requiem or renaissance? Jour.

Forestry 82:82-91.

McMahon, C. K. 1981. Effects of the Clean Air Act on prescribed burning.

I&, Proc. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests, G. W. Wood,

Ed., Belle W. Baruch For. Sci. Inst. of Clemson Univ., Georgetown, South

Carolina. pp. 23-28.

Montgomery, J. M. 1976. The public looks at prescribed fire. In, Proc.

Fire by Prescription Symp., Atlanta, Georgia. USDA, For. Serv., Sou. Reg.

and Southeast Area, St. and Priv. Forestry. pp 115-116.

Costing, H. J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of

Piedmont, North Carolina. Amer. Midland Naturalist 28:1-126.

Riebold, R. J. 1971. The early history of wildfires and prescribed burning.

&, Proc. Prescribed Burning Symp. USDA, For. Serv., Sou. East. For. Exp.

Sta., Asheville, North Carolina. pp. 11-20.

5

SESSION I

.

Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management Overviews

PRESCRIBED FIRE AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT

IN TEXAS, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI

Bruce R. Miles 1'

Abstract. -- The state forestry agencies in Louisiana,

Mississippi and Texas experience the same problems in training,

program delivery and smoke management. Enforcement and coordination with federal, state and private landowners becomes increasingly important as smoke management comes under closer scrutiny.

In Texas we prescribe burn approximately 200,000 acres annually,

Mississippi estimates 250-350,000 acres annual, while Louisiana reports

450,000. Of this the Louisiana Forestry Commission does 40,000 acres,

industry 350,000 and the USFS, 54,000 acres. In Texas, the N.F. burns

an estimated 60,000 acres annually, industry 125,000 and private landowners about 20,000 acres. This latter figure, private landowners,

is done by the agency's personnel. It is about half of what we target

in Texas and 25% of what we would like to do. It is a minute portion

of what needs to be done. Prescribed burning is the most important,

most wanted and least available service that our agency delivers.

Monitoring prescription burning is the only thing more difficult

than getting the burning done. Mississippi requires a burning permit

issued under the authority of the State Bureau of Pollution Control,

but from the MFC. The bureau has enforcement responsibility. The regulations are not strictly enforced. Mississippi does not have a specific

smoke management program other than the burning permit system. Air

quality and mixing elements, as determined by the Jackson based Weather

Bureau determine the issuance of burning permits.

Louisiana likewise is guided by Weather Bureau reports burning

under green and yellow conditions only. The agency is also governed

by the Louisiana Environmental Control Commission regarding air quality.

In Texas the agency in cooperation with the Texas Air Control

Board monitors the occurrence of prescribed burn. This requires the

burn initiator to advise the TFS to report the date and time the burn

will start and be completed. If there is a violation or complaint reported to the TACB, the Texas Forest Service is required to relay the

information on the specific burn to the TACB. The TACB may then instruct

the TFS to advise the burning supervisor to extinguish the fire. Failure

to have reported the burn initially creates more problems with the

TACB and forest landowners. Major forest industry recognizes this and

has been diligent about reporting planned burns. Should weather conditions suggest poor burning conditions, i.e., inversion layer, the agency

informs the industry accordingly.

l/ State Forester, Texas -

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and

Smoke Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept.l2-14,1984.

9
Major landowners in Texas cooperate in a voluntary moratorium

when burning conditions reach a dangerous level. This not only causes

frustration with the industrial community but also within the agency.

The personnel who are burning for our forest management chief are the

same ones fighting fire for the fire control chief. This dual responsibility is more than the employee himself can often satisfy and is

completely unacceptable to either staff member.

Texas has a set of smoke management guidelines developed cooperatively between the TFS and the TACB. These guidelines determine weather

variables and thus whether it is wise to burn. The formal communication

program with forest industry provides weather information that may

affect smoke dispersion as well as fire behavior. Advisories against

burning are communicated to the cooperator. The Air Control Board's

regulations are fairly specific as to where burning may or may not

be done and what constitutes a violation. The agency itself has a smoke

management program for its inner agency burns.

All three state agencies offer turn key prescribed burning work.

Texas does burning for other state agencies, for a fee, such as the

General Land Office and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

By necessity all three have some type of liability coverage. Mississippi relies on "Sovereign Immunity" doctrine to escape liability.

While this was tested and upheld in the state court several years ago,

the Commission does not expect it to continue much longer.

Louisiana has a liability insurance of $10,000. Employees are

indemnified by Louisiana statute. The insurance company thus far has

paid all claims to the landowner's satisfaction.

The state of Texas provides liability protection to its employees

up to $100,000 per individual for personal injury or death and up to

$10,000 for property damage. Additionally, the agency carries a policy

with a private carrier for coverage from $10,000 to $100,000 per occurrence for property damage. We have not yet been taken to court but

have paid for some fence posts, heirloom quilts (left in pastures)

and peach trees.

Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi all have training programs on

prescription burning. All share these training opportunities with industry, SCS and other cooperators. The Society of American Foresters has

also conducted a training program within the state of Texas in the

past. We get continued requests from industry for this type of training

for new employees. We are currently developing a training program for

supervisors charged with the responsibility of developing prescribed

burning plans and supervising others.

10
The bottom line, like square one, is the most populated space

on earth. It is that we are not burning as much as we'd like to or

need to do. In Texas our MB0 for 1984 was 43,350 acres. To date we

have accomplished 28,000 acres. Weather and skilled manpower are the

limiting factors. Both Louisiana and Mississippi unanimously agree

with this assessment. It is difficult to train and equip a seasonal

work force based upon a suitable weather situation. We have private

foresters and other contractors that take issue with competition in

the areas of timber marking, tree planting and T.S.I. - areas the the

agency could utilize a dependable seasonal work force during non-burning

periods. Yet, these same private contractors want the prescribe burning

service provided by the state.

An alternative is to train private contractors to do this work

with labor used in tree planting, etc. The obstacle is high insurance

premiums and risk associated with burning. A second concern is the

high cost of specialized fire fighting equipment. Some contractors

have suggested sub-contracting for the state under its umbrella of

insurance protection. Our attorneys have refused to entertain this

arrangement. .

What are the most serious problems, unknowns or ambiquities affecting the use of prescribed burning in the states? All of the above,

viz, liability, smoke management, favorable weather and the hurdle

of training or otherwise acquiring a trained seasonal work force that

conduct a large volume of prescribed burning during a short period

of time.

11

OVERVIEW OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT

AND PROBLEMS IN ALABAMA, FLORIDA AND GEORGIA

c. w. "Bill" Mood+'

PROGRAMS

METHODS USED TO ADMINISTER OR MONITOR PROGRAM

Alabama

Alabama has a permit system for all open burning in rural areas. Prior

authorization of the Alabama Forestry Commission is required. Authorization is

given by telephone or in person and a permit number is assigned. All information required; such as name, address, telephone number, size of burn, etc. is

logged and made a permanent record. Permits are issued for one day only except

on the weekend. They can be issued on Friday for the weekend, however, during

periods when the district dispatch center is closed.

Florida

.

Florida has an authorization system similar to Alabama. However, they do

not authorize burning for over one day. This authority is also delegated to

some fire departments.

Georgia

Georgia has a "notification of intent to burn" law. The Georgia Forestry

Commission has to be notified before any outdoor burning is initiated.

CRITERIA FOR ISSUING PERMIT

Alabama

In Alabama, the following criteria must be met:

a> The person requesting the permit must have adequate tools, equipment and manpower to stay with and control the fire during the

entire burning period.

b) The person requesting the permit is responsible to keep the fire

confined.

cl In no case will the person requesting the permit allow the fire

to be unattended until it is dead out.

-l/ State Forester, Alabama Forestry Commission, Montgomery, AL

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

13
Florida

The same criteria apply

fire are also required.

in Florida. In addition, firelines adequate to control

ENFORCEMENT

Florida and Alabama

If any of the above criteria are not met, if the fire escapes or if authorization to burn was not secured, the person responsible can be issued a warning

or be cited. In both states, this is a Class B misdemeanor.

SITUATIONS WHEN NOT ISSUED

Alabama

The Commission cannot legally deny permission to burn except when the

State Forester has issued a "Fire Alert" for that particular county. If other

than "forestry or agricultural" burning certain air quality regulations do

apply, although the Commission has no authority in enforcing these regulations.

Florida

The Division of Forestry has complete authority to stop issuing permits

according to fire danger or air quality. When fire danger is high, authorization for more hazardous type burns are issued only after an on-site inspection.

Georgia

Georgia has no authorization or enforcement powers. Restraint is sought

on a voluntary basis when fire danger is high.

Amount of prescription burning done during average year

Type

Alabama (1983)

Acres

Florida (1983) Georgia

Forestland

Agriculture

Other

Total

878,970 2,808,OOO 665,000

177,240 1,401,000 451,000

20,310 350,000 ---

1,076,520 4,559,ooo 1,116,OOO

Florida's permit system has been in place for a few years and is possibly

more accurate. These are areas planned to burn and all of the area may not

have actually been burned.

14
SMOKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Alabama

A stagnation index is included as part of the weather forecast as well as

visibility, transport winds and mixing height. The person requesting permit is

made aware of possible smoke problem if dispersion is poor. Alabama Forestry

Commission personnel cannot burn when dispersion potential is very poor.

Florida

Florida also uses a stagnation index and visibility as a criteria for

smoke dispersion. Florida can deny issuing permits due to poor dispersion

whereas Alabama cannot. A pilot smoke management system will be tested in two

districts this winter.

Georgia

Georgia has no specific smoke management program at this time.

PRESCRIBED BURNING SERVICES OFFERED BY STATE

Alabama

Offers fireline plowing and charges are based on average operating cost

by the hour for the unit and mileage for the transport. Contract prescribed

burning is also offered and charged on acreage basis. Landowner is referred to

consultants if such services are available. If the area is forest land, it has

to have a forest management plan. A written prescription is also required. The

person making the prescription and person in charge of conducting the prescribed

burn have to be certified after qualifying in experience and training. To be

certified, they have to have had two years fire experience, complete the Forestry

Academy (which includes all the basic fire courses), a week of formal training in

prescribed burning, the week long Intermediate Fire Behavior course and have experience on at least ten prescribed burns.

Florida

Also does contract burning and firebreak plowing for a charge--much the

same as Alabama. A written prescription plan is made and an agreement is executed with the landowner. This service is offered only where private contracting service is not available.

Florida also offers Standby Burning Assistance for a charge. State personnel standby to assist a landowner while he is prescribed burning. The state

assumes no responsibility and reserves the right to leave the scene if necessary.

Florida also has another type of prescribed burning that is unique. It is

called--Prevention Burning:

15
4

b)

Georgia

The Florida Division of Forestry and a local governing body can designate portions of a railroad right-of-way as a fire hazard. These areas

have to be either burned or the fire hazard reduced in some other way

to the satisfaction of the state. The railroad can contract with the

Division for burning the right-of-way.

The Division of Forestry can prescribe burn private property at the

request of the local governing body to reduce the fire hazard--if the

landowner does not object. This regulation came about due to the problem of absentee landowners. There is no charge.

The state can also prescribe burn other landowners land, with written

authorization, to reduce occurrence of wildfires. Neither is there a

charge for this service.

Provides firebreak plowing and on-the-ground assistance in prescribed

burning as fire conditions permit. The landowner has to initiate the fire.

There is a charge for firebreak plowing but not for standing by or assistance.

LIABILITY

Georgia does not assume responsibility for the burn--only helping the landowner.

Florida assumes liability when they do the burning and state is self-insured.

Alabama has to allow itself to be sued. A bill is pending to protect employees

from being sued, by the state assuming responsibility. We feel that by using

only fully experienced and qualified personnel to make prescriptions or to conduct prescribed burns will help to protect the Commission and our personnel.

None of the three states have had a court case concerning liability.

Training (other than

any of the three states in

for industry. Alabama has

have increased in the last

TRAINING PROGRAMS

their own personnel) has not been a strong area in

the past. Florida has offered infrequent courses

put on training courses only as requested. (These

two years.) Georgia has offered two prescribed ---7-77_ _ _ fire and smoke management short courses within the past year and plan to continue these on a periodic basis.

IS PRESCRIBED BURNING ON STATE-MANAGED LAND ADEQUATE?

Georgia is current with their burning program. Alabama and Florida are

not. Florida states weather is the main reason they are not current. Alabama's

problem is lack of trained personnel but we expect to catch up with our burning

program by next year. Alabama manages very little forest land and consequently

this is not a big problem for us.

16
MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE USE OF PRESCRIBED FIRE

Georgia

Georgia listed smoke on highways as one of their biggest problems. It has

led to several fatalities over the last few years.

Florida

Florida listed not enough days to burn and smoke management as an everincreasing problem. They have had three major highway tragedies in the last year.

Alabama

These two (smoke on highways and not enough days) are certainly Alabama's

major problems as well. We would also add lack of qualified people as a third - -

major problem. This is especially true with industry. We have two specific

-problems or needs that in turn would help to reduce the first three problems. -

These are: .

--No "Smoke Management Guideline" for logging debris such as we have for

understory burning. The burning of logging debris produces much more

of a problem and we need a starting place in learning how to cope with

it.

--Lack of a system to predict scorch height (or possible damage to overstory) is also a problem. Such guidelines, would make it much easier

to train people--and they could learn to plan and conduct quality prescribed burns much quicker.

17
.
A SUMMARY OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND SMOKE

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN VIRGINIA,

NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA

Horace J. “Bee” Greenl/

Prescribed fire is an important forestry tool in the

states of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. It

is used primarily for hazard reduction, site preparation and

other types of silvicultural purposes. Burning in all three

states is done under permit with the state forestry agency,

and all three states make use of a voluntary Smoke

Management Plan. The Smoke Management Plan links the state

agency responsibl e for air pollution control ver y closel y

wit h the stat e forestr y agency. Forestr y burning i s

generall y exempt from contro l under the a i r pollutio n

control agency , unless an extreme ai r stagnat ion conditio n

develop s -- I n that case all outside burning i s usuall y

forbidden .

A l l the land prescribe burned in thes e thre e state s

would b e classed a s fores t land. The acreage burned

increase s from North to South by State. Virginia burns a

little less than 50,000 acres; North Carolina burns a littl e

les s than 200,000 acres; and South Carolina burns a little

over 500,000 acres. The burning in South Carolina, however,

does include some for grazing with very little or none

occurring in North Carolina and Virginia for that purpose.

As mentioned earlier, all three states have a voluntary

Smoke Management Plan in place. These Plans have been in

existence for several year s and seem to be doing an adequate

job of smoke management. As stated earlier , the Smoke

Management Plan in all three states i s voluntar y and is

managed by t h e stat e forestr y agency. The Plans, i n

general , limit the amount of fuel to be burned in relatio n

to the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the smoke .

Al I. thre e states offer prescribe d burning services .

South Carolina offers full service for burning. Their agenc y

wil l stand by while the landowner, or his agent, does hi s

own burning . South Carolina charges $3.00 p e r acr e f o r

doing the burning , with additiona l charge s f o r lin e

constructio n and transportation of th e equipment t o the

site . For the standby assistance, the Forestr y Commission

will examine the property, prepare a Plan, and stand by with

fir e suppressio n equipment whil e the burning i s being

carried out. The charge for this service is $9.00 per hou r

f o r stand by, plus transportation cost and line plowing if

needed. The landowner may furnish the Plan, but it must be

approved by the Commission. North Carolina offers complet e

burning service s f o r privat e landowners f o r hazard

reduction , sit e preparation , and othe r silvicultura l

L/Director, Division of Forest Resources, NC Dept. of Natural

Resources and Community Development, Raleigh.

19
purposes. A fee is charged for this service, and th e f e e

ranges from about $3.00 to $10.00 per acre depending on the

size o f the trac t burned. Virginia , jus t thi s year ,

receive d the authority to offer site preparation and hazar d

reduction burning to landowner s if they participated in th e

burning . Each state has a little differen t approach f o r

handling the stat e liabilit y f o r the burning . South

Carolina ’s liabilit y coverage comes under thei r stat e

genera l tor t liability insurance . Thi s provides a one

millio n dolla r coverage , and the premium cost each year

amounts to $8,397 . North Carolina ’s liability als o comes

under the tor t clai m with a n amount o f $100,000 pe r

incident. In addition, all employees in North Carolina who

ar e classed as Law Enforcement Officers have an additiona l

$800,000 individual coverage . Virginia ’s liability i s

covered under a 9 million dollar liability policy . None of

the systems in these three states have been tested in court.

A l l thre e state s are providing prescribe d fir e and

smoke management training. * Virgini a offer s in-servic e

standard fir e trainin g courses . This training i s als o

offere d to forest industry and volunteer fir e departments .

North Carolina has in-service training also. A statewide

prescribed burning and smoke management school was conducted

in 1981. Local and regional training has been carried ou t

sinc e tha t time . South Carolina conducts a n annual

prescribe d burning and smoke management training school at

their Sand Hill State Forest. In addition, they are holding

smoke management workshops throughout the state f o r thei r

own personnel and for their cooperators and interested landowners.

None o f the three states are burning as much as the y

would like . The three main restrictions are the lack of manpower to do the burning in a given day, the number of days

when burning can be accomplished, and the limitations caused

by smoke management guidelines.

The seriou s problems relating t o prescribe d burning

relate to the smoke as well as to the fire itself. Several

automobile accidents have been related to smoke on highways ,

and several civil suits have been filed in this regard. I n

North Carolina, we have also had claims arising from .smoke

damaging structures as well as their contents . With this in

mind, we need more research on how to predict the production

and dispersion of smoke . Because of the limited number o f

days in which we can burn, we need to know more about how to

g e t the optimum amount of burning done while causing littl e

or no damage. Obtaining this optimum also involves the bes t

use of aerial ignition , other firing methods, and a variety

of burning techniques . It would also be helpful if we could

g e t people , othe r than our own agencies , involved i n

burning . This possibly could be done by consultants , the

forest industry , and private contractors .

20
In summary, prescribe d fire is an accepte d fores t

management and hazard reduction tool. I t s continued use i s

necessary i f we are to greatly reduce the number of acre s

los t to wildfire or significantl y increas e reforestation .

There is considerable concern among people who do prescribed

problems with smoke. These same people want to optimize the

amount o f burning done each year. To do the amount o f

burning that needs to be done with minimum damage we need:

1) bette r weather forecasting ; 2) bette r information o n

predicting smoke production and dispersal; 3) good trainin g

to insure appropriate use of firing and burning techniques ;

and 4) maximum use of al l resource s available i n the

forestr y community t o do prescribed burning. A lot of

progres s has been made in the last decade, but there i s

stil l a long ways to go to fill our prescribed burning and

smoke management needs.

21

STATUS OF PRESCRIBED FIRE AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT

IN ARKANSAS, KENTUCKY, OKLAHOMA AND TENNESSEE

Roy Ashley

State Forester

Tennessee

It is an honor and pleasure to speak to you today. I am honored because

this is the most esteemed group I have ever seen gathered in one place to

review current prescribed fire and smoke management practices in the South.

It is also my pleasure to be asked to represent those predominantly hardwood states in the region. I do hope the recommendations developed here

will have application to our hardwood forests as well as the pine types

of the more southern states.

The purpose of my remarks is to provide a current overview of the status

of prescribed burning in forestry, in four states. Obviously, I will be

more familiar with Tennessee's status than any other state. I must say

that I am certainly more comfortable in the overview role, speaking only

in generalities rather than in the specifics of prescribed fire. I recently read a very specific definition of prescribed burning that was sixty-one

words long. I cannot be that specific with you today.

As those of you who use it regularly know, prescribed fire can be a tool

in the hands of the knowledgeable forest manager. It can be used for

silviculture purposes. It can also be used to reduce damage from wildfire. However, it is my observation that not all professional foresters

are knowledgeable in the proper use of prescribed fire.

Since as foresters we don't always understand prescribed fire and its

beneficial uses, we cannot explain the beneficial effects of fire to the

public.

Tennessee, like the other states I am representing, which includes

Arkansas, Kentucky and Oklahoma, is basically a hardwood state. This

fact makes selling the beneficial use of fire even more difficult. For

years in Tennessee, our fire prevention efforts have taught the public

that hardwoods and fire do not mix. Thus, it is difficult for the public

to understand fire as an important tool in forest management---even in

the pine types. This public attitude is reflected in several of the

answers to the questions presented to the states I am representing.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

23
As the use of -prescribed fire increases, and the benefits become better

understood, I predict we will see it used more, even in the predominantly

hardwood states like Tennessee. In Tennessee, prescribed fire will slowly

carve its niche into forest management activities, particularly in the

areas of hazard reduction and wildlife habitat manipulation within pine

types.

The wrong use of fire is still prevalent even in the hardwood forests of

Tennessee. By that I mean burning the woods to get rid of snakes,

chiggers, ticks and to green up the grass. This "wrong use" is also widely

practiced in the pine types to our south. It will be a slow process to

unravel the good uses from bad uses of prescribed fire. It may be a longer

process separating the proper forest types from improper forest types, in

which to practice the beneficial use of prescribed fire.

In Tennessee, water quality and soil erosion are high priorities with i

state government. It is not unusual to sell fire prevention as a way

reduce stream degradation and soil erosion, while at the same time ta 1

about the benefits of prescribed fire. Needless to say, the public

sometimes reacts in a confused manner. We need continued training of

YO

king

agency personnel on how to deliver the proper prescribed fire message.

I believe this workshop will aid participants in delivering that message.

I like the definition of prescribed fire on the ilside front cover of

A Guide For Prescribed Fire in. Southern Forests.- "Prescribed Burning

is fire...

- Applied in a skillful manner

- Under exacting weather conditions

- In a definite place

- For a specific purpose

- To achieve (certain) results"

Both professional foresters and the public need t

definition.

;o understand this

For the states I represent, the estimated annual use of prescribed fire

provides us a benchmark from which to start (Tab1 e 1).

Table 1 .--The estimated annual use of prescribed fire by State

and type of burn.

Arkansas

Kentucky

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Average Annual

Acreage

8,900

100

40,000

22,100

Major Type

of Burning

100% Forest

100% Forest

50% Forest

50% Range

100% Forest

-A Guide For Prescribed Fire in Southern States, USDA, USFS, l/

boutheast Area State and Private t-orestry -L (1973).

24
A closer iook at Tennessee's prescribed burning acreages, by landownership

class and percent of the total, provides no surprises. Almost three-fourths

of the prescribed fire use is by private industry. The second highest

category in Tennessee is the prescribed burning of state owned land (Table 2).

Table 2 .--Summary of the average estimated prescribed burning

acreages by landownership class in Tennessee

Landowner Acreage Percent

Class Burned Of Total

Federal 2,060

State 2,540 1;

Private Industry 16,410 74

Small Private Landowner 90 1

Miscellaneous 1,000 5

TOTAL 22,100 100

.

IMPORTANCE

The importance of prescribed fire to the four states may be somewhat less

than sister states to the South. Most of our forestland is hardwood and

prescribed fire is not as needed a tool in hardwood as in the pine types.

Major demands met by prescribed fire treatment include (a) Hazard Reduction

(b) Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Maintenance (c) Grazing Enhancement

and (d) Site Preparation.

STATE SYSTEMS AND REGULATIONS

A brief statement of the prescribed fire system and state regulations will

provide a better understanding of current emphasis in each state.

Arkansas-The Forestry Commission's reporting system requires that a

report be filed in both field and central office on each prescribed

burn. Regulations governing prescribed burns in Arkansas are covered

under the Air Quality Regulations of the Pollution Control Board.

The Commission does offer site preparation burning for natural and

artificial regeneration as part of its service to landowners. Also,

hazard reduction burning is practiced, especially in trouble spots

along railroads. Approximately ninety miles of railroad and hazard

reduction burning are completed in an average year.

Liability claims for prescribed fire losses in Arkansas are reimbursab,le

through the State Claims Commission, although the system has not been

tested in court.

25
Kentucky - Kentucky has no system to authorize or monitor prescribed

burns; nor is there a smoke management program. State fire laws do

regulate outdoor burning. The Kentucky Division of Forestry offers

no prescribed burning services. Since these services are not offered,

liability is not an issue. Likewise, there has been no court test

connected with prescribed fire.

Oklahoma - In the state's protected region, Oklahoma law requires

notification to the Forestry Division of an "intent to burn" four

hours prior to ignition. Outside the protected region, no

notification is required.

Outside the protected areas, in order for prescribed or controlled

burning to be lawful, the person doing the burning shall take

reasonable precaution against the spreading of fire to other lands

by providing adequate firelines, manpower and fire fighting equipment for the control of such fire, and shall watch over said fire

until it is extinguished and shall not permit fire to escape to

adjoining land. Oklahoma's air quality guidelines state that

prevailing winds must be away from any city or town, the location

of the burn must not be adjacent (not within 500 feet upwind) to

an occupied residence, initial ignition must be between three hours

after sunrise and three hours before sunset and no traffic hazard

tag be created by the smoke.

The Division offers fireline establishment as the only "on the

ground" service in connection with prescribed burning. Foresters

do make prescriptions and develop plans for landowners to do their

own burning. The SCS is currently increasing their range burning

emphasis in Oklahoma. The Division encourages landowners to

purchase a liability insurance policy before burning. There has

been no court test of the program.

Tennessee - The Division of Forestry uses a permit system to authorize

and monitor prescribed burns. Persons are required to have a written

permit in their possession at the time of the burn. Permits are

good for twenty-four hours only and cannot be written more than

twenty-four hours in advance. The permit law is in effect from

October 15 to May 15 inclusively and between the hours of midnight

and 5 P.M. Burning is permitted between 5 P.M. and midnight from

October 15 to May 15 without a permit. Additional state fire laws

must be followed. From May 15 to October 15, the remaining state

fire laws continue to apply. A permit is required for all burning

within 500 feet of woodland or grassland leading to woodland. Railroads and other bonded contractors are exempt from the permit law

but not the other fire laws. Tennessee has no smoke management

Within certain guidelines, burning for agricultural and

!?~",';~~y use is exempt from regulation by state air pollution and

water quality laws.

26
The Division does offer prescribed burning services for a fee.

Fees are based on actual cost for personnel and equipment. No

overhead costs are computed. A State Board of Claims handles

liability claims, although the system has not been tested in the

courts.

TRAINING

Training in prescribed fire varies widely among the four states. For

our purpose here, a brief statement on each state's training status

should suffice.

Arkansas - The Commission has periodic training, approximately

every two years, for both state and private foresters.

Kentucky - Kentucky has no training program for prescribed fire or

smoke management. However, key field employees are furnished

copies of the publication "Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook". .

Oklahoma - Oklahoma holds pre-scribed fire workshops each year.

Tennessee - Periodic prescribed fire training is provided, using the

USFS prescribed fire and smoke management courses.

BURNING ON STATE-OWNED LANDS

As indicated below, varying degrees of state-owned land is prescribed

burned.

Arkansas - Based on current funding, staffing and equipment, Arkansas

is burning about all it can handle on state lands. Certain parts of

the state has not yet accepted prescribed fire. Also, most of the

state is hardwood, where burning is not accepted due to potential

damage.

Kentucky - No prescribed burning is utilized on State Managed lands.

Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Division of Forestry has no State Forest lands.

However, other state agencies (i.e. wildlife) carry out prescribed

burns on their holdings with some regularity. Acreage burned on these

areas for wildlife habitat improvement should be increased.

Tennessee - Tennessee is not using prescribed fire to the extent it

should on State Forests because:

a) Of public attitudes

b) Management Planning has not been completed

c) Manpower and equipment limitations

d) Limited burning periods

27
PROBLEMS

The most serious problems, unknowns or ambiguities, affecting the use of

prescribed fire in the four states are listed below.

Arkansas - The most serious problems are:

a) Limited burning periods

b) Insufficient equipment and personnel available during

burning season

c) Risk of fire escaping

d) Non-acceptance of prescribed fire by public and landowners

Kentucky - The fact that 89% of Kentucky's forestland is hardwood

precludes a need or demand for use of prescribed fire.

Oklahoma - The largest unknown is the question of liability. The

Forestry Division hopes to increase its prescribed fire activities

if the liability issue can be resolved.

Tennessee - Problems, unknowns or ambiguities are:

a) Conflicts with local (county/city) ordinances in urban areas

b) Many Tennesseans do not accept prescribed fire as a management tool.

c) Tennessee is a hardwood state (82%)

d) The liability issue has not been tested and some TDF

employees are reluctant to ignite fires.

e) Short burning periods

SUMMARY

It is obvious from the varying levels of use of prescribed fire in the

hardwood oriented states that it is not widely considered as a necessity

for a viable forest management program. It is equally clear that many

people recognize that this tool is neither desirable or needed in most

of the hardwood forests.

However, let me reemphasize my own personal belief that the use of

prescribed fire will continue to increase in these predominantly hardwood

states. Prescribed fire does have a place in the improved management of

the southern forests.

The extend to which prescribed fire will ultimately be used in Arkansas,

Kentucky, Oklahoma and Tennessee may eventually be decided based on

non-forestry objectives. Public attitudes will be slow to change. All

fire in these states may continue to be viewed, by a vocal minority,

from the standpoint of damage to any tree. However, air and water quality

and soil erosion considerations must also be evaluated. Before it reaches

its legitimate potential, prescribed fire may receive lengthy debate based

on these issues.

28
A WESTVACO PERSPECTIVE ON

PRESCRIBED BURNING AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT

William D. Baughmanl'

Abstract .--Prescribed burning is a vital tool in the management of industrial pine plantations. New techniques and tools

such as the use of helicopters in aerial ignition have facilitated the use of fire in younger stands, while permitting more

acreage to be treated in a given time period. Tne management of

smoke from prescribed burning is a key factor in the continued use

of fire. Improved weather forecasting and further refinement of

equipment and burning techniques are needed. Adherence to

voluntary smoke management guidelines is the best way to insure

the availability of prescribed burning as a forest management

tool.

In South Carolina about 513,000 acres are being burned annually. About

4% of this is to improve grazing, 12% is for site prep, 23% for wildlife

habitat improvement and 61% is to reduce the hazard of wildfire. Who's doing

the burning? Of that half million acres burned annually, only 26% (133,000

acres> is burned by industry. That's an important point that I want to come

back to later.

The history of prescribed fire at Westvaco goes back more than 30 years.

It was 1952 when Southern Woodlands began a formal program of prescribed

burning. Since that time we've burned more than 1.4 million acres. That's

the equivalent of having treated our entire woodlands three times in the last

30 years. Our primary goal in prescribed burning is to eliminate understory

fuel accumulations that pose a serious threat of wildfire.

How much of a problem is wildfire? In the three years prior to 1952

Southern Woodlands had 20,000 acres burned by wildfire. In the last few

years, even though our ownership is larger than it was in 1952, we've held our

wildfire losses to less than 1000 acres annually. Some of that reduction is

due to favorable weather, some to improved detection and suppression

techniques, but a large part of it is due to the regular "fire proofing" of

our timber stands, through the use of prescribed fire. That's an important

point to remember. I know of no other way to "fire proof" a timber stand than

to remove the bulk of the fuels. The only cost effective way to do that is

through the use of prescribed fire. What alternatives exist to prescribed

fire as a deterrent to wildfire?

For the last 10 years we've been burning about 50,000 acres annually,

basically on a three year cycle. Some stands are burned more often, even

yearly where the risk factor is high, while others are burned less often,.

1_/ Southern Woodlands Manager, Timberlands Division, Westvaco Corporation,

Summerville, SC.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

29
About 95% of the time, the primary purpose of our prescribed burning in

established pine stands is to reduce the hazard of wildfire.

Other objectives of our prescribed burning program include hardwood

brush control, wildlife management, and improved recreational opportunities.

We also use fire to reduce logging residues, normally burning either windrows

or piles following site preparation, but in our company we do not refer to

this as prescribed burning. This accounts for an additional 12 to 15 thousand

acres annually over and above the 50,000 acres of established stands burned

annually.

From the start of our prescribed burning program in 1952 till the late

70's all of our firing was done by hand, on the ground. Under a variety of

terrain, fuel, and weather conditions we've used all of the commonly accepted

firing techniques including head fires, back fires, and flank fires. The drip

torch has been the principle tool in hand ignition.

A major change in our burning practices began to evolve in 1979 as we

started working with the concept of aerial ignition. In the Coastal Plain of

South Carolina we average 30 days of acceptable burning weather each year.

This limited time frame, in addition to our own self imposed constraints in

the form of smoke management guidelines, meant that we needed to find a way to

take advantage of every suitable opportunity to treat both site prep and

prescribe burn areas.

We looked at a variety of aerial ignition systems. We ultimately ended

up working with a local helicopter service in developing what we consider to

be a very good aerial ignition system. It is simple, but still affords us the

level of control necessary to achieve the desired results.

This system has done several things for us. We have been able to burn

larger blocks using fewer ground personnel and have shortened the time period

from ignition to burnout. We've been able to prescribe burn younger stands

and that has given us additional insurance from the hazard of wildfire.

Using the helicopter we are now burning stands that are only 15 to 20

feet tall; this works out to about an age 6 to 8. By putting the firing lines

very close together and closely spacing the drops of jellied gasoline within

those lines, the fire burns very rapidly and burns itself out before it has

the chance to gain much heat or speed. It results in a classic example of area

ignition.

Using the aerial system for burning windrows we've been able to ignite

more than 50 acres of windrows in approximately 5 minutes. In early tests it

was our conclusion that we could ignite up to 500 acres per hour with the

helicopter under ideal conditions; however, we no longer fire blocks this

large at one time because of our adherence to the South Carolina Smoke

Management Guidelines.

30
Benefits of aerial ignition include reduced manpower, increased safety

for our ground personnnel, improved production and earlier "fire proofing" of

younger or shorter stands.

There has been a great deal of concern about the possibility of damage to

stands as a result of prescribed burning, especially from the aerial ignition

standpoint. So far that has not been the case for us. We've found that less

than 1% of the stands treated with fire have been damaged. Our goal is to

scorch no more than l/3 of the crown, but in the first burn that I described

earlier, we are willing to accept more light scorch of the live crown. The

trade off is a stand destroyed by wildfire against a stand that is "fire

proofed" but with some slight growth loss for that first year.

I mentioned earlier that aerial ignition allows us to burn a large number

of acres in a relatively short period of time. One very real advantage of

this is that we can accomplish a burn within a time period of known weather

conditions, in some cases getting the fire ignited and through total burnout

in less than two hours. The disadvantage of this is that we generate large

volumes of smoke during that period.

It's my belief that the management or the lack of management of this

smoke will ultimately decide whether or not we can continue to use what is a

very effective, economically sound, forest management tool.

The Clean Air Act of 1977 accomplished several things. For those of us

in forestry it was the impetus to look for ways to improve the quality of our

prescribed burning. As a result of the Clean Air Act it became essential that

we examine environmental and social impacts of burning, that we weigh the

benefits of burning against the costs, not just to us but to those in the

communities around us. The Clean Air Act has caused us to examine both the

short and long term effects and consequences of burning. I believe that we

are better foresters; more responsible corporate citizens as a result of

that.

Prior to the start of the 1980-81 burning season, forest industry and the

State Forestry Commission officials working through the South Carolina

Forestry Association, developed a set of voluntary smoke management guidelines for prescribed and site prep.burning. These guidelines are the foundation of a system of self regulation for the forest landowners in South

Carolina who use fire as a management tool. There are those who claim that

voluntary standards are the first step toward regulation. I disagree with

that. There is no doubt in my mind that voluntary regulation, forest landholders applying peer pressure to their contemporaries, is far more effective

and will achieve equal if not better results at lower cost than state or

federal regulations could ever hope to achieve. I also believe that without

effective voluntary constraints, we will end up with legislated regulation.

Someone trying to make a "worst case scenario" could point out that

prescribed burning produces toxins - but in fact all combustion of organic

substances produces limited amounts of toxic substances. It has been noted by

31
various researchers that the amount of particulates and other emissions

resulting from prescribed burning can be significantly lessened in most cases

by adjusting how we burn. In almost all cases emissions from prescribed burn

fires are less than those from wildfire. Prescribed burning is an oxidation

process, quicker, but still similar to the process that occurs in the natural

decay of litter on the forest floor. For these reasons I don't believe that

emissions are really the primary issue for those concerned with smoke

management. The biggest challenge we have to face is the visibility problem

on adjoining highways, in nearby subdivisions, and towns, or other smoke

sensitive areas.

Let me point out one last fly in the ointment. At the start of my

presentation I stated that South Carolina forest industries account for only

26% of the prescribed burning in the state. That means the greatest number of

burns are set by private non-industrial landowners. Are these fires supervised by experienced professionals versed in the use of fire as a tool? Do

these landowners know about voluntary smoke management?

We have a variety of programs to inform non-industrial landowners about

reforestation, but what have we done to let them know about the effective use

of prescribed burning, and smoke management?

Voluntary guidelines are not without disadvantages. Using these guidelines we find ourselves with even fewer suitable burning days each year.

We've also found that we need more concise, accurate, up-to-date weather

information. than we've ever needed before, and that getting such information

on a timely basis for localized conditions continues to be a problem. But

these negatives must be weighed against the continued availability of prescribed burning as a management tool. We at Westvaco have found ways to still

meet our annual prescribed burning goals through the development of improved

techniques, and new equipment such as the aerial ignition systems. That kind

of growth, that kind of innovation can only serve us well in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

Through self regulation such as voluntary smoke management guidelines we

can continue to steer our own course as forest managers. Without such self

constraint we can expect to find ourselves in uncharted waters, drifting

aimlessly while we argue with government officials over who's hand should be

on the tiller.

32
USE OF PRESCRIBED FIRE ON INDUSTRIAL

LANDS IN THE GULF COASTAL PLAIN PJJD UPLANDS

Richard A. Williams l/

Abstract. --The Mid-Continent Division of Georgia-Pacific

Corporation uses prescribed fire extensively as a cultural

tool in loblolly-shortleaf pine management in the Arkansas,

Louisiana, Mississippi region. Fire is used for fuel reduction, site preparation or brush control in areas that

foresters determine by ground reconnaisance are best suited

for the treatment. Considerable care and planning burns

is involved in coordinating with other operations, preventing damage by scorch and in smoke management.

The use of prescribed fire as a silvicultural. tool has been in effect for

over half a century in the southern pine region. Restricted primarily to longleaf pine forests at first, its use came into prominence in loblolly-shortleaf

forests thirty-five to forty years ago. The even-aged condition of longleaf

stands, the fire resistence of the species and the need for control of brownspot

disease by burning off diseased needles made controlled fire and longleaf pine

highly compatible. In loblolly pine, however, the mixed age condition of the

early cutover stands, the species lesser fire resistence and the problems of

rougher terrain and varied fuels made foresters highly cautious in using fire.

As the young second growth loblolly-shortleaf rapidly developed into relatively even-aged stands it became evident that the hardwood brush component

would be a major problem in future operations. The need for dealing with hardwood brush was even more urgent on the areas understocked with pine. Observation

of the hardwood control in repeatedly burned longleaf forests and the fact that

virgin loblolly-shortleaf stands, prior to adequate fire prevention, were relatively brush free encouraged foresters to investigate the possibilities of using

controlled fire in the loblolly-shortleaf type.

Investigative work to see if fire could be used successfully in loblolly

pine stands mainly for brush control and seed bed preparation began in the

latter half of the forties, although its use had been recommended by a few

foresters for some time.

The Southeast Forest Experiment Station, several industrial forests, and

later the Texas Forest Service and the Southern Forest Experiment Station established a number of test plots. By the early fifties some companies were control

burning rather extensively and as the Forest Experiment Stations began to lend

support and through much of the work of the Texas Forest Service, state and

federal land managers began to use the tool.

The relative hazards of using fire, incorporating a program using fire into

the overall public relations program, uncertainty as to the site effects, and

unwillingness to cope with some of the administrative problems in a burning

program have had an effect on the overall acceptance by loblolly-shortleaf pine

managers.

l/ Management Forester, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Mid-Continent Division,

Crossett, Arkansas.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA Sept.I2-14,1984 33
The prescribed burning program reported on herein has been accomplished

over the last thirty-five to forty years on the lands of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Mid-Continent Division (formerly owned by The Crossett Company) in southeast Arkansas.

Fairly extensive prescribed burns were employed on lands of The Crossett

Company starting in the late 1940's. These were done both for the purpose of

seed bed preparation for natural seeding and for brush control, but they were

administered without much thought to how they would tie into future operations.

Much of the earlier burning was done in areas that looked likely for good results.

In the early 1950's some test plots were established in order to have some

basis for predicting the hardwood control that could be expected under local

conditions. This coincided with the time that herbicides were coming into

their own, applied as basal sprays, foilage sprays or directly into the stem,

first in frills and then by injector. Also, the inclination for burning the

woods was diminished by the severe drought and severe fire hazard years of

1952 to 1954.

For loblolly pine managers using natural reproduction as all or part of

their regeneration plan, the need for prompt and adequate reproduction under

conditions where the earliest returns can be realized, accomplished by the

most cost efficient means, still places the use of prescribed fire in a high

priority.

The objectives of the use of fire in the loblolly-shortleaf type of the

South shoul% be broken into three major categories and more than one objective

may be achieved by any one fire. They are as follows:

Fuel or hazard reduction burns.- This can be described as the burning

of fuels (generally in the form of heavy litter) under controlled conditions

when there will be negligible damage, to prevent the severe damage that might

occur from wildfire. Such burns are normally applied in younger stands in areas

of high frequency of wildfire.

Site preparation or reproduction burns.-- These are applied where the

objective is to create conditions more favorable to the establishment of new

reproduction. The need is to expose mineral soil and also to kill or weaken

as much hardwood as possible. Frequently this may be an area of poor to no

pine stocking before or after logging, where the fuels are sparse and only

adaptable to winter burning.

Brush control burns.-- The objective here is primarily to keep the brush

at a size where it can be controlled with fire; the longer range objective is

to reduce the quantity of understory hardwood to the point where it will be a

minimum problem at the time of regeneration. Beneficial secondary effects are

in the nature of better operating conditions in the stand prior to regeneration.

Georgia-Pacific's Mid-Continent Division forestry department considers

the above objectives very important in its forest management work on company

controlled lands in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi and high priority is

given to accomplish a large annual burning program. Nearly all the major forest

industries in our company's operating area do some prescribed burning, although

much of the recorded area consists of broadcost burns or windrow burning on

site prepared lands to be planted.

34
Our company foresters average burning forty to fifty thousand acres

per year over three states. In Arkansas, which contains nearly so"/, of the

Division's fee land base, it is estimated that our foresters burn one

quarter of the timbered area burned in the state, excluding site prepared

landburning.

All phases of our company's prescribed burning program is done with

company personnel. Even though there are years when the acreage goals

are not met because of weather problems or the press of other work, we do

not contract out the burning as we do with other silvicultural programs.

The operational forester needs to have the goal uppermost in priority

during the limited burning season to take advantage of every opportunity in

order to get the job accomplished. A large scale burning program requires

careful planning and coordination with other silvicultural work and with

logging operations.

Planning the prescribed burn starts with reconnaissanc,e of the forest

by the forester in charge of field work on a portion of company land. Each

year the forester "recor-Qt cruises the next year's working compartment to

determine cultural and cutting needs. Forest stand conditions are mapped

and the coded recommended needs are overlaid on the stand map. Priority

ranking of areas to be burned must be established.

Prescribed burns to establish new pine reproduction are ranked highest

in priority because timing with cutting operations, season of the year, and

seed crops are all critical to a successful regeneration effort.

Brush control and hazard reduction burns also require coordination in

timing with other operations but not to the degree of reproduction burning.

These burns are usually done on a cyclic or repeat basis on the order of three

to five years. Most brush control burning is done in the winter and early

spring, following the pattern of longleaf managers, burning at a time GIlen the

grass component has cured and fire carries well and potential damage to overstory pine is at a minimum. Single winter fires are not effective in killing

brush so that some repetitive pattern must be maintained. Ideally, a first

time winter or spring burn followed by several smer burns at two to three

year intervals accomplishes the maximum hardwood control in fully stocked

pulpwood and young sawlog stands but there is considerable difficulty in

maintaining this schedule on an extensive basis.

The winter or spring burning season under our local southeast Arkansas

conditions is from mid-October to early April. In the average year we are

fortunate to have forty to fifty good burning days and the bulk of the work

is normally accomplished in February and March. The Sumner burning season

starts in June and may be considered effective through September. The percentage of days with good burning conditions is even poorer in summer, averaging twenty-five to thirty. Unfortunately, the periods of time ideal for

carrying on prescribed burning coincides with the danger of wildfire occurrence

and may often have an effect on number of acres burned. Company burning operations are reduced when wildfire hazard becomes severe in the fall or spring.

The silvicultural benefits of an extensive prescribed burning program

in the loblolly-shortleaf forests of the mid-south are many. Any curtailment

35
of the practice would have a great impact on forest management on GeorgiaPacific land.

Thirty-five years of experience and studies have led us to the following

conclusions:

1. Prescribed burning is the most cost-effective cultural means

available for controlling hardwood brush on pine land.

2. Well-stocked pulpwood or sawlog stands cast enough fuel each year

for annual or biennial burns.

3. Three or four biennial summer burns can reduce hardwood sprout

clumps by as much as 75%.

4. Sumner burning is not hazardous to pirie overstories provided there

has not been recent cutting and that there is enough wind to dissipate the

heat.

5. Initial reduction of accumulated litter is essential preceeding summer burning and should be accomplished'by a winter burn.

6. Excellent pine seed bed conditions are a result of burning.

7. Fire protection from major diastrous wildfires is aided by a patchwork of control burns.

8. Working conditions for timber operations such as timber marking and

logging are enhanced by burning on a regular schedule.

The techniques used in firing prescribed burns varies greatly with

objective, fuel conditions, weather, and location of burn site. Each of the

company operating units or districts , averaging about 50,ooO acres in size,

maintains a crawler tractor, fire plow, truck and trailer, six to eight man

crew and two-way radio equipment. Along with the many other responsibilities

of forest management and raw material supply, they prescribe burn some three

thousand to five thousand acres annually.

All firing techniques are used except for aerial ignition which we have

not employed yet on company lands. In general, head fires are most commonly

used in reproduction burning because of lighter fuels and backing fires are

used in hazard reduction and brush control burning. Occasionally flank and

strip firing is done and rarely the spot firing technique. At the completion

of every burn the fire line is thoroughly checked by the crew and may be checked

several times for assurance that there is not danger of breakover.

Every effort is made in the company burning program to achieve the objective of the burn with a minimum of overstory pine scorch. This is a difficult

goal to meet when burning a large acreage over a wide range of conditions.

It is especially difficult to coordinate the timing of the burn when there

is a minimum of logging debris that would cause blow ups within the burn.

The cutting cycle on the majority of area burned is five to seven years so

timing is critical. Heavy crown scorch has a serious impact on growth and

should not be tolerated in any situation where a residual stand is to be left

for growth.

36
Smoke management is a phase of the prescribed burning program that

cannot be ignored. It is not only good public relations but also essential to the safety of employees as well as the public in a number of

situations. There are few places left in the south today where forested

tracts are so isolated that no one is affected by the smoke from burns.

In a number of areas there has been a considerable extension of residences

into rural areas and road improvement and building has made the forest more

accessible to the public.

All of our cowany foresters have attended the cooperative USFS-State

training sessions on prescribed burning and smoke management and are familiar

with the guidelines to reduce the impact of smoke listed in the USFS publication "A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests". A11 of the listed

quidelines are good common-sense factors that Georgia-Pacific management

endorses and requests its operating foresters to take into account in their

burning program. Although no formal written plan is drawn up for each fire,

the forester is accountable to follow the following procedure:

1. Every prescribed burn has a clearly defensible silvicultural and

economic objective. .

2. Weather forecasts are obtained from several local sources.

3. Checks are made with the state fire control agency to determine

conditions prior to ignition.

4. Consideration is given to postponing burns in areas when conditions

are not right for rapid smoke dispersion.

5. Determination of smoke drift and possible impact on sensitive areas

is made prior to ignition.

6. The state fire control agency is notified of burning intent.

7. Test fires are often used to test conditions and behavior patterns.

a. Backfires are more corrunonly used to give more complete comswtion

of fuel.

9. Relatively small blocks , ranging from forty to two-hundred acres in

size are burned.

10. Burn-out and mop-up is carried on as soon as possible.

11. Nearly all burning is carried out in the daytime when burning conditions are better.

12. Crews are left to patrol and maintain fire lines until the fires

are safe.

There are definite risks associated with a large scale burning program.

Prescribed fires can get out of control, break over and cause extensive property

damage. Variable conditions within large burn areas can cause pockets of

severe damage to valuable timber. Heavy crown scorch caused by burning under

37
the wrong conditions can retard growth. Unanticipated smoke problems can

cause disagreeable or unsafe situations for neighboring landowners and the

public and result in unfavorable public relations.

Over the past twenty years nearly four hundred thousand acres of Crossett

Forest lands in south Arkansas and north Louisiana have been burned by company

foresters. During this time there has been a high degree of success in

achieving the objectives of the program with a minti of problems.

Training, careful planning and good judgement will eliminate many

mistakes and help avoid the pitfalls. Taking these factors into account,

the benefits of prescribed burning in loblolly-shortleaf forests are substantial.

38
PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CONSULTING FORESTERS.IN THE SOUTH

L. Keville Larson, ACFk/

Abstract .--Consulting foresters are described as a growing force

representing the best potential for expanded use of prescribed fire

on private nonindustrial forestlands. Recognition by consultants and

others of the true costs of prescribed burning is advocated as well

as State policies to encourage the private sector, training and education in fire and smoke management and consideration of certification for prescribed burners.

INTRODUCTION

Fire is a tool of proven value in forest management and its use can contribute to increased benefits from southern timberlands. Approximately 75% of

these lands are private nonindustrial forestlands (PNIF). Consulting foresters

are a major source of forest management advice for PNIF and can play an important role in expanding prescribed burning activities. Consideration should be

given to factors which will encourage responsible use of fire by consultants.

DESCRIPTION OF CONSULTANTS

There is no typical profile for consulting foresters. They are all independent businessmen, but the size and description of their practices vary.

Seventy percent are sole proprietorships, but there are some large diversified

firms employing as many as 20-30 foresters (Field, 1984). Consultants are a

growing force. Their number in the South has increased from 375 in 1969 to 609

in 1980 (Pleasonton, 1969; Field, 1984). The Association of Consulting Foresters National membership has doubled every ten years since 1958. There is little doubt they will play an increasingly important role in management of the

South's forests. One recent study indicated that 50% of the private nonindustrial forest owners who regenerated their lands after harvesting and 50% of

those with management plans obtained their advice from consultants (Fesco,

1982). A current survey of consultants in Georgia is expected to show more than

one million acres of timberland are managed by consultants in the State (Cubbage

and Hodges, 1984).

Few figures are available to measure the use of prescribed fire by consultants. Field (1984) indicated that in the southeast 2.2% of consultants' 1980

gross income came from prescribed burning. Preliminary results from the Cubbage

and Hodges (1984) Survey of Consultants indicates that over 100,000 acres are

burned annually for TSI or natural regeneration in Georgia and another 25,000

acres are burned for site preparation. This number is put into perspective by

the total estimate of 665,000 acres prescribed burned in Georgia.

Consultants adopted prescribed burning because its economy and multiple

benefits help meet the objectives of clients. It was recognized as difficult,

but seen as a necessary evil rather than a money making service. Many consul11 President, Larson & McGowin, Inc., Mobile, Alabama and Director at Large,

Association of Consulting Foresters

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984.

39
tants only use fire on continuous management clients and do not provide it to

others. The purposes are usually hardwood control, fuel reduction, wildlife

habitat, and seed bed preparation. Other benefits can be reduced site preparation costs, unsolicited natural regeneration, improved timber sales, better

accessibility for recreation and management. It is seldom described by consultants as a profitable service.

PROBLEMS

The most significant problems and factors limiting the amount of burning

done by consulting foresters are: (1) competition from subsidized rates (2)

equipment and manpower (3) risk and liability (4) weather and time.

The activities of State forestry agencies vary from State to State. Most

States provide fire line plowing for a fee and some also offer burning. It is

generally acknowledged the rates charged for these services are low. Similar

services are also often available through industry assistance programs at cost

or at a rate reflecting experience in burning large, well managed industrial

tracts. In these cases the equipment and personnel costs are often charged primarily to protection or other purposes. The calculation for the independent

consulting forestry business is completely different. It generally must include

proper allocation of the costs of owning equipment. A dollar value or rating

factor should also be attached to the substantial risk of liability which has

the potential of destroying a sole proprietor's business and personal assets.

There is also a cost to putting one kind of work ahead of all others on a priority schedule and the necessity of working nights and weekends. An experience

and judgement cost factor may or may not be appropriate. There is a cost to

exercising responsibility to the public and the environment by not taking

chances with stagnation index, considering smoke management and being prepared

to warn traffic or stop burning if necessary. Competition from unrealistic

prices is a serious deterrent to the use of prescribed fire by consultants,

because it removes the reward which motivates them.

Related to this is the problem of lack of equipment and skilled manpower.

Few consultants have a truck and tractor unit. The reason frequently is because

services are readily available from the State and consultants can not afford to

own a unit and compete with the low State rate. The same applies to the actual

burning in states which offer this service, giving consultants little incentive

to train additional personnel. Usually the State or a contractor is depended

on to plow lines or push out permanent 12 - 15 foot firebreaks around the

tracts, and sometimes to do the actual burning. Some consultants do their own

burning often with no unit standing by. They are concerned about not following

the strict equipment and manpower guidelines in Forest Service and other publications, but say it is not practical or affordable at "going rates".

Liability insurance coverage is of major importance because the risks are

great. Damages from a fire too hot or from an escape can be substantial, but

are minor compared to the potential for loss of life and financial disaster as a

result of a traffic death from smoke on a highway. Traffic accidents associated

with smoke from forestry burning have increased and there is a serious need for

training, education and perhaps licensing of all individuals involved in pre40
scribed burning.

Weather and time limitations will always be a problem in expanding the

amount of prescribed burning. In my opinion better understanding of weather,

improved forecasts and the opportunity to make a profit will encourage

consultants to make optimum use of available weather and time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There has been considerable emphasis in forestry literature on the benefits

from prescribed burning, but little attention given to the true costs. A

thorough cost benefit analysis by a business oriented accountant could allow

recognition by the forestry community of realistic burning costs. The prospect

of a fair profit would stimulate prescribed burning on PNIF.

In most States the expressed objective is to encourage delivery of forest

management services through the private enterprise sector. Enforcement of policies designed to achieve this objective is important. Such policies include not

providing services where consultants or contractors are available, limitation of

services to only small ownerships and setting rates which are not unrealistic.

Providing information and education concerning techniques or improved weather

forecasts through demonstrations or training sessions is also appropriate. In

addition, careful balancing to avoid excessive regulation, but provide control

through permits can encourage rather than restrict responsible private sector

burning.

Consideration should also be given to licensing or certification of prescribed burners similar to that required for herbicide applicators. Currently

there are no restrictions on who can carry out prescribed burning. Foresters,

landowners, contractors and farmers are all involved. Foresters generally have

received education and training, others may have none. Inexperienced or irresponsible people may cause serious problems. On marginal burning days it may

endanger the public to give a permit to anyone who requests. Certification

could provide a basis for selective permitting, which in turn would increase

flexibility of those certified and reduce danger to the public and reduce

potential liability of the State.

LITERATURE CITED

Cubbage, F., and Hodges, D. 1984. Preliminary Results of Consultants Survey in

Georgia. Unpubl_ished.

Fesco, R. S. et. al. 1982. Forest Management Decisions on Harvested Southern

Forestlands: Why landowners do or do not Reforest Their Lands to Southern

Pine. Statistical Bulletin, U. S. D. A. Statistical Reporting Service.

Field, D., and Holt, S. 1984. Consulting Forestry Services available to Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners in the United States. USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Report for Grant No. 42-360

Pleasonton, A. 1969. Southern Forestry Consultants and Their Views. Journal

of Forestry 67: 658-672.

41

Prescribed Fire Use by Federal Agencies

in the South

DICK A. COX L/

History does not record the beginning of the use of prescribed fire in the

South by Federal agencies other than General Sherman’s march through the South.

The use of prescribed fire as a management tool was recognized by the

USDA-Forest Service in 1943 for the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and slash

pine (Pinus elliotti) types only. No burning was to be done “except that

which follows a systematically prearranged plan for the accomplishment of

defined purpose . . .“. 2/ With this authority came a caution that all other

agencies would be watching to see how well we carried out this charge.

Table 1 provides an historical account of the use of prescribed fire on

National Forest System lands from 1943. The current burning program is

approximately 500,000 acres and an ideal program would be approximately

700,000 acres.

.

Without specific knowledge, we assume the other Federal agencies followed the

Forest Service in developing a prescribed burning program.

Taking into account the variety of Federal Land Managers--including The

Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park

Service--prescribed fire is truly accomplished for multiple use purposes. The

most unusual is the use of prescribed fire to make targets visible for

strafing with aircraft. This may not be land management but it is a use

nonetheless.

Federal agencies in the South burn 786,000 to 864,000 acres annually. The

breakdown is as follows (Table 2) :

TABLE 2 - Annual Acreage Burned by Federal Agencies.

AGENCY TOTAL ACRES

62 000

4:ooo

130,000

68,000

500,000

100,000

=VJJIJ

-Fish8 Wildlife Service

-Bureau of Indian Affairs

-Department of the Army

-Department of the Air Force

-Forest Service

-National Park Service

GRAND TOTAL

l! Director of

-

Aviation 8 Fire, Southern Region, USDA Forest Service.

2/ Letter to Regional Forester, Region 8, from Lyle F. Watts, Chief

Forest Service, 1943.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sep-t. 12-14, 1984.

of the

Smoke

43
44
A survey of agencies listed here revealed that considerable burning is

conducted without a specific written plan.

The Fish 6 Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service

require written, rather detailed plans. Others require only that proper

coordination takes place, burning is based on experience, or they provide only

a simple written record.

The same situations apply to smoke management plans. However, all agencies

expressed concern about the management of smoke and all have restricted

burning in some areas because of smoke limitations. This has in turn limited

their use of precribed fire.

Several of the agencies have had claims for damages resulting from prescribed

fire or smoke. These range from only a few dollars through several hundred

thousand for highway accidents, to a $3 million claim settled out of court.

Apparently, only the Forest Service has ~_ _ a training and qualification program

structured specifically for prescribed fire and smoke management personnel.

Most of the other Federal agencies require experience from on-the-job training

under an experienced burner.

Only the National Park Service is burning as many acres as desirable with no

major problems. All other agencies are limited in accomplishing the desired

acres due to various constraints. Some limitations are lack of funds, lack of

adequate numbers of personnel, lack of trained personnel because of the many

restrictions such as smoke regulations, and the necessity of coordination with

other administrative needs and activities.

In summary, most Federal agencies have a need for a training and qualification

system to enable them to accomplish more acres while meeting the requirements

of new regulations, such as smoke restrictions. Aerial ignition is used by

some agencies while other agency policies restrict the use of this versatile

tool.

The scientific application of fire has proven to be a worthwhile, cost

effective land management tool. Our challenge is to develop ways to

accomplish this in the face of expanding regulations, tighter controls and

reduced numbers of personnel.

45

SMOKE MANAGEMENT

Hugh E. MobleG'

INTRODUCTION

In the past few years there has been a big change in the smoke problem

from prescribed burning and the resulting restrictions, and these restrictions

vary greatly in extent and format. At the time of a survey of the southern

states about 10 years ago, a large majority of the states had no restrictions

of any form and the few that existed were not stringent or they were in states

where prescribed burning is not used extensively. Today, only three states

have no regulations or any type of restrictions on prescribed burning, and one

of these is now considering some type of restriction. Three states have a voluntary system that is fairly extensive. The rest of the states in the south

now have some type of regulations. In most cases, these regulations are not

enforced until complaints are made.

Ten years ago there was no known smoke problem in the south from prescribed burning except isolated pockets, or at least we were not aware of them.

Today, the smoke problem from prescribed burning varies from being a major problem in some states to no problem in other states. Regulations have helped

in some areas while in others the problem remains due to increasing population

in rural areas and increasing awareness of air pollution and its effect.

Another observation I would like to make is about the concept of smoke

management by forestry agencies and industry. Without exception, all groups

generally comply with all regulations and restrictions including the voluntary

systems. In many cases where there are no or only slight restrictions, they do

more. Training, however, ranges from very little to barely adequate in most

government agencies and little to none with industry personnel.

HIGHLIGHTS OF REGULATIONS

To show the general types of state regulations and how they vary, let's

look at some of the state air quality regulations that apply to forestry burning.

Oklahoma

1. Prevailing winds must be away from any city or town.

2. Location of burn must not be adjacent (500 feet upwind) to an occupied

residence other than those located on the property.

3. Initial burning may begin only three hours after sunrise to three

hours before sunset.

4. Burning must not create a traffic hazard.

l/Fire Control Section Chief, Alabama Forestry Commission, Montgomery, AL -

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984.

47
Texas

1.

2.

3,

4.

5.

6.

Florida

There has to be no practical alternative to burning.

The Texas Forest Service must be notified.

Wind direction is such as to carry smoke away from any city, industrial area, landing strip, etc. which may be affected by smoke.

Burning must be at least 300 feet from any residential, recreational

or commercial area.

Predicted wind speed must be between 6 m.p.h. and 23 m.p.h.

Agricultural burning and land clearing is restricted to between

9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

These regulations apply to open burning for agricultural, silvicultural or

wildlife management purposes.

1. Burning is allowed only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and one hour

before sunset.

2. Authorization has to be first-secured from the Division of Forestry.

3. The division may allow open burning at other times when there is reasonable

sion of

.

Mississippi

Mississippi has a different approach to the smoke problem. It is based on

assurance that atmospheric conditions will allow good dispersmoke.

a stagnation index calculated by the weather service. There are four catagories

ranging from: no restrictions, slight restrictions, stringent restrictions and

no burning.

Voluntary Systems

North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia have voluntary systems. They

have good cooperation from industry and government agencies but little cooperation from landowners including agriculture. These systems are based on amount

of fuel to be burned (based on an average fuel loading by fuel type), distance

from SSA, and type of dispersion expected. Virginia uses size of area instead

of an estimation of the amount of fuel. In addition, North Carolina requires a

burning permit. In seventeen coastal counties, regulations on burning debris

from land clearings also apply. These restrictions are based on certain hours

during day, no stagnant atmospheric conditions, the amount of soil to be minimized and distance from dwellings.

States with no restrictions due to smoke

At the present, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia have no restrictions on

prescribed burning due to smoke. Louisiana has air quality regulations that

don't really restrict prescribed burning. Georgia has local restrictions in

counties of high population. Alabama has a growing smoke problem. We are

attempting to deal with it through training and assisting industry in developing a more professional prescribed burning program that includes smoke management. A stagnation index is included in the weather forecast and this information is passed along to people requesting permits.

48
SMOKE MANAGEMENT

Most federal and state agencies are now practicing smoke management,.

Written prescriptions are used that include some form of smoke management.

Generally, the screening system described in the "A Guide for Prescribed Fire

in Southern Forests" is used or one developed by the state.

Prescribed burning is part of the management system of most industries

and it is used extensively in the Coastal and Piedmont areas where it is needed.

The use of prescribed burning has been on more of a routine bases. Some use

written prescriptions but in most cases it is left up to the discretion of the

local district forester. In some cases, he is given an acreage quota and is

expected to meet this quota regardless of the weather which adds to the problem.

Training, however, is lacking. Lack of opportunities for training is possibly

the major reason. Generally, the local people learn from working with more experienced people. Consequently, these people are hampered in being able to apply

this experience in prescribed burning to other areas and fuel types and to be

able to make better use of marginal days. In many cases; forest industries and

forestland owners are not aware of a possible smoke problem until it happens and

they have a lawsuit on their hands. *

PRESENT SMOKE PROBLEM

I would like to summarize by highlighting the smoke problem by states:

Texas .--Smoke is a major problem in the forest areas. Debris burning and

burning at night are the major causes.

South Carolina .--The voluntary system is improving the smoke problem in

South Carolina but there is no cooperation from private landowners, agriculture

and hunting clubs. There are several suits each year.

Florida. --Smoke problem is increasing and Florida is considering some type

of additional constraints.

Alabama. --There are numerous problems and complaints each year and they

appear to be increasing. We have placed a restriction on our own people burning

when predicted smoke dispersion is very poor and we now use a screening system

when making the prescription.

Virginia. --There is not a large amount of prescribed burning in Virginia

and most of it is done by forest industry or the state. There are still minor

problems and complaints because of the population.

Oklahoma and Arkansas. --Both states have regulations and the amount of

burning is small, Consequently, smoke is not a problem.

North Carolina .--With the regulations in the coastal counties and an aggressive voluntary system in the rest of the state, the smoke problem in North

Carolina has been drastically reduced. Their major problem is inadequate lead

time with weather forecasts.

49
Georgia and Louisiana. --Forest land is in more rural areas and employment

in local communities is mostly forestry oriented. Consequently, there is no

major smoke problem from prescribed burning at the present.

LITERATURE CITED

Mobley, Hugh E., etc. 1978. A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests,

U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Area, Atlanta,

GA.

50
WEATHER, FIRE DANGER RATING SYSTEMS AND FIRE BEHAVIOR

USE IN PRESCRIBED BURNING AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH

John G. Shepherd&/

Abstract. --State-of-the-art applications of weather, fire

danger rating, and fire behavior in smoke management and prescribed

burning by southern fire managers are addressed. Validations of

fire predictive systems versus observed fire conditions are

stressed as a prime need in the south.

Keywords: Prescribed fire, smoke management, fire danger rating,

weather, fire behavior.

MY topic for this session on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in the

South deals with the state of the art applications in weather and fire danger

rating. One additional area that is an integral part of weather application is

the basic utilization of fire behavior.'

Williams (1977) aptly stated that fire is used: 1) to consume organic

matter and undergrowth (fuel> that poses a potential wildfire hazard and hinders

management, harvesting, and other uses of the forest, 2) to prepare forest

sites for reforestation 3) to control competition and maintain a desirable

balance of tree species and other vegetation 4) to

insects and diseases, and 5) to create conditions

livestock.

Hugh Mobley has discussed the current smoke

guidelines that are in use by the Southern States.

minimize adverse effects of

favorable for wildlife or

management regulations or

The combination of the

prescribed burn requirements combined with our responsibility to properly manage

smoke provides a never-ending challenge to the fire manager.

WEATHER

The basic weather components of temperature, wind, and relative humidity

have been used for decades. In 1981, Jim Paul with the Macon Fire Lab conducted

a survey which, in part, addressed the question of what weather parameters are

currently in use for fire management in the South. Over 60% of the responding

states reported using the following weather related information in their fire

management activities: temperature, relative humidity, wind speed & direction,

mixing height d transport wind speeds, cloud cover, maximum & minimum

temperatures & humidities, and precipitation amount and duration. As our

expertise continues to develop with technological advances, with field

applications, and with field validations, we find that we must be more finite in

the combinations of these basic weather parameters to meet fire and smoke

management needs.

I/ Staff Forester-Fire Control, N.C. Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh,

North Carolina.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984.

51
Two studies (Sackett 1975 & Mobley 1977) determined that high wind speed is

needed for backing fires and low to moderate winds for head fires to disperse

heat and preven t mortality in pine overstory. Persistent wind is a prime

consideration within a stand as it is being burned to prevent flare-ups. In the

South, persistent winds are associated with a cold front with prevailing winds

from the west to northwest following the cold front passage.

The temperature and relative humidity relationship is currently utilized to

provide fine fuel moisture estimations. A southern fire manager now seeks a 6%

to 10% fine fuel moisture range when considering burning for hazard reduction.

Over 80% of hazard reduction burns are accomplished during the fall and winter

months with these weather guidelines: Temperature 20 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit,

humidity 30%-50%, win d speed 2-5 mph in the stand, and burning accomplished

afte r a significant rain (usually 1 day after precipitation in longleaf stands

and 2-3 days after precipitation in loblolly stands.)

The most recent expansion o f weather needs in the South has been

evaluation of the upper atmosphere wind field and development of procedures to

forecast certai n parameters in the upper atmosphere. Most o f the Southern

States have what is referred to as smoke dispersion categories, smoke dispersion

indexes, o r stagnat ion indexes. Basically , these are ventilation rates that

combine mixing height and transport wind speeds in the upper atmosphere. Most

systems in use identify this in a gradient format ranging from little or no

smoke dispersion capability to extremely high smoke dispersion capability. The

fire manage r now realizes that in order to insure good smoke dispersion tha t

inver s ions must be burned off and given surface temperatures must be reached

before such inversions are terminated. On the other end of the scale, extremely

good smoke dispersion capability can resu1.t *in interact ion with a burning

operation to create a blow-up fire situation.

The Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook (1976) provides the

methodology for in-depth applications on prescribe burning and smoke tracking

procedures to help prevent adverse impacts of smoke on target areas.

What are some challenges in the general realm of weather?

Cooper (1971) stated in 1971 that over 10 million acres in the South should

be burned each year and that contrary to what many of us think, the days to burn

_are available . The problem identified is that fire managers are not aware of

these days and/or cannot take advantage of the favorable burn days to implement

burning operations.

Our weather forecasts have been tailored to provide the specific weathe r

data we request, but as the need to burn more acres on fewer days increases, the

accuracy of the 2-3 day outlooks must be improved. More basic information i s

needed to provide forecasting accuracy for ventiliation rates for day and night

time frames. However, weather forecasters must not work in a vacuum. Field

weather observations must not only be taken by user agencies, but these data

must be provided to weather forecasters for verification of forecasts. Several

southern state s are r equ ir ing that field weather observations must b e

transmitted to weathe r forecasters prior to spot forecast s issuance t o the

requesting user.

It’s a two-way street!

52
FIRE DANGER RATING

A tool that is in use in the South to assist in planning for prescribed

burning and smoke management is fire danger rating. Basically, the 1964 and

1978 fire danger rating systems have been implemented in the Southern States

for long range planning purposes. One index that is commonly used, but with

different applications, is the build-up index from the 1964 fire danger rating

system. Most of the Southern States maintain build-up index information to

measure cumulative drying of heavy forest fuel beds. Ranges of cumulative

drying have been used to alert forest agencies and cooperators to potentially

severe burning conditions and prescribed burning operations have been terminated

when build-up indexes reach extremely high ranges. Florida uses an adjective

fire hazard rating using the build-up index: o-15 Low, 16-40 Moderate, 41-80

High, 81-200 Very High, and 200+ Extreme. In North Carolina, a build-up of <25

provides an indication that peat fuels will ignite and smolder. Another

application of the build-up index is its combination with 20-foot standard wind

speed and mixing height to approximate convection column height which has

application in smoke management programs.

The 1978 National Fire Danger Rating System (1978) is designed to provide

fire danger indexes and components for a relatively large geographic area. The

1978 NFDRS is not applicable as a fire behavior tool for individual fire(s).

The burning index, which uses the spread component and energy release

componment, is being applied in fire planning efforts for prescribed burns in

relatively large geographic areas. The measured lo-hour time lag fuels (l/2"

fuel moisture sticks) are used to determine when ignition can take place in

slightly shaded hardwood and pine litter fuels. Field tests have indicated that

at a moisture content of 15% or less, these litter fuels will ignite and burn.

One major problem that field personnel have identified in the 1978 NFDRS is

in one of the brush fuel models basic structure. This model indicates a very

rapid rise in indexes and components following a significant precipitation

event. This brush fuel in the South normally has a heavy litter layer under the

brush strata and initial ignition is in the litter layer. Shading by the brush

strata restricts rapid drying and resulting fuel moisture in the litter is much

higher than indicated by the 1978 NFDRS.

FIRE BEHAVIOR

The fire behavior side of prescribed burning can best be thought of as a

small pane of glass in the bigger window of fire danger rating.

Southern fire managers are continuing to refine the use of weather in fire

behavior estimations. Currently, weather inputs are combined with related fuels

and topography to determine forward rates of fire spread, flame length, and

ignition component for prescribed burn operations. This information is derived

using Rothermel's (1983) equations, nomograms, or the T.I. 59 handheld

calculator. The procedure, designed primarily for wildfire predictions by fire

behavior specialists is being applied to the prescribe burning field. Although,

Anderson's "Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior" (1983)

is an excellent source document for identifying fire behavior fuel models, the

primary problem is the existing fuel models in the fire behavior system do not

always match fuels in the South.

53
This situation is bein g addressed in an improved version of the fir e

behavior sys tern “BEHAVE : Fire Behavior and Fuel Modelling System” (1984)

recently completed at the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory in Missoula, Montana.

This system, in part, enables the user to build customized fuel models that can

be used in the T.I . 59 or through a larger computer system to more accurately

approximate on-site fuel conditions. Further customizing a fuel model can lead

toward the goal of matching observed fire behavior with predicted (forecasted )

fire behavior .

OBSERVATIONS

There is a continuing need to promote weather data exchanges between

weather forecasters and prescribe burners. The transmission of on-site weather

data provides the weather forecaster with raw data which assists in constructing

weather forecast s for the specific site and can provide verification for a

weather forecasters ’ products . Although the majority o f on-sit e weather

observations are taken with a simple belt weathe r kit , the technology i s

availabl e through devices such as the portable RAWS to continuously record and

transmit on-site weather data to off-site meteorologists or other users.

The limited number of upper atmospheric soundings in the Southern States

cannot adequately provide background data for day and night smoke dispersion

forecasts . Although military and local agencies supplement this data with pibal

readings, the increasing demands on smoke management will require continuing

procedural refinements and long-range forecast accuracy.

Fire danger ratings systems are in use in most Southern States . The

primary reason for operating under any particular system is the reliabilit y

factor of the indexes or components most commonly used. In North Carolina our

original intent was to use and apply all the indexes and components in the 1978

NFDRS . At this point in time , we are stressing the use of the burning index,

ignition component, and spread component. We also use the build-up index from

the 1964 NFDRS. The energy release component (1978 NFDRS) could possibly

replace the 1964 build-up if it is easily understood, and provides more useful

data in addition to the cumulative drying of heavy forest fuels. Fuel models in

the fire dange r rating systems need review/revision with the prime emphasis

aimed at field verification.

Fire behavior as applied to prescribed burns has made significant stride s

in recent years . Here also is a need for field verification under carefully

measured weather conditions.

COMMENTS

It is apparent that in order to accomplish the goals in prescribed burning

that we must be aware and take advantage of what we commonly call “burning days”

or “burning windows. ” With innovations such as aerial ignition, the concept of

forced ignition begins to take shape. Aerial ignition tests in North Carolina

have shown that grid spacing of ignition devices is critical in energy releas e

consideration in prescribed burning. Init ially, the grid spacing of l/2 chain x

l/2 chain was thought to be optimum for hazard reduction burning. In moderate

to heavy fuels, this spacing resulted in heavy overstory scorching due to the

amount o f energy released in a very short period of time. Wider spacing o f

54
aerial ignition devices can provide lesser energy release levels with good fuel

reduction results. If we cannot find the exact conditions to meet the

prescription that we have defined on a particular burn, our firing methods can

be modified to create the type of burn that will meet our prescriptions. If we

can't modify the weather, modify the method of firing.

A Priority Burning System similar to the one implemented in Oregon may

provide answers to smoke management problems. Hopefully, this type of system

could be put into place through the Voluntary Smoke Management Guidelines that

many southern states use.

Training is being implemented in many southern states, addressing all areas

of prescribed burning. A Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management Training session

was held in 1981 at the Withlacoochee State Forest in Florida. The trainees

were from federal, state, and forest industry agencies with representatives from

western, northeast, and southern states. In-house state training sessions have

been conducted, following the Florida training sessions to pass on

technological and practical applications in the field of prescribed burning and

smoke management. Burning bosses, defined as individuals who are qualified to

develop and execute burning plans, are-trained in suppression courses through

the levels of: Organizing for Fire Suppression, Sector Boss, and Intermediate

Fire Behavior.

Finally, increasingly complex prescribed burning plans are reaching into

forest industry communities in the South. The public concern for environmental

protection requires greater documentation and planning efforts by all forest

interests in prescribed burning and smoke management.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire

behavior. USDA Forest Serv. General Tech. Report INT-122, 22 p.

Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, UT.

Burgan, R.E. & Rothermel, R.C. 1984 BEHAVE: Fire behavior and fuel modeling

system-fuel subsystem. USDA Forest Serv. General Tech. Report INT-167, 126

p. Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, UT.

Cooper, R.W. 1971. Current use and place of prescribed burning. In Prescribed

burning symposium proceedings p. 21-27. USDA Forest Serv. S.E. For. Exp.

Stn., Asheville, NC.

Deeming, J.E., Burgan, R.E., and Cohen, J.D. 1977. The National Fire Danger

Rating System - 1978. USDA Forest Serv. General Tech. Report INT-39, 63 p.

Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, UT.

Mobley, H.E. (Senior Compiler) 1976. Southern Forestry Smoke Management

Guidebook. USDA Forest Serv. General Tech. Report SE-lo, 140 p., S.E. Forest

Exp. Stn. Asheville, NC and Southern Forest Fire Lab., Macon, GA.

Mobley, H.E., Jackson, R.S., Balmer, W.E., Ruziska, W.E., and Hough, W.A. 1977.

A guide for prescribed fire in southern forests. USDA Forest Serv. 40 Pm,

S.E. Area, Atlanta, GA.

55
Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and

range fires. USDA Forest Serv. General Tech. Report INT-143, 161 p.

Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, UT.

Sackett, S.S. 1975. Scheduling prescribed burns. In Journal of Forestry, Vol.

73, No. 3, 5 p.

Williams, E. B. 1977. Fire in the management of forests of the southern region,

Southern Forest Products Association 52 p.

56
PRESCRIBED FIRE - ITS HISTORY, USES, AND EFFECTS

IN SOUTHERN FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

David H Van . Lea&'

Abstract .--The character of most southern forest ecosystems

has been shaped by fire. Indians and early settlers fired the

woods for many purposes. After a period of attempted fire

exclusion, foresters recognized the necessity of fire by

prescription in southern pine cover types. This paper describes

the history, uses, and effects of prescribed fire in the South.

When properly applied, presc--ibed fire has many benefits and

minimum adverse environmental effects. While a substantial body

of knowledge exists concerning prescribed fire, much remains to

be learned to fine tune the practice.

Additional key words: wildlife habitat, water and air pollution,

nutrient cycling

INTRODUCTION

Prescribed burning is a multi-faceted forest management tool with a

history almost as old as southern forestry itself. Evolving from a tradition

of random woodsburning by both Indians and early settlers, prescribed fire is

now a mixture of science and art-- a concoction whose benefits are considerable

when properly applied but whose liabilities can be self-limiting if sound

judgment is not used in its application. Since prescribed fire is an

extremely valuable management tool, both from the standpoint of versatility

and cost, it behooves us as foresters to critically evaluate its role in

southern forest management and to analyze the impacts, both positive and

negative, of the practice on the environment.

The current role and importance of prescribed fire in the South can best

be appreciated if we look at the history of fire in the region. Man and fire

have coexisted here for about 20,000 years (Komarek 1974) and the character of

southern forest ecosystems has come to depend on their mutual interaction.

HISTORY OF FIRE IN THE SOUTH

Fire has always been a natural and important ecological force helping to

shape most of the forests of the world (Spurr and Barnes 1980). Through

geologic time before the advent ,of man, lightning served as a mutagenic agent

which forced species and communities to adapt or perish (Komarek 1974).

Evidence of ancient fires can be found in peat beds, and scars from lightning

strikes have been observed on petrified trees. There is little doubt that

plants and plant communities evolved under a regime of periodic lightninginduced fire prior to the advent of prehistoric man.

J-'Professor, Department of Forestry, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta, GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

57
With the arrival of the early Indians in the Southeast some lO,OOO-20,000

years ago, fire became a more frequent occurrence. These early Americans

depended on fire to drive game and for improving habitat of the animal species

they depended upon. Fire enabled these primitive people to control their

environment, and early man preferred the open grassland or savannahs which

resulted from frequent burning. Such environments provided man access to the

grazers and browsers of the grasslands and to the wild grains, berries, and

legumes that appeared after fire. Frequent (annual in many areas of the

South) fires reduced the heavy growth of underbrush so that he could move

safely from area to area with less fear of ambush or attack. The heavy use of

low-intensity surface fires at frequent intervals, coupled with the occasional

conflagration during times of drought, produced the open grassland and forests

free from underbrush when the early settlers arrived. Plant communities

evolved which not only tolerated fire, but which actually required it for

their existence.

European settlers quickly discovered the advantages of firing the

southern woods. Their livelihood was often based on hunting and herding, the

success of which depended upon frequent burning. In the South, understory

growth was exceptionally vigorous and.had to be controlled if grazing and

hunting were to survive. Frequent low-intensity burning kept the "rough"

under control, but did little to harm the pine and pine/hardwood overstory.

Burning to keep the woods open became a southern tradition. Only with fire

could farmers keep their grazing lands open, prepare sites for crops,

eliminate or reduce pests, and dispose of crop debris (Pyne 1982). Improved

grazing for their cattle, better hunting, and temporary pest eradication were

obvious benefits that anyone could readily observe; and of course, dangerous

wildfires were uncommon because fuel loads were light.

So woodsburning became an integral part of the agarian South. As

farmlands wore out from repetitive cropping, new lands were cleared and annual

fires prevented the aggressive southern pines from reclaiming the abandoned

farmland. Such was the picture of the South until the 1880s--a pastoral

economy maintained in large part by woodsburning.

At this time, the logging industry migrated into the South from the Lake

States. After a few decades of exploitive logging , most of the virgin pine

forest had been cut, and fires set to consume logging slash, as well as those

to improve grazing, prevented regeneration. Professional foresters arrived in

the South about the time the last virgin pine forest was being cut. Over

92 million acres of cutover timberlands faced them. It was obvious that

control of random woodsburning was mandatory to allow regeneration of the

forest.

The U.S. Forest Service was adamantly against the use of fire in the

woods during the early decades of the 20th century (Pyne 1982). Even

light-burning was prohibited on recently established National Forests in the

South. Forest Service policy coupled with the establishment of state Forestry

agencies to protect forests from fire sought to create an environment totally

different from that of previous millenia. The coming of industrial forestry

to the South in the 1930s required organized fire protection in an era when

annual woodsburning was as natural as applying fertilizer to agricultural

crops is today. Forestry created the necessity of fire control, or at least

using fire on a different cycle, and brought forestry organizations into

58
conflict with traditional fire practices. Of course, a long-standing

tradition such as woodsburning dies slowly, so the forests burned but not as

frequently as before.

Much debate ensued over the controversy concerning the role of prescribed

fire in forestry. Gradually, the importance of the proper use of fire became

established. H. H. Chapman of Yale University in the early 1900's had distinguished between wildfire, prescribed fire, and woodsburning and advocated the

use of prescribed fire in longleaf pine management. The wildlife biologist

Stoddard (1931) had published his monumental study on the importance of

prescribed fire in the management of bobwhite quail. The consequences of a

fire exclusion policy were brought home by a series of disasterous wildfires

in the thirties and forties and especially the fifties which convinced many

foresters of the potential use of prescribed fire in reducing fuel hazards

and, therefore, wildfire damage. The naval stores industry, which had been

active since the 17OOs, had demonstrated that annual burning could protect

valuable timber from wildfire by reducing fuel hazard (Pyne 1982). Today,

prescribed fire is recognized as an essential forest management tool by most

foresters, but the general public and certain regulating agencies have little

understanding of its use and importance: Its benefits and liabilities are

still being debated.

CURRENT PRESCRIBED FIRE USES

Prescribed fire, i.e., fire to accomplish specific planned management

objectives, is used for many purposes. Fuel reduction is the primary use of

prescribed fire, especially in the vast pineries of the Coastal Plain.

Without periodic burning, a dense understory of hardwoods, vines, grasses, and

pine straw develops rapidly into a highly dangerous rough. Within a period of

a few years, this rough, if ignited, could produce a high-intensity fire

capable of destroying the overstory and doing extensive damage to property.

Komarek (1984) described how pine stands with heavy accumulations of fuels can

be burned several times within one year, taking off a layer of fuel each time.

Too often foresters attempt to reduce fuels too quickly.

Prescribed fire is used to control fuel accumulation in young pine

plantations prior to thinning. Generally, the first burn should be a

low-intensity backing fire during cool (< 50'F) weather and with sufficient

steady winds to dissipate heat away from the low crowns. In slash and

loblolly pine stands, the first burn can be accomplished when total height of

stands averages about 15 feet, according to the USDA Forest Service Region-8

prescribed fire guide. Ground diameter should be at least 3 inches to prevent

cambium scorch. Soil and lower litter should be moist and fuel loading light

to prevent levels of fire intensity that could damage the stand. Suitable

conditions for this type of burning normally occur 1 to 3 days after passage

of a strong cold front with rain.

Long-term research has shown that the hardwood understory can be

controlled with either periodic or annual burning (Lotti 1961, Harshbarger and

Lewis 1976, Langdon 1981). Low intensity prescribed fires in pine stands are

not effective in top-killing hardwood stems greater than 3 inches in diameter

(Ferguson 1961). Summer fires tend to be more effective in killing tops than

winter fires. Root stocks of hardwoods generally sprout following either

winter or summer fires, although sprouting vigor is greater following winter

59
fire. Annual winter burning will reduce the size of understory hardwood

stems, but not eliminate them even if done for decades, Repeated annual

summer fires will completely remove small understory hardwoods from the stand.

Prescribed fire can be used to prepare seedbeds or sites for planting.

Fires used to prepare seedbeds for natural seeding are generally of low

intensity since burns are normally conducted in advance of heavy cutting and

the seed-producing trees must be protected. Low-intensity burns have been

used effectively in the Coastal Plain (Lotti 1961) and Piedmont (Van Lear

et al. 1983) to regenerate loblolly pine by clearcutting with seed-in-place.

Similar types of burning are recommended prior to the reproduction cut in the

seedtree method or any cut in the shelterwood method (Baker and Balmer 1983).

For site preparation prior to planting, burning intensity is higher since

logging slash must be reduced. The most effective site preparation burning is

generally done in the first summer following logging, although it can be done

in any month. During the summer months, sprouting from burned hardwood stumps

is less vigorous because stored carbohydrates in the roots are at low levels.

Burning of the lush green vegetation of summer can be more readily accomplished

by felling residual whips and culls after sprin

41

leaf out, followed by a month

or so of curing, and burning in July or August.- This procedure allows site

preparation burns to be done within days after soaking rains when the lower

forest floor and soil are still moist, thereby keeping potential soil damage

to a minirpum. The number of burning days, which is often limiting, is

increased because of the presence of cured fuels. In addition, adjacent uncut

stands are less at risk because fine fuels in these stands are at a higher

moisture content than in the clearcut area.

Wildlife habitat can be improved or degraded by prescribed fire as

countless studies and several bibliographies and symposia have shown (Lyon

et al. 1978, Harlow and Van Lear 1981, Wood 1981). With hundreds of species

of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians in southern forests, this should

not be unexpected. Prescribed fire can improve habitat for many of the major

game species by increasing sprouting of browse, by providing seedbeds for

legumes and herbaceous vegetation, by stimulating germination of seed stored

in the forest floor, and by setting back succession to create or maintain

cover requirements. Knowledge of the habitat requirements of species to be

featured in management, particularly those of threatened or endangered

species, will allow fire to be used or prohibited to accomplish management

goals. However, southern wildlife evolved under a regime of periodic fire, so

it should not be surprising to discover that prescribed burning is beneficial

to most wildlife species.

Prescribed fire can be used to control brownspot needle blight in longleaf

pine seedlings. Seedlings of this species are sensitive to this disease as

well as competition from other plants. Annual burning after seedlings are

large enough to resist damage can control both factors and encourage rapid

height growth out of the grass stage (Boyer and Peterson 1983). Prescribed

burning may also play a role in reducing incidence of root rot. Froelich et

al. (1978) reported that incidence of Annosus root rot was reduced in loblolly

L/Personal communication with Jim Abercrombie, Assistant District Ranger,

Andrew Pickens Ranger District, Sumter National Forest, South Carolina.

60
and slash plantations in the Coastal Plain burned prior to and after thinning.

The authors speculated that increased post-fire temperatures on burned plots

or greater competition from other fungal competitors, rather than reduced

inoculum, was the cause of the reduction.

Other use of prescribed fire are also important. It is used to improve

forage for grazing by increasing the palatability, quality, quantity, and

availability of grasses and forbs (Komarek 1974). It also removes underbrush,

allowing for more efficient marking and harvesting of timber. Frequent

burning creates an open, park-like appearance in stands which is esthetically

pleasing. In addition, the diversity of flowering annual and biennial plants

in these oft-burned stands is increased, thereby improving the appearance of

the area and perhaps its ecological stability.

EFFECTS OF PRESCRIBED FIRE

Soil

Many factors, including fire intensity, ambient temperature, vegetation

type, and soil moisture influence the effects of fire on the soil (Wells

et al. 1979). Low-intensity prescribed fires may improve productivity of

Coastal Plain soils (McKee 1982). Results of long-term prescribed burning

studies in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina and Florida showed that

available phosphorus, exchangeable calcium, and organic matter of soil on

burned plots were higher than those on unburned plots. The finding that

phosphorous availability was increased is significant because most Coastal

Plain soils are phosphorus deficient. Burning apparently increases exchangeable

calcium in the soil by reducing the immobilization of the element in the

forest floor, thereby allowing it to leach into the soil. Increased organic

matter after burning was probably the result of greater abundance of

fibrous-rooted grasses and legumes, plus the accumulation of charred material

in the soil profile. Total nitrogen in the mineral soil was not decreased by

periodic burning and may be increased by annual winter and summer burning

because of greater abundance of N-fixing legumes and more herbs on burned

plots. Nitrcgen in the forest floor was reduced because of volatilization and

perhaps, to a minor extent, leaching. McKee suggests that periodic burning

slows the weathering process and may help maintain soil productivity by

reducing the leaching of cations by organic acids from the forest floor.

Prescribed burning normally removes only part of the forest floor. In

Arkansas, Moehring et al. (1966) found that a decade of low-intensity annual

burnings reduced the weight of the forest floor by 64 percent. Similar

results have been reported for other ,long-term burning studies in South

Carolina (Metz et al. 1961) and in Virginia (Romancier 1960). Single, low

intensity burns in previously unburned Piedmont pine stands consumed about

5,000 to 6,000 lbsjac of forest floor (Brender and Cooper 1968, Kodama and Van

Lear 1980). Even high-intensity broadcast burns generally leave portions of

the forest floor intact, because rarely do these types of fires burn uniformly

hot over the entire area. Prescribed fire is a random process (Johnson 1984),

and there are always areas that fail to burn or burn only lightly, even in

generally intense fires. The quantity of forest floor left unconsumed can be

controlled by the prescription and execution of the burning. Broadcast burns

set when the lower forest floor and soil are moist seldom consume the entire

duff layer, especially when relatively fast-moving head fires are used.

61
Amounts of nitrogen volatilized during low-intensity burning in loblolly

pine stands have been estimated between 20 lbs/ac (Kodama and Van Lear 1980)

and 100 lbs/ac (Wells 1971). Sulfur is also volatilized during burning, but

amounts lost would be small because of low concentrations in forest fuels.

High intensity fires used to eliminate logging slash, which averages about 20

and 30 tons/at following harvest of upland hardwoods and bottomland hardwoods,

respectively, and 9 and 3 tons/at in natural and plantation pine (Phillips

and Van Lear 1984) would volatilize much larger quantities of nitrogen,

possibly in the neighborhood of 200-400 lbs/ac.

Effects of losses of this magnitude on soil nitrogen status are difficult

to predict. Amounts of nitrogen in southern forest soils vary widely, but

probably average about 2,000 lbs/ac (DeBell 1979), the vast majority of which

is unavailable to plants. Nitrogen is continually being added to southern

ecosystems. Jorgensen and Wells (1971) and Van Lear et al. (1983) measured

rates of l-4 lbs/ac/yr via non-symbiotic N-fixation in undisturbed pine stands

on Piedmont sites. Jorgensen and Wells (1971) found nonsymbiotic nitrogen

fixation rates were increased (from about 1 lb/at to 23 lbs/ac/yr) by burning

on poorly drained Coastal Plain soils. They suggest that burning improves

those site conditions associated withes higher rate of fixation, i.e., more

available nutrients, higher soil moisture and temperature. Nitrogen inputs

from precipitation approximating 5 lbs/ac/yr have been measured in the

Southern Appalachians (Swank and Douglass 1977) and in the upper Piedmont

(Van Lear et al. 1983). Over the course of a rotation, it would appear that

these inputs could balance nitrogen losses due to burning.

Rates of symbiotic nitrogen fixation by native legumes and non-legumes in

the South have not been well documented over the course of a rotation.

However, early stages of plant succession are often dominated by nitrogenfixing species, especially in ecosystems with a high fire frequency (Gorham

et al. 1979). Permar and Fisher (1983) found that wax myrtle, even though

accounting for only 8 percent of the crown cover, fixed about 10 lbs/ac/yr

nitrogen in a young pole-size slash pine plantation in Florida. Boring and

Swank (1984) reported that 4-year-old stands of black locust fixed about

30 lbs/ac/yr in the Southern Appalachians. Cushwa and Reed (1966) documented

a 7-fold increase in legumes on clearcut areas followed by slash burning,

although nitrogen fixation rates were not measured. The abundance of annual

legumes decreases rapidly as other herbaceous vegetation becomes established

and the crowns begin to close.

There is little evidence to suggest that low-intensity burns have any

adverse effect on soil erosion, even on relatively steep slopes. Goebel

et al. (1967) and Brender and Cooper (1968) measured insignificant soil losses

following single prescribed burns in the Piedmont. Douglass and Van Lear

(1983) found that two low-intensity burns prior to harvest had no effect on

nutrient or sediment concentrations in ephemeral streams in the Piedmont of

South Carolina. Cushwa et al. (1977) also failed to detect significant soil

movement in established gullies following moderately intense backfires in

mature loblolly pine stands in the South Carolina Piedmont. However, Arend

(1941) reported that infiltration rates of Missouri Ozark soils were reduced

by 38 percent by repeated annual burning in oak-hickory stands. Increased

overland flow caused by reduced infiltration could have increased erosion, but

this was not documented.

62
High intensity site preparation burns conducted under conditions of high

fuel loads and low moisture may burn completely to mineral soil, and may

accelerate soil erosion in steep terrain. Such losses have not been

documented in the South. The site-preparation burning program of the U.S.

Forest Service on the Sumter National Forest in South Carolina, described

earlier, uses summer burns in heavy fuels with little visible evidence of soil

erosion. However, if the drying period is too long, fires may burn so hot

that mineral soil is exposed over much of the area, and significant erosion

could possibly result in steep terrain. By felling leafed-out residuals and

allowing their foliage to cure, site preparation burns can be conducted soon

after soaking rains--an obvious advantage as far as soil protection is

concerned.

Questions remain concerning effects of prescribed fire on southern soils.

However, evidence indicates that low-intensity prescribed fires have little,

if any, adverse effects on soil properties and may even improve them. High

intensity prescribed fires have a temporary negative effect on site nutrient

status resulting from volatilization of nitrogen and sulfur, plus some cation

loss due to ash convection, but this appears to be short-lived as nutrient

accretion is rapid. Effects of high intensity fires on soil physical

properties are not well documented, but the infrequent use of such fires (once

a rotation) and the resilience of soutbern forest ecosystems to fire would

suggest adverse effects on the soil are minor.

Vegetation

Since forest ecosystems have been subject to forest fire for eons, plants

have had to adapt to fire or perish. Adaptations have taken many forms. Some

species have thick insulating bark which protects them from the scorching heat

of surface fires. The lethal temperature of protoplasm is thought to be about

the same for all plants. A temperature of 147'F is instantly lethal, while

somewhat lower temperatures require more time to kill plant tissues. Thus,

the nature and thickness of the dead outer bark are critical in protecting the

living inner bark and cambium from fire damage (Hare 1965).

Mature longleaf pine is well known for its resistance to fire damage

because of its thick bark. Slash, loblolly, and shortleaf pine also generally

survive bole scorch when they reach sapling size or larger (Komarek 1974).

Virginia pine and white pine tend to have thinner bark and are more susceptible to fire damage. However, when pine trees are young, crown scorch,

rather than cambium damage of the bole, is the principal cause of mortality

(Storey and Merkel 1960, Cooper and Altobellis 1969).

Another fire adaption of southern pines is their ability to leaf out soon

after defoliation. Most southern pines larger than sapling size can tolerate

a high degree of crown scorch, expecially during the dormant season, with

minimum effects on survival and growth (Komarek 1974). Trees are most

susceptible to crown scorch during the spring when leaders are succulent.

During the summer and early fall, pole-size loblolly pine can generally

tolerate all but complete scorching of foliage and still recover. Lower crown

classes are more susceptible to fire-induced mortality than are dominant and

codominant trees (Waldrop and Van Lear 1983). Diameter growth apparently is

not significantly affected when trees have the opportunity to produce new

foliage prior to the start of the next growing season.

63
Cone serotiny is an adaptation to fire by many coniferous species

throughout the country. Of the southern pines, pitch, Virginia and sand pines

exhibit this characteristic of storing seed in closed cones for years until

opened by fire r$r high heat. Natural shedding of lower branches is another

feature associated with certain species which exist in fire environments.

Those Southern pines which developed under a high frequency fire regime are

characterized by being good pruners --an adaption that prevents the spread of

surface fires into the crown.

Above-ground portions of hardwood species are not generally as resistant

to fire damage as conifers, primarily because of thinner bark. Bark thickness

in hardwoods is not as critical to hardwood survival because fires in Southern

hardwoods normally burn in light fuels and are of low intensity (Komarek

1974). However, some hardwoods develop exceptional bark thickness upon

maturity. Yellow-poplar is one of the most fire resistant species in the East

when its bark thickness exceeds one-half inch (Nelson et al. 1933).

Foresters' fear of damaging stem quality has led to the general policy of

excluding fire from hardwood stands. However, evidence of damage to boles of

hardwoods is primarily that obtained from the study of wildfires, which burned

with higher intensity than prescribed fires. These fires often burned in the

spring when trees are most susceptible to damage. Because of these early

reports, fire research in hardwood stands has lagged far behind that in pine.

Although there is no doubt as to the serious adverse effects of high intensity

wildfires on stem quality in hardwood stands, the role of low-intensity

prescribed fires in stand management and the use of higher intensity broadcast

burning in promoting quality coppice regeneration deserves greater attention

from fire research.

Hardwoods, while generally lacking the fire resistance of pines, have

developed another adaption to insure their survival in ecosystems where fire

is a periodic visitor. They all sprout, generally from the base of the stem or

from root suckers, when tops are killed. Supressed buds at or below ground

level often survive the heat of a surface fire, and sprout in response to the

loss of apical dominance. Generally many sprouts will develop from a stump,

but over time they will thin down to one or a few per stump. Fire promotes

good quality sprouts by forcing them to develop from the ground line or below;

thus the developing stems tend to be free of rot and well-anchored (Roth and

Sleeth 1939, Roth and Hepting 1942).

Many southern species have adapted to a high frequency fire regime by

developing light seed, which can be wind- and gravity-disseminated over large

areas. These light seeded species often pioneer on burned seedbeds. Some

species, yellow-poplar for example, produce seed that remain viable for years

in the duff. Yellow-poplar seed stored in the lower duff germinates rapidly

following winter prescribed fires (Shearin et al. 1972).

Herbaceous vegetation thrives on fire-prepared seedbeds. Legumes were

more abundant in young loblolly pine plantations in the Georgia and Virginia

Piedmont on plots where logging slash was burned (Cushwa et al. 1966, Cushwa

and Reed 1966). However, single, low-intensity prescribed fires in unthinned

pine stands are not likely to stimulate production of herbaceous plants,

because either mineral soil is not exposed or light is limiting to germination

or growth.

64
Fire affects not only individual plant species, but also entire communities. Community structure is altered by burning, e.g., a shrub layer may be

completely eliminated and replaced by a grass and forb layer if burning is

frequent. The absence of fire will favor in the long-run more shade-tolerant,

less fire tolerant species and succession will proceed toward a climax

community, rather than a fire-maintained subclimax type (Spurr and Barnes

1980).

Periodic fires at intervals of several years favor species which are more

fire-resistant than their competitors. A series of periodic fires prior to

harvest of mature hardwood stands may increase the number of oaks in the

advance regeneration pool (Little 1974), an important consideration in the

reestablishment of stands with a large oak component. Studies in the northeast

indicate that oak seedlings resist root kill by fire better than their

competitors, thereby giving oak an ecological advantage (Swann 1970, Niering

et al. 1970). Advance regeneration of oaks in central Tennessee was doubled

by both annual (for 6 years) and periodic (at 5-year intervals) pre-harvest

prescribed fires (Thor and Nichols 1974). A single low-intensity prescribed

fire, however, had only a slight positive effect on increasing the relative

position of oak advance regeneration in'the mountains of South Carolina and

Georgia (Teuke and Van Lear 1982).

Intense fire in young mixed hardwood stands may favor oak, as noted by

Keetch (1944) and Carve11 and Maxey (1969) both of whom observed that species

composition of mixed hardwood stands was converted to predominately oak by

wildfire. McGee (1979) did not observe this beneficial influence of fire on

oak on the Cumberland Plateau in north Alabama. Burning in both spring and

fall in 5-6-year-old mixed hardwood stands increased only the relative

dominance of red maple. Obviously much remains to be learned about the use of

fire to alter species composition in hardwood stands.

Wildlife Habitat

Just as plants and plant communities in the South have adapted to a

regime of frequent fire, so have the animals which live in these communities.

Effects of fire on the habitat of the white-tailed deer and bobwhite quail

have received the most study. Increased sprouting of hardwoods and other

browse after fire has been well-documented (Lay 1957, Harshbarger and Lewis

1976, Stransky and Harlow 1981). Burning generally increases protein,

phosphorus, and calcium contents of browse, as well as enhancing its

palatibility, although the duration of these effects are often short-lived.

In addition, periodic winter and summer burns temporily increase numbers of

woody plant stems, forbs, grasses, and legumes. Forage yields in Florida were

higher after spring than fall and winter burns (Lewis 1964). Numerous workers

have noted that repeated annual summer burns will destroy root stocks of most

browse (woody) plants eliminating understory mast-producers and leading to

site domination by fire-tolerant forbs and grasses.

Although sprouting is increased by most burning regimes, some workers

have reported temporary decreases in fruit production following periodic

burning. Fruit production of gallberry, huckleberry, and blueberry was

reduced the first year after prescribed burning in 16 to 30-year-old slash

pine plantations in Georgia, but markedly increased by the third year (Johnson

and Landers 1978). In Florida Hilmon and Hughes (1965) noted that fruiting of

65
gallberry plants was set back the first year by fire, but they bore heavily

the second year. Stransky and Halls (1980) found no statistical difference in

fruit production of woody shrubs on burned and unburned pine plantations in

East Texas three years after burning. Dogwood fruiting was increased by

winter burning under dense pine-hardwood overstories (Stransky and Halls

1979). These studies indicate that fruit production of most shrub species

would be reduced by frequent burning at short intervals since there is a

recovery period of l-2 years before production equals or exceeds that of

unburned areas.

The increase in abundance and seed production of legumes following fire

has been well documented (Stoddard 1931, Cushwa and Reed 1966, Clewell 1966).

Stoddard's classic bobwhite quail study showed that populations of the

bobwhite quail could not be maintained without regular annual burning. Nearly

all the legumes (93 species) and grasses (59 species) used by quail thrive in

fire-maintained savannahs. Insects which are an important part of the quails

diet also prefer the open, grassland environment created by frequent burning

(Romarek 1974).

The red-cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species, generally nests in

open, park-like stands of pine with sparse midstories. Prescribed burning is

recommended in old-growth pine stands to provide potential nesting habitat by

controlling the density and height of the hardwood understory (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1984).

Conner (1981) discussed effects of prescribed fire on snags and cavity

trees. Burning may destroy snags which are easily ignited, but it may also

kill trees which become snags. Unfortunately, the tradeoff is often large

dead snags being replaced by smaller trees killed by fire. Prescribed fires

vary in intensity in a random manner, burning hot where fuels tend to be

heavy, excessively dry, or highly flamable. These hot spots are where trees

are likely to be killed or scarred.

Deer, turkey, and quail are three major game species in Southern forests.

They are all favored by the relatively open pine stands and improved browse

created by periodic burning. They apparently are favored by the use of

broadcast burning to remove logging slash, as well. However, there are

hundreds of species in the forest and some may be less favored or actually

hurt by regular use of fire. More research is needed to discover how non-game

species, as well as game species, are affected by different fire regimes.

Requirements of these species must be known before prescribed fire can be used

to maintain, restore, or improve habitat for species to be featured in the

management program. A recent symposium (Wood 1981) discusses effects of

prescribed fire on all forms of wildlife much more thoroughly than space or

the author's knowledge allows here.

Water

Effects of prescribed fire on water vary, depending on fire intensity,

type and amount of vegetation, ambient temperature, terrain, and other

factors. The major problems associated with prescribed fire and water quality

are potential increases in sedimentation and, to a lesser degree, increases in

dissolved salts in streamflow (Tiedemann et al. 1979). However, most studies

66
in the South indicate that effects of prescribed fire on water quality are

minor and of short duration when compared to effects of certain other forest

practices.

Brender and Cooper (1968) noted that repeated low-intensity prescribed

fires had little effect on hydrologic properties of soils in the Georgia

Piedmont. Douglass and Van Lear (1983) monitored water quality of ephmeral

streams following two low-intensity prescribed fires in Piedmont loblolly pine

stands and detected no significant effects on suspended sediment.

The key to the lack of impact of burning on water quality in these

studies is the low to moderate intensity of the fires. Even though the

terrain was relatively steep, erosion and sedimentation were not increased.

Douglass and Goodwin (1980) have shown that in steep terrain the increase in

suspended sediment following management practices is generally related to the

amount of bare soil exposed. This would be especially true if the root mat is

destroyed by disking or blading. Low intensity flames (1-4 ft. flame length)

normally will consume less than half of the litter, and if mineral soil is

exposed it is only in small isolated patches in the burned area.

Ursic (1970) measured sediment output from site preparation burning in

north Mississippi. Although sediment levels on burned watersheds were

several-fold greater than those of control plots, sediment output was only

about .5 tonlacjyr.

Only a few studies in the South have documented effects of prescribed

fire on nutrient response in streams or ground water. Douglass and Van Lear

(1982) in the Piedmont and Richter et al. (1982) in the Coastal Plain failed

to detect any major impact on stormflow or soil solution nutrient levels in

response to low-intensity prescribed fire. No studies in the South have

examined effects of high intensity slash burning on streamflow nutrient

levels. A summarization of the effects of fire on water (Tiedemann et al.

1979) showed that in several cases slash burning in the western United States

increased nitrate-N levels in streamflow. In.no case did burning cause

nitrate-N levels to exceed the recommended EPA standard of 10 parts per

million for drinking water. Phosphorus and major cations often increase in

streamflow and the soil solution following intense slash fires, but the

effects are of short duration and of a magnitude which is not considered

damaging to surface waters or site productivity (Tiedemann et al. 1979).

Nutrient loss and stream sedimentation in response to prescribed burning

are likely to be of minor impact compared to mechanical methods of site

preparation. Observations indicate that even under intense broadcast burns

the root mat is often little disturbed and its soil-holding properties are

intact. Furthermore, slash tends to be randomly distributed over logged

areas, and is seldom completely removed by broadcast burning. Therefore, the

root mat, residual forest floor materials, and incompletely consumed slash

form debris dams which trap much of the sediment moving downslope (Dissmeyer

and Foster 1980). Also, rapid regrowth in the South quickly provides site

protection.

Despite speculation that effects of intense prescribed fires are minor on

soil and water resources, research is needed to document the magnitude and

duration of such fires, especially in the steep terrain of the Piedmont and

mountains.

67
Air

The risk of smoke movement into sensitive areas such as airports,

highways, communities, etc. is probably the major threat to the continued use

of prescribed burning. Particulates are the major pollutant in the smoke from

prescribed burning (Dieterich 1971, Hall 1972, Sandberg et al. 1978). They

are complex mixtures of soot, tars, and volatile organic substances, either

solid or liquid, and average about 0.1 micron in diameter (McMahon 1976).

Under certain atmospheric conditions, i.e., low wind speeds and high humidity,

particulates serve as condensation nuclei and result in dense smoke or

combinations of smoke and fog. Reductions in visibility during and after

prescribed fires have caused numerous highway accidents.

Smoke often accumulates in depressions or along stream channels and other

low-lying areas. When the relative humidity approaches 90 percent, which is

common during many nights, fog formation is stimulated by the presence of

smoke. The combined effects on visibility of smoke and fog is far greater

than that of smoke alone. Even smoke from a smoldering fire days old can

seriously impair visibility miles away from its origin under certain

atmospheric conditions. .

Particulates are not the only emissions from fire. Besides carbon

dioxide and water vapor, gaseous hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous

oxides are also released (Chi et al. 1979). However, only a small proportion

(< 3%) of the total national emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide, and

hydrocarbons can be attributed to prescribed burning.

Carbon monoxide is a poisionous gas which may reach toxic levels above

and adjacent to prescribed fires, but these high concentrations decline

rapidly with increasing distance from the flame (Ryan 1974). By burning under

atmospheric conditions which encourage rapid mixing, the problem of high

carbon monoxide levels can be eliminated.

Hydrocarbons are a diverse group of compounds which contain hydrogen,

carbon and their oxygenated derivatives (Hall 1972). Unsaturated hydrocarbons

result from the incomplete combustion of organic fuels. Because of their high

affinity for oxygen, these compounds may form photochemical smog in the

presence of sunlight and oxygen-donating compounds. Methane, ethylene, and

hundreds of other gases are released in prescribed burning. Some of these

compounds are known to be carcinogenic to laboratory animals, but there is no

evidence to show that prescribed fire is increasing levels of these compounds

in the environment to dangerous levels. Most of the hydrocarbons released

during prescribed fires are quite different from those released in internal

compustion engines.

Nitrogen oxides are not likely to be released in health endangering

quantities because the threshold temperature for its release is 1540°C (U.S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970). Nitrogen gas is

volatilized, with the amount released varying with the temperature. At

temperatures of 5OO"C, 100 percent of the nitrogen is volatilized while at

temperatures of 200-3OO"C, only about 50 percent of the nitrogen is lost (Dunn

and DeBano 1977). Sulphur dioxide emissions from prescribed fires are of

minor importance since sulphur concentration of most forest fuels is less than

0.2 percent.

68
Because of the serious nature of the effects of prescribed fire on air

quality, and its concomitant value as an essential forest management tool,

smoke management guidelines have been developed by the U. S. Forest Service to

reduce the atmospheric impacts of prescribed fire (USDA Forest Service 1976).

This system consists of five steps: (i) plotting the trajectory of the smoke;

(2) identifying smoke sensitive areas such as highways, airports, hospitals,

etc.; (3) identifying critical targets, i.e., targets close to the burn or

those which already have an air pollution problem; (4) determining the fuel

type to be burned, e.g., whether the fuel load is light as with a mature pine

stand with a grass understory, or heavy as the logging slash following

clearcutting; (5) minimize risk by burning under atmospheric conditions which

hasten smoke dispersion, or by using appropriate firing techniques and timing

to reduce smoke pollution.

CONCLUSIONS

Fire has been a frequent visitor to the southern forests for millenia.

Indians and early settlers used it and, gradually, the forestry profession

adopted it as an important management tool. In forestry, rather than random

woodsburning, prescribed fire was the therm coined to describe the use of fire

under certain weather and fuel conditions to attain management objectives.

Prescribed fire i_s used for numerous purposes. It is versatile and

cost-effective. Properly planned and executed, prescribed fire has minimal

adverse environmental or social effects. Many southern forest ecosystems

actually seem to benefit from periodic low-intensity fires, as evidenced by

improved habitat for numerous species and improved soil fertility of Coastal

Plain sites. Since fire was a major environmental factor in molding southern

forests, it is not surprising that these ecosystems are resilient to both

frequent low-intensity and occasional high-intensity fires.

Although much is known concerning the uses and effects of prescribed

fires, much remains to be learned to fine tune the practice to attain precise

management goals. Proper planning, and execution according to the plan, will

help to obtain the desired results with minimal adverse effects.

As with other management practices, the use of prescribed fire can be

abused. Practioners must be aware of potential damage to forest resources, as

well as the possibility of lawsuits from smoke-related accidents, if

prescribed fires are not conducted properly. Abuse of the practice is the

best way to lose it, and forestry can little afford the loss of such a

valuable tool.

LITERATURE CITED

Arend, J. L. 1941. Infiltration as affected by the forest floor. Soil Sci.

Sot. Am. Proc. 6:430-435.

Baker, J. B. and W. E. Balmer. 1983. Loblolly pine. P. 148-152. In Burns,

R. M. (tech. camp.) Silvicultural systems for the major forest types or

the United States. Agric. Handb. 445. Washington, DC: USDA Forest

Serv. 191 p.

69
Boring, L. R. and W. T. Swank. 1984. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in

regenerating black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) stands. Forest Sci.

30:528-537.

Boyer, W. D. and D. W. Peterson. 1983. Longleaf pine. P. 153-156. In R. M.

Burns (tech. camp.). Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of

the United States. Agric. Handb. 445. Washington, DC: USDA Forest

Serv. 191 p.

Brender, E. V. and R. W. Cooper. 1968. Prescribed burning in Georgia's

Piedmont loblolly pine stands. J. For. 66:31-36.

Carvell, K. L. and W. R. Maxey. 1969. Wildfire adversely affects composition

of cove hardwood stands. West Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 2(2):4-5.

Chi, C. D. Horn, R. Reznick, D. Zanders, R. Opferkuch, J. Myers, J. Pierovich,

L. Lavadas, C. McMahon, R. Nelson, R. Johansen, and P. Ryan. 1979.

Source assessment: Prescribed burning, state of the art. USEPA

Industrial Environment Res. Lab., Research Triangle Park, N.C.

EPA-600/2-79-019h. 107 p. .

Clewell, A,. F. 1966. Natural history, cytology, and isolating mechanisms of

the native American lespedezas. Tall Timbers Res. Stn. Bull. 6:1-39.

Conner, R. N. 1981. Fire and cavity nesters. P. 61-65. In G. W. Wood

(ed.). Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests--proceedings of

a symposium. The Belle W. Baruch Institute of Clemson Univ. Georgetown,

SC. 170 p.

Cooper, R. W. and A. T. Altobellis. 1969. Fire kill in young loblolly pine.

Fire Control Notes 30:14-15.

Cushwa, C. T. and J. B. Reed. 1966. One prescribed burn and its effects on

habitat of the Powhatan game management area. USDA Forest Serv. Res.

Note SE-171. 2 p.

Cushwa, C. T., E. V. Brender, and R. W. Cooper. 1966. The response of

herbaceous vegetation to prescribed burning. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note

SE-53. 2 p.

Cushwa, C. T., M. Hopkins, and B. S. McGinnes. 1977. Soil movement in

established gullies after a single prescribed burn in the South Carolina

Piedmont. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note SE-lS3. 4 p.

DeBell, D. S. 1979. Future potential for use of symbiotic nitrogen fixation

in forest management. P. 451-466. In J. C. Gordon, C. T. Wheeler, and

D. A. Perry (eds.). Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the management of

temperate forests. Proc. of a workshop, April 2-5, 1979. Oregon State

Univ.

Dieterich, J. H. 1971. Air quality aspects of prescribed burning. Proc.

Prescribed Burning Symposium. USDA Forest Serv., Southeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Asheville, NC. 160 p.

70
Dissmeyer, G. E. and G. R. Foster. 1980. A guide for predicting sheet and

rill erosion on forest land. USDA Forest Serv. Tech. Publ. SA-TP 11.

40 p.

Douglass, J. E. and 0. C. Goodwin. 1980. Runoff and soil erosion from forest

site preparation practices. P. 50-74. In Proc. U.S. Forestry and Water

Quality: What course the 8Os? An Analyxs of Environmental Issues.

Richmond, VA.

Douglass, J. E. and D. H. Van Lear. 1983. Effects of prescribed fire on

water quality of ephemeral Piedmont streams. Forest Sci. 29:181-189.

Dunn, P. II. and L. F. DeBano. 1977. Fire's effect on the biological

properties of chapparal soils. In International symposium on the

environmental consequences of fire and fuel management in

Mediterranean-climate ecosystems (forests and scrublands).

Ferguson, E. R. 1961. Effects of prescribed fire on understory stems in

pine-hardwood stands of Texas. J. For. 59:356-359.

Froelich, R. C., C. S. Hodges, Jr., and S. S. Sackett. 1978. Prescribed

burning reduces severity of annosus root rot in the South. Forest Sci.

24:93-99.

Goebel, N. B., E. V. Brender, and R. W. Cooper. 1967. Prescribed burning of

hardwood stands in the upper Piedmont of South Carolina. Clemson Univ.

Dept. of Forestry, Forest Res. Series No. 16. 23 p.

Gorham, E., P. M. Vitousek, and W. A. Reiners. 1979. The regulation of

chemical budgets over the course of terrestrial ecosystem succession.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10:53-84.

Hall, J. A. 1972. Forest fuels, prescribed fire, and air quality. USDA

Forest Serv. Res. Pap. SO-56. 11 p.

Hare, R. C. 1965. Contribution of bark to fire resistance of southern trees.

J. For. 63:248-251.

Harlow, R. F. and D. H. Van Lear. 1981. Silvicultural effects on wildlife

habitat in the South (an annotated bibliography) 1953-1979. Dept. of

Forestry Tech. Pap. No. 14. Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC. 30 p.

Harshbarger, T. J. and C. E. Lewis. 1976. Shrub and herbaceous vegetation

after 20 years of prescribed burning in the South Carolina Coastal Plain.

J. Range Manage. 29(1):13-18.

Hilmon, J. B. and R. H. Hughes. 1965. Forest service research on the use of

fire in livestock management in the South. Proc. 4th Annual Tall Timbers

Fire Ecology Conf. p. 261-275.

Johnson, A. S. and J. L. Landers. 1978. Fruit production in slash pine

plantations in Georgia. J. Wildlife Manage. 42:606-613.

Johnson, V. J. 1984. Prescribed burning: requiem or renaissance? J. For.

82:82-90.

71
Jorgensen, J. W. and C. G. Wells. 1971. Apparent nitrogen fixation in soil

influenced by prescribed burning. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. Proc. 35:806-810.

Keetch, J. J. 1944. Sprout development of once-burned and repeatedly burned

areas in the southern Appalachians. U.S. For. Serv. Appal. For. Exp.

Stn. Tech. Note 59. 3 p.

Kodama, H. E. and D. H. Van Lear. 1980. Prescribed burning and nutrient

cycling relationships in young loblolly pine plantations. Southern J.

Appl. For. 4:838-841.

Komarek, E. V. 1974. Effects of fire on temperate forests and related

ecosystems: Southeastern United States. P. 251-277. In Kozlowski and

Ahlgren (eds.). Fire and Ecosystems. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Komarek, E. V. 1984. Notes on prescribed burning in the Southern region.

Prescribed fire and smoke management workshop. USDA Forest Serv.

Southern Region. Jan. 16-19. Atlanta, GA.

Langdon, 0. G. 1981. Some effects of prescribed fire on understory

vegetation in loblolly pine stands. P. 143-153. In G. W. Wood (ed.).

Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests--Eoceedings of a

symposium. The Belle W. Baruch Institute of Clemson Univ. Georgetown,

SC. 170 p.

Lay, D. W. 1957.

Southern pine

Browse quality and the effects of prescribed burning in

forests. J. For. 55:342-347.

Lewis, C. E. 1964. Forage response to month of burning. USDA Forest Serv.

Res. Note SE-35. 4 p.

Little, S. 1974. Effects of fire on temperate forests: Northeastern United

States. In T. T. Kozlowski and C. E. Ahlgren (eds.). Fire and

Ecosystem; Academic Press, NY.

Lotti, T. 1961. The case for natural regeneration. Proc. 19th Annu. For.

Symp., La. State Univ. p. 16-23.

Lyon, L. J., S. C. Crawford, 'E. Czuhai, R. L. Fredrickson, R. F. Harlow, L. J.

Metz, and H. A. Pearson. 1978. Effects of fire on fauna. USDA Forest

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-6. 41 p.

McGee, C. E. 1979. Fire and other factors related to oak regeneration. In

Regenerating Oaks in Upland Hardwood Forests. John S. Wright ForestrF

Conf. Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN. p. 75-81.

McKee, W. H. 1982. Changes in soil fertility following prescribed burning on

Coastal Plain pine sites. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. SE-234. 23 p.

McMahon, C. K. 1976. Effects of forest emissions on air quality. P. 75-82.

In Proc. Fire by Prescription Symposium. USDA Forest Serv., Atlanta, GA.

127 p.

72
Metz, L. J., T. Lotti, and R. A. Klawitter. 1961. Some effects of prescribed

burning on Coastal Plain forest soil. USDA Forest Serv. Southeast.

Forest Exp. Stn. Pap. 133. 10 p.

Moehring, D. M., C. X. Grano, and J. R. Bassett. 1966. Properties of

forested loess soils after repeated prescribed fires. USDA Forest Serv.

Res. Note SO-40. 4 p.

Nelson, R. M., I. H. Sims, and M. S. Abell. 1933. Basal fire wounds on some

southern Appalachian hardwoods. J. For. 31:829-837.

Niering, W. A., R. H. Goodwin, and S. Taylor. 1970. Prescribed burning in

southern New England: Introduction to long-range studies. Tall Timbers

Fire Ecology Conf. 10:267-286. 3 p.

Permar, T. A. and R. F. Fisher. 1983. Nitrogen fixation and accretion by wax

myrtle (Myrica cerifera) in slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations.

For. Ecol. and Manag. 5:39-46.

Phillips, D. R. and D. H. Van Lear. 1984. Biomass removal and nutrient drain

as affected by whole-tree harvest in southern pine and hardwood stands.

J. For. (in press).

Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.

654 p.

Richter, D. D., C. W. Ralston, and W. H. Harms. 1982. Prescribed fire:

effects on water quality and forest nutrient cycling. Sci. 215:661-663.

Romancier, R. M. 1960. Reduction of fuel accumulations with fire. USDA

Forest Serv. Res. Note SE-143. 2 p.

Roth, E. R. and B. Sleeth. 1939. Butt rot in unburned sprout stands. USDA

Tech. Bull. 684. 43 p.

Roth, E. R. and G. H. Hepting. 1942. Origin and development of oak stump

sprouts as affecting their likelihood to decay. J. For. 41:27-36.

Ryan, P. W. 1974. Quantity and quality of smoke produced by southern fuels

in prescribed burning operations. In Proc. National Conf. on Fire and

Forest Meterology, Am. MeterologicaFSoc. and Sot. of Am. Foresters.

Lake Tahoe, CA.

Sandberg, D. V., J. M. Pierovich, D. G. Fox, and E. W. Ross. 1978. Effects

of fire on air. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-9. 40 p.

Shearin, A. T., M. H. Bruner, and N. B. Goebel. 1972. Prescribed burning

stimulates natural regeneration of yellow poplar. J. For. 70:482-484.

Spurr, S. H. and B. V. Barnes. 1980. Forest Ecology. John Wiley and Sons,

New York, NY. 687 p.

Stoddard, H. L. 1931. The bobwhite quail: its habits, preservation and

increase. Scribner's, NY. 559 p.

73
Storey, T. G. and E. P. Merkel. 1960. Mortality in a longleaf-slash pine

stand following a winter wildfire. J. For. 58:206-210.

Stransky, J. J. and L. K. Halls. 1979. Effects of a winter fire on fruit

yields of woody plants. J. Wildlife Manage. 43:1007-1010.

Stransky, J. J. and L. K. Halls. 1980. Fruiting of woody plants affected by

site preparation and prior land use. J. Wildlife Manage. 44:258-263.

Stransky, J. J. and R. F. Harlow. 1981. Effects of fire in the southeast on

deer habitat. P. 135-142. In G. W. Wood (ed.). Prescribed fire and

wildlife in southern forestsyproceedings of a symposium. The Belle W.

Baruch Forest Sci. Institute of Clemson Univ. Georgetown, SC. 170 p.

Swan, F. R., Jr. 1970. Post-fire response of four plant communities in

southcentral New York state. Ecol. 51:1074-1082.

Swank, W. T. and J. E. Douglass. 1977. A comparison of nutrient budgets for

undisturbed and manipulated hardwood forest ecosystems in the mountains

of North Carolina. P. 729-735. !In F. G. Howell, J. B. Gentry, and M. H.

Smith (eds.). Watershed Research-% eastern North America. ERDA Symp.

Series (CONF-740513).

Teuke, M. J. and D. H. Van Lear. 1982. Prescribed burning and oak advance

regeneration in the southern Appalachians. Georgia Forest Corn. Res. Pap.

30. 11 p.

Thor, E. and G. M. Nichols. 1974. Some effects of fire on litter, soil, and

hardwood regeneration. Proc. Tall Timber Conf. 13t317-329.

Tiedemann, A. R., C. E. Conrad, J. H. Dieterich, J. W. Hornbeck, W. F.

Megahan, L. A. Viereck, and D. W. Wade. 1979. Effects of fire on water.

USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-10. 28 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1976. Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-lo. 140 p.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1970. Control techniques

for nitrogen oxide emissions from stationary sources. Nat. Air Pollut.

Control Admin. Publ. AP-67.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan:

agency review draft. 66 p.

Ursic, S. J. 1970. Hydrologic effects of prescribed burning and deadening

upland hardwoods in northern Mississippi. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap.

so-54.

Van Lear, D. H., J. E. Douglass, S. K. Cox, M. K. Augspurger, and S. K.

Nodine. 1983. Regeneration of loblolly pine plantations in the Piedmont

by clearcutting with seed in place. P. 87-93. -In Second Silvicultural

Research Conf., Atlanta, GA. 514 p.

74
Van Lear, D. H., W. T. Swank, J. E. Douglass, and J. B. Waide. 1983. Effects

of two harvesting practices on the nutrient status of a loblolly pine

plantation. P. 252-258. In R. Ballard and S. P. Gessel (eds.). Proc.

SymP* on Forest Site and Cztinuous Productivity. IUFRO Conference,

Seattle, WA. 406 p.

Waldrop, T. A. and D. H. Van Lear. 1984. Effect of crown scorch on survival

and growth of young loblolly pine. South. J. Appl. For. 8:35-40.

Wells, C. G. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on soil chemical properties

and nutrient availability. P. 86-97. In Prescribed Burning Symposium

Proceedings, April 14-16, 1971. Charleston, SC. USDA Forest Serv.

Southeast. Forest Exp. Stn., Asheville, NC.

Wells, C. G., R. E. Campbell, R. C. Froelich, and P. H. Dunn. 1979. Effects

of fire on the soil. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-7. 34 p.

Wood, G. W. (ed.). 1981. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests--

proceedings of a symposium. The Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute

of Clemson Univ. Georgetown, SC. -170 p.

75

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF PRESCRIBED BURNING IN THE SOUTH

William C. Siegel*

Abstract .--The legal aspects of prescribed forestry burning in

the South fall within two major areas. These are: (1) statutor y

and regulatory constraints imposed by the states and local government, and (2) liability for property damage and personal injury

resulting from escaping fire and smoke drift. The current status of

the law in both areas is discussed, together with the implications

for foresters with silivicultural burning responsibilities .

Prescribed burning has been used by foresters for many years for various

silvicultural purposes and is now well accepted professional practice .

Resistance to the use of fire from within the forestry community, as well.

as from the general public, has virtually disappeared. Prescribed burning

is a particularly common and important silvicultural tool in the south where

close to 3 mill.ion acres of woodland per year are control burned-- about 90

percent of the national total (Sandberg et al. 1979). Aternatives to forestry

burning have been the subject of much discussion and conflicting opinion. It is

generally agreed, however, that in most instances there are few feasible

economic alternatives to the use of prescribed fire in forest and range

management. Fire is viewed as an invaluable and irreplaceable management tool.

As stated by Cooper (19731, “The overwhelming concensus from foresters is that

if prescribed fires were to be outlawed or severely curtailed, we would be confronted with unbearable forest management costs, as intolerable fuel situation

that would most assuredly lead to catastrophic wildfires, and a general decline

in the productivity of our natural resources .I’

Prescribed burning, however, is not without its risks. Among the major

concerns of those who use this important silvicultural tool are the possibility

of civil or criminal liability for bodily injury or property damage, and eithe r

civil or criminal liability , or both, for violation of a state or local

statute . The very nature of fire and smoke tend to exacerbate this problem--

not only in real terms, but also in the minds of the public who are becoming

more aware of environmental enhancement and protection. Foresters who are

responsible for prescribed burning need to be cognizant of more than just the

technical aspects of the practice . The very real possibility of a lawsuit

emanating from a burning operation makes it imperative that the legal

implicati.ons be carefully considered. Knowledge of the basic provisions of the

law associated with the silvicultural use of fire should be as much of a

requirement for managing a burn as technical competence.

*

Project Leader, Forest Resource Law and Economics, USDA

Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in

the South, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 12-14, 1984.

77
STATUTORY REGULATION OF BURNING

The legal aspects of forestry burning have several major components. The

first are statutory and regulatory constraints imposed by the various states

and, in some instances, county and local governments. These originate from two

sources -- ai r quality legislation and ordinances, and general forestry laws.

The two types of statutes often overlap, resulting in a somewhat complex legal

framework. Violations may lead to civil or criminal penalties or both.

Air qualityllaws vary considerably in scope and format among the 12

southern states, although in each the air quality agency has authority to

promulgate rules and regulati.ons. A number of the states have delegated this

responsibility to their forestry agency, for development and enforcement of

prescribed burning regulations. Thus many of the admi.nistrative rules that have

been issued under the air quality statutes are applicable to forestry burning,

although some fail to address the issue in a comprehensive way. General

forestry laws in each southern state also apply to open burning. These are not

usually concerned with air quality per. se, but rather with wildfire prevention.

The result is a varied mixture of statutes and regulations covering prescribed

burning that differ widely across the south. The differences are even more

apparent among administrative regulations than among legislation (Hauenstein

and Siegel 1981). To complicate the issue further, in at least several states

local statutes or ordinances may supersede statewide laws.

Legislative Provision I._--.s

Many common provisions are found in prescribed burning regulations across

the south. For example, a prohibition against using rubber tires, asphalt

materials , or other hazardous and smoke-producing agents for starting fires is

standard in all 12 states. Rules in most states also address the amount of soil

burned in windrows; prevention of smoke hazards near roads, airports and resident ia 1 areas; and curtailment of burning during air pollution episodes .

Some states require either written or verbal permits for all. forestry burning;

in others, permits are mandated only for certain areas. Prior notification of

intent to burn is required, either by statute or regulations, in most of the

southern states. In some, either the air quality or forestry agency is to be

notified ; in others , adjacent landowners; and in still others, both.

Some states prohibit burning within certain minimum distances of

specified land-use areas and limit burning to a specific time period during the

day. Several have also placed restrictions on open burning during certain times

of the year, mostly because of the widlfire season.

1 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,

Oklahoma , South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virg ini-a.

78
The majority of the southern states do not allow burning during emergency

drought cond it ions, and most have a blanket prohibition against violation of

state and national ambient air quality standards, and may require emission

monitoring. A catch-all clause is also included in some air quality regulations

to prohibit any type of air pollution that constitutes a “public nuisance”.

Enforcement and Pena It ies -_ _-.- --.-

Violation o f state and local law governing prescribed forestry burning is

usually a criminal act. Depending on the state and the seriousness of the

violation may be either a misdemeanor or a felony. Conviction of a misdemeanor

generally involves at least a fine plus a possible jail sentence of up to one

year. The penalty for a felony also nearly always includes a fine, and a prison

sentence exceeding one year may additionally be levied. Several southern states

impose only fines. Penalties associ.ated with air quality laws are nearly alway

heavier than those associated with forestry statutes. Besides criminal pro -

secution, each southern state may also initiate civil action against a violator

to recover damages, administrative expepses and suppression costs that the

state may suffer or incur.

In practice, however, restrictions on prescribed burning in the south are

generally not severe. Statutory requirements are sometimes loosely enforced.

Host of the air quality agencies possess limited jurisdiction and personnel for

regu la t ing open burn ing , while the efforts of many forestry agencies are

directed more to preventing and controlling wildfire than to governing

controlled burning or protecting air quality. The Laws and regulations that do

exist , however , are usually enforced upon complaint. Even then, though, severe

penalties are generally not levied even when the law permits large fines and

imprisonment. One reason for this is that most prescribed fi.res are adequately

controlled. Another is that they are only a minor source of air pollution and

are rarely anything but a purely local matter (Dell 1977). If the contamI.nent

level exceeds state air quality standards, it usually occurs only in the

immediate vicinity of the fire which is generally in a rural area. Only a short

time period is involved and relatively few people are affected.

For these reasons, many of those who prescribe burn may perhaps tend to

be careless in meeting legal requirements. This could be a serious mistake.

Although the risk of prosecution may be low and the penalties light, violation

of the law can greatly enhance liability of the burner for personal injury or

property damage.

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DANACE

A prescribed burn may cause personal injury or property damage in several

different ways . Each can result in civil lawsuits against the person or company

responsible for the fire even though no state or local law has been broken. The

fire may escape from the burner’s land, resulting in damage to ad jorning

79
property or injuries to persons on that property. Smoke may also result in

civil liability, even though the fire may be confined to the premises of the

burner. The common and serious smoke problem has been reduced visibility. Dense

smoke on public roads originating from silvicultural burning has caused a

number of automobile accidents resulting in injury and death. Smoke drift has

also affected airport traffic. The problem is most severe when smoke becomes

mixed with fog during atmospheric inversions.

Visibility reduction may also have aesthetic effects, although legal

actions on that basis are not nearly as 1ikely.A third area of potential

liability from smoke drift concerns its status as a health hazard. Particulate

matter concentration in excessive amounts, and over prolonged time spans, has

been significant 1-y correlated as a health hazard--parti.cularly for more

susceptible individuals such as hospital patients, the elderly, or those with

respiratory disorders (Cook et al. 1978). There have been several incidents in

the south where smoke from prescribed forestry burning has been sucked into

hospitals and other buildings by air conditioners.

Most forestry smoke problems have occured near urban areas that were

already overloaded with air pollutants. Woodland acreage close to these

nonattainment areas has been placed under increasing burning constraints in

recent years. As the more obvious sources of air pollution are controlled, the

impact of smoke from silvicultural burning as an air pollutant is certain to

come under ever closer scrutiny (Mobley et al. 1975).

Basis o_f___liability

The liability resulting from injurious effects of prescribed burning is

both a matter of statutory provisions and case law. The well established

general rule is that when a property owner sets a fire on his own land for a

lawful purpose, he is not-- in the absence of a law to the contrary--liable for

damage or in jury caused by the fire spreading to another’s land, or from

drifting smoke, unless he was neligent in starting or controlling the fire.

2

What is meant by negligence? Simply stated, it is failure to exercise the

degree of care that the situation requires. This is sometimes called ordinary

care, or the care that would be taken under the circumstances by a prudent and

reasonable person in order to prevent property damage or injury. A finding of

gross negligence--which means flagrant or extreme negligence--is n

in order to prove liability in conjunction with a prescribed burn. !_I t necessary

Ordinary

care is generally a question of fact in each individual sitation unless

established otherwise by statute. What does this mean?

2

See Bower and Johnson Construction Co. v. White. 255 F.2d

482 (applying Mississippi law); Bush v. Dania (Flai App.),l21

S02d 169; Pelloquin v. Mission Pacific Railroad Do. (La. App.),

216 S02d 686.

3 Morrow v. Johnston, 68 SE2d 906.

80
Negligence per se.--Some states specify directly in their air quality

forestry burning legislation that a violation of the law consti.tutes

negligence per se. Therefore, in those states, if property damage or injury

results from a prescribed fire where the law was not followed in some

part icular aspect , the burner is automati.cally negligent and responsible i n

damages. A determination of whether ordinary care was met, by examining the

facts and circumstances of the situation, would not be necessary.Even in some

states without such a statute, the courts have held that failure to obey the

law constitutes negligence per se.For example, it has been ruled by the courts

in several southern states that failure to obtain a required burning permit

automatically constitutes negligence , as does failure to notify an adjoining

landowner as mandated by law.

_____--- Proof of nsligence. _._- --But what about those situations where the law has

been followed in all respects , but injury or property damage still occurs?

Here the burden is usually on the plaintiff--that is, the person bringing

suit --to prove negligence on the burner. There is some authority to the

contrary, however,in those instances where a person is authorized to set a fire

only under certain circumstances . The burden of proof in some jurisdiction then

rests on the defendant. In either situation, however, the spreading of fire or

smoke from a legally set fire to another’s property is not evidence of

negligence in itself. And, as a general rule, it is not necessary to establish

negligence in both setting the fir e and in controlling it. Only one or the

other is Jequired. Also, the manner in which fire or smoke spreads is

immaterial in determining liability.

Defenses Available to the Defendant. -_

A number of defenses to a finding of negligence may be available to a

defendant burner. Several of the more important will be discussed.

_. Wind as an intervening cause.--The most common intervening cause raised as ___._-- _.-.-_

defense to a charge of negligence in burning is unexpected wind. To prevail,

however, the defendant must show that the wind arose after the fire was set,

that i.t was extraordinary in scope, and that it could not have been reasonably

antici.pated in that locality at that time. If this is done, and the person

doing the burning has absolutely no control over the situation, the wind is

recognized as the proximate cause of the injury or damage, relieving the

defendant. Unless those factors can be proven, though, wind is not ordinarily

recognized as being the type of intervening cause that will disprove

neg 1 ig enc e--nor will it do so if, after the wind arises, the defendant becomes

negligent at that t’me or fails to do all that he can to prevent the spread of

the fire and smoke. ti

-_._. - _ _._--_..-._ _ _ -

4

See Bushnell v. Telluride Power Co., 145 F.2d 950.

81
There have been court decisions on wind associated with prescribed burning in a

number of southern states--including Mississippi, North Carolina and Georgia.

~---_- Contributory nepligence. --Contributory negligence on a plaintiff’s part,

if proven, will lessen a defendant burner’s liability. The extent to which

liability is decreased will depend on the degree of planitiff negligence, and

is a question of fact in each particular situation. For example, willful1

failure by an adjoining landowner to act against a spreading fire has been held

to be contributory negligence. On the other hand, in another decision, the

plaintiff was not negligent in maintaining an open, oilsoaked ditch near a

buildinS Socause he could not have reasonab yI

foreseen that the defendant would

permit the fire to cross the property line. With respect to highways obscured

by smoke, the general rule is that a motorist is not necessarily required to

stop but only to exercise care and caution commensurate with the prevailing

conditions. If he fails to do so, and an accident results, he may be

contributorily negligent.

Action’ employees and independent contractors --It is well -----_ ---_ I_-_.--_ --.----.--~-.--*

established that if an employee of a landowner prescribe burns during the scope

of his employment, even though not specifically authorized to do so, the

employee is liable for any damage or injury that may result. The employer is

generally not liable, however , if the employee has set the fire for personal

reasons not within the scope of employment. The situation with an independent

contracto r is somewhat different. If an independent contractor prescribe burns,

the landowner’s liabili.ty for the contractor’s actions depends on the degree of

control exercised by the landowner over the contractor. If there is little o r

no control, the landowner is usually not held liable. In a few jurisdictions,

however, degree of control is not a factor- -the legal concept of nondelegable

duty governs.That is, the landowner is responsi.ble whether control i.s exercised

or not. In a related situation, there have been several. court decisions holding

that even though the landowner’s burn was entirely planned and supervised by an

independent forester , with no control by the landowner, that the landowner was

liable for damages because he failed to take the necessary actions of a prudent

man when the forester did not.

_.-._ _ _ _ _. ---

5 %tual Fire Insurance Co. v. Willis, 179 S02d 441.

6

See Wofford v . Johnson, 164 S02d 458.

7

See Hanks v . Christensen, 354 P2d 564, 11 Utah 2d 8.

82
LIABILITY FOR FIRE FIGHTING EXPENSES

A number of states have laws that impose liability on a landowner for fire

fighting expenses when his prescribed burn spreads to another’s property. This

liabi.lity is di.sti.nct from that levied for personal injury or property damage.

These statutes have generally been upheld by the courts as a valid exercise of

state police power when the li.abi.lity has been predicated on the negligence of

the landowner or his failure to comply with the law.

LIMITING LIABILITY

The obvious first action to take for limiting liability in conjunction with

prescribed burning is to obey all laws and regulations governing the

situtation. Over and above this, however, there are a number of other

precautions which may serve to mitigate liability to some extent, depending on

the particular state and the circumstances involved.

For example, many southern states have established voluntary smoke

management programs that utilize a number of optional restrictions on open

burning in addi.tion to the mandatory constrai.nts imposed by law. The,programs

range in complexity from those which utilize computer systems and statewide

communications networks to those that merely provide lists of basic suggestions

for use by fie1.d crews when burning (Paul et al. 1978). Following such

guidelines can not only help to prevent sistuati.ons t.hat give rise to li.abi.llity

for fire spread or the harmful effects of smoke, but can also go a long way

toward establishing the degree of care necessary to disprove negligence. This

would seem to be particularly true if a formal plan is developed that includes

the use of local weather information and air quality indices. And, of course,

the U.S. Forest Service’s Macon Fire Laboratory has developed a detailed

screening system for determining whether or not to burn which is published in

the Southern Forestry ---_“-----I- Smo&e Manawment __.-_-._-l--.--_.-_ Guidebook (Mobley 1976).

CONCLUSION

The forestry community in the south should be aware that existing state

laws and regulations governing prescribed forestry burning can be strengthened

or more severely enforced, and that new statutes and rules can easily be

promulgated. This could occur as the public becomes more concerned with air

poll.ution and other smoke problems, and if these is increased unfavorable

publicity over negligent injury and property damage resulting from prescribed

83
fire. The primary concern for forestry practitioners is the possibility that

such a situation would produce unmanageable regulation of forest practices.

Most foresters in the south are of the opinion that an increased use of

voluntary programs which utilize recommended guidelines, training, and

educati.on is the preferable alternative and will serve to offset any trend to

more regulation. If serious smoke and fire problems associated with forestry

burning are to be minimized by voluntary means rathel- than by law, however,the

forest industries and the state forestry agencies will have to l.ead the way i n

promoting f i.re and smoke management. The unwelcome alternative is more

regulation with all the negative impacts that the word implies.

84
LITERATURE CITED

Cook, J. D., Hinel, J. H.,and Moyer, R. H. 1978. Impact of Forestry Burning

Upon Air Quality: A State-of-the-Knowledge Characterization in Washington

and Oregon. GEOMET Report EF-664, GEOMET, Inc., Gaithersburg, Md.

Cooper, R. W. 1973. Status of Prescribed Burning and Air Quality in the South.

In Annual Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, March

E-23, 1973, Tallahassee, Fla. pp. 309-315.

Dell, J. D. 1977. Some Implications of Eliminating Prescribed Burning as a

Treatment Option in Managing Forest Vegetation and Fuels in the Pacific

Northwest. In Region 6 Fuel Management Notes, USDA Forest Service,

Portland, Ore,, Volume 5(2): l-10.

Hauenstein, E. B., and Siegel, W. C. i981. Air Quality Laws in Southern

States: Effects on Prescribed Burning. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry 5(3): 132-145.

Mobley, H. E., Brender, E. B., and Williams, D. T. 1975. Preview of

Smoky Management Guidelines. Forest Farmer Manual Edition,

Volume 34(5): 90-92.

Mobley, H. E. 1976. Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook, USDA

Forest Service General Technical Report SE-lo.

Paul, J. T., and Clayton, J. 1978. User manual-Forestry Weather

Interpretations System (FWIS). USDA Forest Service Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station, Macon, Georgia.

Sandberg, D. V., Pierovich, J. M., Fox, D. G., and ROSS, E. W. 1979.

Effects of Fire on Air: . A State-of-Knowledge Review. In Proceedings

of the National Fire Effects Workshop, Denver, Colo., April 10-14, 1978.

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-9.

85

AERIAL IGNITION

(Ping-Pong Balls)

J . W . Gnannl-'

Abstract. --Aerial ignition using plastic spheres (similar to

ping-pong balls) charged with potassium permanganate activated by

ethylene glycol and dropped from a low flying helicopter is a

proven system to safely prescribe burn large areas in a short time

for rough reduction and site preparation without causing

significant direct mortality to wildlife.

Additional keywords: Aerial ignition device, dispenser, spotting,

Pacific Forest Research Center, site preparation burn.

INTRODUCTION

Prescribed fires that can be used without causing undue damage to the

overstory while consuming the litter on large acreages in a short time was

needed to reduce fire hazard, lower site preparation cost, and to backfire on

wildfires. This technique had to be cost effective, environmentally acceptable

and readily available.

The Australian forester, during the early 196Os, accepted the challenge

and developed a spot-firing technique whereby ignition devices were dropped

from aircraft onto 5,000-10,000 acre blocks of eucalyptus forests to consume

the litter and reduce the fire hazard (Baxter et. al 1966).

The early system initiated by the Australians consisted of a small

plastic capsule containing potassium permanganate. A syringe was used to

inject ethylene glycol into the plastic capsule. The charged device was

dropped from an aircraft. The exothermic reaction resulted in spot fires where

the device landed.

Using the Australian ignition device and incorporating some new ideas

and techniques from many sources, the Canadian Forest Service developed the

present Pacific Forest Research Center (PFRC) dispenser.

The pharmaceutical vials used by the Australians to contain the

potassium permanagante were satisfactory for manual dispensers, but their

irregular shape caused malfunctions when used in faster machines (Lait &

Taylor 1972). A spherical container was introduced by the Alberta Department

of Lands and Forest, Equipment Development Section. This container was

modified for use in the PFRC dispenser; the final product termed AID (Aerial

Ignition Device) is in use today.

'/J. W. Gnann, Manager, Technical Services, Woodlands Division, Union

Camp Corporation, Savannah, Georgia.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

87
The PFRC dispenser mounted in a Huey Model UHIB helicopter, using AID

igniters burning areas having heavy fuel accumulations can be fired at a rate

of up to 15 acres per minute (J. F. Sain, 1979).

Today there are 30 PFRC dispensers in operation in the United States, of

which 10 are in use in the South; 40 in Canada; 2 in Australia; for a total of

72 worldwide.

Mark II Aerial Ignition Dispenser and Aerial Ignition Device

The function of the dispenser is to inject the ethylene glycol into the

AID that contains potassium permanganate thereby initiating the exothermic

reaction. The main components of the dispenser consist of frame, slipper

blocks, motor, tank and injecting system. The dispenser receives the AID

injects ethylene glycol and releases the AID in a smooth continuous motion.

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic of slipper and valve block assembly with an eight step

sequence of one revolution of a cam.

88
The aerial ignition device (AID) consists of 3.5 grams of potassium

permanganate contained in two permanently sealed hemispheres made of high

impact polystyrene. Each AID is sphere shaped, 1.25 inches in diameter. As the

AID moves through the dispenser it is penetrated by a hollow stainless steel

needle and 1 Ml of 50% water, and ethylene glycol solution is injected. The

AID is then dropped from the dispenser and the subsequent chemical reaction

produces.ignition in about 25 to 30 seconds (Lait & Muraro, S.>.

Aircraft

The Pacific Forest Research Center dispenser has been successfully

mounted in several models of helicopters including but not limited to the Huey

Model DRIB, Bell 206 Jet Ranger and the Hughes 500. The door is removed and

the dispenser is mounted in the door of the helicopter with the discharge

shoot extending out of the door. The dispenser is mounted in such a manner

that it can be jettisoned in case of a malfunction or fire.

The flying crew consist of an aircraft pilot and a dispenser operator.

An observer may also be used, but is not necessary if the pilot is provided

with adequate maps and is familiar with the boundaries of the site to be

burned.

Plannine the Oneration

To expedite the burning program, the areas scheduled for a burn should

be identified well in advance. Sufficient areas to accommodate at least a days

work should be secured with fire lines where needed. One of the more costly

items in aerial burning operation is the helicopter and crew. Therefore every

reasonable effort should be made to effectively utilize the aircraft. Ferry

time should be kept to a minimum, planning the work in a systematic manner can

help accomplish this. A nearby heliport is desirable to reduce ferry time, to

refuel, and pick up supplies.

There should be a standby ground crew and equipment necessary to

backfire the initial firing line if needed, and to contain any fire that may

escape from the prescribed burn area. Such precautions are essential for the

success and safety of any aerial ignition operation.

Weather

Environmental constraints must be considered when planning any

prescribed burn. Air quality, smoke sensitive areas, and safety are foremost

in the initial planning phase of the burning operation.

The objective of the burn will determine what weather conditions can be

tolerated. If a site preparation burn is needed, the objective is a hot fire

to consume logging slash. Conversely a rough reduction burn under an

established stand must consider the amount of scorch considered acceptable.

The height of the overstory canopy, the diameter of the trees, the fuel

loadings, and the slope all enter into the formula to arrive at weather

parameters that could be tolerated. For example, slash pine stands in the

Georgia Coastal Plain with no more than 3 years of fuel accumulation can be

prescribed burned without excessive scorch if fired within three days of at

least 0.5 inches of rain, when the relative humidity is between 45 and 60

89
percent, ambient temperature is under 60°F and average stand height exceeds 35

feet. In essence the amount of fuel available for combustion is being

controlled through fuel moisture control. The same approach can probably be

followed with older rough accumulation, but the chances of developing

excessive heat are much greater (R. W. Johansen, 1984).

In younger stands with heavy fuel accumulation the technique of firing

the stand early in the morning while the fuel is still wet with dew and the

air temperature near freezing has been successfully tried.

Detail weather prescription for each fuel type, fuel loading and timber

size has not been developed. History, experience and follow-up to evaluate the

burn are invaluable in developing guidelines. When understory burning is

planned, weather condition of 50% relative humidity, 50“F ambient

temperatures, 8-10 mph breeze and several days following a rain is a good

reference.

Firing Techniques

The base line may be hand fired if there is a risk

ignited fire escaping the designated area to burn.

of the aerially

The helicopter will begin firing on the down wind side

work upwind.

of the tract and

The ignition points should be placed on a square grid.

Spotting density within the range of lch x lch and 4ch x 4ch had little

effect on flame height, and scorch height on a slash pine stand 35' in height

burned in South Georgia (R. W. Johansen, 1984).

The spotting density has a big impact on cost of burning, and burn out

time. In many situations three to four spots

satisfactory burn.

The maximum flying speed of the helicopter

while fire-spotting operation is in progress.

per acre will result in a

should be less than 50 MPH

A flying height of 200-300 feet provides good overall visibility of

ground condition, and a safety margin for aircraft emergency procedure without

sacrificing ignition accuracy.

Fire Behavior

A study in coastal Georgia gallberry - palmetto type indicated that

there is no definite correlation between spot spacing and any of the fire

behavior parameters measured, even though there was a sixteenfold difference

in spot fire density between 1x1 and 4x4 chain plots. (R. W. Johansen, 1984).

Wildlife

Wildlife professionals generally agree on the benefits to wildlife from

prescribed burning in the South. Very few are familiar with the aerial

ignition technique or its immediate effect on wildlife.

90
To answer some of the questions concerning the effect aerial ignition

burning has on wildlife, a study was made on Union Camp Corporation land in

coastal South Carolina in cooperation with the South Carolina Wildlife and

Marine Resources Department. The study area was surrounded by observers, the

area was ignited, a count was made of numerous game animals fleeing the study

area, including deer, turkey, hogs, rabbits, and birds. A survey was made of

the areas after the burning was completed, and it was concluded that aerial

ignition prescribed burning did not cause significant direct mortality to

wildlife (Folk & Bales 1983).

Safetv

The following precautions must be followed to promote a safe operation:

1. The AIDS dispenser SHOULD NOT be permanently affixed to the

helicopter. It should be mounted with straps that to be cut to

jettison the dispenser in case of malfunction.

2. The glycol tank must be filled and tightly capped away from the

aircraft.

3. Lead acid batteries MUST

4. Have a fire extinguisher

5. Extra supplies of glycol

.

NOT be carried in the cabin.

available.

MUST NOT be carried in the cabin.

6. A metal container must be on hand for testing and containment of

malfunctioning AIDS.

7. Ignition time should not be less than 20 seconds.

8. Maximum speed of a Bell 206 or Hughes 500 shall not exceed 50 MPH

while dropping operation is in progress.

9. Do not remove AIDS feed chute while in operation.

10. Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizer and therefore should be

stored in a cool dry place (refer to Operations Manual for details).

11. Smoke should be kept away from smoke sensitive areas such as

highways, towns, airports.

12. The area to burn must be clear of people and equipment.

13. Keep burning within designated area.

Advantages

1. Burn large areas in a short period of time with minimum damage to

the stand.

2. Good burning weather can be better utilized.

91
3. Burn smoke

4. Can resume

5. Helicopter

aircraft.

Disadvantages

sensitive areas more safely.

burning sooner after a rain.

that initiates the burn can also serve as reconnaissance

1. More costly than hand firing.

2. Experienced contractors are in short supply.

3. Cost is very high to burn small blocks.

4. Smoke plume generated by this firing technique is very large and

attracts attention.

5. Requires detail planning.

.

General

Approximately 120,000 acres were prescribe burned in the South last year

using Aerial Ignition Device (AID).

The cost is influenced by the size of the tract to be burned; the larger

the tract, in general, the lower the cost. The cost for aerial ignition

burning ranges from $2.00-$3.50 per acre, which may be higher than hand

firing in most instances.

The newest dispenser available is the "PREMO MARK III". This tool is

available from Premo Plastics Engineering, Ltd. - 863 Viewfield Road,

Victoria, B.C., Canada, W84V2 and Aerostat, Inc., Leesburg, Florida.

The Mark III dispenser sells for approximately $5200.00 plus duty and

freight. The AIDS are $105.00 per M plus duty and freight.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribed burning with the AID dispenser is an efficient tool that can

effectively burn large acreages in a short period of time. The cost is

generally higher than hand burning, but the method is more efficient in that

larger acreages can be burned in shorter period of time during ideal burning

conditions, and a better rough reduction burn can be achieved.

LITERATURE CITED

Baxter, J. R., Packham, D. R., and Peet, G. B. 1966. Control Burning From

Aircraft. CSIRO, Chemical Research Laboratory, 26 p. Melborne, Australia.

92
Folk, R. W., and Bales, C. W. An Evaluation of Wildlife Mortality Resulting

From Aerial Ignition Prescribed Burning. SC Wildlife and Marine Resources

Department, Green Pond, SC. Union Camp Corporation, Game Management

Department, Bluffton, SC.

Johansen, R. W. Spot Burning With Spot Fires in the Georgia Coastal Plain.

USDA Forest Serv., Southern Forest Fire Lab., Southeastern Forest Exp.

Stn., Macon, Ga.

Lait, G. R., and Muraro, S. J. 1977. The PFRC Aerial Ignition System Mark II.

Pacific Forest Research Center, 5 p.

Sain, J. F. First Year Evaluation of Aerial Ignition for Prescribed Burning

and Wildfire Control. NC Division of For. Resour. Note 39, Raleigh, NC.

93

AERIAL IGNITION FLYING DRIP TORCH

Grady E. Srevensl

Abstract. --Aerial drip torch devices have potential for

dramatically increasing acreage burned annually. Aerial burning

requires different and broader concepts than hand burning, more

advance planning, more attention to detail, and at least a basic

understanding of helicopter operations.

Additional keywords: Preparation, coordination, communications.

INTRODUCTION

Several aerial ignition devices have been introduced within the past 20

years. The aerial drip torch concept has been a progressive expansion of

technology that began with the hand-held backfire torch. Use of the aerial

torch has not, however, kept pace with.the potential provided by the expanded

technology. Improvements in drip torch modification will continue with

acceptance of it as a management tool.

Aerial ignition allows rapid burning of large acreage or numerous tracts

on the limited number of days with good burning weather. The technique

normally decreases the risk of on-the-ground safety hazards experienced with

hand burning. Prescribed fire, either alone or in combination with

herbicides, can decrease site degradation often inflicted by mechanical site

preparation. Aerial burning allows access to interior areas not normally

accessible during hand burning. Aerial burning allows more rapid burning of

a given tract resulting in shorter duration of fire and smoke emission.

Helicopter pilots can locate potential trouble areas and can also use a wa-te;

bucket to drop water on spotovers.

HISTORY

The first "helitorch" was developed by John Muraro of Pacific Forest

Research Center, Victoria, B.C. (Johansen, 1984). This device was simply a

large backfire drip torch suspended by cable from a helicopter. Early

problems with it were ignition system difficulties, atomization and

oxygenation of the fuel mixture prior to it reaching the ground, plus -

dangerously low and slow helicopter flight.

Aerial torches progressed from the original concept of a

backfire torch to present day on-board systems. The first large

%hief Pilot--Helicopters Operations, International Paper

Natchitoches, LA.

gigantic

backfire

Company,

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

95
torch was a 30-55 gallon drum bolted to a heavy Jngle iron frame (see

Figure 1). Fuel (60% diesel/40% gas) flowed through common plumbing

hardware and dribbled and/or poured out the end of a l-inch pipe. The system

was ignited by auto spark plugs which proved unreliable. Helicopters had to

be flown at slow speeds and very low heights for the liquid fire to reach the

ground. Despite the problems encountered, aerial burning became an instant

success.

Gelled gasoline was the next logical progression. With this mixture the

system could be flown faster and higher with more fire reaching the ground

and burning longer to ignite ground level fuels.

torches to utilize "jelly-gas" included the addition

flow control devices and positive electronic ignition.

using gelled gasoline was developed by Western

Incorporated (Johansen, 1984).

Several operators are now using gel systems.either

Modifications to the

of a pumping system,

The first helitorch

Helicopter .Services,

manufactured to their<

specifications or purchased from a commercial manufacturer (i.e., Simplexl,

13340 N.E. Whitaker Way, Portland, Cregon 97230). Gel aerial ignition

systems (commonly called jelly-gas torches) require specific considerations.

Most drip torch operations use regular gas mixed with Alumagel, a dry

metallic stearate that is available from WIT0 Chemical Corporation, Organics

Division, 3230 Brookfield Street, Houston, Texas 77045. The latest price,

September 1984, is $2.08 per pound. The recommended mix is 1 pound of

Alumagel to 5 gallons of gasoline. Temperature, humidity, brand of gasoline,

method and duration of mixing and length of set-time influence the quality of

mixture. Risks commonly associated with gasoline usage need to be evaluated

carefully and all precautions taken.

PRACTICAL OPERATIONS

The author will not attempt to cover basic fire plans but will offer

suggestions to optimize helicopter utilization. Considerations will vary

from state-to-state and company-to-company.

The preplan of the Fire Boss should include preselection and preparation

of the heliport. The heliport should not be located on the site to be burned

or where smoke drift could obscure the heliport area. Try to situate

heliports in close proximity to work area. Less ferry (deadhead) time means

more work time, which means greater productivity per flight hour and lower

cost per acre. Heliports must be accessible by helicopter support vehicles.

A pre-ignition briefing with the pilot is essential. This discussion

should include your basic plan, information on the area to be burned,

potential problem areas, hazards and water sources for the bucket, if

available.

A plat with the above information shown on it and corners or prominent

terrain features numerically or alphabetically labeled for everyone to

1The mention of products or trade names in this paper does not constitute

an endorsement by International Paper Company.

96
Filler Tube

w/cap

Flow rate Valve

_n

-

Solenoid Valve

uel Feeder Line

DRIP TORCH - SIDE VIEW

.

DRIP TORCH FRAME - TOP VIEW

.k Plug

Figure 1. Aerial Torch

97
rcadi ly referenc e i s essential for good control and a safe operation. A

suggested example of a properly prepared map is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Example of map to be prepared for

burning operation.

Radio communications between air and ground crews should be mandatory in

all aerial forestry operations. Try to specify this fact when negotiating

your contracts. Two-way radios not only assist in command and control but

far outweigh the expense involved when considering safety. Other safety

considerations around the helicopter are shown in Appendix 1.

If needed, hand backfires should be set as early as possible to optimize

helicopter time. Areas likely needing hand backfire are meandering fire

lines, plowed-only lines, and other critical areas. Backfires should be set

according to wind direction so that the area to be burned is not covered with

smoke. Roads and bladed lines make the best firebreaks. Bladed lines should

be constructed as straight as possible.

Consider using two or three tractor/crew units and leapfrogging these

units for optimum burned acres per helicopter hours. For example, start

burning at tract A with tractor unit 1, while unit 2 is standing by at tract

B. After securing tract A, leave unit 1 to "mop-up" while the helicopter

proceeds to tract B and begins burning. Before completion of tract B, unit 1

can usually move into position at tract C and continue to repeat the

leapfrogging process.

Ground crews must understand that the aerial torch and water bucket are

only tools to assist their normal job requirements. One of the biggest

misunderstandings is to assume that the helicopter will do everything--set

the fire, patrol the area, douse breakovers-- and that the ground crew can sit

back and take it easy.

98
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Sling loads with aerial torches are legal under FAR part 137, Aircraft

Agricultural Operations, because aerial burning is an approved economic

practice on timberlands. Regclation FAR part 133 pertains specifically to

helicopter sling-load operations but is normally not needed for using sling

aerial torches. If the operator has an on-board system, then he needs FAA

337 local approval in addition to his 137 certificate. Anytime a pilot is

paid for a contract operation, he should be commerically licensed. He also

needs a current minimum Ciass I1 physical.

The helicopter contractor should provide at least minimum liability

insurance (set by each state). Customers of the contractor should have

insurance coverage providing higher limits of liability. Regardless of

insurance coverage, helicopter slings should never be operated in a manner

that could endanger lile or property.

SUMMARY

Increased acceptance by landowners, improved equipment, and new

techniques will contribute to aerial burning effectiveness. A basic

understanding of this proven tool and proper application of the technology

will result in better quality and safer burns with lower per acre cost.

LITERATURE CITED

Johansen, R. W. 1984. Aerial ignition for speed and control with prescribed

burns. Forest Farmer 43(5):12-14.

99
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. No loose articles or clothing in the vicinity of the helicopter.

9. No unsecured gear stowed on the helicopter.

APPENDIX 1

Helicopter Safety Rules

Never walk to the rear of the helicopter.

Get clearance from pilot before approaching or leaving the helicopter.

Stay in a 45O arc to the right or left of the nose of the helicopter.

Crouch when leaving or approaching the helicopter.

Always wear seat belts and secure door.

Ensure that seat belts are locked inside and the door seclxed when

leaving helicopter.

No smoking at heliport or during takeoff or landing--smoke airborne only

with the pilot's permission.

No hard hats in the vicinity of the helicopter without secured safety

straps.

BE ALERT AND LIVE AROUND THE HELICOPTER!

100
FIRE SCIENCE ADAPTATIONS FOR THE SOUTHEASTERN

U.S. --A RESEARCH UPDATE 1980-1984

DALE D. WADE'

--_- Abstract. --Fire Science Research Work Unit accomplishments

1980-1984 are summarized and publications li.sted. Current fi.re

behavior and fire effects investigations are briefly described.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important resource management challenges facing the South

is to provide a greater share of the Nation’s wood fiber from a shrinking forest

land base (e.g. see Barras 1984). The intentional use of fire not only can, but

must play a greatly expanded role if this challenge is to be met.

During an average year, slightly more than 50 percent of the Nation’s

wildfire acreage is in the 13 Southern States. An alarming proportion of this

acreage occurs in young pine plantation8 where damage is often severe. The

magnitude of these losses is much greater than generally real.ized. For

example, during the 1976 fire season, close to 30,000 acres of pine, with an

average age of 6 years, were blackened (Wilson 1977). And during the first 10

months of 1981 an estimated 75,000 acres of l-10 year old pine plantations were

burned in the 13 Southern States (U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1982). Protection of

the roughly 19 million acres in pine plantations and the 42 million acres of

natural pine in this region should thus be a top priority.

How Can Prescribed Fire Help?

Prescribed fire is the only practical way to reduce the fuel hazard in

established pine stands, but less than 4 million of the 61 million acres

are intentionally burned each year. Moreover, fire is seldom prescribed in

young pine stands where the damage potential from wildfire is greatest.

Prescribed fire can also increase tree growth rates by controlling

understory vegetation, especially in young pine stands. In the South,

prescribed fire has been used for over three centuries to control undesirable

vegetation. A major advantage of it over other alternatives is that, depending

upon t iming and firing technique, many plant species can be controlled rather

than eradicated. Fire enhances diversity by increasing legumes and other plants

eaten by wildlife such as quail and turkey. Succulent sprout growth is also

promoted and the plants are kept within reach of browsers such as deer.

’ Acting Project Leader RWU SE-2111

Paper presented at The Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in

the South. Atlanta, GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

101
A third major area where prescribed fire increases productivity is in

preparing sites prior to planting pine, which is an almost mandatory practice

in the South to set back hardwoods that compete with the pine seedlings. This

need i-s especially great on the more marginal si.tes that continue to be put

into timber production (Guldin 1984). Currently fire, machines, chemi.cals, or

some com.bination of these methods are used, but, if the costs of diesel fuel

and heavy equipment continue to escalate and herbicide restrictions continue to

tighten, fewer acres will be treated with chemicals and heavy equipment. Thus,

if productivity is to be increased, the use of low cost, efficient alternatives

such as prescribed fire will also have to increase.

CURRENT RESEARCH

The research mission of Research Work Unit-2111 in 1980-1984 has been to

develop, adapt and incorporate into cost effective methods the fire science

information necessary to expand the use of prescribed fire in southern

forests. 0~ holdings where prescription fire is routinely used, we are

developing the information that will enable a substantial increase in the area

that can be safely treated on the few ideal burning days that occur each winter

as well as developing the data base neoessary to widen the prescribed burning

window .

On forest land currently being managed without the benefits of prescribed

fire, our goal is to better quantify the behavior and effects of fire, and

demonstrate its predictability.

Research to accomplish these objectives is grouped into three broad areas:

1. The evaluation of spot firing techniques

2. The development of methods for predicting fire behavior and effects

3. The quantification of the effects of fire on vegetation

Ongoing research in each of these areas will be briefly described.

Evaluation of Firing Techniques

This broad topic area has been divided into (1) assessment of aerial

ignition guidelines and (2) comparison of the behavior of spot-and line-ignited

fires .

Aerial ignition guidelines .--Using conventional ground ignition methods,

resource managers rarely have enough good burning days during a given year to

treat the acreage scheduled. As the number of possible days remaining

decreases, managers often attempt to use marginal weather conditions, with

resv! ts ranging from a simple decrease in benefits to an unacceptable increase

in deleterious side effects. The temptation. to use marginal burning conditions

could be virtually eliminated by the development of dependable, cost-effecti.ve

aeri.al ignition techniques. Aerial ignition has numerous advantages over

ground ignition, but perhaps the most important is the enormous increase in

acreage that can be treated during a given burning period. Increases in safety

and ef f i c iency , and the potential for a substantial reduction in overall cost

make aerial ignition all the more attractive.

Both the aerial ignition device (A.I.D. or “ping-pong ball”) system and

102
helitorch or “flying drip torch” system can be used to ignite spot fires.

Individual spots simultaneously head, flank, and back as they grow and

eventual ly burn into each other. We have developed preliminary criteria for

spacing igniters in southeastern fuel types (Johansen 1984a, 1984b) and

evaluated different belit crch equipment configurations (Johansen [In press] 1.

Frevious work (Sackett 1968) showed a direct correlation between the number of

ignition points per acre and the amount of crown scorch, but under the spot

fire ignition grids (1 ch. x 1 ch. to 4 ch. x 4 ch.; and burning conditions

used in our present studies, we found spat ing had little ef feet on scorch

Ieight. The operati.onal ramification of these results is to use the 4 ch. x 4

:h. ignition grid because it requires less flying time and fewer ignitions. In

;ur stud ies , undesirable flame heights and attendant crown scorch were

associated with spot fire merger, particularly on rectangular grids where the

flanks of spot fires along a given ignition line tended to come together before

the heads ran into the backfires from the next downwind line of spots.

Differences in burning conditions may account for the contrast between our

results and those of earlier studies . Most of our fires took pl.ace at the

“high” end of the prescribed burn scale. The forward rate of spread of the

individual spots increased from 8’/min. in the 1 ch. x 1 ch. spacing tests to

14 ’ /min. in the x 4 ch. x 4 ch. spacing indicating that intensity continued t o

increase as the spots spread. Thus the i.ncreased irrtensit y of the individual

spots at the wide spacings compensated for the reduced merge line distances

resulting in about the same degree of scorch regardless of spacing.

We cannot tell from these study results what the effects of ignition grids

wider than 4 ch. x 4 ch. would be or what the effect of different fuel moistur e

and weather condi.tions on spot fire behavior would be.

Eecause our suggested 4 ch. x 4 ch. grid which results i% only 1 ignition

per 1.6 acres and because the sphere of influence of each igniter is only

slightly larger than a ping-pong ball, this system is best for continuous

fuels . The flying drip torch emits a steady stream of burning fuel globs which

provide many more potential ignitions per unit of line flown. This system thus

works well in discontinuous fuels such as are found in many clearcuts. When

the flying drip torch is used in continuous fuels, the many ignitions per unit

of flight line rapidly establish a line of headfire witb its associated highe r

intensities and potential for higher scorch than does the pi.ng-pong ball system

under the same conditions.

Spot vs line fire behavior . --Although early controlled burns were spot

fires a they were replaced by line fires with the introduction of the drip

torch. The behavior of spot fires therefore has been virtually ignored except

in the unique ecosystems of South Florida where Everglades National Park in

cooperation with the Southern Forest Fire Laboratory pioneered the use of

aerial ignition in the South. (Sackett 1975; Wade, Ewe1 & Hofstetter 19gC).

The behavior of spot fires under various weather and fuel conditions must

be determined before guidelines relating ignition point density to fir e

parameters such as intensity and burn-out time can be established. Informa t ion

on fuel consumption and emissi.on rates is also needed to calculate air-quality

impacts. In my judgment, the use of weather conditi.or’s normally considered

ideal for line-ignited backfires is the major reason some aerially ignited

burns have produced i.ntensities above those called for in the prescription.

103
With spot firing, most of the area is burned by headfires, which spread faster

and are more intense than line ignited-backfires, although they are not as

fast, or as intense as line headfires.

Spot fires don’t have to be ignited from the air to be effective. For

example, the Oconee National Forest has implemented a burning program in

Piedmont fuel types using strip headfires. This firing technique necessitates

a halt in ignition whenever conditions get too severe--as often occurs during

the heat of the afternoon. Ignition can generally be resumed in the evening

but this is outside normal work hours and smoke dispersion is generally poorer

at night. Backfires aren’t practical because of the lack of interior plow

lines. Consultation with our Kesearch Work Unit resulted in a novel solution;

now whenever line headfire behavior becomes too intense,t.he firing crew simply

switches to spot fires. Torch people walk the same distance but instead of

stringing a line of fire, each ignites a spot every so many paces. This

technique also allows more area to be ignited between torch refills.

Future work. --Because aerial ignition is rapidly replacing line firing on

many agency and industrial land holdings in the South, operational guidelines

are urgently needed. Moreover, many tianagers still have a nagging fear

regarding damage that might occur from having too many spot fires burning on a

given area at the same time. I believe the greatest potential of aerial

ignition is on the damper end of the prescribed burning window, where

individual spots will not merge into an uncontrollable inferno. But, if this

phenomenon is to be avoided, threshold conditions for its development should be

established.

Methods For Predicting Fire B_e_h_a.v_i_o_r and Effects

If the South is to meet its wood fiber productjon goals, better protection

and increased growth rates of existing stands will be mandatory, and tl:e

judicious use of prescribed fire is perhaps the most economical means of

accomplishing these tasks. But how can this tool be sold to the managers of

the tens of millions of acres where it is not currently used? The reasons for

not using fire where it has obvious potential are varied and include

misconceptions or jgnorance regarding the benefits of prescribed fire.

However, I believe a major reason is simply that these landowners attach a

subjectively high probability to the potentjay for resource damage and

litigation. While qualitative guides (e.g. Mobley et.al. 1978) have sufficed

for those now using prescription fire, we need site-specific predictors of fire

bebavior and effects that work under a wide range of fuel and weather

conditions in order to expand the window of opportunity for prescription

burn ing . Researchers 1:ave attempted to devise fire damage prediction systems

based on measures of fire intensity for over 50 years, but solutions have

proved elusive. One stumbling block has been the lack of a good method for

rating the behavior and effects of prescribed fire. There would be numerous

advantages to adapting an existing, commonly used, fire intensity predictor

such as flame length.

Flame length-- The use of flame length as an indicator of fire behavior has

received wide acclaim since Byram (1959) published an equation relating flame

length to f ire1 ine intensity. The concept is appealing, but length has proved

to be exceedingly difficult to measure accurately. Johnson (1982a) found that

actual flame length measurements did not agree with predicted values based on

104
existing equations that express the relationship between fire jntensity and

flame length . More recent work, howevsr, suggests that flame lengths were

simply not measured accurately enough.

Fuel weight. --Fuel consumption is another fire behavior descriptor. This

paramet.el- is dependent upon total fuel which is itself usually predicted.

Generalized prediction equations for southern fuel complexes exist, but there

is much room for improvement.

We are using our archived forest floor fuel data to develop more accurate

litter weight accumulation prediction models for loblolly, longleaf and slash

pine based on age of rough and stand basal area. Information regarding

shortleaf pine has already been published (Johansen, Lavdas & Loomis 1981).

These estimates are used to calculate fuel consumption which is a cornerstone

of most fire i.ntensity, fire effects and smoke management models.

Moisture content. --Live and dead fuel moisture are also major determinants

of fire behavior. Yet their accurate pl-ediction remains a goal in the South.

Eventually the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) or Canadian Fire

Weather Index (CFWI) equations should prpbably be adjusted to better reflect

southern conditions. In the meantime, we Qave lent a degree of scientific

backing to the time-honored “crackle test”- used by nest. southern woods burners

(Johnson 1984aj.A study is currently underway to assess the foliar moisture

response of selected understory species on the Georgia Coastal Plain and

Fiedmont to changes in soil moisture as measured by four commonly used drought

indices, the objective being to relate changes in flammability to changes in

these indices. Results of this study have been accepted for presentation at

the Eighth National Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology scheduled for

April 1985 in Detroit.

National Fire Danger Rati_ng_ System.--Several components and jnd ices of the

NFDRS, which most federal land management agencies are required to use, are

designed to estimate the behavior of an initiating fire under given fuel and

weather conditions. But most of these predictors are “ngtoriously unreliable

throughout much of the southeast region” (Johnson 1980). We attempted to

evaluate NFDRS models C, 0, and P by compari.ng predicted fire behavior with

observed data on archived fire reports. We hoped for a fair degree of

correlatjon, but none was found. Our cooperator (Williams 1983) gave two

reasons. First, he found a surpri.sing number of errors at all levels of input

which he did not think were due to a lack of exposure to training. Rather, he

blamed the cbservers preconceived notions that the NFDRS was not worth using.

The second finding, which could not be conclusive1 y shown in light of the first.

was that the various indices and components needed to be normalized for

southern conditions.

ata on file at Southern Forest Fire Laboratory.

’ The estimation of fuel flammabil i ty by picking up a few upper litter layer

needles or leaves and subjectively determining their tendency to snap or bend.

4 Fire science adaptations for- Southern United States. Res. Work Unit

Description (SE-2111), 6p. On file, South. For. Fire Lab., Dry Branch, GA.

105
Future work. --If the NFDRS is to give meaningful results in the South, its

indices and components wi13 need to be adjusted for southern conditions because

fire danger-fire behavior response curves do not agree with predicted values.

Some, but certainly not all, of the NFDRS shortcomings can be corrected for in

the BEHAVE system. For example, the live fuel moisture damping coefficient in

this system does not fit southern conditions, nor does the systems response to

passage of a cold front accompanied by significant rainfall. Regardless of the

shortcomings of NFDRS components and indices, the possibility that they may

nonetheless provide an acceptable analog of resource damage levels should be

examined.

Another priority need is to field test and adjust Van Wagner's scorch

equation (Van Wagner 1973) to fit southern conditions or develop a new model as

necessary.

Research under this general area is divided into site preparation,

productivity or species composition.

Sitqpreparation. --The use of fire in site preparation has received

increasing attention during the last several years because of herbicide

restrictions and mechanical treatment cost increases. Much of thj.s attention

has focused on smoke management; our RWU investigations in this area have been

in response to user requests.

One cooperative study looked at burning rate and smoke production as a

function of pile configuration. Following logging, many companies pile the

remaining debris in windrows for disposal using fire. These windrows take many

hours to burn and produce copious amounts of smoke that follow local nighttime

air drainage patterns, often resulting in pockets of severely reduced

visibility. Our field experiments showed that circular piles of logging debris

burned much faster and produced smoke for a substantialiy shorter peljod than

did windrowed slash (Johansen 1981).

Another cooperatjve study with industry assessed the value of very low

intensity prescarification burns upon understory recovery and pine seedling

survival and growth. Frequent summer showers can force postponement of these

broadcast burns for weeks at a time, causing delays in subsequent tasks such as

chopping and bedding and sometimes in the planting operation itself. Cognizant

of the cost of these delays, forest managers often seize the first marginal

burning day, accepting a patchy burn with little fuel consumption. Results

from our investigations showed that after 6 years, these low-intensity fires

had no significant effects on pine survival, growth, or overtopping (Wade and

Wilhite 1981).

Organic soils occupy several million acres in Florida and coastal North

Carolina. Surface fires such as site preparation bums can ignite this soil.

Because of the tenacity of these fires, control is exceedingly time consuming

so that emissions from these fires might impact an area for several weeks.

Combustion products from these slow-moving, smoldering fires differ from those

produced by flaming combustion. Futhermore, the high particulate emissions

from these fires often combine with high nighttime humidities to form dense

106
fog. The Southern Forest Fire Laboratory, in conjuction with the Florida

Division of Forestry described the combustion characteristics and emissions

from burning organic soils as a first step in addressing these problems

(McMahon, Wade and Tsoukalas 1980).

Productivitv.--We have several ongoing studies designed to assess southern

pine survival and growth following various I evels of fire damage. The

University of Florida has a cooperative study with us to look at needle

moisture stress as s method of determining growth stress and to quantify the

effects of growing space on tree recovery associated with various levels of

crown scorch. Results are due this coming spring.

Results of a cooperative study with the Georgia Forestry Commission show a

drastic immediate reduction in growth on trees with crown scorch approaching

100 percent. In fact, many of the 25-year-old trees put on virtually no radial

spring or summer growth at breast height the year after this dormant season

fire (Johansen 1984c). Besides the obvious economic ramifications of these

results, they suggest other recently published findings (Waldrop and Van Lear

1984) showing no growth loss associated with high scorch,as determined by

increment core analysis, failed to consider the possibi.lity of missing rings.

Survival and growth of young loblolly pine plantations (1 to 8 years old)

following dormant and early growing-season wildfires is being followed through

a cooperative study with the South Carolina Commission of Forestry.

Preliminary results have been accepted for presentation at the Eighth National

Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology scheduled for April 1985 in Detroit.

Results of the above three studies have several immediate uses. First,

damage is quantified so its effects can be projected through to plantation

harvest, allowing an economic analysis of replanting versus keeping the

survivors. Second, the cost effectiveness of fire suppression expenditures can

be addressed. These calculations can be used by fire control agencies to

justify budget requests and as a basis for analyzing contemplated changes in

current suppression tact its.

Fire, however, is not universally detrimental to productivity. Studies

have documented growth increases associated with nutrient cycling and

understory competition control. These increases should be most noticeable in

young pine stands. Although these stands are the most difficult to burn

safely, the potential for a well-timed fire to reduce the fuel hazard while at

the same time stimulating crop tree growth is appealing. Prescribed fire is

not currently used in young plantations, however, because adequate guidel.ines

do not exist. Young stands that have come through wildfire unharmed are

occasionally found though, so we know it can happen. Another cooperative

agreement with the Georgia Forestry Commission is aimed at establishing damage

in young pine plantations associated with an array of prescribed burning

cond it ions. One spin-off from our South Carolina wildfire damage study of

value in this area is the cataloging of burning conditions on wil.dfires that

did not cause excessive damage. There data may lead to prescription burn

criteria for young stands.

Along this same vein, a cooperative study with Georgia Kraft is charting

the understory recovery and pine growth after prescribed fires of two intensity

levels applied to a 5-year-old loblolly pine stand on the Georgia Piedmont.

107
Commun it v compos it ion.. --Students of fire ecology are well aware of the

striking differences in plant and animal species composition associated with

different levels of fire exclusion, but these differences have yet to be

quantified in most cases. Our long-term winter burning plots in the

palmetto-gallberry and mixed hardwood-shrub fuel types of the At1anti.c Coastal

Plain have recently been sampled to assess differences i-n terms of fuel

management and plant succession after 24 years under selected burning cycles.

We also have a cooperative agreement with Clemson University and the Forest

Science Laboratory at Charleston, SC, to analyze the results of 35 years of

burning the Santee fire plots in the mixed hardwood-shrub fuel type.

Although most of the above-mentioned studies have primarily benefited

timber management, we have undertaken several studies that address the benefits

of fire in managing other wild-land resource values. Three such cooperative

studies are described below. The first, with the Piedmont National Wildlife

Refuge, is set up to compare long-term species changes in composition

associated with over 40 years of fire exclusion to those resulting from a

4-year prescribed fire cycle from a wildlife habitat standpoint. The second,

with Clemson University, is designed to document the short-term effects of lowintensity fire on hardwood stem quality and on small mammal habitat in the

Southern Appalachians. Another multifaceted cooperative study currently being

prepared for publication demonstrated the ability of well-timed fires in

Spartina .- marsh to temporarily halt shrub encroachment, to favor perpetuation of

the target plant species, and to improve habitat for desired wildlife species,

while simultaneously enhancing conditions for increased productivity of the

aquatic food chain.

Miscellaneous Studies

Several studies were undertaken in response to daylighted user needs that

do not neatly fit into the above categories.

South Florida’s rapidly expanding popul~ation is concentrated on a narrow

band along the coast, while the virtually uninhabited interior is comprised

largely of a vast marsh (The Everglades) and swamp (Big Cypress). A large

percentage of the human population is retired. Many of these people have

respiratory ailments, while the ever-present tourists simply desire clear skies

and sunshine. Extensive fires in the interior often coincide with periods of

reduced visibility from haze along the southeast coast. FJade (1980) described

an unsuccessful attempt to correlate high air-pollution days along this coast

with fire activity in the interior.

A similar study was conducted on the 400,000-acre Okefenokee National

Wildlife Refuge in extreme southeast Georgia. Johansen and Phernetton (1982)

described the effectiveness of smoke management planning for prescription burns

on the refuge in minimizing potential downwind smoke problems.

Most Southern States do not have a system for reporting prescribed burning

activity within their boundaries, and those that do recognize the potential

errors in the acreage figures collected. In an attempt to get a better

esti.mate of the acreage prescribed burned by large landholders and the reasons

for burning, Johansen and McNab (1982) surveyed selected large landholders in

11 Southern States. They concluded that over 2 million acres were prescribed

108
burned by large landhol.ders in 1975, of which over 500,000 acres were treated

for site preparation.

The potential of prescribed fire to manage the hardwood forests of the

Piedmont and Southern Appalachians is receiving renewed attention. Johnson

(1982b) briefly reviewed the effects of fire in eastern broadleaf forests, and

P cooperative agreement with Clemson (Van Lear and Johnson 1983) not only

provided a review of fire effects, but also identified areas where additional.

research was needed.

DISCUSSION

The information gained from these studies is forming the database needed to

answer such far-reaching fire management questions as: How can prescribed fire

costs be minimized while safely maximizing desired benefits? What are the

economic tradeoffs between slow-moving backfires with little tree darrage and

faster moving headfires with more tree damage? What are the ec0nomi.c tradeoffs

between interior p1ow lines and longer burn-out times? How much damage can be

t.olerated in young pine stands from hazard reduction bums?

Another end product of our research Efforts will be a series of

state-of-the-art publications outlining the role of fire in various southern

ecosystems. Slash pine (Wade 19831, melaleuca (Wade 19811, and 10 South

Florida ecosystems (Wade, Ewe1 and Eofstetter 1980) have already been

addressed, while Johnson (1984b) covered the practice .of prescribed burning

itself.

SUMMARY

The 27 research studies and the 21 publications to date accomplished under

the auspices of the Fire Science RWU during its current ‘;-year charter

represent a balanced attack on some of the more important unknowns associated

with fire in the Southern United States.

With your continued help in research planning and study execution, the next

5 years will be even more productive.

109
LITERATURE ClTED

USDA Forest Service

1982. 1981 Forest fire update. Forest-Gram South. USDA For. Ser.,

Southeast. Area State and Private Forestry. Feb. 1982, p3.

Barras, Stanley J.

1984. Proposed southwide growth and yield program: research, development

and applications. In: Proc. of the 1983 Conv. of the Sot. of

Amer. For., Portland, OR, Oct. 16-20, 1983, p. 498-502.

Byram, George M.

1959. Combustion of forest fuels, in K.P.Davis, Ed., Forest Fire Control

and Use, McGraw Hill, New York. p. 61-123.

Guldin, Richard W.

1984.

Johansen,

1981.

Johansen,

1984a.

Johansen,

1984b.

Johansen,

1984c.

Johansen,

Factors affecting regeneration of marginal forestland: a southern

perspective. In: Proc. 1983 Conv. of the Sot. of

Amer. For., Portland, OR, Oct.16-20, 1983, p. 439-443.

.

Ragnar W.

Windrows vs. small piles for forest debris disposal. Fire

Manage. Notes 42(2):7-g.

Ragnar W.

Prescribed burning with spot fires in the South Georgia Coastal

Plain. GA For. Res. Pap. 49, 7p. Ga. Forestry Comm. Macon, GA.

Ragnar W.

Aerial ignition for speed and control with prescribed burns.

For. Farm. 43(5):12-14.

Ragnar W.

Southern pine responses to aerially ignited prescribed burns.

In: Proc. 1983. Conv. of the Sot. of Amer. For., Portland, OR,

Oct. 16-20, 1983, p.281-284.

Ragnar W.

[In Press] Is aerial ignition a panacea to the southern prescribed burner?

Johansen,

1981

Johansen,

1982.

Third Bien. South. Silvicultural Res. Conf.,

Atlanta, GA., Nov. 7-8, 1984.

Ragnar W., L. G. Lavdas,and R. M. Loomis

Estimating fuel weights before prescription burning shortleaf pine

stands. South. J. Applied For. 5(3):128-131.

Ragnar W. and W.H. McNab

Prescribed burning on large landholdings in the South during 1975.

USDA For. Ser. Res. Note SE-316, 4p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Asheville, NC.

110
Johansen, Ragnar W. and Ronald Phernetton

1982. Smoke management on the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. South.

J. Applied For. 6(4):200-205.

Johnson, Von J.

1982a. The dilemma of flame length and intensity. Fire Manage.

Notes 43(4): 3-7.

Johnson, Von J.

1982b. Ambivalent effects of fire in eastern broadleaf forests.

In: Proc. 1982 Conv. of the Sot. of Amer. For., Cincinnati, OH,

Sep. 19-22, 1982, p.153-156.

Johnson, Von J.

1984a. Estimating moisture content in litter

South. J. Applied For. B(4): 197-201.

Johnson, Von J.

1984b. Prescribed burning--requiem or renaissance.

J. For. 82(2): 82-90. .

McMahon, C. K., D. D. Wade, and S. N. Tsoukalas

1980. Combustion characteristics and emissions from burning organic soils.

In: Proc. 73rd Annu. Meet. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Montreal,

Canada, June 22-27, 1980, 80-15.5, p. l-16.

Mobley, Hugh E., Robert S. Jackson, and William E. Balmer, and others

1978 . A guide for prescribed fire in southern forests. USDA For. Serv.,

Atlanta, GA, 40~. (Orignally issued 1973.)

Sackett, Stephen S.

1968. A field trial for regulating prescribed fire intensities.

Fire Control Notes 29(3): 5-6.

Sackett, Stephen S.

1975. Airborne igniters for prescribed burning. Fire Manage.36(2): 12-13.

Van Lear, David H., and Von J. Johnson

1983. Effects of prescribed burning in the Southern Appalachian and Upper

Piedmont forests: a review. Clemson Univ. For. bull.

No. 36, 8p. Clemson, SC.

Van Wagner, C.E.

1973. Height of crown scorch in forest fires. Can. J. For. Res.3(3):

373-378.

Wade, Dale D.

1980. An attempt to correlate smoke from Everglades fires with urban South

Florida air quality.In: Proc. 6th Conf. on Fire and For. Meteor.,

Seattle, WA, April 22-24.) 1980, p. 155-162.

111
Wade, Dale D.

1981. Some melaleuca-fire relationships including recommendations for

homesite protection. IN: Proc. of Melaleuca Symp., Ft.

Myers, FL, Sept. 23-24, 1980, p. 29-35.

Wade, Dale D.

1983. Fire management in the slash pine ecosystem.

IN: Proc. The Managed Slash Pine Ecosystem Symp., Gainesville, FL,

June 9-11, 1981, p. 203-227, 290-294 6 301.

Wade, Dale D., and Lawrence P. Wilhite

1981. Low intensity burn prior to bedding and planting slash pine is of

little value. In: Proc. South. Silvicultural Res.

Conf., Atlanta, GA, Nov. 6-7, 1980. p. 70-74.

Wade, Dale D., John Ewel, and Ronald Hofstetter

1980. Fire in South Florida ecosystems. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.Rep.

SE-17, 125~. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, NC.

Waldrop, Thomas A. and David H. Van Lear

1984. Effect of crown scorch on survival and growth of young loblolly pine.

South J. Applied For. 8(l): 35-40.

Williams, Charles A.

1983. An evaluation of the National Fire Danger Rating System for three

fuel models in North Carolina. M.S. theses, North Carolina St. Univ.,

Raleigh, NC. 33~.

Wilson, Carl C.

1977. Protecting conifer plantations against fire. For. Fire News.

July 1977. Fire Manage. Study Group, North Amer. For. Corn.,

FAO. p.28-30.

112
COMBUSTION PROCESSES IN WILDLAND FUELS

(A Research Progress Report 1980-1985)

Charles K. McMahonl

Abstract. --A 5-year summary of accomplishments, current

activities , and planned actions for fire research project SE-2110

are presented. Areas of discussion center on: (1) characterization

of wildland smoke, and (2) fuel, fire, and emission relationships ,

Characterization summaries include physical and chemical properties

of smoke, smoke from burning pesticide-treated forest fuels, and

smoke tracers.

Reducing smoke from smoldering combustion, understanding

moisture relationships in forest fuels, and developing remote

sensing methods for fire behavior and effects offer opportunities

for the wildland fire manager to expand prescribed burning programs

while minimizing detrimental environmental effects.

Add it iona 1 keywords : Air quality; visibility; photo and

video documentation; organic soil; image analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The Combusti.on Processes in Wildland Fuels Research Project (SE-2110) was

established in 1980 following the phaseout of the Smoke Management Research

and Development Program. The original title of the Project was changed from

“Smoke Chemistry and Physics” to the current title to reflect expansion of our

research from smoke characterization into several related areas of fire

research. The words “combustion processes” were chosen to help convey the

notion that our research would examine all phases of the wildland fire process,

inc lud ing smoldering c ombus t ion, a phase of the fire process often ignored in

previous fire research efforts .

The Project’s mission was described:

“To determjne the chemical and physical characteristics of emissions from

wild land fires , and to describe the mechanisms of formation permitting the use

of source-related predictive equations for smoke management.”

The work to be accomplished was initially divided into three broad problem

statements:

Problem No. 1: Resource managers need information on the chemical and physical

properties of forest fire smoke in order to be 1 esponsive to existing and

emerging air quality legislation. (What is smoke?)

1

Supervisory Research Chemist and Project Leader, Southern Forest Fire

Laboratory, Southeastern Forest fiperiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Dry

Branch, Georgia.

113
Problem No. 2: Resource managers need information on atmospheric reactions of

smoke in order to predict visibility impact at sites downwind from the fire

source . (What is the fate of smoke in the environment?)

Problem No. 3: Functional relationships between flaming and smoldering

processes , fire intensity , fuel characteristics , and emissions are needed in

order to develop smoke management systems. (How can the process be modeled?)

Shortly after the Project was organized, we consolidated Problems 1 and 2

into a single problem entitled, “Characterization of Wildland Smoke is

Need ed . ” Consolidation was in response to the loss of several scientists and a

sharply reduced operating budget.

This paper is intended as a summary of the Project’s significant

accomplishments, current activities , and planned actions. The literature cited

are limited to recent related publications by Project personnel.

CHARACTERIZATION OF WILDLAND SMOKE IS NEEDED

(Problems 1 and 2)

Many forest-land managers recognize that wildland productivity can be

increased by the expanded use of prescribed burning. At the same time, they

realize they must be able to develop methods to reduce or minimize the impact

of smoke on air quality. As a first step, basic information is needed on

smoke properties to defend the beneficial use of fire where burning regulations

are being considered. This information will also provide the building block

for developing predictive models for use in smoke reduction strategies and

smoke management systems. Work on this combined problem was outlined in a

problem analys is (McMahon and Tangren 1981) with the research divided into

three components:

1. Chemical characteristics of smoke.

2. Physical characteristics of smoke.

3 . Characterization methodology and instrumentation.

Chemical Character is tics of Smoke

Smoke from forest fires contains thousands of major, minor, and trace

constituents . Our characterization research has been limited to constituents

of national or regional significance . These include particulate matter,

polycyclic organic matter, organic soil smoke, smoke from pesticide-treated

forest fuels , and smoke tracers.

Smoke Particulate matter. --Particulate matter is the most important single

category of emissions from forest fires . It is the major cause of visibility

impairment and contains compounds known to affect human health. Total

suspended particulate matter, or TSP, is that portion which is transported long

distances in the atmosphere and has the greatest potential for environmental

impact. Particles below 2 to 3 microns (fine particulates) have an especially

114
long residence time in the atmosphere, contribute to smog formation, and

penetrate deeply into the lungs. Effects of particulate matter are determined

by three properties: size, sorption characteristics, and chemical composition.

Interest in the properties of forest fire particulate matter was renewed in

1984 because of new efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

identify sources of visibility impact. In addition, EPA is in the process of

proposing a new national standard for particulate matter for particles under

10~ in diameter (PMlo).

For years, particulate matter has been measured in units of mass

determined by gravimetric analysis of the material collected on a glass fiber

filter in a "hi-vol" sampler. In recent years, the chemical analysis of

particulate matter, especially the organic fraction, has become a high-priority

need for environmental and air pollution scientists because of possible effects

on human health.

The organic fraction of TSP has traditionally been estimated by solvent

extraction with benzene and reported as the "benzene soluble organics," or

BSO. This fraction of ambient air TSP has been monitored for over 20 years.

Many of the first characterization stud+es centered on the biologically active

organic substances known collectively as Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM).

Polvcvclic oreanic matter (POM),--Following publication of the Southern

Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook in the late 1970's, one of the key

characterization questions that remained concerned the magnitude of polycyclic

organic matter (POM) emissions in wildland smoke. POM is a large class of

chemicals released into the air as a result of incomplete combustion of

carbonaceous fuels. Concerned about the cancer-causing potential of POM, EPA

was collecting data on POM emissions and was considering ways to regulate

sources that produced POM compounds. POM's from burning forest fuels were

first reported by McMahon and Tsoukalas in 1978. Because of the regulatory

potential surrounding this issue, high priority was given to continued study of

these pollutants. Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), one of the most studied POM compounds,

was chosen for further study. Recently, White and others (1985) reported that

the ratio of benzo(a)pyrene to particulate matter averaged 24 ug/g in four

forest fuels common to the Southeastern States. Significant differences were

not found between heading and backing fire types, but were among fuel types.

Based on these data, a new national estimate for BaP production from prescribed

burning was reported to be 11 metric tons annually. Earlier estimates were as

high as 140 metric tons annually. POM studies continue in slash fuel types in

cooperation with the Pacific Northwest Experiment Station. In addition, a

comprehensive profile of organic chemicals in forestry smoke particulate matter

is now being developed in cooperation with the USDA Tobacco Smoke Research

Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. That work should be available for publication

in late 1985.

At this time, it does not appear that wildland smoke management strategies

will need to incorporate the complexities related to the POM compounds. Our

current efforts, which focus on reducing smoldering combustion, should suffice

to minimize total POM production.

115
It is worth noting here that in August 1984 EPA decided not to regulate

POM as a class of compounds under the Clean Air Act "....until the agency had

enough information to determine if regulation is appropriate...." According to

current EPA figures, the major sources of POM are wood- and coal-burning stoves

(44 percent); mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and aircraft (40

percent); forest fires (3 percent); fireplaces (3 percent); incinerators (3

percent); coke oven emissions (2 percent), and other sources (5 percent). It

is clear, however, that small national percentages do not guarantee freedom

from regulation. Coke oven emissions will soon be regulated under Section 112

of the Clean Air Act, and a standard for diesel emissions is in place. EPA is

also considering other regulatory options for reducing POM emissions from wood

stoves.

EPA is now in the process of reexamining the potential risk of POM

emissions, source by source. Control technologies will be evaluated for

their effectiveness in reducing emissions and health risks, and for their

economic and social effects. Then, the agency may act to regulate additional

specified sources of POM under the Clean Air Act.

Smoke from burning organic soi&-arganic soils cover many millions of

hectares in the United States, including 2.8 million hectares in the Southern

United States with about 1.0 million in south Florida. If these soils are

sufficiently dry, they will support combustion when ignited by surface fires.

Organic soils are generally consumed by smoldering fires that can last for

months, burning down to the water table before going out. These slow-burning

fires (horizontal rates of spread in the range of several meters per day)

produce visible smoke when burning near the surface but can become remarkably

smoke free as they burn through deeper layers. Combustion is evident from a

general haze over the area combined with a disagreeable and pungent odor from

partially oxidized organic material. These soils can, however, burn more

rapidly and produce copious amounts of smoke around deep fissures in the soil

or where the soil is overturned.

We began a study in the late seventies to learn more about the soil

burning process. Field studies of soil burning would be very costly because

the soil combustion rate is uncertain and it is difficult to collect

representative emission samples. We decided to measure emissions from small

blocks of burning soil in the laboratory. As reported by McMahon and others

(1980, 1984) small blocks of organic soil collected in south-central Florida

were burned and monitored at the Southern Forest Fire Laboratory. The soils

sustained combustion for up to 4 days,

percent moisture.

even through 1aye;s containing 135

Peak temperatures were in the_+OO-600 C range. Particulate

matter emission factors ranged from 1 to 63 g kg . The particulate matter was

soot free and virtually all organic in nature (95 percent soluble in methylene

chloride). The particulate matter was separated into neutral, strong acid,

weak acid (phenolic) and basic fractions. The neutral fraction, which

predominated (63 percent), was further separated into four subfractions. The

subfractions containing polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were purified

by gel permeation chromatography and analyzed by gas chromatography. Percent

distributions of various PAH ring systems were determined. Organic soil

particulate matter was found to contain high percentages of methyl and

polymethyl PAH's in the three-and four-ring PAH syftems. For 13 samples, the

benzo(a)pylene emission factor averaged 213 ug kg

785 ug kg .

with a range be_iween 9 and

Emission factors for carbon monoxide (269 + 135 g kg 1, nitrogen

116
oxides (1.7 + 1.8 g kg -3 - 1

, and total hydrocarbons (23 + 15 g kg ) as methane

were also reported.

Smoke from burninp pesticide-treated forest fuels,--Since 1982, we have

carried out three smoke-related research studies as part of the National

Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP): (1) pesticide s

released from burning treated wood, (2) release of copper, chromium, and

arsenic (CCA) from the burning of wood treated with preservative, and (3)

release of herbicides from the burning of treated under-story forest fuels.

(1) Pesticides released from burning treated wood. --Rap idly r is ing

energy costs have created a large demand for alternative energy

sources in home heating. Many households have turned to wood as a

primary or supplemental energy source because of the abundance of

this fuel in many parts of the country. A common source of this

firewood is hardwood stems killed by herbicides or wood that has been

sprayed followi_ng a beetle attack. Recently, there have been

numerous inquiries from the public regarding the safety of burning

pesticide-treated wood in home fireplaces or stoves.

A novel combustion tube furnace technique (Fig. 1) was developed to

simulate the wide range of thermal conditions possible in wood stoves

and fireplaces . A range of conditions from slow smoldering

combustion to rapid flaming oxidation was applied to wood samples

treated with seven pesticides. The implications of the study as

reported by Clements and others (1984) are:

II . ..Pesticide treated wood will release substantial amounts of

pesticides when the sample is heated slowly. This can occur in

damped wood stoves as well as stove and fireplace fires that are not

fully developed .‘I

II . . .The amount of pesticide released will depend on the physical and

thermal properties of the compound. Relatively stable compounds such

as Lindane and Dicamba as well as compounds with significant vapor

pressures can be expected to be released (distilled) in significant

amounts when the wood is heated slowly.”

,I . ..Under conditions of rapid flaming combustion, most pesticides

decompose readily, with higher temperatures causing complete

decomposition. With a well-ventilated fully developed fire in a wood

stove or fireplace (where temperature can reach 800-1000°C), one can

expect complete decomposition of most common pesticides.”

11

. . .Because of the urlcertainty of ventilation and temperature in many

domestic wood-burning devices, a safe-side approach to the use of

pesticide treated wood is well advised. Thus, the indoor storage and

burning of pesticide treated wood is not recommended unless it has

been predetermined to have decomposed or removed from the wood by

aging and weathering processes .”

(2) Release of copper, chromium, and arsenic (CCA). .fro_m the burninq

of wood treated with preservative.--Chemicals have been used to

protect wood from insect and water damage for many years. One of the

117
more common formulations contains copper, chromium, and arsenic salts

and is referred to as chromated copper arsenate or CCA. Pub 1 ic

concern has been raised over the possible release of highly toxic

smoke when CCA wood scraps are burned. The levels of CCA released

when wood is burned under different combusti.on conditions is not

known. This study has two primary objectives:

a . To determine the percent of total copper, chromium, and

arsenic released to the atmosphere when CCA-treated wood is burned

under various combustion conditions.

b . To determine on selected samples the nature of the arsenical

chemicals released to the atmosphere.

In this laboratory study, CCA-treated wood is being burned under

controlled conditions (time/temperature) in a combustion tube

furnace. To date , experiments have been run at 400°C and 8OO’C. An

average of 17 percent of the arsenic is released at 400°C, while a

range of 19 to 31 percent is released at 800°C (depending on exposur e

time). Arsenic speciation and add%tional experiments at 1000°C are

planned . Results will be reported at the National Air Pollution

Control Association Conference in June 1985.

(3) Release of herbicides from the burning of treated understory

forest fuels . --Concern has been raised about the possible impact on

air quality from the popular “brown and burn” method of controlling

unwanted vegetation in forests. In this method, herbicides are

applied to the vegetation, and a few weeks later--after the leaves

are brown-- the area is burned by prescription. The concern centers

on the possible harmful amounts of parent herbicides and their

thermal decomposition products that may be released to the atmosphere

dur ing burning .

A study is underway to quantify emissions of parent herbicides as a

function of fire type and to identify the major herbicide thermal

decomposition products produced under these conditions. A worst case

application of a Tordon mixture (2,4-D and Picloram) was applied to

pine needle litter and burned under controlled conditions in the combustion laboratory at the Southern Forest Fire Laboratory (Fig. 2).

Results to date (Clements and others 1984b) indicate that a very high

percentage of Tordon components will thermally decompose when sprayed

on a fine forest fuel and then burned. Picloram decomposed (>99

percent) in all fires . 2,4-D decomposed (>99 percent) in the

simulated backing fires, but was released in small amounts (4.8

percent) in the simulated heading fires.

The amounts of herbicides released or decomposed in this experiment

cannot be extrapolated to other herbicides that have different

chemical and physical properties. Also, some decomposition products

are known to be hazardous. However, it is clear that burning

techniques that cause flaming to dominate not only favor pesticide

thermal decomposition but will also enhance the convective lift and

rapid dilution of the smoke away from the burn site.

118
Forestry smoke tracers. --A logical development emerging from smoke

characterization studies is the identification of a unique chemical fingerprint

or signature for forest fire emissions which could be used for plume tracking,

visibility studies, and source apportionment. Until recently, source-oriented

dispersion models and subjective visual estimates from aircraft have been the

primary means by which air-quality specialists have determined the impact of a

smoke plume at a receptor site. These methods have been approximations at

best, with most dispersion models accurate only within a factor of two.

Because of this limitation, there has been increasing interest in receptor

model technology; that is, models that assess and separate the individual

contributions from mixed pollution sources. Receptor methods have become

feasible because of recent improvements in the sampling and analysis of

aerosols. Receptor models start with the measurement of a specific feature of

the aerosol at the impacted site (receptor). They then calculate the

contribution of a specific source type based on a morphological or chemical

signature of the source.

Several receptor techniques are being developed to assess the

environmental impact of wood stove and fireplace emissions; they could also

prove useful as forestry smoke tracers (McMahon 1983). Atmospheric scientists

are also mapping the tropospheric distribution of trace gases from biomass

burn ing ; their results should prove helpful in finding a forestry smoke

tracer. Ward and others (1982) reported emission factors for trace sulfur

species released from five forest fuels burned in the laboratory.

Receptor models are very new and still an emerging technology. At

present, methods often only provide qualitative information. However, with

expected advances in sampling and analysis methods, these techniques could

become the primary diagnostic and predictive tool used in air resource

management. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for improving receptor models

lies in the area of detailed analysis of organic emissions. Most of the models

up to now have concentrated on elemental fingerprints. At present, there are

no reliable elemental signatures for many combustion sources. Elemental

analysis is relatively simple and inexpensive when compared to the techniques

needed for organic analysis. However, advances in organic sampling and

analysis, which can be expected, may provide the opportunity for finding

compounds or ratios of compounds that will distinguish between two closely

related sources. Approaches should consider the type of organic matrix present

in the fuels and then focus on expected pyrolysis and combustion products. For

forest fuels, specific aldehydes, furans, phenols, or terpenes would be a place

to start. Organic group, class, or functional group analysis may also be

appropriate, as well as individual constituent analysis, or a combination of

both.

Physical Characteristics of Smoke

The physical characteristics of smoke are important because of their

effects on smoke dispersion patterns, human health, and visibility (McMahon

1981). Particle size, particle shape, absorptive properties, density and

refractive index all contribute to the reduction of visibility by smoke. Many

of these characteristics are also important in describing human health

effects. Inhalation and lung retention are directly dependent on particle

size. Particles below 2.0 microns penetrate deepest into lungs and cause the

119
greatest concern. In addition, particle surface properties may cause

additional chemical species to be absorbed and carried to the lungs. Particle

size and aerodynamic characteristics determine the drift pattern of particles

and their residence time in the atmosphere. Fine particles (below 2.0 micron

diameter) generally behave as a gas and can remain dispersed in the air for

weeks and months.

Smoke particle size. --Some early reports on the size of forestry smoke

particulate matter erroneous1.y indicated a particle size range from 50 to

100 l_rm in diameter based on examination of microscopic slides placed downwind

from the fire. The parti.cles examined were primarily partially consumed fuel

fragments and ash particles. These large particles are produced primarily by

high-intensity fires when the turbulent convective activity in the fire zone is

sufficient to mechanically generate and entrain large particles in the smoke

column . In most cases, they drop out near the fire and are not found in

forestry smoke plumes at great distances from fires. A number of studies

reviewed by McMahon (1983) have now shown that most of the particles formed in

forest fires are of submicron size, typical of a combustion aerosol. These

studies generally agree on an average particle diameter between 0.1 and 0.5 urn,

for mass, number, or volume distributions.

Visibility relationshins.--The effect of smoke on visibility depends not

only on the concentration of particles emitted, but on the optical properties

of the particles as they affect the scattering, absorption, and total

extinction of light. A number of studies have reported the re1ationshi.p

between the mass of forest fire particulate matter and light scattering

properties. Comparison of data is hampered by the use of instruments with

different spectral reponses and/or by different methods of analysis. Tangren

(1982) h?s recently reviewed this topic and recommends a backscatte

2.8 x 10 for smoke plumes on the ground near the fire and 2.0 x 10

f ratio of

for

airborne measurements of aged smoke downwind from the fire. From a smoke

management perspective , these new values reduce some of the error in making

visibility predictions down range from a burn.

The color of forest fire smoke can vary from dark black, through various

shades of grey, to pure white. Black smoke will predominate during vigorous

flaming combustion, especially when burning foliage fuels containing a high

percentage of extractable hydrocarbons. As flaming combustion diminishes,

tarry droplets from smoldering combustion begin to predominate and the smoke

color changes from black to white. On a volume, number, and mass basis, the

tarry droplets usually predominate over the solid black soot particles. soot

particles scatter as well as absorb light. This double effect gives soot

particles an influence on visibility greater than their atmospheric

concentration alone would suggest . Also, the soot particles, although

chemically inert, carry on their surface reactive groups that take part in

i.mportant atmospheric reactions. Recently , the absorption properties of smokes

from laboratory fires that represent prescription burns in the Southern States

were quantified by Patterson and McMahon (1984). Measured optical properties

and previously measured size data were used to determine the overall radiative

properties for the smokes from these fire.s. As expected, results showed

significant differences in absorption of the smoke emissions between flaming

bustion, with specific absorption coefficient Ba

?~4s~~‘~e~i?g’p”at 632 8 nm

values from

. . These data indicate that under conditions of

framing c:mbustion approximately 50 percent of light extinction will be due to

120
particulate matter absorption, while under purely smoldering conditions, only 5

percent of light extinction will be due to absorption. This information is

providing a means of discriminating forest fire visibility effects based on

type of burning and fuel characteristics . It is also serving the needs of

researchers attempting to model the effects of forest fires on global

climatology, carbon cycling, and mass fire behavior (Fatterson and McMahon

1985).

Characterization Methodology And Instrumentation

Many of the procedures and much of the equipment associated with the study

of air pollution and atmospheric chemistry are relatively new. As a result,

most studies undertaken by the project required the development and/or

validation of instruments and procedures unique to smoke monitoring and

evaluation. Some recent examples are:

A micromethod for benzo(a)nvrene.--A simple and rapid method employing a

high-pressure liquid chromatographic technique has been developed and validated

for determining benzo(a)pyrene concentrations in particulate matter from

prescribed burning (White 1985). The procedure is being used in studies in the

Southeast as well as in cooperative work with the Pacific Northwest Experiment

Station.

A microcombustion method applied to forest fuels.--This method requires

thermogravimetric (TG) instrumentation and small (10 mg) samples of ground-up

forest fuels (Fig. 3). An average of 95 percent of the combustion products

released as particulate matter, volatile organic carbon, total hydrocarbons ,

carbon monoxide , and carbon dioxide are accounted for. The method best

simulates slow smoldering combustion and oxygen-starved pyrolytic conditions of

fuel decomposition (Clements and McMahon 1984). The TG system was used to

determine the amount of nitrogen oxides produced from burning 12 forest. fuels

that varied widely in nitrogen content (Clements and McMahon 1980). Results

indicate that approximately 25 percent of the fug1 nitrogen is converted to

nitrogen oxides when the fuels burned below 1000 C.

Smoke monitoring systems. --A sampling concept originally developed for use

with a balloon system for monitoring forestry smoke plumes (Ryan and others

1979) has been modified and used in many new applications. The original system

was portable (2.3 kg) and consisted of: a temperature and windspeed monitor, a

particulate matter sampler, and a gas grab-sampler. The system was designed to

make use of the “carbon-balance” procedure for obtaining fuel consumption data.

In the past, fuel consumption was often determined by tedious before-and-after

“lift & weigh” techniques . The carbon balance method chemically balances the

fuel’s known carbon content with the carbon content of the measured combustion

products . This technique was summarized and evaluated by Nelson (1981) and has

proven to be crucial to the monitoring of forest fires where traditional

lift-and-weigh techniques are not possible . The system was applied by Ward

and others (1980) using a tower-based vertical array in burning studies of

southeastern understory fuels. Upon transfer to the Pacific Northwest Station,

Ward further modified the system to operate on a real-time basis in a

horizontal configuration over broadcast fuels . Portable versions of the system

are evolving (Fig. 4) and have been used by White (1984) for monitoring

benzo(a)pyrene/particulate matter ratios and by McMahon (1982) for monitoring

emission from piled forest residues mixed with organic soil. This latte r

121
experiment also demonstrated the feasibility of using a platform monitoring

system and a modified tepee burner to monitor emissions and combustion rate

from large-scale (>500 kg) burning experiments (Fig. 5 and 6).

FUEL, FIRE, AND EMISSIONS RELATIONSHIPS ARE NEEDED

(Problem # 3)

Smoke reduction and management cannot be achieved simply by a chemical and

physical characterization of emissions. There is also a need to understand how

fuel characteristics and fire behavior are related to the amount and type of

combustion products. This information can then be used to develop burning

prescriptions that will assist in predicting and minimizing smoke production.

Initially, the activities for this problem (under the leadership of Darold

Ward) focused on studies which would lead to particulate matter emission models

that extended the utility of the Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook.

As a first step, Nelson and Ward (1280) described a relationship between 3

particulate matter emission factors (FFp) and Byram's fireline intensity (I)

for backfires in southern fuels (Fig:7). Emission factors were predicted by

the expression

EF = 60.8I_0'313

P

for fires with I between 20 and 300 kw -1

m .

An extension of that work was pub lished by Ward and others (1980) to

include a relationship between EF, and I for head fires in the

palmetto-gallberry fuel type with=fireline intensities up to 1750 kw m-1 (Fig.

8). A parabolic model fit the data below 500 kw m with

(1)

EF

P

= 19.5 - 0.07371 + 0.00014512. (2)

-1 For a fireline intensity range from 500 to 1750 kw m , the equation that best

fits the data is

EF = 16.7 + 0.0002431.

P

(3)

It follows from the above equations that particulate matter production can

be minimized for prescribed fires in the palmetto-gallberry fuel type by fife

management techniques which keep fireline intensity between 200 and 300 kw .

A further extension of this work was reported by Ward (19831, who

2

Emission factor (EF) defined as mass of particulate matterlproduced per unit

mass of fuel consu ed, -T expressed as grams per kilogram g kg or the English

equivalent lb ton .

3 -1 Fireline intensity (I) islexprfssed as kilowatts per meter (kw m > or the

English equivalent BTU set ft .

122
proposed a method for estimating particulate matter emission rates4 using flame

length as the independent variable. Flame length tends to integrate those

factors affecting smoke production for fire conditions where flaming combustion

dominates and smoldering does not persist for longer than 30 minutes.

Given an emission rate model, a forest manager can apply a number of fire

management techniques to burn under conditions that accomplish burning

objectives while minimizing the adverse environmental effects caused by smoke

production. The model can also be used in conjunction with the Southern

Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook to predict smoke concentrations downwind

from the source.

The draft problem analysis prepared in 1980 to guide the work in Problem 3

gave emphasis and priority to modeling emissions from burning forest residues.

Shortly afterwards, D. Ward was transferred to the Pacific Northwest Station

to address the urgent needs in that region for smoke management. Emphasis and

priority were given to reducing emissions from the broadcast burning of forest

residues in the Pacific Northwest.

With the loss of a key scientist and the need to minimize any duplication

of effort, we revised our Problem 3 problem analysis. The new analysis was

approved in June 1983 and given the title, "Fuel, Fire, and Emissions

Relationships in Wildland Combustion Processes are Inadequately Described"

(McMahon and others 1983). We focused on three broad problem areas:

1. Reducing smoldering combustion in southeastern fuel types.

2. Moisture relationships in dead forest fuels.

3. Developing remote-sensing methods for fire behavior and fire effects

applications.

Smoldering Combustion

The progress made in recent years in describing smoke from various types

of forest fuels has provided much needed information on smoke properties, fuel,

and emissions. The early research efforts were geared at filling major voids

needed to rapidly produce a state of knowledge guidebook (Southern Forestry

Smoke Management Guidebook 1976) and a national EPA source assessment document

(Chi and others 1979). Very little research was aimed at providing cause and

effect relationships among fuel, fire, and emission characteristics. Earlier

fire research dating back to the 1940's did develop some fuel and fire

relationships; but the emissions component of the process was largely ignored

because air quality was not a major issue and air resource management was not a

well-established concept. In those days, fire research was aimed at

4

Emission rate (ER) is defined as the rate of production of emissions per unit

length of fireline expressed as micrograms per meter per second or the English

equivalent pounds per foot per second.

123
providing a better understanding of fire danger, fire occurrence, fire

suppsessron, and fire behavi.or . Research objectives and methodology dealt

primarily with the flaming or active phase of the combustion process. The

smoldering phase did not receive much attention because it was not perceived to

be related to operational needs. In effect, when smoldering combustion

commenced , most fire problems ceased. Ironica 1 ly, it has become increasingly

evident that one of the most serious smoke problems in the South is associated

with the smoldering stage of the combustion process. During this stage of

combustion, the fire is often judged to be out, but smoke continues to be

produced by smoldering snags, logs, stumps, or organic soil. Local visibility

can be seriously impaired; property is damaged or lives lost because of smoke

transport into sensitive areas (especially toward the end of the day). This

smoke effect is similar to the one described in the Sout ern Forestry Smoke

Management Guidebook during the no-convective-lift phase!? of combustion. The

smoke is produced during the smoldering combustion of ground fuels which

actually carry the fire. Due to the low rate of heat release in this phase,

the smoke tends to stay near the ground, creating smoke problems in the local

area.

The research question posed by this problem component is: How are fuel

characteristics and fire behavior related to smoldering combustion? The

operational question is: How can the smoke impact from smoldering combustion

be predicted and minimized? These considerations raise more specific questions

on how live fuels, duff moisture, and moisture gradients in the fuel layer

affect the smoldering component in spreading fires. For fires in piled or

wind rowed fuels , the relationship of fuel particle size, fuel bed porosity, and

fuel bed arrangement to duration of smoldering combustion remains unknown.

There is little doubt that smoke production and smoldering potential are

strongly affected by fire behavior and firing techniques; however, quantitative

relationships are lacking for most fuel and fire types. From an operational

perspective, a land manager may have a choice of a heading, backing, or

strip-head fire in a given situation. It would help if he knew in advance

which technique would minimize smoldering combustion and to what degree.

Knowing in advance when smoldering combustion might be a problem introduces new

options in scheduling and planning prescribed burning.

Information from studies dealing with effects of fuel characteristics and

fire behavior can be applied directly to update prescribed burning guidelines,

and to improve techniques of writing smoke management plans. In addition, data

originating from these studies can be used to strengthen models of fuel

complexes, fuel moisture, and fire behavior now used to make management

decisions.

5 The convective-lift phase of combustion occurs when most of the emissions are

entrained into a definite convection column caused by rapid release and ascent

of heat during combustion. The no-convective-lift phase of combustion occurs

when no well-defined convection column is present and entrainment of emissions

is small.

124
In order to broaden the range of studies in support of this research, the

Southern Forest Fire Laboratory combustion room and wind tunnel facility was

renovated in 1983. In addition, some field studies will be conducted using the

large outdoor platform described earlier (Fig. 6).

Moisture Relationships in Dead Forest Fuels

Moisture content of dead forest fuels is obviously an important factor

determining forest fire burning rates and products of combustion. It is also

one of the few combustion-related parameters that land managers can control or

factor into their prescribed burning decisions. Although the effect of fue

moisture on rates of fuel consumption and energy release is generally

understood, the corresponding effect on composition of the smoke is not well

known. It is believed that increasing amounts of live fuel in the burning

material are associated with increases in particulate matter (or smoke)

production per unit mass of consumed fuel since reduced energy release is

expected to lead to less efficient combustion. A similar effect is expected

when dead fuels at high moisture contents are added. However, these effects

have not been demonstrated with carefully controlled experiments.

This discussion is limited to infokation gaps and needed studies of fuel

moisture in dead fuels. Fire behavior models and the National Fire Danger

Rating System (NFDRS) attempt to predict effects of dead fuel moisture content.

Both user and research personnel have suggested that the NFDRS generally

overestimates the drying rates of southern fuels, thus causing an

overestimation of fire danger.

Further work on forest fuel moisture relationships is needed. One problem

in the NFDRS is that its derivation is based primarily on moisture

relationships and drying rates of wood. In many areas, especially in the

South, a fire's growth is determined by its spread through a layer of pine

needles, grasses, and other plants on the forest floor. Information on these

fuels, as well as wood, should form the basis for modeling fire behavior and

moisture changes in southern fuels.

Understanding moisture relationships in forest fuels and describing them

quantitatively can be divided into three researchable areas:

1. Equilibrium relationships.

2. Rates of moisture loss.

3. Effects of cycling and infiltration.

Equilibrium relationships.--Equilibrium moisture contents are determined

by relative humidity, ambient temperature, and sorption history. The research

needs can be subdivided into four categories: isotherm characterization,

weathering effects, hysteresis effects, and fuel classification.

(1) Isotherm characterization. --The graph of moisture content of

wood or forest fuel in equilibrium with various relative

humidities at constant temperature is referred to as a sorption

isotherm. Most of the practical work on sorption isotherm

characterization has been done for wood and textiles. The model

125
currently used by most researchers to describe equilibrium forest

fuel moisture requires evaluation of five parameters. A model

proposed recently by Nelson (1983) uses only two parameters and is

mathematically simple. It applies over a relative humidity range

from about 5 to 90 percent, and has accurately correlated sorption

data for wood and cotton. Its applicability to forest fuel

sorption was recently described by Nelson (19841, who applied the

model to five sets of sorption data in the literature to

illustrate goodness of fit (Fig. 9).

The effect of temperature on equilibrium moisture content has not

been extensively studied. A sorption model should be selected and

temperature dependence of the parameters studied to resolve

questions concerning the temperature effect. This effect is

important in equilibrium relationships and in description of the

drying process.

(2) Weathering effects. --The effect of weathering of fuels on

moisture equilibrium is unclear. Generally, weathering increases

the moisture content unless the material lost in weathering is

more hygroscopic than the remaining material. There is a need to

determine the extent to which sorption isotherms for southern

fuels are affected by weathering and to what extent this process

determines moisture exchange and retention characteristics.

(3) Hysteresis effects. --Sorption measurements in cellulosic

materials are complicated because the amount.of water held at

equilibrium is determined by the direction from which equilibrium

is approached. This hysteresis effect has been studied carefully

by wood and textile researchers. The significance of hysteresis

in forest fuel moisture relationships is not clear because the

magnitude of the effect is not known. Studies of the magnitude

and variation in the hysteresis ratio will provide useful

information about equilibrium moisture values.

(4) Fuel classification. --Though many fuel types exist on the

forest floor, it may be possible to subdivide them into three or

four classes in terms of their sorption properties at a constant

relative humidity to account for small differences due to species.

There is a need to examine the possibilities for combining

species, or mixtures of species, into classes according to the

values of their sorption isotherm parameters.

In 1983, we began a small-scale laboratory experiment to study the

sorption of water in wood and fine forest fuels under controlled conditions of

humidity and temperature. Equilibrium moisture contents have been cgmpleted

for four southern guels exposed to varying relative humiditieg at 80 F6

Measurements at 95 F are underway, with additional runs at 65 F and 50 F to

follow during the winter of 1985.

Rates of moisture loss. --Classical diffusion theory forms the basis for

predicting drying rates in processed wood and textiles, as well as forest

fuels. The theory, in its most common form, utilizes a constant drying rate

coefficient, whereas numerous experiments on wood, textiles, and forest fuels

126
have shown that these coefficients are dependent on the state of the fuel and

environmental variables.

Experimental observations of forest fuel drying have been more extensive

than theoretical work, but both approaches are needed for studies in this

problem component. A significant gap in current understanding of moisture

exchange in forest fuels is the form of the gradient that drives moisture

diffusion in fuels both above or below the fiber saturation point. Our

research plans in this area can be subdivided into three categories--basic

mechanisms , surface effects, and model development.

Theoretical work on mechanisms of moisture movement in wood begun in

1982 is rapidly nearing completion, and three manuscripts are in press (Nelson

1985, 1985b, 1985c). The first two papers identify the driving force for bound

water diffusion and describe a model of diffusion under isothermal conditions.

The third paper confirms the ability of thermodynamic equations to describe

moisture changes in wood under nonisothermal conditions and discusses a model

for calculating rates of change. The results of this work will apply to

similar processes in forest fuel particles. A summary of this work was

presented by Nelson (1984b) at a recent .North American Wood Drying Symposium.

Effects of cycling and infiltration. --Studies of sorption and drying under

constant environmental conditions are only preliminary work upon which to build

more realistic moisture predictions under field conditions. Our theoret ical

and laboratory studies just described apply primarily to a “drying phase,” but

here our interest i.s centered on a “wetting phase” due to precipitation and to

diurnal fluctuations of temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity, and

windspeed. Our research plans for this area have been subdivided as follows:

diurnal cycling, interception of rainfall by litter, and development of a final

model to predict rates of moisture gain and loss. We will begin studies in

this area in 1985.

Developing Remote-Sensing Methods fqr ,Fi.re_ _Behavi_o_r_ _and Fire Effects

Applications

Over the years, research has provided several operational guidelines on

how to quantify fire behavior and fire effects. Unfortunately, the research

database is often narrow while the operational applications are broad; as a

result, models don’t seem to fit in specific cases. In prescribed burning and

in control of wildfires, personnel are often required to make subjective

estimates of phenomena that are difficult to define and measure (e.g. flame

length and tree scorch).

This component of the problem analysis is aimed at developing objective

and quantitative methods for measuring fire behavior and effects through the

use of low-cost photo and video techniques. In the process, we hope to broaden

and strengthen the research database for some of the models that apply to fire

behavior and fire effects.

Fire behavior applications. --Estimated flame length is one of the most

widely used descriptors of fire behavior. Recent experiences at our laboratory

indicate that 50 percent error can occur between an observer estimate and an

accurate photographic measurement. Furthermore, in operational fires, flame

length as currently defined (distance from flame tip through the center of the

127
flame to the fuel surface) is often obscured by a curtain of flame surrounding

the elliptical-shaped fire fronts . Better methods for measuring fire behavior

are needed using flame geometry techniques as suggested by Nelson (1980).

Fhotographic measurements of flame length offer the opportunity to replace

subjective estimates with objective quantitative appraisals that can be

documented and retrieved for later reexamination (Adkins and others 1976;

Clements and others 1983).

Portable video cameras and recorders show potential as an improvement over

photographic methods for fire behavior research both in technical features and

for a fraction of the cost. Advances in image tube technology produce welldefined images of flame, and camera-recorder systems have integral

calendar-c lock annotation. An approximate cost comparison based on running

time for continuous operation between video and 16-mm film is--film $6.90/min.

versus $.12/min. for video tape. Once the photo or video image i.s acquired,

computer-based image analysis systems can be employed for rapid data reduction

and analysis (Fig. 10).

In 1983, a study was initiated in the recently renovated Fire Lab wind

tunnel (Fig. 11) to examine video images of flame geometry as useful

descriptors of fire intensity . Results should provide fire researchers with a

low-cost, objective method for quantifying fire behavior. Further development

should yield a system with low-cost operational utility.

Fire effects applications . --The inability to easily and accurately measure

flame length and/or fire intensity has hampered fire researchers from fully

describing the effects of fire on forest and range ecosystems. Although

numerous studies have been conducted to determine the relationship of fire

intensity to fire effects , many investigators are forced to use subjective

estimates of fire behavior and tedious, labor-intensive methods for describing

fire effects . In s0m.e cases , the ecosystem reponses to fire are reported

without any descriptive, quantitative statement of fire treatment level or fir e

intensity . Promoting the use of prescribed fire will be difficult without

developing more economical and accurate methods for measuring fire effects.

Aerial photography, combined with computer-based image analysis, should help to

solve this problem.

Determining the effects of prescri.bed fire treatment on living trees is

one of the more important objectives of fire research and forest management.

Present methods such as line transect sampling of crown scorch height for fire

intensity are highly subjective . Prescribed fire effects can range from

enhanced growth and yield to various degrees of scorch, leading to reduced

growth rate or, in severe scorching, total tree kill. Quantifying tree scorch

and other fire effects in forest stands is complex because of the number of

variables that need to be consi.dered. Site factors such as soil type ,

drainage, accumulation of understory fuels, fire history, and age of stand al 1

enter into the ability of trees to withstand fire . Determining how these

factors affect a site before and after a treatment with prescribed fire is

necessary if the net effects from that fi.re on the forest are to be isolated

and evaluated. In the past, age of stand and age of rough were usually

provided as descriptors of site conditions prior to a prescribed fire . This

information may not be adequate in describing site conditions prior to burning

and, consequently, the effect of various fire intensities . Questions

concerning the preburn and afterburn conditions of forest stands continue to

128
shadow results from prescribed fire treatment because no practical quantitative

method exists for determining forest stand conditions that integrate all site

factors and fire effects .

Measurements of increases in tree diameter and height to determine effects

of fire on growth are expensive and high1.y variable, considering the manpower

and time required to sample even a small portion of one experimentaJ field

fire . Aerial color infrared (CIR) photography combined with computer-based

image analysis offers a possible solution to problems with characterizing

forest sites and determining the fire effects. The ability of aerial CIR

photography to contrast diseased, stressed farm crops and trees that otherwise

are invisible to humans is well documented. Physical changes to plants and

foliage that are caused by disease affect their reflectivity of the

electromagnetic spectrum. Differences in color are easily distinguished

visually in the advanced stages of infection, but the reflectivity in the near

infrared of material from a stressed plant or tree is altered dramatically and

can be detected before the stress becomes visually apparent USjrJg a film that

is sensitive to that band of electromagnetic radiation. Gther conditions of

t-be forest, such as time of year, age of stand, differences between sites, and

moisture content of leaves and needles, also affect infrared reflectivity.

Since CIR film can detect these differences, it may be possible to better

define conditions of sites prior t.o experimental burns so that the effects o f

the fire can be isolated from other site stresses . Heat effects fron;

prescribed fires and wildfires may affect the near infrared reflectivity o f

foliage and plants. The variation in reflectivity of a subject can be measured

from photographic film both for color and density. If varying intensities o f

heat applied to tree crowns affect the infrared reflectivity proportiona3Jy to

the amount of heat received, then by measuring this difference on the film, the

heat effect cazl be quantified. Comparing film density readings with ground

measurements of crown scorch would be required to calibrate this method as a

remote sensing technique.

Before any field efforts to test this concept are initiated, we plan t o

conduct a laboratory f?XpeririJent with a controlled heat laboratory furnace to

test changes in infrared reflectivity of live fuel sarr,ples as affected by known

quantities of heat. This preliminary work should begin in 1985.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Our Project’s accomplishments are being applied at the regional and

national level. Research users include fire scientists conducting prescribed

burning research and earth scientists studying the effects of fire and smoke on

atmospheric chemistry and climate. Operational users include: federal land

managers responsible for air resources and federal and state personnel involved

in smoke management, prescribed fire, and fire management planning. Some

recent technology transfer activities include :

1. May 1982 and March 1983. Forestry smoke characteristics and their

impact on air quality were presented at a prescribed fire management course to

Forest Service and other land management personnel at the National Advanced

Resource Technology Center at Marana, Arizona.

129
2. June 1983. A session on forest fire emissions was presented to a

national air-quality audience at the Air Pollution Control Association Annual

Conference.

-3 January 1984. Smoke characteristics and management lectures were

presenied at the USFS Region 8 Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management Workshop.

4. 1984. Provided chapter material for the National Smoke Management

Guidebook under the sponsorship of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group.

5. 1985. A video tape program about smoke characteristics and smoke

monitoring were presented to an interagency audience at the Smoke Management

Workshop, Marana, Arizona, and nine regional locations.

CONCLUSIONS

If wildland fire managers are to expand prescribed burning programs while

minimizing detrimental environmental effects, they will need improved

understanding that only research can provide. Research can help to reduce

smoke from smoldering combustion, it can determine moisture relationships in

forest fuels, and it can develop remote sensing methods for fire behavior and

effects.

The art of smoke management, begun in the Southeast in the 1970's, has

evolved into the science of smoke management. At local, regional and national

levels, wildland managers have developed partnerships with air-quality

specialists resulting in reasonable guidelines instead of harsh regulations.

We must sustain our progress by continuing to accept our new role as air

resource managers and by incorporating smoke management guidelines into our

prescribed burning programs. In addition, we must be prepared to address new

national regulations dealing with small particles and visibility standards.

Even more compelling is the need to find ways to reduce smoke-caused accidents

on highways which crisscross the prescribed burning network in the South.

The tools for smoke management are building blocks of knowledge which deal

with fuel, fire, emission, and weather variables. Although some information is

already available, much remains to be accomplished if we are to greatly expand

the use of prescribed burning in the South. In the years ahead, the Southern

Forest Fire Laboratory will continue to provide the leadership in developing

new tools for prescribed burning and smoke management.

LITERATURE CITED

Adkins, C. W., and H. B. Clements

1976. Photographic measurements of flame size over flat terrain.

Functional Photography ll(6): 32-34.

Chi, C. T., D. A. Horn, R. B. Reznik, and others

1979. Source assessment: prescribed burning, state of the art.

EPA-600/2-79-019h, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC, 107 pp.

130
Clements, H. B., and C. K. McMahon

1980. Nitrogen oxides from burning forest fuels examined by thermogravimetry

and evolved gas analysis. Thermochimica Acta 35: 133-139.

Clements, I-I. B., and C. K. McMahon

1984. A microcombustion method to measure forest fuel emissions. J. Fire

Sci. 2: 260-275.

Clements, H. B., C. K. McMahon, and P. B. Bush

1984. Pesticides released from burning treated wood. NAPIAP Progress

Report 7/31/84. [Data on file: USDA Forest Service,Southeastem Forest

Experiment Station, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory, Macon, GA].

Clements, H. B., C. K. McMahon, and P. B. Bush

1984b. Release of herbicides from the burning of treated understory forest

fuels. NAPIAP Progress Report 5/11/84. [Data on file: USDA Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Southern Forest Fire

Laboratory, Macon, GA].

Clements, H. B., D. E. Ward, and C. W. Adkins

1983. Measuring fire behavior with photography. Photog. Eng. and Remote

Sensing 49(2): 213-217.

McMahon, C. K.

1981. Effects of The Clean Air Act on prescribed burning. In: Proceedings,

Symposium on Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests;

1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC; 16 p.

McMahon, C. K.

1982. Slash burning studied. In: Lyon, C. B., ed. Forest Fire News.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

January 1982; 16 p.

McMahon, C. K.

1983. Characteristics of forest fuels, fires and emissions. Pap. No.

83-45.1. In: 76th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control

Association; 1983 June 19-24; Atlanta, GA; 24 p.

McMahon, C. K., R. M. Nelson, Jr., and C. W. Adkins

1983. Fuel, fire, and emissions relationships in wildland combustion

processes are inadequately described. RWU FS-SE-2110 Problem

Analysis #3; [Data on file: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory, Macon, GA].

McMahon, C. K., and C. D. Tangren.

1981. Characterization of wildland smoke. RWU FS-SE-2110 Combined Problem

Analysis #l and #2; [Data on file: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory, Macon, GA].

McMahon, C. K., and S. N. Tsoukalas

1978. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in forestry smoke. In:

Carcinogenesis, Vol. 3: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, P. W.

Jones and R. E. Freudenthal, eds.; New York: Raven Press; pp. 61-73.

131
McMahon, C. K., D. D. Wade, and S. N. Tsoukalas.

1980. Combustion characteristics and emissions from burning organic soils.

Pap. No. 80-15.5 presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Air

Pollution Control Association, Montreal, Quebec (June 1980).

McMahon, C. K., J. D. White, and S. N. Tsoukalas.

1984. Organic compounds in the particulate matter from burning organic

soils. In: Proceedings, Environmental Impact of Natural Emissions

Speciality Conference. Publ. TR-2. Pittsburgh, PA: Air Pollution

Control Association: 169-180.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1980. Flame characteristics for fires in southern fuels. Res. Pap. SE-205.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1981. An evaluation of the carbon balance technique for estimating emission

factors and fuel consumption in forest fires. Res. Pap. SE-231.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1983. A model for sorption of water vapor by cellulosic materials.

Wood and Fiber Sci. 15(l): 8-22.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1984. A method for describing equilibrium moisture content of forest fuels.

Can. J. For. Res. 14(4): 601-604.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1984b. A model for bound water diffusion in wood. In: Proceedings, North

American Wood Drying Symposium, Mississippi State, MS: Forest Products

Laboratory; 1984 November 27-28.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1985. Diffusion of bound water in wood. Part I. The driving force.

[In press]. Wood Sci. Technol.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1985b. Diffusion of bound water in wood. Part II. A model for isothermal

diffusion. [In press]. Wood Sci. Technol.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1985c. Diffusion of bound water in wood. Part III. A model for

nonisothermal diffusion. [In press]. Wood Sci. Technol.

Nelson, R. M., Jr.

1980. Backfire particulate emissions and Byram's fire intensity. Res.

Note SE-290. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station; 6 p.

132
Fatterson, E. M., and C. R. McYmhon

1984. Absorption characteristics of forest fire particulate matter .

Atmos. Environ. 18(11): 2541-2551.

Patterson, E. M., and C. K. McMahon

1985. Studies of physical and optical prope’rties of forest fire aerosols .

In: Proceedings, Conference on Large Scale Fire Phenomenology;

1984 September 10-13; Gaithersburg, MD. [In press].

Ryan, P. W., C. D. Tangren, and C. K. McY!hon

1979. A balloon system for profiling smoke plumes from forest fires.

Pap. No. 79-6.1. In: 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution

Control Association; 1979 June 24-29; Cincinnati, OH; 24 p.

Tangren, C. D.

1982. Scattering coefficient and particulate matter concentration in fores t

fire smoke. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 32(7): 729-732 .

Ward, D.E.

1983. Particulate matter emissions fo\ fires in the palmetto-gallberry

fuel type. For. Sci. 29(4): 761-770 .

Ward, D. E., H. B. CLements, and R. N. Nelson, Jr.

1980. Particulate matter emission factor modeling for fires in southeastern

fuels . In: Proceedings, Sixth Conference on Fire and Forest

Meteorology of the American Meteorological Society and Society of

American Foresters; 1980 April 22-24; Seattle, WA; 9 p.

Ward, D. E., C. K. McMahon, and D. F. Adams

1982. Laboratory measurements of carbonyl sulfide and total sulfur

emissions from open burning of forest biomass. Pap. No. 82-51.9.

In: 75th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association;

1982 June 20-25; New Orleans, LA; 16 p.

White, J. D.

1985. Validating a simplified determination of benzo(a)pyrene in

particulate matter from prescribed forestry burning. [Submitted fo r

publication to AXI. Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J.; Data on file Southern

Forest Fire Laboratory, Macon, GA.1

White, J. D., C. K. McMahon, and H. L. Gibbs

1985. The ratio of benzo(a)pyrene to particulate matter in smokes from

prescribed burning in the Southeast. In: Proceedings, 4th Annual

National Symposium on Recent Advances in Pollutant Monitoring of

Ambient Air and Stationary Sources; 1984 May 8-10; Raleigh, NC.

[In press].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory Staff

1976. Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook. Forest Service Gen.

Tech. Rep. SE-lo, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC; 140 p.

133
Figure 1. --A combustion tube fur- Figure 2.--Southern Forest Fire

nance. Temperature, flow rate, and Laboratory Combustion Room. Slope

composition of combustion gases can of burn table can be adjusted to

be controlled by the operator. alter burning conditions.

Figure 3. --A Thermogravimetric

System is a useful microcombustion

apparatus. The balance pan is

being loaded with a fuel sample.

Figure 4. --Portable sampler for

monitoring emissions from burning

forest fuels.

134
Figure 5. --A tepee burner was converted into an experimental combustion chamber. Emission monitors

were installed at the tepee outlet.

Es -60. 6 I-E.313

~ :‘*:_-;t_

Y IB1 -

m AA

I.?

W 0 PINE LITTE R

A PALMETTO-GALLBERR Y

I (kw/m)

Figure 7 .--Particulate matter emission factors for backfires in

southern fuels as a function of

Byram's fire intensity (Nelson and

Ward 1980).

Figure 6. --A transducer-based

weighing platform was used to

continuously monitor combustion

rate during flaming and smoldering periods.

Figure 8. --Relationship between

particulate matter emission factors

(EFp) and fireline intensity (I)

for the palmetto-gallberry fuel

type (Ward 1983).

135
\ SOUTHERN RED OAK

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 6 0 100

RELATlVE HUMIDITY (%o)

0 6 0 6 0

RkTlV:H”MlDlTY (%I

100

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 60 100

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%I

0.3 0

$ 0.2 5 - HARDWOODS

5 0.2 0 -

P

E 0.1 5 -

g 0.1 0 -

z

v, 0.0 5 -

b

= o.oo~.~~.~~-~~~~..““~

0 20 40 6 0 60 100

RELATIVE HUMIDITY @‘oo)

E

0.30 _

0.25 r PONDEROSA PIN E

0.20 -

0.15 -

0.10 -

0.05 -

O.oOT”“““‘1”“‘““‘“““““““‘~

J

0 6 0 6 0

fi;LATIV: HUMIDITY (%)

100

Figure 9. --Model representation of adsorption and desorption data for five

forest fuels and temperatures. Upper curves are for desorption and lower

curves for adsorption. The line represents model calculations; + represents

experimental data (Nelson 1984).

136
Figure 10. --A computer-based image analysis system permits rapid data

reduction and analysis of fire parameters acqui.red by photo and video

cameras.

Figure 11. --Southern Forest Fire Laboratory Wind Tunnel. Small-scale

fires can be burned under controlled conditions of windspeed, fuel

moisture, and fuel loading.

137

'WEATHER AND PRESCRIBED BURNING

-WHAT'S NEW?

J. T. Paul 1

Abstract .--Methods for transmitting weather data and uses of the

data by foresters are becoming more automated. Recent work at Macon

confirms the importance of atomospheric stability as a determinant

of forest fire behavior. Smoke management systems currently being

developed and tested, have potential future applications in maintaining highway visibility.

INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1900's when foresters first prescribed fires for southern

forests, there has been little change in how they apply weather information.

If it is not too wet or too dry and the wind "feels right" many foresters are

accustomed to burning. Recent changes in our society and new advances in

technology are bringing change to a fieLd that has been relatively stagnant for

decades. Smoke from wildfires, prescribed burning, and debris burning has been

part of the South for many years and went without noteworthy public comments.

The increasing concern about air quality and especially how smoke from

prescribed burning may influence highway visibility has added a new dimension

to the already substantial problems encountered in conducting a successful

prescribed burning program.

Currently there are proposals being discussed by the administration and

Congress to eliminate fire weather as a National Weather Service (NWS) program

or require the service to be provided on a cost-reimbursement basis. These

proposals have prompted the National Wildfire Coordinating Group to appoint a

Fire Weather Team composed of meteorologists and foresters from NWS and

federal and state forestry agencies to develop cost and procedural

alternatives. With these alternatives a forestry agency could choose which

would best meet their fire management needs if the NWS was no longer able to

provide routine and special forestry forecasts.

Since the early 1930's, surface weather data have been transmitted from

airport observational points across slow-speed data lines and teletype

equipment (10 characters per second or less). These long-distance data lines

were usually prepaid by the NWS, the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), or the

Department of Defense (DOD) into major communication hubs nationwide. A user

could then tap these hubs for a monthly fee of about $50.00 and purchase of a

teletype recieving unit ($l,OOO-$5,000). The data most useful for prescribed

burning (surface observations, selected forecast data, etc.) were available on

a line designated as "Service A". Data on Service A and other lines were

1

J. T. Paul, Project Leader, Forestry Weather Data Systems, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Macon, GA.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management in

the South, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 12-14, 1984.

139
transmitted in coded format. The selection and interpretation of variables

of interest to prescribed burning required knowledge of international

meteorological coding methods. Additionally, a meteorologist was needed to

determine how these atmospheric conditions might influence burning operations.

A more recent addition to basic meteorological data service is weather

facsimile. This is a nationwide network fed by an NWS computer in Washington,

D. C., that provides analyzed maps and charts based on both observed and

forecast weather. A user can tap the network by paying a monthly fee of about

$100.00 and purchasing a weather facsimile receiver costing approximately

$5000.00.

The slow speed of the data lines, the relatively high cost of paper and

other items (more than $5000.00 per year at some locations), and the

desirability of automating many routine processes, forced meteorologists to

look at alternative methods for processing and disseminate weather data

nationwide. The major consumers of weather data (NWS, FAA, DOD) developed

computerized weather analysis and dissemination systems for internal use only.

As these newer systems are implemented, the older teletype and facsimile

networks are being phased out. .

External users also needed an alternative to the older systems. The NWS

responded by developing the "Family of Services," which includes medium-speed

(120-480 characters per second) data lines. The "Family of Services" lines

contain the data available at NWS forecast offices plus other specialized

output from numerical forecast models. These lines carry all data found on the

older lines, (Service A, etc.) but at a much faster rate, and cover a much

larger geographic area. More data are therefore made available more quickly

for analysis.

These new systems represent progress for NWS, FAA and DOD. There are

potential drawbacks for a forestry agency desiring to establish a specialized

forestry weather shop, however. Establishment of an in-house weather

capability now requires investment in computer communication equipment, in

leased land lines from their point of origin in Washington (approximately

$1.50/mile/month), and in a professional meteorological staff. As an

alternative iE data needs are minimal, it may be cost effective to purchase

selected observational and forecast data in decoded format from various

commercial firms. Only low-cost terminal equipment is required for this

option. Recently, there have been advertisements in meteorological journals

announcing the availibility of the NWS "Family of Services" by satellite. The

initial cost for a satellite dish receiver is about $2500.00 plus

installation. Monthly costs depend on what data are needed and might range

from $200.00 to $1000.00. The technology developed by NWS, DOD, and FAA will

be of critical importance to land managers anticipating the need to develop

their own weather capability. This need will be acute if NWS can no longer

provide special services to foresters.

140
RECENT METEOROLOGICAL RESEARCH

AT THE SOUTHERN FOREST FIRE LABORATORY

Atmospheric stability can accelerate or dampen the intensity of fire. A

measure of stability based on observed or forecast data therefore would have

obvious application in prescribed burning. A period of highly variable fire

activity (May-June 1977) near the upper air station at Waycross, Georgia, was

selected to screen candidate measures of atmospheric stability. The Turner

Stability Class, widely used in air quality, was the best measure of

atmospheric stability when related to the largest fire of the day. A larger

data set (5-10 years) will be required to fully verify the relationship between

Turner Stability Class and Wildfire size. This work is in progress, with

estimated completion in mid-1986.

The 1978 National Fire Danger Rating System provides a method to calculate

fuel moisture from a meteorological observation at an open "standard site."

There are usually significant differences in meteorological observations in the

open when compared to a pine stand. For example, air temperature in a pine

stand is frequently higher than in the open because the wind speed inside the

stand is too low to mix the air. Differences in relative humidity are at a

maximum after a frontal passage when the relative humidity in the open is

usually low. In a pine stand, however, relative humidity is higher,

especially near the forest floor. Data from two automatic weather stations

(one in the open, the second in a pine stand) about 1300 feet apart were used

to estimate the magnitude of the difference in l-hour time lag fuel moisture

before and after frontal passage. On the day before frontal passage, fuel

moisture was 2 to 5 percent lower in the pine stand. After frontal passage and

for the next 3 days, fuel moisture was 0 to 5 percent higher in the pine

stand. This agrees with field reports that fire is difficult to set for 2 to 3

days after rain.

Work has been progressing on smoke management systems. A dispersion index

that incorporates mixing height, transport wind speed, and Turner Stability

Class has been developed and will soon be available to run on user-owned

microprocessors and larger systems, or as a product in the Forestry Weather

Intrepretation Systems (FWIS). The index is scaled from 0 to 100 with 0

indicating very poor dispersion and values approaching 100 indicating very

strong updrafts with potential control problems. Region 6 of the Forest

Service (States of Washington and Oregon) and the Georgia Forestry Commission

are cooperating with the Southeastern Station in the development of a Smoke

Management Screening System. The system is modular with a user front end, a

"black box" computational module, and a user analysis module. The current

"black box" is similiar to the Gaussian model widely used in air quality by EPA

and other agencies. The system has been field tested in Washington, and

comments from the field are favorable. Continuing work involves testing

adaptations of other models, incorporating topography and a mountain wind

model, and improving the weather data base. This work will be adapted to

southern conditions and is expected to be the basis for a highway visibility

model.

The Forestry Weather Intrepretation System is being fully implemented in

the South and implemented for smoke management in Region 6. The Georgia

Forestry Commission. is running the system on a cost-reimbursement basis on a

141
renewable 5-year contract. By late summer of 1985 the system as run during the

pilot test, plus the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS), Fire

Behavior,and Smoke Management, will be fully operational. Interested users

should contact the Georgia Forestry Commission for access to the system. The

meteorology RWU at Macon will continue to develop models for the system and

consult on technical system problems.

HIGHWAY VISIBILITY - A CRITICAT, PROBLEM

Highway visibility has been a major concern expressed at this conference.

The problem is especially acute in the South where low nighttime windspeeds and

high relative humidity are quite common. We do not know how much smoke and a

given high humidity will produce a visibility problem. In general, if the

humidity is greater than about 80 percent, windspeed is less than about 5 mph,

and the sky is clear or has only scattered clouds, conditions are conducive for

fog formation if condensation neucleii are available. Smoke provides

relatively efficient condensation neucleii since particulates are usually in

the right size range and have a weak negative charge.

During light or calm winds at night, smoke tends to follow the topography

to lower elevations. At most locations, this means the smoke will drain into

and along a stream bed, and enter a somewhat higher relative humidity

environment. Frequently, a zone of low visibility will form along streams,

resulting in potentially hazardous conditions at highway bridges. Although

drainage windspeeds are low (under 3 miles per hour), serious smoke hazards can

occur at considerable distances from a fire, given a large enough smoke

source. During a 12-hour night, a 2-l/2 mph drainage flow will carry smoke 30

miles. Most burning locations in the South are less than 30 miles from a major

highway, and have at least this potential to create a safety hazard.

The solution to the visibility hazard problem, at least in part, is to

first define the threshold values where humidity and stroke particles interact

to produce low visibility. Second, an operational model must be developed that

will integrate the humidity/smoke particle relationship with weather,

topography, and fireline information into an easily used package. This is

likely to be a major element of work for one or more Research Units at the

Macon Fire Laboratories for the next 5 years.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

There are a number of developments in progress or being discussed that will

provide better weather information for forestry. In the NWS, the new

generation radar, when combined with satellite information and surface observations, will provide better estimates of rainfall between reporting stations

and therefore a better estimate of fuel moisture. A fire behavior model for

low-intensity prescribed fires in southern forests is a likely development in

the near future. This model will likely require better weather information.

Larger, faster computers have the potential to provide forecasts with improved

detail up to 5 days in advance and specific to the burn site.

When experienced fire weather forecasters or "old fire dogs" retire, their

long experience is usually lost. Techniques now being developed at many

universities under the general label of "artificial intelligence" which can

capture these years of experience and make it available to the next generation

142
of prescribed burners. Methods for receiving and using weather data are

beginning to change. The Forestry Weather Interpretation System (FWIS) is an

example of how technology that mixes NWS meteorological talent and monitored

computerized models driven by observed and forecast weather data can be applied

to forest management problems. Figure 1 is one of the products in FWIS that

has been widely used for prescribed burning.

Our society is rapidly entering the "information age." It is a near

certainty that forestry in general and forestry weather in particular will

become more automated in the future. It is conceivable that within the next 5

to 10 years automatic weather stations, microprocessors, and satellite

downlinks will be as common on the fireline as drip torches and fire rakes.

Computers are unlikely to replace sound professional judgment, but they can

organize and evaluate many of the complex physical/biological processes

important to prescribed burning. This technology could make possible a costeffective, comprehensive weather system for prescribed burning.

For example:

1) By maintaining a large, on-line database of weather history,

a forester could enter the location and the burn weather prescription

and receive the probability of occurrence of his weather prescription

by hour of day and month of year.

2) If a database of stream locations, topography, roads,

and bridges were available, potential highway visibility

hazard areas could be identified.

3) One may evaluate weather at a proposed burn site by using on-site

weather stations that transmit observational data through a

a satellite to a central location, or by using estimation

procedures similar to the interpolation routine in FWIS.

4) One may provide detailed, site-specific, weather forecasts

for the burn site by the hour.

5) One may equip the burn boss with a belt microprocessor with

communication and voice synthesis capability. Then,

using a combination of 1 through 4 above, the burner can

be alerted by voice of any change in weather with an evaluation

of its probable impact on the burn objective.

This may seem "Buck Rogerish" and unneeded. In the past a computerized

system would have been considered at best a delightful toy, but certainly not

needed to conduct a good prescribed burning program. However, our society is

changing, and unless our profession makes the necessary adjustments, prescribed

burning may become a historical oddity. These technological potentials will

not guarantee success, but when coupled with innovative management, they

provide our best chance to retain prescribed burning as a cost-effective

management tool.

143
RELATIVE HUMIDITY MAP

999 57 5 7 5 2 61 64 70 7 4 8 4 70 7 2 7 3 58 7 3

\

. . . . . . . . . . . . \ /

999...57 4 8 3 6 48 67”“““66 6 9 7 8 “\ 7 2 8 2 7 8 6 7 / 6 8

: “\. : /

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,“““““““““““\

:

/

999 999 3 4 33 57 73 74 81 78 761 86 84' .59 56

: \ : :/"

““”

999 i5: 51 51 67 76 78:: 89 89 69 56 56

: :

i3”:;;:7

. . . . /NW

: ,““”

999 87: 81 69 69 80 73 79 82 69... 59,: 63 57 63

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,"""""""l"(\,,..,",,"""""",, / ..:

h'84"""m80""":68

'/ \ . . ,"""\"""""""

d7 73 88 89 175 32 72 6OP" 63 63 65

:

999: 77

:

999: 78

:

.

79 I 78

:

69.i 82

87 82

a6 76

75

76

w

78

66

60

: \ / :

::67 73 88 85 8; 84 72 & 67 6; 67

: \ \ :

&2""\.71 l

83 74 /"\8i

."""""""",,"

79 75 :iO 90 7: 70

\I"" . . . . . . ,rnnon\ :

71

66

63

61

,““““““\

82 / 69 59.. 62

\./ \

\.

7 3

6 7

61

62

71

86 65 58 11 62

\

"\

57 55

"\

74

71

59

59

57

51

53

76

73

63

64

61

\

8;) 86

\

88 :a2 94 72\ 71

\ \ \

:

80 7;"\ 86 ;;*-•,';y;: 71/"" 71

: / ./”

:

79 74 :..79 68 7\0-;70

/\/..;..../n\\.\../\// .

75\" /73 76 71 70 70

/

66) 71 75 73 70 70

/"

./

54 60 65

;

i8 60

\\

\

71

71

70

144
Fire Research in Southern Universities

Norman L. Christensen

Associate Professor of Botany

and Forest Ecology

Botany Department

Duke University

Durham NC 27706

For: A Workshop and Symposium on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management

in the South: Current Practices and Needs.

Paper presented at the Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management in the South. Atlanta GA. Sept. 12-14, 1984

145
INTRODUCTION

The first European colonists in the South had roots in cultures in

which fire was an integral part of landscape management. They were met on

their arrival by a culture , the Amer indian, which had reshaped the

landscape over several millenia using fire (Pyne 1982). It is therefore

not surprising that the southern region of the United States has led the

way in the use of controlled fire in forest management and silviculture.

During the past half century the consequences of wildfires and prescribed

fires have been studied intensively in the South, leading to refinement of

burning techniques and a greater awareness of the environmental

consequences of such burning. In no other region of the world is the role

of fire over the landscape so well understood. Much of what we know is a

consequence of synergistic interactions between basic research carried out

in universities and somewhat more application-oriented research often done

jointl y between universities and the research arm of the U.S.D.A. Forest

Service. What follows is a report on the current status of that research

and some indication of the future directions that I believe it will take.

FIRE BEHAVIOR

Studies of factors controlling ignition, fire spread, and behavior

have traditionally been the province of the research arm of the Forest

Service (e.g. Hough 1969 and 1973, Philpot 1970, Wendel et al. 1962).

Rather elegant predictive models have been a consequence of this research

(see, for example, Rothermal 1972 and Kessell 1979). Until recently, such

models were viewed by basic researchers as tools to be used by fire managers to define prescriptions or predict spread of wildfires.

With the realization that on- and offsite effects of fire, as well as

vegetational responses to fire, depend on fire behavior (see Christensen

1981 for review) fire spread models have become more interesting to

university researchers. These models have recently been applied to studies

of the distribution of savanna and forest types in the Big Thicket of east

Texas. Streng and Harcombe (1982, Rice University), using Rothermal’s

(1972) model, showed that the successional changes in these types were

largely regulated by fuel characteristics that regulate the fire cycle.

Kalisz and Stone (in press, University of Florida) and Myers and Deyrup

(1983) have proposed that historic and prehistoric shifts in fire behavior

are responsible for the spatial patterning of sandhill and sand pine scrub

communities in Florida.

Mutch (1970) proposed that features of individual plants that affect

flammability (such as ether extractives , ash content, and branch

demography) might have arisen through natural selection in order to

increase flammability and thus guarantee a fire cycle favorable for

reproduction. His argument was based on the fact that successful

reproduction in many species by fire. I (Christensen 1984) have recently

questioned this hypothesis and am in the midst of studies to determine to

what extent properties of individual plants affect the intensity and

146
behavior of fire in their immediate vicinity and to what extent fire

behavior is a collective community property (and, therefore, not subject to

natural selection in the strict sense). Our initial results (Christensen

and Wilbur, in manuscript) suggest that in most shrub-dominated communities

differences among individual plants contribute very little to local

variations in fire behavior.

ON SITE FIRE EFFECTS

The effects of fire on the environment and vegetation are reviewed

elsewhere in this volume and several recent papers (see Chandler et al.

1983, Christensen 1981 and 1984, Wright and Bailey 1982) and a considerable

portion of that work has been done by university researchers. It is very

difficult to generalize regarding specific effects and much remains to be

done before we can accurately predict fire effects based on fire behavior.

Much of the interest in this topic has focused on mineral nutrient

availability. We intuitively expect that nutrients become less available

during interfire years as a greater proportion of the nutrient capital

becomes sequestered as living and dead biomass. Fire causes impressively

rapid mineralization of these nutrients. While research throughout the

South tends to support this notion, it is clear that the magnitude of firecaused nutrient enrichment depends on many additional factors. Nutrient

increase following fire in light fuels (e.g. savannas, Christensen 119771;

pine f latwoods, McCleod and Sherrod [19841 and Richter [19801; and Florida

sandhill vegetation, Kalisz and Stone [in press]) may be modest or, in the

case of nitrogen and phosphorus, nonsignificant. However, in heavy fuels,

such as shrub bogs, nutrient changes may be quite dramatic (Wilbur and

Christensen 1983). Studies to examine the effects of season of burning and

fuel status within particular ecosystems are underway in central Florida

(Archbold Station, in cooperation with the University of Florida) and on

the North Carolina Coastal Plain (Duke University). Weiss (1980,

University of Georgia) suggested that winter burning (the most common time

for prescribed fire) might actually result in large nutrient deficits owing

to leaching and an inability of winter dromant plants to take up available

nutrients. However, Richter (1980) and Gilliam (1983), in a Duke

University-Forest Service sponsored cooperative study, found that nutrient

release and volatilization is actually greater in summer fires in f latwoods

and that losses to leaching were negligible regardless of season of fire.

Workman (1982) observed similar differences between summer and winter fires

in turkey oak-longleaf pine stands in the sandhills of the Savanna River

Plant of South Carol ina.

Most inferences on nutrient availability are based on soil extraction

data taken after fire. However, Schoch (1984) recently completed a study

in loblolly pine plantations in the Duke Forest, Durham, NC, of the effects

of prescribed fire on nitrogen mineralization and nitrification. His data,

using incubation and resin bag techniques, confirm that mineralization and

nitrif ication rates are accelerated by burning. Wilbur (19841, in a study

of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in pocosins following fire, found that

fire accelerated the rates of nutrient transfer, but that the causes of

this acceleration were not due to ash addition alone, but also were related

147
to changes in postfire microclimate.

Although it is well known that microclimate and water availability are

different in recently burned areas versus unburned areas (Old 1969, Peet et

a l . 19751, there appears to be little ongoing research in this area.

Wilbur (1984) has found that soil and air temperatures just above the soil

are more extreme and variable in recently burned than unburned peats and

that surface horizons in burned areas tend to be much drier (owing to

increased surface evaporation) and deeper horizons wetter (owing to

decreased transpiration). These changes had major consequences with regard

to plant survival and mineral cycling.

Several studies have dealt with the phytopathological consequences of

fire, with the most celebrated case being the use of fire to control brown

spot fungus (Wakeley 1970). Arvanitis and his coworkers at the University

of Florida have initiated a project to evaluate injury to slash pine during

prescribed burning procedures. Waldrop and Van Lear (1984, Clemson)

reported on the effects of varying intensities of prescribed fire on crown

scorch in loblolly pine in the South Carlina Piedmont. Their data show

that survival and growth were unaffected by moderate crown scorch, however,

high intensity surface fires could kill 20-30% of the co-dominan t

indiv idua 1 s. Studies of crown scorching in loblolly pine stands on the

North Carolina Piedmont are presently underway at the North Carolina State

University Hi1 1 Experimental Forest.

OFF-SITE FIRE EFFECTS

As Pyne (1982) pointed out, Southerners have traditionally taken for

granted that fire is a natural part of the landscape. We are a bunch of

“woodsburners.” It was therefore something of an afront to our

sensibilities when environmentalists called to our attention the effects of

fire on air and water quality off-site (see McMahon 1976 and Perkins 1976).

Most of these studies of smoke management and fire effects on air quality

have been done by the Forest Service and the Environmental Protection

Agency. I shall therefore cencentrate on water quality studies, several of

which have been carried out as cooperative studies between the Forest

Service and Universities.

Lewis (1974) presented data indicating that nutrient losses in

goundwater and stream water might be considerable as a consequence of

burning in longleaf pine forests on the coarse soils of the Savanna River

Plant near Aiken SC. Ken Mcleod (University of Georgia and the Savanna

River Ecology Laboratory) is continuing work on this project. Coming on

the heels of the Hubbard Brook study (summarized in Likens et al. 1977),

ecologists were , more than ever, aware of the potential impacts of

silvicultural activities off site. Several studies in western watersheds

suggested that nutrient losses from burned ecosystems could significantly

alter water quality down stream (see Tiedemann et al. 1978 and 1979). In

1977, a cooperative study between the Forest Service and Duke University

was initiated at the Santee Experimental Forest near Charleston, SC. In

this study a 160 ha watershed was managed over a 6-year period so as to

simulate conventional coastal plain management practices. Prescribed fires

(winter and summer) was applied to 8-10 ha ('20 a> compartments and changes

in hydrologic outputs were compared to a nearby untreated watershed.

148
Although significant (and ephemeral) changes in soil and groundwater

nutrient concentrations were noted within the burned compartments, these

did not translate into significant changes in water quality (Richter et al.

1982). Douglass and Van Lear (1983) reported similar results for ephemeral

streams draining two recently burned loblolly pine plantations in the South

Carol ina Piedmont. In both of these studies, burned areas were separated

from streams by unburned buffer zones. It might be useful to evaluate how

variation in such buffer zones affects these results.

FIRE EFFECTS ON VEGETATION

There has traditional ly been considerable interest in vegetational

responses to fire among university researchers. I shall summarize this

work here by ecosystem.

Coastal Plain Sandhills and Sand Pine Scrub --- -

The importance of fire in these rather xeric ecosystems was obvious to

researchers 50 years ago (Harper 1914, Wells and Shunk 1931, Laessle 1958).

One of the most interesting developments in the study of these ecosystems

is the realization that the sand pine scrub and sandhill communities of

central Florida, once thought to represent different edaphic types, form

shifting mosaic determined by fire history (Kalisz and Stone, in press,

Myers and Deyrup 1983). Sand pine scrub has a 20-40 year fire cycle with

intense, crown-kill ing fires, whereas sandhill pine forests experience

frequent (3-8 yr> low intensity surface fires. Type conversion can be

brought about by a simple change in fire regime (Myers and Deyrup 1983).

Warren Abrahamson (Bucknell University) and his students have

completed several studies of the vegetational patterns associated with

burning in the sandy ecosystems of central Florida (see Abrahamson 1984,

Abrahamson et al., in manuscript, and Givens et al. 1984). These papers

have provided an understanding of fire effects over a complex vegetational

mosaic. Peroni (1983) described changes in fire regimes in this region

over the past 100 years.

Studies of fire effects on sandhill vegetation have been carried out

by Workman (19821, in South Carolina, and May (19821, in North Carolina.

Both studies emphasized the differences between summer and winter fires.

Coastal Plain Flatwoods and Savannas

There has been considerable interest in these communities, not only

because of their high fire frequency and silvicultural importance, but also

because they are floristically diverse and are important habitat for

several rare and endangered species. Streng and Harcombe (1982) studied

vegetational variations among savannas and forests of different fire

histories and emphasized the two-way interaction between vegetation and

fire regime. Cooperative research between the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology

Station and Florida State University, supervised by William Platt has

contributed significantly to our understanding of vegetatin dynamics in

thes ecosystems. Davis and Platt (1984) recently reported on studies of

149
season of burning on flowering phenology in various herb species and Evans

and Platt (1984) have demonstrated the fire frequency and season of burning

affect the relative success of C3 and C4 grasses. Harshbarger and Lewis

(1976) found that 20 years of annual winter fires increased herb diversity

in the flatwood pine forests of the lower coastal plain of South Carolina.

Gilliam and Christensen (in manuscript), studying flatwoods in the same

area, found that less frequent fires had an insignificant affect on species

diversity. They also found that herb production was enhanced by winter but

not by summer fires.

Savannas of the southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina have

served as locations for several recent studies of fire effects on

vegetation. Walker and Peet (1984, The University of North Carolina)

investigated the effect of fire on herb community structure and found that

variations in herb diversity were a consequence of variatins in water

availability and fire frequency. Peet has a continuing research program

investigating the causes of the high diversity in these ecosystems. I and

my students have examined patterns of seedling establishment and production

following fire in similar savannas. Successful establishment of seedlings

occurs primarily in the second post-fire year when sufficient shade is

available to prevent rapid drying of the soil surface. Herb production was

only modestly enhanced by burning. Satterson and Vitousek (1984, The

University of North Carolina) reported on root production in these savannas

and Satterson is continuing work on fire effects on belowground production.

Wetlands

Fire has long been recognized as an integral part of the landscape in

the Everglades complex of south Florida. Much of this research is

summarized in Wade, Ewel, and Hofstetter (1980). Ronald Hofstetter

(University of Miami) has an ongoing research program to integrate data on

variations in fire regime over this expansive wetland with information on

hydrology and microclimate in order to formulate a more realistic model of

temporal and spatial distribution of plant communities. He is also

interested in the effects of fire on the comparative demography and

productivity of everglades gramminoids. Researchers at the University of

Florida (in particular, John Ewel), as well as Dr. Hofstetter, have been

interested in the role fires play in encouraging invasion of non-native

species (such as Melaleuca quinauenervia) in the Everglades and how fire

might be used to eliminate them.

Despite the fact that shrub-dominated wetlands (pocosins) dominate

millions acres in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, little is known of fire

effects in them or, for that matter, their general ecology (Richardson

1981). Interest in the peat reserves of thes ecosystems, as well as

question regarding their importance to game and nongame wildlife, have

stimulated considerable research in the past 5 years. I and my colleagues,

with the support and cooperation of the Forest Service, have been studying

vegetational responses to burning in pocosins of the Croatan National

Forest. We have found that precribed fires in late winter are followed by

rapid regrowth, primarily from vegetative sprouts. Production in the first

two years following burning exceeds that of areas that are cleared, but not

burned. After that time production is actually higher in the unburned

areas. Although there is virtually no new establishment from seed

150
fol lowing such fires, all pocosin species respond vegetatively and species

diversity is largely unaffected (Christensen and Wilbur, in manuscript).

More intense fires in this ecosystem (particularly in late summer) may

result in considerable tree and shrub mortality, initiating a much longer

term successional sequence (see Christensen et al. 1981, Christensen 1984).

C. J. Richardson (Duke University) and Mark Brinson (Eastern Carolina

University) have initiated research to examine the carbon budget of these

bogs and plan to evaluate the role of fire in that budget.

Piedmont and Avnlachian Forests

Prescribed fire has only recently become a widely used management tool

in these southern provinces and natural fire appears to have been limited

to particular ecosystem types (Christensen 1981). Fire effects in this

region have recently been reviewed by Van Lear and Johnson (1983). Dav id

Van Lear’s group at Clemson has been most active in examining a wide range

of fire effects in these ecosystems. Their work suggests that occasional

prescribed fir e in mixed pine-hardwood stands stimulates advanced

reproduction in oaks only slightly (Teuke and Van Lear 1982). The effects

of fire with respect to hardwood supression are quite dependent on season

of burning (Van Lear and Johnson 1983).

FIRE AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

There is no doubt that the first fire managers in the South, the

Indian, used fire primarily to improve habitat for those game species which

he depended on. Indeed, much of the pioneer research on fire in the

Southeast done at the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Stat’ion (Tallahassee, FL)

was stimulated by a concern for the disappearance of the bobwhite quail. A

cooperative study between the U.S. Army and North Carolina State University

has recently been intitiated to determine how to integrate silivicultural

fire management schemes into attempts to improve habitat for quail, deer

and nongame species on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. In the

Piedmont of South Carolina, David Van Lear and David Guynn of Clemson have

just recently begun studies of fire effects on small mammal populations.

ECONOMICS AND PRESCRIBED BURNING OPTIONS

Much of the prescribed burning is done in the South with the intent of

reducing wildfire hazard or as site preparation for silvicultural activity.

However, few studies have evaluated the economic costs and benefits of such

burning. Vasievich (1980, Duke University) found that economic benefits

from hazard-reduction burning were dependent on the size of the burn and

the years since the last fire. Research on this problem has been greatly

limited by the poor quality of data (i.e., poor records on burns completed

as planned and on actual losses as a consquence of burning; Vasievich,

personal communication). Jon Caulfield (North Carolina State University)

is in the midst of developing an economic model of wildfire risk for pine

stands in southeastern North Carol ina. This analysis is particularly aimed

at decisions regarding postfire replanting.

151
PRESCRIBED FIRE AND THE MANAGEMENT OF WILDERNES

The role of wildfire in the preservation and diversity of natural

ecosystems, particularly on the coastal plain, has long been recongnized

(Harper 1914, Wells 1942, Garren 1943). It is equally well understood that

urban and agricultural development have permanently altered fire regimes

over the entire region, even in undeveloped areas (Christensen 1981).

During the past decade the Nature Conservancy, in cooperation with state

natural heritage programs, has acquired sever hundred thousand acres of

land now set aside as wilderness. In addition, large portions of several

SouthernNational Forests have been designated as unmanaged wilderness.

However, unlike the extensive wilderness in the West, We cannot depend on

“let burn” policies to recreate the sort of fire regime necessary for the

long term maintenance of landscape and species diversity in these areas.

I and my colleagues have recently been in the Nature Conservancy’s

Green Swamp Preserve (near Wilmington, NC) to develop a fire plan designed

to maintain or, in some cases, increase species diversity. The emphasis in

this research has been to understand the effects of variation in fire

regimes in the various vegetation types in this large preserve. The

details of the fire plan are as yet unclear, but the central feature will

almost certainly be variation in prescription in time and space; i.e we

hope to create fires that more nearly simulate the natural fire regime in

this region.

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS AND THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES

Van Lear and Johnson (1983) presented an extensive list of speoific

research problems related to prescribed fire. These problems range from

basic ecosystem research to silvicultural research to questions related to

the use of fire to manage wildlife. Considerable research is underway in

the South on this entire range of problems and much of it is being done in

Universities.

Following an era of research to identify the effects of fire in a

general way and to broadly outline the nature of responses, we have begun

to focus on the nature of variation in fire effects in order to understand

more fully the consequences of varying fire regimes, both within and among

different ecosystem types. The goal is the production of models that more

precisely predict the full range of fire behaviors, effects, and responses.

The relationship between universities and public agencies, such as the

Forest Service, in this endeavor is truely synergistic. Universities can

often provide facilities, manpower, and technical expertise not available

otherwise in particular localities or regarding specific topics. We can

also provide training in the areas of fire ecology, behavior, and

management to future foresters, planners and managers. Not necessarily

restrained by the necessities of a particular applied mission, university

researchers are free to pursue seemingly esoteric aspects of fire ecology

which may open new avenues of application that are not presently obvious.

It is the communication and collaboration between university personnel and

researchers in the Forest Service that will turn some of our wildest

imaginings into innovative management practice.

152
REFERENCES

Abrahamson, W. G. 1984. Post-fire recovery of FloridaLake Wales Ridge

vegetation. American Journal of Botany 71:9-21

Chandler, C. P. Cheney, P. Thomas, L. Trabaud, and D. Williams. 1983.

Fire and Forestry Volume I: Forest Fire Behavior and Effects. John

Wiley 6r Sons, New York. 450 pp.

Christensen, N. L. 1977. Fire and soil-plant nutrient relations in a pinewiregrass savanna on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Oecologia

31:27-44

Christensen, N. L. 1981. Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems, p. 112-

136. In H. A. Moone

and J. Lotan teds.3.

, T. Bonnicksen, N. L. Christensen, W. A. Reiners,

Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties. USDA

Forest Service General Technical Report ~0-26

Christensen, N. L. 1984. Fire Regimes and Natural Selection in

Shrublands. &S.T.A. Pickett and P. S.White, Natural Disturbance:

The Patch Dynamics Perspective. Academic Press, New York.

Christensen, N. L., R. B. Burchell, A. Liggett, and E. Simms. 1981. The

structure and development of pocosin vegetation, p.43-61. j&C. J.

Richardson (ed.), Pocosin Wetlands. Hutchinson Ross Publishing

Company, Stroudsburg, PA.

Davis, M. and W. J. Platt. 1984. Effects of season of burn upon flowering

phenologies of the tribe Astereae (Compositae) in the ground cover of

longleaf pine forests, Wakulla County, Florida. Bulletin of the

Ecological Society of America 65:202

Douglass, J. E. and D. H. Van Lear. 1983. Effects of prescribed fire on

water quality of ephemeral Piedmont streams. Forest Science 29:181-

189

Evans, G. W. and W. J. Platt. 1984. Responses of C3 and C4 grasses to

variations in fire regime in pine savannas of the southeastern United

States. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 65:180.

Garren, K. H. 1943. Effects of fire on vegetation of the southeastern

United States. Botanical Review 9:617-654.

Gilliam, F. S. 1984. Effects of fire on components of nutrient dynamics

in a lower coastal plain watershed ecosystem. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Duke University

Givens, K. T., J. N. Layne, W.G. Abrahamson, and S. C. White-Schuler.

1984. Structural changes and successional relationships of five

Florida Lake Wales Ridge plant communities. Bulletin of the Torrey

Botanical Club 111

Harper, R. M. 1914. Geography and vegetation of northern Florida. Annual

Report of the Florida Geological Survey, no. 6. 451 pp.

153
Harshbarger, T. J. and C. E. Lewis. 1976. Shrub and herbaceous vegetation

after 20 yearts of prescribed burning in the South Carolina coastal

plain. Journal of Range Management 29:13-18.

Hough, W. A. and F. A. Albini. 1978. Predicting fire behavior in palmetto

gallberry fuel complexes. USDA Forest

44 PP.

Kalisz, P. J. and E. L. Stone. 1984. The

Ocala National Forest, Florida: A soil

Kessell, S. R. 1979. Gradient Modeling:

Springer-Verlag, New York. 432 pp.

Service Research Paper SE-174,

longleaf pine islands of the

study. Ecology, in press

Resource and Fire Management.

Laessle, A. M. 1958. The origin and successional relationship of sandhill

vegetation and sand-pine scrub. Ecological Monographs 28:X1-387

Lewis, W. M., Jr. 1974. Effects of fire on nutrient movement in a South

Carolina pine forest. Ecology 55:1120-1127

Likens, G. E., F. H. Bormann, R. S. Pierce, J. S. Eaton, and N. M. Johnson.

1977. Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New

York. 146 pp.

May, M. L. 1982. Plant response to fire alongmoisture gradients in the

Sandhills of North Carolina. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University

of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

McMahon, C. 1976. Effect of forest fire emissions on air quality. In

Proceedings, Fire by Prescription Symposium. USDA Forest Service, 127

PP.

Mutch, R. W. 1970. Wildland fires and ecosystems--a hypothesis. Ecology

51:1046-1051

Myers, R. L. and N. D. Deyrup. 1983. The dynamic relationship between

Florida sandhill and sand pine scrub vegetation. Bulletin of the

Ecological Society of America 64:62

Old, S. 1969. Microclimate, fire and plant production in an Illinois

prairie. Ecological Monographs 39:335-384

Peet, M., R. Anderson, and M. S. Adams. 1975. Effect of fire on big

bluestem production. The American Midland Naturalist 94:15-26

Peroni, P. A. 1983. Vegetation history of the southern Lake Wales Ridge,

Highlands County Florida. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Bucknell

University

Perkins, C. 1976. Public understanding of prescribed fire and its effect.

& Proceedings, Fire by Prescription Symposium. USDA Forest Service,

127~~.

Philpot, c. w. 1970. Influence of mineral content on the pyrolysis of

plant materials. Forest Science 16:461-471

154
Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, NJ. 654 pp.

Richardson, C. J. (ed.) 1981. Pocosin Wetlands. Hutchinson Ross

Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, PA. 364 pp.

Richter, D. D., Jr. 1980. Prescribed fire and effects on water quality and

nutrient cycling in forested watersheds of the Santee Experimental

Forest in South Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University

Richter, D. D., Jr., C. W. Ralston, and W. R. Harms. 1982. Prescribed

fire:effects on water quality and foest nutrient cycling. Science

215:661-663.

Rothermal, R. C. 1972. Amathematicalmodel for predicting fire spread

rate and intensity in wildland fuels. USDA Forest Service Research

Paper INT-115. 40 pp.

Saterson, K. A. and P. M. Vitousek. 1984. Fine root biomass and nutrient

cycling in Aristida stricta in a North Carolina Coastal Plain Savanna.

Canadian Journal of Botany 62:823-829

Schoch, P. B. 1984. Prescribed burning effects on nitrogen availability

in a late rotation loblolly pine stand in the Piedmont of North

Carolina. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Duke University. 40 pp.

Streng, D. R. and P. A. Harcombe. 1982. Why don't east Texas savannas

grow up to forest. The American Midland Natuarlist 108:278-294.

Tiedeman, A.R., C.E. Conrad, J. H. Dieterich, H.W. Hornbeck, W.F. Megahan,

L. A. Vierek, and D. D. Wade. 1979. Effects of fire on water. USDA

Forest Service General Technical Report WO-101. 28 pp.

Tiedeman, A.R., J.D. Helvey, and T.D. Anderson. 1978. Stream chemistry

and watershed nutrient economy following wildfire and fertilization in

eastern Washington. Journal of Environmental Quality 7:580-588.

Van Lear, D. H. and V. J. Johnson. 1983. Effects of prescribed burning in

the southern Applachian and upper Piedmont forests: A review.

Clemson University Forestry Bulletin No. 36. 8 pp.

Vasievich, J. M. 1980. Costs of hazard reduction burning in southern

National Forests. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 4:12-15

Wakeley, P. C. 1970. Thirty-year effects of uncontrolled brown spot on

planted longleaf pine. Forest Science 16:197-202

Waldrop, T.A. and D. H. Van Lear. 1984. Effect of crown scorch on

survival and growth of young loblolly pine. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry 8~35-40

Walker, J. and R. K. Peet. 1984. Composition and species diversity of

pine-wiregrass savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio

55:163-179

155
Weiss, T. E., Jr. 1980. The effects of fire on growth of Sarracenia flava

L. in a South Georgia Savanna. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University

of Georgia

Wells, B. W. 1942. Ecological problems of the southeastern United States

Coastal Plain. Botanical Review 8:533-561

Wells, B. W. and I. V. Shunk. 1931. The vegetation and habitat factors of

the coarser sands of the North Carolina coastal plain: an ecological

study. Ecological Monographs 1:466-520

Wendel, G. W., T.G. Storey, and G. M. Byram. 1962. Forest fuels on

organic and associated soils in the coastal plain of North Carolina.

USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-144.

Wilbur, R. B. and N. L. Christensen. 1983. Effects of fire on nutrient

availability in a North Carolina coastal plain pocosin. American

Midland Naturalist 110:54-61

Wilbur, R. B. 1984. Fire effects onnitrogen and phosphorus cycling in a

North Carolina pocosin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duke

University

Workman, S. W. 1982. Short term vegetation and nutrient responses to

seasonal burns in Quercus laevis-Pinus palustris forest stands of

South Carolina. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Western Washington

University

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology. John Wiley & Sons,

New York. 495 pp.

156
SESSION II

Research Rec&nendations

PRESENTATION OF SURVEY INFORMATION

CONFERENCE ON

PRESCRIBED FIRE AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT

IN THE SOUTH

Michael

I was asked to present the results

mailed to all pre-registered attendees

c.

o f

o f

Long 1

the survey (Appendix 1) that was

this symposium. The compilation of

information reminded me of the wide variety of backgrounds of those attending,

as well as the numerous objectives for the use of prescribed fire.

Seventy-three participants completed and returned the questionaire. They

were categorized into groups based on experience and position; five with little

or no experience, thirteen first level individuals, twenty-eight second level

supervisors, and twenty-seven third level policy makers.

The indications were that problems with prescribed burning or smoke

management were seldom or occasional, with no signif icant difference between

fire or smoke as a problem. The survey sheets indicated that the second level

supervisors recognized more frequent problems than the other groups.

Major reasons for prescribed burning varied. The three most commonly

identified were; help prevent or make suppression of wildfire easier, benefits

the managed resource, and accomplishes more than one objective at a time. Some

additional objectives listed were site preparation, wildlife habitat, range

improvement, hardwood control, and facilitates ability to do other tasks in the

area.

Those constraints to burning listed were: not enough burning days;

inadequate weather forecast to insure adherence to prescription; fear of

litigation; inadequate weather forecasts for night-time and next day smoke

dispersion; and not enough trained people.

In an attempt to determine some valid cost data, information was gathered

on cost per acre. However, after reviewing the information received and

coasidering the wide range provided, it is apparent that there are several

methods of computation. There is great-variation on just what is included in

costs per acre. I took the liberty to do little more than average the data

provided. Those indicating a guess ranged from $3.20 to $5.50 per acre. The

estimates ranged from $2.00 to $5.00 per acre. Those indicating actual

expenses ranged from $5.12 to $14.65.

1 Chief, Fire Control, Florida Division of Forestry

159
The Survey indicated the problems listed below as the most serious.

1.

2.

Z:

2:

::

9.

Public Knowledge

Smoke Management

Limited Burning Days

Long Term Effects on Sites

Government Regulations

Limited Information on Use of Fire in Young Stands

Safety Problems

Lack of Contractors

Need More Informakion on Fire in Hardwoods
Question 1

PRESCRIBED BURNING EXPERIENCE

second level - supervisor

third Ieve -

161
Question 2

(a) PRESCRIBED BURNING

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH:

(b) SMOKE MANAGEMENT

162
Question 3

.REASONS FOR USING PRESCRIBED FIRE

Reason

Reduces wildfire costs

Most

&(l$

Benefits the Managed Forest 59 (2)

Accomplishes.more than one

objective at the same time 59 (3)

Best Alternative 50 (4)

Integral part of the ecosystem 35 (5)

Inexpensive 32 (6)

Requires Little Capital Investment 27 (7)

Improves Appearance of Forest Land 05 (8)

Somewhat

13 (8)

32 (5)

29 (7)

34 (4)

42 (3)

47 (2)

49 (1)

32 (6)

Least

15 (6)

9 (8)

12 (7)

16 (5)

23 (3)

21 (4)

24 (2)

63 (1)

11 Percentage of respondents selecting this importance value.

21 = ranking among reasons.

IMPORTANCE

163
Question 4

PRESCRIBED BURNING CONSTRAINTS

CONTRAINTS SERIOUSNESS OF DETERRENT

Not Enough Good Burning Days

Inadequate Weather Forecast to

Ensure Adherence to Burn Plan

Fear Of Litigation

Inadequate Weather Forecast

For Nighttime and Next Day

Smoke Dispersion

Not Enough Trained People

Adverse Public Relations

Adverse Tree Growth Effects

Excessive Site Damage Potential

Inadequate Fire Effects Data

For Fuel Type

Risk Of Escape To High

Inadequate Techniques For

Assessing Fire Effects

General Environmental Concerns

Insufficient Expertize

Firing Techniques For Fuel Type

Unknown

Inadequate Support From Management

Major

&(l$

25 (2)

18 (3)

16 (4)

15 (5)

14 (6)

13 (7)

11 (8)

11 (9)

9 (10)

9 (11)

8 (12)

8 (13)

6 (14)

3 (15)

Common

25 (7)

25 (6)

23 (8)

42 (1)

40 (2)

25 (5)

11 (14)

21 (10)

15 (12)

26 (3)

18 (11)

26 (4)

22 (9)

6 (~-5)

13 (13)

11 (15)

30 (8)

24 (11)

12 (14)

23 (12)

34 (6)

34 (7)

35 (5)

36 (4)

42 (1)

39 (3)

42 (2)

28 (9)

28 (10)

22 (13)

13 (15)

20 (14)

35 (6)

30 (9)

22 (13)

27 (10)

42 (4)

33 (8)

38 (5)

22 (12)

34 (7)

24 (11)

42 (3)

60 (2)

62 (1)

L/Percentage of Respondents Selecting This Importance Valvue

g/Ranking Among Constraints

164
Questions 5 and 6

UNIT COSTS

165
Dear Preregistrant:

Appendix 1

Prior to attending the "Conference on Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management

in the South" would you take a few minutes to answer some questions about

prescribed burning? Your answers will be summarized, along with responses from

other attendee's by Mike Long, Florida Division of Forestry. Your response

should be sent to Mike by August 31, 1984. A pre-addressed envelope is

enclosed for your convenience.

1. My experience in prescribed burning is (check most appropriate):

First level

Second level - Supervisor

Third level - Policy/Manager

None or very little

.

2. Problems associated with (a) prescribed burning/(b) smoke management

conducted within my area of responsibility are (check most appropriate):

a b a b - - - -

Frequent - -

Occasional - -

Seldom - -

3. My reasons for prescribed

(l-3). Items marked with

Inexpensive

Benefits the managed

No known problems - -

burning are ranked in order of equal importance

a I,l" are most important.

resources

Requires little capital investment

Integral part of the ecosystem

Helps prevent or makes the suppression of wildfires easier

Improves appearance of forest land

Accomplishes more than one objective at the same time

Best alternative

Other(explain)

4. Rank in order of equal importance (l-4) the following prescribed burning

constraints. Items marked with a "1" are, in my judgement, the most

serious deterrents; a "4" indicates the item is not a deterrent.

Risk of escape too high

166
5.

6.

7.

Adverse public reaction

General environmental concerns

Appendix 1 cont.

Insufficient experience

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

weather forecasts for night time and next day smoke dispersion

weather forecasts to ensure adherence to prescription

techniques for assessing fire effects

High potential for excessive damage to site

Adverse effects on tree growth

Firing technique for fuel type unknown

Not enough good burning days -

Inadequate fire effects data for fuel type

Not enough trained

Inadequate support

Fear of litigation

people

from management

Other (explain)

.

What is your cost to prescribe burn? $ to $ per acre. - -

Are the unit costs shown in question number 5 a:

Guess? Estimate? Actual computed costs?

What do you consider the most serious problems, unknowns or ambiguities

regarding fire use/control in the South? (Explain)

DALE D. WADE

Planning Committee

167

WORKING GROUP REPORTS

At this point in the conference the attendees were charged with collectively developing a list of the five most important unresolved problems facing

prescribed burners in the South and were assigned to one of three discussion

groups. Each group was also asked to identify the major stumbling blocks to the

technology transfer and implementation process. A predesignated leader guided

the discussion in each group and prepared a summary of their deliberations.

Group leaders and members of the planning committee then met and merged the

individual group reports into a tentative combined report. The conferees were

reconvened in general assembly and the individual group summaries read and

approved. Finally the overall consensus report was presented, modified in open

session, and officially adopted by the assembly.

The three individual group reports and the conference consensus report

follows.

169

GROUP 1

WALTER HOUGH - CHAIRPERSON

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

RESEARCH NEEDS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Economics of prescribed burning

a. Cost savings (potential) of future site prep due to prescribed

burning,

Expand acreage treated with prescribed fire especially in young

pine stands.

a. Ignition techniques to widen the burning window.

b. Better fire behavior/effects predictors.

C . Improved smoke management.

Better fire effects predictors

a. Relate growth loss to fire intensity, especially in young

pine stands.

b. Effects of early burning on bole quality and branch characteristics.

Smoke management of residual or smoldering combustion products

a. Mop-up techniques to reduce smoke (e.g. retardant for stumps

and snags).

b. Prediction of smoldering capability using preignition conditions such as fuels and moisture content.

NON-RANKED MINOR ISSUES

Public attitudes

Herbicide - prescribed burning interactions

Thinning with prescribed fire

Prescribed Fire effects on hardwoods by species

Live fuel moisture effects on fire behavior

Line production rates in fire control

171
GROUP 1

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEEDS

1. Professional and technical education and training

a. Information sources made available to all

b. Simplify research publications such as NFDRS

C . Develop more prescribed burning training courses

2. Public Education

a. Inform public about benefits from prescribed burning

practices

b. Reach target groups such as environmentalists, legislative

bodies, etc.

C . Use more public relations, news releases, "canned" programs

and popular articles in widely read magazines.

3. Identify technology transfer responsibilities.

IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS

1. Lack of qualified people and equipment to do total job

2. Lack of timely and accurate weather forecasts

3. Lack full commitment of management during periods of good burning weather.

4. Lack of adequate planning and evaluation

5. Too many laws and regulations

NON-RANKED MINOR ISSUES

Lack of incentives for non-industrial, private landowners

Lack of incentives for consultants

Absentee land ownership

Lack of legal knowledge and assistance

172
GROUP 2

LEONARD A. KILIAN, JR. - CHAIRPERSON

STATE FORESTER, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COMMISSION OF FORESTRY

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

RESEARCH NEEDS

1. Guides to Estimate - Growth Loss, SBP Sites, Age Stress due to

fire resulting in insect and pathogens as a result of pine

scorch.

2. Better weather forecasts that are site specific.

3. Oak regeneration - prescribed fire effects.

4. Methodology improvement .

a. Practical method of determining tons/acre fine fuel

b. Smoke density gauge - on highways during burns

C . Better emission factor guide or estimate for fuel types

and amounts.

d. Useable field measurement techniques for flame lengths,

rate of spread, etc,

5. Methods and Techniques in use of aerial ignition in wildfire

control.

-

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEEDS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

What and where training is available in Principles of Fire

Behavior. Request training film or video in fire safety,

fire line construction using current and new practices. Also

demonstration of aerial ignition.

Workshops in prescribed burning in more than one age class and

more than one fuel type.

Weather forecast that are site specific.

Liability checklist and checklist or guidelines on what to

look for in insurance coverage.

Develop system of dissemination of what information is available.

173
GROUP 2

IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Public endorsement of prescribed burning by T.V., other media

and lobby legislatures for endorsement.

Implement scheduling of emissions (Smoke Management Plan)

within airsheds independent of user.

Weather forecast site specific.

Get Turner Stability Index to user in field in useable, predictable manner. (Other stability guides?)

Get wetting agent info to field user.

.

174
GROUP 3

BARRY F. MALAC, CHAIRPERSON

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, WOODLANDS DIVISION, UNION-CAMP CORPORATION

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

RESEARCH NEEDS

1. A coordinating council should be formed between researchers,

extension specialists and users to keep fire research from

being fragmented and to provide a forum for frequent interaction between researchers, users, local groups and regional/

national programs. The council could be under the auspices

of the Prescribed Fire Working Group of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group or it could be patterned after the

South Florida Interagency Wildland Fire Council. Its objectives would include: .

a .

b.

C .

d.

Identification of more narrowly focused research tied to

specific forest types, geographic units, etc.

Better documentation and evaluation of prescribed fires

(acres burned, conditions, techniques, success or failure,

problems, etc.).

Explore alternative sources of funding research.

Determine feasibility of establishing a university/Forest

Service/industry prescribed fire cooperative.

2. Improved prescribed burning techniques.

a. Relative effectiveness of spot vs. line firing techniques.

b. Scaled down equipment and techniques for small privately

owned timber tracts.

C . Critical cost/benefit analyses using total costs

(e.g. equipment, materials, overhead, risk, priorities,

etc.).

3. Develop prescriptions and techniques for burning young pine

stands - both planted and natural.

&. Fire damage predictions.

a. Test efficacy of existing crown scorch predictors.

b. Quantify relationship between various levels of crown

scorch and resultant tree growth, especially in young

pine stands.

175
GROUP 3

NON-RANKED MINOR ISSUES

Educate public regarding benefits of prescribed fire.

a . Base on fact fire has historically been an integral part of

southern ecosystems.

b. Identify obstacles to effective communication.

Identify smoke related health hazards to fire crews.

Develop prescription fire guides for managing hardwood stands.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEEDS

1. Education and Training (State-of-the-art reports in nontechnical manuals, demonstrations, show-and-tell, workshops

(live or video taped)).

a . Public at large on the national, regional and local level

(teacher conservation workshops, 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers,

etc.).

b. Employers (forest managers) - opportunities, liabilities,

cost/benefit.

C . Employees (the "burners") - techniques, hazards, responsibilities.

2. Summaries of state laws and regulations (in plain English).

a . Court cases and their desposition.

IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS

Included in Technology Transfer

176
JOHN M. BETHEA - CHAIRPERSON

DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

RESEARCH CONSENSUS

1. Economics of prescribed burning

2. Residual smoke and dispersion problems

3. Better fire behavior data to expand the prescribed burning

window- especially in young stands

4. Estimating direct and indirect growth loss associated with

various scorch levels

5. Better site specific weather forecasts for prescribed burning

6. Prescribed fire management guidelines for hardwood management

7. Aerial ignition as a technique for prescribed - and wild-fire

control

8. Development of methodology and equipment for the non-industrial

private forest landowner

9. Prescribed fire coordinating council

10. Better method to estimate available fuel in the field

11. Methods to reduce emissions for various fuel types and firing

techniques

12. Identify health hazards for fire crews from smoke

13. Monitor and cultivate public attitudes

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CONSENSUS

1. Professional and technical education and training

2. Public education and training

3. Identify technology transfer responsibilities

4. Checklist for what to look for in insurance coverage and liability

5. Summarize state laws and regulations

177
IMPLEMENTATION CONSENSUS

1. Better equipment and more qualified people

2. Need commitment of management

3. Better planning, evaluation and feedback

4. Realistic laws and regulations needed

5. More timely and accurate site specific weather forecasts

6. Development of procedures for evaluating and coordinating

atmospheric smoke loading

178
CONFERENCE ON PRESCRIBED FIRE AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH

Ramada Inn Central, Atlanta, Georgia, September 12-14, 1984

Wrap-Up Remarks by Jerry A. Sesco, Assistant Director

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station

Let me say again that we are delighted so many of you--the key forest

managers and leaders in prescribed fire and smoke management in the South--

attended this workshop and symposium. Attendance and participation far

exceeded our expectations. There was also a good balance of representation

among participants from industry, federal and state agencies, and universities. I believe the excellent attendance and active participation, especially during the discussion sessions, indicated a strong interest in, and

concern for, the subject of this workshop.

The objectives of this symposium were to "review current prescribed fire

and smoke management practices in the South, present research developments,

identify key problems, and develop recommendations for industry, state and

federal programs.1' As I reflect back over the past 21/2 days, I believe the

symposium met this objective.

On the first day, we were brought up to date on the prescribed fire

and smoke management programs and problems of the southern forestry community. We had speakers representing the federal, state, industry, consultant, and legal perspectives.

On the second morning, we were apprised of new developments and

research progress.. Yesterday afternoon and this morning, we began charting

future direction in research, technology transfer, and implementation.

As Dr. Ross indicated in his opening remarks, the Southeastern Station

has some major decisions to make about our prescribed burning and smoke

management research. During the next year, we will be determining research

directions for the next 5 years and we need your help and guidance. I

assure you that the information developed here represents major input into

our new program. As we draft charters for the new program, we will be

seeking additional input and review from you.

Let me add a few words of restraint, however. We in research, like

you, are constrained by budgets and personnel ceilings. Obviously, we will

not be able to do all the research you have recommended. It is possible

the project that you as an individual feel strongly about may not be in our

new charter. As one speaker pointed out yesterday, there is a cost

attached to priority. Research is expensive; fire research is very expensive; and there are limited dollars. Also, some of the research you have

suggested may be done at other federal fire research facilities and at

universities around the country rather than at the Macon Fire Lab. Other

research may not be possible without your cooperation and assistance.

179
Throughout this symposium, speakers pointed out time and time again

that although prescribed fire is useful, societal attitudes are changing

and restrictions on its use may increase. As the rural/urban interface

expands, we will face more and more questions about the pollution and

nuisance aspects of prescribed fire. I believe your concerns about this

problem were evident in the discussions about the need for public education

on prescribed fire.

I contend we can counter the attacks on our technology more confidently if we have solid scientific data to back up our actions. We will

continue to provide the needed scientific information.

In summary, I believe this symposium has been an effective forum for

the statement of your ideas and priorities. Again, we thank all of you for

attending.

Special recognition must be given to the session moderators for the

outstanding job they did in organizing and directing their sessions. We

would also like to gratefully acknowledge the work of the following people

who served on the planning committee *for this syposium: Thomas H. Ellis,

Gordon D. Lewis, James D. Lunsford, Hugh E. Mobley, J. Hugh Ryan, Dale D.

Wade, and Deborah K. Offutt.

Finally, I extend to you an invitation to visit the Macon Fire

Laboratory and see firsthand some of the research we are doing.

180
APPENDIXES

Day 1 Morning

8:00

9:50

9:55

10: 10

10:35-12:30

10:35-

11: oo11: 25-

11: 50-

12: 15-

States - -

TX, LA, MS - Bruce R. Miles - State Forester, Texas

AL, FL, GA - C. W. "Bill" Moody - State Forester, Alabama

VA, NC, SC - H. J. "Bee" Green - State Forester, North Carolina

AR, KY, OK, TN- Roy C. Ashley - State Forester, Tennessee

Discussion of State overviews

12: 30-l: 30 Lunch (on your own)

APPENDIX I

Agenda

CONFERENCE ON PRESCRIBED FIRE AND

SMOKE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH

Tuesday Night, g/11/84

7:oo - 9:00 Registration - Ramada Inn Central

Wednesday, g/12/84

Day 1, Session I

Overviews of Prescribed Fire and Smoke

Management Programs & Problems

.

Moderator - John W. Mixon; Director, Georgia Forestry Commission;

Macon, GA

Registration

Call to Order - John W. Mixon

Welcome - Eldon W. Ross; USDA FS, Director, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC

- Michael P. Mety; Chairman, Southern State Foresters

Association and State Forester, Louisiana

Keynote Speaker - Benton H. Box; Dean, College of Forest and

Recreation Resources, Clemson University;

Clemson, SC

Day 1 Afternoon Moderator - W. Howard Hanna; Manager, Timber Research &

Development, Container Corp. of America;

Fernandina Beach, FL

183
1:30-2:30

1:30-

1:55-

2:20-

2:30-3:05

2:30-

2:55-

3:05-3:20

3:20-3:55

3:45-

3:55-4:30

4:20-4:30

7:00-

Industry

W. D. Baughman; Southern Woodlands Manager, Westvzco

Corp.; Summerville, SC

R. A. "Dick" Williams; Management Forester, GeorgiaPacific Corp.; Crossett, AR

Discussion of Industry overviews

Consultant

L. Keville Larson; Larson IG McGowan Inc.; Chairman,

National Association of Consulting Foresters;

Mobile, AL

Discussion of Consultant overview

Coffee Break

Federal

Dick A. Cox; USDA FS, Director, Aviation & Fire Management;

R-8; Atlanta, GA *

Discussion of Federal overview

Legal Aspects

William C. Siegel; USDA FS, Project Leader, Southern Forest

Experiment Station; New Orleans, LA

Discussion of Legal Aspects

Banquet - Emcee - James Turner, Georgia Forestry

Commission, Fire Chief - Retired

Speaker - Fred W. Haeussler; Vice President, Society of

American Foresters and Land Manager,

Union-Camp Corp.; Savannah, GA

Thursday g/13/84

Day 2, Session I cont'd

Day 2, Session I Moderator - Charles W. Philpot; USDA FS, Director, Forest

Fire IG Atmospheric Science Research; Washington, DC

8:00-lo:40 State-of-theAArt -I- Presentations

8:DO Smoke Management (including regulations)

- Hugh E. Mobley; Alabama Forestry Commission; Montgomery, AL

8:25- Weather and Fire Danger Rating

- John G. Shepherd; North Carolina Department of Natural

Resources and Community Development; Raleigh, NC

184
8:50-

9:15-

9:25-9:40

9:40-

10:05-

10:30-

10:40-1:35

10:40-

11:05-

11:30-

11:55-1:00

l:OO1:25-1:35

Prescribed Fire and Fire Effects

- David H. Van Lear; Professor, College of Forest

and Recreation Resources, Clemson University;

Clemson, SC

Discussion

Coffee Break

Aerial Ignition --Ping-Pong Balls

- John W. Gnann; Manager, Forest Development, Woodlands

Division, Union-Camp Corp.; Savannah, GA

Aerial Ignition --Flying Drip Torch

- Grady E. Stevens; Chief, Helicopter Division; International

Paper Co.; Natchitoches, LA

Discussion

Research Update

USDA, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

Southern Forest Fire Laboratory; Macon, GA

Fire Science Adaptations for Southeastern U.S.

- Dale D. Wade, Acting Project Leader

Combustion Processes in Wildland Fuels

- Charles K. McMahon, Project Leader

Forestry Weather Data Systems

- James T. Paul, Project Leader

Lunch (on your own)

Universities (Research) - Norman Christensen;

Department of Botany, Duke University; Durham, NC

Discussion

Day 2, Session II

Future Direction

Day 2, Session II Moderator - Michael C. Long; Florida Division of Forestry;

Tallahassee, FL

1:35- Introduction & Charge to Discussion Groups - Michael Long

1:50- Results of Questionnaire - Michael Long

2:05- Discussion R break into predesignated

Groups to develop fire-related prioritized list

of not more than 10 general needs each with not

more than 3 specific component questions

3:15-3:30 Coffee Break

'3:30- Discussion Groups continue

185
l2 -

3 -

Day 3, Session II

8:00-8:30

8:30-9:30

8:30-

8:45-

9:00-

9:15-

9:30-9:45

9:45-11:30

11:30-

Group Leaders

Walter A. Hough; USDA FS, Assistant Director, Southern

Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA

Leonard A. Kilian, Jr.; State Forester, South Carolina

State Commission of Forestry; Columbia, SC

Barry F. Malac; Technical Director, Woodlands Division,

Union-Camp Corp.; Savannah, GA

Friday, g/14/84

Day 3, Session II cont'd

Moderator - John M. Bethea; Director, Florida Division of

Forestry; Tallahassee, FL

National Smoke Management Course Update

- J. Hugh Ryan - South Carolina Forestry Commission;

Columbia, SC

Group Reports & Discussion

Group 1 - Walter A. Hough

Group 2 - Leonard A. Kilian

Group 3 - Barry ,F. Malac

Consensus Report - John M. Bethea

Coffee Break

Discussion and Final Report

Fire Research in the South - Washington Office Perspective

- Charles W. Philpot; USDA FS, Director, Forest Fire iI

Atmospheric Science Research; Washington, DC

Wrap-Up - R. Sid Moss, State Forester, Mississippi Forestry

Commission, Jackson, MS

- Jerry A. Sesco; USDA FS, Assistant Director,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

Asheville, NC

186
Appendix II

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Adkins, C. Wayne - USDA Forest Service, Southern

Rt. 1, Box 182A, Dry Branch, GA 31020

Forest Fire Laboratory,

Anderson, Earl B. - USDA Forest Service, Riverside Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon

Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507

Andrews, Alan - Georgia-Pacific Corp., P. 0. Box 158, East Palatka, FL 32031

Ashley, Roy - Tennessee Division of Forestry, 701 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37167

Ashworth, Scott T. - Union-Camp Corp. Altamaha Forest, P. 0. Box 87, Baxley,

GA 31513

Barb, J. L. - Union-Camp Corp., Woodlands Division, Franklin, VA 23851

Barnett, Mark D. - Hammermill Paper Co., 805 Overhill Court, N.W., Atlanta,

GA 30328

Bartle, W. E. - Catawba Timber Co., 917 Sherwood Circle, Lancaster, SC 29720

Baughman, W. D. - Westvaco Corp., P. 0. Box 1950, Summerville, SC 39484

Bennett, Joseph W. - Daniel Boone National Forest, 100 Vaught Rd., Winchester,

KY 40391

Bethea, John M. - Florida Division of Forestry, 3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee,

FL 32301

Birch, John E. - USDI Bureau of Land Management, Interior Building, Washington,

DC 20240

Bowling, Doug - International Paper Co., Southlands Experiment Forest,

Rainbridge, GA 31717

Box, Benton H. - Co1 lege of Forest & Recreation Resources, Clemson University,

Clemson, SC 29631

Boyer, William D. - USDA Forest Service, C. W. Andrews Forestry Sciences Lab.,

DeVall St., Auburn University, AL 36849

Braford, William L. - Virginia Division of Forestry, P. 0. Box 386, Farmville,

VA 23901

Brown, Johnny - Gilman Paper Co., P. 0. Drawer 878, St. Marys, GA 31558

Bryant, Jerry - Weyerhaeuser Co., P. 0. Box 7, Mountain Pine, AR 71956

Burnett, James - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, P. 0. Box 699, Gautier, MS 39553

I87
Butts, David - USDI National Park Service, 3905 Vista Ave., Boise, ID 83705

Carroll, John - Virginia Division of Forestry, P. 0. Box 100, Salem, VA 24153

Cnambers, John W. - Assistant Director, Aviation & Fire Management, USDA Forest

Service, P. 0. Box 2417, Washington, DC 20013

Christensen, Norman - Department of Botany, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706

Cl eaves, David A. - USDA Forest Service, Riverside Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon

Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507

Clonts, Thomas M. - Stone Container-Forest Products Division, P. 0. BOX 21607,

Columbia, SC 29221

Cochran, Gary - Union-Camp Corp., P. 0. Box 1726, Montgomery, AL 36102

Cohen, Jack - USDA Forest Service, Riverside Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon Crest

Drive, Riverside, CA 92507

.

Cole, Frank T. - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Merritt Island Refuge,

P. 0. Box 6504, Titusville, FL 32780

Coloff, Stan - Air Resource Program Manager, USDI Bureau of Land Management,

18th & C St., N.W., Washington, DC 20240

Cox, Dick A. - R-8 Aviation & Fire Management, USDA Forest Service, 1720

Peachtree Rd., N.W., Atlanta, GA 30367

Dahlem, Michael J. - Weyerhaeuser Co., Star Route, Box 100, Wright City, OK

74766

Dale, Donald - Weyerhaeuser Co., P. 0. Box 388, DeQueen, AR 71832

DeBrunner, L. Earl - Department of Forestry, Auburn University, Auburn,

AL 36849-4201

Dressel, Armin T. - International Paper Co., Rt. 3, Box 690, Camden, AR 71701

Emerson, Steve - Weyerhaeuser Co., Star Route, Box 100, Wright City, OK 74766

Fene, Kim M. - USDI National Park Service, 75 Spring St., S.W., Atlanta, GA

30303

Fields, R. G. - Union-Camp Corp., Woodlands Division, Franklin, VA 23851

Fischer, R. J. - Weyerhaeuser Co., Star Route, Box 100, Wright City, OK 74766

Foster, R. Fred - USDA Forest Service, 8 Turnberry Place, Arden, NC 28704

Freeman, Duane R. - Mark Twain National Forest, 401 Fairgrounds Rd., Rolla, MO

65401

Frisch, Jim - Crown Zellerbach Co., P. 0. Box 400, Bogalusa, LA 70427

188
Gayle, James A. - Mid-South Region, Lands & Timber, International Paper Co.,

300 Knight Office Place, Suite 100, Shreveport, LA 71105

Gnann, J. W. - Union-Camp Corp., P. 0. Box 1391, Savannah, GA 31402

Goff, Michael - Weyerhaeuser Co., P. 0. Box 26, Kosciusko, MS 39090

Goodowns, Charles - Gilman Paper Co., P. 0. Drawer 878, St. Marys, GA 3155%

Gore, Ray - Gilman Paper Co., P. 0. Drawer 878, St. Marys, GA 31558

Greene, Thomas - Rt. 4, Box 675, Denham Springs, LA 70726

Haeussler, Fred W. - Union-Camp Corp., P. 0. Box 1391, Savannah, GA 31402

Hanna, Howard - Container Corp. of America, P. 0. Box T, Fernandina Beach,

FL 32034

Hardage, Tom - Mississippi Forestry Commission, 908 Robert E. Lee Building,

Jackson, MS 39201 .

Hargrove, William C. - Georgia Forestry Commission, Rt. 6, Box 169, Waycross,

GA 31501

Harper, Mike - Union-Camp Corp., P. 0. Box 1726, Montgomery, AL 36102

Haywood, Dave - USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, 2500

Shreveport Highway, Pineville, LA 71360

Ho1 ley, Lester - Department of Forestry, Box 8002, NC State University, Raleigh,

NC 27695-8002

Hooven, Lynn - Georgia Forestry Commission, P. 0. Box 819, Macon, GA 31298-4599

Hough, Walter A. - USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station,

T-10210 PSB, 701 Loyola Ave., New Orleans, LA 70113

Hulick, Kenneth H. - US01 National Park Service, Chattahoochee River NRA, 1900

Northridge Rd., Dunwoody, GA 30338

Husari, Susan - Everglades National Park-Resource Management, P. 0. Box 279,

Homestead, FL 33030

Hutchinson, Duncan A. - USDI National Park Service, Congaree Swamp NMP, Suite

607, 1835 Assembly St., Columbia, SC 29201

Jeffrey, Bobby G. - International Paper Co., P. 0. Box 278, Sheridan, AR 72150

Johansen, Ragnar W. - USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory,

Rt. 1, Box 182A, Dry Branch, GA 31020

Johnson, Lionel R. - 1531 Eldonlas Court, Stone Mountain, GA 30087

189
Johnson, Randall - Georgia-Pacific Corp., P. 0. Box 1095, Walterboro, SC 29488

Johnson, Raymond - ITT-Rayonier, P. 0. BOX 393, Waycross, GA 31501

Jordan, Freddie - Mississippi Forestry Commission, 908 Robert E. Lee Building,

Jackson, MS 39201

Kacer, Kevin G.

GA 31558

- Cumberland Island National Seashore, P. 0. Box 806, St. Marys,

Kast, Kevin - Crown Zellerbach Co., P. 0. BOX 400, Bogalusa, LA 70427

Kautz, Edward W. - USDA Forest Service, 310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI

53203

Kennedy, Edd III - MacMillan Bloedel Inc., 808 Walnut St., Monroeville, AL

36460

Kilian, Leonard - South Carolina Forestry Commission, P. 0. Box 21707, Columbia,

SC 29221 .

Komarek, E. V. - Tall Timbers Research Inc., Rt. 1, Box 160, Tallahassee, FL

32312

Kutack, Jason N. - International Paper Co., 502 Grants Ferry Rd., Brandon,

MS 39042

Larson, L. Keville - Larson R McGowan Inc., P. 0. Box 2143, Mobile, AL 36652

Landers, Larry - Tall Timbers Research Inc., Rt. 1, Box 160, Tallahassee, FL

32312

Landis, George D. - Continental Forest Industries, P. 0. Box 1406, Augusta, GA

30903

Lewis, Gordon - USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 200

Weaver Blvd., Asheville, NC 28804

Little, Norman - Georgia Kraft Co., P. 0. BOX 108, Coosa, GA 30129

Long, Gary - Continental Savannah Woodlands, Inc., P. 0. Box 1477, Statesboro,

GA 30458

Long, Jack G. - Georgia Forestry Commission, P. 0. Box 819, Macon, GA 31298-4599

Long, Michael C. - Florida Division of Forestry, 3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee,

FL 32301

Lowery, Robert F. - Weyerhaeuser Co., Box 1060, Hot Springs, AR 71901

Lunsford, James D. - ~-8, Aviation IG Fire Management, 1JSDA Forest Service,

1720 Peachtree Rd., N.W., Atlanta, GA 30367

190
Lyons, Roger - Weyerhaeuser Co., P. 0. Box 1391, New Bern, NC 28560

McDonald, Felton 0. - International Paper Co., P. 0. Drawer X, Jena, LA 71342

McMahon, Charles K. - USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory,

Rt. 1, Box 182A, Dry Branch, GA 31020

Maiorano, Christine - Continental Savannah Woodlands, Inc., P. 0. Box 1477,

Statesboro, GA 30458

Malac, Barry F. - Union-Camp Corp., Box 1391, Savannah, GA 31402

Manning, John - Hiwassee Land Co., Rt. 5, 11 Oak Hill Drive, Crossville, TN

38555

May, Stephen W. - MacMillan Bloedel Inc., Rt. 1, Box 25, Safford, AL 36773

Mety, Michael - Louisiana Forestry Commission, P. 0. Box 1628, Baton Rouge, LA

70821-1628

Miles, Bruce - Texas Forest Service, College Station, TX 77843-2136

Mixon, John W. - Georgia Forestry Commission, P. 0. Box 819, Macon, GA

31298-4599

Mobley, Hugh - Alabama Forestry Commission, 513 Madison Ave., Montgomery, AL

36130

Moody, C. W. - Alabama Forestry Commission, 513 Madison Ave., Montgomery, AL

36130

Moore, James E. - R-4 Aviation & Fire Management, USDA Forest Service, 324 25th

St., Ogden, UT 84404

Moss, Robert S. - Mississippi Forestry Commission, 908 Robert E. Lee Building,

Jackson, MS 39201

Nelson, Ralph - USjlA Forest Service, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory, Rt.. 1,

Box 182A, Dry Branch, GA 31020

Nicholson, David - Georgia Forestry Commission, Rt. 7, Box 455, Griffin, GA

30223

Offutt, Deborah - 2931 Warehime Rd., Manchester, MD 21102

Pace, James I. - Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1951 Constitution Ave., N.W., CODE

100, Washington, DC 20245

Page, James F. - Daniel Boone National Forest, 100 Vaught Rd., Winchester, KY

40391

Paul, James T. - USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory, Rt. 1,

P. 0. Box 182A, Dry Branch, GA 31020

191
Phillips, Ray - Brunswick Pulp Land Co., P. 0. Box 508, Jessup, GA 31545

Philpot, Charles W. - Director, Forest Fire & Atmospheric Sciences Research,

USDA Forest Service, P. 0. Box 2417, Washington, DC 20013

Poitevint, Howard - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Rm. 1240, 75 Spring St.,

Atlanta, GA 30303

Post, Don M. - School of Forestry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Prewitt, Lavelle - International Paper Co., Natchez Forest Research Center,

Rt. 3, Box 312B, Natchez, MS 39120

Range, Phillip V.

DC 20240

- Bureau of Land Management, 18th & C St., N.W., Washington,

Rawlins, Henry - USDI BIA Seminole Agency, 6075 Sterling Rd., Hollywood, FL

33024

Reeves, M. Skippy - St. Marks National'wildlife Refuge, P. 0. Box 68, St. Marks,

FL 32355

Reinman, Joseph P. - St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, P. 0. Box 68, St.

Marks, FL 32355

Rodgers, Steven L. - USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory,

Rt. 1, Box 182A, Dry Branch, GA 31020

Rogers, Michael J. - USDA Forest Service, P. 0. BOX 2417, Rm. 34Ocw, Washington,

DC 20013

Ross, Eldon W. - USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

200 Weaver Blvd., Asheville, NC 28804

Rudolph, John - Crown Zellerbach Co., P. 0. Box 400, Bogalusa, LA 70427

Ryan, 3. Hugh - South Carolina Forestry Commission, P. 0. Box 21707, Columbia,

SC 29221

Schlegel, Howard J. - Public Works Department, Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay,

GA 31547

Schneider, James F. - Bureau of Indian Affairs-BIFC, 3905 Vista Ave., Boise,

ID 83705

Sesco, Jerry A. - USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

200 Weaver Blvd., Asheville, NC 28804

Shilling, Charles L. - School of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, Louisiana

State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Slack, Ronnie - Hiwassee Land Co., P. 0. Box 950, Albertville, AL 35950

192
Staub, James P. - USDI NPS, Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park,

P. 0. Box 2128, Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30742

Stevens, Grady E. - International Paper Co., P. 0. Box 2674, Natchitoches, LA

71457

Swiger, Robert R. - Cherokee National Forest, P. 0. Box 2010, Cleveland, TN

37311

Swindell, Henry A. - Georgia Forestry Commission, P. 0. Box 819, Macon, GA

31298-4599

Thiels, Leo D. - Daniel Boone National Forest, P. 0. BOX 429, Whitley City,

KY 42653

Toliver, John - School of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, Louisiana State

University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Torpy, John E., II - Continental Forest Industries, P. 0. Box 1406, Augusta,

GA 30903 .

Troth, John L. - Weyerhaeuser Co., P. 0. Box 7, Mountain Pine, AR 71956

Tuggwell, E. G. - Union-Camp Corp.- Satella Forest, P. 0. Box 938, Brunswick,

GA 31520

Turnbo, Dennis - USDI NPS, Shiloh National Military Park, Shiloh, TN 38376

Turner, James - 719 Valley Trail, Macon, GA 31204

Van Hook, Samuel M. - 56 CSS/DEN, Avon Park Air Force Range, Avon Park, FL

33825

Van Lear, David - Department of Forestry, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631

Vassy, Richard B. - 324 Cheatham, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State

University, Blacksburg, VA 24061

Wade, Dale D. - USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Fire Laboratory, Rt. 1,

P. 0. Box 182A, Dry Branch, GA 31020

Waldrop, Tom - Department of Forestry, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631

Warnock, Johnny L. - USDA Forest Service, 312 W. Swedesboro Rd., Exton, PA

19341

Watts, Rick - International Paper Co., Box 999, Natchez, MS 39120

Weldy, Walter E. - USDI BIA, Choctaw Agency, 421 Powell St., Philadelphia, MS

39350

Westmoreland, David L. - Georgia Forestry Commission, P. 0. BOX 819, Macon, GA

31298-4599

Williams, Edward B. - 98 Maddox Drive, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30309

Williams, R. A. - Georgia-Pacific Corp., Forestry Division, P. 0. Box 520,

Crossett, AR 71635

193
Williams, William A. - Daniel Boone National Forest, 100 Vaught Rd., Winchester,

KY 40391

Worten, Mark D. - Oklahoma Forestry Division, P. 0. Box 40, Broken Bow, OK 74728

Yancy, John H. - USDA Forest Service, P. 0. Box 907, London, KY 40741

Zontek, Frank - St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, P. 0. Box 68, St. Marks,

FL 32355

#? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1985-54%704

194
Wade, Dale D., compiler

Prescribed fire and smoke management in the South: conference

oroceedinos: 1984 Seotemher 12-14; Atlanta, GA. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Depaitment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station; 1985. 194 pp.

A collection of 18 papers that describe current problems and trends

In prescribed fire and smoke management, and the results of discussion groups that present recommendations for continuing research

and application.

KEYWORDS: Combustion processes, weather and fire effects.

Wade, Dale D., compiler

Prescribed fire and smoke management in the South: conference

proceedings; 1984 September 12-14; Atlanta, GA. Asheville, NC:

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

Forest Experiment Station; 1985. 194 pp.

A collection of 18 papers that describe current problems and trends

in prescribed fire and smoke management, and the results of discussion groups that present recommendations for continuing research

and application.

KEYWORDS: Combustion processes, weather and fire effects.
Williams, William A. - Daniel Boone National Forest, 100 Vaught Rd., Winchester,

KY 40391

Worten, Mark D. - Oklahoma Forestry Division, P. 0. Box 40, Broken Bow, OK 74728

Yancy, John H. - USDA Forest Service, P. 0. Box 907, London, KY 40741

Zontek, Frank - St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, P. 0. Box 68, St. Marks,

FL 32355

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:l=%Me-704

194