Making Fire and Fire 

Surrogate Science Available: 

A Summary of Regional 

Workshops With Clients 

Andrew Youngblood, Heidi Bigler-Cole, Christopher J. Fettig, 

Carl Fiedler, Eric E. Knapp, John F. Lehmkuhl, Kenneth W. Outcalt, 

Carl N. Skinner, Scott L. Stephens, and Thomas A. Waldrop

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-727

July 2007

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Andrew Youngblood is a research forester and Heidi Bigler-Cole is a social 

scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, 

La Grande, OR 97850; Christopher J. Fettig is a research entomologist, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

1107 Kennedy Place, Suite 8, Davis, CA 95616; Carl Fiedler is a research 

professor of silviculture, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of 

Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; Eric E. Knapp is a research ecologist and Carl 

N. Skinner is a geographer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Silviculture Laboratory, 3644 Avtech 

Parkway, Redding, CA 96002; John F. Lehmkuhl is a research wildlife biologist, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1133 N Western Avenue, Wenatchee, 

WA 98801; Kenneth W. Outcalt is a research plant ecologist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602; Scott L. Stephens is an 

associate professor of fire sciences, Division of Ecosystem Science, Department 

of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, 137 Mulford Hall, University 

of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; Thomas A. Waldrop is a research forester, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 233 

Lehotsky Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634. 
Abstract

Youngblood, Andrew; Bigler-Cole, Heidi; Fettig, Christopher J.; 

Fiedler, Carl; Knapp, Eric E.; Lehmkuhl, John F.; Outcalt, 

Kenneth W.; Skinner, Carl N.; Stephens, Scott L.; Waldrop, 

Thomas A. 2007. Making fire and fire surrogate science available: a 

summary of regional workshops with clients. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-727. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 59 p.

Operational-scale experiments that evaluate the consequences of fire and 

mechanical “surrogates” for natural disturbance events are essential to better 

understand strategies for reducing the incidence and severity of wildfire. The 

national Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) study was initiated in 1999 to establish an 

integrated network of long-term studies designed to evaluate the consequences 

of using fire and fire surrogate treatments for fuel reduction and forest restoration. Beginning in September 2005, four regional workshops were conducted 

with selected clients to identify effective and efficient means of communicating FFS study findings to users. We used participatory evaluation to design 

the workshops, collect responses to focused questions and impressions, and 

summarize the results. We asked four overarching questions: (1) Who needs 

fuel reduction information? (2) What information do they need? (3) Why do 

they need it? (4) How can it best be delivered to them? Participants identified 

key users of FFS science and technology, specific pieces of information that 

users most desired, and how this information might be applied to resolve fuel 

reduction and restoration issues. They offered recommendations for improving 

overall science delivery and specific ideas for improving delivery of FFS study 

results and information. User groups identified by workshop participants and 

recommendations for science delivery are then combined in a matrix to form 

the foundation of a strategic plan for conducting science delivery of FFS study 

results and information. These potential users, their information needs, and 

preferred science delivery processes likely have wide applicability to other fire 

science research.

Keywords: Fire and Fire Surrogate study, fuel reduction treatments, forest 

restoration treatments, science delivery, communication plans, participatory 

management.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 The National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study

2 FFS Study Objectives

3 FFS Study Design

5 Science-Delivery Needs

5 Methods

5 Approach to Synthesis

7 Lubrecht Workshop

11 Solon Dixon Workshop 

13 Blodgett Workshop

15 Green River Workshop

18 Synthesis Procedures

19 Workshop Results

19 Who Needs Fuel Reduction Information?

23 What Information Is Needed?

27 Why Is Information From the FFS Study Needed?

30 How Can FFS Study Results and Information Be Delivered to Users?

36 Client Reactions to FFS Study Results

45 Client Considerations for Improving Science Delivery

47 Recommendations for Fire and Fire Surrogate Study Science Delivery

47 Communication Strategies

47 2001 Fire and Fire Surrogate Study Communication Plan

49 Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Delivery

56 Acknowledgments

56 English Equivalents

56 Species Names of Plants

57 Literature Cited
Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Introduction

Many fire-dependent forests—especially those with historically short-interval, low- to 

moderate-severity fire regimes—contain more small trees and fewer large trees, have 

higher fuel loads, and greater fuel continuity compared to conditions under historical 

fire regimes (Agee 1993, Agee and Skinner 2005, Arno and others 1997, Barden 1997, 

Caprio and Swetnam 1995, Cowell 1998, Kilgore and Taylor 1979, Swetnam 1990, 

Taylor and Skinner 1998, Van Lear and Waldrop 1989, Waldrop and others 1987, 

Yaussy and Sutherland 1994, Youngblood and others 2004). Areas once open, such 

as meadow inclusions in pine forests, are now forested (Norman and Taylor 2005). 

These conditions resulted from fire exclusion and suppression, livestock grazing, 

timber harvests, tree recruitment after farm abandonment (especially in the Southern 

United States), and changes in climate (Arno and others 1997, Norman and Taylor 

2005, Skinner and Chang 1996). Collectively, these conditions contribute to a general 

deterioration in forest ecosystem integrity and increase the probability of unnaturally 

severe wildfires (Stephens 1998).

In the past two decades, unusually large and severe wildfires across the Western 

United States have heightened public awareness of forest ecosystems and raised 

concerns for forest health. These uncharacteristic wildfires emphasize the need for 

well-designed treatments to change forest stands from their current structure and 

development trajectory to conditions that are healthier, more resilient to fire, and are 

safer to nearby communities (Brown and others 2004, Graham and others 2004). 

Recent Presidential initiatives such as the National Fire Plan and legislation such as 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 have promoted large-scale and strategically located fuel reduction and forest restoration projects to manage landscapes 

(USDI and USDA 2006).

Silviculturists and fuels specialists are increasingly being asked to design fuel 

reduction and forest restoration treatments that reduce stand basal area and the density 

of small trees, retain fire-resistant trees, reduce the accumulation of woody debris, 

and increase height to live crowns to help protect forests from severe wildfire and 

meet a host of other resource objectives. Strategies for managing forest fuels to reduce 

expensive and damaging wildfires include underburning with prescribed fire, cutting 

live and dead trees by hand (chainsaw felling), cutting trees and removing logs with 

mechanized equipment like feller-bunchers, mowing ground vegetation, chopping 

or grinding surface fuels (mastication), or any combination thereof. The ecological 

consequences of implementing these strategies remain largely unknown. Innovative 

operational-scale experiments that evaluate the effects of alternative management 

practices involving fire and mechanical/manual “surrogates” for natural disturbance 

events are essential to increase understanding and improve management decisions.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

The National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study

A team of federal, state, university, and private scientists and land managers 

designed the Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) study, an integrated national network of 

long-term studies established to document consequences of using fire and fire surrogate treatments for fuel reduction and forest restoration. Financial support for the 

FFS study came from the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP), the National Fire Plan, 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture through a National Research Initiative competitive grant, and the home institutions and agencies of each participating scientist. 

The JFSP was established in 1997 to provide scientific information and support for 

wildland fuel and fire management programs. The program is a partnership of six 

federal agencies: the Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey, all in the Department 

of the Interior. The FFS study currently includes 13 sites on federal- and stateadministered lands extending from the Cascade Range in Washington to south 

Florida (fig. 1). These 13 sites represent ecosystems with frequent, low-severity 

natural fire regimes. At each site, a common experimental design was used to 

facilitate broad comparisons of treatment effects (Weatherspoon 2000). The FFS 

study network represents the largest operational-scale experiment ever funded to 

test silvicultural treatments designed to balance ecological and economic objectives 

for sustaining healthy forests. Details of the network and links to individual study 

sites are available at the Web site http://frames.nbii.gov/ffs.

FFS Study Objectives

The FFS study was designed to quantify the ecological and economic consequences 

of fire and fire surrogate treatments across a number of forest types and conditions 

in the United States. Specific objectives include: 

• Quantify the initial effects (first 5 years) of fuel reduction and forest 

restoration treatments on specific core response variables.

• Establish and maintain an integrated national network of long-term 

interdisciplinary studies using a common design that facilitates broad 

applicability of results yet allows flexibility for addressing locally important 

issues.

• Designate FFS study sites as demonstration areas for technology transfer.

• Develop a single integrated and spatially-referenced database that contains 

archived data from all network sites to facilitate interdisciplinary and 

multiscale analyses.

The Fire and Fire 

Surrogate study is an 

integrated national 

network of long-term 

studies of using fire 

and other treatments 

for fuel reduction and 

forest restoration.
Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

• Over the long term, repeat treatments where appropriate, develop 

and validate models of ecosystem structure and function, and refine 

recommendations for ecosystem management.

FFS Study Design

The FFS study was implemented on land administered by the Forest Service, 

National Park Service, various university experimental forests and education 

centers, state parks, and state forests. The core experimental design for the FFS 

study includes common treatments, similar treatment replication and plot sizes, 

and common response variables for all research sites in the network. The four 

treatments used at 12 of the 13 sites include (1) untreated control; (2) prescribed 

fire only (burn); (3) mechanical fuel reduction, including cutting and yarding with 

mechanical systems, hand felling, mowing, and mastication (thin); and (4) mechanical fuel reduction followed by prescribed fire (thin + burn) (table 1). For simplicity, 

all forms of mechanical fuel reduction used at the different FFS sites are hereafter 

referred to as “thin” despite the common silvicultural convention restricting usage 

of this term to trees. Treatments at the Sequoia National Park site consisted of 

Figure 1—Distribution of Fire and Fire Surrogate study sites and associated tree species.

Blue Mountains

Hungry Bob, OR

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir

Northern Rocky Mountains

Lubrecht, MT

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir

Northeastern Cascades

Mission Creek, WA

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir

Southern Cascades

Goosenest, CA

Ponderosa pine, white fir

Central Sierra Nevada

Blodgett Forest, CA

Ponderosa and sugar pine, white 

fir, incense-cedar, Douglas-fir

Southern Sierra Nevada

Sequoia, CA

Ponderosa pine, white fir, 

sugar pine, incense-cedar

Southwest Plateau

Northern Arizona

Ponderosa pine

Southern Rocky Mountains

Jemez Mountains, NM

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir

Central Appalachian Plateau

Ohio Hills, OH

Oak, hickory, maple

Gulf Coastal Plain

Solon Dixon, AL

Longleaf pine

Southern

Appalachian

Mountains

Green River, NC

Oaks, hickory

Southeastern Piedmont

Clemson, SC

Pines, hardwoods

Florida Coastal Plain

Myakka River, FL

Longleaf and slash pine

The core experimental 

design for the FFS 

study includes 

common treatments, 

similar treatment 

replication and plot 

sizes, and common 

response variables for 

all research sites in 

the network.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

an untreated control, an early-season burn, and a late-season burn, which are the 

principal landscape-scale treatment options available to managers in the National 

Park Service. Implementation of the active (non-control) treatments at each site was 

guided by a desired future condition or target stand condition uniquely defined for 

each stand such that, if a stand were impacted by a head fire under 80th-percentile 

weather conditions, at least 80 percent of the basal area of overstory trees would 

survive. Each treatment unit was at least 10 ha and was surrounded by a similarly 

treated buffer of 50 m along each boundary. Treatments were replicated at each 

of the sites at least three times in either a completely randomized or randomized 

complete block design, with treatments randomly assigned to each unit. Replication 

and randomization are key experimental design components of studies from which 

sound, statistically-valid inferences can be drawn, but are infrequently used in large 

operational studies.

Core variables represented broad disciplines, including vegetation, fuel and 

potential fire behavior, soils and forest floor, wildlife, entomology, pathology, and 

treatment and utilization economics (USDA FS 2001, Weatherspoon 2000). Some 

400 response variables were monitored. The majority were spatially referenced to 

a 50-m square grid of permanent sample points established and maintained in each 

treatment unit at each site.

Table 1—Treatment structure at Fire and Fire Surrogate study sites represented at four regional workshops

Lubrecht Solon Dixon Blodgett Green River

Blue Mountains—

Hungry Bob, Oregon

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, Sept. 2000

3—Thin, July 1998

4—Thin, July 2000; 

 burn, Sept. 2000

Northern Cascades—

Mission Creek, Washington

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, June 2001

3—Thin, Feb. 2001

4—Thin, Feb. 2001; 

 burn, June, 2002

Northern Rocky Mountains—

Lubrecht, Montana

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, May–June 2002

3—Thin, Jan.–March 2001

4—Thin, Jan.–March 2001; 

 burn, May–June 2002

Gulf Coastal Plain—

Solon Dixon, Alabama

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, April 2002, May 2004

3—Mow, March 2002

4—Mow, March 2002; 

 burn, May 2002, April 2004

5—Herbicide, Sept 2002; 

 burn April 2003

Central Sierra Nevada—

Blodgett Forest, California

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, Oct. 2002

3—Thin, Sept. 2001; 

mastication, Aug. 2002

4—Thin, Sept. 2001; 

 mastication, Aug. 2002; 

 burn, Oct. 2002

Southern Cascades—

Goosenest, California

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, Oct. 2002

3—Thin, Sept. 1999

4—Thin, Oct. 1999; 

 burn, Oct. 2001

Southern Sierra Nevada—

Sequoia, California

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, June 2002

3—Burn, Oct. 2001

Central Appalachian Plateau—

Ohio Hills, Ohio

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, April 2001

3—Thin, Nov. 2000–April 2001

4—Thin, Sept. 2000–Feb. 2001; 

 burn, March–April 2001

Southern Appalachian Mountains—

Green River, North Carolina

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, March 2003

3—Shrub removal, March 2002

4—Shrub removal, March 2002; 

 burn, March 2003

Southeastern Piedmont—

Clemson, South Carolina

1—Untreated control

2—Burn, April 2001, April 2004

3—Thin, April 2001

4—Thin, March 2001; burn, 

 March 2002, May 2005


Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Science-Delivery Needs

Federal research agencies are being challenged to demonstrate that research is 

contributing to tangible improvements in land management. In supporting a 

broad array of fire and fuels research disciplines, the JFSP seeks science delivery 

strategies that actively involve managers in addition to more traditional means 

such as publishing results in peer-reviewed journals. As studies on the effects of 

fuel reduction and forest restoration were implemented at each of the 13 FFS study 

sites, lead scientists and local managers engaged in discussions on the types and 

kinds of research products that would most benefit managers in both the short 

and long terms. During the 6th annual FFS network meeting held in late 2004, 

the researchers agreed to conduct a set of regional workshops. These workshops 

were conceived as an opportunity to not only present the latest research findings 

but also to engage selected land managers in focused discussions about the most 

effective and efficient means of communicating FFS study findings to users. 

Workshops were designed to explore options for delivering FFS science to the 

right people in a usable format through appropriate communication channels. Four 

regional workshops were held; this document is a summary and synthesis of the 

lessons learned during the workshops. Although this synthesis focuses on FFS 

study science-delivery options, it likely will aid other fire science researchers to 

better identify their potential audiences and better understand similar sciencedelivery options.

Methods

Approach to Synthesis 

We used the process of participatory evaluation (Greenwood and Levin 1998), 

a formal, reflective process of self-assessment, to design the workshops, collect 

responses to focused questions and impressions, and summarize the results. 

Participatory evaluation, in this case, was used to create a learning process that 

would aid FFS study researchers in identifying opportunities for communicating 

research results in the most effective and efficient manner. Our participatory 

evaluation involved self-assessment, collective knowledge development, and 

cooperative establishment of an action plan as a result of the findings. Our 

process engaged a total of 132 invited participants at the regional workshops, 

and looked for shared concerns and common solutions, yet recognized that 

differences represent potentially important regional distinctions. The large number 

of workshop participants provided a foundation for evaluating opportunities for 

communicating FFS study research results, despite differences in individual 

These workshops 

engaged selected land 

managers in focused 

discussions about the 

most effective and 

efficient means of 

communicating 

FFS study findings 

to users.


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

views. Acceptable solutions rarely come from one viewpoint, whereas the same idea 

voiced at different times and locations probably represents a more consistent and 

cohesive concept. Finally, our approach to participatory evaluation gave workshop 

participants opportunities to voice concerns with the very individuals most 

interested in and most likely to affect change in communicating research results.

The FFS study researchers wanted to identify specific strategies for enhancing 

science delivery. To this end, workshop participants were asked to describe communication opportunities rather than barriers. This approach to research, known 

as “appreciative inquiry,” is more apt to result in outcomes that are more easily 

implemented than are approaches that attempt to correct communication strategies 

with known barriers or impediments. Appreciative inquiry in the context of the FFS 

study is based on a four-stage process (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003): identifying communication processes that work well, envisioning communication processes 

that would work well for FFS study results in the future, planning and prioritizing 

processes that would work well in the form of an FFS study outreach plan, and 

finally, executing the proposed FFS study outreach plan. Specifically, we asked four 

overarching questions:

• Who needs fuel reduction information?

• What information do they need?

• Why do they need it?

• How can it best be delivered to them?

We used various ways of asking these questions and recording workshop 

participants’ responses. We specifically posed questions such as “What critical fuel 

reduction issues occur at both the operational and policymaking levels?” at different 

workshops to better identify who needs what information. We asked questions such 

as “What key findings from this workshop will you pass on to your fuels managers, 

and how will you communicate these findings?” to generate discussion about 

science delivery processes. We asked questions such as “What kinds of monitoring 

variables are you using to assess fuels treatments?” to help identify how some fuel 

reduction information may be used. We avoided biasing potential responses to 

questions concerning information needs or methods of accessing information by not 

emphasizing what or how FFS results have been communicated to date. Designated 

recorders captured the responses to these questions, and to the questions asked by 

workshop participants and the resulting discussions. We asked FFS study researchers 

at each workshop to summarize their observations immediately afterward. At the 

Lubrecht and Blodgett workshops, we recorded electronically and later transcribed 

the full discussion that followed the field trip. In addition, designated recorders 

gathered notes of discussions that occurred external to formal group deliberations. 
Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Lubrecht Workshop

The first FFS regional workshop for managers was held on September 7, 2005, at 

the University of Montana’s Lubrecht Experimental Forest, site of the Northern 

Rocky Mountains FFS study (fig. 2). The workshop was co-hosted by site leaders 

from the three inland Northwest sites in the FFS network: Lubrecht, Montana 

(Northern Rocky Mountains), Hungry Bob, Oregon (Blue Mountains), and 

Mission Creek, Washington (Northeastern Cascades). Workshop participants 

represented a range of management entities, including federal and state agencies, 

tribal organizations, forestry extension programs, and nongovernmental organizations (table 2). Disciplinary interests of participants also were diverse, including 

forestry, wildlife, fire and fuels, operations, utilization and economics, and vegetation management.

A primary objective of the workshop was to present management-related findings on the effects of fuel reduction treatments on trees and understory vegetation, 

fuels and fire behavior, soil properties, insects and root disease, birds and small 

mammals, and treatment costs and product values. Although preliminary results 

of work at Lubrecht were featured, comparisons to similar work at Hungry Bob 

and Mission Creek were emphasized and, when appropriate, discussed in the context of other FFS sites, either in the West or across the whole network. A second 

objective was to ask participants what kinds of information generated by the FFS 

studies would be most useful for developing successful fuel reduction projects, 

and how we could best package and disseminate that information.

The Lubrecht workshop was designed around field visits to sites that illustrated each of the four fuel treatments evaluated in the FFS study: control, thin, 

burn, and thin + burn. An on-the-ground visit to one unit of each treatment 

provided the visual context for presentations by FFS study researchers, and for 

questions and discussion by participants. In each treatment unit, researchers 

presented interim results, by discipline, from the Lubrecht site and then followed 

with regional and network-level perspectives on the same issues or topics. Managers responded by identifying critical operational and policy concerns and information gaps related to the topics discussed. After the day-long field trip, participants 

reconvened to discuss options for presenting FFS study results to managers in 

their organizations.

Topics presented in the control unit included historical stand structure and 

disturbance regimes at Lubrecht and similar western Montana forests, current 

forest conditions at Lubrecht and similarities in forest structure and composition 

among other western FFS sites, and local and regional need for fuel reduction 

and forest restoration. Workshop participants questioned researchers about the 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Figure 2—Small Douglas-fir saplings and low branches increase the probability of crown fires by providing fuel ladders into 

overstory canopies of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir at the Northern Rocky Mountains Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) study 

site, Lubrecht, Montana.

of research and demonstration projects beginning 

in 1950. Numerous short- and long-term studies 

focus on silvicultural cutting and prescribed 

burning effects on timber, forage, wildlife, and 

water resources. In addition, undergraduate and 

graduate students use the forest for activities, 

including lab exercises, field trips, summer camp, 

and theses projects. The Lubrecht FFS study 

site is installed in second-growth ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir stands within the Lubrecht 

Experimental Forest.

The Lubrecht Experimental Forest is an 

11 300-ha (28,000-acre) outdoor classroom 

and laboratory located 48 km (30 mi) northeast 

of Missoula, Montana, in the Blackfoot River 

Valley. The land was donated to the University 

of Montana by the Anaconda Company in 1937, 

and is owned and managed by the Montana 

Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 

The experimental forest is dedicated to the 

advancement of natural resource knowledge 

through research and education and has a history 


Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Table 2—Affiliation of participants at Fire and Fire Surrogate study regional workshops

Lubrecht Solon Dixon Blodgett Green River

Federal National Interagency 

 Fire Center

Forest Service, Pacific 

 Northwest Region, 

 Fire and Fuels

Forest Service, Bitterroot, 

 Colville, Lolo, Okanogan-

 Wenatchee, and Wallowa-

 Whitman National Forests

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Department of Defense, 

 Eglin Air Force Base

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service

Joint Fire Science Program

Forest Service, Pacific 

 Southwest Region, 

 Fire and Fuels

Forest Service, Lassen and

 Tahoe National Forest

U.S. Geological Survey, 

 Western Ecological 

 Research Center

Eastern Forest Environ-

 mental Threat Assessment 

 Center

Forest Service, Northeast

 State and Private Forestry

Forest Service, National 

 Forest of North Carolina, 

 Cherokee, Nantahala, 

 Chattahoochee-Oconee, 

 George Washington and 

 Jefferson National Forest

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Prime Hook 

 National Wildlife Refuge

National Park Service, 

 Great Smoky Mountains 

 National Park

State Montana State University 

 Forestry Extension

Washington State 

 University Cooperative 

 Extension 

Montana Department of 

 Natural Resources and 

 Conservation

Washington Department 

 of Natural Resources

Montana Department of 

 Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

Florida Division of 

 Forestry

Alabama Forestry 

 Commission

Louisiana Department 

 of Agriculture and 

 Forestry

Georgia Forestry 

 Commission

Florida Department 

 of Environmental 

 Protection

University of California 

 Cooperative Extension

Watershed Research 

 and Training Center

California Fire Safe 

 Council

Georgia Forestry Commission

North Carolina Division of 

 Parks and Recreation

South Mountains State Park

North Carolina Wildlife 

 Resources Commission

Nongovernmental Salish and Kootenai 

 Tribal Forestry

Defenders of Wildlife

The Nature Conservancy

Auburn University

The Nature Conservancy

California Forestry 

 Association

Sierra Nevada Forest 

 Protection Campaign

Quincy Library Group

Total Forestry

National Wild Turkey 

 Federation

Southern Appalachian 

 Forest Coalition

The Nature Conservancy

Buffalo-Duck River Resource 

 Conservation and 

 Development Council

Industry Local forest industry

Local forestry consultants

Sierra Pacific Industries

Timber Products Co.

management implications of their findings, and discussed the critical fuel reduction 

issues they face at the operational level. At the thin unit, local harvest prescriptions, 

posttreatment stand structural changes, treatment costs and product values, and soil 

disturbance at the Lubrecht site were presented. The regional presentation focused 

on the similarities and differences in these same factors among the Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington locations. Workshop participants described the obstacles 

that limit project implementation under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

2003 (P.L. 108-148) (HFRA), and objectives for posttreatment structural features. 

President Bush signed HFRA into law in December 2003. Among other things, the 

bill contains a variety of provisions to speed up hazardous fuel reduction and forest 

restoration projects on specific types of federal land that are at risk of wildland fire 

or large-scale insect and disease outbreaks. 

Topics discussed at the burn unit included prescribed burning prescriptions, 

burn-day weather conditions, stand structural changes, and influences of burning on 

soil properties and wildlife habitat at Lubrecht. Researchers provided preliminary 

results of regional analyses of stand-replacement-fire risk reduction, treatment cost, 

postburn stand structure, soil change, and avian and small mammal dynamics as a 

result of treatments. Workshop participants discussed smoke, threat of fire escape, 

and tree mortality as factors that may limit burning under the HFRA and the practicality of burning as a sole maintenance treatment once a target fuel reduction is 

achieved. At the thin + burn unit, the integration of mechanical thinning and burning into a single prescription was explained, stand structural changes resulting from 

this treatment were described, and understory responses, particularly by nonnative 

invasive plant species, were presented. Regional differences in prescription implementation, costs across the three inland Northwest sites, and secondary treatment 

effects of delayed tree mortality, dead tree dynamics and structural attributes, bark 

beetle dynamics, understory plant species composition, and total nitrogen relationships were presented. Workshop participants discussed how FFS study results might 

be used to inform development of standards and guidelines, and aid preparation of 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents with a stronger scientific 

basis.

The Lubrecht workshop provided several unique kinds of information for 

managers. The preliminary research results are likely applicable to a wide range of 

ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir forests in Montana, Oregon, and Washington. 

The three inland Northwest sites (northern Rocky Mountains, Blue Mountains, 

and northeastern Cascades) represent unique environmental conditions and past 

management activities, yet preliminary analyses among the three sites extended the 

inference to more dry forest conditions and provided a more robust interpretation of 

treatment responses compared to analyses of treatment effects at any single site. In 

addition to presentations on individual response variables such as Neotropical migratory birds, woodpeckers, or nonnative invasive plants, results were presented among 

and across disciplines—a systems approach that features both the specific responses 

to treatments and the higher level process interactions among these responses. 

A multipage summary of key discussions by managers during the workshop was 

compiled and mailed to all workshop participants to document their participation.
11

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Solon Dixon Workshop

The Solon Dixon regional workshop was held on October 27, 2005, at the Solon 

Dixon Forestry and Education Center in southern Alabama, home of the Gulf 

Coastal Plain FFS study (fig. 3). Invited workshop participants were primarily practitioners and decisionmakers responsible for implementing fuel reduction and forest 

restoration treatments throughout the Gulf Coastal Plain, and included managers 

from state forests, managers from other state and federal agencies, large private 

landowners, and forestry consultants (table 2).

The primary objectives of this workshop were to provide information to 

user groups on how different treatments for restoring longleaf pine communities 

affected vegetation, soils, wildlife, insects, and fuels, and to facilitate a forum 

for exchanging information among practitioners who apply similar treatments. In 

addition, the workshop provided an opportunity to showcase to various user groups 

the Solon Dixon FFS site as an operational-size demonstration area that featured 

longleaf stands after different fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments, and 

to receive feedback on outreach methods. The workshop format was a traditional 

1-day meeting that began and ended at the classroom facilities at the Dixon Center. 

Following introductory presentations on the Dixon Center and the overall design of 

the FFS study, participants traveled to the working forest where the majority of the 

day was spent touring different treatment units. The day ended with a debriefing 

and feedback session.

Short presentations in representative treatment units at the Solon Dixon FFS 

site covered the range of disciplines being studied. After each presentation there 

was a question and discussion period. This was followed by questions from the 

study site manager to the group to gather input on their reaction to the treatment, 

reactions by those with prior experience with the treatment, and any potential 

barriers they could foresee in applying the treatments. 

The workshop participants first visited a burn treatment unit where the study 

layout and treatments were presented, followed by a description of prescribed burning operations. Effects on the overstory from thinning and burning or their combination were presented at a thin treatment unit. Understory responses to treatments, 

bark beetle and insect pollinator dynamics, and overstory mortality were discussed 

at a thin + burn treatment unit. In addition to the four core treatments, the Solon 

Dixon site contains a fifth treatment of local interest: a broadleaf herbicide was 

applied in the fall followed by burning in the spring (herbicide + burn). Herbicide 

was applied with backpack sprayers on understory woody vegetation. Changes in 

fuel accumulations were contrasted at the boundary between an untreated control 
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Figure 3—Longleaf pine and understory shrubs such as yaupon holly (see “Species Names of Plants”) at the Gulf Coastal Plain 

Fire and Fire Surrogate study site, Solon Dixon, Alabama. Shrubs quickly establish after disturbance, serve as fuel ladders that 

increase the probability of severe wildfire, and reduce habitat suitability for endangered species such as the gopher tortoise 

(Gopherus polyphemus) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).

Solon Dixon Forestry and Education Center is 

a 2100-ha (5,320-acre) school forest located about 

30 km (18 mi) south of Andalusia, Alabama, and 

adjoins the Conecuh National Forest. It is operated by Auburn University School of Forestry and 

Wildlife Sciences under four objectives: (1) provide 

quality natural resource education to a variety of 

user groups, particularly students from Auburn 

University; (2) provide a base for and support of 

research efforts in natural resource fields; (3) serve 

as a source of information and technology transfer 

from the scientific community to the general 

public; and (4) manage its own natural resources 

wisely and economically to provide income for 

the center’s programs. The center was a gift to 

Auburn University from Solon and Martha Dixon, 

residents of Andalusia, Alabama. It features upland 

longleaf pine forests with an understory dominated 

by tall shrubs typical of many longleaf areas in the 

middle and upper coastal plains of the South. The 

center was established in 1980, and since that time 

has served as the site of research on forest growth 

and yield, forest regeneration, herbicide use, and 

amphibian habitat. 
13

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

unit and the adjacent herbicide + burn treatment unit. The tour ended with presentations on soils and wildlife at a second herbicide + burn treatment unit.

Blodgett Workshop

The third FFS study regional workshop took place on November 15, 2005, at 

Blodgett Experimental Forest, site of the Central Sierra Nevada FFS study (fig. 4). 

The workshop was co-hosted by site leaders from the three California sites in the 

FFS network: Blodgett Forest (central Sierra Nevada), Goosenest (southern Cascades), and Sequoia (southern Sierra Nevada). The targeted audience was managers 

who would recognize the importance of the FFS study and promote the transfer 

of information from the study within their respective spheres of influence. Invited 

participants included representatives of federal forest management, state fire and 

watershed management, local nongovernmental organizations and environmental 

groups, forestry consultants, and the forest products industry (table 2). 

The Blodgett workshop was designed to introduce the FFS study to potentially 

influential forest and resource managers of California, and to present some initial 

management-related findings as well as examples of the types of information that 

will soon be made available. This was accomplished by providing examples of peerreviewed journal papers and work in progress. In addition, attendees were asked 

to provide feedback on their own perception of the relevance of the FFS study to 

their work and how FFS study researchers might improve the delivery of FFS study 

results and information.

The workshop emphasized a field tour to facilitate interaction between workshop participants and FFS study researchers. A brief indoor morning session was 

held to provide an overview of the project and of each of the three California sites. 

Two examples of multisite analyses were presented. Specific components of the 

study were discussed at different stops on the day-long field trip. The field tour 

involved treatment units representing each of the four FFS study treatments. At 

each subsequent stop, participants briefly walked around to get a visual sense of 

the treatment and to contrast this with adjacent treatment units. This was followed 

by presentations by FFS study researchers on different aspects of the study, including effects of the treatments on tree and understory vegetation, soils, bark-beetle 

dynamics, birds, and small mammals. Presentations were often accompanied by 

handouts that presented and summarized preliminary findings. 

The need for fuel treatments across a wide range of sites and the variability 

of treatment response as a result of differences in soil structure and productivity 

were discussed in a control treatment unit. Managers were asked to compare fuel 

accumulations and treatment priorities at the Blodgett Forest FFS study site with 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Figure 4—Heavy down woody fuels and dense layers of white fir and incense-cedar develop under highly productive 

ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and Douglas-fir at the Central Sierra Nevada Fire and Fire Surrogate study site on the 

Blodgett Experimental Forest in California.

The Blodgett Forest Research Station is an 

1800-ha (4,400-acre) forest located on the Georgetown Divide in the central Sierra Nevada and 

represents some of the most productive mixedconifer forests in California. The land was donated 

to the University of California by the MichiganCalifornia Lumber Company in 1933. The purpose 

of the gift was to provide a research site and 

practical demonstrations of forestry for students, 

forest industry, and the public. The major mission 

of Blodgett Forest is to evaluate response, cost, 

and impacts of different management activities. 

The scientific value of Blodgett Forest has grown 

correspondingly with the increased demands on 

natural resources. Research began more than 50 

years ago at Blodgett Forest and includes studies 

on tree growth, forest succession, harvesting 

costs, forest insect and disease dynamics, forest 

ecology, wildlife population dynamics, range 

animal dynamics, control of nontree vegetation, 

thinning and spacing of commercial conifers, soil 

compaction from logging operations, effects and 

techniques of prescribed fire, conifer regeneration methods, harvesting methods, and nutrient 

cycling. Blodgett Forest is managed by staff of 

the University of California Berkeley campus.
15

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

similar forest types across California. Effects of burning were presented for Sequoia, 

Goosenest, and Blodgett Forest in a burn treatment unit. Workshop participants discussed their discomfort in using numerically quantified summaries of fuel accumulations as guides for prioritizing projects and suggested pictorial guides may be more 

applicable. Treatment costs and the mixture of tree sizes that were cut were explained 

in a thin treatment unit. Workshop participants discussed the opportunity to conduct 

similar fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments when cost/benefit ratios were 

favorable, and also the difficulty in translating stand-level treatment effects and costs 

to landscape-scale needs. The FFS study researchers presented initial entomological 

and wildlife responses in a thin + burn treatment unit, and workshop participants 

responded with concerns for using various treatments to achieve different short- and 

long-term objectives.

Although the focus of research findings was on the Blodgett Forest FFS site, FFS 

study researchers elaborated on the subtle but important differences in treatments 

and results among the three California sites: active treatments at the southern Sierra 

Nevada site within Sequoia National Park consisted of early- and late-season burns, 

the thin treatment at Blodgett Forest included a mechanical mastication of surface 

and ladder fuels, and the entire FFS study at Blodgett Forest was overlaid on sites 

where the management direction involved maintaining a diverse stand structure 

through group selection. Finally, an open discussion in the Blodgett Forest conference center after the field trip provided a venue for addressing the relative merits of 

different science-delivery options. The day concluded with a group dinner.

Green River Workshop

The fourth and final FFS regional workshop was held in Asheville, North Carolina, 

on January 24–25, 2006. The workshop was co-hosted by site leaders from three 

eastern sites in the FFS network: Green River, North Carolina (southern Appalachian 

Mountains), Clemson, South Carolina (southeastern Piedmont), and Ohio Hills, Ohio 

(central Appalachian Plateau). Invited workshop participants included land managers 

from federal, state, and county agencies, conservation groups, and environmental 

groups throughout the Southeast (table 2). Disciplinary interests included wildlife 

biologists, fire managers, fire and plant ecologists, park rangers, inventory specialists, and conservation planners.

Specific objectives of the workshop were to provide resource mangers with an 

introduction to the FFS study at both the national and local levels, to relay early 

results of FFS core studies to resource managers, and to begin discussions with 

land managers about information needs and how the FFS study can help to meet 

those needs.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Formal presentations were made by researchers on the first day to an audience 

arranged in theatre style. Researchers conducting work within each core discipline 

and at each of the three study sites were asked to combine their presentations into a 

single presentation. The day began with an overview of the national study followed 

by presentations covering vegetation, soils, wildlife, pathology, economics and utilization, and changes in fuel accumulation. The day ended with short presentations 

on studies unique to a single site: southern pine beetle dynamics at the Clemson 

FFS study site, and fire history and dendrochronology at the Ohio Hills FFS study 

site.

The second day consisted of a field visit to the Green River FFS study site 

on the Green River Game Land, about 25 mi south of Asheville, North Carolina 

(fig. 5). Because of the large number in attendance, participants were split into three 

groups of about 25 each. Presentations were made by FFS study researchers at a 

burn treatment unit, a thin + burn treatment unit, and a thin treatment unit with 

a second thin + burn treatment unit adjacent. In the burn unit, recent work was 

presented on the effects of treatments on different bat species, the relation between 

treatments and impacts of deer browsing, and a multisite analysis of herpetofaunal 

impacts. Workshop participants responded by discussing operational issues of 

fuel reduction and forest restoration, local and regional variation in air quality, 

wildland-urban interface boundaries that may influence the kinds of treatments 

likely to occur in nearby stands, and common means of accessing fuel reduction 

science results for project planning and implementation. 

Effects of treatments on soils, litter decomposition, and arthropods, changes in 

stand structure, and public perceptions of implemented treatments were major topics in a thin + burn treatment unit. In addition, workshop participants were shown 

results of preliminary fire behavior analyses for the Green River FFS study site. 

Participants discussed both implementation and effectiveness monitoring and the 

appropriateness of different monitoring variables. In a thin treatment unit, presentations focused on seedling and sapling survival and delayed mortality of overstory 

hardwoods at both Ohio Hills and Green River FFS study sites. Participants discussed the wide variation in stand structure goals across different land ownerships 

throughout eastern hardwood ecosystems, opportunities to maintain acceptable 

fuel accumulations and stand structures through the exclusive use of burning, and 

opportunities to communicate the key findings of the FFS study to their network of 

fuel managers.
17

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Figure 5—Forests of the Southern Appalachian Mountains are often mixtures of oaks, hickories, and pines. At the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains Fire and Fire Surrogate study site on the Green River Game Land, North Carolina, dense thickets of 

ericaceous shrubs such as mountain laurel or rhododendron can form in the understory. Without frequent disturbance, these 

shrubs contribute to intense ground fires or crown fires.

Located in the southwestern corner of North 

Carolina near Hendersonville, the Green River 

Game Land consists of more than 4000 ha 

(10,000 acres) along the Green River in Henderson 

and Polk Counties. Owned by the state of North 

Carolina, the land is administered by the North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for 

wildlife conservation and management. It consists 

of gorges, steep ravines, and coves supporting 

recently undisturbed oak forests with shortleaf 

and Virginia pines on ridgelines and eastern 

white pines in more protected sites (see “Species 

Names of Plants” for scientific names). The area is 

named for the Green River that has cut a rugged 

gorge through the Blue Ridge escarpment. A 

major portion of the land was purchased by The 

Nature Conservancy from Duke Power Company 

and Crescent Timber in 1994. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

A common request from the workshop participants was for a compilation of all 

study results. Final publication of all the results will likely occur in various outlets 

because some presentations were based on work from a single FFS study site and 

others spanned the three eastern sites, and some presentations were the result of 

short-term work by graduate students, whereas others were initial results of longterm studies. To partially fill the request for a single compilation of study results, 

several FFS study researchers collaborated in producing a compact disk containing 

the slide presentations from the first day of the meeting. All workshop participants 

were mailed a copy of the disk. Additional requests for copies of the disk came 

from resource managers throughout the Eastern United States.

Synthesis Procedures

Each of the four regional workshops differed in design, audience, and the content 

and format of information presented. However, the overall objectives were similar. 

Analysis for this study focused on discovering the widest range of audiences, 

science finding topics, land management contexts (ecological and political), and 

communication methods. Findings that transcend geographical and professional 

boundaries will likely represent the greatest contribution to a single, nationwide 

FFS study communication strategy. At the same time, findings that appear relevant 

for a subset of units may be especially important to consider as regional differences 

in the overall communication strategy. 

Across all four regional workshops, we obtained 31 unique sets of documents 

consisting of workshop notes, recorded transcriptions, and postworkshop summaries. These 31 sets of notes, totaling some 300 pages, were reviewed, and specific 

ideas, statements, and phrases were independently coded by two analysts (table 

3). This review and coding resulted in 1,698 comments in a single database, each 

referencing the page of the source document and analyst. We then used a secondary 

keyword coding that was unique to each primary level to identify common ideas 

and themes under each primary code. We carefully examined the resulting groups 

of statements to ensure that those selected were identified by both readers and came 

from at least two sources. In this way, we ensured relevancy and unbiased support 

for each finding. Our findings are expressed as the number of recorded statements 

and discussed in the following section. The actual numbers of statements within 

any category do not imply relative importance, however, because unequal sampling 

across workshops prevented quantitative comparisons.
19

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Workshop Results

Who Needs Fuel Reduction Information?

Workshop participants identified potential users of FFS science and technology, 

specific pieces of information that users most desired, and how this information 

might be applied to resolve fuel reduction and forest restoration issues. Not surprisingly, a wide variety of users were identified, ranging from federal agencies to 

private entities (table 4). 

In addition to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, federal 

agencies that would likely benefit from FFS science include those that administer 

large tracts of wildlands such as the Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and parts of the Department 

of Defense. The Bonneville Power Administration (U.S. Department of Energy) 

administers dams and power line corridors across the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service conserves, protects, and enhances fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats across the Nation, largely through a system of wildlife 

refuges. The National Park Service administers a network of national parks, monuments, and reserves. At the Solon Dixon workshop, the Department of Defense was 

listed as a key manager of large tracts of wildlands such as Eglin Air Force Base 

Table 3—Primary-level coding of participant comments at Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) study regional 

workshops

Code	 Label	 Definition

1 Who is the audience? Specific ideas about what groups, professions, or individuals could 

 benefit from FFS study findings

2 What do they want? Specific ideas about what FFS study findings clients most need or want

3 Why do they need it? The specific context or rationale for client needs

4 How can we deliver? Specific communication methods for FFS study science delivery

5 Manager questions Questions raised by workshop participants for FFS study researchers 

 that represent broad, integrative manager perspectives on fuel reduction 

 and forest restoration

6 FFS study benefits and limitations Specific perspectives on how the FFS study results and information 

 might help resolve issues

7 Researcher’s questions Questions raised by FFS study researchers for workshop participants 

 that represent broad, integrative perspectives on fuel reduction and 

 forest restoration

8 Study insights Specific comments by workshop participants that reflect their definition 

 of key study insights gained during the workshops

9 Study findings Specific comments by FFS study researchers that seemed to generate 

 the greatest interest by workshop participants
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

in northwest Florida. As a special category of federal users, the workshop participants identified those that prepare and evaluate documents under NEPA. This act 

requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decisionmaking processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions 

and reasonable alternatives to those actions. This also would extend to the judicial 

system and those that develop case law. 

At the state level, many states have state foresters and agencies that administer 

state forest lands, such as the Washington Department of Natural Resources, the 

Division of Forestry in the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, the Forestry Division in the Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Workshop participants at Lubrecht specifically identified the Confederated 

Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington as an example of tribal users 

because of the large forested land base held in federal trust and managed directly by 

the tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Department of the Interior). Tribal entities with similar fuel reduction and forest restoration issues are the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana, and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and the Confederated Tribes 

of the Umatilla Reservation in Oregon. 

Table 4—Potential users of Fire and Fire Surrogate study results and information 

identified by participants at regional workshops

Regional workshop

Green Solon

Audience Blodgett River Lubrecht Dixon Total

Academia 8 1 9

Conservation groups 2 8 10

Extension specialists 1 1 2 3 7

Federal agencies 17 5 22

Local governments 4 3 7

NEPA analysts 1 3 4

Nonindustrial private foresters 1 5 2 8

Policymakers 3 13 16

Practicing foresters 1 6 2 9

Public 4 5 9

Stakeholder groups 1 3 4

State agencies 8 3 11

Timber management organizations 5 8 13

Tribal foresters 6 6

Unclassified 2 1 13 1 16

 Total 13 3 104 37 157

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.
21

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Participants at all workshops identified politicians, especially those in city and 

county governments, as local government entities with potential interest in FFS 

science. City and county commissioners often serve as decisionmakers for urban 

growth boundaries that influence the wildland-urban interface, and may serve on 

federal resource advisory committees that provide local input for federal managers. 

Academia was considered an important user by workshop participants at 

Lubrecht and Solon Dixon. Faculty not only teach fuel reduction and forest restoration science in forest ecology and wildland fire courses, but develop continuing 

education courses for professional foresters and wildland firefighters. 

An important link between university teaching and research faculty and other 

users is the Cooperative Extension Service, established in 1914 as a partnership 

between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, land-grant universities, and county 

administrative units. The Cooperative Extension Service links the research efforts 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and land-grant universities to make scientific 

knowledge more readily available (Seevers and others 1997). Extension specialists 

and county agents associated with land-grant universities conduct educational programs, write publications, and provide research-based information to family forest 

owners, professional managers, private citizens, decisionmakers, and others. 

The list of FFS study partners includes the Wildlife Conservation Society, an 

international organization dedicated to conserving wildlife and wildlands through 

careful science, international conservation, education, and management of the 

world’s largest system of urban wildlife parks. To date, however, there has been 

little connection between FFS study researchers and members of other national or 

local environmental, conservation, or professional groups such as the Sierra Club, 

Society of American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and the Wildlife Society. 

There are two notable exceptions. The Longleaf Alliance, a partnership of state and 

federal natural resource agencies, forest industry, environmental groups, natural 

resource consultants, nurserymen, and private forest landowners works together 

to restore a functional longleaf forest ecosystem in the Southeastern United States. 

The Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign is a coalition of conservation 

organizations, individual activists, scientists, businesses and spiritual leaders working for the protection of old-growth forests, sensitive watersheds, and threatened 

wildlife in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Across the network of FFS study 

sites there are similar potential user groups that focus locally on providing hunting 

opportunities, protecting wildlife species, and managing water resources.

A group of users identified at all workshops was the professional or industrial forester, and directly related, the nonindustrial private forest owner (fig. 6). 

Professional or industrial foresters may serve as consultants to, or be directly 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

employed by, timber management firms, investment trusts, or timber management organizations, and may benefit from FFS study results when evaluating 

similar operational-scale treatments. Family foresters, forest landowners, forest 

landowner associations, and nonindustrial private forest owners may benefit from 

fuel reduction and forest restoration information but are often limited in the scale 

of planned treatments. A special category of user identified at the Solon Dixon 

workshop was burning contractors and wildfire mitigation teams, charged with 

fuel reduction in the wildland-urban interface.

One group of users probably new to most wildland fuels researchers is the 

insurance industry, identified at Lubrecht and Blodgett workshops as increasingly 

important because of the growing concern for structure protection particularly in 

the wildland-urban interface.

Finally, the general public was repeatedly listed as a user group and major 

audience because of the role of concerned and informed citizens in shaping 

management activities.

Figure 6—Clients at regional workshops identified broad groups of users for Fire and Fire Surrogate 

study results and information, including professional and consulting foresters and extension specialist who work with various state, private, and family forest owners.
23

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

What Information Is Needed?

The most commonly expressed knowledge gap identified by workshop participants 

was some measure of the efficacy or overall effectiveness of fuel reduction and 

forest restoration treatments and their tradeoffs (table 5). They repeatedly asked 

for information on the extent to which alternative fuel reduction treatments result 

in conditions that would be predicted to change fire behavior, and for information 

on combinations of treatments that could be used strategically across the landscape 

to minimize the risk of severe wildfire. They wanted side-by-side comparisons 

of treatments to better understand the biological and economic considerations for 

applying treatments in situations similar to those used in the FFS study. In addition to a comparison of tradeoffs between active treatments, workshop participants 

repeatedly asked for information on the effects and consequences of the control or 

no-action treatment. At Blodgett and Lubrecht, it was suggested that the cost of not 

treating fuels needed to include the increased risk of future wildfire, and that the 

increased costs of future wildfire suppression for the no-action treatment needed to 

be included in the economic comparison of fuel reduction treatments. In addition 

to questions about the relative and absolute costs and revenues generated by each 

treatment, participants at Solon Dixon asked if treatments would increase the profitability of the land, especially through income diversification because quail habitat 

might be enhanced with fuel reduction. The question of economic value represented 

Table 5—Information needs of users of Fire and Fire Surrogate study results 

identified by participants at regional workshops

Regional workshop

Green Solon

Information needs Blodgett River Lubrecht Dixon Total

Applicability and extrapolation 15 15

Burning techniques 2 2 13 20 37

Decision-support tools 4 21 25

Economics of treatments 1 2 35 16 54

Fire behavior 2 12 1 15

Forest health and restoration 9 9

Landscape-scale issues 3 1 8 12

Monitoring changes 7 7

Risks and benefits of treatments 25 4 29

Social issues 5 13 12 30

Spatial scales 3 8 11

Stand structure 6 11 5 8 30

Temporal changes 10 1 20 2 33

Treatment tradeoffs 56 5 35 1 97

Wildlife issues 3 6 16 25

Unclassified 9 5 35 12 61

 Total 94 37 258 101 490

The most commonly 

expressed knowledge 

gap identified by 

workshop participants 

was some measure of 

the efficacy or overall 

effectiveness of fuel 

reduction and forest 

restoration treatments 

and their tradeoffs.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

by treatment-related biomass was restricted to the two western workshops. Participants asked about the volume of potentially usable biomass retained onsite after 

treatment and whether this might contribute to energy cogeneration projects if the 

supply were sustainable. 

Questions about how to best implement burning programs and the sensitivity 

of stand-level prescriptions arose at all four workshops. Workshop participants 

expressed a need for more information on not only how the actual FFS study burn 

treatments were implemented, but how these same treatments might differ when 

used elsewhere (fig. 7). There was a recognized need to use the FFS study results 

to better predict fire behavior associated with prescribed burns and also wildfires. 

More specifically, information on burn treatments is needed to assess whether similar fuel reduction treatments ultimately help managers achieve their goal of reducing crown fire occurrence and severity. As expected, there was broad consensus in 

the need for information on where and when FFS study results might be applicable. 

Workshop participants repeatedly asked for criteria to aid in deciding where and 

when to apply any given set of fuel reduction treatments. These criteria would 

equally benefit a private woodlot owner in Florida protecting their investment and a 

national forest supervisor in Montana strategizing across broad landscapes. 

Figure 7—Clients at regional workshops asked for information to better implement specific standlevel burning prescriptions such as this burn conducted after thinning in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir at the Northeastern Cascades Fire and Fire Surrogate study site at Mission Creek, Washington.
25

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Site-specific information on treatment implementation, specifically on burning 

techniques, was requested at all but the Green River workshop. These requests 

indicate information gaps in understanding various methods of reintroducing fire 

to achieve a mix of burning effects across landscapes. The Solon Dixon workshop 

generated requests for better information on applying herbicide treatments and the 

type of equipment used for mechanical treatment of ground fuels; this was the only 

FFS study site where use of herbicide was included as a treatment. Similarly, the 

Blodgett workshop generated requests for better information on applying mastication treatments. 

Better information on predicted future fire behavior as a result of fuel reduction 

and forest restoration treatments was listed as a need at all workshops. This need 

is tied to the previously noted request for information on treatment efficacy. Workshop participants asked about the role of activity fuels and the input of new fuels in 

future fire behavior, whether any of the treatments effectively reduced the risk of 

crown fire, and if any of the treatments affected firefighter safety. 

Better information on the effect of fuel reduction treatments for restoring longleaf pine forest health was specifically addressed at Solon Dixon. Workshop participants indicated a need for information on the suite of potential treatments that may 

contribute to overall forest ecosystem restoration and how treatments might benefit 

or protect adjacent lands that remain untreated.

While most fuel reduction treatments are currently conducted at the scale of 

individual stands, the need to scale the results up to larger landscapes was listed 

as a need at Blodgett and Lubrecht. This included consideration of not only onsite 

effects of treatments but more holistic concerns for ecosystem patterns and processes that involve the entire landscape in which treatments are applied.

As expected by the workshop organizers, workshop participants indicated that 

they need better information on fuel reduction treatments for assessing both shortand long-term risks and benefits as a research need. Risks were considered to be 

the probability of wildfire given that treatments were not implemented, the risk of 

fire escape during treatment, as well as the hypothesized decrease in probability of 

wildfire or wildfire severity as a result of fuel reduction treatments. 

Participants at all workshops expressed the need for better information on the 

effect of fuel reduction treatments on stand structure. Workshop participants asked 

how the treatments could be used to target certain tree species for retention or 

reduction, how initial densities might affect the predicted treatment responses, how 

long the initial changes in structure would persist, or if structural changes would 

result in new stand development trajectories. Specific knowledge gaps suggested 

regional differences: concerns for demonstrating sustainable replacement of snags 

As expected by the 

workshop organizers, 

workshop participants 

indicated that 

they need better 

information on fuel 

reduction treatments 

for assessing both 

short- and long-term 

risks and benefits as a 

research need.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

were raised at Lubrecht; the role of past fire exclusion in fostering establishment of 

seral species was raised at Blodgett; workshop participants at Solon Dixon wanted 

to better understand the effect of treatments on understory species composition; and 

the role of fuel reduction treatments in fostering oak regeneration was identified at 

Green River.

Workshop participants recognized the temporal limits of the FFS study; only 

short-term (i.e., less than 5 years) results of the FFS study were presented and are 

currently available. Although short-term results were informative, the participants 

noted a greater need for results that represent changes over longer temporal scales. 

They stated a need for better information on how the individual treatments would 

respond over time and asked the researchers how they might place the studies in the 

context of longer term management. They expressed the need to continue monitoring the individual study sites, specifically listing the need to follow temporal 

changes in tree mortality, tree volume, and wildfire risk. In addition, there was a 

clear recognition that the current set of treatments and the short-term results need 

to be interpreted in the context of longer time scales that preceded the treatment; 

i.e., all FFS study sites have a history of past management that contributed to the 

pretreatment structure and the response to the treatments. Several western FFS sites 

(Hungry Bob, Oregon, and Lubrecht, Montana) were logged via railroad access 

early in the 1900s, while some southern sites (Clemson, South Carolina) previously 

were abandoned cotton plantations. Workshop participants asked for better information on predicting the effect of fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments given 

different histories of past management. They perceived the set of FFS treatments 

as less “heavy-handed” and more subtle or restrained compared to some common 

management practices applied on similar landscapes in the past, and suggested the 

need to display this distinction to a wider group of audiences. 

A relatively large group of comments obtained from workshop participants at 

Green River, Lubrecht, and Solon Dixon expressed the need for information in the 

context of social concerns. Because there was recognition that FFS study results 

have applicability across a wide spectrum of potential users, there was a concern 

for how to communicate not only the actual FFS study results, but the underlying 

need for fuel reduction and forest restoration to different users. Some thought the 

FFS study results would aid different agencies to more effectively justify the need 

for certain actions and therefore avoid litigation or allow the agency to be more 

effective in addressing concerns raised by litigants. Two somewhat unique social 

issues, recreation and airsheds, surfaced at Solon Dixon, probably because the 

Solon Dixon study site is close to urban areas such as Andalusia, Alabama, and 

Eglin Air Force Base. Workshop participants identified the need for information 

Workshop participants 

noted a need for 

results of changes over 

longer time scales. 
27

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

on the effect of fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments on homes in the 

wildland-urban interface and on recreation values such as bird hunting, and smoke 

production and downwind dispersal within military lands that include air strips. 

Participants at the Blodgett workshop were interested in ongoing work ancillary to 

the FFS study that addresses visitor reaction and social acceptability of fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments.

Discussions at the Lubrecht workshop highlighted participants’ concerns for 

specific tools such as models that might be developed or improved based on the FFS 

study results. Workshop participants were divided on the issues of need and value 

of new models; some suggested that an adequate number already exist, whereas 

others saw the utility for more. There was broad agreement, however, that any new 

model needed to have clear predictive capability, to be user friendly, and to have all 

limitations in applicability clearly stated.

Wildlife issues were raised as research needs at the Green River, Lubrecht, 

and Solon Dixon workshops. Although no specific wildlife species of concern was 

identified at Lubrecht, participants warned that generalizations about the effects 

of FFS study treatments on “wildlife” species and habitat were of little value, and 

what were needed were species-specific guides. Workshop participants at Green 

River and Solon Dixon reinforced this concept by asking for FFS study results 

that specifically addressed foraging habitat of game birds such as turkey and quail. 

They also indicated that Neotropical migrant species as a group held high value 

and indicated that there was a need to predict the effect of fuel reduction and forest 

restoration treatments on their spring foraging and nesting habitat.

Why Is Information From the FFS Study Needed?

The national FFS study was established in 1999 because scientists and managers 

recognized that ecological consequences of the different strategies for reducing 

fuels and restoring forest structure were largely unknown. We asked workshop participants why they thought the information generated by the FFS study was needed 

(table 6). Not surprisingly, workshop participants recognized that use of research 

results differed depending on the user. Managers of adjacent parcels of land may 

have contrasting information needs because their agencies have different management objectives. Workshop participants at Blodgett, Green River, and Lubrecht 

elaborated on this point by stating that the study was needed to address concerns 

of agency managers, nonprofit managers, and the general public for the widespread 

use of fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments across various landscapes. In 

some cases, application of treatments was restricted because workshop participants 

recognized they lacked sufficient information to make informed decisions. In other 

Workshop participants 

recognized that use 

of research results 

differed depending on 

the user. 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

cases, participants indicated they desired the information to counter agency claims. 

There was, however, consistency in recognizing that science is often driven by 

issues. By far the most recognized issue responsible for science priority-setting with 

respect to the FFS study is the increase in cost of wildland fire suppression, and 

the hope that some set of fuel reduction treatments will help reduce these suppression costs (fig. 8). It is easy to understand the sentiment behind these comments 

from workshop participants at Blodgett and Lubrecht, who come from states where 

uncharacteristically severe wildfires are becoming all too common (USDA and 

USDI 2006). Interestingly, the same perception was voiced at the Green River and 

Solon Dixon workshops, located in regions where the role of fire under natural 

regimes is perhaps less clear and the occurrence of large and uncharacteristically 

severe wildfire has been less frequent. This concept was variously restated as an 

accountability measure or performance standard. Congress expects that better 

information on fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments will translate into 

more effective treatments that reduce the number and size of wildfires and associated suppression costs.

Workshop participants at Green River and Solon Dixon indicated that key 

issues surrounding their need for information resulting from the FFS study might 

best be summarized around the concept of restoration of forest structure and 

processes. As such, they desired information on forest restoration incorporating 

knowledge that some forests may contain tree species and structures that are no 

longer well represented on the landscape and that some forests may contain compositions and structures that are more resilient to arson fires.

Table 6—Reasons why information is needed from the Fire and Fire Surrogate 

study identified by participants at regional workshops

Regional workshop

Green Solon

Reasons for information needs Blodgett River Lubrecht Dixon Total

Biomass removal 1 1 1 1 4

Cause and effect of relationships 4 2 6

Costs of treatments 14 1 15

Legal issues 2 2 4

Liability of landowners 2 1 3

Multiple or competing issues 1 4 4 1 10

Science-based decisions 2 4 7 2 15

Social issues 1 1 2 4

Stand structure 9 2 11

Treatment tradeoffs 3 9 3 15

Unclassified 2 3 8 11 24

 Total 16 22 53 20 111
29

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Biomass removal was identified at each of the regional workshops as an issue 

that was driving the need for FFS study information. In some cases, biomass 

removal was perceived to be an issue because thinning treatments may increase 

the amount of down woody material on the forest floor and thus increase the 

amount of fuel available for combustion during a wildfire. In other cases, biomass 

removal as some form of forest product was recognized as a means to increase the 

potential public benefits of fuel reduction.

Information resulting from the FFS study was considered important by 

Blodgett and Lubrecht workshop participants for preventing or addressing legal 

issues of when, where, and what treatments might occur across the landscape. 

Litigation of agency projects and the costs associated with lawsuits may decline if 

all parties have more complete scientific information on the short- and long-term 

effects of the proposed treatments. Yet there remains at least one ownership group 

that FFS study information is not likely to influence: private landowners will resist 

using any fuel reduction treatment that involves burning because of a strong risk 

aversion to fire. Private landowners are not interested in the potential benefits of 

fuel reduction treatments that involve prescribed burning when they are liable for 

escaped fire and smoke dispersal. 

Figure 8—Clients at regional workshops recognized that a primary benefit of the Fire and Fire 

Surrogate study was information about specific fuel treatments that would help reduce wildland 

fire suppression costs.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Workshop participants at Green River, Lubrecht, and Solon Dixon indicated 

that FFS study information is important because it crosses multiple disciplines and 

thus may contribute to land management agency goals of managing for multiple 

benefits. Some benefits that were specifically addressed include air quality, expansion of the wildland-urban interface, production of forest products, and wildlife 

habitat.

Green River workshop participants indicated that a key issue for which FFS 

study information is especially needed is the desire to restore stand structures to 

those more commonly occurring under natural disturbance regimes. In some cases, 

this structure may include open woodlands composed of specific oaks and related 

mast-producing hardwood species, and low shrubs and forbs in the understory that 

provide valued turkey and quail habitat. This management goal apparently crosses 

federal and state land management boundaries and appears to have wide acceptance, yet attainment of the goal is limited by knowledge gaps.

Finally, workshop participants at all but Green River indicated that FFS study 

information is essential for helping to identify treatment tradeoffs, or the relative 

merits of one set of treatments compared to another. This concept sometimes 

included both a spatial and temporal component because workshop participants 

indicated there was a need to better understand the answer to “Why here and 

why now?”

How Can FFS Study Results and Information 

Be Delivered to Users?

For decades, the standard means of communicating or disseminating research 

results and scientific information from studies such as ours has been through papers 

published in peer-reviewed journals such as Forest Science, Forest Ecology and 

Management, and the Soil Science Society of America Journal. Peer review is a 

process used to ensure that the quality of published information meets the standards 

of the scientific community. The process is a deliberation involving an exchange of 

judgment about the appropriateness of methods, the reliability of results, and the 

robustness of inferences as presented in a review draft. Peer review occurs when a 

draft is reviewed by specialists who are knowledgeable in the field of study yet have 

no direct connection or involvement in producing the draft. “Double-blind review” 

occurs when the identities of authors and reviewers are not known to each other. 

When conducted in an open, rigorous manner, the review helps improve and ensure 

the quality of scientific information and gives the end user more confidence in the 

integrity of the science behind the journal paper. Publication of scientific information in peer-reviewed journals is a slow process, however. It also limits scientific 
31

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

information to journals that are not readily accessible to many users. Only recently 

have the majority of peer-reviewed journals been available other than by library 

or personal subscription, as many journals now offer electronic access through the 

Internet. Peer-reviewed journals, however, remain the customary outlet for work 

by most government and university researchers and graduate students. Regional 

journals such as the Southern Journal of Applied Forestry or the Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry meet the standards of peer-review, yet are somewhat more readily 

accessible to managers and practitioners.

Workshop participants were asked to help identify opportunities for communicating FFS study results (table 7). Workshop participants first provided suggestions 

on improving the presentation of FFS study results and then followed with more 

specific ideas on various methods of communication. They suggested that qualitative comparisons made with charts were often more informative for both managers 

and the public than were empirical data, and that a synthesis of the results would 

be more beneficial to most user groups compared to some compilation of the data. 

They asked for the display of trends or changes over time instead of results that 

represent some undefined point in time. Participants asked for all the results to be 

presented in common units of measurement that are easily understood. And they 

Table 7—Means of communicating information from the Fire and Fire Surrogate 

study identified by participants at regional workshops

Regional workshop

Green Solon

Communication methods Blodgett River Lubrecht Dixon Total

Accessible information 6 1 7

Communication strategies 19 1 2 22

Conference or workshop 6 5 10 1 22

Decision-support tool 8 8

Demonstration area 2 4 6

Email 2 8 1 11

Extension specialists 4 10 14

Information characteristics 3 4 9 16

Journal paper 2 6 2 10

Levels of detail 15 15

Networks 1 7 11 7 26

Photo series 6 10 16

Professional societies 2 3 1 6

Science/management interaction 13 5 16 6 40

Summaries of papers 15 6 17 38

Syntheses 1 8 9

Target audiences 84 1 85

Training 9 9

Web site 10 7 13 1 31

Unclassified 14 14 32 11 71

 Total 88 59 279 36 462
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

suggested that the “hook” that would cause users to want more information would 

be the information itself and not the statistics or methods of collecting the data. 

Finally, there was broad agreement that written results include clearly identifiable 

“sidebars” where management implications for future decisions are stated.

Workshop participants at Lubrecht repeatedly stressed that there were multiple 

audiences for scientific information resulting from the FFS study and that these 

different audiences required different kinds or levels of detail in the information 

that would be most beneficial. Lubrecht participants acknowledged that the challenge for FFS study researchers was to recognize that different audiences exist and 

then develop methods for delivering the scientific information in forms that were 

more readily available and could be more simply applied. These participants then 

engaged in focused discussions on how best to target or identify different audiences and their needs. For example, policymakers may use findings that are often 

broad generalizations or “big picture” concepts, yet they often need the opportunity to ask detailed questions of specialists. Agency decisionmakers and managers 

rarely have time to delve into published scientific literature and may appreciate 

short and concise syntheses without the complexity of findings of detailed journal 

papers, yet they expect their staff specialists to be knowledgeable about the details. 

Extension specialists and county agents of the Cooperative Extension System 

conduct education programs based on local or state needs and respond to information requests from family forest owners, professional managers, decisionmakers, 

and private citizens, thus they often interact with groups who may have vastly 

different needs.

Workshop participants identified science/management interactions as an 

important and underused means of conveying scientific information (fig. 9). 

These interactions were variously described as on-the-ground consultations with 

researchers, one-on-one interactions, or general management reviews. Participants 

suggested that the most fruitful interactions were those that involved the sharing 

of advice and information rather than critique or criticism. Another desirable 

feature is for researchers to meet with local managers in person, preferably in the 

field rather than in an office setting, to ensure that the latest scientific information can be readily implemented. A working example of these interactions was 

described at the Solon Dixon workshop: natural resource managers at Eglin Air 

Force Base in northwest Florida regularly solicit advice and consultation from 

researchers not affiliated with the base. 

Similarly, workshop participants stressed the importance of a network of FFS 

study researchers and managers who serve as recognized champions and speakers 

for the entire study. This network of authorities could more easily influence wider 

There are multiple 

audiences for scientific 

information from the 

FFS study who require 

different kinds of 

information or levels

of detail.
33

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

audiences because of their knowledge and because of the trust held in them by 

others. At another level, all of the workshop participants form a network of 

individuals that could serve as an information conduit. One suggestion was for 

FFS study researchers to develop stronger partnerships with state foresters to aid 

in technical assistance, and partnerships with extension specialists and county 

agents in the Cooperative Extension System to aid in education programs. Another 

suggestion surfaced at Blodgett: FFS study researchers should be a primary source 

of scientific information on fuel reduction and forest restoration for policymakers. 

This form of networking differs from advocacy, a restricted action for federal 

researchers. In the suggested networking, FFS study results and information 

would be provided directly to policymakers who might not normally acquire the 

information in an efficient manner. Federal researchers thus avoid participation 

in resource management decisions.

There was broad agreement that printed summaries of FFS study results 

were highly beneficial and desirable. These summaries of research papers were 

described as fact sheets or one- to four-page extended abstracts that put the 

research questions into context, and emphasize management implications rather 

than the methods and actual results. One example of this approach currently used 

by the U.S. Geological Survey is the distribution of a single-page “Publication 

Figure 9—Clients at regional workshops identified science/management interactions, especially 

those that are one-on-one and in the field, as especially important in ensuring that the latest Fire 

and Fire Surrogate study information can be readily implemented.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Brief for Resource Managers” timed for release by various research centers when 

a peer-reviewed paper is published. These briefs provide managers with an easy 

means of capturing the importance of a study, the key results and inferences, and 

contact information of the authors.

Also included in the discussion of summarizing FFS study results was the 

suggestion to emphasize syntheses of FFS study results across multiple disciplines 

and sites, and across fuel reduction and forest restoration research in general. 

Participants expressed the need for a complete bibliography of research designed to 

reduce fuels and modify fire behavior. A synthesis of available information would 

pull together results from various studies. Some of this information is not easily 

obtained by resource managers, and other information may not be in a coherent 

form. Publication of syntheses addressing the four FFS study treatments and perhaps others was perceived as being key to the overall communication of FFS study 

findings. This effort would identify information gaps and increase the scientific 

credibility of the work.

The Internet has become a common means of accessing information, and 

workshop participants indicated that FFS study results and information should 

be accessible from Web sites. Web sites were perceived as a primary means of 

communicating FFS study results to the general public. Key features of these Web 

sites included: (1) information is available at different levels of complexity, (2) 

all peer-reviewed journal papers and their accompanying summaries are readily 

available, (3) the site contains glossary and keyword links, (4) the site is searchable 

by keyword, and (5) a system exists for frequent users to register and be notified of 

new postings.

The Internet affords the opportunity to use email systems and listservers to 

rapidly transmit common messages to large numbers of potential users of new 

information. Emails to entire topical groups can alert users to new FFS study 

results, and provide links to more detailed information in peer-reviewed journals, 

other documents, Web site postings, summaries of conferences or technical workshop presentations, short courses or workshops that feature FFS study results, or 

other products based on FFS study findings. 

Conferences and technical workshops were considered highly functional venues 

for disseminating FFS study results and information. In addition to conferences 

and workshops that focus exclusively on FFS study results, workshop participants 

listed a number of more general conferences and workshops that would also serve 

as outlets. These include local, state, and national meetings of professional societies 

such as the Society of American Foresters; forest vegetation management conferences; regional multiagency workshops such as the Biennial Southern Silvicultural 

Publication of 

syntheses addressing 

the four FFS study 

treatments and 

perhaps others was 

perceived as being 

key to the overall 

communication of 

FFS study findings
35

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Research Conference; and private sector stewardship conferences such as those 

conducted by the Longleaf Alliance. These conferences and workshops provide an 

opportunity to communicate through relatively formal procedures such as prepared talks, slide presentations, and panel discussions, in addition to less formal 

one-on-one discussions and ad hoc gatherings. Finally, workshop participants 

suggested that summaries of workshops and conferences be made available in 

hardcopy and online.

Several participants at Lubrecht commented on models and decision-support 

tools. Although these tools may help interpret the science as an aid in decisionmaking, their limitations must be clearly defined. More emphasis should be placed 

on refining and improving existing models to make them more effective, extensive, 

and user-friendly rather than building new models. The participants noted that the 

existence of multiple models designed and maintained for the same purpose is not 

beneficial and leads to questions of credibility.

Demonstration areas were considered especially beneficial (fig. 10). These sites 

provide a means of displaying the various fuel reduction and forest restoration 

treatments in real time and can be broadly used to showcase FFS study results that 

are easily understood and repeated. Demonstration areas open to the public are 

Figure 10—Field trips to study sites and demonstration areas, such as this portion of the treated 

stand at the Gulf Coastal Plain Fire and Fire Surrogate study site at Solon Dixon, Alabama, provide 

an effective means of communicating treatment responses.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

effective for communicating with neighborhoods and forest landowner associations 

in the wildland-urban interface because visitors can drive to and walk through the 

various stands and see side-by-side treatment differences.

Extension specialists and county agents of the Cooperative Extension System 

are trained professionals who communicate scientific information to a wide variety 

of audiences and levels of users. Workshop participants noted that FFS study results 

could easily be transferred by extension specialists and county agents. This may 

require closer ties than currently exist between FFS study researchers and extension 

specialists or county agents. In addition, extension specialists and county agents are 

not currently tasked with working directly with federal agencies outside the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. They often focus their efforts on the private, nonindustrial forest or family forest owner, and private citizens. And they often have access 

to staffs with extensive technology transfer skills and resources.

Workshop participants at Blodgett and Lubrecht suggested that one unique 

method of sharing results from the FFS study may be a photo series consisting of 

various stands involved in the FFS study at different treatment levels or stages of 

development. It would aid managers because it would provide a strong visual guide 

to what has already happened within the FFS study treatments and what might be 

expected to occur on similar sites. It could also provide a strong tool for communicating with the public because many people respond more readily to pictures or 

visual images. Images of FFS study sites before and after treatment would provide 

the public a greater appreciation of expected results of planned treatments. Such 

images would provide fuels specialists a common image to use in reports detailing 

expected treatment responses, and may help span communication gaps between 

different disciplines.

Lubrecht workshop participants identified formal agency training, continuing 

education, and formal university education programs as additional opportunities to 

communicate FFS study results.

Client Reactions to FFS Study Results

We asked workshop participants to identify new and potentially important findings, 

conclusions, or insights gained from the presentations of preliminary FFS study 

results. These ideas may represent take-home messages, revelations, or a greater 

understanding as a direct consequence of our work. We also asked workshop 

participants to help us better understand opportunities for communicating results 

of the FFS study by identifying key questions for FFS study researchers, describing 

their perception of the study limitations, and critiquing information presented by 

FFS study researchers. Workshop organizers and FFS study researchers rarely had 
37

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

time to address the questions or comments directly because they often were beyond 

the scope of preliminary study results. In most cases, these questions or reactions 

suggest broad, integrated perspectives on fuel reduction and forest restoration. 

Workshop participants indicated that the results of FFS study treatments were 

consistent with managers’ expectations because the FFS study treatments were 

consistent with current management practices (table 8); the FFS study was designed 

to evaluate existing treatments instead of developing new practices. Participants at 

the Blodgett workshop indicated that the FFS study treatments were either the same 

or closely similar to those described in planning documents for national forests of the 

central Sierra Nevada, and that preliminary results of the FFS study were consistent 

with the assumptions on which the planned treatments on these national forests were 

based. In addition, the preliminary results were consistent with work in progress on 

private lands in California. Other workshop participants pointed out that one key 

message was that fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments being applied in 

fire-dependent forests were done in a sound, scientifically-based manner, and that 

managers now had a scientific basis for backing their decisions (fig. 11).

Another relevant take-home message for many workshop participants was the 

direct effect of some treatments. For many, the workshop and field trip was their first 

opportunity to observe the results of an operational prescribed fire in their local forest type. The participants, especially at Blodgett and Green River, seemed to anticipate more substantive changes in stand structure because of greater tree mortality, 

Table 8—Benefits, insights, and messages from the Fire and Fire Surrogate study 

identified by participants at regional workshops

Regional workshop

Green Solon

Key findings and insights	 Blodgett	 River	 Lubrecht	 Dixon	 Total

Communication tools differed by user 4 2 6

Economics of treatments 2 3 5

Fire effects 4 4

Metrics to establish goals 4 4

New views on treatment responses 3 3

Scientist insights 1 3 4

Study design attributes 2 2 4

Topics of workshop were relevant 5 1 1 7

Tradeoffs among treatments 9 2 11

Treatment implementation 2 1 2 5

Treatment effects 5 7 2 4 18

Treatment feasibility 1 2 1 4

Validation of existing practices 10 1 1 12

Workshop applicability 1 1 1 3

Unclassified 6 6

 Total 48 21 15 12 96
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

and commented that seeing the burn-only treatments was a valuable lesson. Others 

commented that seeing the treated stands convinced them that a single application 

of any one treatment would not be sufficient to either produce the desired structure 

or to significantly reduce fuels, and that continued or repeated active manipulation 

was required. This concept closely relates to observations made at Green River 

and Solon Dixon that changes occurring after treatment, such as reestablishment 

of understory layers and increases in plant biodiversity, were faster than expected; 

hence future treatments will likely need to be repeated sooner than anticipated. 

Finally, it was noted at Lubrecht that the changes associated with the active FFS 

study treatments are likely to be relatively subtle compared to changes associated 

with historical disturbance regimes.

A final take-home message for workshop participants was the increased 

knowledge of treatment effects to allow better understanding of tradeoffs among 

treatments. Workshop participants commented that because the three active 

treatments resulted in similar short-term ecological effects, and that as these 

effects were usually subtle in nature, then the decision to treat or to select among 

treatments could be based on concerns that were beyond the scope of the FFS 

study, such as smoke production and distribution, and opportunities to recover 

some or all of the treatment costs through biomass removal. 

Figure 11—Participants at regional workshops believed that the Fire and Fire 

Surrogate study provided the scientific basis to support decisions by resource 

managers to conduct fuel reduction and restoration treatments in many fire-prone 

forests, such as oak-hickory forests at the Southern Appalachian Mountain Fire 

and Fire Surrogate study site on the Green River Game Land in North Carolina.
39

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

The most common set of questions or reactions raised by the workshop participants dealt specifically with fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments (table 

9). Those at Blodgett, Green River, and Lubrecht expressed support for the active 

treatments, yet questioned whether management agencies were treating sufficient 

portions of the landscape necessary to reduce wildfire severity. Use of burning as 

a single, stand-alone treatment was viewed with concern at Green River, Lubrecht, 

and Solon Dixon, in part because ownerships are juxtaposed, and in part because 

of competing resource objectives. For example, burning has special liability issues 

on private lands, and may not be an option near heavily-used road corridors such 

as the interstate highway system where smoke dispersal patterns could impede 

traffic, may become increasingly difficult as the wildland-urban interface expands, 

and may be counter-productive on some industry lands where tree growth rates 

are maintained through fertilization. Participants at Blodgett and Lubrecht recognized that the FFS study was designed with controls and replicates, experimental 

design components often lacking in large-scale fire ecology research, and indicated 

that this study strength was important for establishing the study’s credibility and 

increasing trust in the resulting information. Finally, there were questions about 

treatment costs that surfaced at each workshop. Workshop participants recognized 

that a manager’s decision to implement one or more treatments was likely to involve 

Table 9—Key questions for Fire and Fire Surrogate study researchers asked by 

participants at regional workshops

Regional workshop

Green Solon

Manager questions Blodgett River Lubrecht Dixon Total

Communication 2 2 9 13

Competing goals 1 4 4 9

Economics of treatments 4 22 5 31

Efficacy of treatments 4 14 3 21

Fire behavior 3 3

Forest restoration treatments 3 9 12

Fuel reduction treatments 13 6 17 8 44

Future work 3 3

Liability of landowners 1 10 1 12

Limitations of existing knowledge 1 14 4 19

Models and decision-support tools 1 14 4 19

Monitoring of effects 5 5

Policy differences 4 4

Scale effects to larger landscapes 10 13 23

Social issues of treatment acceptance 8 12 20

Validation of decisions 2 1 1 1 4

Wildlife species concerns 7 3 3 13

Unclassified 5 1 3 3 12

 Total 63 15 151 31 260
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

consideration of more than just the FFS study results; direct and indirect costs often 

are as influential as are predicted outcomes or expected results. There was broad 

recognition that fuels treatments in the wildland-urban interface were increasing 

in priority and that these treatments had higher costs because of greater risks. This 

may be especially relevant in the Southeast, where longleaf pine restoration efforts 

may lead to higher real estate values. 

More specific questions and concerns about costs of fuel reduction treatments 

were raised at each of the workshops. Workshop participants at Lubrecht questioned 

the economic analyses of FFS study treatments and suggested that a more complete 

assessment would likely include the related costs of wildfire suppression after each 

treatment was implemented, and that any future costs should also incorporate the 

value of timber or other wood products potentially produced, thus including future 

tree growth. They pointed out that treatment costs may be offset by removal of 

wood products either at the time of treatment or in the future, assuming viable 

markets exist (fig. 12). Workshop participants at Lubrecht suggested that private 

landowners were more likely to thin stands because of economic opportunities 

than for fuel reduction objectives. Workshop participants at both Green River and 

Lubrecht questioned how best to assign costs of treatments when public lands join 

private lands because the resource values and available funds may not be similar; 

Figure 12—Workshop participants in the West pointed out opportunities to incorporate current and 

future values of wood products and that treatments costs often can be balanced by product value 

when viable markets exist for the wood products. Treatment cost may include specialized equipment 

such as this forwarder used at the Blue Mountains Fire and Fire Surrogate study site at Hungry Bob, 

Oregon.
41

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Figure 13—Workshop participants identified smoke production during underburning, such as in the 

southern Sierra Nevada Fire and Fire Surrogate study site at Sequoia, California, as an issue that 

would limit the use of fuel reduction treatments.

one individual pointed out that in some Eastern States the time needed to complete 

required paperwork exceeded the time needed to actually conduct the treatment. In 

addition, sufficient labor, including certified crews, may not be available to implement treatments on private lands.

Workshop participants at Blodgett, Lubrecht, and Solon Dixon expressed 

concern that despite the preliminary FFS study results highlighting fuel reduction 

benefits, there remain unanswered questions about treatment efficacy. For example, 

managers lack an understanding of how the FFS study treatments may mimic 

natural fire effects, an understanding of how best to use treatments effectively 

across landscapes when faced with limited funding, and an understanding of how 

best to measure and communicate treatment performance to the public and those 

responsible for funding the treatments.

Workshop participants expressed concerns that issues outside the bounds of 

fuel reduction would potentially limit the use of FFS study treatments. The most 

common limitation listed was smoke production (fig. 13). Not only is the public 

increasingly concerned about burning treatments when smoke dispersal is limited, 

but federal and state regulations often limit the use of burning to relatively few 

“windows” of opportunity. Other examples of limitations include government 

regulations and the necessary paperwork that precedes any fuel reduction 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

treatment, the lack of sufficient infrastructure designed to use forest products that 

result from fuel reduction treatments, patchwork ownerships that increase concerns 

for landscape-scale effects, and the probability of litigation.

Social concerns not addressed by FFS study protocols were raised as questions by workshop participants at Blodgett and Lubrecht. Despite attempts by FFS 

study researchers to clarify that social aspects of treatments were intentionally not 

addressed because of funding priorities, workshop participants repeatedly pointed 

out that social acceptance of similar fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments 

will be essential for widespread implementation by government agencies. Participants pointed out current low public acceptance of stumps or blackened tree boles, 

so considerable work may be necessary in different regions to increase acceptance. 

Although FFS study researchers were careful to refrain from advocating any one 

treatment, some workshop participants expressed concerns that the public was 

unprepared to accept the levels of burning or thinning ostensibly or implicitly 

recommended. As previously noted, ancillary work at the Blodgett FFS study 

site is exploring public perceptions of stand structure and fuel composition after 

treatments.

Similar concern for communicating FFS study results was raised at Blodgett, 

Green River, and Lubrecht: workshop participants recognized that refereed research 

papers may not represent the most important or effective means of transferring 

information to the end user, yet researchers often lack the institutional motivation 

or support to engage in more extensive technology transfer to ensure the information is fully communicated. In addition, when taken out of context, research results 

can be misapplied. The challenge for FFS study researchers is to minimize these 

opportunities for mistakes by ensuring the level of detail is compatible with each 

user group.

Questions about FFS study results in the context of restoration goals were 

raised at Blodgett and Lubrecht. Workshop participants acknowledged that FFS 

study treatments could likely reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire, 

yet were unconvinced that the same treatments were effective in meeting forest 

restoration goals. In most cases, treatments had subtle effects on tree size distributions, and managers are seeking treatments that accelerate the development of latesuccessional structures that include large trees and large snags (fig. 14). Workshop 

participants asked for help in projecting treatment scenarios into the future to better 

illustrate the long-term effects of the initial entries. In addition, it was pointed out 

that the public might be more receptive to the FFS study treatments if the current 

treatments were placed within the context of historical disturbance regimes and 

processes.

Workshop participants 

recognized that 

refereed research 

papers may not 

represent the most 

important or effective 

means of transferring 

information to the 

end user,
43

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Liability issues were stressed at Lubrecht even though the preponderance of 

low-elevation dry forest in the region is in either federal or state ownership. Federal 

and state agencies are not exempt from liability, however, and liability concerns 

may restrict or limit implementation of some fuel reduction projects. Burning may 

be unappealing to private landowners because they also may be legally responsible 

for all the effects if burns are not confined to prescribed boundaries.

Workshop participants at Lubrecht expressed concern that simulation and 

decision-support models would become a direct means of communicating FFS 

study results, or that FFS study information would be indirectly incorporated 

into models. They indicated that many resource managers have a distrust of most 

models, often lack the computer skills to refine model inputs and adjust parameters 

to adequately tailor the output to local conditions, are concerned about making 

inappropriate use of models, and recognize that models provide little support when 

the decisions by managers are the basis of litigation.

Workshop participants at Blodgett and Lubrecht asked questions about the 

potential extrapolation of FFS study results and information beyond the actual 

stands used for comparative study. They suggested that FFS study results and 

Figure 14—Clients at regional workshops indicated that Fire and Fire Surrogate study treatments 

could likely reduce the short-term risk of severe fire but were not as effective in meeting long-term 

restoration goals of developing late-successional structure and processes.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

information needs to be interpreted within the context of larger spatial and temporal scales. For example, the FFS study focuses on specific treatments to stands, yet 

fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments need to address larger landscapes 

and may need to involve timeframes longer than 5 years. Workshop participants 

asked how FFS study results and information might apply at the landscape scale 

and how risks and benefits found at the stand level might translate to broader 

scales. They also acknowledged that the initial timeframe of the FFS study was 

likely insufficient to provide conclusive ecological results and indicated that the fire 

effects would require longer timeframes to be fully manifested. In contradicting 

earlier concerns for simulation and decision-support models, they asked if some of 

the short-term findings could be incorporated into models to predict more long-term 

effects. Finally, workshop participants at Lubrecht suggested that logical extensions 

of the FFS study incorporate consideration of how to prioritize treatments across 

larger landscapes and how to begin assessing the cumulative effects of treatments 

over time. 

The FFS study design and protocols limited wildlife considerations to only a 

few groups such as avian species, small mammals, and amphibians (eastern sites 

only). In most cases, home range sizes of many mammals and birds exceeded the 

FFS study plot size. Workshop participants at Blodgett, however, were concerned 

that some wildlife considerations within the FFS study did not extend to certain 

high-interest species and their prey. Cited as examples were the northern and 

California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina and S. o. occidentalis) and 

wood rats (Neotoma fuscipes). At the same workshop, participants countered that 

managers have little basis for understanding population dynamics and distributions 

under historical disturbance regimes, and suggested that there is little context for 

attempting to manage individual species.

Finally, workshop participants raised questions about the relevancy of FFS 

study results and information when resource management goals differ from fuel 

reduction and forest restoration. For example, state forests in many Western States 

may have forest management goals of producing diverse forest products based on 

stumpage values, some Eastern States manage their lands to preserve threatened 

and endangered species habitat, and industry lands are managed to produce economic gains. It apparently was unclear to some that the objectives of fuel reduction 

and forest restoration and the FFS study results and information represent only one 

component of the larger matrix of competing management goals.
45

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Client Considerations for Improving Science Delivery

During the four FFS study regional workshops, invited participants offered many 

recommendations for improving overall science delivery and specific ideas for 

improving delivery of FFS study results and information (table 10). Many recognized that organizational constraints of the research agencies represented within the 

FFS study, such as Forest Service Research and Development and U.S. Geological 

Survey, emphasize and favor science delivery through traditional peer-reviewed 

journals and place less emphasis on ensuring the science is more directly delivered 

into the hands of users. Although workshop participants acknowledged that active 

science delivery, such as occurred during the workshop field tours, was an effective 

means of communicating, they also recognized that science delivery in forms other 

than peer-reviewed journals would require increased effort by researchers and that 

organizational constraints provide little support for such activities. One proposition 

for going beyond the current paradigm of emphasizing science delivery by relying 

on peer-reviewed journals would involve greater researcher and manager interaction before any study is implemented, with managers helping to define science 

delivery processes as part of the formal study planning. A potential advantage of 

this collaboration is recognition of science-delivery methods beyond the expertise 

of researchers, with sufficient time to identify and include specialists before the 

research has been concluded. Perhaps the most common theme for improving 

delivery of FFS study results and information was that specific study results were 

not as important as answers to managers’ questions and information generated from 

the FFS study that would aid managers in making decisions. For example, knowing 

that fuels can be reduced in the short term by a particular strategy may be more 

important than specifics on how much fuel was reduced. 

Table 10—Recommendations for improving delivery of Fire and Fire Surrogate 

study science offered by participants at regional workshops

Regional workshop

Recommendations for Green Solon

improving science delivery Blodgett River Lubrecht Dixon Total

Different levels of information 4 17 21

Extension specialists 4 4

Goals for delivery 1 20 21

Models and decision-support tools 7 7

Papers in scientific journals 2 1 7 10

Presentations 2 2 1 5

Study results or information 2 3 29 1 35

Syntheses of existing knowledge 2 8 10

Tours and field trips 4 1 5

Unclassified 3 1 4

 Total 11 10 98 3 122
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Workshop participants repeatedly stressed that different levels of information 

were needed from the FFS study: some kinds of managers needed relatively general 

kinds of information, whereas others needed more detailed information. Although 

we made no attempt to quantify these differences in the levels of information 

needed, it is apparent that the closer the user of information is to actual implementation of fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments, the more detailed the 

information desired. For example, city and county commissioners, leaders of local 

or national environmental, conservation, or professional groups, and the insurance 

industry most likely would benefit from relatively general information derived from 

the FFS study or broad project overviews, whereas family foresters and private, 

nonindustrial forest owners, consulting foresters, extension specialists and county 

agents, and agency staff specialists responsible for developing treatment plans 

would most likely need more detailed information. 

Workshop participants followed discussion of the need for information (rather 

than results) and information with different levels of detail by suggesting the FFS 

study researchers clarify science delivery by identifying a single, unified message 

of how FFS study results and information support and facilitate the use of similar 

fuel reduction and forest restoration treatments at similar sites.

More definitive recommendations were made for specific forms of science 

delivery. Workshop participants again pointed out that papers in peer-reviewed 

journals were more beneficial when they contained clearly identifiable management 

implications or suggestions on how to apply the results. In addition, participants 

recommended that more effort be devoted to multisite and multistudy syntheses 

based on the widest possible range of published fuel reduction and forest restoration 

studies, instead of just the FFS study. These syntheses should bring together the 

large number of divergent and contradictory study results, indicate where commonality exists and where knowledge gaps occur, and consolidate the different results 

in a coherent manner. Specific kinds of research products, such as path diagrams 

and structural equation models, were considered overly complicated for the majority of end users. Tours or field trips that provided opportunities for group dialog 

and discussion were considered beneficial. Finally, the workshop participants at 

Lubrecht recommended that FFS study researchers devote more effort to establishing collaborative relations with the network of extension specialists who may have 

greater skills in science delivery with some user groups. 
47

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Recommendations for Fire and Fire Surrogate 

Study Science Delivery

Communication Strategies

Successful communication plans contain four common processes: research, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Research, in the context of developing a 

communication plan, involves probing the attitudes of various groups to determine 

the appropriate kinds of tools, messages, and key audiences around which to focus 

the communication plan. We will use our prior experience in communicating FFS 

study results and information, and the four regional workshops and combined input 

of participants, as the research step in developing a new communication plan for the 

FFS study. 

Planning includes defining the challenge or goal, setting objectives, defining 

audiences, and listing what needs to occur. The challenge can be identified as overcoming negative perception, creating awareness, or expanding an existing situation. 

Objectives provide meaningful and measurable metrics for achieving the stated 

goals. Defining audiences implies that different groups of users will have different 

needs for FFS study results and information and there will be different methods of 

science delivery. Next, a detailed communication plan will outline how the relevant 

science will be delivered to each of the groups. Finally, the communication plan 

needs to include projected costs and timeframes.

Implementation is the third process in completing a successful communication 

plan. Successful communication strategies involve using science delivery methods 

and materials targeted to specific user groups, using multiple communication tools 

to deliver messages in different forms to the same user group, and ensuring consistency of messages across the various science delivery tools and products.

Evaluation is the final step in a successful communication strategy; specifically 

evaluating the ongoing results of the communication effort against the objectives 

set during the planning stage. Questions that might be asked include: 

• Were all identified user groups actually reached?

• Did the different user groups understand the messages?

• How are different groups using the science?

• Did the science delivery remain on schedule and within the projected costs?

2001 Fire and Fire Surrogate Study Communication Plan

National FFS study researchers developed and released a network-wide 

communication plan in 2001. This plan addressed nine specific venues for 

communicating FFS study results and information: a network Web site, an 
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

identifiable series of publications, a set of brochures, a standard set of electronic 

presentations, a full-color poster, a collection of study plans from all FFS study 

sites, a single FFS study-wide corporate database, and a national conference. 

The FFS study Web site was originally developed and managed wholly within 

the FFS network. It was designed to be informational for many audiences, including the general public. It contained a variety of messages, focusing on a general 

description of the overall FFS study, contact information for the principal investigators, a listing of science-delivery products, and links to individual FFS study site 

Web sites. Early in 2005, the Web site was revised to provide more information, and 

electronic copies of all publications were posted. Late in 2006, the entire FFS Web 

site was fully migrated into FRAMES (Fire Research and Management Exchange 

System) (http://frames.nbii.gov/ffs), an outlet for exchanging information and 

transferring technology between wildland fire researchers, managers, and other 

stakeholders. In partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Biological 

Information Infrastructure (NBII) Program, FRAMES is implementing Web-based 

technologies to help bridge the gap between fire science and management.

The brochures, electronic presentation, poster, and study plans described 

efforts planned within the context of study implementation rather than serving 

as a means of conveying information to managers. Peer-reviewed and non-peerreviewed papers continue to be a common means of communicating FFS study 

results and information, and the combined efforts of FFS study researchers through 

2006 have led to nearly 80 citable papers (table 11). A majority of these are not in 

peer-reviewed publications; however, the number of peer-reviewed publications is 

expected to increase as the study matures. All FFS study data have been archived 

and structured in a national database available to all principal investigators. 

This common database, essential for cross-site and multisite comparisons, will 

soon be moved into FRAMES. Finally, the FFS study principal investigators 

organized and convened a full-day symposium at the Third International Fire 

Ecology and Management Congress, 16 November 2006, in San Diego, California. 

National perspectives of the FFS study were presented through multidisciplinary, 

interdisciplinary, and multisite results.

While the 2001 communication plan did not specifically call for tours and field 

trips (a responsibility left to each FFS study site), these events provided a unique 

opportunity for FFS study researchers to showcase actual treatment sites and 

engage participants in more detailed discussions than are usually possible during 

more formal conferences and symposia. Between 2001 and 2005, there were 74 

field tours and field trips hosted by FFS study researchers (table 11).
49

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Delivery

In the following section, we provide our recommendations for conducting science delivery of FFS study results and information. This section is not a full and 

complete communication or science delivery plan, yet it provides the foundation 

for later development of such a plan. Organization of this section is based on a 

matrix of user groups identified by workshop participants arrayed with potential 

communication tools appropriate for each user group (table 12). Opportunities to 

communicate FFS study results and information are not limited to the methods 

indicated in this matrix. The matrix indicates those opportunities that are likely 

to be most effective. The order of their discussion begins with those opportunities 

with the potential to reach the widest audience, and proceeds to those opportunities 

that focus on more narrowly defined user groups.

As noted in a previous section, the full-featured FFS study Web site is now 

hosted by the FRAMES portal (http://frames.nbii.gov/ffs). This portal appears to 

meet the needs of a wide variety of potential FFS study user groups because (1) 

information is available at different levels of complexity; (2) all peer-reviewed 

journal papers are currently available, and the Web site provides accompanying 

summaries; (3) glossaries and keyword links exist for many FFS pages; (4) the 

entire FRAMES site is searchable by keyword; and (5) FRAMES provides a system 

for frequent users to register and be notified of new postings. We recommend the 

FRAMES site continue to host our FFS Web site because FRAMES will likely 

provide information to all user groups.

Email systems and listservers can be used to rapidly transmit common 

messages to large numbers of potential users of new FFS study results and 

information. This use is likely best limited to existing systems outside the FFS 

study organization. For example, Forest Service Research Stations commonly use 

Table 11—Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) study science outputs by year

Fiscal year produced

Deliverable type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Poster 5 13 17 9 5 49

Master’s thesis 1 9 3 5 1 19

Doctoral dissertation 3 3

Non-peer-reviewed publication 1 5 2 3 20 1 32

Peer-reviewed publication 1 3 10 9 23

Invited paper or presentation 4 5 18 35 20 11 22 6 121

Conference or workshop 1 9 28 37 40 14 5 134

Tour or field trip 3 9 38 12 12 74

 Total 6 11 37 94 119 100 68 20 455
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

email to distribute press releases notifying those that have previously requested 

such information that a new publication is released and available. Professional 

organizations such as the Society of American Foresters routinely announce similar 

research products. Users of the FRAMES portal may also request notification 

of new postings. We recommend use of these existing systems rather than the 

development of new email or listserver systems unique to the FFS study.

We recommend that FFS study researchers dedicate resources to summarize or 

synthesize FFS study results across multiple disciplines, across multiple sites, and 

across fuel reduction and forest restoration research in addition to the FFS study. 

There is an overwhelming need to summarize all existing work conducted to date 

at each of the 13 FFS study sites. In addition, there is a need to synthesize available 

information addressing the four FFS study fuel reduction and forest restoration 

Table 12—Potential Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) study user groups and science delivery tools

Fire and Fire Surrogate study science-delivery user groups

FFS science-delivery tools AcademiaConservation groupsExtension specialistsFederal agenciesLocal governmentsNEPA analystsNonindustrial private forestersPolicymakersPracticing forestersPublicStakeholder groupsState agenciesTimber management organizationsTribal foresters

Conference or workshop X X X X X X X X X X

Decision-support tool X X X X X X X X

Demonstration area X X X X X X

Email X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Extension specialists X X X X X X X X X

Journal paper X X X X X X

Network X X X X X

Photo series X X X X X X X X X X

Professional society X X X X X X X X X

Science/management interaction X X X X X X X X

Summaries X X X X X X X X X X X X

Syntheses X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Web site X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.
51

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

treatments and other treatments designed to reduce fuels or modify fire behavior. 

This synthesis of available information, although not conceived as a part of the FFS 

study, would pull together results from various studies, identify information gaps, 

and increase the scientific credibility of the overall FFS study. We recommend 

researchers who prepare syntheses establish and use systematic review guidelines 

to minimize bias. Such guidelines include (1) a clear definition of questions of 

interest, (2) documented search strategies and explicit criteria for identifying 

relevant evidence, (3) appraisal of internal validity of included studies, (4) use of 

formal statistical techniques that ensure the synthesis is undertaken in a repeatable 

manner, and (5) presentation of conclusions with clear indicators of the strength of 

evidence and applicability of results (Roberts and others 2006). With these guidelines, syntheses are likely to inform most user groups.

We agree with the majority of workshop participants that time demands on 

many agency managers prevent them from reading papers in peer-reviewed journals and that printed summaries of FFS study results would be highly beneficial 

and desirable. These summaries should put the research questions into context 

with resource management issues and emphasize management implications rather 

than methods and actual results. These briefing pages should provide managers the 

distilled version of a study or piece of research, key results and inferences through 

bulleted statements, and contact information if managers wish to address questions 

to the lead researchers. We recommend that FFS study researchers take advantage 

of the opportunity to have research summaries produced and distributed by the 

Joint Fire Science Program. 

Conferences and technical workshops serve as valuable science delivery venues 

for FFS study results and information because they provide opportunities for 

researchers to present new information and for researchers and individuals from 

almost any user group to network and interact. Through both formal and informal 

question and answer sessions, researchers and users establish connections that 

often extend beyond the conference setting. In most cases, information presented 

at conferences and technical workshops has yet to be published in more formal 

peer-reviewed journals, and the information usually should be considered tentative 

and subject to change. The level of detail in the material delivered is likely a 

function of the user group, and for some user groups such as federal agencies, state 

agencies, and stakeholder groups, the communication plan should account for these 

differences.

The concept of a photo series was described and endorsed during two workshops. This suggested photo series could consist of various stands involved in 

the FFS study at different treatment levels or stages of development. It would 
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

potentially aid managers because it would provide a strong visual guide to what has 

already happened within the FFS study treatments and what might be expected to 

occur on similar sites. It could also provide a strong tool for communicating with 

the public because many people respond more readily to pictures or visual images. 

We do not recommend developing a unique, stand-alone photo series as a primary 

science delivery tool. Instead, we recommend FFS study sites be incorporated into 

the national database of photos and fuel descriptions of the Fuel Characteristic 

Classification System (FCCS) (Ottmar and others, in press; Sandberg and others 

2001; Sandberg and others, in press). This system is used to construct fuelbeds with 

quantitative fuel characteristics (physical, chemical, and structural properties) and 

probable fire parameters from inventoried data in six horizontal strata: (1) ground 

fuels (duff); (2) litter, lichen, and moss; (3) woody fuels (consisting of sound and 

rotten wood, piles, and stumps); (4) herbaceous (nonwoody) vegetation; (5) shrubs; 

and (6) tree canopies (consisting of both live and dead trees [snags] and ladder fuels 

associated with them). The description of fuelbeds within the FCCS allows the user 

to calculate three measures of fire hazard: surface fire behavior potential, crown fire 

potential, and the fuels available for consumption. These potentials provide managers a means of comparing and communicating the fire hazard associated with any 

unique fuelbed to evaluate the effectiveness of fuel treatments. The potentials also 

provide the public and various stakeholder groups easily interpretable indices of 

treatment response.

Presentations before professional societies, such as the International Association of Wildland Fire, Society of American Foresters, Wildlife Society, Soil 

Science Society of America, and the Ecological Society of America, represent a 

more focused form of conferences because the attendees are normally members 

of the professional society and share a common interest and understanding of the 

general topic around which the professional society is centered. Like more general 

conferences and workshops, presentations by FFS study researchers at professional 

society annual meetings, conferences, and workshops provide opportunities for 

researchers to present new information and for researchers and society members 

to network and interact. Through both formal and informal question and answer 

sessions, researchers and society members establish connections that often extend 

beyond the conference setting. Information presented at society conferences and 

technical workshops may have previously been published in peer-reviewed journals 

or may be published in the conference proceedings. The material delivered may be 

relatively detailed, and is likely to be accessed and used by scientists, conservation 

groups, extension specialists, federal and state agencies, policymakers, practicing 

foresters, timber management organizations, and tribal foresters. 
53

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

We recommend greater collaboration between FFS study researchers and 

extension specialists and county agents of the Cooperative Extension System. These 

specialists and agents serve as educators for family forest owners, professional 

managers, decisionmakers, and private citizens. Their science-delivery programs 

could also benefit conservation groups, local governments, stakeholder groups, 

state agencies, tribal foresters, and federal agencies other than those in USDA. Most 

extension specialists and county agents have more experience than federal and 

university researchers in accessing detailed scientific information and transferring 

it to various user groups with appropriate levels of detail.

Decision-support tools and models that incorporate FFS study results are most 

appropriately designed specifically for those who make (or advise on) resource 

management decisions. This includes support foresters, fuels specialists, and 

decisionmakers in federal and state agencies, extension specialists, and field foresters and fuels specialists with tribes, industrial, and nonindustrial private forests. 

When decision-support tools and models are considered for use in science delivery, 

careful consideration should be given to refining and improving existing models to 

make them more effective, extensive, and user-friendly, rather than building new 

tools and models.

Direct interactions between FFS study researchers and local or regional managers were described as on-the-ground consultations with researchers, one-on-one 

interactions, or general management reviews, ensuring that the latest scientific 

information can be readily implemented. Opportunities to initiate these direct 

interactions are likely to occur as a result of conference or workshop presentations, 

field trips to demonstration sites, publication of journal papers, invitations to speak 

directly to managers, and information posted on FFS Web pages. We recommend 

FFS study researchers continue to meet directly with managers of federal and state 

agencies, those serving as NEPA analysts, practicing and nonindustrial private 

foresters, policymakers, timber management organizations, and tribal foresters.

Demonstration areas are likely to be a highly efficient and cost-effective 

means of communicating FFS study results and information to potential users 

who are more comfortable with qualitative rather than quantitative information. 

Demonstration areas can be developed at each of the FFS study sites by selecting 

portions of the actual treatment units that best represent the overall treatment 

response and provide the easiest access. Much of how user groups perceive 

treatment alternatives is visual. Because forests, including treated portions, are 

heterogeneous, it is important to showcase this heterogeneity. Careful consideration 

should be given to the selection of demonstration areas that encompass variation 

in both pretreatment and posttreatment conditions. Demonstration areas can be 
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

developed with common signage, consistent themes, and uniform messages to help 

communicate key results. The areas may be an effective means of communicating 

with students, conservation groups, private landowners, extension specialists, local 

governments, the general public, and stakeholder groups. Effective demonstration 

areas ideally will be near population centers or the wildland-urban interface so 

that visitors can drive to and walk through the various stands and see side-by-side 

treatment differences.

Papers in peer-reviewed journals will continue to be a standard means of FFS 

study science delivery for at least three key reasons: (1) the peer-review process is a 

fundamental component of the scientific process that validates the quality, integrity, 

and credibility of the work; (2) only high-quality peer-reviewed journals provide 

the abstracting and indexing that enables electronic searches and retrieval of entire 

papers; and (3) the research organizations represented by the FFS study researchers 

continue to use peer-reviewed papers as the most important measure of scientific 

output. We recommend that FFS study results and information first be published in 

peer-reviewed journals that offer electronic access through the Internet, and subsequently be redistributed and transferred through a variety of science delivery tools 

to various end users. 

We recommend that the network of FFS study researchers embrace the concept 

of becoming champions and speakers for the entire study. This network could 

become a primary source of scientific information on fuel reduction and forest 

restoration treatments for many end users. Individual FFS study researchers, 

especially lead researchers at each study site, should explore opportunities 

to provide clear, concise, and timely FFS study results directly to end users who 

do not normally acquire such information from more traditional sources such as 

scientific journals. End users that could most benefit from direct interactions with 

FFS study researchers include conservation groups, local governments, NEPA 

analysts, policymakers, and stakeholder groups.

Our workshops were not the first effort to identify information needs and 

communication styles. Previous Wildland Fire Workshops initiated by the Joint Fire 

Science Program were designed to prioritize recommendations for wildland fire 

research, identify effective partnerships, and identify types of effective information, tools, and processes (White 2004). Although these Wildland Fire Workshops, 

held in Oregon, Arizona, and Colorado, were in response to especially large and 

severe wildfires, they failed to incorporate the perspectives of managers of Eastern 

and Southern United States forest ecosystems. Forest restoration issues in these 

regions may not parallel those of their western counterparts, who place more 

emphasis on reducing the risk of wildfire.
55

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Given the broad array of user groups represented by participants at the four 

workshops and the expansive listing of fuel reduction and forest restoration information needs, what are the implications for delivery of FFS study science information and technology? Our four regional workshops identified distinct groups as 

potential users of FFS study results and information, including academia, conservation groups, extension specialists, federal agencies, local governments, NEPA 

analysts, nonindustrial private foresters, policymakers, practicing foresters, the general public, stakeholder groups, state agencies, timber management organizations, 

and tribal foresters. These various users desire not just the immediate results of any 

subset of FFS study treatments, but more importantly, they want to better understand the implications of the FFS study results with respect to numerous management issues. These issues include burning techniques; economics associated with 

different treatments; wildfire behavior; forest health and forest restoration efforts; 

scaling of effects from stand to landscape; monitoring of important responses; 

social issues that cross multiple spatial scales; relationships between past, present, 

and future stand structures; integration of these results into decision-support tools; 

implications of different treatments; and effects of the FFS study treatments on 

wildlife. 

At a broader scale, the workshop participants identified numerous areas where 

FFS information may have an immediate impact, including management of forest biomass, determining costs for similar fuel reduction treatments, linkages 

between specific treatments and effects over multiple temporal scales, legal issues, 

differences in liability across ownership patterns, underlying scientific basis for 

resource management activities, social concerns across spatial scales, identifying 

how treatments can be used to target specific tree species for retention or reduction, 

and the extent to which alternative fuel reduction treatments result in conditions 

that would be predicted to change fire behavior. Similarly, participants identified 

some immediate benefits or new and potentially important findings gained from the 

workshops. Managers now have a scientific basis backing their decisions to implement fuel reduction and restoration treatments, the FFS study provided opportunities for many to see the immediate effects of fuel reduction and forest restoration 

treatments, and, in many cases, results indicate that multiple or repeated treatments 

are needed to restore forest health. 

The workshops met the objective of identifying opportunities for communicating FFS study results and information. Workshop participants provided insight into 

various science-delivery venues and tools. Collectively, their comments indicate 

that delivery of FFS study science information and technology has the potential for 

wider and more multifaceted societal impact than likely originally perceived by 

Workshop participants 

identified numerous 

areas where FFS 

information may have 

an immediate impact.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

FFS study researchers or the Joint Fire Science Program. The FFS study researchers 

are now prepared to develop and implement an enhanced communication plan and 

science delivery effort. Finally, we believe these same questions— Who needs fuel 

reduction information? What information do they need? Why do they need it? and 

How can it best be delivered? —are equally applicable to other Joint Fire Science 

Program research efforts. 

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the thoughtful review of an earlier draft of the manuscript 

by D. Baumgartner, S. Charnley, and J. McIver. This is contribution number 145 

of the national Fire and Fire Surrogate study, funded in part by the U.S. Joint Fire 

Science Program.

English Equivalents

When you know:	 Multiply by:	 To find:

Meters (m) 3.28 Feet

Kilometers (km) .6215 Miles (mi)

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Species Names of Plants

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco

Eastern white pine Pinus strobus L.

Grand fir Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.

Hickory Carya Nutt.

Incense-cedar Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin

Longleaf pine Pinus palustris P. Mill.

Maple Acer L.

Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia L. 

Oak Quercus L.

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa P. & C. Lawson

Rhododendrons Rhododendron L.

Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata P. Mill.

Slash pine Pinus elliottii Engelm.

Sugar pine Pinus lambertiana Dougl.

Virginia pine Pinus virginiana P. Mill.

White fir Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr.

Yaupon holly Ilex vomitoria Ait.
57

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Literature Cited

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 493 p.

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction 

treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 83–96.

Arno, S.F.; Smith, H.Y.; Krebs, M.A. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and 

western larch stand structures: influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. 

Res. Pap. INT-RP-495. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 20 p.

Barden, L.S. 1997. Historic prairies in the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, 

USA. Natural Areas Journal. 17: 149–152.

Brown, R.T.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: 

principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology. 18: 903–912.

Caprio, A.C.; Swetnam, T.W. 1995. Historic fire regimes along an elevational 

gradient on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, California. In: Fire in wilderness 

and park management: Proceedings of the symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT320. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station: 173–179.

Cowell, C.M. 1998. Historical changes in vegetation and disturbance on the 

Georgia Piedmont. American Midland Naturalist. 140: 78–89.

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. 2004. Science basis for changing forest 

structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 43 p.

Greenwood, D.J.; Levin, M. 1998. Introduction to action research: social research 

for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kilgore, B.M.; Taylor, D. 1979. Fire history of a sequoia mixed conifer forest. 

Ecology. 60(1): 129–142.

Norman, S.P.; Taylor, A.H. 2005. Pine forest expansion along a forest-meadow 

ecotone in northeastern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 215: 51–68.

Ottmar, R.D.; Sandberg, D.V.; Riccardi, C.L.; Prichard, S.J. [In press].

An overview of the fuel characteristic classification system—quantifying, 

classifying, and creating fuelbeds for resource planners. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-727

Roberts, P.D.; Stewart, G.B.; Pullin, A.S. 2006. Are review articles a reliable 

source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A 

comparison with medicine. Biological Conservation. 132: 409–423.

Sandberg, D.V.; Ottmar, R.D.; Cushon, G.H. 2001. Characterizing fuels in the 

21st century. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10: 381–387.

Sandberg, D.V.; Riccardi, C.L.; Schaaf, M.D. [In press]. Fire potential rating for 

wildland fuelbeds using the fuel characteristic classification system. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research.

Seevers, B.; Graham, D.; Gamon, J.; Conklin, N. 1997. Education through 

cooperative extension. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers. 336 p.

Skinner, C.N.; Chang, C. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present. In: Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Vol. II. Assessments and scientific 

basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center Rep. 37. Davis, CA: 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: 1041–1069.

Stephens, S.L. 1998. Effects of fuels and silvicultural treatments on potential fire 

behavior in mixed conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, CA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 105: 21–34.

Swetnam, T.W. 1990. Fire history and climate in the Southwestern United States. 

In: Krammes, J.S., tech. coord. Effects of fire management of southwestern 

natural resources. Proceedings of the symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-191. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station: 6–17. 

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a latesuccessional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 111: 285-301.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. Fire and fire 

surrogate study plan. On file with: Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 

1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. 

U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service [USDI and USDA]. 2006. Protecting people and natural resources; a 

cohesive fuels treatment strategy. Washington, DC. [Irregular pagination].

Van Lear, D.H.; Waldrop, T.A. 1989. History, use, and effects of fire in the 

Appalachians. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 20 p. 
59

Making Fire and Fire Surrogate Science Available: A Summary of Regional Workshops With Clients

Waldrop, T.A.; Van Lear, D.H.; Thomas, F.T.; Harms, W.R. 1987. Long-term 

studies of prescribed burning in loblolly pine forests of the Southeastern Coastal 

Plain. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-45. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 23 p.

Weatherspoon, C.P. 2000. A proposed long-term national study of the 

consequences of fire and fire surrogate treatments. In: Neuenschwander, 

L.F.; Ryan, K.C.; Goldberg, G.E., eds. Proceedings of the Joint Fire Science 

conference and workshop. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho: 117–126.

White, S.M. 2004. Bridging the worlds of fire managers and researchers: lessons 

and opportunities from the wildland fire workshops. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-599. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 41 p.

Whitney, D.; Trosten-Bloom, A. 2003. The power of appreciative inquiry: a 

practical guide to positive change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. 265 p.

Yaussy, D.A.; Sutherland, E.K. 1994. Fire history in the Ohio River valley and its 

relation to climate. 12th Conference on fire and meteorology: fire, meteorology, 

and the landscape. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 777–786.

Youngblood, A.; Max, T.; Coe, K. 2004. Stand structure in eastside old-growth 

ponderosa pine forests of Oregon and northern California. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 199: 191–217.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

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

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300