United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-599

March 2004

Bridging the Worlds of Fire

Managers and Researchers:

Lessons and Opportunities From the

Wildland Fire Workshops

Seth M. White
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

AUTHOR

Seth M. White is a science writer, Focused Science Delivery Program, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

Cover Photo: On the lookout for fires–Mount Siloox, Cabinet National Forest, 1909. (Photo by W.J.

Lubkin.)
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Bridging the Worlds of Fire

Managers and Researchers:

Lessons and Opportunities

From the Wildland Fire

Workshops

Seth M. White

BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

ABSTRACT

White, Seth M. 2004. Bridging the worlds of fire managers and researchers: lessons and

opportunities from the Wildland Fire Workshops. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-599.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 41 p.

In March and April of 2003, over 250 managers, researchers, and other participants gathered

for a series of workshops at Oregon State University, the University of Arizona, and

Colorado State University, near the largest wildfires of 2002. In response to the need for

better understanding of large fires, the Wildland Fire Workshops were designed to create an

atmosphere for quality interactions between managers and researchers and to accomplish

the following objectives: (1) create a prioritized list of recommendations for future wildland

fire research; (2) identify the characteristics of effective partnerships; (3) identify types of

effective information, tools, and processes; and (4) evaluate the workshops as a potential

blueprint for similar workshops in other regions. Through a series of professionally facilitated workshops, participants worked toward speaking with one voice about many key

issues. Although differences emerged among individuals, disciplines, and geographic locations, many common themes emerged. Participants suggested that research should be framed

in the larger picture of fire ecology and ecosystem restoration, be interdisciplinary, be attentive to the effects of fire at different scales over the landscape and through time, and be focused

on social issues. Effective partnerships occur when direct interaction takes place between

people at multiple stages, adequate time is allowed for partnership building, partners are

rewarded and held accountable for their roles, and when dedicated individuals are identified

and cultivated. Participants identified effective information, tools, and processes as those

that are adequately and consistently funded, user-friendly, interactive between people at

multiple levels, and often championed by key, dedicated individuals. A survey of participants at the final meeting in Colorado revealed that the workshops did in fact create an

atmosphere for positive interactions between managers and researchers, and that with some

refinements, similar workshops could be carried out in other regions with productive

results.

Keywords: Wildfire, fire, communication, technology transfer, applied research, management,

information, partnerships.
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

CONTENTS

1 Bridging the Gap Between Managers and Researchers

2 The Workshop Format

2 Supplementary Materials

2 Keynote Speakers

6 Technical Groups

7 Plenary Sessions

7 Bullock Fire Field Trip, Arizona

8 Objective 1: Priorities for Research

9 Fire Behavior and Fuels

9 Fire Effects, Insects, and Diseases

10 Threatened and Endangered Species, Invasive Species

11 Soil Erosion and Water Quality

11 Climate and Smoke Patterns

12 Social and Economic Concerns, Decisionmaking

14 Integration

15 Objective 2: Characterizing Effective Partnerships

17 Communities

18 Resource Specialists

18 Schools and Universities

18 Tribes

19 Policymakers and Funding Agencies

19 Technologists
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

20 Objective 3: Effective Information, Tools, and Processes

21 Models

24 Information Clearinghouses

24 Funding

24 Education

26 Direct Communication

26 Scientific Publications

26 Research

27 Monitoring and Reporting

27 Postfire Recovery Efforts

27 Demonstration Areas and Case Studies

27 Mass Media

28 Incident Management

29 Objective 4: The Workshops as a Blueprint

31 Concluding Remarks

32 Acknowledgments

32 Metric Equivalent

33 Selected Publications

35 Selected Web Sites

36 Appendix A: Keynote Speakers

37 Appendix B: Prioritized Research Recommendations by Geographic Location

BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

V

1

BRIDGING THE GAP

BETWEEN MANAGERS AND

RESEARCHERS

eteran firefighter and author Dan Robinson

wants to be clear about one thing: his novel,

After the Fire, is not just about fire. The novel

deals with larger issues–making tough decisions that

put lives at risk on the fire line, for example, and

establishing ties with a local community where fires

are burning. If After the Fire is just a book about fire,

then Moby Dick is just a book about a whale. In the

same sense, the recent Wildland Fire Workshops in

Oregon, Arizona, and Colorado were about fire, and

much more.

The Wildland Fire Workshops provided a forum to

talk about the 2002 wildfires and to elicit priorities

for research from managers; they also offered a place

to discuss more comprehensive issues: the role of fire

in maintaining ecological sustainability, the desired

conditions of future landscapes in light of natural

fire cycles and public attitudes, existing partnerships

and how they can be improved, processes for delivering information and how to do it more efficiently,

and issues of accountability–who will share in which

tasks and what are the incentives? The workshops

were essentially about wildfires, but discussions covered much more ground–they were not just about

fire. As one participant put it: “Fire is the current

vehicle in which we are talking about sustainability.”

The driving force behind the workshops was the

recognition of a trend of increasing land area burned

by fires and the associated social, ecological, and fiscal

costs. In 2002, more than 88,000 fires burned through

forest and rangeland ecosystems in the United States. It

was not the number of fires that set records; it was the

amount of ground they covered–nearly 7 million

acres, almost twice the 10-year average. Aided by a

drought comparable in severity to the 1930s Dust

Bowl and increasing buildup of flammable vegetation and dead wood (termed “fuels” in the world of

fire managers and researchers), the fires of 2002 initiated a heightened awareness of large and politically

complex fires, especially in the American West. Three

fires in particular–the Biscuit Fire in southern

Oregon and northern California, the RodeoChedeski Fire in Arizona, and the Hayman Fire in

Colorado–burned over 1 million acres combined and

put firefighters, human communities, and ecosystems

at risk.

Lessons from the 2002 wildfire season provided

insight on the width of the chasm between managers

and researchers. Cultural and political differences, the

lack of incentives for developing partnerships, and the

lack of a common language among groups have worked

to create a disconnect between the needs of managers

and the current direction of applied fire research–science that is directly applicable to on-the-ground

management. Time constraints also have contributed

to the width of the chasm, with managers and researchers

responding to multiple demands and meeting multiple

project goals, leaving little time for managers to keep

abreast of current research and little time for researchers to synthesize existing research. In addition, financial

support for fire research is modest compared to that

of fire suppression, with only a small fraction (less than

2 percent) of the total fire budget allocated to research,

creating a culture among agencies to literally and metaphorically put out fires rather than to find solutions

to the long-term problem.

With more large fires probable in the future, the

escalating impacts of wildfire on natural and human

resources, and the need to reduce the element of surprise, the 2002 fire season was important for recognizing the need to bridge the worlds of managers and

researchers. This bridge could potentially bring applied

fire researchers into the management arena as full partners regarding the understanding of wildfires, the

development of appropriate strategies to reduce the

occurrence of large fires, the management of real-time

incidents, and the mitigation of the effects of fire on

ecological and human communities. Although intended

for a broad audience in the fire management and

research communities, this report is directed toward

policymakers and those who make decisions about wildland fire research funding. The report synthesizes the key

points of the workshop findings, with an emphasis

on common themes among geographic locations.
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

2

THE WORKSHOP

FORMAT

articipants gathered in the locations where

wildfires were most severe and where managers, landowners, and communities had a

heightened awareness and concern about the effects of

wildfires. In March and April of 2003, more than 250

managers, researchers, and other participants gathered

at Oregon State University, the University of Arizona, and Colorado State University. The workshops

were sponsored by the Joint Fire Science Program

(JFSP), National Fire Plan, and USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest Research

Stations. To achieve a balanced representation of stakeholders, invitations were sent to a diverse array of

people with expert knowledge of wildland fire, including managers, researchers, policymakers, educators, and

community leaders. Workshop organizers and participants aspired to speak with one voice about wildland

fire issues–not so that diverse perspectives were

oversimplified, but so that different viewpoints were

acknowledged and incorporated into discussions geared

toward finding common ground.

Participants and workshop organizers aimed to

accomplish the following objectives:

1. Develop a list of prioritized recommendations

for future wildland fire research.

2. Identify characteristics of effective partnerships

among managers, researchers, and other groups.

3. Identify the types of information, tools, and

processes that are effective for practicing fire

management and implementing wildland fire

research.

4. Qualitatively evaluate the workshops as a

potential blueprint for similar workshops in

other regions.

With the help of note takers and a professional

facilitation group, the workshop objectives were accomplished through a series of keynote presentations,

small technical working groups, plenary discussions,

and in the case of the Arizona workshop, a field trip to

the site of the 2002 Bullock Fire, Coronado National

Forest.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Workshop organizers provided participants with

background information regarding existing wildland fire

research: current projects with the Joint Fire Science

Program and National Fire Plan, and highlights of

current fire research from the USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, and Rocky Mountain Research Stations. Joint Fire Science Program

research was particularly relevant to the workshop goals

because the program’s funding requirements include the

existence of researcher-manager partnerships and a

component of technology transfer–the planned delivery of scientific information to intended users–in

addition to the proposed research. Since its inception in

1998, JFSP has funded 178 projects (as of fiscal year

2002) related to fire effects and fuel treatment effects;

planning and preparedness; air quality, smoke management, and climate; social and economic impacts; fire

and invasive plants; remote sensing; demonstration-site

projects; and administrative studies and local needs

projects. The vast body of existing wildland fire research

from JFSP and other programs continues to grow; the

Wildland Fire Workshops provided an opportunity for

researchers to touch base with managers about the

direction of their research, a forum for managers to

voice their needs regarding priorities for research, and a

chance for each group to critically evaluate their existing

toolkits.

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Over 30 keynote speakers helped set the tone for the

workshops and engaged participants to think about

wildfires from diverse perspectives (app. A). Speakers represented federal, state, and tribal foresters,

political leaders, community activists, university professors and administrators, a veteran firefighternovelist, and other respected leaders in research and

management.

The major themes from keynote presentations

were:

• The enormous effort and success of fire suppression

P
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

3

and research in 2002, including community and

watershed recovery processes.

• The increased probability of large and politically

complex fires owing to fuel buildup, changing

vegetation, climate change, and the recognition

that a growing human population at the edge of

wildlands will increase the complexity of wildland fire management.

• The overwhelming and seemingly ever-increasing

budget for fire suppression, juxtaposed with

modest financial support for research.

• The importance of trust in building relationships–

from individual to agency levels.

• Case studies of effective partnerships with

communities at the edge of wildlands.

• Processes for delivering information–opportunities for moving existing tools to end users.

• The importance of tribal issues–from integrating

traditional ecological knowledge into management plans to recognizing current tribal needs

and partnership opportunities.

• The need for science to play an active role in

improving predicting skills, understanding, and

mitigation of the effects of large fires and complex interactions occurring at the landscape scale.

Speakers said all this and more. Most notably, the

2002 fire season was recognized as a season of crisis–

but with crisis came opportunities to recognize gaps

in our knowledge, in our predictive abilities, and in

the cultures of management and research. According to keynote speaker Congressman Mark Udall,

Colorado, the Chinese symbol for crisis is the

combination of two other symbols–danger and

opportunity. In their own way, each presenter at

the Wildland Fire Workshops described the current

wildfire crisis as having a dual meaning: the danger

of increasing risk and the opportunity to improve

upon current approaches to solving problems.

The American landscape harbors much potential for the communities of people, plants, and animals who live here. Figuring

out how wildfire fits in will be a significant challenge in the short and long terms.

Photo by Bob Szaro
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Sidebar 1. The Bullock Fire Field

Trip—Lessons and Opportunities

On March 25, 2003, one day before the

Wildland Fire Workshop in Tucson, Arizona, a

tour bus departed from the University of Arizona.

Winding up the sharp curves of Mount Lemmon

Highway, a group of about 20 managers, researchers, and graduate students glanced out the window

at Smokey Bear declaring today’s fire danger as

“moderate.” Not so in May of 2002, when the

Bullock Fire burned several hundred thousand

acres and threatened local communities close to the

outskirts of Tucson. Fortunately, communities near

the fire were spared as a result of national attention, prior fuel treatments–projects designed to

reduce the risk of ignition and potential damage

from wildfires–and by the efforts of many

dedicated firefighters. But what were the specific

lessons learned from the Bullock Fire? What

opportunities for research did managers identify

during and after the fire? These were questions

addressed at a number of sites during the Bullock

Fire field trip.

Geology Vista–Looking out over the

Coronado National Forest, site of the Bullock

Fire, a team of managers and resource specialists

related the events of the fire. It started small

but spread rapidly because of dry conditions,

wind, and difficulties with working on steep

terrain. After an unsuccessful attempt to stop

the fire at a major ridge, managers used the

highway as a firebreak; the fire came dangerously close to permanent and summer homes.

In early June, Forest Service officials declared

the fire 100 percent contained but not without

damages: 300,000 acres burned and $14 million

in fire suppression costs. During the field trip,

participants posed the following question to

managers: How could such a large fire have

been prevented, or at least reduced in severity?

Managers suggested that more research is

needed concerning when and where to place

fuel treatments such as prescribed burning or

mechanical thinning of trees. Intensive treatments applied before accidental fires start could

reduce the risk of crown fires that spread across

the tops of trees or shrubs; but treatments

would only be cost effective if placed strategically on the landscape, using research as a guide.

Watershed recovery efforts also became a topic

of discussion: How effective were Burn Area

Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) efforts, and

for how long should monitoring of postfire

watershed processes occur? Managers indicated

4

that research could help BAER teams decide

how to best allocate limited time and costly

resources.

San Pedro Vista–From this viewpoint,

participants observed a strip of green forest

adjacent to a charred, blackened landscape.

Both areas were burned over by the Bullock

Fire, but with very different consequences. The

green forest was an area previously treated with

a prescribed burn to reduce fuels. The charred

landscape was forest where no prescribed

burning occurred. Both sites were previously

identified as having critical nesting habitat for

Mexican spotted owls, a federally listed endangered species. Besides the obvious difference in

how the two parts of the forest looked from

this viewpoint, the sites differed in that Mexican

spotted owls returned to nest in the previously

treated forest but not in the untreated forest.

Biologists in the Coronado National Forest

would like to know more about the long-term,

beneficial effects of prescribed fires and other

Mount Lemmon Fire Station, Arizona–a panel of

community members relay their needs and concerns

regarding reducing wildfire risk at their homes and

in the nearby forest.

Photo by Seth White
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Opportunities for research include evaluating the effects of previous

prescribed fires on the severity of burn from the 2002 Bullock Fire.

According to biologists in the Coronado National Forest, nesting

pairs of Mexican spotted owls returned to the previously treated

 forest (right), but not to the untreated forest (left) after the Bullock

Fire burned through both areas in 2002.

fuel treatments on Mexican spotted owls, and

the Bullock Fire scenario presents a prime

research opportunity.

Mount Lemmon Fire Station–Participants

were greeted by a panel of citizens from the

Mount Lemmon area, the communities most

affected by the Bullock Fire. Community

members shared their concerns about the fire

risk and economic recovery associated with

living at the edge of wildlands, an area known

as the wildland-urban interface. Making communities fire safe involves attention to individual homes, surrounding vegetation, and the

nearby forest before wildfires start. But other

questions remain, like what can be done with

flammable materials, such as pine needles and

slash, left from forest thinning? Economic

issues also came up: How can we better fund

community fire planning, and what is the longterm economic impact of fires on communities

that derive most of their income from tourism?

Aspen Vista–The discussion here was

focused on public affairs. The public information office received over 5,000 calls from

concerned citizens during the Bullock Fire,

mostly from community members wanting to

know when they could return to their

homes. Many news reporters and

citizens also wanted to know why

the fire was not stopped when it was

small. One potential avenue for social

research is how to relay to the public,

directly or through the media, current management objectives and

messages such as “all fires start small.”

Also of interest is how to earn the

public trust, a high priority for

managers. Research could help to

identify the best processes for facilitating these interactions with the public.

Palisades–A glance backward in

time reveals that on a scale of centuries, the Bullock Fire was probably

not unusually large. It was, however,

unusually severe because of drought,

overcrowding of small-diameter trees,

and accumulated dead fuel. Managers from the

Coronado National Forest suggested that in the

future, preventing large fires like this one may

require active management–thinning and restoration of forests, treating fuels immediately next to

homes, and maintaining high levels of community awareness. Research projects similar to those

at Palisades, where the effects of different forest

thinning treatments are evaluated, will help

managers focus their efforts where they will do

the most good.

Lessons from the Bullock Fire spoke to many

central themes from all three workshops, but the

positions of individuals, technical groups, and

geographic locations differed on each particular

issue. For example, not everyone felt that active

management of forests is always the best strategy–

in some places and for certain management objectives, passive forest restoration, a more hands-off

approach, may be more applicable. The diversity of

perspectives did not come as a surprise to workshop organizers, and in fact workshop sessions

were organized around identifying the variability

between manager and researcher viewpoints to

bring about common themes, or “transferable

concepts,” that span regions and disciplines.

5

Photo by Seth White
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

6

Firefighters were up to the challenge of fighting the

big fires of 2002.

TECHNICAL GROUPS

Participants and workshop organizers recognized

that productive conversations about wildland fire will

be interdisciplinary in nature–crossing the boundaries of physical, ecological, and social disciplines.

However, the need to focus discussions to produce

relevant results called for the formation of technical

groups.

In an attempt to balance the number of managers

and researchers within work sessions and to secure a

diversity of expertise and interests, participants were

assigned to the following groups:

• Fire behavior and fuels

• Fire effects, insects, and diseases

• Soil erosion and water quality

• Climate and smoke patterns

• Threatened and endangered species,

 invasive species

• Social and economic concerns,

 decisionmaking

Using these categories as a framework, facilitators

invited participants to brainstorm a list of questions

and issues related to the technical group topics. Later,

participants in the technical groups refined and prioritized these questions, condensing the list into the

top six research questions or statements of research

need. Participants in technical groups also discussed

partnerships, information, tools, and processes for

practicing fire management and implementing wildland fire research.

Photo by Bob Nichols, U.S. Department of Agriculture
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

7

PLENARY SESSIONS

Following each small-group discussion, participants

brought key points to the plenary session. Reporters

presented summaries of discussions from the small

groups, asked for additional input from other group

members, and opened the floor to discussion within

the larger group. In the final plenary sessions, reporters presented the top six research questions or research

needs from their technical group. The 36 questions

were displayed around the meeting room, and all

participants were given 7 votes and asked to identify

the questions they considered most important.

Participants were allowed to place their votes anywhere–all votes on one question, one vote on seven

questions, or anything in between. In this way, a

prioritized set of recommendations for future research

was arrived at in each of the three workshops.

BULLOCK FIRE FIELD TRIP,

ARIZONA

Workshop hosts at the University of Arizona went

above and beyond the traditional workshop format by

arranging a field trip prior to the meeting in Tucson–

a visit to the 2002 Bullock Fire site in the Coronado

National Forest. The field trip started a conversation

between managers and researchers about wildland fire

research, a dialogue that was sustained and referred to

throughout the subsequent workshop. The trip highlighted lessons learned and opportunities for research

gathered from the Bullock Fire in particular, but the

concepts extended across geographic regions and illustrated some of the fundamental needs for wildland

fire research (see Bullock Fire sidebar).

Fire is a natural phenomenon that has helped shape structure and function of forests and other ecosystems that we know today.

Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

8

OBJECTIVE 1:

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH

n early June of 2002, a few raindrops fell on

the Colorado Front Range near Denver and

Colorado Springs. Fire managers, well aware of

the long-standing drought caused in part by La Niña

conditions, were probably hoping for more than this

light spattering of rain–hoping at least that the dry

ground and fuels would be quenched to reduce fire

danger. On June 8, however, a dry air mass rolled in

along with wind gusts, and that afternoon the Hayman

Fire started. The initial response was a Herculean

effort. People were ready with air tankers, helicopters,

engines, and ground crews, but by the next morning,

the fire was larger than 1,000 acres. Just over 1 week

later, the wet monsoon weather arrived and halted

substantial progress of the fire. But by June 18, almost

138,000 acres of the Front Range had burned—land

that provided recreation opportunities and clean

water for communities, habitat for animals, and scenic areas for neighborhoods and businesses.

The 2002 Hayman Fire in Colorado drew immediate national attention, and Congress requested that the

USDA Forest Service conduct a formal review of the

fire, with emphasis on lessons learned and future needs.

Efforts from the Wildland Fire Workshops were in

some ways parallel to those in the Hayman Fire review,

but with a larger geographic scope that included lessons and opportunities for research from several

large fires in the American West.

Results from the three locations differed, but

common themes emerged. The highest priority

recommendations in each location were related to

I

Research on fuel treatments–projects designed to reduce the amount of flammable vegetation and dead wood–can provide managers

with information about what kinds of treatments, if any, should be used to achieve management objectives.

Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

9

the effects of fuel treatments–their efficacy, their

effects on ecological and social values, their context

in different ecosystems and weather regimes, and

whether in some cases passive restoration techniques

might be more appropriate. Social, economic, and

decisionmaking issues came out as extremely important across all disciplines, and many of the technical

groups focused on these questions. A call for support for adaptive management was heard in each location, including continued monitoring of

existing projects and identifying barriers to getting new

projects started. Research, according to participants,

should also incorporate multiple spatial and temporal

scales–from stands to landscapes and from seasons

to centuries. Participants wanted to be clear that

projects should be interdisciplinary in nature, taking

an ecosystem-based approach, and framed within the

larger picture of fire ecology and restoration.

The following questions are a synthesis of common

research needs identified by participants from Oregon,

Arizona, and Colorado in March and April of 2003–

research needs that emerged from all three locations

and whose utility spans the boundaries of the

Pacific Northwest, Southwest, and interior West

regions. For the complete list of research priorities

by location, refer to appendix B.

FIRE BEHAVIOR AND FUELS

Much discussion focused on where, when, and

what kinds of fuel treatments, such as forest thinning and prescribed fires, need to be done (if at all)

in order to achieve desired landscape conditions. Not

to mention, what are the desired landscape conditions? Participants recommended that research on

this topic should describe fire behavior and the

effectiveness of fuel treatments in the context of the

following: departure from historical vegetation

conditions, climate, weather, and smoke patterns, and

the associated social and economic issues such as risk

to human communities. Recommendations for research

that were common to all three locations included:

• Prediction of large fire behavior and occurrence: How can we modify existing tools or

create new tools that better predict the occurrence and behavior of wildland fires?

• Management potential of fuel treatments:

Taking into account climate patterns; which fuel

treatment strategies are most likely to have the most

impact on fire behavior, natural resources, and

social values; and how should we allocate

management resources across the landscape to

achieve desired conditions?

• Existing fuel conditions: Across landscapes and

in different ecosystems, what are the existing fuel

conditions and rates of fuel accumulation in the

context of historical and current fire regimes?

• Postfire fuel management activities: After fires

occur, what are the consequences of various

restoration strategies related to fuel treatments?

FIRE EFFECTS, INSECTS,

AND DISEASES

Participants acknowledged that there are positive and

negative effects of fire on insects and diseases, and they

indicated that more research is needed about those

impacts and about how insects and diseases respond to

fuel treatments. Also, participants asked, what are the

thresholds of insect and disease populations that make

ecosystems more susceptible to fires? What, for instance,

are the fire-related ecological consequences of bark

beetle treatment strategies? Answering these questions

may involve the development of a historical database

of interactions between climate, insects, and diseases.

Recommendations for research that were common

to all three locations included:

• Insects, diseases, and other disturbance

processes: What are the interactions among

insects, diseases, fire, and drought conditions

from stand to landscape scales?

• Managing insects and diseases: What should

be the scope of our vegetation/fuel management

activities in order to mitigate the harmful

effects and reap the beneficial effects of fire

and other disturbance processes such as insects

and diseases?
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

10

THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED SPECIES,

INVASIVE SPECIES

What are the effects of wildfires, prescribed fires,

and other fuel treatments on threatened and endangered

species? This tied into one of the most striking questions from the Bullock Fire site in Arizona: How is

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) nesting

activity affected by prescribed burning? These questions also have political implications–what are the

impacts of endangered species regulations on meeting

management objectives? In the realm of invasive species, what is the role of fire in spreading invasive

species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) or

sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta L.), and what is

the role of invasive species in spreading fire? Recommendations for research that were common to all

three locations included:

• Invasive species: What are the interactions

between invasive species and fire–how does fire

spread or restrict invasive species, and how do

invasive species spread or restrict fire?

• Climate and invasive species: How do

drought conditions affect the propagation and

spread of flammable invasive species?

• Threatened and endangered species and fire:

What are the effects of wildland fire, hazardous

fuel treatments, incident management tactics, and

postfire rehabilitation on threatened and endangered species? How can these activities be

implemented to minimize the harmful effects

and maximize the positive effects of fire?

What is the desired look and condition of future landscapes? How do fires fit in? These are just some of the important questions

that social scientists are addressing.

Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

11

SOIL EROSION AND WATER

QUALITY

What is the ecological role of fire on watershed

processes such as flooding and soil erosion? How can

managers minimize or avoid the harmful side effects

of fire and recovery efforts in watersheds? In particular, participants felt that the burn area emergency

rehabilitation (BAER) process presented many opportunities for research–including getting researchers on

the ground to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of

watershed recovery treatments. Recommendations for

research that were common to all three locations

included:

• The ecological role of fire in watershed

processes: How do fires, fuel treatments, and

base conditions affect watershed processes such

as the cycling of nutrients, sediment transport,

and streamflow?

• Watershed rehabilitation and fire: How do

postfire watershed rehabilitation processes affect

watersheds and other resources for short and long

time scales? How effective are current rehabilitation

techniques for the short and long terms?

CLIMATE AND SMOKE

PATTERNS

Participants wanted to emphasize the difference

between weather and climate: weather is short term,

what actually occurs on a day-to-day basis, whereas climate refers to longer term conditions and trends. When

do climate and weather effects override management

activities such as fuel treatments, and how do climate and weather interact with fire danger and smoke

Mechanical treatment or prescribed fire? One avenue for research is determining which methods of fuel treatments in which

circumstances are most effective for meeting management objectives.

Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

12

emissions? How can smoke models be refined, improved, and evaluated to better predict and monitor

regional haze and nuisance? The latter questions have

implications for health standards relative to wildfires

and prescribed fires. Recommendations for research

that were common to all three locations included:

• Modeling smoke emissions: How can we

improve models for predicting wildfire- and

prescribed fire-generated smoke emissions,

smoke movement, and impacts on human

health and visibility?

• Fire history and climate patterns: To develop

better prediction tools, what can be determined

about the historical natural variation in the distribution of fuel loadings, stand structure, insect

and disease cycles, and the interactions between

these characteristics and historical drought?

• Fire hazard and climate: At what point do

climate patterns override the effects of fuel

treatments, and how does climate influence fire

behavior?

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

CONCERNS, DECISIONMAKING

Because much of the discussion was focused on

socioeconomic concerns and decisionmaking, in all

technical groups and in plenary sessions, this topic

could be considered the keystone topic of the

Fire histories are written into the trees; fire scars relate the

frequency and intensity of past fires.

Sidebar 2. Historical Fire Regimes

Wildfires are one of many natural disturbances

that have helped shaped the forests, rangelands, and

other ecosystems we know today. Disturbance need

not imply negative consequences; a moderate level

of disturbance is required to maintain high

biodiversity in many systems, and many ecosystem

processes such as the flows of energy and nutrients

work most optimally under natural disturbance

cycles. Historical fire regimes–the natural patterns

of fire frequency and intensity–differ as a result

of geographic location, climate, elevation, and

After fires, watershed processes such as soil erosion and

flooding can be in need of recovery. Integrating research

with watershed recovery efforts was identified by workshop

participants as an essential need.

Departures from natural fire cycles, termed

“condition classes,” reveal when key ecosystem

processes such as species composition have been

altered from historical conditions.

Photo by Bob Nichols, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

 Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

13

many other factors. Plant and animal communities have adapted to these natural patterns of fire

over the course of thousands of years, and some

recent fire and fuel management strategies are

designed to promote a fire regime that closely

resembles historical conditions for the benefit of

ecological communities.

The goal of managers is not always to mimic

historical fire regimes, however. In human communities at the edge of wildlands where fires were

historically severe, for instance, managers hope

to reduce fire risk by using fuel treatments such

as lighting prescribed fires, thereby increasing the

frequency and decreasing the intensity of fires

from their historical regime. Climate change may

also impose constraints on managing forests and

rangelands within their historical fire regime.

Under future climate conditions (specifically

global warming), it may not be feasible to achieve

historical conditions, and so the public, managers, and decisionmakers will have to decide how

fire fits into attaining the desired landscape

conditions.

LEGEND

0 - 35 yr; condition class 1

0 - 35 yr; condition class 2

0 - 35 yr; condition class 3

35 - 100+ yr; condition class 1

35 - 100+ yr; condition class 2

35 - 100+ yr; condition class 3

200+ yr; condition class 1

200+ yr; condition class 2

200+ yr; condition class 3

Water

Agriculture and nonvegetated areas

Risk of Key Ecosystem Vegetation Attributes

Fire Regimes Component Loss Fire Frequency (Species composition and structure)

Condition Class 1 Within or near Low Departed from historical frequencies by no Intact and functioning

historical range more than one return interval within historical range

Condition Class 2 Moderately altered Moderate Departed (+/-) from historical frequencies Moderately altered from

from historical by more than one return interval, moderately historical range

range changing: fire size, frequency, intensity,

severity, and/or landscape patterns

Condition Class 3 Significantly altered High Departed from historical frequencies by Significantly altered from

from historical multiple return intervals, dramatically historical range

range changing, fire size, frequency, intensity,

severity, and/or landscape patterns

Map courtesy of the Fire Modeling Institute, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

14

workshops. Good science on the previous topics will

provide a foundation for managers to make informed

decisions, but that science must have proper focus in

light of public needs. Also, the results, implications,

and uncertainty of the science must be relayed clearly

to managers and the public. Participants called for

research on the best methods for delivering scientific information to managers and the public,

especially concerning issues with human communities near the edge of wildlands. How can we improve

technology transfer, and how can we best

relay information to the public? Recommendations

for research that were common to all three locations

included:

• Communication and partnership efforts: How

can we best improve communication and partnership efforts between the public, agencies, and other

organizations in order to relay useful information,

facilitate collaboration, and enhance the utility of

scientific information for management application?

• Optimizing decisionmaking: What social tools

are needed by institutions (e.g., legislative branches,

land management agencies, universities, stakeholder organizations, etc.) in order to improve

decisionmaking?

• Wildland-urban interface issues: How can we

apply lessons from successful community fire

planning efforts and social science to other

communities in order to decrease the risk of fire

to people, and what are the various policies that

enhance or inhibit these efforts?

• Costs, benefits, and risks of fire: What are the

social, economic, and ecological costs, benefits,

and risks of fire and fire management strategies,

and how can we use these analyses to make

better decisions?

• A vision for the future: How do we as a

society decide on the desired future conditions

of the landscape? What methods are most

appropriate for achieving those conditions?

INTEGRATION

Several high-priority needs went beyond the scope

of the topic areas and therefore deserved their own

category. The following research need was common to

the three locations and addressed the interdisciplinary

nature of wildland fire-related problems and

opportunities by incorporating knowledge from

several disciplines to implement long-term, landscapescale projects:

• An interdisciplinary perspective: What are the

effects of fires and postfire management activities

on ecosystems and biological communities?

Addressing this question may include the use of

adaptive management strategies, a critical assessment of existing models, and the development of

a comprehensive fire occurrence database.

Although the above research priorities do not represent the complete list of needs identified by participants,

they do relay the common needs as identified by

managers, researchers, and other groups from

several regions in the American West. Workshop

organizers felt that these common needs were

particularly important because they represented

research areas where joint efforts by many groups–

state, federal, and tribal agencies, private industry,

and community organizations, for example–in

diverse locations could pool their resources to

deliver products that are greater than the sum of the

individual parts. This involves more than just

making sure the pieces fit: collaboration is an active

process that requires the identification of key partnerships and qualities that make them effective.
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

15

OBJECTIVE 2:

CHARACTERIZING

EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS

allas Massey, Chairman of the White Mountain

Apache Tribe, Arizona, has a strong sense of what

recovery means. After all, he and his people have

recent experience-recovery from the 2002 Rodeo-Chedeski

Fire that burned over 450,000 acres and affected the forests, rivers, lakes, streams, and animals that make their

homes in “the most beautiful place on earth.” The tribe

and many other agencies spent precious time and

resources fighting fire and evacuating communities–

but the work did not stop there. The fire’s impact extended beyond burned forests; people’s homes, jobs, and

economic resources were also affected and in need of

recovery. According to Massey, the Apache language

has one word for “our land” and “our mind,” shii ne’,

and he argues that recovery of the land is strongly

linked to recovery of the people, a process that

depends on solid partnerships between partners–from

individuals to agencies.

Fighting the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire, recovering from

its impacts, and learning from the fire through management–driven research required strong partnerships

between agencies and other organizations whose

resources complemented their partners’ strengths and

weaknesses. In this report, partnerships are defined as

The wildland-urban interface–communities at the edge of wildlands–will require solid partnerships with state, federal, and

tribal agencies to reduce the risk of wildfires.

D

Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

16

the relationships and associated sharing of resources–

funding, personnel, or information systems, for

example–within agencies and among external groups.

Interagency partnerships include relationships between

agency managers and researchers; external partnerships

include relationships among agencies, universities, the

public, and others. Workshop participants identified

the qualities of partnerships that were essential to the

recovery of communities such as those on the Fort

Apache Reservation, and also for other processes:

fireproofing communities at the edge of wildlands,

practicing effective incident management during fires,

restoring ecosystems, implementing applied fire research, and, more generally, developing comprehensive

plans and implementing collaborative strategies.

According to participants, partnerships are most

effective when:

• Direct interaction occurs between all partners at

multiple stages, including the development of a

vision for the future.

• Adequate time is allowed for partnership

building.

• Partners are rewarded and held accountable for

their roles.

• Key individuals are identified and cultivated, people

who will “hang their hat on a project.”

Table 1—Examples of key partnerships for wildland fire research and management

Partnerships with... Examples Effective when...

Communities Town hall meetings; cooperative Manager/researcher/extension agent

extension services; community is knowledgeable and respected

forestry; Firewise; demonstration locally; researchers are rewarded for

areas; Gateway Community Program; interactions; public is involved in

soil and water conservation districts; fuels planning; public has input prior

watershed councils to management plan; extension agent

is knowledgeable in fire ecology.

Resource specialists Biologists; burn area emergency Input is solicited from researchers;

rehabilitation (BAER) teams knowledge from case studies is

relayed to researchers.

Schools and universities Research; Student Career Experience Fire science is integrated into univerProgram (SCEP); Junior Fire Program sity curricula; students emerge with

practical knowledge for on-theground application.

Tribes Direct partnerships with tribal councils Tribal governments are recognized as

and tribal fire managers; Bureau of sovereign; each tribe is recognized as

Indian Affairs (BIA) unique; input is solicited from tribal

elders; electronic communication

pathways are intact (i.e., BIA).

Policymakers and Intermediate organizations; Western Science is translated correctly;

 funding agencies Governors Association; other advisory stakeholder goals are not contradiccouncils; National Fire Plan; Joint Fire tory; projects developed are appliScience Program cable to managers; input occurs while

writing forest plan; partnerships are a

required element for grants.

Technologists Incident meteorologists (IMETs); Adequate support is provided; users

long-term fire analysts (LTANs); and managers have trust in products

fire behavior analysts (FBANs) being developed; technology transfer

is a key component.
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Participants felt the above characteristics were vital

for maintaining manager-researcher partnerships at

the local, state, federal, and tribal levels, but also

identified partnerships beyond the manager and

researcher interface. See table 1 for specific examples

of key partnerships and characteristics that make

them effective.

COMMUNITIES

Whether through an informal town hall meeting

or through an intermediate organization such as the

local watershed council, interactions with the public

were identified as among the most essential

partnerships for managers and researchers. Public

partnerships work best when public liaisons are

Sidebar 3. Native Americans and

Fire

Native Americans actively managed

the landscape, and fire was a major tool.

Traditional stories, the accounts of tribal

elders, the journals of explorers and

settlers, and the fire scar histories written

into the trees all point toward the active

use of fire by indigenous people. Fire

was used to clear sites for villages and

travel corridors, fireproof human settlements and medicinal crops, control

pests, and maintain ecological conditions

for hunting game and gathering plants.

In the Pacific Northwest, fire was used

for cultivating big huckleberry (Vaccinium

membranaceum Dougl. ex Torr.), a

common staple in the diet of many

tribes. By carefully regulating the location, timing, and intensity of burning,

the tribes used fire to reestablish huckleberry patches that were known to be

productive. Prescribed fires were typically started in fall after the huckleberry

season ended and when cooler and

wetter weather set in–reducing the risk

of accidental fires. Within a few years

after burning, the huckleberry patches

yielded an abundant harvest of berries.

An associated outcome of the frequent,

human-caused burns was a reduced fuel

load and decreased risk of large fires.

After European American settlement

and the implementation of a nationwide

fire suppression policy, the landscape

changed. Places in the Northwest that

were once meadowlike and open, promoting the growth of huckleberry

patches, became crowded with willows,

alder, and other deciduous trees, and

were finally succeeded by conifers such

as fir and pine. For Native Americans

this meant losing touch with a way of

life. Today, Native Americans and their

partners in research and management are

reconnecting with this wisdom from the

past, known as traditional ecological

knowledge, and making the public and

decisionmakers aware that these techniques for ecosystem management and

reducing wildfire risk can be incorporated into current management practices

and scientific research.

Gathering huckleberries after the fire–long before

European American settlement, Native Americans

actively managed the landscape, and fire was

a major tool.

17

Photo by K.D. Swann
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

knowledgeable and respected locally. What does not

work, participants agreed, are “slick presentations,”

especially when not followed by true collaboration.

Opportunities for collaborating with the public

include community involvement with fuel-reduction

projects and soliciting input concerning desired

future conditions of nearby forests or other ecosystems. Most importantly, participants felt that

effective community partnerships are based on trust.

Trust takes time to build and requires sustained

efforts from both sides but is well worth the effort.

RESOURCE SPECIALISTS

In many cases, resource specialists have the most

up-to-date information regarding their field; biologists, BAER teams, and other specialists have access

to many case studies and examples of the effects of

wildfires, prescribed fires, and fuel treatments on

plants, animals, and ecosystems. By soliciting

researcher input, these case studies can be turned into

statistically robust research projects, moving local

knowledge into peer-reviewed scientific literature

where it can be referenced and used by others.

SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES

From junior high school to university graduate programs in science, opportunities for partnerships in

education abound. University cooperative extension

units, as well as less formal relationships between

academic researchers and agency managers, provide

research results that can be applied to on-the-ground

management problems. Partnering with educators

also allows for early integration of fire science so

that students emerge from programs not only with

instruction in scientific theory, but also with practical training. A fair amount of the background notes

used in compiling this report, for example, came

from volunteer undergraduate and graduate students.

Many of the student note takers commented that

they learned a lot about real-life issues related to fire

and appreciated the chance to watch their professors

engage with managers on a professional level. Important manager-researcher partnerships exist at the

university level as well: universities have a wealth of

knowledge and research capabilities that when

properly matched with manager needs can result in a

productive relationship.

TRIBES

Relationships with tribal governments represent

some of the longest standing partnerships in the

United States. Tribes often have a wealth of traditional ecological knowledge related to fire–oral histories that relate Native American use of fire as a

tool for active ecosystem management long before

European American settlement. Recognizing and

incorporating this knowledge into management plans,

soliciting input from tribal elders, and respecting the

sovereignty of tribal governments are good first steps

to maintaining partnerships with tribes, according

18 Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

to participants. Sovereignty need not mean separateness, however. As in the case of the White Mountain Apaches, tribes can offer substantial

resources for fire management, such as personnel,

yet will require help in initiating and maintaining

economic recovery from fires.

POLICYMAKERS AND FUNDING

AGENCIES

Natural resource policy is not based on science

alone. Rather, the policymaking process is the culmination of interactions among managers,

researchers, and many stakeholders–community

members, activist groups, tribes, and state and

federal agencies, just to name a few. Good policy,

according to participants, occurs when science is

interpreted correctly and appropriately, and when

various stakeholder goals are not contradictory.

Funding agencies that solicit input from managers

during the requests for proposals and make partnership building a required element will be rewarded

with research results that are relevant to managers

and that perpetuate collaborative efforts.

TECHNOLOGISTS

Delivering accessible, accurate information to

managers who need quick access to the most current

technology was identified as one of the greatest needs

in the world of fire management today. For instance,

weather and smoke models are continually created,

refined, and improved to produce increasingly

accurate predictions. Managers are often busy

implementing projects on the ground and therefore

cannot keep up with the technology. One role for

technology transfer specialists, people who communicate information to users, will be to maintain

partnerships between technologists, such as weather

and smoke modelers, and managers who need

information for making decisions while fires are

burning. Participants relayed that managers must have

trust in the products being delivered in order for

this partnership to work.

Participants felt that although increasing the body of

knowledge about wildland fire was important, it was

only one part of the story. Establishing and

maintaining quality partnerships will be essential to

ensuring that research is heading in the right direction and that once the results are out, information

gets delivered to the proper users. The delivery of

this information is just one of the many processes

that play into effective wildland fire research and

management; the next step was for participants to

identify types of information shared between

partners, tools for implementing management and

research, and processes for seeing them through–from

idea generation to on-the-ground application.

19

Effective partnerships can contribute to all levels of fire

management and research, including the development

of a vision of our future forests.
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

OBJECTIVE 3: EFFECTIVE

INFORMATION, TOOLS,

AND PROCESSES

n July 13, 2002, thunder and lightning storms drifted

in from the Pacific Ocean and crossed the border of

California into Oregon. That same afternoon, fire

lookouts reported several lightning strikes in the Kalmiopsis

Wilderness, Siskiyou National Forest. At 3:17 p.m., an

observer in a reconnaissance aircraft reported a fire in the

Biscuit Creek area, the first of several fires that would eventually merge and become one of Oregon’s largest fires in

recorded history. Resources used to contain the Biscuit Fire

included 23 regional and national fire management teams

and thousands of firefighters and support personnel. Nearly 2

months later, on the evening of September 5, the Biscuit Fire

was declared contained. The final tally was nearly half a

million acres burned, mostly in the heart of the Kalmiopsis

Wilderness, and $150 million in fire suppression costs.

But still the work was not over with containment

and eventual control of the fire–communities,

managers, recovery teams, and researchers initiated

economic and watershed recovery processes, continued monitoring of long-term projects, and deliberated on what kind of research was helpful–and what

research was needed. The Biscuit Fire, as with large

Communication with the public was identified as one of the key processes for delivering timely fire danger information and

informing the public about new research.

O

20

 Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

fires in general, called for the interaction between

many different agencies and groups of people, each

with their own culture, language, and set of tools

for practicing fire management and implementing

research.

Using large fires as teachers, the Wildland Fire Workshop participants identified typical characteristics of

effective information, tools, and processes. Those that

are effective are:

• Adequately and consistently funded.

• Approached at multiple spatial and temporal

scales.

• User-friendly–either for end users or for those

who deliver to end users.

• Interactive between people at multiple levels.

• Often championed by a key, dedicated individual.

With these elements in place, participants described

some qualities that make specific types of information, tools, and processes effective. These qualities and

specific examples are also listed in table 2.

MODELS

Models were the tools most frequently discussed.

Models are useful for making predictions for a wide

range of outcomes in fire behavior, smoke movement,

climate patterns, and risk assessment. Participants

identified effective models as having results driven

by manager needs. The models should be accessible

and user-friendly for the intended user, whether

Fire managers–the people who implement on-the-ground projects–count on effective information, tools, and processes in

order to do their job.

21

 Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Table 2—Examples of key information, tools, and processes for wildland fire research and management

Information, tools,

and processes Examples Effective when...

Models First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM); Driven by manager needs; accessible to all

Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA); intended users; produces relevant results for

BlueSky; Fire Area Simulator (FARSITE); clear decisions; interpreted correctly; uses

Rare Event Risk Assessment Process (RERAP) up-to-date default values in addition to user

input; landscape scale; includes a spatial

component; interacts with other models.

Information clearinghouses National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Regionally based; information is current,

Web site; Fire Effects Information System distilled; put into context of the “big

(FEIS); National Fire Danger Rating System picture;” local data are available; located

(NFDRS) centrally for easy access.

Funding National Fire Plan (NFP) funding; Managers are included in the process;

Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) funding is consistent and long term; cost

announcement for proposal process sharing exists; local districts have input

regarding how dollars are spent.

Education University curricula; training seminars; short Integrated with other resources; adequate

courses; cooperative extension service; The time for learning exists; learning is hands-on;

Wildland Fire Primer fire science and National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) training are integrated

into university curricula.

Direct communication Workshops; meetings; conferences; field trips; Networking occurs; cultural

communication during fire events barriers are removed (organizational, racial,

and gender); incentives for communication

are in place.

Scientific publications Scientific journals; general technical Peer reviewed; provides synthesis of existing

reports (GTRs) information; authors are given credit for

syntheses; abstracts are searchable; jargon

is minimal.

Research Original, synthesis, meta-analysis: research on Collaboration with end user occurs at all

physical, ecological, and social processes phases (including hypothesis generation);

related to fire design is statistically robust; results are

reported with statement of uncertainty;

researchers interact with one another and

with managers; research is interdisciplinary.

Monitoring and reporting Fire Effects Monitoring (FIREMON); Occurs long term; protocols are consistent

National Fire Plan Operating and Reporting across large spatial and temporal scales; maps

System (NFPORS); data ram cache; Remote of fire severity and fuel condition class

Automated Weather stations (RAWS); are generated.

 Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)

stations; adaptive management projects

Mass media Radio; newspapers; television broadcasts; Information is timely and has

community bulletins; Web sites; flyers correct context

22
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Firefighter safety is a major concern of fire managers. Flame exposure, smoke inhalation, and fatigue are a few of the many

safety issues involved in wildland firefighting.

Table 2—Examples of key information, tools, and processes for wildland fire research and management (continued)

Information, tools,

and processes Examples Effective when...

Demonstration areas and Blue Ridge Demonstration Project, AZ; Comparative analysis is used; is run by a

 case studies Hayman Fire case study, CO; Blue respected official.

Mountains Demonstration Project, OR

Postfire recovery efforts Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER); Standard protocols exist; long-term effectiveEmergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation ness monitoring occurs; monitoring is

(ESR) integrated with research; assembly of teams

is evaluated.

Incident management Community evacuations; implementation Planning occurs; wildland-urban interface

of fire management plan (FMP) communities have community fire plan in place

(e.g., Firewise); standard safety protocols

exist; other information, tools, and processes

are effective and in place.

23

Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Sidebar 4. Fire and Society—A

Changing Target

Society’s current relationship with fire is

linked to events that occurred around the

turn of the last century. Two large wildfires

in particular–the Peshtigo Fire in Wisconsin and Michigan, 1871, and the Hinckley,

Minnesota, fire of 1894–caused many casualties of human life, property, and public land

and alerted the public to the risks of wildfires. Later, the Great Idaho fires in northern

Idaho and Montana in 1910, along with the

6-year jinx–a series of fires near Tillamook,

Oregon, that occurred every 6 years from

1933 to 1951–helped instigate an aggressive

approach toward fire suppression that

Forest policy has changed since 1941 when this public relations

advertisement was released. Early policy focused on aggressive

fire suppression, whereas decisionmakers today are incorporating

the idea that fire is a natural process.

manager, resource specialist, or a technology transfer specialist–a person dedicated to interpreting and

delivering information and tools to users. In some

cases, participants said, models should use up-to-date

default information in addition to user input so that

new, timely information can be incorporated, and

should also include a spatial component, bringing

together information at relevant scales–especially the

landscape scale.

INFORMATION

CLEARINGHOUSES

One participant had this to say about the amount

and quality of available information: “We get a fire hose

of information, and it’s often delivered with the fognozzle on.” Many participants related that although there

is no shortage of information, it is often difficult to

access and its meaning is often unclear. The need for

regionally based information clearinghouses with distilled information, incorporating local data, and having

a central location for easy access was regularly called for

during the workshops.

FUNDING

According to participants, the lack of consistent

and long-term funding can be the greatest obstacle

to implementing management and research partnerships. Funding for long-term projects is often pulled

before the results are out, which diminishes the productivity of the management-research partnership.

Some projects are effective within short-term funding cycles, but participants identified that funding

should reflect the increasing need to view wildfires

as large-scale, long-term events. Participants indicated

that including managers in the research funding process and holding partners accountable for their roles

in producing manager-driven research will ensure

that research is relevant and applicable to real-life

scenarios.

EDUCATION

Participants identified university curricula, and also

continuing education for professionals, as important for

managers and researchers. Effective education, like

effective research, is interdisciplinary in nature.

24

Poster by James Montgomery Flagg; image courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

became known as the “10 a.m. policy.” Fires

reported on any particular day were to be put

out by 10 a.m. the next morning. This policy

may have helped save countless lives, structures, and resources for the short term, but it

left unintended consequences in some areas:

the accumulation of flammable dead wood

and vegetation that would otherwise have

burned naturally and with less intensity.

Recent forest policy is striving toward an

understanding of wildfires and prescribed fires

in reducing fire risk and recognizes that fire

suppression alone will not solve the long-term

problem. One of the major goals of the

National Fire Plan is to reduce hazardous

fuel near human communities at the edge

of wildlands so that large fires will not start

in the first place, precluding the need for

aggressive suppression. According to

participants at the Wildland Fire Workshops, earning the public’s trust regarding

fire and fuel treatments will be essential for

implementing effective policy.

Forest harvest was a major focus on public lands in the past. In

recent decades, other management goals are coming to the

forefront such as ecosystem restoration; creating and

maintaining habitat for fish, wildlife, and noncommercial

plant species; restoring ecosystem functions such as nutrient

cycling and woody debris input into streams; and providing

recreation opportunities.

25

 Oregon Historical Society
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Incident management–the act of fighting fires–is a process that relies on a fair amount of

preparedness regarding information, tools, and processes.

Quality learning is hands-on, involves fire science

and training in related policies–particularly National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) training–and in

the case of training seminars, allows adequate time

for students to absorb information.

DIRECT COMMUNICATION

Workshops, meetings, conferences, and field trips

were all identified as events that helped facilitate

quality, direct communication between managers,

researchers, and other groups. These events are most

effective when networking occurs (often best accomplished in hallway conversations according to some

participants) and when incentives for communication are in place—that is, reasons for people to

attend. During incident management, having

channels open for direct communication between

managers and the public was identified as important

for keeping communities informed and maintaining

public trust.

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

Perhaps the best example illustrating the disparate

cultures of management and research was the discussion of scientific publications. Managers often have

too little time or expertise to read papers and assimilate information from publications. At the same time,

managers depend on having quality, peer-reviewed

research results for making informed decisions.

Researchers are rewarded for writing peer-reviewed

publications rather than for developing partnerships

and interacting with managers. At the workshops,

managers asked for publications that contained little

jargon–language specific to a specialized discipline–

and for papers that synthesize existing information.

Having incentives in place for researchers to write

informative, accessible, and relevant papers that

managers can use was one possible solution to

crossing this barrier.

RESEARCH

Physical, ecological, and social research on wildfires can take the form of original research, where

new information is collected and analyzed, or

synthesis and meta-analysis, where conclusions are

strengthened or new conclusions are drawn from the

results of several existing studies. Effective, management-driven research occurs when researchers and

managers collaborate during all phases, including the

hypothesis generation phase when ideas and

26

Photo by Bob Nichols, U.S. Department of Agriculture
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

questions for research are developed. Participants

identified that researchers must also collaborate with

one another so that existing information is not

ignored and results dovetail into one another. Participants also relayed that research design must be

statistically robust and results must be reported with

a statement of uncertainty, or the variability associated with a prediction or statement. The most

effective research, according to participants, will

occur when researchers think outside the box, spanning the boundaries of traditional disciplines.

MONITORING AND

REPORTING

Flooding and soil erosion, postfire recovery of

local economies, and climatic patterns are just a few

of the processes that require monitoring and reporting.

Participants stressed that monitoring and reporting

should have standard protocols among agencies and

occur over periods long enough to allow for relevant

observations. Monitoring also ties in well with adaptive management–the act of managing while simultaneously learning from prior actions, and applying

those lessons to the landscape. Adaptive management

was identified as a key process that should continue

receiving support from funding agencies.

POSTFIRE RECOVERY EFFORTS

Along with economic recovery of communities

affected by wildfires, participants in all locations

emphasized opportunities for improving BAER

efforts. The BAER teams typically apply treatments

for recovery and monitor watershed processes

immediately after fires are contained. Participants

felt these efforts could be improved through

standardization of protocols and could be integrated

with research to evaluate short- and long-term

effectiveness of recovery treatments.

DEMONSTRATION AREAS AND

CASE STUDIES

Sometimes messages can be most powerful when

relayed onsite, with the audience experiencing the

message with all of their senses. Demonstration

areas showing results in the field can be a strong teaching tool, according to participants. Demonstration

areas also bring people together to interact on a

personal level, a handy way to build trust and

develop partnerships. Case studies are also effective

teaching tools because people often relate to stories–

narratives that illustrate and clarify particular

examples–better than they relate to data points. To

be effective, participants said, demonstration areas

should be run by locally respected officials, and

comparative analysis should be used to synthesize

lessons from individual case studies.

MASS MEDIA

Radio, newspapers, television broadcasts, community bulletins, Web sites, and flyers all can be used as

tools for communicating with the public. One

advantage to mass media is that timely information

can be delivered to a large number of people. An

associated disadvantage is that science can be

misinterpreted or put into improper context. Participants felt that further developing these pathways

of communication will be important not only for

relaying immediate fire danger information, but also

for informing the public about new thinking in

research and management.

Printing a fire map–managers rely on having ready access to

current and dependable technology.

27

 Photo by Bob Nichols, U.S. Department of Agriculture
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

The act of fire suppression, termed “incident

management,” is a process that depends on having

access to effective information and tools. Incident

management can mean implementing a fire management plan during the fire or evacuating communities at risk. This process is effective when all other

information, tools, and processes are effective, so

managing a burning fire can represent the focal point

of efforts initiated before the fire. Therefore,

participants said, a fair amount of planning,

community awareness, and in some cases the prior

treatment of fuels need to be in place before fires

start. Participants also identified that during and

after the fire, safety protocols for communities and

firefighters need to be communicated clearly and be

readily available.

28

The big fires across the American West tested the

efficacy of many types of information, tools, and

processes. Rather than merely tallying the damage

done, workshop participants discussed those lessons

and presented ways in which they could redirect

intentions and improve actions. One avenue for

bringing managers and researchers together was mentioned in several discussions in Oregon, Arizona, and

Colorado: the use of workshops such as this one as a

tool for delivering information and as a process for

establishing partnerships among important players.

These kinds of workshops have the potential for

facilitating one-on-one interactions while

simultaneously communicating a substantial amount

of information to a larger group. With that in mind,

and with the need for ongoing communication

between managers and researchers, the workshop

organizers were willing to take a critical look at the

effectiveness of the 2003 Wildland Fire Workshops.

Catastrophe or natural process? Media coverage and public attitudes about wildfires are often centered on fire as a catastrophe,

and in some cases those impressions may be well-founded. However, even some large fires are natural, scientists argue, and in

the past have periodically burned through areas with low-frequency, high-intensity fire regimes.

Photo by Tom Iraci
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

OBJECTIVE 4: THE

WORKSHOPS AS A

BLUEPRINT

fter the final workshop, participants at

Colorado State University were asked to

complete an evaluation of the workshop. The last

question on the survey was: “Should this workshop be

conducted in other regions?” Invariably, the response

was “Yes.”

 In addition, the majority of participants who responded to the questionnaire supported the final workshop product–the list of prioritized recommendations

for research. Participants felt the workshops provided

a good atmosphere for managers to convey research

needs, and the workshops were a vital first step for

developing partnerships between managers and researchers. More difficult to quantify yet nonetheless

important, according to participants, were the

numerous hallway conversations that occurred

during the meeting, the informal conversations that

happen between organized sessions. The importance

of providing a setting where researchers and managers can interact one-on-one through direct communication was mentioned frequently in the small group

and plenary sessions of all locations (in addition to

the Colorado survey) as an essential means for

creating partnerships and exchanging information.

From the Colorado survey, the most frequent

criticism was that the number of researchers outweighed the number of managers in some technical

groups. A few participants also suggested that little

attention was paid to existing research, which possibly caused some “reinvention of the wheel” regarding the lists of research needs. But other participants

suggested that the problem is more fundamental–we

need better ways to communicate. Whether this takes

place through previously identified technology transfer pathways, through good science writing, from

professionally produced videos, or any other mechanism of storytelling, communication pathways

need to be opened, maintained, and continuously

improved.

Workshop facilitators engage participants in a discussion about wildland fire.

A

29

Photo by Seth White
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Although the survey was conducted only at Colorado State University, similar comments were voiced

by participants in other locations, indicating the

Colorado survey at least partially represented the

concerns in Oregon and Arizona as well. For a summary of Colorado participant comments by their

role in the management-research arena, see table 3.

After the final workshop, the steering committee met

and discussed what they thought worked and what

did not work in terms of meeting the workshop

objectives in all three locations. Overall, the committee agreed that the workshops were very productive, and that thoughtful recommendations for

research were developed. The committee also felt the

workshops created a favorable atmosphere for

managers and researchers to identify concerns, share

ideas, and solve problems concerning partnership

building and the development and improvement of

information, tools, and processes. Suggestions for

improvement from the workshop organizers

included putting incentives in place for more managers to attend the workshops, and adding incentives for participants to attend the entire workshop

rather than just the first 1 or 2 days. The original

intent of the workshops was to provide a forum for

discussion and evaluation of issues relative to

managers’ goals. Although researchers were to be

involved in these initial discussions–as they were during the workshops–the presence and participation

of managers during the research planning stage was

valued as an equally essential part of coordinating

research and management. Several workshop organizers and many participants felt that managers were

underrepresented in the workshops even though a

special emphasis was put on achieving a balance when

sending invitations. In future workshops, a

more balanced representation from research and

management may help facilitate more productive

interactions between the two groups.

Table 3—Summary of participants’ evaluation of the Colorado workshop

Participant occupation What worked Suggested improvements

Manager One-on-one conversations were helpful Translation of needs into “researchable

for conveying research needs; technical questions” was challenging; more focus on

groups were a good format; workshops prescribed fire and other fuels treatments

will translate well to managers in other regions. needed; more focus on technology transfer;

concerned whether research will be applicable to users; encourage thinking across

topics; more coverage of current/previous

research.

Researcher This was a “real working meeting”; Separate technical group needed for

good working relationships developed; harvesting/wood products and fire ecology;

clarified high-priority research topics; need more managers present in some groups;

facilitators did an admirable job; encourage thinking across topics; more

brainstorming session worked well; background information on existing research

people were committed to the final needed; concerned about how prioritized

product vs. their own agenda. recommendations will be handled across

locations.

Other (educator, student, Workshops tracked well with current Technical sessions could be longer and more

 partner, etc.) information and were interesting; “time free-form; priority-setting exercise may not

well spent, overall a positive investment.” have been completely objective; historical

fire effects not covered well; more “hall

time” needed for informal discussions; some

manager concerns are policy oriented and

cannot be captured by research.

30
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

CONCLUDING REMARKS

om Harbour, Deputy Director of the Forest

Service’s Fire and Aviation Management unit,

has been through the ranks. This year his focus

is on fire suppression, but throughout his career he has

worked in almost every fire position there is, and in

the most unlikely places–from the wildest forests to

the wildest urban centers in the country. In short, he

has seen it all. In his keynote address to the Oregon

participants of the Wildland Fire Workshops, Harbour

indicated that more once-in-a-lifetime fires are in our

future, meaning that wildfires once considered off the

scale in terms of size and intensity are likely to

become more common. With this in mind, participants at the Wildland Fire Workshops aspired not to

list damages from the 2002 fires, but to find new

directions for research and management.

Participants from the three locations relayed diverse

opinions about the future of wildland fire research,

yet many common viewpoints surfaced in the

plenary and small-group discussions. According to

participants, future wildland fire research should

consider a long-term, landscape perspective of fire

ecology and be integrated across disciplines,

especially in the social sciences with attention to

manager needs on the ground, the public’s desired

future conditions of the landscape, and the direction of future research. Research that builds on

existing studies and integrates the large volume of

information that is currently available (but in forms

that are difficult to access) will prove rewarding to

both the management and research communities because of the benefits in increasing both the quantity

and quality of our knowledge about wildland fire.

Implementing these research priorities and other

manager-researcher projects will require the establishment and maintenance of strong partnerships. These

partnerships are defined as both interagency and external collaborative efforts where the roles of partners are clearly understood and partners are both

rewarded and held accountable for their parts. Again,

building on existing partnerships that have already

proved successful and can act as models for joint

efforts will greatly facilitate the creation and maintenance of partnerships. Quality partnerships are

often championed by key individuals, but will be

further improved when the process is institutionalized, when direct interaction occurs between

partners at all stages, and when adequate time and

resources are available.

Information, tools, and processes that are successfully used to carry out wildland fire research, management, and to aid in partnership building were described

as adequately and consistently funded, approached

at multiple spatial and temporal scales, user-friendly,

and interactive. Many important processes such as

direct communication or establishment of demonstration areas are often championed by dedicated

people (who should be identified and rewarded,

according to participants), but these processes should

also be institutionalized to better facilitate the

movement of relevant research results into the

management and public arenas.

With some refinements–chiefly a greater balance

of researchers and managers and a more thorough

review of existing research–participants and workshop organizers felt that the Wildland Fire

Workshops could be used in other regions to

effectively bring managers and researchers together

about pertinent wildland fire issues. This process of

sharing information, forming partnerships, and

starting discussions about wildland fire research from

the initial stages of planning was recognized as a

continuing process that deserves revisiting on a regular

basis. Allowing frequent opportunities for all partners and stakeholders to touch base about wildland

fire issues will ensure that the direction of management and research remains focused on the correct

questions.

As of the writing of this report, the 2003 fire season

is underway. On July 16, 2003, the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, reported 352 large

fires already contained this season and 126,000 acres

burning from 32 large fires across the American

West. Clearly, large fires are part of the past and

current conditions of our Nation’s forests and rangelands, and more than likely part of our future as

31

T
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

well. As for the present: this may prove to be a

crucial time when stakeholders, decisionmakers,

managers, researchers, and other groups have the

chance to evaluate and redirect our actions to better

address the needs of the American public and the

people who serve them.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for the Wildland Fire Workshops came

from the Joint Fire Science Program, National Fire

Plan, and the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest Research Stations. Jamie

Barbour, Bob Clark, Richard Kimberlin, Barbara

Morehouse, Phil Omi, Bruce Shindler, and John

Szymoniak were essential to making the workshops

happen and provided thoughtful reviews of the

manuscript. Mark Jackson also helped organize the

workshops and was instrumental in involving other

Native Americans in the process. Becky Gravenmier

provided careful reviews of the manuscript in its early

stages. Mike Apicello, Jeff Behan, Molly Hunter,

Becky Jenison, Li-Ming Liang, Irene Powell, Tom

Swetnam, and Rocky Tow (with others from the

Coronado National Forest) played key roles in making the workshops interesting and productive. The

Wildland Fire Associates, a professional facilitation

group headed by Barbara Beck, provided excellent

leadership during small and large group discussions.

Countless undergraduate and graduate student volunteers and others gathered helpful notes in technical sessions and provided a fresh perspective in group

discussions, all while keeping their professors and

future employers on their toes.

METRIC EQUIVALENT

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Acres 0.405 Hectares

32

Many dedicated individuals helped organize, facilitate, and

record the dialogue that emerged from the Wildland Fire

Workshops, and without them the workshops would have been

far less productive and far less interesting.

Photo by Seth White
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

Agee, J.K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in

terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Balice, R.; Miller, J.D.; Oswald, B.P. [et al.] 2000.

Forest surveys and wildfire assessment in the Los

Alamos region: 1898-1999. LA-13714-MS. Los Alamos,

NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 86 p.

Blackburn, T.C.; Anderson, K., eds. 1993. Before the

wilderness: environmental management by native

Californians. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press. 476 p.

Brady, J.A.; Robichaud, P.R.; Pierson, F.B., Jr. 2001.

Infiltration rates after wildfire in the Bitterroot Valley.

Society for Engineering in Agricultural, Food, and

Biological Systems Paper No. 01-8003. St. Joseph, MI:

American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 11 p.

Breininger, D.L. 1999. Florida scrub-jay demography

and dispersal in a fragmented landscape. Auk. 116:

520-527.

Breininger, D.R.; Burgman, M.A.; Stith, B.M. 1999.

Influence of habitat, catastrophes, and population size on

extinction risk of Florida scrub-jay populations.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27: 810-822.

Brooks, M.L.; Catchett, J.R. 2001. Plant community

patterns in unburned and burned blackbrush (Coleogyne

ramosissima) shrublands in the Mojave Desert. 17 p.

Unpublished report. On file with: National Park

Service, 1111 Jackson St., Suite 700, Oakland, CA 94607.

Brose, P.H.; Wade, D. 2001. Understory herbicide as a

treatment for reducing hazardous fuels and extreme

fire behavior in slash pine plantations. In: Proceedings

of the 11th biennial southern silviculture research

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-48. Asheville,

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

Southern Research Station: 109-113.

Brose, P.H.; Wade, D. 2002. Potential fire behavior

in pine flatwood forests following three different

fuel reduction techniques. Forest Ecology and

Management. 163(1): 71-84.

Brown, J.K.; Smith, J.K., eds. 2000. Wildland fire in

ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RMRS-GTR-42. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 257 p. Vol. 2.

Butry, D.T.; Mercer, D.E.; Prestemon, J.P. [et al.].

2001. What is the price of catastrophic wildfire?

Journal of Forestry. 99(11): 9-17.

Carroll, M.S.; Findley, A.J.; Blatner, K.A. [et al.].

2000. Social assessment for the Wenatchee National

Forest wildfires of 1994: targeted analysis for the

Leavenworth, Entiat, and Chelan Ranger Districts.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-479. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 114 p.

Daniel, T.C.; Meitner, M.M. 2001. Representational

validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of

graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest

vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21: 61-72.

Edminster, C.B.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Neary, D.G.

2000. The fire and fire surrogates study: providing

guidelines for fire in future watershed management

decisions. In: Proceedings of land stewardship in the

21st century: the contributions of watershed

management. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 312-315.

Elliot, W.J.; Robichaud, P.R.; Pannkuk, C.D. 2001. A

probabilistic approach to modeling erosion for spatiallyvaried conditions. In: Proceedings of the 7th federal

interagency sedimentation conference. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey: VI-33-VI-40.

Ferguson, S.A. 2000. Climatology of biomass smoke in

wildland areas of the United States. In: Proceedings,

Third symposium, fire and forest meteorology.

Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society: 43-48.

Ferguson, S.A.; Sandberg, D.V.; Ottmar, R. 2000.

Modeling the effects of land use changes on global

biomass emissions. In: Innes, J.; Beniston, M.;

Verstraete, M., eds. Biomass burning and its interrelationships with the climate system. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer: 33-50.

Flannigan, M.D.; Wotton, B.M. 2001. Climate,

weather, and area burned. In: Johnson, E.A.;

Myanishi, K., eds. Forest fires: behavior and

ecological effects. San Diego, CA: Academic Press:

351-373. Chapter 10.

Grace, S.; Wade, D. 2001. Ecological and economic

consequences of the 1998 Florida wildfires. In:

Proceedings of the 3rd Longleaf Alliance conference.

Auburn, AL: Longleaf Alliance: 70-74.

33
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R. 1999.

The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire

behavior in Western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR463. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

Hanula, J.L.; Meeker, J.R.; Miller, D.R.; Barnard,

E.L. 2002. Association of wildfire with tree health

and numbers of pine bark beetles, reproduction

weevils and their associates in Florida. Forest

Ecology and Management. 170(1): 233-247.

Hof, J.; Omi, P.N.; Bevers, M.; Laven, R.D. 2000. A

timing oriented approach to spatial allocation of fire

management effort. Forest Science. 46: 442-451.

Loomis, J.B.; Bair, L.S.; Gonazles-Caban, A. 2001. Prescribed fire and public support: knowledge gained, attitudes

changed in Florida. Journal of Forestry. 99(11): 18-22.

McIver, J.D.; Starr, L. 2000. Environmental effects of

postfire logging: literature review and annotated

bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Omi, P.N.; Joyce, L.A., eds. 2003. Fire, fuel treatments, and

ecological restoration: conference proceedings. Proc.

RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 475 p.

Ottmar, R.D.; Vihnanek, R.E. 2000. Stereo photo series for

quantifying natural fuels. Vol. VI: longleaf pine,

pocosin, and marshgrass in the Southeast United

States. PMS 835. Boise, ID: National Wildfire

Coordination Group. 85 p.

Ottmar, R.D.; Vihnanek, R.E.; Regelbrugge, J.C. 2000.

Stereo photo series for quantifying natural fuels. Vol. IV:

pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, and chaparral types in the

Southwestern United States. PMS 833. Boise, ID:

National Wildfire Coordination Group. 97 p.

Ottmar, R.D.; Vihnanek, R.E.; Wright, C.S. 1998. Stereo

photo series for quantifying natural fuels. Vol. I: mixedconifer with mortality, western juniper, sagebrush, and

grassland types in the interior Pacific Northwest. PMS 830,

NFES 2580. Boise, ID: National Wildfire Coordination

Group. 73 p.

Ottmar, R.D.; Vihnanek, R.E.; Wright, C.S. 2000.

Stereo photo series for quantifying natural fuels. Vol.

III: lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, and gambel oak

types in the Rocky Mountains. PMS 832. Boise, ID:

National Wildfire Coordination Group. 85 p.

Outcalt, K.W.; Wade, D. 2000. The value of fuel

management in reducing wildfire damage. In:

Neuenschwander, L.F.; Ryan, K.C., eds. Proceedings of

the Joint Fire Science Program conference on crossing the

millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological

principles for a new age in fire management. Boise, ID:

University of Idaho and International Association for

Wildland Fire: 271-264.

Pierson, F.B.; Robichaud, P.R.; Spaeth, K.E. 2001. Spatial

and temporal effects of wildfire on the hydrology of a

steep rangeland watershed. Hydrological Processes. 15:

2905-2916.

Prestemon, J.P.; Pye, J.M.; Butry, D.T. [et al.]. 2002.

Understanding broad scale wildfire risks in humandominated landscapes. Forest Science. 48(4): 685-693.

Reinhardt, T.E.; Ottmar, R.D. 2000. Smoke exposure

at Western wildfires. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-525.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Reinhardt, T.E.; Ottmar, R.D.; Hanneman, A.J.S. 2000.

Smoke exposure among firefighters at prescribed burns in

the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-526. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 45 p.

Rorig, M.L.; Ferguson, S.A. 1999. Characteristics of

lightning and wildland fire ignition in the Pacific

Northwest. Northwest Journal of Applied

Meteorology. 38(11): 1565-1575.

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.; Ottmar, R.D.; Peterson, J.L.; Core,

J. 2002. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on

air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 79 p. Vol. 5.

Schmoldt, D.L.; Peterson, D.L.; Keane, R.E. [et al.]. 1999.

Assessing the effects of fire disturbance on ecosystems: a

scientific agenda for research and management. Portland,

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

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 104 p.

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems:

effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. Vol. 1.

34
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

Swetnam, T.W.; Betancourt, J.L. 1990. Fire–Southern

Oscillation relations in the Southwestern United

States. Science. 249: 1017-1020.

Welch, N.T.; Waldrop, T.A. 2001. Restoring Table

Mountain pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.) communities

with prescribed fire: an overview of current research.

Castanea. 66(1-2): 42-49.

Welch, N.T.; Waldrop, T.A.; Buckner, E.R. 2002.

Response of southern Appalachian Table Mountain

pine (Pinus pungens) and pitch pine (P. rigida) stands

to prescribed burning. Forest Ecology and

Management. 136: 185-197.

Winter, G.J.; Vogt, C.; Fried, J.S. 2002. Fuel treatments at

the wildland-urban interface: common concerns in diverse

regions. Journal of Forestry. 100(1): 15-21.

Wohlgemuth, P.M.; Hubbert, K.R.; Robichaud, P.R. 2001.

The effects of log erosion barriers on postfire hydrologic

response and sediment yield in small forested watersheds,

southern California. Hydrological Processes. 15: 3053-

3066.

SELECTED WEB SITES

Arizona Board of Regents. 2001. WALTER: exploring

wildfire alternatives. http://walter.arizona.edu.

(23 July 2003).

Arizona Board of Regents. 2002. CLIMAS: climate

assessment for the Southwest. http://

www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/learn/fire/index.html.

(23 July 2003).

National Fire Plan. 2003. National Fire Plan: managing the

impacts of wildfires on communities and the

environment. http://www.fireplan.gov/content/

home. (23 July).

National Interagency Fire Center. 2003. National

Interagency Fire Center. http://www.nifc.gov. (23 July).

National Interagency Fire Center. 2003. The

communicator’s guide: wildland fire. http://

www.nifc.gov/preved/comm_guide/wildfire/TOC.html.

(23 July).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Online

photography center photo research: fire. http://

www.usda.gov/oc/photo/opc-fire.htm. (23 July).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003.

Fuels planning: science synthesis and integration.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/tech_transfer/synthesis/

synthesis_index. (28 August).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003.

Rocky Mountain Research Station online fire publications.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/main/fire_res/

fire_pubs.html. (23 July).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2003. Hayman

Fire case study analysis. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/

hayman_fire/. (23 July).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;

U.S. Department of the Interior; Oregon

Department of Forestry. 2003. Biscuit Fire recovery

2003. http://www.biscuitfire.com/index.htm. (23

July).

U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Joint Fire

Science Program. http://jfsp.nifc.gov/. (23 July).

U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; National Aeronautics

and Space Administration. 2003. FRAMES: Fire

Research and Management Exchange System. http://

www.frames.gov/. (23 July).

Wildlandfire.com. 2003. Wildlandfire.com: the home of

the wildland firefighter. http://www.wildlandfire.com/

index.html. (23 July).

35
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

APPENDIX A:

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Oregon State University, March 18-19, 2003

Welcome and introductions

• Bruce Shindler, Professor of Forest Resources, Oregon

State University

• Jamie Barbour, Program Manager, Focused Science

Delivery Program, USDA Forest Service, PNW

Research Station

• Hal Salwasser, Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State

University

• Barb Beck, Lead Facilitator, Wildland Fire Associates

Bridging the world of fire managers and applied fire researchers

• Tom Harbour, Deputy Director, USDA Forest

Service, Fire and Aviation

• David Sandberg, Supervisory Research Biologist,

USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station

A trio of workshops and the Joint Fire Science-National Fire

Plan research connection

• Bob Clark, Program Manager, Joint Fire Science

Program, National Interagency Fire Center

An update on the postfire assessment

• Tom Link, Biscuit Fire Recovery Manager, Rogue

River-Siskiyou National Forest

Interdisciplinary panel discussion: Wildfire 2002: the effectiveness of information systems and processes for managing large

wildfires

• Bruce Shindler for Steve Fitzgerald, Extension

Forester, Oregon State University

• Vicky Sturtevant, Sociology Department, Southern

Oregon University

• Jeff Borchers, USDA Forest Service, PSW Research Station

Panel discussion: taking advantage of local opportunities

• Jim Doran, Colville Coalition

• Ike Cawston, Colville Indian Agency, USDI Bureau

of Indian Affairs Forestry

• Nils Christoffersen, Wallowa Resources

Reinstating traditional Native American practices—what does it

mean for fire managers today?

• Frank Lake, Department of Environmental Sciences,

Oregon State University

University of Arizona, March 25-27, 2003

Welcoming remarks

• Tom Swetnam, University of Arizona

• Bob Clark, Joint Fire Science Program, National

Interagency Fire Center

• John Szymoniak, USDA Forest Service, PSW

Research Station, National Interagency Fire Center

• Barbara Morehouse, University of Arizona

Photographic essays: Rodeo-Chedeski and Cerro Grande Fires

• John Philbin, Regional Forester, USDI Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Fort Apache Agency

• Craig Allen, USGS, Jemez Mountains Field Station

The Rodeo-Chedeski Fire and the White Mountain Apaches

• Dallas Massey, Chairman, White Mountain Apache

Tribe

Collaborative fire research among universities and agencies

• Patrick Reid, Director, School of Renewable and

Natural Resources, University of Arizona

WALTER: Exploring Wildfire Alternatives Dissemination

and Assimilation of Fire Information Science and Technology

• Steve Yool, Acting Head of Geography, University of

Arizona

Colorado State University, April 16-17, 2003

Welcome and keynote

• Phil Omi, Colorado State University

• Merrill Kaufmann, USDA Forest Service, RMRS

Agenda review and logistics

• Bob Clark, Joint Fire Science Program, National

Interagency Fire Center

• John Szymoniak, USDA Forest Service, PSW Research Station, National Interagency Fire Center

• Barb Beck, Wildland Fire Associates

Hayman Fire review and general Colorado situation

• Bill Romme, Colorado State University

Political perspective

• Mark Udall, Member of Congress, 2nd District, Colorado

Manager/line officer perspective

• Mark Stiles, Department of Forestry, San Juan Field

Office, USDI Bureau of Land Management

Tribal perspective

• John Waconda, USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Southwest Region

Creative writings on fire

• Dan Robinson, Colorado State University

36
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

APPENDIX B:

PRIORITIZED RESEARCH

RECOMMENDATIONS BY

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

The following recommendations were identified

as high priority by the Wildland Fire Workshop

participants in Oregon, Arizona, and Colorado in

March and April of 2003. A few recommendations

were essentially the same and were therefore collapsed

into a single statement or question by this author,

and minor edits were required in order to put them

into a common format. Otherwise, the lists reflect

an accurate representation of the research needs identified by participants. Tier 1 for each list represents

the top 10 priorities from each location, and tiers 2

and 3 represent intermediate and lower priority, respectively. Although these prioritized needs reflect

the scope of priorities identified by managers and

researchers from diverse fields and geographic locations, research priorities should also be considered

in light of particular management needs.

Oregon State University, March 18-19, 2003

Tier 1

• How effective are passive and active rehabilitation/restoration treatments on (a) reducing

undesirable consequences of fire and (b) accelerating the recovery processes? What are the

likely outcomes for associated ecological attributes and social values?

• What are the consequences of passive and active

fuel management strategies/treatments on fire

risk (e.g., behavior and severity) at multiple

temporal and spatial scales? Determine the likely

outcomes on ecological and social values (e.g.,

native species, invasive species, threatened and

endangered species, and economic values).

• Determine which techniques and processes are

most effective for moving research results and

information more quickly into application.

How can researchers package and deliver usable,

useful knowledge and products?

• Develop prediction tools (and the requisite

information base) for risk assessment. Develop

protocols and models for addressing uncertainty

and risk of undesirable consequences on important

resources (e.g., threatened and endangered species,

invasive species, watershed and aquatic ecosystem

function).

• Establish consistent, durable, flexible, and scalable

monitoring protocols to measure success and

support adaptive management processes.

• Determine the effects of postfire management

activities (e.g., BAER activities and salvage

harvests) on hill slope processes, future fire

behavior, vegetation succession, aquatic ecosystems, and wildlife habitat. Are these activities

and effects consistent with long-term goals and

objectives?

• From a landscape perspective, what spatial and

temporal patterns of fuel conditions reduce the

potential for the occurrence of severe wildfires?

What are the implications for different resources

(e.g., wildlife, water, soil, etc.)?

• Design a decision-support system that effectively

integrates ecological, economic, and social

dimensions (i.e., a model that brings together

disparate values for decisionmaking in uncertain

environments).

• Determine the ecological role of fire on hill slope

processes and aquatic ecosystems.

• Develop an optimization process to allocate

funds and other resources to address the use of

prescribed fire and the suppression of wildfires;

consider the costs/benefits to social and cultural

values.

Tier 2

• What adjustments are needed in existing institutional structures, processes, and policies to make

organizations more effective in fire planning

and management?

• What can be learned from communities that

have been successful at fire planning and firebased programs, and how can we apply these

lessons to other communities?

37
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

• How does postfire logging influence future fire

behavior and ecological conditions?

• Improve fuel consumption modeling to better

predict fire size and the effects of climate and

weather.

• How can we use climate and weather to predict

fire hazard, risks, and consequences?

• Determine postfire fuel accumulation rates and

relationships across different ecosystems.

• Develop methods to determine desired future

conditions for forest and rangeland ecosystems.

Design engagement processes to identify/quantify

social priorities. What is the role of fire in achieving

these conditions?

Tier 3

• Develop methods to quantify smoke and the

tradeoffs of its effects.

• Determine the effects of smoke exposure on

human health.

• Determine the ecological effects and social/

economic dimensions of gaining a postfire community from burned ecosystems.

• What is the role of historical management practices

on fire severity and subsequent effects, and what

are the likely consequences of continued fire

suppression policies?

• What are the long-term consequences to site

nutrient capital given a fire cycle of increasing

frequency and intensity?

• Develop methods to determine the probability

of a catastrophic fire event, both preseason and

at the time of the event.

• Assess existing models for analyzing landscape

conditions and determine the best framework for

integrating these tools. What information is lacking,

and how do we obtain it?

• Determine which fuel types and over what

timeframes our management actions should be

directed to influence the disturbance processes

of fire, insects, and diseases.

University of Arizona, March 25-27, 2003

Tier 1

• How effective are different fuel treatments

within the context of weather, climate, smoke

emissions, multiple spatial and temporal scales,

different vegetation types, condition classes, cost

efficiency of treatments, and human values at

risk? Answering this question may include the

use of simulation models.

• What are the variables influencing effective

communication with the public?

• What political, institutional, and economic factors

affect the utilization of small-diameter trees and

slash in the Southwest?

• What are the most effective methods for determining if we are focusing fire management efforts in

places with the highest values at risk (i.e., social,

economic, cultural, and ecological values)?

• On a system-by-system basis, what is the role of

invasive species in spreading fire, and what is the

role of fire in spreading invasive species?

• What are the impacts of planned and unplanned

fire and fire regimes on threatened and endangered

species relative to managing fire intensity, fire

frequency, and season of burn?

• Identify and describe thresholds that cause drastic

change in fire behavior in terms of fuel type,

terrain, weather, size of fire, crown fire initiation

and disruption, and firefighter safety.

• Develop a consistent and coherent fire occurrence database, including (but not limited to)

the development of standards to define fire

severity and the relationship to aquatic and

territorial ecosystems for arid and semiarid

regions.

• Create regional maps of fuel characteristics that

are not currently represented in existing models

for the Southwest. This approach takes into

account fire behavior thresholds and variable

stand characteristics and will involve remote

sensing.

• Are BAER treatments and other erosion-control

strategies effective in mitigating and restoring

fire-affected watersheds in arid or semiarid

geographic areas?

Tier 2

• What are the fire regime characteristics, effects,

behavior, and predisposing factors related to

fire in Southwest ecosystems (i.e., ponderosa

pine, chaparral, mixed conifer, pinion-juniper,

38
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

and oak woodlands)? The development of a

hazard rating system could be one application

of this research.

• How do we model short- and long-term interactions among socioeconomic and biophysical

factors to assess prefire and postfire vulnerability

and risk?

• What relationships between agencies and other

groups are important under different circumstances, and what will foster the best collaboration

among the players?

• What were the effects of historical drought (e.g.,

the 1950s drought in the Southeast and Southwest)

on insect and disease populations and fire? Addressing this question would involve identifying

spatial and temporal patterns, developing

ecoregional approaches to outbreak mitigation,

and evaluating the interaction between fire

behavior, risk, and vegetation mortality.

• What is the impact of fire on the episodic

movement of sediments, nutrients, and metals in

intermittent streams?

• How does climate affect the role of fire on the

spread of flammable invasive species, and how are

fire cycles related to climate and its effects on

flammable invasive species?

• What economic models can be developed to aid

in decisionmaking before, during, and after fire

events?

• With the involvement of research, development,

and monitoring, create and test short- and longterm soil erosion and water quality monitoring

protocols.

• Synthesize information for common locations

(and in a common language) that is available to

managers, researchers, and others, as relevant to

current and future needs.

• Which rehabilitation techniques are most appropriate for preventing the spread of invasive species,

and what are the effects of seeding with exotic

species?

Tier 3

• In order to improve prescriptive fire, fuel, and

smoke programs at wildland-urban interface

areas, model the interactions between climate,

fuel treatments, restoration and rehabilitation,

and smoke emission inventories.

• At the stand and landscape scales, what are the

interactions between fire behavior, drought,

insects, diseases, and affected vegetation, including the effects of fire on different vegetation

seral stages?

• What is the role of fire in maintaining mosaics of

communities to maintain threatened and endangered species across the landscape?

• Develop and refine models for regional use that

are interactive, efficient, user-friendly, and that will

analyze input data and provide treatment options.

• What are the implications of the Endangered

Species Act on the achievement of National Fire

Plan objectives?

• Identify existing systems that are relatively

“natural” for comparison with “altered” systems

in order to evaluate the effects of insects and

diseases on fire.

• Define desired fuel conditions across the Southwest based on current fuel conditions, their

departure from historical conditions, and the

feasibility of sustaining desired conditions.

• Implement research and monitoring to verify

smoke dispersion and transport models for

improved future use (i.e., Do the models actually

do what they say they will do?).

• Identify key elements that establish parameters

for smoke management, regional haze, wildlandurban interface areas, nuisance, and health

standards as related to wildfire and prescriptive

fire.

Colorado State University, April 16-17, 2003

Tier 1

• How do fuel, stand structure, and fire history differ

currently and historically within and across vegetation association types, and what are the appropriate methods for mapping this information

across the landscape and making predictions

given various climatic and management scenarios?

• Characterize the responses of invasive nonnative

species (or threatened and endangered species) to

wildland fire, prescribed fire, fire exclusion, fuel

39
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

treatments, and herbicides. This implies experimental testing under a range of environmental

conditions (e.g., fire intensity, vegetation type,

and stand characteristics).

• Evaluate the effectiveness of fuel treatments and

ecological restoration in the context of landscapescale events–how does treatment effectiveness

differ across climate and weather gradients?

• For all stakeholders, what are the positive and

negative effects of insects and diseases on fire

behavior from stand to landscape scales, and can

these patterns be used to predict the occurrence of

large fires?

• Refine and improve existing fire behavior

prediction and management tools.

• What are the costs, benefits, values, products,

markets, and employment opportunities assignable

to ecological restoration, fuel reduction, and

wildland fire?

• How can we improve the transfer and integration of common research results, including

usable operational products, into management

decisionmaking?

• Evaluate the current efforts for ecological

restoration, fuel reduction, and fire mitigation

in light of the interactions between changing

demographics and public values, attitudes, and

perceptions toward wildland fire and forest

health.

• Develop a database with historical information

on fire distribution and interactions with

climate, insects, and diseases.

• What are the factors that impede adoption of

adaptive management practices, and how do we

overcome barriers to better implementation?

Tier 2

• How effective are the various treatments and

rehabilitation measures in mimicking natural

disturbance processes necessary for the maintenance of threatened and endangered species

habitats?

• Evaluate the effectiveness of and recommend

improvements for various statutes, codes,

regulations, and policies as they affect the

wildland-urban interface.

• Identify an array of assessment and monitoring

protocols that can be used to identify highpriority areas for prefire and postfire treatments,

and for assessing the effects of treatments.

• From a landscape perspective, determine the

relationship between fire and important biological

communities (e.g., riparian, aquatic, and rare

communities).

• Develop landscape models and strategies that

span administrative boundaries to assess risk,

acceptable conditions, economic values, and

multiple programmatic goals.

• Assess the effects of prefire and postfire vegetation

treatments on insect and disease dynamics relative

to seasonality, drought, mechanical treatments,

salvage operations, and BAER.

• Synthesize fire behavior, fuel, and smoke information from case studies of prescribed fires and

wildfires to create foundations and validation

for models.

• How do we characterize and enhance the

effectiveness of ecological restoration, fuel

reduction, and wildland fire mitigation at

various scales of policy, administration, and

operations?

• Develop and enhance competencies and capabilities

for sustaining collaboration within and among

communities and agencies.

• Develop models to predict (a) the response of

invasive nonnative species to wildfire, prescribed

fire, fuel treatments, and (b) the effectiveness of

various mitigation strategies. These models would

allow managers to evaluate tradeoffs, select alternatives, and develop management plans.

• Evaluate the multiple-scale effects of fires on

patch dynamics, movement corridors, and other

unique components of habitat matrices important to threatened and endangered species

(e.g., lynx).

Tier 3

• How are different base conditions, prefire treatments, direct fire effects during and after fire,

fire suppression activities, and postfire activities

related to peak flows and erosion rates? This

40
BRIDGING THE WORLDS OF FIRE MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

question could be addressed in different geographic areas and under different magnitudes of

spatially variable storm events.

• How do changes in sedimentation, water chemistry, and the amount and timing of stream-flow

affect municipal water supplies and aquatic

ecosystems, and how do we develop appropriate

assessment and predictive procedures?

• Who are the target users for new models and

technologies being developed? This includes

characterizing potential users in terms of their

capability of using the tools, identifying their

administrative level, and assessing the informa41

Several research and management activities depend on consistent and effective protocols, including mitigating and evaluating

the harmful effects of fire in watersheds.

tion environment in which they operate.

• Given epidemic insect and disease conditions,

what types and intensities of prefire and postfire

vegetation management should we apply, when

should we apply them, and to which geographic

locations?

• Using modeling and monitoring strategies, characterize endemic to epidemic insect and disease

dynamics under prefire and postfire conditions.

• Clearly define the national fire emissions inventory

and develop tools to improve its utility for meeting

federal, regional, state, and tribal needs.

Photo by Tom Iraci

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, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

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

Room 326-W. Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

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 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300