Clinton administration policies that have restricted logging have “made the forests more dangerous to fire.” Governor George W. Bush on the Presidential campaign trail.

“Some of the years with the worst fires over the past two decades were those in which logging was at record highs.” Congressional Research Service Memo (2000).

“Cutting only the smallest-diameter trees probably would not markedly improve forest health…cutting some larger trees to allow more sunlight and nutrients to reach the remaining growth and allowing those larger trees to be used in wood products .. that’s the incentive.” Butch Bernhardt of the Western Wood Products Association (Associated Press, August 17, 2000).
 
“Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity.” Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report (1996).
 

Introduction

Seems like nearly every day in this troubling fire season local and national headlines read “worse fires in recent memory.”  The media swoops in with the latest statistics on wildfires in the West – more than 6 million acres charred in 13 western states, with over 25,000 firefighters seeking to contain 83 or so blazes that have consumed hundreds of homes. In the wake of all this attention, Presidential candidates seek to position themselves in public opinion polls, citing a 75% reduction in logging levels on National Forests during the past decade as having “made the forests more dangerous to fire” and implying that the federal roadless area policy is akin to a match in a tinderbox.  In the meantime, massive thinnings, road building, and a rash of prescribed fires are proposed as a quick fix solution to the past 100 years of “Smokey the Bear” fire-suppression.  While conservationists push for roadless area protection, on grounds that these are the last remnants of what were once large and intact forests, others envision conflagrations in forests if not intensively managed. The rest of us ponder – where is the science in all this?  Is every acre doomed to catastrophic fire if not intensively managed?   Is it appropriate to treat all forests the same regardless of whether they have an existing road system or have not been severely influenced by fire suppression?

There is increasing agreement among fire ecologists that limited removal of some small trees from overly dense, dry forests – in combination with prescribed fire -- may be appropriate tools for reducing fire hazard.  However, a season of electoral politics combined with media hype and the spread of misinformation has unfairly targeted roadless areas and increased emphasis on logging for fuels reduction rather than concentrating on where fire treatment is needed most.

In this paper we summarize the available evidence on the relationship between fire and timber management in roaded vs. roadless areas. The information presented here is taken from scientific studies conducted on national forests in the western U.S., where the large majority of roadless areas are located and the controversy over fire and forest health issues has prevailed. We also evaluate the ecological impacts of silvicultural treatments and prescribed fire for fire hazard reduction in roadless areas, and provide a basic strategy for identifying on a case-by-case basis where active management may be ecologically appropriate for reducing fuels and maintaining fire-dependent forest ecosystems.

Fire Hazard And Vegetation Conditions In Roadless Areas Vs. Managed Lands

Widespread scientific consensus exists that protecting national forest roadless areas from road construction, logging, and other forms of development will result in significant gains for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (Henjum et al. 1994, Noss and Cooperider 1994, Ercelawn 1999, Strittholt and DellaSala in review). However, two frequently repeated assertions made by critics of roadless area protection are that: 1) restrictions on access and timber management will lead to increased frequency of large, high-intensity fires; and 2) widespread silvicultural treatments (e.g. thinning, partial cutting) in roadless areas can be effective and will be necessary to reduce fire hazard (Schlarbaum 1999, Hansen 1999, Bernton 1999).

An analysis of scientific literature on the relationship between fire and forest management reveals that forests in roadless areas are the least altered from historic conditions and present a lower fire hazard than forests in managed areas, because they have: 1) not been subject to timber management activities that often create increased fuel loads and reduce resilience to fire, 2) have been less influenced by the effects of fire suppression than previously managed lands, and 3) present the lowest risk of human-caused ignitions.

Case Studies - recent scientific assessments conducted on federal lands for the Interior Columbia River Basin (portions of OR, WA, ID, MT, WY and NV) and Sierra Nevada (CA) provide the most comprehensive analysis of fire, fuel, and vegetation conditions in managed vs. unmanaged (e.g. roadless) areas. Both of these assessments found that fire hazard is significantly higher in managed portions of the national forests. The elevated likelihood of high-intensity fire in managed areas was associated with numerous factors, including increased fuel loads and creation of more fire-susceptible stands by timber harvest, higher probability of human-caused ignitions, and dominance of forests characterized by a frequent fire/low-intensity fire regime in managed landscapes.

According to the Interior Columbia Basin Assessment, “fires in unroaded areas are not as severe as in roaded areas because of less surface fuel… Many of the fires in the unroaded areas produce a forest structure that is consistent with the fire regime, while the fires in the roaded areas commonly produce a forest structure that is not in sync with the fire regime. Fires in the roaded areas are more intense, due to drier conditions, wind zones on the foothill/valley interface, high surface-fuel loading, and dense stands” (Hann et al. 1997).

Even within those particular forests types that have been most altered as a result of fire suppression (e.g. dry forests with frequent/low-intensity fire regime), managed areas on federal lands within the Interior Columbia Basin are more dense and carry higher fuel loads than roadless areas, and are at higher risk of tree mortality from fire, insects, disease and other disturbance agents (Hann et al. 1997).

Similar findings have been reported by other researchers for various portions of the inland west. In the Sierra Nevada, timber harvest was identified as the single most important factor responsible for an increase in potential fire severity (McKelvey et al. 1996, Weatherspoon 1996). In the Klamath Mountains of northwest California, Weatherspoon and Skinner (1995) found that partial-cut stands with fuels treatment burned more intensely and suffered higher levels of tree mortality than unmanaged areas. Fire and fuel models also suggest that mechanical treatments, including silvicultural thinning and biomass removal, alone are not likely to be effective at reducing fire severity in dense stands (van Wagtendonk 1996).

In eastern Oregon and Washington, Lehmkuhl et al. (1995) and Huff et al. (1995) reported a positive correlation between fuel loadings, predicted flame lengths and logging. They attributed the increased fire hazard in managed areas to slash fuels generated as a by-product of tree removal activities (including thinning), and to the creation of dense, early-successional stands via logging that have a high fire potential. A post-fire study of the effectiveness of fuels treatments – including thinning – on previously non-harvested lands in the Wenatchee National Forest, Washington found that harvest treatments likely exacerbated fire damage (USDA Forest Service 1995). Contrary to statements that have been made by critics of roadless area protection, the forests most in need of fuels treatment are not roadless areas but areas that have already been roaded and logged, “where significant investments have already been made” (USDA Forest Service/USDI Department of Interior 1997).

Reduced Effectiveness Of Fire Suppression In Roadless Areas

In addition to the increased fire potential associated with past timber management, there is some evidence that fire suppression activities have generally been less effective in roadless areas than in roaded portions of the national forests (SNEP 1996, Hann et al. 1997).  Reduced effectiveness of fire suppression in roadless areas may be attributable to limited access and steep terrain, which prevents the use of large, ground-based suppression strategies and also increases potential for more severe fire behavior (Schroeder and Buck 1970, Fuller 1991, Agee 1993, Pyne 1996).

Fires in roadless areas, which tend to be more isolated from areas of human settlement than roaded lands, are often the lowest priority for suppression during years when fire- fighting resources are in short supply. Infrequent years with numerous large fires, when suppression forces are prioritized to those fires in managed landscapes, are when the vast majority of national forest acreage is burned (Strauss et al. 1989). While data are limited, it is likely that findings from the Interior Columbia Basin assessment on this topic may apply to other portions of the country:

“Fire suppression was generally more effective in the roaded areas. The combination of past harvest practices and more effective fire suppression moved the roaded landscapes much further from their unaltered biophysical templates, as measured by dominant species, structures, and patterns, relative to unroaded areas… In general, all forests which show the most change from their historical condition are those that have been roaded and harvested” (Hann et al. 1997).

Further, the forests that are most susceptible to moisture stress, insects, disease and high-intensity fire tend to be those at the lowest elevations, which typically border private, state, tribal or other land ownerships (Everett et al. 1994).

Another reason why fire suppression has had less influence in roadless than in managed areas is associated with differences in vegetation and fire regimes. The majority of national forest roadless areas, particularly those located on national forests of the inland west, are generally dominated by mid- to high elevations (Henjum et al. 1994, Beschta et al. 1995, Merrill et al. 1995).  However, exceptions do occur in the eastern U.S., where elevational gradients are limited, and the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, where very steep slopes have limited road construction (Strittholt and DellaSala, in review).

Higher elevations are cooler, receive more moisture, have a short summer dry season, and are typically characterized by low frequency/high intensity fire regimes (van Wagner 1983, Baker 1989, Agee 1993). Roadless areas are therefore less likely to have current fire regimes that are significantly different from historic conditions (Beschta et al. 1995, Agee 1997).

When fires do get established in high-elevation forests, weather rather than fuels is often the primary variable determining fire severity and extent (Flannigan and Harrington 1988, Johnson and Wowchuck 1993, Turner et al. 1994, Bessie and Johnson 1995, Agee 1997). The efficacy of fire suppression decreases dramatically in forest types characterized by high-intensity fires and under severe fire weather (SNEP 1996, Agee 1998). Despite substantial investments of both financial and human resources, many large fires are not successfully controlled or extinguished by fire fighting efforts; instead, they are extinguished when the weather changes (Romme and Despain 1989).

Reduced Probability Of Human-Caused Ignitions In Roadless Areas

Roadless areas have lower potential for high-intensity fires than roaded areas because they are less prone to human-caused ignitions (DellaSala et al. 1995, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996, USDA Forest Service 2000). Roads constructed for timber management and other activities provide unregulated motorized access to the majority of national forest lands, and are heavily used by the general public. In the western U.S., a large proportion of the more than 378,000 miles of national forest roads travel through heavily managed forests that exhibit the greatest potential for high severity fire. More than 90 percent of all wildfires are human human-caused, which can be attributed to operation of motorized vehicles, logging equipment, smoking, arson, campfires, and debris burning (USDA Forest Service 1996, 1998). Due to very limited human access, roadless areas are subject to much lower probabilities of human-caused ignitions.

Problems With The Use Of Mechanical Fuels Reduction In Roadless Areas

Some land managers and forest scientists advocate the widespread use of silvicultural treatments (of which thinning is the most widely proposed harvest-based fuels reduction method) in western roadless areas to reduce fuel loads and tree stocking levels, and thereby decrease the probability of large, intense fires. Although thinning within the context of intensive forestry is not new, its efficacy as a tool for fire hazard reduction at the landscape scale is controversial, largely unsubstantiated, and fundamentally experimental in nature thereby requiring caution particularly when applied across large landscapes (FEMAT 1993, Henjum et al. 1994, DellaSala et al. 1995, SNEP 1996, USDA Forest Service 2000).

There have been only a few empirical studies that have tested the relationship between thinning or fuels treatment and fire behavior on even a limited basis. In spite of hypothesized benefits, these studies, as well as anecdotal information and analysis of recent fires, suggest that thinning treatments have highly variable results. In some instances, thinning treatments intended to reduce fire hazard appear to have the opposite effect (Huff et al. 1995, van Wagtendonk 1996, Weatherspoon 1996). Such treatments may reduce fuel loads, but they also allow more solar radiation and wind to reach the forest floor. The net effect is usually reduced fuel moisture and increased flammability (Countryman 1955, Agee 1997).

Second, mechanical treatments fail to mimic the numerous ecological effects of fire, including those associated with soil heating, nutrient cycling, and altering community structure (DellaSala et al. 1995, Chang 1996, Weatherspoon and Skinner, in press). In fact, according to the SNEP (1996), “although silvicultural treatments can mimic the effects of fire on structural patterns of woody vegetation, virtually no data exist on their ability to mimic the ecological functions of natural fire. Silvicultural treatments can create patterns of woody vegetation that appear similar to those that fire would create, but the consequences for nutrient cycling, hydrology, seed scarification, non-woody vegetation response, plant diversity, disease and insect infestation, and genetic diversity are almost unknown.”

Third, although our current understanding of the ecological effects of thinning is incomplete, available evidence indicates that these operations, even when carefully conducted, can result in numerous adverse environmental impacts, including:
 

• damage to soil integrity through increased erosion, compaction, and loss of litter layer (Harvey et al. 1994, Meurisse and Geist 1994);
• increased mortality of residual trees due to pathogens and mechanical damage to boles and roots (Hagle and Schmitz 1993, Filip 1994);
• creation of sediment that may eventually be delivered to streams (Beschta 1978, Grant and Wolff 1991);
• increased levels of fine fuels and near-term fire hazard (Fahnestock 1968, Wilson and Dell 1971, Huff et al. 1995, Weatherspoon 1996);
• dependence on roads, which result in numerous adverse effects (Henjum et al. 1994, Megahan et al. 1994); and
• reduced habitat quality for sensitive species associated with cool, moist microsites or closed canopy forests (FEMAT 1993, Thomas et al. 1993).

These downsides to mechanical treatments should be of particular concern in context of managing roadless areas, where ecological values are known to be especially high. Moreover, roadless areas are often located in steep, unstable terrain that is highly sensitive to human disturbance (The Wilderness Society 1993, Henjum et al. 1994). According to the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, most of existing roadless areas “are considered inoperable because timber harvest and road construction would result in irretrievable loss of soil productivity and other watershed values. These lands consist of erosion- and landslide-prone landforms such as inner gorges, unstable portions of slump earthflow deposits, deeply weathered and dissected weak rocks, and headwalls” (FEMAT 1993).

Similarly, the scientific assessment for the Interior Columbia Basin found that “there is a high risk to watershed capabilities from further road development in these [roadless] areas. In general, the effects of wildfires in these areas are much lower and do not result in the chronic sediment delivery hazards exhibited in areas that have been roaded. In contrast, the already roaded areas have high potential for restoration action” (USDA Forest Service/USDI Department of Interior 1997). Given the potential for adverse impacts from thinning in roadless areas, many scientists recommend limiting thinning to previously managed lands already degraded by fire suppression and past logging (Henjum et al. 1994, Perry 1995, DellaSala et al. 1995, Beschta et al. 1995, McKelvey et al. 1996, Hann et al. 1997, Franklin et al. 1997) and using limited thinning as a last resort in roadless areas where fire hazard is unacceptably high and prescribed burning cannot be safely and effectively implemented.

Silviculture has a role to play in a scientifically-based approach to fire management and forest restoration on federal lands, however, this role should first be directed at the highest priority areas on an experimental basis. Available evidence indicates that allowing widespread mechanical treatments to be conducted in roadless areas has a greater probability of increasing ecosystem degradation than of decreasing it. Therefore, we conclude that experimentation with the use of mechanical treatments for fire hazard reduction should take place in roaded areas first and foremost, particularly in forests immediately adjacent to private lands where the ecological risks are lower and are most likely to reduce the threat of fire to human lives and private property.

Roadless areas should be considered for mechanical treatment only after other higher priority landscapes are addressed and only if it can be demonstrated that such treatments will not degrade ecological values. Any mechanical treatment in roadless areas should target first the small roadless areas (<5,000 ac) with relatively good access, those nearest the interface, and those where fire risks (from past suppression) are highest, making use of mechanical reduction of small trees only. Under no conditions should new roads be built to conduct mechanical thinning.

The Imperative For Increasing Use Of Prescribed Fire

The Forest Service should prioritize treatment of roadless areas primarily through the reintroduction of fire using prescribed management fire and prescribed natural fire. Restoration of ecological processes is key to promoting ecosystem integrity and preserving biological diversity (Samson and Knopf 1993), particularly in unroaded areas. Use of prescribed fire has been successful in restoring wildland fire regimes to many fire-adapted ecosystems (Wright and Bailey 1982), and widespread consensus exists that additional burning is necessary (Walstad et al. 1990, Mutch 1994, 1995, USDA Forest Service/USDI Department of Interior 1995, Arno 1996).

Prescribed fire has numerous advantages over mechanical treatments in areas where ecological integrity and biodiversity conservation are important management objectives (Weatherspoon et al. 1992, SNEP 1996, Hann et al. 1997), and also appears to be the most effective treatment for reducing wildfire severity and rate of spread (van Wagtendonk 1996, Stephens 1998). In addition to reducing fuel loading and continuity, prescribed fire may decrease pest outbreaks, provide germination sites for shade-intolerant species, release nutrients, and create wildlife habitat (Walstad et al. 1990, Agee 1993, Chang 1996, Biswell 1999).

Positive outcomes associated with prescribed fire are, of course, contingent on detailed site-specific planning, adequate budgetary support, and careful execution by trained personnel. In roadless areas with forests characterized by low-intensity/high frequency fire regimes, several repeated prescribed burns, spaced over a relatively short time period, may be required to sufficiently reduce fuels while ensuring that fire intensities remain within an acceptable range (Biswell 1999). After initial modification, treatment frequency can then be designed to reflect the pre-settlement disturbance frequency in these ecosystems. A comparison of the costs of various prescribed fire vs. mechanical treatments is beyond the scope of this paper, but data from the Sierra Nevada in California suggests that prescribed burning is likely to be considerably cheaper than both mechanical treatments and fire suppression (Husari and McKelvey 1996). Deeming (1990) summarizes the literature on the cost effectiveness of prescribed burning vs. other fuel treatments.

In addition to prescribed management fires, significant ecological benefits could be achieved by allowing some wildfires to burn in roadless areas under specific environmental conditions (e.g. prescribed natural fires). The Forest Service continues to immediately suppress all wildfires without considering the potential resource benefits of a ‘confine and contain’ strategy. However, new federal policies (USDA Forest Service/USDI Department of Interior 1995) now permit wildfires to be carefully ‘managed’ if they meet resource objectives and are consistent with historic fire regimes. Less than full control strategies for fire suppression may be employed, provided the strategy chosen is projected to incur the least cost of suppression and least loss of resource values (McKelvey et al. 1996). Use of carefully planned prescribed natural fire in roadless areas based on fire regime, expected fire behavior, and other variables should be fully evaluated in fire hazard reduction as an alternative to costly fire fighting in remote areas having little infrastructure.  According to Morrison et al. (2000), the Forest Service this year has already spent $20.5 million fighting a 60,000 acre fire that is 90% within roadless and wilderness areas outside the town of Burgdorf Junction, Idaho and $37.1 million fighting a 192,000 acre blaze mostly in roadless and wilderness near Clear Creek, Idaho.

Identifying And Prioritizing Roadless Areas For Prescribed Fire Treatments

As summarized, scientific assessments conducted for federal lands in several western regions generally agree that previously roaded and logged areas should be the highest priority for fuels reduction and forest health treatments (FEMAT 1993, SNEP 1996, Hann et al. 1997). Moreover, many national forest roadless areas, such as those in the eastern hardwood forests and Pacific coastal forests, are dominated by forest types where fire is characteristically either an infrequent or unimportant phenomena (Leenhouts 1998). We conclude that use of mechanical treatments in roadless areas should not be the first priority for fuels reduction.  Such areas could instead benefit from proactive fire/fuels management using prescribed fire. Thus, fire management in roadless areas should consider: 1) a standardized set of guidelines for identifying and prioritizing roadless areas based on their fire hazard and risk at the national or regional level, and 2) a subsequent step-down process for planning fire treatments at the local level that allow fire to play a much more important role while at the same time minimizing risks to ecological values. Development of a comprehensive set of criteria for prioritizing roadless areas for prescribed fire treatments is largely beyond the scope of this paper. However, the following list of roadless area attributes provides an initial guidepost for managers:
 

• majority of area covered by dry forest types that historically were characterized by low-intensity/high frequency fire regimes;
• high levels of horizontal and vertical continuity of fuels across large, contiguous areas (e.g. high stand densities and/or highly flammable fuel loads);
• long interval since last major fire (e.g. missed more than two-several natural fire cycles);
• topographic and elevational homogeneity (e.g. gentle terrain), where fire fighting efforts have more likely influenced fire behavior and also allow for relatively low-risk fire treatments;
• absence of significant natural barriers to the spread of fire (e.g rocky terrain, non-forested vegetation, waterways, etc.);
• close proximity to the wildland-rural interface, major population centers, transportation routes, residential developments and other infrastructure (where fire risk is high);
• absence or low density of threatened, endangered species or rare communities that are known to be adversely affected by fire or predicted vegetation changes resulting from fire treatments; and
• absence of fish refugia where burning could impair hydrological processes or sediment input to critical spawning beds.

Need For A Comprehensive Fuels Reduction Strategy

We fully acknowledge that roadless areas do not exist in isolation of other land designations and that for fuel reductions to be effective they must take place within the context of a bigger picture approach.  This means targeting the areas of highest priority first and applying the treatment consistent with ecological need that is best for the forest over the long run (spatially and temporally).  For roadless areas, once priority areas have been identified that could potentially benefit from prescribed fire treatments at the national and regional scale, then site-specific burn plans can be developed for individual or complexes of roadless areas by integrating spatial information on fire hazard (fuel load, fuel continuity, topography), fire risk (ignition history, weather) and ecosystem values (old-growth forests, wildlife habitat, sensitive watersheds) (Crutzen and Goldhammer 1993, Agee 1995, Bunting 1996, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996, Johnson et al. 1997). By employing this kind of tiered prioritization, limited resources will be directed to those areas most in need of fuels reduction.

Over time, as fire is reintroduced into roadless areas where it is most appropriate – coupled with other fuel treatments in adjacent managed lands – the occurrence of large, high-intensity wildfire may be of less concern. We also acknowledge that in some cases, limited thinning (removal of small trees from below-the-canopy) may be needed as a pre-requisite of prescribed fire in some roadless lands.  However, we stress caution in overemphasizing mechanical treatment as a default strategy in roadless areas, given the uncertain effects of thinning on the landscape scale. According to the USDA Forest Service (2000), a mere 4% of roadless lands present high fire hazard; the vast majority of these areas are therefore in the managed and roaded landscape with existing infrastructure.

We also emphasize that consideration be given to a comprehensive fuels reduction and prioritization strategy in roaded and roadless landscapes that includes the following criteria:
 

• limit mechanical treatments to high risk areas, primarily roaded landscapes and the rural/wildland interface;
• define the rural/wildland interface by treating highest density (around towns) areas as a first line of defense and provide homeowners with assistance grants to reduce hazard on private land (i.e., create defensible space);
• conduct ecological assessments to identify restoration priorities before large scale treatments take place;
• conduct economic assessments and compare fire treatment strategies for cost effectiveness (however, be prepared to use creative funding and service contract agreements in the event that proposed restoration cannot pay for itself);
• eliminate commercial incentives for mechanical treatment of large trees in roadless areas by decoupling goods from services (i.e., pay a fixed fee for tree removal services that is not tied to sale volume) in the 4% of roadless areas requiring treatment; and
• restrict thinning to small-diameter trees (e.g. generally less than 12” dbh) where it can be demonstrated that current densities are outside the historic range of variability.

While there is much that can be done to reduce fire hazards, there is no magic bullet to reverse nearly a century of fire-suppression activities.  Even in spite of our best intentions, the fire situation may worsen as more homeowners build log cabins deeper into the back woods and climate change produces drier, more fire-prone conditions.  In addition, while this year’s fires may indeed be the “worse in recent memory,” particularly given the number of homes in the path of fires, pre-suppression fire activities in some years burned more than 50 million acres (Morrison et al. 2000).

In conclusion, the strategy outlined above is consistent with Chief Dombeck’s emphasis on treating the highest priority areas as a first line of defense and using caution on the rest.  In a recent letter to Senator Bingaman, the Chief indicated that priority projects needed to be carried out by service contracts in non-controversial areas of the urban-wildlands interface and designated municipal watersheds with a 12-inch diameter limit.  The Chief is correct in his assessment of where the treatment is needed most – in the interface and targeting the smallest trees that have choked forest understories during the fire suppression era.  While some would instead like to sweeten the restoration pot by taking big trees to make timber sales economical (“that’s the incentive”) or removing big trees “to allow more sunlight and nutrients to reach the remaining growth,” neither strategy is consistent with ecological need or the available science on fire hazard reduction.  Only through a comprehensive approach to fuels reduction that emphasizes treatment where needed most (the interface and managed lands, small trees, well-managed prescribed fire) and protection of roadless values will we begin to restore resiliency to western forest ecosystems.
 

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science 72 (special issue): 1-12.

Agee, J.K. 1997. Severe fire weather: Too hot to handle? Northwest Science 71: 153-156.

Agee, J.K. 1995. Alternatives for implementing fire policy. Pp. 107-112 in: J.K. Brown, et al. (eds.). Proceedings, Symposium on fire in wilderness and park management, March 30-April 1, 1993, Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320. Missoula, MT.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Arno, S.F.  1996.  The seminal importance of fire in ecosystem management -- impetus for this publication. In The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration.  USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-341.  Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Baker, W.L.1989. Effect of scale and spatial heterogeneity on fire-interval distributions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19: 700-706.

Bernton, H. 1999. Fire prevention muddies goals for roadless areas. Oregonian, November 28, 1999. Portland, OR.

Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 14: 1011-1016.

Beschta, R.L., C.A. Frissell, R. Gresswell, R. Hauer, J.R. Karr, G.W. Minshall, D.A. Perry,  and J.J. Rhodes. 1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: Recommendations for ecologically sound post-fire salvage logging and other post-fire treatments on federal lands in the West. Published  by Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR.  16 pp.

Bessie, W.C. and E.A. Johnson. 1995. The relative importance of fuels and weather on fire behavior in subalpine forests. Ecology 76: 747-762.

Biswell, H.H. 1999. Prescribed burning in California wildlands vegetation management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Bunting, S.C. 1996. The use and role of fire in natural areas. Pp. 277-301 in: R.G. Wright, ed. National parks and protected areas: Their role in environmental protection. Blackwell Science. Cambridge, MA.

Chang, C.R. 1996. Ecosystem responses to fire and variations in fire regimes. Pp. 1071-1099 in: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress Volume II.  Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis.

Congressional Research Service Memo. 2000. August 22 memo to Senator Ron Wyden prepared by Ross W. Gorte, Natural Resource Economist and Senior Policy Analyst, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

Countryman, C.M. 1955. Old-growth conversion also converts fire climate. U.S. Forest Service Fire Control Notes 17(4): 15-19.

Crutzen, P.J. and J.G. Goldhammer, eds. Fire in the environment: The ecological, atmospheric, and climatic importance of vegetation fires. John Wiley, New York, NY.

Deeming, J.E. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on wildfire occurrence and severity. Pp. 95-104 in: J.D. Walstad, S.R. Radosevich and D.V. Sandberg, eds. 1990. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

DellaSala, D.A., D.M. Olson, S.E. Barth, S.L. Crane, and S.A. Primm. 1995. Forest health: moving beyond the rhetoric to restore healthy landscapes in the inland Northwest.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3):346-356.

Ercelawn, A. 1999. End of the road. The adverse ecological impacts of roads and logging: A compilation of independently reviewed research. Published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA.

Everett, R.L., P.F. Hessburg, M. Jensen and B. Bormann. 1994. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume I. Executive Summary. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-317.  Portland, OR.

Fahnestock, G.R. 1968. Fire hazard from pre-commercially thinning ponderosa pine. USDA Forest  Service, Pacific Northwest Region Station, Research Paper 57. Portland, OR. 16 pp.

Filip, G.M. 1994. Forest health decline in central Oregon: A 13-year case study. Northwest Science 68(4):233-240.

Flannigan, M.D. and J.B. Harrington. 1986. A study of the relation of meteorological variables to monthly provincial area burned by wildfire in Canada (1953-1980). Journal of Applied Meteorology 27:441-452.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. July 1993. Portland, OR.

Franklin, J.F. et al. 1997. Alternative approaches to conservation of late-successional forests in the Sierra Nevada and their evaluation. Pp. 53-70 in: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Addendum. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 40.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis, CA.

Fuller, M. 1991. Forest fires: An introduction to wildland fire behavior, management, fire fighting and prevention. Wiley Nature Editions, Wiley & Sons. New York, NY.

Grant, G.E., and A.L. Wolff. 1991. Long-term patterns of sediment transport after timber harvest, western Cascade Mountains, Oregon, USA.  Pages 31-40 in Sediment and stream water quality in a changing environment: Trends and explanations.  IAHS Publication 203.  Proceedings of the Symposium, 11-24 August 1991, Vienna, Austria.

Hagle, S., and R. Schmitz. 1993. Managing root disease and bark beetles.  Pages 209-228 in T.D. Schowalter and G.M. Filip eds.  Beetle-Pathogen Interactions in Conifer Forests.  Academic Press, New York.

Hann, W.J. et al. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the Basin. Pp. 337-1,055 in: Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide (eds.). An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume II. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR.

Hansen, D. 1999. Rugged road ahead: conservationists, timber communities war over federal plan to protect forests. Spokesman-Review, December 10, 1999. Spokane, WA.

Harvey, A.E., J.M. Geist, G.I. McDonald, M.F. Jurgensen, P.H. Cochran, D. Zabowski, and R.T. Meurisse. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in Eastside ecosystems:  the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity.  General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwitt, and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: National forests east of the Cascades crest, Oregon and Washington. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 94-2, Bethesda, MD. 245 pp.

Huff, M.H., R.D. Ottmar, E. Alvarado, R.E. Vihnanek, J.F. Lehmkuhl, P.F. Hessburg, and R.L. Everett. 1995. Historical and current landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, PNW-GTR- 355. Portland, Oregon.

Husari, S.J. and K.S. McKelvey. 1996. Fire-management policies and programs. Pp. 1101-1114 in: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress Volume II.  Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis.

Johnson, E.A. and D.R. Wowchuck. 1993. Wildfires in the southern Canadian Rockies and their relationship to mid-tropospheric anomalies. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23: 1213-1222.

Johnson, K.N., J. Sessions and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Initial results from simulation of alternative forest management strategies for two national forests of the Sierra Nevada. Pp. 175-216 in: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Addendum. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 40.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis, CA.

Leenhouts, B. 1998. Assessment of biomass burning in the coterminous United States. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(1): 1-24. URL: ttp://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss1/art1

Lehmkuhl, J.F. et al. 1995. Assessment of terrestrial ecosystems in eastern Oregon and Washington: The Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment. Pp. 87-100 in: R.L. Everett and D.M. Baumgartner, eds. Symposium Proceedings:  Ecosystem Management in Western Interior Forests.  May 3-5, 1994, Spokane, WA.  Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA.

McKelvey, K.S. et al. 1996. An overview of fire in the Sierra Nevada. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress Volume II.  Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis.

Megahan, W.F, L.L. Irwin, and L.L. LaCabe.  1994.  Forest roads and forest health.  Pages 97-99 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes.  General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Merrill, T., G.R. Wright and J.M. Scott. 1995. Using ecological criteria to evaluate wilderness planning options in Idaho. Environmental Management 19(6): 815-825.

Meurisse, R.T. and J.M. Geist.  1994.  Conserving soil resources. Pages 50-58 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes.  General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Morrison, P.H., J.W. Karl, L. Swope, K. Harma, and T. Allen. 2000.  Assessment of summer 2000 wildfires:landscape history, current condition and ownership -  www. pacificbio.org/fire2000.htm.

Mutch, R.W. 1995. Need for more prescribed fire: But a double standard slows progress. Pp. 8-14 in: Proceedings, Environmental regulation and prescribed fire conference, March 15-17, 1995. Tampa, FL.

Mutch, R.W. 1994. Fighting fire with prescribed fire – a return to ecosystem health. Journal of Forestry 92(11): 31-33.

Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperider. 1994 Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Perry, D.A. 1995. Landscapes, humans, and other ecosystem-level considerations: a discourse on ecstasy and laundry. In R.L. Everett and D.M. Baumgartner, eds. Symposium Proceedings:  Ecosystem Management in Western Interior Forests.  May 3-5, 1994, Spokane, WA.  Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA Pp. 177-192.

Pyne, S.J. 1996. Introduction to wildland fire. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY.
Romme, W.H. and D. Despain. 1989. Historical perspective on the Yellowstone fires of 1988. Bioscience 39: 695-699.

Samson, F.B. and F.L. Knopf. 1993. Managing biological diversity. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 509-514.

Schlarbaum, S. 1999. Testimony presented at Hearing of House Resources Committee related to Roadless Areas, November 3, 1999. Washington, D.C.

Schroeder, M.J. and C.C. Buck. 1970. Fire weather: A guide for application of meteorological information to forest fire control operations. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 360, Washington, D.C.

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress Volume I, Assessment summaries and management strategies. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis, CA.

Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential fire behaviour in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 105: 21-38.

Strauss, D., L. Bednar, R. Mees. 1989. Do one percent of forest fires cause ninety-nine percent of the damage? Forest Science 35(2): 319-328.

Strittholt, J.R. and D.A. DellaSala. In review. Importance of roadless areas in biodiversity conservation in forested ecosystems: A case study – Klamath - Siskiyou Ecoregion, U.S.A. Conservation Biology.

The Wilderness Society. 1993. The living landscape: A regional analysis of Pacific salmon and federal lands. A report from the Bolle Center for Forest Ecosystem Management, Washington, D.C.

Thomas, J.W. et al. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

Turner, M.G. and W.H. Romme. 1994. Landscape dynamics of crown fire ecosystems. Landscape Ecology 9: 59-77.

Turner, M.G., W.W. Hargrove, R.H. Gardner and W.H. Romme. 1994. Effects of fire on landscape heterogeneity in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Journal of Vegetation Science 5: 731-742.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior (USDA Forest Service/USDI Department of Interior). 1997. Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington.

U.S. Deparment of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior (USDA Forest Service/USDI Department of Interior). 1995. Federal wildland fire management policy and program review: Final report. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Initial review of silvicultural treatments and fire effects on Tyee fire. Appendix A, Environmental Assessment for the Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Tyee Fire, Chelan and Entiat Ranger Districts, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. National Forest Fire Report 1994. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. 1991-1997 Wildland fire statistics. Fire and Aviation Management, Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation.  Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1.  USDA Forest Service, Washington Office.

van Wagner, C.E. 1983. Fire behavior in northern conifer forests and shrublands. Pp. 65-80 in: R.W. Wein and D.A. MacLean, eds. The role of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. SCOPE. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY.

van Wagtendonk, J.W.  1996.  Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. in Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress Volume II.  Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis.

Walstad, J.D., S.R. Radosevich and D.V. Sandberg, eds. 1990. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra forests. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress Volume II.  Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis.

Weatherspoon, C.P, S.J. Husari and J.W. van Wagtendonk. 1992. Fire and fuels management in relation to owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern California. Pp. 247-260 in: J. Verner et al., eds. The California spotted owl: A technical assessment of its current status. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Berkeley, CA.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. In press. An ecological comparison of fire and fire surrogates for reducing wildfire hazard and improving forest health. Paper presented to: Fire in California Ecosystems: Integrating ecology, prevention and management. November 17-20, Bahia Hotel, San Diego, CA.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1996. Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel management. Pp. 1471-1492 in: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress Volume II.  Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.  Center for Water and Wildland Resources.  University of California, Davis.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfire in northern California.  Forest Science  41:430-451.

Wilson, C.C. and J.D. Dell. 1971. The fuels buildup in American forests: A plan of action and research.  Journal of Forestry. August.

Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. John Wiley, New York, NY.