Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Shaded fuelbreaks and larger landscape fuel treatments, such as prescribed ®re, are receiving renewed interest as forest
protection strategies in the western United States. The effectiveness of fuelbreaks remains a subject of debate because of
differing fuelbreak objectives, prescriptions for creation and maintenance, and their placement in landscapes with differing ®re
regimes. A well-designed fuelbreak will alter the behavior of wildland ®re entering the fuel-altered zone. Both surface and
crown ®re behavior may be reduced. Shaded fuelbreaks must be created in the context of the landscape within which they are
placed. No absolute standards for fuelbreak width or fuel reduction are possible, although recent proposals for forested
fuelbreaks suggest 400 m wide bands where surface fuels are reduced and crown fuels are thinned. Landscape-level treatments
such as prescribed ®re can use shaded fuelbreaks as anchor points, and extend the zone of altered ®re behavior to larger
proportions of the landscape. Coupling fuelbreaks with area-wide fuel treatments can reduce the size, intensity, and effects of
wildland ®res. # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
0378-1127/00/$ ± see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 1 1 2 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 1 6 - 4
56 J.K. Agee et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55±66
areas the term is synonymous with `shaded fuelbreak' is created by altering surface fuels, increasing the
as forest canopy is retained on site. We attempt here to height to the base of the live crown, and opening
describe the various key components that characterize the canopy by removing trees. This type of fuelbreak
fuelbreaks, evaluate their use, and discuss alternatives spans a wide range of understory and overstory pre-
to traditional fuelbreak approaches. scriptions and methods of creation through manual,
A fuelbreak is `a strategically located wide block, or mechanical, and prescribed ®re means. The timing of
strip, on which a cover of dense, heavy, or ¯ammable the action will also be important: is it created at once,
vegetation has been permanently changed to one of staged, or mixed with other treatments that may be
lower fuel volume or reduced ¯ammability' (Green, occurring over time and over the landscape? Other
1977). Green's de®nition of fuelbreak does not spe- issues associated with the residual overstory are pro-
ci®cally de®ne exactly how wide a fuelbreak may be, blems with senescent or diseased trees, or economic
or exactly what kind of changes in fuel volume or issues of retaining harvestable overstory trees.
reduced ¯ammability are created. It differs from a
®reline, de®ned by Green (1977) as `a narrow line,
2±10 ft wide, from which all vegetation is removed 2. Fire behavior theory and fuelbreaks
down to mineral soil. . .' or a ®rebreak, `speci®cally, a
®reline wider than 10 ft, frequently 20±30 feet The primary reason for fuelbreaks, as well as any
wide. . .'. other type of fuel treatment, is to change the behavior
The effectiveness of fuelbreaks remains a subject of of a ®re entering the fuel-altered zone. Fuelbreaks may
debate within and outside of the ®re management also be used as points of anchor for indirect attack on
community. There are many reasons for this broad wildland ®res, as well as for prescribed ®res. We can
range of opinion, among them that objectives can vary de®ne the ways that forest ®re behavior is altered by
widely, fuelbreak prescriptions (width, amount of fuel modi®cation of fuels, and these principles apply to all
reduction, maintenance standards) may also vary, they forests where fuel treatments are applied and main-
can be placed in many different fuel conditions, and tained.
may be approached by wildland ®res under a variety of
normal to extreme weather conditions. Furthermore,
fuelbreaks are never designed to stop ®res but to allow 2.1. Surface fire behavior
suppression forces a higher probability of successfully
attacking a wildland ®re. The amount of technology Surface fuel management can limit ®reline intensity
directed at the ®re, and the requirement for ®re®ghter (Byram, 1959) and lower potential ®re severity (Ryan
safety, both affect the ef®cacy of fuelbreaks in the and Noste, 1985). Operations conducted for `forest
suppression effort. A major criterion of effectiveness health' can unfortunately increase ®reline intensity or
may be economic, in balancing creation and main- increase ®re severity, if fuels are not appropriately
tenance costs against changes in wildland ®re suppres- managed and forest structure is altered without regard
sion expenditures and values (habitat, homes, etc.) to ®re resistance of the residual stand (Weatherspoon,
protected from loss. Experimental treatments where 1996; Agee, 1997). The management of surface fuels
®res would be ignited against fuelbreaks of varying so that potential ®reline intensity remains below some
prescriptions have not historically been possible to critical level can be accomplished through several
conduct (Davis, 1965), and estimating reductions in strategies and techniques. Among the common stra-
wildland ®re losses is dif®cult. Recent developments tegies are fuel removal by prescribed ®re, adjusting
in ®re simulation technology (Finney, 1998) are open- fuel arrangement to produce a less ¯ammable fuelbed
ing up new ways to evaluate fuel treatments in the (e.g., crushing), or `introducing' live understory vege-
context of spatially explicit fuel mosaics and varying tation to raise average moisture content of surface
suppression levels. fuels (Agee, 1996). Wildland ®re behavior has been
The shaded fuelbreak concept in forested areas is observed to decrease with fuel treatment (Helms,
the type of fuelbreak discussed here, along with area 1979; Buckley, 1992), and simulations conducted
treatment such as prescribed ®re. A shaded fuelbreak by van Wagtendonk (1996) found both pile burning
J.K. Agee et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55±66 57
levels below 0.10 kg mÿ3 crown ®re spread was unli- the relationship between potential ignition sources and
kely, but no de®nitive single `threshold' is likely to fuelbreak locations becomes critical. Fuelbreaks can
exist. be created as initial fuel treatments, with the intent to
Therefore, reducing surface fuels, increasing the follow up with more extensive landscape fuel treat-
height to the live crown base, and opening canopies ments, gradually reducing potential ®re damage
should result in (a) lower ®re intensity, (b) less prob- within interior untreated areas as more of the land-
ability of torching, and (c) lower probability of inde- scape becomes treated.
pendent crown ®re. There are two caveats to these No absolute standards for width or fuel manipula-
conclusions. The ®rst is that a grassy cover is often tion are available. Fuelbreak widths have always been
preferred as the fuelbreak ground cover, and while quite variable, in both recommendations and construc-
®reline intensity may decrease in the fuelbreak, rate of tion. Based on radiant heat loads from high intensity
spread may increase. van Wagtendonk (1996) simu- chaparral ®res, Green and Schimke (1971) recom-
lated ®re behavior in untreated mixed conifer forests mended that widths at least 65 m (200 ft) were neces-
and fuelbreaks with a grassy understory, and found sary for safety considerations. A minimum of 90 m
®reline intensity decreased in the fuelbreak (¯ame (300 ft) was typically speci®ed for primary fuelbreaks
length decline from 0.83 to 0.63 m (2.7 to 2.1 ft)) (Green, 1977). As early as the 1960s, fuelbreaks as
but rate of spread in the grassy cover increased by a wide as 300 m (1000 ft) were included in gaming
factor of 4 (0.81 to 3.35 m/min (2.7-11.05 ft/min)). simulations of fuelbreak effectiveness (Davis,
This ¯ashy fuel is an advantage for back®ring large 1965), and the recent proposal for northern California
areas in the fuelbreak as a wildland ®re is approaching national forests by the Quincy Library Group (see web
(Green, 1977), as well as for other purposes described site http://www.qlg.org for details) approved by the
later, but if a ®reline is not established in the fuelbreak, Federal Government includes fuelbreaks 400 m
the ®ne fuels will allow the ®re to pass through the (0.25 mi) wide. Fuelbreak simulations for the Sierra
fuelbreak quickly. The second caveat is that more open Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) adopted similar
canopies will result in an altered microclimate near the wide fuelbreaks (van Wagtendonk, 1996; Sessions
ground surface, with somewhat lower fuel moisture et al., 1996).
and higher windspeeds in the open understory (van Fuel manipulations can be achieved using a variety
Wagtendonk, 1996). of techniques (Green, 1977) with the intent of remov-
ing surface fuels, increasing the height to the live
crown of residual trees, and spacing the crowns to
3. Fuelbreak prescriptions prevent independent crown ®re activity. In the Sierra
Nevada, van Wagtendonk (1996) prescribed the fol-
3.1. Creation lowing fuel alterations from untreated forest levels to
fuelbreaks: 1 h timelag fuels, 6.6±2.2 t/ha (3 to 1 t/ac);
Fuelbreaks must be created in the context of the 10 h timelag fuels, 4.5±1.1 t/ha (2 to 0.5 t/ac); 100 h
landscape within which they are placed. Some of the timelag fuels, 4.5±1.1 t/ha (2±0.5 t/ac); live load, 4.5±
early fuelbreaks, such as the Ponderosa Way in Cali- 0 t/ha (2±0 t/ac); depth, 0.3±0.15 m (1±0.5 ft), result-
fornia, were intended to separate the foothill-wood- ing in a total fuel reduction from 20.2 to 4.5 t/ha (9±
land vegetation type from the higher elevation 2 t/ac). In the Sierra Nevada simulations, pruning of
ponderosa pine forest. Others have been designed as residual trees to 3 m (10 ft) height was assumed, with
networks of primary and secondary fuelbreaks, with canopy cover at 1±20% (van Wagtendonk, 1996).
the primary ones being wider (Davis, 1965; Omi, Canopy cover less than 40% has been proposed for
1977). A major implication of past linear fuel mod- the Lassen National Forest in northern California,
i®cations, as the sole fuel treatment on the landscape, USA (Olson, 1997). Clearly, prescriptions for creation
is that areas between the linear strips were `sacri®ced', must not only specify what is to be removed, but must
in that control efforts were focused in the fuelbreaks, describe the residual structure in terms of standard or
and signi®cant value loss might occur in the interior of custom fuel models so that potential ®re behavior can
an untreated block surrounded by a fuelbreak. Hence, be analyzed.
60 J.K. Agee et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55±66
Table 2
Estimated probability of stopping a wildfire at a fuelbreak under differing levels of adjacent fire behavior and suppression level. Fuelbreaks are
100 and 300 m wide. L 0±20% probability, or little chance of stopping the fire; M 21±50% probability, or moderate chance; H 51±
100% probability, or good chance (Davis, 1965). All levels based on averages of expert opinions of 10 California Division of Forestry
personnel
Fuelbreak width
suppression forces depends on level of funding for defensible fuel pro®le zones). He found effectiveness
people, equipment, and aerial application of retardant, was greater in timber types than brushland or grass-
which can more easily reach surface fuels in a fuel- land types, but concluded that the marginal cost
break. Effectiveness is also dependent on the psychol- of area `saved' exceeded the bene®ts, at least in
ogy of ®re®ghters regarding their safety. Narrow or 1965 values, particularly for high density fuelbreaks.
unmaintained fuelbreaks are less likely to be entered He cautioned that his analysis did not result in a
than wider, well-maintained ones. conclusion that `no fuelbreaks are worthwhile', and
Economic studies of fuelbreaks are dif®cult,
because they must balance costs of creating and
maintaining fuelbreaks against acres and dollars
`saved' because of assumed declines in burned area
or reduced damage. The general approach used by
Davis (1965) was to evaluate `saved' area by super-
imposing past wildland ®res on varying densities of
planned fuelbreak systems and ®rst de®ning the area
which might be affected by the presence of a fuelbreak
(Class 3 area, see Fig. 2). Then a proportion of that
area would be estimated as `saved', based on the
average probability of control from expert opinion,
depending on the level of suppression, the width of ®re
front, and the width of the fuelbreak. For example, if Fig. 2. An analysis of the effect of fuelbreaks on wildfire area
300 ha are identi®ed as Class 1, 700 ha as Class 2, and burned and fire damage includes four types of areas: (1) those fires
500 ha identi®ed as Class 3 for a sample wild®re and that never approach a fuelbreak, (2) those portions of fires that burn
the suppression probability at the fuelbreak is 70%, before the fuelbreak is encountered, (3) those portions of fires
where the fuelbreak might reduce area burned if the fire is stopped
then the expected area saved is 350 ha (70% of the before it arrives there, and (4) areas inside the fuelbreak where fire
Class 3 area). The percent reduction, or area saved, is size and damage may be reduced because of the fuel treatment.
the reduced total area of Class 1±3 divided by the Fuelbreaks can have an effect on fire size only on the Class (3 and
original Class 1±3 area, or (1 ÿ 1150=1500 100 4) area, and will have an effect on reducing damage within areas
burned in the Class (4) area. A transition to landscape treatment
23%). Davis did not consider reduction of size or
would expand the Class 4 area across more of the landscape,
damage in Class 4 areas (the area of the fuelbreak), usually with more attention to surface fuel reduction and increasing
which could be signi®cant when the fuelbreak the base to live crown, and less canopy alteration than applied to
becomes very wide (as is a typical prescription in the fuelbreak.
62 J.K. Agee et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55±66
in fact at low levels of fuelbreak density, investments fuels, with younger age classes created with pre-
in fuelbreaks derived more bene®ts than investments scribed ®re being less ¯ammable, the secondary fuel-
in suppression forces. breaks would be useful as places to start or control
The site-speci®c nature of any economic analysis of prescribed burn operations.
fuelbreaks is apparent from Davis' study, a primary The question of linking fuelbreaks together into a
reason that he cautioned against extrapolating his network system is also a tough one. As individual ®res
results beyond the CDF district studied in the central are most likely to encounter one segment of fuelbreak
Sierra Nevada. Where timber types are proposed for (and hopefully be stopped there), an appropriate
fuelbreaks, the value of timber will offset some to all design for fuelbreak placement must factor in ignition
of the construction cost. As Green (1977) noted, potential and values at risk. Otherwise, if ignition were
Davis' study did not include evaluation of effective- random and values were either regular or uniformly
ness under less than extreme ®re behavior conditions, distributed, a ®shnet approach to placement would
or the usefulness of fuelbreaks in ¯anking orientations always be preferable. A fuelbreak network in a
to the main ®re front. Also not addressed was the watershed might consist of surrounding subdivisions
degree of damage within areas burned. Burn severity with traditional wide fuelbreaks, while more remote
and level of resource damage to areas that burn outside areas might have much narrower fuelbreaks, perhaps
of the fuelbreaks generally will be unaffected by the not all connected to one another. These narrower
presence of the fuelbreak. In contrast, ®re damage fuelbreaks, with less-altered conditions, might be
should be reduced within the fuelbreaks (and this can designed primarily as anchor points for prescribed
be a signi®cant area for wide fuelbreaks) as in any ®res. There is no a priori rule that each segment must
other areas receiving effective fuel treatment (Figs. 3 be connected to all other segments for a fuelbreak
and 4). strategy to be effective (Finney et al., in press).
In southern California, Omi (1977) concluded that
`primary' fuelbreaks had been fairly successful in 5. Landscape-level fuel treatments
aiding ®re control, but that secondary breaks had been
much less successful. He noted that if age-class man- In the drier forest zones of the West, including much
agement were to be employed to manage chaparral of the mixed-conifer forest with Douglas-®r and
Fig. 3. Fuelbreak construction along the eastern boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. The treatment involved thinning of
the original stand, with stem removal and hand piling prior to burning. Photo by P.N. Omi.
J.K. Agee et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55±66 63
Fig. 4. Fire behavior was changed from crown to surface fire as a severe wildland fire passed through this fuelbreak on the Wenatchee
National Forest, Washington. The fire then re-emerged as a crown fire on the far side. Area treatment of fuels beyond this narrow fuelbreak
would have altered fire behavior over a wider area. USDA Forest Service photo.
ponderosa pine, as well as much of the pure ponderosa not reduce damage per unit areas burned outside of the
pine type, historical ®res were primarily of low sever- fuelbreaks themselves. Other con®gurations of treated
ity. Substantial changes have occurred in these forests areas ± e.g., larger blocks that may or may not be
with the exclusion of ®re, as well as from harvest connected (Finney et al., in press) ± have been pro-
activity (Biswell et al., 1973; Agee, 1993). A land- posed for initial landscape-level treatments. Compar-
scape-level approach to fuels looks at the large areas ing the ef®cacy of such alternative con®gurations with
as a whole (Weatherspoon and Skinner, 1996), in an that of fuelbreaks for reducing size and severity of
attempt to fragment the existing continuous, heavy large wildland ®res, using newly available modeling
fuel in high risk areas. Fuelbreaks may be a part of that tools (Finney, 1998; Johnson et al., 1998) would be a
strategy but are not considered a stand-alone strategy. valuable contribution.
If utilized, the fuelbreak component of a broad fuel The word `fragmentation' has had a notorious
management strategy might best be viewed as a set of context since the publication of (Harris (1984) The
initial (perhaps 10±20 years), strategically located Fragmented Forest, in which the harvesting of old-
entries into the landscape ± places from which to growth Douglas-®r forest in the Paci®c Northwest was
build out in treating other appropriate parts of the associated with loss of biodiversity. While high levels
landscape ± not as an end in itself. Fuelbreaks may of continuous canopy may have been characteristic of
provide a measure of protection against large ®res northern Oregon and Washington Douglas-®r forests,
(assuming suppression forces are present) while west of the Cascades, high levels of structural diversity
longer-term, area-wide treatments are being imple- (fragmentation) were associated with historic Dou-
mented. Compartmentalization of ®res by fuelbreaks, glas-®r forest in the Siskiyou mountains of Oregon and
which may or may not be laid out in a connected California (Taylor and Skinner, 1998), and most drier
network, can help to reduce ®re size but generally will forests had little fragmentation of fuel but uniformly
64 J.K. Agee et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55±66
very low fuel loads because of frequent ®re (Agee, with less damage within the ®reline. Lower ®re size
1998). A trend towards more fuel fragmentation or and severity may combine to lessen losses consider-
lower fuel loads in these drier forests (essentially a ably, and need to be considered in economic analyses
diversity in fuel loading) is a trend away from severe of landscape-level treatments. In the study by Finney
®re and its attendant large patches and high severity. et al. (in press), adding damage as another economic
Fuel fragmentation does not have to be associated with variable made the fuel treatment even more cost-
structural fragmentation or overstory removal, but effective. The major economic problem is that invest-
must be associated with declines in at least one of ment in fuel treatments must be made upfront to
the factors affecting ®re behavior discussed earlier: achieve the savings when a wildland ®re occurs. Funds
reduction of surface fuels and increases in height to have not been usually available for such investments
live crown as a ®rst priority, and decreases in crown until recently, when Federal policy began to allow
closure as a second priority. On most landscapes these such upfront expenditures. However, air quality con-
treatments should be prioritized in that order, but straints associated with prescribed ®re may limit the
economic issues tend to reverse the order and focus area that can be treated by ®re.
on thinning only that directly affects crown closure. Area treatments, rather than being an alternative to
Thinning must be linked with surface fuel reduction fuelbreaks, are an expansion of the fuelbreak concept
and increases in height to live crown to be an effective to wider areas of the landscape. Fuelbreaks are often
fuel treatment. good points to tie in control lines for prescribed ®re
Evidence for fuel treatment effects on ®re behavior operations. Ridgetop fuelbreaks, if tied into area
in the natural landscape is evident in many forest treatments, could be located in areas of the landscape
types. In the red ®r forests of Yosemite, natural ®res where the historic ®re regime would likely have
over the past 25 years have created a jigsaw puzzle of created more open conditions. When combined with
®re boundaries, with more recent ®res naturally extin- other treatments in the landscape, they might well be
guishing at the edge of past ®res (van Wagtendonk, created with a more light-on-the-land approach. This
1995). In Baja California, frequent uncontrolled cha- would recognize that some portions of landscapes
parral ®res have created a fuel-buffered ecosystem (ridgetops, upper thirds of slopes, south and west
where ®re size is limited, in contrast to US chaparral aspects) would have historically experienced more
north of the border, where ®re suppression has resulted frequent ®res and, as a result, had more open condi-
in larger expanses of continuous fuel and larger ®res, tions than the rest of the landscape. Fuelbreak width or
even though the overall ®re return intervals are similar canopy alteration, for example, may depend on what
(Minnich and Chou, 1997). Reconstructions of his- treatments are applied to adjacent lands to reduce
toric ®res in eastern Washington pine forests have excessive fuels, and need not be totally cleared areas,
shown ®res going out at the edges of ®res that had manually or mechanically created, straight lines, or
burned 1±2 years previously (Wright, 1996). Might crisscrossed grids across the landscape (Agee, 1995).
these effects on ®re behavior and resultant size apply if `Feathering' the canopy away from the center of the
area treatments were applied to today's mixed conifer fuelbreak may be one way to create a less visually
forests? obtrusive fuelbreak. However, in terms of construction
A spatial simulation of ®re suppression scenarios standards, a general rule of thumb will be that the less
using the ®re growth model FARSITE (Finney et al., in `obvious' manipulations will usually be less effective
press) showed for the central California Sierra Nevada per unit area, so that they will have to be applied over
that area-wide fuel treatments (prescribed ®re and wider areas of the landscape. For example, if canopy
thinning) similar to those of van Wagtendonk cover was maintained above 40%, surface fuel reduc-
(1996) had an effect on decreasing ®re size and cost, tion and understory vegetation clearing would need to
even if applied to limited areas of the landscape. be more intensive over wider expanses. Higher levels
Isolated, treated blocks of landscape in strategic loca- of overstory cover, although associated with potential
tions slowed ®re spread and decreased the potential for for independent crown ®re, might also restrict the
major ®re runs, essentially allowing ®re suppression recovery of the manipulated understory and allow
forces to catch the wildland ®re at smaller size and lengthened maintenance intervals. Maintenance is
J.K. Agee et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55±66 65
essential for area treatments as much as for traditional prescribed ®re or the level of ®re suppression cap-
fuelbreaks, although the degree of manipulation and ability. An appropriate combination of treatments
the maintenance schedule may vary. will help to reduce unwanted wildland ®re effects
and the attendant ecosystem effects such ®res often
6. Conclusions cause.
Finney, M.A., Sapsis, D.B., Bahro, B. Use of FARSITE for Schimke, H.E., Green, L.R., Heavilin, D., 1970. Perennial grasses
simulating fire suppression and analyzing fuel treatment reduce woody plant seedlings . . . on mixed conifer fuel-break.
economics. In: Proceedings of the Fire in California Ecosys- USDA Forest Service Res. Note PSW- 203.
tems: Integrating Ecology, Prevention, and Management, 17±20 Sessions, J., Johnson, K.N., Sapsis, D., Bahro, B., Gabriel, J.T.,
November 1997, San Diego, in press. 1996. Methodology for simulating forest growth, fire effects,
Green, L.R., 1977. Fuelbreaks and other fuel modification for timber harvest, and watershed disturbance under different
wildland fire control. USDA Agr. Hdbk. 499. management regimes. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final
Green, L.R., Schimke, H.E., 1971. Guides for fuel-breaks in the Report to Congress, Addendum, University of California,
Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer type. USDA Forest Service, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report 40,
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Expt. Station, Berkeley, pp. 115±174.
CA. Taylor, A.H., Skinner, C.N., 1998. Fire history and landscape
Harris, L., 1984. The Fragmented Forest. University of Chicago dynamics in a late- successional reserve, Klamath Mountains,
Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 211. CA, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 111, 285±301.
Helms, J.A., 1979. Positive effects of prescribed burning on Van Wagner, C.E., 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of
wildfire intensities. Fire Management Notes 40, 10±13. crown fire. Canad. J. For. Res. 7, 23±34.
Johnson, E.A., 1992. Fire and Vegetation Dynamics: Studies from Van Wagner, C.E., 1993. Prediction of crown fire behavior in two
the North American boreal forest. Cambridge University Press, stands of jack pine. Canad. J. For. Res. 23, 442±449.
Cambridge, UK, pp. 129. van Wagtendonk, J.W., 1995. Large fires in wilderness areas. In:
Johnson, K.N., Sessions, J., Franklin, J., Gabriel, J., 1998. Brown, J.K., Mutch, R.W., Spoon, C.W., Wakimoto, R.H.
Integrating wildfire into strategic planning for Sierra Nevada (Tech. Coord.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire in
forests. J. Forestry 96, 42±49. Wilderness and Park Management. USDA Forest Service Gen.
Minnich, R.A., Chou, Y.H., 1997. Wildland fire patch dynamics in Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320, pp. 113±116.
the chaparral of southern California and northern Baja van Wagtendonk, J.W., 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth
California. Int. J. Wildland Fire 7, 221±248. model to test fuel treatments. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Olson, R., 1997. Appraising a forest fuel treatment: The DFPZ Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II. Assessments and
Concept. Lassen National Forest (unpublished mimeo). Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of
Omi, P.N., 1977. A case study of fuel management performances, California, Davis. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources,
Angeles National Forest, 1960±1975. In: Mooney, H.A., pp. 1155±1165.
Conrad, C.E. (Tech. Coords). Proceedings of the Symposium van Wagtendonk, J.W., Sydoriak, W.M., Benedict, J.M., 1998. Heat
on the Environmental Consequences of Fire and Fuel Manage- content variation of Sierra Nevada conifers. Int. J. Wildland
ment in Mediterranean Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Fire 8, 147±158.
Tech. Rep. WO-3, pp. 404±411. Weatherspoon, C.P., 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra
Omi, P.N., 1996. The role of fuelbreaks. In: Proceedings of the 17th forests. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to
Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Redding, CA, pp. Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for
89±96. Management Options. University of California, Davis, Centers
Rothermel, R.C., 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires for Water and Wildland Resources, pp. 1167±1176.
in the northern Rocky Mountains. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Weatherspoon, C.P., Skinner, C.N., 1995. An assessment of factors
Rep. INT-438. associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfires
Ryan, K.C., Noste, N.V., 1985. Evaluating prescribed fires. In: in northern California. For. Sci. 41, 430±451.
Lotan, J.E et al. (Tech. Coords). Proceedings of the Symposium Weatherspoon, C.P., Skinner, C.N., 1996. Landscape-level strate-
and Workshop on Wilderness Fire. USDA Forest Service Gen. gies for forest fuel management. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Tech. Rep. INT-182, pp. 230±238. Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and
Scott, J.H., Reinhardt, E.D. A model for assessing crown fire Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of
hazard. Systems for Environmental Management. Missoula, California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources,
Montana (draft report) (in preparation). pp. 1471±1492.
Schimke, H.E., Green, L.R., 1970. Prescribed fire for maintaining Wright, C.S., 1996. Fire history of the Teanaway River drainage,
fuel-breaks in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle,
Southwest Forest and Range Expt. Station. Berkeley, CA. 190 pp.