DOCSLIB.ORG

Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire Surrogates on Wildlife in U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire Surrogates on Wildlife in U.S Archival copy. For current version, see: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sr1096 Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire Surrogates on Wildlife in U.S. Dry Forests (SR 1096)—Oregon State University State 1096)—Oregon (SR Forests Dry U.S. in Wildlife on Surrogates Fire and Fire of Effects the on Knowledge of Synthesis of Fire and Fire Surrogates on Wildlife in U.S. Dry Forests Patricia L. Kennedy and Joseph B. Fontaine Special Report 1096 Archival copy. For current version, see: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sr1096 Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire Surrogates on Wildlife in U.S. Dry Forests Patricia L. Kennedy Professor Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Union, Oregon Joseph B. Fontaine Postdoctoral Researcher School of Environmental Science Murdoch University Perth, Australia Previously: Postdoctoral Researcher Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Union, Oregon Special Report 1096 September 2009 Archival copy. For current version, see: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sr1096 Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire Surrogates on Wildlife in U.S. Dry Forests Special Report 1096 September 2009 Extension and Experiment Station Communications Oregon State University 422 Kerr Administration Building Corvallis, OR 97331 http://extension.oregonstate.edu/ © 2009 by Oregon State University. This publication may be photocopied or reprinted in its entirety for noncommercial purposes. This publication was produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties. Oregon State University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials without discrimination based on age, color, disability, gender identity or expression, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran’s status. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Any mention of trade names does not constitute an endorsement. Acknowledgements This is contribution #87 of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) Project, funded by the U.S. Joint Fire Science Program. We thank the the Program for funding this synthesis and Jim McIver for helping conceptualize the final product. Jim also provided us with all available Fire and Fire Surrogate Program information. We thank John Cissel, Tim Swedberg, Kim Verhelst, and Becky Jenison for administrative support. Anne Bartuszevige and Tim Swedberg provided invaluable support in organizing the scoping meeting. We also thank the meeting attendees: Shawn Cochran, Bob Csargo, Jim Gallagher, Robert Skorkowski, andAnne Sprague. They took time out of their impossible schedules to fly to Boise on short notice and share their expertise on wildlife and fire management. Their input was essential to the conceptual development of this project but they are not to blame for any shortcomings. Anne Bartuszevige, Shawn Cochran, Joan Hagar, Larry D. Hedrick, and Warren G. Montague reviewed this document. We also thank the faculty and staff of the School for Environmental Science at Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, who provided an office and moral support during Prof. Kennedy’s sabbatical leave and spent many hours listening to her ideas about fire management. V. Cramer helped develop several graphics. A big thanks to Colette Coiner who assisted with all aspects of this document and who kept us organized across two hemispheres. Cover photos: Top left: Small herd of bison in a Yellowstone National Park meadow with ground fire in the background. (Jeff Henry, U.S. National Park Service) Top right: Pacific chorus frog using a pyrogenic structure in a patch of burned (4 years postfire) mixed conifer forest in the B&B Complex Fire, 2007, Oregon. (Garrett Meigs and Dan Donato) Bottom: Riparian areas are refugia for wildlife during wildland fires. East Fork of the Bitterroot River near Sula Montana, during the Bitterroot National Forest Fire, August 6, 2000. (John McColgan, Bureau of Land Managment, Alaska Fire Service) Archival copy. For current version, see: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sr1096 Contents SUMMARY .............................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................7 GOALS, ORGANIZATION, & SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT ...............11 Goals .........................................................................................................11 Organization .............................................................................................12 Scope ........................................................................................................12 FIRE AS A DISTURBANCE ..............................................................................12 DOES WILDFIRE DIRECTLY KILL WILDLIFE? ..........................................14 WILDLIFE RESPONSES TO POSTFIRE CONDITIONS ............................16 FACTORS INFLUENCING WILDLIFE RESPONSES .................................19 Prefire forest structure and composition...................................................19 Characteristics of individual fires .............................................................20 Fire history ................................................................................................25 Limited understanding of wildlife habitat requirements ..........................32 Variability in animal populations not related to fire ................................33 Sampling animal populations ..................................................................34 METHODS ............................................................................................................35 Scoping meetings .....................................................................................35 Literature search and criteria for inclusion ..............................................35 Database structure ....................................................................................36 Study categorization and quantitative comparisons ................................37 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................39 Overview ...................................................................................................39 Regional summaries .................................................................................41 Fire and Fire Surrogate Program .............................................................50 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................55 KNOWLEDGE GAPS .........................................................................................57 Mixed-severity fire ...................................................................................57 High-severity prescribed fire ....................................................................57 Long-term response to single and multiple fires .......................................58 Special Report 1096 3 Archival copy. For current version, see: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sr1096 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................59 APPENDIX 1. SUMMARY AND DETAILS OF THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE .................................................................................................69 APPENDIX 2. SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND CONSERVATION STATUS (FEDERAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE) OF WILDLIFE TAXA ............77 APPENDIX 3. WILDLIFE RESPONSE TO FIRE AND FIRE SURROGATE TREATMENTS WITHIN EACH ECOREGION .......................................94 APPENDIX 4. WILDLIFE RESPONSE TO FIRE AND FIRE SURROGATE TREATMENTS ACROSS ECOREGIONS ...............................................119 Archival copy. For current version, see: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sr1096 The Biscuit Fire in southern Oregon, in 2002. (Stephen Fitzgerald, Oregon State University Extension) SUMMARY ry forests throughout the United States are fire-dependent ecosystems, and much attention has been given to restoring their ecological function. DAs such, land managers often are tasked with reintroducing fire via prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and fire-surrogate treatments such as thinning and mastication. During planning, managers frequently are expected to anticipate effects of management actions on wildlife species. This document represents a synthesis of existing knowledge on wildlife responses to fire and fire-surrogate treatments, presented in a useful, management-relevant format. Based on scoping meetings and dialogue with public lands managers from throughout the United States, we provide detailed, species-level, summary tables for project biologists and fire managers trying to anticipate the effects of fire and fire-surrogate treatments on local wildlife species. We performed an extensive survey of the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature on wildlife response to fire and fire-surrogate treatments. In total,e w reviewed more than 150 articles, included 90 articles in our database, resulting in 4,937 records of 313 vertebrate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contributions of Intensively Managed Forests to the Sustainability of Wildlife Communities in the South
    CONTRIBUTIONS OF INTENSIVELY MANAGED FORESTS TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTH T. Bently Wigley1, William M. Baughman, Michael E. Dorcas, John A. Gerwin, J. Whitfield Gibbons, David C. Guynn, Jr., Richard A. Lancia, Yale A. Leiden, Michael S. Mitchell, Kevin R. Russell ABSTRACT Wildlife communities in the South are increasingly influenced by land use changes associated with human population growth and changes in forest management strategies on both public and private lands. Management of industry-owned landscapes typically results in a diverse mixture of habitat types and spatial arrangements that simultaneously offers opportunities to maintain forest cover, address concerns about fragmentation, and provide habitats for a variety of wildlife species. We report here on several recent studies of breeding bird and herpetofaunal communities in industry-managed landscapes in South Carolina. Study landscapes included the 8,100-ha GilesBay/Woodbury Tract, owned and managed by International Paper Company, and 62,363-ha of the Ashley and Edisto Districts, owned and managed by Westvaco Corporation. Breeding birds were sampled in both landscapes from 1995-1999 using point counts, mist netting, nest searching, and territory mapping. A broad survey of herpetofauna was conducted during 1996-1998 across the Giles Bay/Woodbury Tract using a variety of methods, including: searches of natural cover objects, time-constrained searches, drift fences with pitfall traps, coverboards, automated recording systems, minnow traps, and turtle traps. Herpetofaunal communities were sampled more intensively in both landscapes during 1997-1999 in isolated wetland and selected structural classes. The study landscapes supported approximately 70 bird and 72 herpetofaunal species, some of which are of conservation concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Years After the Biscuit Fire: Evaluating Vegetation Succession and Post- Fire Management Effects
    Project Title: Ten years after the Biscuit Fire: Evaluating vegetation succession and post- fire management effects Final Report: JFSP 11-1-1-4 Date of Final Report: 29 June 2015 Principle Investigator: Dr. Daniel C. Donato Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1111 Washington St SE, Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 and University of Washington School of Environmental & Forest Sciences Seattle, WA 98195 360-902-1753 [email protected] Co-Principle Investigators: Dr. John L. Campbell Oregon State University Department of Forest Ecosystems & Society 321 Richardson Hall Corvallis, OR 97331 [email protected] Dr. Joseph B. Fontaine Murdoch University School of Veterinary and Life Sciences 90 South St. Perth, WA 6150, Australia [email protected] This research was supported in part by the Joint Fire Sciences Program. For further information go to www.firescience.gov Abstract Increases in the area of high-severity wildfire in the western U.S. have prompted widespread management concerns about post-fire forest succession and fuels. Key questions include the degree to which, and over what time frame: a) forests will regenerate back toward mature forest cover, and b) fire hazard increases due to the falling and decay of fire-killed trees, with and without post-fire (or ‘salvage’) logging. While a number of recent studies have begun to address these questions using chronosequences and model projections, we had the unique opportunity to track regeneration and fuel dynamics over a decade of post-fire succession by re-visiting our network of sample plots distributed in the 2002 Biscuit Fire in southwest Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Management.Indd
    Fire today ManagementVolume 65 • No. 2 • Spring 2005 LLARGEARGE FFIRESIRES OFOF 2002—P2002—PARTART 22 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Erratum In Fire Management Today volume 64(4), the article "A New Tool for Mopup and Other Fire Management Tasks" by Bill Gray shows incorrect telephone and fax numbers on page 47. The correct numbers are 210-614-4080 (tel.) and 210-614-0347 (fax). Fire Management Today is published by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the pub- lic business required by law of this Department. Fire Management Today is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, at: Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: 202-512-1800 Fax: 202-512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 Fire Management Today is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/index.html Mike Johanns, Secretary Melissa Frey U.S. Department of Agriculture General Manager Dale Bosworth, Chief Robert H. “Hutch” Brown, Ph.D. Forest Service Managing Editor Tom Harbour, Director Madelyn Dillon Fire and Aviation Management Editor Delvin R. Bunton Issue Coordinator The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 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 communica- tion of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Annual Fire Report
    Northwest Annual Fire Report 2012 Northwest Interagency Coordination Center Predictive Services Unit - Intelligence Section Available on www.nwccweb.us Published April 22, 2013 SUMMARY INFORMATION | NWCC Mission Table of Contents SUMMARY INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 2 NWCC Mission....................................................................................................................2 NWCC Annual Fire Report ...................................................................................................3 Table 1: Agency Identifier Legend ......................................................................................................... 3 2012 Northwest Fire Season Summary ................................................................................4 Chart 1: NW 2012 Reported Acres Burned vs. 10-Year Average ....................................................... 4 Chart 2: 2012 NW Preparedness Levels ............................................................................................ 4 FIRE MAPS & STATISTICS ............................................................................................. 5 Table 2: NW 2012 Large Fires List ........................................................................................5 Table 3: NW 2012 Fires List: Confine/Monitor/Point Zone Protection ..................................6 NW 2012 Large Fire Location Maps .....................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Fire Logging Summary of Key Studies and Findings
    POST-FIRE LOGGING SUMMARY OF KEY STUDIES AND FINDINGS Prepared by Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D. Forest Ecologist and Director World Wildlife Fund February 2006 @K. Schaffer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Recent congressional hearings and interest in the science of post-fire logging have prompted this summary on the current level of scientific knowledge regarding post- disturbance regeneration and management. In general traditional forestry has viewed fire as bad and dead trees as a waste. These views have skewed public policies about post-fire logging. However, current scientific understanding recognizes that disturbance and dead trees are in fact critical to forest health. Of the approximately thirty scientific papers on post-fire logging and additional government reports published to date, not a single one indicates that logging provides benefits to ecosystems regenerating post-disturbance. In general, post-fire logging impedes regeneration when it compacts soils, removes “biological legacies” (e.g., large dead standing and downed trees), introduces or spreads invasive species, causes soil erosion when logs are dragged across steep slopes, and delivers sediment to streams from logging roads. Further, a large body of science on disturbance ecology (e.g., recent books on Mt. St Helens and studies in the Yellowstone Ecosystem and elsewhere) indicate that when natural disturbance events are preceded and/or followed by land management activities they often impair the recovery of forest ecosystems. Notably, post-fire logging in 2005 represented a substantial amount of the 1 timber volume sold on Forest Service lands nation-wide (~40% of total volume sold) as well as the Pacific Northwest (~50%) (USFS Washington Office, timber volume spread sheets - Timber Management Staff).
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Fire on the Klamath Basin Traditional/Prescribed Burning & Wildfires Anthony Ulmer June 16-August 21, 2014 Klamath Basin Tribal Youth Program
    1 The Effects of Fire on the Klamath Basin Traditional/Prescribed burning & Wildfires Anthony Ulmer June 16-August 21, 2014 Klamath Basin Tribal Youth Program 1. Abstract Wildfires, Traditional Burning, and Prescribed have been a way of shaping the landscape of the Klamath Basin for thousands of years. I’ve been researching these subjects for the past summer during my internship for the KBTYP (Klamath Basin Tribal Youth Program). In my time spent up and down the Klamath Basin I have found a great interest in fire, so I decided to write my report on it. This report will detail information about the different types of burning and how each one has a different effect on the climate of the Klamath Basin. It’s been a great experience for me and I have learned a lot from different agencies and people such as, tribal governments, tribal elders, fish and wildlife, people from various communities, and research papers. This report will mainly focus on what’s going on now and how things could be possibly changed in the future. 2 2. Introduction Traditional burning, prescribed burning, and wildfire have all played a big role in changing the landscape of the Klamath Basin. In more recent years, wildfire has dominated the press because of the unforgettable damage it can do and has caused in the past to different communities up and down the Klamath Basin, especially in areas like Orleans, Hupa, and Weitchpec, California. In remote areas such as these, fire crews and resources are often hours away, resulting in the destruction of the forest and resident structures in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Wildfire Likelihood Increase Following Insect Outbreaks in Conifer Forests? 1,3, 1 1 1 GARRETT W
    Does wildfire likelihood increase following insect outbreaks in conifer forests? 1,3, 1 1 1 GARRETT W. MEIGS, JOHN L. CAMPBELL, HAROLD S. J. ZALD, JOHN D. BAILEY, 1 1,2 DAVID C. SHAW, AND ROBERT E. KENNEDY 1College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA 2College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA Citation: Meigs, G. W., J. L. Campbell, H. S. J. Zald, J. D. Bailey, D. C. Shaw, and R. E. Kennedy. 2015. Does wildfire likelihood increase following insect outbreaks in conifer forests? Ecosphere 6(7):118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ ES15-00037.1 Abstract. Although there is acute concern that insect-caused tree mortality increases the likelihood or severity of subsequent wildfire, previous studies have been mixed, with findings typically based on stand- scale simulations or individual events. This study investigates landscape- and regional-scale wildfire likelihood following outbreaks of the two most prevalent native insect pests in the US Pacific Northwest (PNW): mountain pine beetle (MPB; Dendroctonus ponderosae) and western spruce budworm (WSB; Choristoneura freemani). We leverage seamless census data across numerous insect and fire events to (1) summarize the interannual dynamics of insects (1970–2012) and wildfires (1984–2012) across forested ecoregions of the PNW; (2) identify potential linked disturbance interactions with an empirical wildfire likelihood index; (3) quantify this insect-fire likelihood across different insect agents, time lags, ecoregions, and fire sizes. All three disturbance agents have occurred primarily in the drier, interior conifer forests east of the Cascade Range. In general, WSB extent exceeds MPB extent, which in turn exceeds wildfire extent, and each disturbance typically affects less than 2% annually of a given ecoregion.
    [Show full text]
  • November 27, 2018
    NWCG Smoke Managers Subcommittee Conference Call November 27, 2018 Roll Call: Mike Broughton, Colorado/US Forest Service (Chair) Ursula Parker, California/Butte County AQMD (Secretary, Acting Co-Chair) Rick Gillam, Georgia/U.S. EPA, Southeast Region Carol Blocksome, Kansas/Kansas State University Pleasant McNeel, Mississippi/USFS Lisa Bye, New Mexico/BLM Lou Ballard, Idaho/USFWS Fire Center Andrea Holland, Colorado/Retired USFS Paul Corrigan, Utah/Utah Smoke Management Janice Peterson, Washington/USFS Nick Yonker, Oregon/Dept of Forestry Debra Harris, California/North Coast AQMD Eric Olson, California/Siskiyou County APCD Kim Sumner, California/Siskiyou County APCD Ann Hobbs, California/Placer County APCD Andrea Boyer, Idaho/Nez Perce Tribe Julie Simpson, Idaho/Nez Perce Tribe Gary Curcio, North Carolina/IPA The purpose of the Smoke Manager’s Sub-Committee is to increase communications amongst the community of air quality professionals, other state and federal governmental agencies, land managers, and other persons conducting burning activities --and ---those ---who ---are -------interested -in ----smoke ---------management from burning operations. Agenda Intros Schedule for NWCG Conference calls for 2019 EPA Update – Rick Gillam Regional Summary of 2018 Fire Season Smoke Issues, including Camp Fire in Butte County, CA Highlights of Past Conferences and Schedule of Upcoming Conferences Prescribed Fire Creative Solutions Increasing Participation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Schedule
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the Upper Klamath-Trinity River Spring
    PETITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR Klamath Trinity Spring Chinook, Klamath Trinity spring-run Chinook Upper Klamath-Trinity River spring-run Chinook Upper Klamath-Trinity River Spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawystscha) Common Name Scientific Name EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petitioners Karuk Tribe and Salmon River Restoration Council submit this petition to list the Upper Klamath Trinity River Spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) hereinafter referred to as UKTR Spring Chinook, as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code §§ 2070 et seq. This petition demonstrates that the UKTR Spring Chinook warrants listing under CESA based on the factors specified in the statute. In 2011, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) et al. filed a Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing petition (2011 Petition) with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to address the dramatic declines of Upper Klamath-Trinity River (UKTR) spring-run Chinook salmon. The petition was denied due to NMFS’ belief that scientific evidence did not warrant reclassification of the spring-run component of UKTR Chinook as its own Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, new evidence demonstrates sufficient differentiation between the spring-run component of UKTR Chinook, referred to here as UKTR Spring Chinook, and their fall-run counterparts, to warrant the UKTR Spring Chinook’s classification as its own ESU. On that basis, the Karuk Tribe and Salmon River Restoration Council petitioned NMFS on November 2, 2017 to reconsider its decision and list the UKTR Spring Chinook as endangered. The evidence supporting the Federal listing also supports listing the UKTR Spring Chinook as an endangered species under CESA.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 Biscuit Fire Suppression Actions and Impacts
    COLLATERAL DAMAGE: The Environmental Effects of Firefighting The 2002 Biscuit Fire Suppression Actions and Impacts Timothy Ingalsbee, Ph.D. Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology May 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...... 3 The Cumulative Ecological Effects of Fire Exclusion ...... 4 The Direct Environmental Effects Of Fire Suppression ...... 6 Fireline Construction ...... 6 Tree Felling ...... 7 Chemical Use ...... 8 Water Use ...... 9 Suppression Firing Operations ...... 11 The Indirect Environmental Effects of Fire Suppression ...... 15 Off-Highway Vehicle Use ...... 15 Road Reconstruction ...... 16 Spread of Noxious and Invasive Weeds ...... 17 Post-Fire Logging ...... Suppression Impacts On Special Emphasis Management Areas ...... 18 Botanical Areas ...... 18 Research Natural Areas ...... 19 Heritage Sites ...... 19 Late-Successional and Riparian Reserves ...... 19 Wilderness Areas ...... 20 Roadless Areas ...... 21 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 21 Meadow Communities ...... 21 Fire Suppression Mitigation and Rehabilitation ...... 22 Conclusion ...... 23 Recommendations ...... 25 Appendix 1: Maps of Fire Progression and Burnout Areas ...... 30 Appendix 2: Chronology of Biscuit Fire Suppression Operations ...... 31 Appendix 3: Methodology used for this report ...... 37 Acknowledgements ...... 39 Endnotes ...... 39 This report is revised and updated from a May 2004 report issued for the Western Fire Ecology Center, American Lands Alliance INTRODUCTION In 2002, severe drought coupled with record-breaking heat, steep mountainous
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians
    STANDARD COMMON AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS, TURTLES, REPTILES & CROCODILIANS Sixth Edition Joseph T. Collins TraVis W. TAGGart The Center for North American Herpetology THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY www.cnah.org Joseph T. Collins, Director The Center for North American Herpetology 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 (785) 393-4757 Single copies of this publication are available gratis from The Center for North American Herpetology, 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 USA; within the United States and Canada, please send a self-addressed 7x10-inch manila envelope with sufficient U.S. first class postage affixed for four ounces. Individuals outside the United States and Canada should contact CNAH via email before requesting a copy. A list of previous editions of this title is printed on the inside back cover. THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY BO A RD OF DIRE ct ORS Joseph T. Collins Suzanne L. Collins Kansas Biological Survey The Center for The University of Kansas North American Herpetology 2021 Constant Avenue 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Kelly J. Irwin James L. Knight Arkansas Game & Fish South Carolina Commission State Museum 915 East Sevier Street P. O. Box 100107 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. Robert Powell Section of Zoology Department of Biology State Museum of Pennsylvania Avila University 300 North Street 11901 Wornall Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Kansas City, Missouri 64145 Travis W. Taggart Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University 3000 Sternberg Drive Hays, Kansas 67601 Front cover images of an Eastern Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) and Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) by Suzanne L.
    [Show full text]
  • Clearing the Smoke from Wildfire Policy: an Economic Perspective by Dean Lueck and Jonathan Yoder PERC POLICY SERIES | RECENT ESSAYS
    PERC POLICY SERIES | No. 56 | 2016 Clearing the Smoke from Wildfire Policy: An Economic Perspective by Dean Lueck and Jonathan Yoder PERC POLICY SERIES | RECENT ESSAYS PS-55 Ecosystem Services: What are the Public Policy Implications? R. David Simpson PS-54 Managing Conflicts over Western Rangelands Shawn Regan PS-53 Charter Forests: A New Management Approach for National Forests Robert H. Nelson PS-52 Evolving Rights for Evolving Fisheries Donald R. Leal PS-51 Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic Roger E. Meiners and Andrew P. Morriss PERC POLICY SERIES | No. 56 | 2016 Clearing the Smoke from Wildfire Policy: An Economic Perspective by Dean Lueck and Jonathan Yoder 2048 Analysis Drive, Suite A | Bozeman, Montana 59718 Phone: 406–587–9591 | www.perc.org | [email protected] To the Reader Wildfires are heating up once again in the American West. In 2015, wildfires burned more than 10 million acres in the United States at a cost of $2.1 billion in federal expenditures. As the fires burned, the U.S. Forest Service announced that, for the first time, more than half of its budget would be devoted to wildfire. And the situation is likely to get worse. Within a decade, the agency estimates that it will spend more than two-thirds of its budget bat- tling fires. In this PERC Policy Series essay, Dean Lueck and Jonathan Yoder use economics to examine wildfire management and the current wildfire policy debate. As leading scholars in the area of wildfire policy, they provide an economic framework for evaluating effec- tive wildfire management and use it to confront current wildfire policy issues.
    [Show full text]