Reconciliation of Review Comments on:
National system to characterize physical properties of wildland
fuels
Cynthia L. Riccardi, Anne G. Andreu, Ella Elman, Karen Kopper, Jennifer Long,
Roger Ottmar
June 15, 2006
Reviewers
Matt Dickinson – USFS Northeastern Research Station
Mark Finney – USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
Mike Hilbruner – USFS Vegetation Management and Protection Research
Ruddy Mell – National Institute of Standards and Technology
Elizabeth Reinhardt – USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station
Jon Regelbrugge – USDA Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest
Matt Dickinson
Page 5, paragraph beginning on line 9. Might mention/cite the NFP program (research
and land management).
No longer applicable after rewrites.
Page 5. line 14. I didn’t initially understand what this sentence meant.
This has been clarified with the addition of several paragraphs in the introduction
describing the history of fuels classification. Major references include (Curry and Fons
1938, 1939; Fons 1946).
Page 6, line 6. This comma series doesn’t seem to be parallel.
Accepted.
Page 8, line 4. I thought it might be useful to give some numerical examples of national
fuelbeds (by ecoregion and strata, for example). Perhaps this could be done in a way
parallel with figures 2-6 in manuscript 4.
I thought a long time about this comment but eventually decided not to include numerical
examples. That information is already presented in Table 6, and the addition of
numerical examples would make the table too complicated. Numerical examples can be
easily seen by using the FCCS program. Finally, perhaps this suggestion is more
appropriate to the manuscript entitled “Calculating physical characteristics of wildland
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 1
fuels in the Fuel Characteristic Classification System” by Riccard, C.L., Sandberg, D.V.,
Prichard, S.J., and Ottmar, R.D.” because this manuscript actually addresses the
quantitative aspects of the fuelbeds.
Where can one find the data quality information? Page 8, line 13.
Yes, page 8, line 13 in old version; page 10-11 in revised version.
Page 10, line 12. Not sure what you mean by primary and secondary.
Primary and secondary are adjectives that modify the noun “categories”.
Mark Finney
The paper is very similar to two other manuscripts that overview FCCS features and
capabilities. A system with the intention of FCCS developers certainly would need
documentation, but all of these manuscripts contain only enough real material for one
report. The content seems more suitable for a GTR as documentation rather than a
journal article since no science or scientific process is really described. The material in
the Tables is important to describing the system, and is also not really the right
information for a journal article. The amount of revision required to combine the three
papers is substantial enough to require considering the new manuscript as a new
submission.
The individual manuscripts were revised considerably in response to review comments,
and the objectives of the individual manuscripts should now be clearer.
In general, the paper would be more readable if it were edited to remove excessive use of
adjectives that give the reader a sense that this is an advertisement rather than a
research article (words like robust, dynamic, flexible, “national”).
The paper was rewritten and edited with attention to details of language.
The introduction could be made more consistent with the title and apparent intent (i.e.
National…) if it would discuss fuels and their characteristics or variability at that scale –
thus providing the justification for why a “National” system is needed. Instead, several
pages are devoted to discussing general fuel characteristics long contained in textbooks
and agency training materials. Contradictory and confusing statements are found
throughout the introduction and the body of the paper that don’t help the reader
understand FCCS or fuels at all. For example:
The introduction has been completely rewritten to address these comments. For example,
there are several paragraphs outlining and describing the history of fuels classification
and the lack of a consistent system for fuels classification. Major references include
(Curry and Fons 1938, 1939; Fons 1946) (Sandberg et al. 2001; Wilson and Dell 1971).
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 2
Page 3, line 16 – “measured or averaged physical characteristics”—not sure why
average conditions are important to fuels – but this is probably a little easier to justify
from sampling theory for a single population than the modal value that is apparently
used (page 8 line 10).
Clarification of data methodology is given on page 10 in the revised manuscript.
Page 3, line 17 – “a distinct fire environment at any scale and precision of interest” -- I
can’t understand how it is possible to have a distinct fire environment at any scale (what
about continental scale for example?) Are fire environments really resolved at that
scale? What definition are you using for fire environment? (there is an established
definition of this). The word precision means the amount of variability in repeated
measurements – is that really what is intended here?
The fuelbeds have been designed to allow maximum flexibility and are not tied to any
issues of scale. It is up to a user to define their scale of interest as they use or develop a
FCCS fuelbed. Likewise, it is up to the user to define the fire environment of interest to
them. I’m not of the exact intent of your comment on precision. Perhaps you were trying
to indicate the statistical meaning of precision?: “Precision…refers to the closeness to
each other of repeated measurements of the same quantity” (Zar 1999). In any case, it is
now appropriately used in the manuscript.
Page 4, line 15 vs. page 7 line 5-10 vs. page 6 line 11, vs. page 6 line 21-23. The
confusion among these passages reflects an apparent inability of the authors to explain
1) what variability in fuels they are trying to capture with the system, 2) what is the scale
of the fuels described in the system, and 3) what is the real utility of the fuelbeds
proposed for this system (i.e. what are they good for?). If variability within a “unit”
(could be a single vegetation type or geographic unit ?) exceeds landscape variability
(Page 4, line 15), then how useful do the authors really think 216 “National” fuelbeds
are for representing fuels (Page 6 line 11)? How can these fuel beds be either general or
site-specific? This makes no sense, similar to the scale issue above, considering that
fuels must be sampled from roughly homogeneous area that must be pretty localized
otherwise the variance in parameters represent a mixed population of different fuel types
which cannot be simply averaged to represent the average behavior. Thus, the utility of
these fuelbeds cannot be known without stating both the scale and variability of the fuels
they represent.
The fuelbeds are designed to allow maximum flexibility and are not directly tied to
defined area (i.e., scale as in “the proportion that a map, model, etc bears to the thing that
it represents; ratio between the dimensions of a representation and those of the object…”
(Webster’s 1991)). It is up to a user to define their scale, area, unit, etc. of interest as
they use or develop an FCCS fuelbed. Likewise, it is up to the user to define the fire
environment of interest to them
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 3
The sentence on page 6 line 21 says the fuebeds are designed to be instructive – to be
changed and modified -- is this the utility of the 216 fuelbeds in FCCS -- instruction?
The word instructive was removed during the revision.
There does not seem to be a clear understanding of what utility the authors have in mind
for the fuelbeds or the system.
This was addressed in the revision of the discussion section.
It is misleading for the designers of the system to include values for fuel or vegetation
parameters for which no research provides a physical explanation linking these inputs to
some fire behavior or effect. Pages 9-13 list a number of parameters that were likely
identified by expert opinion but that is actually not a reason to include parameters such
as midstory, ladder fuel types, stumps, rotten wood, or squirrel middens. Their inclusion
in the “system” gives the false impression that the user can enter such information and it
has some value to the outputs.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Models, often regardless of their accuracy or
predictive ability, are an acceptable method of testing hypotheses and research questions
in science. One only needs to review the literature in almost any scientific discipline to
see published models. In the science of wildland fire, for example, Albini (1976),
discusses models for several pages of text.
The paper seems to imply that standard fuel models are relatively simple descriptions of
fuels because of limits on money time and personnel (Page 13 line 17) and only by
including more parameters can limits to utility of fuel data be addressed. In fact, the fuel
characteristics used at present for fire behavior & effects prediction are only those for
which research models have shown to have meaning. It would be disingenuous to
include numerous fuel parameters for which no explanation of their role exists.
Fire behavior fuel models are “relatively simple descriptions of fuels...” as stated by
Rothermel (1972, p. 35). The revision of the introduction lays out the intertwined history
of fuels classification and fire behavior. Your statement that fuel characteristics of
interest to fire behavior are those that have been shown to have meaning is not totally
correct. This history shows that these variables of interest were developed because
simplification was absolutely necessary in order to try to begin to understand the physical
processes at work with respect to combustion (Fons 1946).
The authors should recognize that there will actually be more limitations to applying
FCCS fuelbeds than the standard fire behavior fuel models– for two reasons:
1. The application of the existing 216 fuebeds would be based on the closest
vegetation characteristics which cannot possibly represent the variability within
each vegetation type (already discussed above). Thus, fuel beds are essentially
just more complex fuel models.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 4
2. Even more problematic is the absence of fire behavior calibration in FCCS that
was also used as a guide in using and developing fuel models. Choice of a fuel
model was influenced by factors of fire behavior in addition to the physical
description of the fuels.
This comment is not clear to me. I’m not sure what/where you are referring to when you
say “…applying FCCS fuelbed…” – applying where? The use of standard fire behavior
fuel models can lead to inaccurate predictions of fire behavior (Albini 1976).
Page 14, line 20. There was no opportunity demonstrated for comparing fuelbeds in any
fire behavior system.
Data from FCCS fuelbeds can be entered in fire behavior prediction algorithms, and
calculations can be made. In the U.S. system of fire behavior prediction, this would be
possible for only the surface fuels.
Page 8, line 23 – and page 9, line 20, -- why is moisture content a fuelbed property ?
This is out of place since moisture is better classified as an environmental variable – i.e.
it can change the behavior of the fuel in the same identical fuelbed.
Moisture is an environmental variable, as you note. It is referred to in the FCCS reports
as a median value that can be modified by users to reflect actual conditions.
Table 2 should have more detail on where the data came from (references, site location,
sampling methods etc..
This is a good point. Unfortunately we are constrained by the normal space requirements
of journals, and a very long table with many references would be unacceptable for normal
formats. However, we are considering publishing the references as an electronic
appendix.
Mike Hilbruner
The organization of this paper is good and the material is understandable. My comments
pertain to whether certain referenced classifications or standards are citable and some
further explanation on a couple of topics.
For example there are standards, classifications, or at least break downs for several
items of interest. I wonder whether these follow existing documented standards and
whether they ought to be cited. For example:
• Most foresters and many others are familiar with terms like overstory, Midstory,
understory, emergent, dominant and co-dominant trees; but is there a citable
standard that can be referenced?
Yes, that was cited in Table 4.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 5
•
Height to the base of the live crown (page 9) is a bit like fuelbed depth – a bit
sticky. Citing the discussion in Assessing crown fire potential by linking models
of surface and crown fire behavior or adding some depth by another method
would be valuable.
That particular reference was not cited because it is not applicable in this
particular situation.
•
I believe that the categorization of snags (page 9,10) can and should be cited.
Yes, thank you for catching that.
In several instances, further expansion would perhaps lead to better understanding of
what the authors are trying to get across. For example:
• Fuelbeds are described as instructive, changeable, dynamic and intended to
provide general values (page 6). I’m not sure just what all of this means or
whether it is important that I do.
Addressed during revision.
•
Fuelbeds are described as general or site specific. Can I tell one from the other
in the database (page 7)? Should I care?
It is not particularly relevant with respect to the data contained in any particular
fuelbed. In any case, values can be modified by users to fit a particular situation.
•
There is a description of a 5 classes to document the reliability of the information
for each fuelbed. How many of the 216 are in each class? Are most of the
fuelbeds highly reliable or of lower confidence?
No, there is no description. We also do not provide answers to your last 2
questions in the manuscript.
•
Height is described as a measure from the bottom up, while depth is described as
a measure from the top down (page 7). What difference does it make,
conceptually, whether one measures up or down?
None, that I can think of. The distinction is made because when one measures or
talks about litter, duff, etc., one does not refer to the height rather one refers to the
depth, for example. Therefore, we chose to continue the use of the disciplinespecific jargon.
•
Sound and dead fuels are viewed as continuous while stumps are discontinuous
(page 11). This seems logical, although any fuel might be discontinuous, but
what is the significance of this in the FCCS system?
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 6
The importance is stated on p. 14 “It is important to note that depth represents the
value of continuous sound and rotten downed fuels across the entire fuelbed unit
and not where the fuel is present.”
On another note, perhaps this is the paper in which to reference the issue of field surveys
that I mentioned in the general comments. Other comments, mostly of an editorial
nature, are included in the marked up draft copy.
Ruddy Mell
p3 line 11: after “behavior” he wrote “such as.....?”
Hayman fire; Cerro Grande fire, etc.
p3 line 18 – p4 line 1: (reviewer comment: What is meant by “distinct fire
environment”, how are different fire environments distinguished from each other in order
to then define different fuel beds? What is meant by any scale and precision? Is this
referring to Sandberg et al. 2001? This needs some discussion since nearly everything in
FCCS follows from it. Are the distinct fire environments known from observation or
modeling? Some examples would be helpful.)
The fuelbeds have been designed to allow maximum flexibility and are not tied to any
issues of scale. It is up to a user to define their scale of interest as they use or develop a
FCCS fuelbed. Likewise, it is up to the user to define the fire environment of interest to
them.
p5 line 6-13: Re “The fuel models do not provide information suitable for assessing
potential for crown fire ignition, accounting for variation in fuels characteristics over
time, or projecting the effectiveness of fuel treatments.“, he wrote: (Reviewer comment:
The sentence above would be more informative if it was more clearly and fully explained
why these older fuel models not adequate for crown fire ignition, etc. Also, the statement
begs the question that: since the fuel models were developed to meet the input needs of
the Rothermel model does it follow that the Rothermel model is inadequate for
application to crown fire ignition, etc.?)
Clarifications and rewording were provided in the revision.
p5 line 14-15: after “Another fuel characterization system developed was the Fuel
Condition Class (FCC) system (Schaaf 1996: Ottmar et al. 1998).” he wrote “( Reviewer
comment: What was the original motivation for developing FCC?”
Addressed in the revsion.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 7
p7 line 8-14: after “The National Fuelbeds (fuelbeds hereafter) were defined by
scientists, researchers, land managers, and other experts who participated in a series of
fire workshops for the Boreal, Tropical, Semitropical, Dry, Western Temperate, and
Eastern Temperate regions. The experts created detailed quantitative and qualitative
descriptions of fuelbeds in their regions. These descriptions were verified and augmented
with data taken from peer-reviewed literature, government databases (National Park
Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis) and other publications (e.g., USDA Forest
Service, Research Papers, General Technical Reports, Research Notes, and stereo photo
series for quantifying natural fuels), and unpublished data.” He wrote “ (Reviewer
comment: As was mentioned at the panel meeting there needs to be a fuller accounting of
both where the information came from and what, if any, guiding principles were used
when assembling the fuel data from these sources. For example, the Rothermel model
provided guidance in the sense that moisture, bulk loading, surface-to-volume ratio, etc
information was needed. Was there any quality control? Was the quality control related
to changes in derived FCCS potentials or various field practices used to obtain the data?
)”.
As noted, the first step was to identify potential fuelbeds in conjunction with fire and
fuels managers; this defined the general population of potential fuelbeds that managers
considered to be important. On-site data were derived from existing data bases where
available; these data are high quality and were subject to consistent methodology and
analysis. Other data derived from literature sources are more general in nature and may
be of lower quality. The sources from which all data are derived will be contained in the
next version of the FCCS. Finally, confidence ratings of each fuelbed are provided in the
current version of the FCCS, so that users can have a rough estimate of the quality of
data.
p7 line 15-16: (reviewer comment: What is meant by instructive?)
Removed in the revision.
p7 line 21-22: (reviewer comment: The terms “dominance”, “constancy”, and
“indicator value” need to be explained and defined)..
These term seems sufficiently understood that they do not require explicit definitions.
p7 line 22-23: After “Herbaceous species are included if diagnostic” he wrote
“(reviewer comment: what does this mean?)”
Herbaceous species are included if they help to define the fuelbed (i.e. diagnostic).
p8 line 13: inserted “Hann et al. 2004;” before “Oliver...”.
p8 line 13-14: inserted “'Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook, version 1.2
2005” after “1994”.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 8
p9 line 3-4: (Reviewer comment: in what sense are these unique combustion
environments? )
Minor comments were addressed in the revision.
p 9 line 4-7: (Review comment: What is the rationale for dividing into further
categories? Is it related to fire behavior or to some fire or ecological model
requirements? Some rationale should be given, if only for a sense of context and
limitation)”
The rationale is given in the section “Development of fuelbeds”
p9 line 10-12: (reviewer comment: why was the mode used instead of the mean? Ease of
implementation in the field, does it have better statistical use? …)
Addressed in the revision.
p9 line 13-17: (reviewer comment: What is meant by ‘based on the data from which the
fuelbed is built”? An illustrative example of just how the mode, minimum, and maximum
are determined would help here. Are there recommended standard methods for collecting
the data?
The nature of these values is discussed in a general way in the manuscript. Analogous to
its statistical meaning, the mode is regarded as a central value.
Are there any error measurements associated with any of the data collection methods?
Errors and variance are available for the data that have been collected by our team in the
field, although they are not reported in the FCCS. It is unclear if that type of information
would be needed by users, but it could be included at some point in the future..
p9 line 18: (reviewer comment: need a metric option if a international users are
desired).
This is in process and will be included in the next version of the FCCS.
p10 line 1-4: (reviewer comment: Again, an illustrative example showing how this is
done, or has been done, would help. For example, it’s not clear if one has to go back to
the basic data from which the mode was determined and base the ranking on that. Or
does one use the already computed modes to base the ranking. It’s probably the latter but
it makes a difference. )
p10 line 23: (reviewer comment: so total canopy = overstory + midstory + understory?).
Correct – this should be clearer in the revision.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 9
p11 line 7-8: (reviewer comment: are the defaults? where do they come from, are there
references?)
p12 line 10-11: (reviewer comment: are these percentages defaults? where do they come
from, are there references?
p13 line 8-9: (reviewer comment: This method of estimating coverage needs a fuller
explanation, example, and a reference)
Could not determine what these comments refer to.
p15 line 12-15: (reviewer comment: this is confusing because in the previous sentence
fuel models are descriptions of fuel properties but in this sentence they are said to be
limited to fire behavior prediction. Do the authors mean to say that past fuel model were
developed to provide input to surface fire behavior modes?).
Yes and this point has been clarified in the revision.
Elizabeth Reinhardt
I suggest that you have a figure or table with an example FCCS fuelbed (one of the
simpler of the national fuelbeds perhaps), that you can refer to throughout this paper to
help the reader understand.
I thought a long time about this comment but the information is already presented in
Table 6, and the addition of numerical examples would make the table too complicated.
Numerical examples can be easily seen by using the FCCS program. Finally, perhaps
this suggestion is more appropriate to the manuscript entitled “Calculating physical
characteristics of wildland fuels in the Fuel Characteristic Classification System” by
Riccard, C.L., Sandberg, D.V., Prichard, S.J., and Ottmar, R.D.” because this manuscript
actually addresses the quantitative aspects of the fuelbeds.
This whole paper seems oriented around how the user describes or inputs fuels, while the
following paper describes how the system computes additional fuel characteristics from
the input data. But that needs to be clarified. It left me confused about why some
variables (like canopy bulk density) were not described.
Thank you. This has been addressed in the revision.
No protocols are included that help you get from field data to inputs to FCCS. For
example, if you have tree data from fixed or variable plots, how do you reduce it to get
overstory, with its input variables, midstory… etc.
This is a good point that will be addressed in a future publication that discusses how
fuelbeds are built. It seems beyond the scope of the current publication.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 10
I struggle with the vocabulary in this and the other papers. Here are some of the terms I
would like to see clarified:
“fuelbed unit” pg 3, line 17. replace with “wildland fuels”
Accepted.
“layer” page 3 and 4, “strata” later in the paper.
Addressed the revision.
“categories” and “subcategories” - could these be collapsed so that you just have one
level with a varying number of “components” within each strata? For example, the shrub
strata would have 2 components, primary layer and secondary layer, while the canopy
layer could have the components “overstory trees”, “midstory trees”, understory trees”,
“snags – class 1 with foliage”, “snags – class 1 without foliage”, etc.,
Given the current structure of the FCCS, it would be difficult to collapse these, but it can
be considered for future versions.
“classification levels” Pg 8, line 8 replace with “strata”
We define strata to exclusively be: canopy, shrubs, nonwoody, woody, litter-lichen-moss
and ground fuels. Categories and subcategories are also explicitly defined in the
manuscript and are not the same hierarchical level as strata.
“variables or analogous equivalents” pg 8, line 19. Replace with “characteristics”? Or
“input variables?” The list in table 5 makes me think no computed values are included
as “variables” but the text should clarify. Also, although the computed values are
discussed in detail in the subsequent manuscript, it’s a bit confusing not to mention them
here – I was left wondering “what about canopy fuel load? Isn’t that a variable you’d
want to know about canopy fuels?”
Pg 4, line 17. Replace “Some characterizations of fuels have been called fuel models to
classify and understand fuels” with “Fire behavior fuel models quantify surface fuels for
prediction of fire behavior.”
Addressed in the revision.
Pg 5, last two paragraphs – move to the front of the intro.
Addressed in the revision.
Pg 6, line 8 “historical three layer breakdown of fuels” will all readers know what this
is?
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 11
Removed in the revision.
Pg 6, line 10, I don’t come up with 16.
The categories and subcategories with the associate stratum in parenthesis are listed
below.
1. Trees (Canopy)
2. Snags (Canopy)
3. Ladder fuels (Canopy)
4. Primary (Shrub)
5. Primary(Nonwoody)
6. All Woody (Woody)
7. Sound Wood (Woody)
8. Rotten Wood (Woody)
9. Stumps (Woody)
10. Woody fuel accumulations (Woody)
11. Litter (LLM)
12. Lichen (LLM)
13. Moss (LLM)
14. Duff (Ground)
15. Squirrel Midden (Ground)
16. Basal accumulation (Ground)
Pg 7, lines 5-10. How does a user know if the fuelbed is “general” or “site-specific”?
It is not particularly relevant with respect to the data contained in any particular fuelbed.
In any case, values can be modified by users to fit a particular situation.
Pg 7, line 20 “As change agents for fuelbeds are created” don’t you mean “As fuelbeds
are created for fuels impacted by change agents”?
Yes, thank you.
Page 8, line 10. I’m very uncomfortable with the term mode. I see in the software a
comment “typical value, not really mode.” Since mode has a precise definition that is
not consistent with the values reported, I think it’s essential to find another term. If you
really have data to compute a mode, please please, report the actual mode, along with
the variance, mean, median and sample size. I’d very much like to see sample size
reported in any case.
The nature of these values is discussed in a general way in the manuscript. Analogous to
its statistical meaning, the mode is regarded as a central value.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 12
Pg 8, line 13. Please reconsider the decision to report only English units. It should be
fairly easy to add an option button to your software that allows the user to switch units
(as in Nexus for example).
This will be included in the next version of the FCCS.
Pg 9, line 10. Implies the branchwood is included as canopy fuel while in fact I think you
included foliage only.
Pg 10, lines 11 on – again, it is unclear whether the shrub component includes woody
fuel or is limited to foliage.
Yes, we include only foliage in the calculation of loading, however, we do not discuss
loading in this manuscript. Variables that are discussed here (percent cover, height,
height to live crown, etc.) include the entire tree and not just foliage.
Pg 12, line 13. Are the dead sticks in the litter also part of the down woody strata?
They are part of the woody stratum if the dead sticks are inventoried using Brown
(Brown and Roussopoulos 1974). Inevitably some woody component is found in leaf
litter.
Pg 13, line 17. Suggest “It is difficult for managers to sample…”
The current wording seems OK.
Pg 13, line 19. Suggest “called a fire behavior fuel model”.
Addressed in the revision.
Table 2: I suggest expanding this table to include, at a minimum, the data reference for
each fuelbed.
References for fuelbeds will be included in a future version of the FCCS. We are
considering publishing the references as an electronic appendix.
Table 4: Don’t you consider wildfire a natural event?
Yes, but we chose to have wildfire be a category so that we could break it into ground,
surface and crown wildfire.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 13
Jon C. Regelbrugge
Please consider adding some discussion regarding how the system provides endless
detail and infinite variation in fuel characteristics and physical properties, but that it
remains unclear how much difference in fuels relates to a statistically significant,
physically important, or ecologically meaningful, difference in fire behavior or effects.
Addressed in the revision.
Please discuss how change agents modify the fuelbeds (the fuelbeds with canned change
agents), and how users can effect change agents differently, including incorporating
different change agents.
Change agents modify the fuels. This is explained better in the revision.
I am still unclear why the mode is used rather than mean or median, and I think this
needs to be re-evaluated and the rationale clearly explained.
Addressed in the revision.
I am unclear on how physical characteristics or physical properties of fuels differ, or if
they do.
Addressed in the revision.
I think papers 1,3, and 4 have so much overlap you should consider combining into one.
I fail to see the need for the three.
Addressed in the revision.
Need to clearly identify geographic area for which "canned" fuel models apply. For
example, I see the Sierra Nevada is the only physiographic province that directly pertains
to California. Lots of acres of wildlands exist in CA outside of the Sierra, and it is
unclear to prospective users to what extent the fuelbeds are reasonably used elsewhere.
The geographic reference in FCCS is done by Bailey’s Ecoregion (Bailey 1995)
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 14
References
Albini, F. A. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. USDA Forest Service Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-30. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden,
UT: 92.
Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Misc. Publ. No.
1391 (rev.). USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Brown, J. K., and Roussopoulos, P. J. 1974. Eliminating biases in the planar intersect
method for estimating volumes of small fuels. For. Sci. 20(4): 35-356.
Curry, J. R., and Fons, W. L. 1938. Rate of spread of surface fires in the ponderosa pine
type of California. Journal of Agricultural Research 57: 239-267.
Curry, J. R., and Fons, W. L. 1939. Forest fire behavior studies. Mechancial Engineering
62: 219-225.
Fons, W. L. 1946. Analysis of fire spread in light forest fuels. Journal of Agricultural
Research 72(3): 93-121.
Rothermel, R. C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland
fuels. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper INT-115. Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT: 40.
Sandberg, D. V., Ottmar, R. D., and Cushon, G. H. 2001. Characterizing fuels in the 21st
Century. Internat. Natl. J. Wild. Fire 10: 381-387.
Wilson, C. C., and Dell, J. D. 1971. The fuels buildup in American forests: a plan of
action and research. J. For. 69(8): 471-475.
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Simon & Schuster, Upper Saddle River, NY.
Reconciliation of FCCS Fuelbed Paper -- 15