the safety precautions that are taken.
why safety precautions are needed.
What reasons on the website support the claim that prescribed fires help? Check all that apply.
Planned fires reduce dangerous fuels.
Planned fires spread diseases.
Animals have less to eat after prescribed fires.
Prescribed fires prevent plant growth.
Prescribed fires nourish the soil.
The habitat for endangered animals improves after prescribed fires.
Prescribed fire is a planned fire used to meet management objectives.
Did you know fire can be good for people and the land? After many years of fire exclusion, an ecosystem that needs periodic fire becomes unhealthy. Trees are stressed by overcrowding; fire-dependent species disappear; and flammable fuels build up and become hazardous. The right fire at the right place at the right time:
Reduces hazardous fuels, protecting human communities from extreme fires;
Minimizes the spread of pest insects and disease;
Removes unwanted species that threaten species native to an ecosystem;
Provides forage for game;
Improves habitat for threatened and endangered species;
Recycles nutrients back to the soil; and
Promotes the growth of trees, wildflowers, and other plants;
The Forest Service manages prescribed fires and even some wildfires to benefit natural resources and reduce the risk of unwanted wildfires in the future. The agency also uses hand tools and machines to thin overgrown sites in preparation for the eventual return of fire.
A prescribed fire in a forest.
Prescribed fires target dry undergrowth that can increase the risk of uncontrolled forest fires.
More prescribed fires mean fewer extreme wildfires.
Specialists write burn plans for prescribed fires. Burn plans identify – or prescribe – the best conditions under which trees and other plants will burn to get the best results safely. Burn plans consider temperature, humidity, wind, moisture of the vegetation, and conditions for the dispersal of smoke. Prescribed fire specialists compare conditions on the ground to those outlined in burn plans before deciding whether to burn on a given day.
What reasons on the website support the claim that prescribed fires help? Check all that apply.
Planned fires reduce dangerous fuels.
Planned fires spread diseases.
Animals have less to eat after prescribed fires.
Prescribed fires prevent plant growth.
Prescribed fires nourish the soil.
The habitat for endangered animals improves after prescribed fires.
9 answers
Based on the information provided, here are the supporting claims regarding the benefits of prescribed fires:
Planned fires reduce dangerous fuels. (This statement is supported by the text as it mentions reducing hazardous fuels, which protects human communities from extreme fires.)
Prescribed fires nourish the soil. (The text states that prescribed fires recycle nutrients back to the soil.)
The habitat for endangered animals improves after prescribed fires. (The text mentions that prescribed fires improve habitat for threatened and endangered species.)
The other options do not support the claims that prescribed fires help:
Planned fires spread diseases. (This is incorrect; the text states that planned fires minimize the spread of pest insects and disease.)
Animals have less to eat after prescribed fires. (This is misleading; while it may temporarily affect forage availability, the text notes that prescribed fires can provide forage for game.)
Prescribed fires prevent plant growth. (This is not supported, as the text indicates that prescribed fires promote the growth of trees, wildflowers, and other plants.)
In summary, the correct responses are:
Planned fires reduce dangerous fuels.
Prescribed fires nourish the soil.
The habitat for endangered animals improves after prescribed fires.
Which facts can be used to argue against controlled burns? Check all that apply.
The number of escaped fires seems to be trending up.
We do not know how many of the “success” burns might have been near misses.
The estimated number of prescribed burns is 4,000 to 5,000 per year.
The report does not say how destructive the escaped fires were, only how many there were.
The report admits that prescribed burns have elements of risk and uncertainty.
One percent of the burns cannot be proven successful.
Based on the information provided, the following facts can be used to argue against controlled burns:
The number of escaped fires seems to be trending up. (This can raise concerns about the effectiveness and safety of controlled burns.)
We do not know how many of the “success” burns might have been near misses. (This indicates uncertainty regarding the assessment of past controlled burns.)
The report does not say how destructive the escaped fires were, only how many there were. (This suggests that while the frequency of escaped fires is noted, their potential impact is not evaluated, raising concerns.)
The report admits that prescribed burns have elements of risk and uncertainty. (This acknowledges that there are inherent dangers associated with controlled burns.)
One percent of the burns cannot be proven successful. (This statistic suggests that there is a margin of error or uncertainty regarding the efficacy of controlled burns.)
In summary, all of the provided facts can be used to argue against controlled burns.
only The number of escaped fires seems to be trending up.
We do not know how many of the “success” burns might have been near misses.
The report does not say how destructive the escaped fires were, only how many there were.
The report admits that prescribed burns have elements of risk and uncertainty.
The light burners proposed to "control" the destructiveness of the deliberate firing by burning the woods in the spring or fall when sufficiently moist to prevent the fire from seriously injuring either old timber or young trees. A careful study of the area . . . shows that such control amounts to little or nothing. The light burners ignore . . . . the rapidity with which . . . sunlight in warm weather dries up the litter in the pine woods. A south slope will be so dry as to make any fire exceedingly hot and destructive before a north slope will burn at all.
Areas which will burn but lightly and irregularly early in the morning will flare up and consume in the most approved fashion by mid-afternoon. The moisture following light spring or fall rains often disappears so rapidly that the period of "safe" burning is a matter of hours, not of days. Actually to burn the western pineries, as the advocates of this theory propose to burn them, would, if it could be done at all, entail a cost for effective control many times greater than the cost of an efficient system of fire detection and suppression.
–“‘Paiute Forestry’ or the Fallacy of Light Burning,”
William B. Greeley
Answer the questions based on your reading of this magazine excerpt.
What is the main issue with controlled burns?
What changes too quickly to predict?
Which word is a clue to how the writer feels?
Why does the writer use quotation marks around the words “safe” and “control”?
Based on the excerpt from William B. Greeley's article, here are the answers to your questions:
What is the main issue with controlled burns?
The main issue with controlled burns, as presented in the excerpt, is the inadequacy of control methods during controlled burns. Greeley argues that the conditions under which these burns are conducted are unpredictable, and the proposed methods may not effectively prevent the fires from becoming destructive, especially due to rapid drying of litter and changing weather conditions.
What changes too quickly to predict?
The moisture in the litter, which can change rapidly following light spring or fall rains, is mentioned as something that "disappears so rapidly" that the window for safe burning becomes a matter of hours instead of days. This unpredictable change complicates the timing and safety of controlled burns.
Which word is a clue to how the writer feels?
The use of the word "fallacy" in the title and the phrase "little or nothing" indicates skepticism and a critical attitude toward the effectiveness of light burning as proposed by its advocates. Additionally, words like "exceedingly hot and destructive" also convey a sense of alarm regarding the potential negative outcomes of these controlled burns.
Why does the writer use quotation marks around the words “safe” and “control”?
The quotation marks around “safe” and “control” imply that the writer is skeptical of the notions of safety and control associated with controlled burns. By using quotation marks, Greeley likely suggests that these terms may not accurately reflect the true risks and uncertainties involved in the practice, indicating that what is regarded as "safe" may not be so in reality.
Answer the questions based on your reading of this magazine excerpt.
What is the main issue with controlled burns?
✔ Favorable conditions do not last.
What changes too quickly to predict?
✔ the weather
Which word is a clue to how the writer feels?
✔ “ignore”
Why does the writer use quotation marks around the words “safe” and “control”?
✔ to show that the words are used questionably
Which piece of evidence is most helpful to support a claim opposed to prescribed burning?
Fires behave differently, and it is hard to create the same fire experiment twice.
The burned area had a healthier and more diverse ecosystem.
The dominant plants were thinned to make room for other species.
Naturally occurring fires may have thinned the area before humans settled there.
“Benefits of Prescribed Burning Illustrated by Colorado State
University Researcher's Study of Boulder's Open Space”
by Colorado State University
Burning dead and dying timber in parts of Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks area increased
plant species and pruned dense ponderosa pine forests that pose a serious wildfire threat to nearby
homes, a Colorado State University study found.
The two-year study, led by forest sciences professor Rick Laven, focused on the effects of prescribed
burning--the intentional setting of small fires to help clear overstocked forests of debris--on two open
space parcels where ponderosa pine forests border grasslands.
The study found that prescribed burns in these two specific areas thinned out dominant plants so that
other plant species could emerge, resulting in a healthier and more diverse ecosystem. It also proved a
useful method in thinning out forest debris that has accumulated after years of fire suppression.
"Fire triggers a thinning and rejuvenating process in ecosystems, and also maintains a border between
ecosystems," Laven said. "Without fire or thinning forests by mechanical means, a wildfire is likely to be
much more intense and harder to control. This is especially a concern for Colorado's Front Range, where
so many people have built homes in these areas within grassland and ponderosa pine ecosystems."
Operating under a $50,000 grant from the City of Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks Department,
Laven and graduate research assistant Sarah Gallup measured tree densities and inventoried plant
species before and after prescribed burns in the two areas. Unburned areas were used for comparison.
The two burns behaved differently, one creeping through grass at low intensity and the second burning at
a much higher intensity. A year after the plot was burned by intense fire, researchers documented an
increase in plant species compared with other plots, while grasses decreased. The area with less intense
fire showed a decrease in plants that reproduced only by seed.
Laven said historical photographs of Boulder's open space show that prior to human settlement, similar
areas were apparently thinned out naturally with low-intensity surface fires that may have occurred as
frequently as every 40 years.
As urban populations increased and fire was continually suppressed, the ponderosa pine ecosystems
became increasingly dense and began to encroach on native grasslands. That changed the number of
native plants and other plant species present in the two ecosystems, Laven said.
Laven pointed out that suppressing fire in lower-elevation ponderosa pine forests, such as those in the
study, posed more of a wildfire threat than suppressing fire in higher elevation forests marked by species
such as lodgepole pine or spruce.
"At higher elevations, hundreds of years often pass between forest fires because there's greater moisture
and the climate is less conducive to frequent burns," Laven said. "At lower elevations, we suspect that
fuel build-up on the forest floor occurs much faster. By suppressing fire, more woody debris is available to
act as a fuel source."
Laven's study dovetails with a recent debate in Congress over President Clinton's proposal to burn as
many as 1.3 million acres in national forests to weed out areas overloaded with fallen timber. The U.S.
Forest Service suggested that low- intensity fires will help reduce the threat of wildfires that quickly grow
out of control.
Laven cautioned that his study focused solely on the effects of prescribed burning in two specific areas
within Boulder's open space, and cannot be used to reach a general conclusion about the use of fire.
"The effects of fire are not easy to generalize. Each fire behaves differently and conditions are different,
which makes replicating fires for experiments extremely difficult," Laven said. "We hope this study adds to
our limited knowledge of the ecological consequences of prescribed fire and helps managers choose the
most appropriate land management options."
Laven has studied the use of fire and forest ecology for more than 20 years and is co-author of
"Introduction to Wildland Fire," a book covering all aspects of prescribed burning and its ecological
effects.
To support a claim opposed to prescribed burning, the most helpful piece of evidence from the provided text would be:
"Fires behave differently, and it is hard to create the same fire experiment twice."
Explanation:
This statement suggests that the outcomes of prescribed burns can vary significantly based on a number of factors, such as fire intensity, weather conditions, and ecosystem characteristics. This variability can undermine the predictability and effectiveness of prescribed burns, making it a valid reason for skepticism towards their use.
Other options such as "the burned area had a healthier and more diverse ecosystem," "the dominant plants were thinned to make room for other species," and "naturally occurring fires may have thinned the area before humans settled there" present benefits or historical context that support the use of prescribed burning rather than arguments against it.
Which is the best rebuttal to this anti-burn viewpoint?
Air quality is often affected by controlled fires.
Tourism is not of great concern to the Forest Service.
Without the controlled fire, the tourist season would not have been affected.
Without the controlled fire, more fuel may have built up, leading to greater damage.
Letter from Congressman Jones to US Forest Service
June 19, 2012
The Honorable Kristin Bail
Supervisor, North Carolina
U.S. Forest Service
160 Zillicoa St. Suite A
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Supervisor Bail:
On behalf of the roughly 700,000 Eastern North Carolinians that I am privileged to represent, I am writing to express deep concern over the fire that is now consuming a large portion of the Croatan National Forest. As you know, Forest Service personnel started this fire on Thursday, June 14th, as part of a “prescribed burn” operation. However, according to published reports, the fire quickly grew out control and now covers 21,000 acres, or roughly 32 square miles. U.S. Forest Service personnel have confirmed that none of the fire has been contained.
As a result, smoke and ash from the fire are negatively affecting air quality conditions from coastal North Carolina to Raleigh. In fact, state air quality officials have issued air quality warnings for Martin, Pitt, Washington, Beaufort and Hyde counties today, and they are expecting Code Red conditions in Craven, Jones and Pamlico counties.
I understand the Forest Service is devoting significant resources to the fire, including boots on the ground, bulldozers, helicopters and planes. If I can assist you in any way in securing additional federal resources to get this fire under control, I urge you to contact me directly as soon as possible.
That being said, I join many Eastern North Carolina residents who have contacted me in questioning why the Forest Service is in this position at this point in time. I have heard from citizens concerned that the fire is negatively affecting tourism in the region. Other citizens are suffering from the ill effects of the smoke and ash produced by the fire. And others are wondering if the significant cost that taxpayers are now paying to fight the fire could have been avoided through better Forest Service planning.
While I understand your attention is now rightfully devoted to getting the fire under control, once it has been contained, I strongly urge you and Forest Service leadership to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the policies and decisions that led to this incident.
I specifically urge you to provide answers to why a burn of this magnitude was scheduled for June, in the peak of the tourist season, an industry which is one of the primary economic drivers and sources of job creation in our region. The public also deserves to know why this burn was scheduled just weeks after the Forest Service issued a public warning about the "high threat of wildfire" on the Croatan. And finally, the public deserves to know what protocols the Forest Service had in place to contain the fire, why they failed, and what can be done to prevent incidents like these in the future.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress
The best rebuttal to the anti-burn viewpoint expressed in Congressman Jones's letter is:
"Without the controlled fire, more fuel may have built up, leading to greater damage."
Explanation:
This rebuttal directly addresses the core concern of the letter by emphasizing the broader purpose and goals of controlled burns in forest management. It suggests that while the recent incident resulted in a fire that grew out of control, the practice of prescribed burning is intended to reduce the accumulation of flammable materials in the forest, which can lead to much larger and more severe wildfires if left unaddressed.
By framing it this way, the rebuttal acknowledges the current incident but points out that controlled burns serve a preventive purpose that can ultimately protect the forest and surrounding communities from more destructive fires in the long run. This helps to contextualize the actions of the Forest Service and can suggest that the risks of controlled burns may be outweighed by the benefits of hazard reduction when conducted under appropriate conditions.
1 answer