Fire managers are increasingly concerned about the threat of crown fires, yet only now are quantitative methods for assessing crown fire hazard being developed. Links among existing mathematical models of fire behavior are used to develop two indices of crown fire hazard-the Torching Index and Crowning Index. These indices can be used to ordinate different forest stands by their relative susceptibility to crown fire and to compare the effectiveness of crown fire mitigation treatments. The coupled model was used to simulate the wide range of fire behavior possible in a forest stand, from a low-intensity surface fire to a high-intensity active crown fire, for the purpose of comparing potential fire behavior. The hazard indices and behavior simulations incorporate the effects of surface fuel characteristics, dead and live fuel moistures (surface and crown), slope steepness, canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and wind reduction by the canopy. Example simulations are for western Montana Pinus ponderosa and Pinus contorta stands. Although some of the models presented here have had limited testing or restricted geographic applicability, the concepts will apply to models for other regions and new models with greater geographic applicability.

We explore the extent to which visitor experiences and management preferences vary between the most heavily used places in wilderness and places that are less popular. We also contrast day and overnight users. The study was conducted in Forest Service administered wildernesses in Oregon and Washington using both on-site and mailback questionnaires. The on-site questionnaires were administered as visitors exited the wilderness at 36 trailheads in 13 wildernesses. The trail use ranged from very high to moderate. To include visitors who selected low use trails, we sent mailback questionnaires to self-issue permit holders. We describe visitor characteristics, trip characteristics, motivations and experiences, encounters with other groups, attitudes toward recreation management, and opinions about the Forest Service. Differences related to use level were surprisingly small. Differences between day and overnight users were also small. We found evidence that wilderness experiences were adversely affected at high use locations but most visitors consider these effects to be of little importance. Most visitors to the more popular places make psychological adjustments to heavy use, allowing most of them to find solitude and have what they consider "a real wilderness experience." Consequently, most are not supportive of use limits to avoid people related problems. We draw conclusions about potential indicators, standards, and management actions for heavily-used places in wilderness.