From the text...'The restoration of ecological processes is the key to promoting ecosystem stability and preserving biological integrity (Samson and Knopf 1993). Using prescribed fire to intentionally burn wildland biomass has been successful in restoring wildland fire regimes back into many fire adapted ecosystems (Wright and Bailey 1982). At present, 40 percent of all wildland area burned in the 11 Western states is by prescribed wildland fire, and it has been proposed that additional prescribed wildland fire activity is needed (USDA & USDI 1996). These results also indicate that in order to restore historic fire regimes on non-urban and non-agricultural lands approximately 11 Mha more needs to be burned annually. The Fire Emissions Project of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission found that Federal, State, Tribal, and private land managers plan to increase prescribed fire activity to approximately 2.5 Mha annually by 2040 (Lahm 1994). However, 2.5 Mha is only 20 percent of the 11 Mha required to return historic fire regimes to all non-urban and non-agricultural lands in the West. Although ecologically beneficial, wildland fire restoration has significant social, political, and economic implications. Air quality being only one of many. If historical fire regimes were restored to Western non-agricultural and non-urban lands, approximately 7 times (0.9 Tg) more smoke would be produced. Unfortunately, no other habitat management alternative (e.g., grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, etc.) can duplicate the unique ecological effects (simultaneous soil heating, nutrient cycling, and altering the community structure) of wildland fire. Is restoring Western wildland fire as an ecological process possible? Yes, but probably only on a limited landscape basis. Now, what will happen to wildlife habitat on the majority of Western landscape where wildland fire is excluded or where wildland fire regimes are significantly altered?'