[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67480-67511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28509]
[[Page 67479]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--
A Cohesive Strategy; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 /
Notices
[[Page 67480]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is adopting a cohesive strategy for fire
management and forest health programs. The full text of the report,
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--
A Cohesive Strategy, is set out at the end of this notice. This report
responds to direction from Congress and the President to provide a
strategic plan to reduce wildland fire risk, protect communities, and
restore and maintain forest ecosystem health in the interior West. The
report also responds to findings and recommendations in a recent
General Acounting Office report, and it provides a strategic framework
for reducing hazardous fuels buildup as addressed in the September 8
report to the President by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior, Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the cohesive strategy report and related materials
are available electronically from the Forest Service World Wide Web/
Internet home page at http://www.fs.fed.us/. Paper copies of the report
also may be obtained by writing to Director, Fire and Aviation
Management Staff, 2nd Floor-SW, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building (Mail
Stop 1107), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C.
20090-6090.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Beighley, Fire and Aviation
Management Staff, (202) 205-0888.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the 2000 fire season more than 6.8
million acres of public and private lands had burned as of early
October--more than twice the 10-year national average. The magnitude of
these fires is the result of two primary factors: a severe drought,
accompanied by a series of storms that produced thousands of lightning
strikes followed by windy conditions; and the long-term effects of
almost a century of suppressing all wildfires that has led to a buildup
of brush and small trees in the nation's forests and rangelands.
On August 8, 2000, the President directed the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to prepare a report recommending how best
to respond to this year's severe fires, reduce the impacts of those
fires on rural communities, and ensure sufficient firefighting
resources in the future. On September 8, 2000, the President accepted
their report, Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment, which provides an overall framework for forest health and
fire management.
Subsequently, the Forest Service issued the report entitled,
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--
A Cohesive Strategy, which is set out in its entirety, with the
exception of certain illustrations which could not be printed in the
Federal Register, in this notice. This report provides the strategic
framework for reducing hazardous fuels buildup within wildland--urban
interface communities, readily accessible municipal watersheds,
threatened and endangered species habitat, and other impotant local
features. The Chief of the Forest Service signed the cohesive strategy
report on October 13, and it was released to agency managers on October
17.
The report responds to Congressional direction to provide a
strategic plan to reduce wildland fire risk and restore forest
ecosystem health in the interior West. The report is set out at the end
of this notice as directed by Title IV of the fiscal year 2001
appropriations act for Interior and related agencies (Public Law 106-
291). As further directed by the act, the agency also has reviewed
other policies and rulemakings currently in development for consistency
with the cohesive strategy, including proposed rules and policies for
the National Forest System road management and transportation system
(65 FR 11675, March 3, 2000) and roadless area conservation (65 FR
30276, May 10, 2000); and the Interior Columbia Basin Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Sierra Nevada Framework/
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This
report also responds to the General Acounting Office report, Western
National Forests: A Cohesive Stratgey Is Needed To Address Catastrophic
Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65).
This cohesive strategy addresses the restoration and maintenance of
ecosystem health in fire-adapted ecosystems for priority areas, with
emphasis on the interior West. The focus of the strategy is on
protecting communities at risk and restoring ecosytems that evolved
with frequently occurring, low-intensity fire. Many of these forests
and rangelands have grown out of balance due in part to past management
practices and decades of fire suppression. The strategy identifies
restoration priorities in fire dependent ecosystems for urban-wildland
interface areas, threatened and endangered species habitat, and readily
accessible municipal watersheds.
Dated: November 1, 2000.
Mike Dombeck,
Chief.
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy
The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting
Office Report, GAO/RCED-99-65,
October 13, 2000.
Submitted by: Lyle Laverty, Report Team Leader, Rocky Mountain Region
Regional Forester; and Jerry Williams, Report Team Co-Leader, Northern
Region Director Fire Management
Approved by: Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service
Table of Contents
Resilience in Fire-Prone Forests
Executive Summary
I Purpose and Intent of a Cohesive Strategy
II Background, Land Use History, and Ecological Change
III Ensuring Clean Air, Clean Water, and Biodiversity in Fire-
Adapted Ecosystems
IV A Cohesive Strategy to Protect People and Sustain Resources
in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems
V Consequences of Deferral
VI Conclusions and Next Steps
VII Team Members
VIII Acknowledgements
IX Glossary
X References and Supporting Information
XI Appendices
Appendix A: The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition of Fire
Regimes and Condition Classes
Appendix B: Recommended Adjustments to Forest Service GPRA Strategic
Plan
Appendix C: Reconciling Stewardship Objectives--Assessing Values at
Risk
Appendix D: Summary for Future Projections of Condition Classes and
Risks
Figures
Figure 1--General affected area within the interior West
Figure 2--Figure 3--Changes in forest structure and condition
class over time
Figure 4--National forest wildland fire acres burned trend in
the 11 Western states
Figure 5--Increased density of smaller trees provides fuel for
vertical fire spread
Figure 6--Buffalo Creek Fire erosion effects
Figure 7--Homes burning in the Dude Fire, Arizona, 1990
Figure 8--Changes in projected amount in Condition Classes on
Western National Forest System lands
Figure 9--National forest wildland fire acres/suppression costs,
1980-99
Figure 10--Projected risk to life and property on Western
National Forest System lands based on changes in fuel condition
[[Page 67481]]
Figure 11--Projected amount of degradation or loss of key
ecosystem elements from severe wildland fires on National Forest
System lands based on changes in fuel condition
Figure 12--Projected risk among strategic options to air
quality, native species, and watersheds on Western National Forest
System lands based on changes in fuel conditions
Figure 13--Cohesive Strategy aims to reduce severe insect,
disease, and wildland fire risk
Figure 14--Forest Service Lands--Fire Regimes I & II
Tables
Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c--10, 15 and 20-year treatment schedules to
increase the hazardous fuels treatment program
Table 2--The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups
Resilience and the Effects of Restoration Treatments in Fire-Prone
Forests
Note: The photograph mentioned below is not printed in the
Federal Register. It is available as indicated in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice.
This photograph illustrates how a treated forest--the green strip
running toward the crest of the ridge in the photo's center--can
survive a severe wildland fire. It also shows the differences in
resilience between treated and untreated forests. The untreated
forest--the blackened areas located on either side of this green
strip--burned in the Wenatchee National Forest's 1994 Tyee Fire.
In this example, treatment was in the form of a ``shaded fuel
break'' (area of green trees in above photo) established several years
before. The purpose of these shaded fuel breaks--located in tactically
important areas--is to provide firefighters an anchor from which to
safely fight fire. The shaded fuel break (pictured) left older-age
trees overhead and thinned out the smaller trees beneath them--removing
surface fuels to reduce potential fire intensities.
On the Tyee Fire, extreme conditions that included high winds and
rapid fire growth, precluded safe attack. No suppression actions were
therefore taken in this area. Nevertheless, because the fuels had been
reduced and fire intensities did not burn hot enough to kill all of the
older trees, much of the treated forest survived the fire--even without
the efforts of firefighters.
The cohesive strategy described in this report attempts to achieve
improved forest and grassland resilience--as illustrated in this Tyee
Fire photo. The strategy provides an approach to reduce fuel loadings
in fire-prone forests to protect people and sustain resources.
Executive Summary
Premise
This strategy is based on the premise that sustainable resources
are predicated on healthy, resilient ecosystems. In fire-adapted
ecosystems, some measure of fire use--at appropriate intensity,
frequency, and time of year--should be included in management
strategies intended to protect and sustain watersheds, species, and
other natural resources over the long term.
The strategy is also based on the premise that, within fire-adapted
ecosystems, fire-maintained forests and grasslands are inherently safer
for firefighters and the public than ecosystems in which fire is
excluded.
Purpose
The strategy establishes a framework that restores and maintains
ecosystem health in fire-adapted ecosystems for priority areas across
the interior West. In accomplishing this, it is intended to:
Improve the resilience and sustainability of forests and
grasslands at risk,
Conserve priority watersheds, species and biodiversity,
Reduce wildland fire costs, losses, and damages, and
Better ensure public and firefighter safety.
Priorities
Wildland-urban interface. Wildland-urban interface areas include
those areas where flammable wildland fuels are adjacent to homes and
communities.
Readily accessible municipal watersheds. Water is the most critical
resource in many western states. Watersheds impacted by
uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less resilient to disturbance and
unable to recover as quickly as those that remain within the range of
ecological conditions characteristic of the fire regime under which
they developed.
Threatened and endangered species habitat. The extent of recent
fires demonstrates that in fire-adapted ecosystems few areas are
isolated from wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many threatened and
endangered species will eventually be impacted by wildland fire. The
severity and extent of fire could eventually push declining populations
beyond recovery.
Maintenance of existing low risk Condition Class 1 areas. This is
especially important in the southern and eastern states where high
rates of vegetation growth can eliminate the effects of treatment in 5-
10 years. Recent droughts have caused severe wildland fire problems in
Florida and Texas.
Elements
For the purposes of this report, the following are used as the
elements of a cohesive strategy:
Institutional Objectives and Priorities
Program Management Budgets and Authorities
Social Awareness and Support
The strategy is based on the alignment of these institutional,
program management, and constituency elements. The cohesion of this
strategy stands on the collective strength of these three core
elements.
Within the Forest Service, ecosystem management concepts continue
to evolve into practice. This report describes a cohesive set of
actions from which the Forest Service may choose to initiate
restoration and maintenance objectives within fire-adapted ecosystems.
I. Purpose and Intent of a Cohesive Strategy
``The most extensive and serious problem related to the health of
national forests in the interior West is the over-accumulation of
vegetation.''--General Accounting Office Report (99-65)
Preface
The 2000 fire season was undoubtedly one of the most challenging on
record. As of early October, more than 6.8 million acres of public and
private lands burned--more than twice the 10-year national average. The
magnitude of these fires is the result of two primary factors: A severe
drought, accompanied by a series of storms that produced thousands of
lightning strikes followed by windy conditions; and the long-term
effects of almost a century of aggressively suppressing all wildfires
that has led to an unnatural buildup of brush and small trees in our
forests and rangelands.
On August 8, 2000, President Clinton asked Secretaries Babbitt and
Glickman to prepare a report that recommends how best to respond to
this year's severe fires, reduce the impacts of those fires on rural
communities, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the
future. On September 8, 2000, President Clinton accepted their report
Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment.
Operating principles directed by The Chief of the Forest Service in
implementing this report include:
Firefighting Readiness. Increase firefighting capability and
capacity for initial attack, extended attack, and large
[[Page 67482]]
fire support that will reduce the number of small fires becoming large,
to better protect natural resources, to reduce the threat to adjacent
communities, and reduce the cost of large fire suppression.
Prevention Through Education. Assist state and local partners to
take actions to reduce fire risk to homes and private property through
programs such as FIREWISE.
Rehabilitation. Focus rehabilitation efforts on restoring watershed
function, including the protection of basic soil, water resources,
biological communities, and prevention of invasive species.
Hazardous Fuel Reduction. Assign highest priority for hazardous
fuels reduction to communities at risk, readily accessible municipal
watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and other
important local features, where conditions favor uncharacteristically
intense fires.
Restoration. Restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological
systems to minimize uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority
watershed basis. Methods will include removal of excessive vegetation
and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatment
methods.
Collaborative Stewardship. Focus on achieving the desired future
condition on the land in collaboration with communities, interest
groups, and state and federal agencies. Streamline process, maximize
effectiveness, use an ecologically conservative approach, and minimize
controversy in accomplishing restoration projects.
Monitoring. Monitor to evaluate the effectiveness of various
treatments to reduce unnaturally intense fires while restoring forest
ecosystem health and watershed function.
Jobs. Encourage new stewardship industries and collaborate with
local people, volunteers, Youth Conservation Corps members, service
organizations, and Forest Service work crews, as appropriate.
Applied Research and Technology Transfer. Focus research on the
long-term effectiveness of different restoration and rehabilitation
methods to determine those methods most effective in protecting and
restoring watershed function and forest health. Seek new uses and
markets for byproducts of restoration.
Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment
provides an overall framework for implementing fire management and
forest health programs. This report provides the strategic framework
for reducing hazardous fuels buildup within wildland-urban interface
communities, readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and
endangered species habitat, and other important local features. The
objective of this strategy is to describe actions that could restore
healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological systems to minimize the
potential for uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority basis.
Methods will include removal of excessive vegetation and dead fuels
through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatment methods.
This report is based on Forest Service experience and analysis. It
also responds to Congressional direction to provide a strategic plan to
reduce wildland fire risk and restore forest ecosystem health in the
interior West. It reflects the findings of the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) Report, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is
Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildland fire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65).
The General Accounting Office report concludes, ``The most
extensive and serious problem related to the health of national forests
in the interior West is the over-accumulation of vegetation.'' The
General Accounting Office estimated that the over-accumulation of fuels
problem affects approximately 39 million acres in the interior West.
The Chief of the Forest Service chartered the strategy outlined in
this report. The National Association of State Foresters and the U.S.
Department of the Interior participated with the Forest Service in
developing this report.
It is important to note that this is an iterative strategy. It will
be refined by: further programmatic and manual direction; ongoing
roadless, roads, and planning rulemakings; and environmental impact
statements and decision documents for the national grasslands and
ongoing regional initiatives.
At the national level the strategy articulates:
Agency-wide objectives and milestones.
Geographic priorities, broad management guidance, and
performance measures for accountability.
Alternative schedules to accomplish restoration and
maintenance objectives over various timeframes.
Separate action plans, consistent with the strategy and regional
assessments and direction, and ongoing national rulemakings, will
outline implementation steps at the organization's regional, forest,
and ranger district levels.
The acreage and cost estimate numbers used in this report are
preliminary and derived from coarse-scale assessments. Further
refinement and analysis will initiate appropriate adjustment in the
strategy and will occur as more site-specific assessments are
completed.
Focus
The focus of this strategy is on restoring ecosystems that evolved
with frequently occurring, low intensity fires. These fires typically
occurred at intervals of between 1 to 35 years and served to reduce
growth of brush and other understory vegetation while generally leaving
larger, older trees intact.
Fire suppression activities and some past management practices over
the past 100 years have excluded fire from many of these fire-adapted
ecosystems. In the absence of fire, many of these lands have become
subject to an over-accumulation of shrubs and small trees, diminishing
ecosystem diversity, health, and resiliency and fueling conditions for
unnaturally intense fires that threaten communities, air, soil, water
quality, and plant and animal species.
Premise
This strategy outlines approaches to protect communities and
restore and maintain land health in fire-adapted ecosystems across the
interior West. The report is based on the premise that sustainable
resources depend on healthy, properly functioning, resilient
ecosystems.
Within fire-adapted ecosystems, fire-maintained forests and
grasslands are inherently safer for firefighters and the public than
ecosystems in which fire is excluded.
In fire-adapted ecosystems, some measure of fire use--at the
appropriate intensity, frequency, and time of year--should be an
essential component of management strategies intended to protect and
sustain watersheds, species, and other natural resources over the long
term.
Purpose
The strategy outlines approaches to restore and maintain land
health in fire-adapted ecosystems across the interior West. In
accomplishing this, it is intended to:
Improve the resilience and sustainability of forests and
grasslands at risk,
Conserve priority watersheds, species and biodiversity,
Reduce wildland fire costs, losses, and damages, and
Better ensure public and firefighter safety.
[[Page 67483]]
Priorities
Wildland-urban interface. Wildland-urban interface areas
include those areas where flammable wildland fuels are adjacent to
homes and communities.
Readily accessible municipal watersheds. Water is the most
critical resource in many western states. Watersheds impacted by
uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less resilient to disturbance and
unable to recover as quickly as those that remain within the range of
ecological conditions characteristic of the fire regime under which
they developed.
Threatened and endangered species habitat. The extent of
recent fires demonstrates that in fire-adapted ecosystems few areas are
isolated from wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many threatened and
endangered species will eventually be impacted by wildland fire. The
severity and extent of fire could eventually push declining populations
beyond recovery.
Maintenance of existing low risk Condition Class 1 areas.
This is especially important in the southern and eastern states where
high rates of vegetation growth can eliminate the effects of treatment
in 5-10 years. Recent droughts have caused severe wildland fire
problems in Florida and Texas.
Present Situation
Most forests and grasslands in the interior West and their
associated species are fire-adapted. Some, known as ``short interval''
fire-adapted ecosystems, evolved from frequent, low-intensity fires
that burned surface fuels. These fires recycled nutrients, checked
encroachment of competing vegetation, and maintained healthy conditions
(see below in top picture).
Generally, the prolonged absence of low-intensity burning in these
ecosystems creates a surface fuel buildup and an over-accumulation of
small trees and brush that makes forests more susceptible to insect
infestations, disease outbreaks, and severe wildland fires.
Before the turn of the last century, livestock grazing, selective
logging, and curtailment of burning by Native Americans began to alter
the composition, structure, and function of these fire-adapted forest
ecosystems. As a result of human influences, fire-intolerant species
replaced fire-tolerant species. Forest stands that typically grew 50
larger fire-tolerant trees per acre became encroached with more than
600 mostly small, fire-intolerant trees per acre. Without recurring
underburns, seedlings filled in beneath the older trees--transforming
open park-like forests into dense forests.
Expanded human development, changes in climate, and fire
suppression have contributed to substantial accumulations of understory
vegetation. This over-accumulated vegetation predisposes some areas to
severe wildland fires, potentially leaving watersheds, species, and
people at risk.
Today, primarily as a result of prolonged fire exclusion, many of
the most serious wildland fire threats and forest ecosystem health
issues are concentrated within fire-adapted ecosystems that evolved
with frequent, low-intensity fires.
The Strategy
This report outlines a strategy to reduce wildland fire threats and
restore forest ecosystem health in the interior West. The strategy
builds on the premise that within fire-adapted ecosystems, reducing
fuel levels and using fire at appropriate intensities, frequencies, and
time of year are key to: Restoring healthy, resilient conditions;
sustaining natural resources; and protecting people.
The strategy introduces institutional objectives, establishes
program management priorities and cost estimates, and confirms the
importance of expanding constituency support. The strategy's success
stands on the cohesion and collective strength of these elements.
The strategy places a high priority on treating areas where human
communities, watersheds, or species are at risk from severe wildfire.
It relies on a variety of treatment options to achieve restoration
objectives in wildland-urban interface areas, readily accessible
municipal watersheds, and habitats of threatened and endangered
species. Immediate treatment efforts would be concentrated in the
shorter interval fire-adapted ecosystems. These priority ecosystems are
farthest outside the historic range of variability and are in close
proximity to human communities.
Strategy--Ties to Ongoing Planning and Rulemaking Efforts
First, the strategy meets the requirements of the Forest Service
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan (2000
revision) by establishing objectives, milestones, and performance
elements for ecosystem restoration and maintenance, and conservation
education.
Second, few wildland-urban interface areas are adjacent to
inventoried roadless areas making roadless areas a lower priority for
treatment. More over, all of the alternatives currently under
consideration in the roadless initiative allow for the construction of
roads to suppress fire where public health and safety are at risk.
Third, the ongoing roads policy will ensure that operational
decisions relative to implementation--such as which roads should be
left open or maintained to enhance firefighting or other fire
management activities--are made locally through cooperative planning.
Finally, efforts to revise management plans governing the national
forests and grasslands and the Columbia River Basin and Sierra Nevada
ecosystems will integrate fire management with other agency multiple-
use objectives. This strategy will be refined and adapted to ensure
consistency with the outcomes of these regional conservation efforts.
Strategy--How Much Treatment Is Needed?
The strategy does not require that every high, medium or low risk
acre be treated, nor does it eliminate all risks. By strategically
identifying fuel treatment areas to protect values associated with
human communities, municipal watersheds and critical species habitat,
the damaging effects of wildland fire can be effectively minimized.
Due to other agency priorities and funding constraints, historic
efforts to reduce fire risk often focused treatment efforts on areas
that posed the least risk to communities. The result: areas where
treatments could be implemented at the least cost often took priority
over other areas with higher costs.
The purpose of this report is to establish priorities for
treatment. The strategy will be refined as hazardous fuels reduction
and restoration priorities are considered in local, regional and
national planning efforts.
Strategy--Focus on High-Risk Areas
The strategy focuses treatment on high-risk areas, rather than
least-cost acres. Existing roads will be used to access high-risk
areas. Where roads are scheduled for closure, consideration will be
given to accomplishing ecosystem restoration objectives prior to
closure.
While emphasizing restoration in the interior West, the strategy
also supports ongoing efforts to maintain healthy ecosystems where they
currently exist. For example, in the South, fuels can rapidly
accumulate to dangerous levels in the absence of treatment. The Forest
[[Page 67484]]
Service must therefore continue treating these areas.
Fuel reduction treatment techniques will range from maintenance
prescribed burning, where fire is used to maintain forest conditions in
lower-risk acres, to restoration treatments in higher-risk areas where
mechanical thinning is followed by prescribed burning. Forest planning
and collaboration with states, local governments, tribes and the public
will determine the number of acres to be treated and where and how the
treatment will occur.
The first priority for restoration will be the millions of acres of
already roaded and managed landscapes that are in close proximity to
communities. Extensive use of service contracts will provide local jobs
and accomplish land management objectives while helping to protect
people and property.
In order to maximize effectiveness and minimize controversy,
mechanical treatments will be prioritized toward wildland-urban
interface areas within already roaded and managed portions of the
landscape. Under this strategy, ecologically sensitive areas, such as
old growth and late successional forests, will be avoided. In some
areas, where old growth characteristics are threatened by the risk of
uncharacteristic wildfire effects, the agency may conduct fuel
treatments designed to protect older, larger trees while reducing
unnatural buildups of understory vegetation.
Better integration of existing program budgets could reduce the
amount of money requested. In most cases, any receipts associated with
treatments will not be significant due to the need to reduce the
disproportionately large number of small, non-merchantable trees,
brush, and shrubs that dominate short interval fire-adapted ecosystems
and leave standing the larger, fire-tolerant trees.
Strategy--Complements Other Efforts
The strategy complements other work, including efforts to protect
roadless areas and to better manage the existing road system. For
example, in most places roadless areas are often less affected by past
management practices and found at higher elevations with vegetation
that evolved with longer fire return intervals. Furthermore, roadless
areas are typically removed from human communities. Thus, fires in
these areas may pose less of a threat to lives and property. The
proposed road policy would require that issues such as the need for
hazardous fuels treatments be considered prior to making decisions
about road decommissioning, upgrading, or new construction.
The strategy also builds on the Joint Fire Sciences Program. It
relies on adaptive management, monitoring, research, and the further
integration of social sciences. It encourages development of procedures
that bring together and overlay agency objectives for watershed
protection, species conservation, ecosystem resilience, and public
safety.
Research is needed to support restoration. The need for assertive
action must be coupled with prudence and caution to minimize unintended
consequences. Additional research is needed to support managers in
prescribing land management treatments to improve forest ecosystem
health, as well as to find ways to increase utilization of small
diameter material.
The Consequences of Deferral
The costs of implementing the restoration and maintenance
approaches outlined under this strategy are high. Yet, fire suppression
costs, public resource losses, private property losses, and
environmental damages accruing without treatment are expected to be
significantly greater over time.
Successful Restoration and Maintenance Efforts
The optimum method to ensure success in restoring ecosystems is
collaborating with the local public in planning efforts. Regional
planning, including stakeholders in identifying and assessing values at
risk, is an important component of the strategy. The Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Management Project and the Interior Columbia River Basin
Management Project are examples of regional-scale planning that address
resources at risk and establish priorities for broad geographic areas.
More localized planning processes, including Land and Resource
Management Plan (forest plan) revisions and amendments, will integrate
specific concerns and priorities at a watershed or landscape scale
within the context of regional plans and the Forest Service GPRA
Strategic Plan.
Across the nation, awareness is growing about the fire-related
consequences that occur in untreated forests and grasslands prone to
wildland fire. The following are two examples of citizen-based efforts
that have been developed to reduce risks within the interior West's
urban interface:
The Grand Canyon Forests Partnership (joining Arizona Game
and Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Land
Department, Coconino County, City of Flagstaff, Northern Arizona
University, Grand Canyon Trust and the Nature Conservancy);
The Priest-Pend Oreille Stewardship Project that focuses
on 7,200 acres of wildland-urban interface lands in the Idaho Panhandle
National Forest (joining two community project teams with the Forest
Service).
To improve forest ecosystem health and reduce wildland fire risks
at larger scales, action needs to be expanded over broader areas and
coordinated among Forest Service research, state and private forestry,
and National Forest System programs. Restoration and maintenance of
fire-adapted ecosystems depends on:
Understanding and valuing ecological processes as the
means to sustain ecosystem health.
An ability to evaluate options and weigh decisions for
long-term outcomes.
An understanding and acceptance of the tools needed to
accomplish restoration goals.
A commitment to monitoring, evaluation, and research as
the basis for adaptive management.
Working collaboratively with communities and interested
parties to build project plans with broad-based local ownership.
Successful implementation of the approach outlined in this strategy
requires strong support from Congress and constituents. It must also be
recognized that success will depend on applying a combination of
traditional and newly developed methods and knowledge.
[[Page 67485]]
II. Background, Land Use History and Ecological Change
Background
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.000
Figure 1--General Affected Area Within the Western United States
Approximately 134 million acres, or about 70 percent of National
Forest System lands are in the western U.S. The area is a fire-
influenced environment. For thousands of years, the magnitude of
burning that occurred in this area was much greater than today. In the
upper Columbia River Basin alone--a small portion of the interior
West--scientific assessments indicate that prior to European
settlement, more than six million acres per year burned. Today, fewer
than one-half million acres burn per year in this same area.
Nearly all forests and grasslands in this region evolved and
adapted as a result of widespread fire from lightning and burning by
Native Americans. These adaptations enabled plant species to survive
and regenerate in the presence of fire. Some interior West ecosystems
depend on frequently recurring, low-intensity surface burns to cycle
nutrients, control pathogens, and maintain healthy, resilient
conditions.
These are called ``short interval'' fire-adapted ecosystems. Before
the turn of the century, these forested ecosystems were often described
as open and savannah or ``park-like,'' with well-spaced, older-aged
trees. Grasses and forbs dominated the understories of these forest
communities. They were kept in this condition by frequent, low-
intensity fires that swept the forest floor.
Land Use History
Many of the wildland fire threats and forest ecosystem health
issues that confront us today were triggered more than 100 years ago.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, ``high grade'' logging selectively
removed the largest, most valuable trees--often the fire-tolerant
ponderosa and other long-needle pine species.
Slash and other brush left behind from logging practices of this
era posed tremendous fire risks and contributed to devastating fires in
the Great Lakes states and elsewhere. In later years, fire exclusion
from plantations of uniform trees of the same age class created
conditions conducive to insect and disease infestation and subsequent
fires. In later years, logging and other management practices may have
further compromised land health by removing overstory trees while
leaving smaller trees, slash, and other highly flammable fine fuels
behind.
Across open landscapes, early livestock grazing also reduced grass
cover and scarified the soil. In forested areas, the bare soil seedbeds
that resulted from logging and intensive grazing allowed hundreds of
trees to establish on each acre. Without grass fuels to carry surface
fires, the number of trees (including fire-intolerant species)
multiplied rapidly. These became dense tree stands that foresters
termed ``dog-hair'' thickets. Elsewhere, grasslands often converted to
brushlands and woodlands.
In the West, the notion of forest protection has historically been
equated with fire exclusion. Thus, a primary function of the Forest
Service's overall mission became forest fire suppression.
Ecological Change
The unintended consequences of logging, livestock grazing, and fire
control resulted in significant changes to species composition and
structure--especially in short interval fire-adapted ecosystems. These
changes, in turn, predisposed extensive areas to many of today's
wildland fire and forest ecosystem health problems in the interior
West.
The following photos (figures 2-3), from the Bitterroot National
Forest in western Montana, illustrate the changes that have occurred in
species composition and forest structure over a 111-year period in a
short interval fire-adapted ponderosa pine forest ecosystem. Each photo
was taken from the same place, looking at the same forest, at different
periods in time. The photos capture the differences that have developed
in species composition and forest structure in the prolonged absence of
periodic surface burning. Within these ecosystems, these changes become
indicators of potential risk.
[[Page 67486]]
Changes in Species Composition and Forest Structure
Note: Figures 2 and 3 are not printed in the Federal Register.
They are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice.
Figure 2--Bitterroot National Forest 1871 Photo
1871 Photo
This serves as the baseline reference of forest stand conditions
that evolved from regularly occurring, low-intensity surface
burning. The forest was open and dominated by fire-tolerant, fire-
adapted ponderosa pine.
Figure 3--Bitterroot National Forest 1982 Photo
1982 Photo
By 1982, the forest has changed dramatically from the one that
existed here in 1871. Over this 111-year period, small trees have
established in dense thickets and fire-intolerant tree species now
crowd the forest. During drought periods the overabundance of
vegetation stresses the site, predisposing the forest to insect
infestations, disease outbreaks, and severe wildland fire.
In the prolonged absence of periodic surface burning, vegetative
growth compounds and dead fuels accumulate. Within the forest, this
biomass--in the form of multi-layered tree canopies--can carry flames
from the surface where dead branchwood burns up into the tree crowns.
In drought years, when vegetation dries, these ``ladder fuels''
contribute to severe, high-intensity wildland fires.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.001
Figure 4--National Forest Wildland Fire Acres Burned Trend in 11
Western States
Under these conditions, wildland fires exceed nearly all control
efforts and often result in long-lasting damage to the soil and to the
watershed.
In 1871, practically all of the short interval fire-adapted
ecosystems in the interior West were considered to be relatively low
risk. They were typically open and because of frequent fire had little
fuel accumulation. By 1982, the situation had reversed. This elevated
risk is apparent when evaluated in the context of Western wildland fire
trends (Figure 4). Since approximately 1987--despite better
firefighting capabilities--the change in fuel conditions has resulted
in an increase in wildland fire acres burned.
For the purpose of this strategy, risk conditions are assigned
``condition class'' descriptors. In short interval fire-adapted
ecosystems, Condition Class 1 [for a complete definition, see Appendix
A The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition of Fire Regimes and Fire
Classes] (which corresponds to the 1871 Bitterroot N.F. photo)
represents low relative risk. As Figure 2 indicates, the Condition
Class 1 trend has few small trees and little ground fuel. The scarcity
of fuel tends to limit the intensity of wildland fires. At low
intensities, wildland fires typically do not kill the larger fire-
tolerant trees but often consume small encroaching trees, other
vegetation, and dead fuels.
At low intensities, fire is ecologically beneficial because
nutrients are cycled. In addition, the soil's organic layer is not
consumed at these low fire intensities. The remaining organic material
stabilizes the soil surface and helps prevent erosion.
Because fires in Condition Class 1 areas are low-intensity within
these ecosystems, they leave the soil intact and functioning normally.
These fires generally pose little risk and have positive effects to
biodiversity, soil productivity, and water quality.
Note: Figures 5 through 7 are not printed in the Federal
Register. They are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this notice.
Figure 5--Increased Density of Smaller Trees Provides Fuel for
Vertical Fire Spread
Condition Class 2 situations develop as one or more fire return
intervals are missed, primarily due to well-intentioned suppression
efforts, while understory vegetation continues to grow, becoming
denser. If this accumulating vegetation is not treated, fires begin to
burn more intense--making them more difficult to suppress. The impact
of fires to biodiversity, soil productivity and water quality become
more pronounced.
In Condition Class 3 areas within these same ecosystems, fires are
relatively high risk. As Figure 5 indicates, the forest is littered
with considerable amounts of dead material and is choked with hundreds
of small trees that reach into the crowns of the larger, older-age
forest above. During drought years, small trees and other vegetation
dry out and burn along with the dead material--fueling severe, high
intensity wildland fires. At these intensities, wildland fires kill all
of the trees--even the large ones that, at lower fire intensities,
would normally survive.
[[Page 67487]]
Within Condition Class 3 in these short interval fire-adapted
ecosystems, wildland fires usually damage key ecosystem components,
including the soil. High-intensity fires consume the soil's organic
layer and burn off or volatilize nutrients. When small twigs, pine
needles, and other litter are consumed, water runs unimpeded over the
surface. Under these circumstances, the soil becomes more susceptible
to erosion (Figure 6).
Figure 6--Buffalo Creek Fire, Colorado
These photos, of Colorado's Buffalo Creek Fire aftermath,
illustrate soil severity burned and left exposed to rain and runoff.
This produced the subsequent 1996 flash flood that claimed two
lives. The ensuing erosion also washed topsoil off hillsides,
clogging downstream watercourses. This erosion reduced future
storage capacity of reservoirs and silted-over the river's gravel
beds--significantly reducing spawning habitat.
At extreme fire intensities, the soil's capacity to absorb water is
often lost. The fine, powder-like ash that follows a severe wildland
fire on these sites makes water bead on the surface. These so-called
``hydrophobic conditions'' result in highly erodable soils.
Condition Class 3 is classified as high risk because of the danger
it poses to people and the severe, long-lasting damage likely to result
to species and watersheds when a fire burns--particularly in drought
years. Firefighters are especially cognizant of hazards in Condition
Class 3 situations. In a national survey (Tri-data, 1995), nearly 80%
of all firefighters identified fuel reduction as the single-most
important factor for improving their margin of safety on wildland
fires.
In Condition Class 3, fires become more costly when homes are
involved. Throughout much of the interior West, short interval fire-
adapted ecosystems are typically located in valley-bottoms where homes
and human development are most concentrated. Just as building homes in
floodplains exposes homeowners to risk of floods, if hazardous fuels
accumulations persist, development in fire-adapted ecosystems may pose
a tangible risk to communities.
An example from the 2000 fire season demonstrates the increased
costs of fighting fire near people and homes. The Skalkaho Fire on the
Bitterroot National Forest covered 64,000 acres of forest interspersed
with homes. It employed 755 firefighting personnel at a cost of $7.2
million dollars. Meanwhile, on the same forest within the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness Area, a fire that burned about the same acreage
(63,0000 acres) only required 25 firefighters at a cost of
approximately $709,999.
Efforts to reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands must be coupled
with efforts to assist private landowners to take preventative action
in their own communities. Creating defensible perimeters around homes,
improving building codes, and employing fire resistant landscaping will
help reduce fire risk to communities. These and other such actions can
help prevent wildland fires from burning homes, reduce insurance
premiums, and reduce suppression cost.
Figure 7--Homes Burning in the Dude Fire, Arizona, 1990
The Dude Fire burned in central Arizona in Condition Class 3
stand conditions. Although the fire only burned a few days, it
resulted in the death of six firefighters and cost $7.5 million to
control. It destroyed 75 homes, resulting in property loss of $12
million. No estimate is available on the resource losses involved.
III. Ensuring Clean Air, Clean Water, and Biodiversity in Fire-
Adapted Ecosystems
Sustainability: ``Meeting the needs of the current generation
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs. Ecological sustainability entails maintaining the composition,
structure and processes of a system, as well as species diversity and
ecological productivity. The core element of sustainability is that it
is future oriented.'' Committee of Scientists Report, 1999.
The Legal Basis for Sustainability
A suite of federal laws and regulations guide management of
National Forest System lands and fire-related activities on those
lands. These include the Organic Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and National
Forest Management Act. Long-term sustainability is a consistent theme
embodied within these laws.
Sustaining natural resources in short interval fire-adapted
ecosystems is a basis of the cohesive strategy outlined in this report.
Legal Basis for Sustainability
Endangered Species Act
``The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend
may be conserved * * * ''
Clean Water Act
``(a) Restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the nation's waters * * * The objective of this
chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters.''
Clean Air Act
``(1) to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air
resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the
productive capacity of its population.''
National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
``(6) the Forest Service * * * has both a responsibility and an
opportunity to be a leader in assuring that the nation maintains a
natural resource conservation posture that will meet the requirements
of our people in perpetuity.''
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
``(a) Creation and maintenance of conditions under which man and
nature can exist in productive harmony.''
The Forest Service Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
Strategic Plan (2000 revision) bridges law and Forest Service
activities. This report's cohesive strategy anchors to the following
GPRA Strategic Plan's specific objectives:
Improve watershed conditions and restore hydrological
processes;
Improve habitat quality; and conserve fish, wildlife and
plant populations;
Improve ecosystem resiliency associated with fire adapted
ecosystems; and
Reduce the relative risk of damage to human communities
associated with wildland fire.
The overarching purpose of the GPRA Strategic Plan, consistent with
these laws, is to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that meet human
needs on a long-term basis. Sustaining healthy, diverse conditions
requires consideration of entire landscapes in the context of specific
ecosystems and their ecological dynamics.
The Need for Adaptive Management
Increased human population growth, expanded land-use development,
and changes in natural ecosystems affect ecosystem dynamics and
processes. In the short interval fire-adapted systems, over-accumulated
fuels indicate that more wildland fires in the future may burn with
uncharacteristic fire effects. This trend may result in higher
corresponding threats to human life and property, as well as
potentially more degraded ecosystems.
Planning in fire-adapted ecosystems requires an integration and
[[Page 67488]]
understanding of: fire history, potential fire behavior, past
management actions, land-use change, watershed needs, species
viability, and relative risk to human communities. Uncertainties
associated with these considerations are addressed through monitoring,
research, and adaptive management. During planning and implementation
of restoration activities, the best available science and frequent
monitoring must be used to reduce uncertainty and to facilitate
learning. In addition, public outreach and collaboration will be
critical components to successful ecosystem restoration.
While some ecosystems are adapted to infrequent high-intensity
burning, the short interval fire-adapted ecosystems are not. The
primary emphasis of the strategy is ensuring protection of human values
and the sustainability of natural resources in the context of short
interval fire-adapted ecosystems
Active Management Improves Habitat
Most research involving relationships between fire and wildlife has
focused on mammals and birds, with an emphasis on habitat, rather than
populations (Smith, 2000). The cause and effect relationships between
fire and wildlife are only correctly understood in the context of
specific ecosystems.
Research reveals that active management can improve habitat quality
for some species dependent on fire-adapted ecosystems, such as
Kirtland's warbler (Probst and Weinrich, 1993) and the red cockaded
woodpecker. For example, the relationship between fire and bobwhite
quail populations served as an important factor in initiating the
prescribed burning program in the South's fire-adapted forests.
The effectiveness of ecosystem restoration in contributing to
species conservation is dependent on the extent to which landscape
patterns and processes support population persistence over the long
term (Wilcove, 1999). For example, sage grouse population dynamics are
dependent on landscape patterns (Knick, 1999); yet many factors affect
the integrity of sagebrush ecosystems across landscapes following fire
(such as the expansion of cheat grass).
Considering the extent of habitat alteration that has occurred over
the past century, management for species conservation in fire-adapted
ecosystems is complicated. In many areas, habitat is currently at risk
of long-term loss from severe wildland fires. In some cases, further
reduction of habitat due to severe wildland fires may threaten species
viability.
Integrating ecosystem restoration goals with species conservation
priorities will require coordinated effort between planned land uses to
improve the quantity and quality of potentially suitable, but presently
unoccupied habitat. This must occur prior to treating any areas that
serve as refugia for remnant populations (Noss et al. 1997).
Using Adaptive Management to Evaluate Results
The type, intensity and frequency of management activity in fire-
adapted ecosystems will influence the ability to provide for clean air,
clean water, and biodiversity over the long term. A considerable amount
of science supports an understanding of fire-adapted ecosystems. Some
uncertainty, however, surrounds management treatments. It is therefore
essential that an adaptive management framework involving the public be
used in designing, monitoring, and evaluating activities. Assumptions
associated with management approaches across broad landscapes need to
be clearly identified and articulated as a part of the adaptive
management process.
In developing manual direction and regional and local level plans
for implementing the strategy, it is essential that monitoring be
conducted to validate assumptions, reduce uncertainties, and measure
progress. Upon completion of these actions, the agency will determine
whether to continue pursuing ongoing management, modified management
approaches, or to propose new actions in response to what was learned
through monitoring. The strategy will evolve as planning decisions are
made on the ground and results are evaluated. While some uncertainties
exist, implementing this strategy may help to avoid serious
consequences that are certain to occur if fuel reduction treatments are
deferred.
IV. A Cohesive Strategy to Protect People and Sustain Resources in
Fire-Adapted Ecosystems
This cohesive strategy provides a broad national framework for
aligning the social, program management, and institutional elements
that will be required to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. These three
elements underpin this strategy.
Implementation will be based on regional assessments, integrated
planning processes, public input, and collaboration with other
agencies. Environmental documentation for on-the-ground projects will
contain many of the ``how to'' actions necessary to move the strategy
forward in a manner that is consistent with law, regulations, and
Forest Service policy.
Priorities for Restoration
Specific areas of emphasis in the strategy include reducing risk
within the wildland-urban interface, readily accessible municipal
watersheds, and threatened and endangered species habitat. However, it
is equally important to maintain existing low risk areas from
developing into moderate or high-risk. To this end, the following
priorities will apply when designating areas for treatment.
Wildland-urban interface. Wildland-urban interface areas
include those areas where flammable wildland fuels are adjacent to
homes and communities.
Readily accessible municipal watersheds. Clean water is
the most critical resource in many western states. Watersheds impacted
by uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less resilient to disturbance
and unable to recover as quickly as those that remain within the range
of ecological conditions characteristic of the fire regime under which
they developed.
Threatened and endangered species habitat. The extent of
recent fires demonstrates that in fire-adapted ecosystems few areas are
isolated from wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many threatened and
endangered species will eventually be impacted by wildland fire. The
severity and extent of fire could eventually push declining populations
beyond recovery.
Maintenance of existing low risk Condition Class 1 areas.
This is especially important in the southern and eastern states where
high rates of vegetation growth can eliminate the effects of treatment
in 5-10 years. Recent droughts have caused severe wildland fire
problems in Florida and Texas.
Supporting Scientific Evidence
Considerable scientific evidence supports use of prescribed fire
and other management treatments in fire-adapted ecosystems to reduce
risk of catastrophic wildland fire, improve ecosystem resilience, and
restore plant community composition, structure, and landscape patterns.
Several examples of small-scale watershed improvement projects
exist in national forests in fire-adapted systems. Virtually all use
prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to improve watershed
conditions. Fuel reduction work can reduce potential fire severity,
which, in turn, can reduce potential erosion. Conditions that favor low
intensity burning on these sites help
[[Page 67489]]
prevent erosion and leave more organic material that filters water and
improves water quality characteristics.
At landscape scales, the effectiveness of treatments in improving
watershed conditions has not been well documented. Many scientists,
however, agree that careful application of treatments across larger
scales can restore water quality.
Degraded air quality associated with long-duration wildland fires
has been widely experienced in the West. Because wildland fires tend to
occur at the driest time of year when dead fuels and vegetation is also
driest, they are more completely consumed and typically produce three
to five times more emissions than early or late-season prescribed
fires.
In Condition Class 3 and some Condition Class 2 situations, the
strategy advocates mechanical thinning of small trees, brush and shrubs
to reduce fire intensities and particulate emissions during prescribed
burning. This practice, although expensive, opens prescription windows
of opportunity--enabling managers to capitalize on better weather
conditions for smoke ventilation and dispersal.
The extent to which management for ecosystem resilience can improve
air quality over the long term is not completely known. Present
regulatory policies measure prescribed fire emissions, but not wildland
fire emissions. The emissions policy tends to constrain treatments
and--in short interval fire systems--may act to inadvertently compound
wildland fire risks. A growing body of scientific evidence suggests
that mechanical treatments followed by prescribed fire can reduce the
overall adverse impacts to air quality by reducing the amount of fuel
that would otherwise be available during the wildland fire season.
The Three Cohesive Elements
Social
Establish an objective for conservation awareness in the
Forest Service Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic
Plan (2000 revision). Emphasize the need to increase public awareness
of the role of ecological processes in ecosystem sustainability
(Appendix B).
Initiate collaborative planning with stakeholders to
identify and evaluate ecosystem restoration and maintenance needs and
opportunities. Utilize science-based assessments of present and
projected ecosystem conditions as a basis for determining restoration
needs.
To promote fire-safe local planning, zoning, and building
requirements, establish partnerships with other federal agencies,
states, communities, and the insurance industry.
Encourage and assist communities to take responsibility for sharing
in risk reduction and fire prevention efforts.
Institutional
Long-Term Policy Assessment
Establish objectives, strategies, and milestones for
restoration and maintenance of fire-adapted ecosystems in the Forest
Service GPRA Strategic Plan. Emphasize integration in objectives for
public safety, watershed protection, species conservation, and
ecosystem resilience. (Appendix B.)
Establish ecosystem restoration as a performance element
in the Forest Service Annual Performance Plan. Use changes in condition
class as one of the measures for annual performance and accountability.
(Appendix B.)
Establish assessment procedures that integrate
considerations of current ecosystem condition (status), probability of
degradation from disturbance events (risk), and alternatives to reduce
risk or improve conditions (opportunity). Include objectives at the
national, regional and local scales for: watershed protection, species
conservation, ecosystem resilience, and public safety. Coordinate
information across all program areas.
Program Management
At the National Level
Concentrate projects in the shorter interval fire-adapted
ecosystems (Fire Regimes I and II), with emphasis in Condition Classes
2 and 3. (GPRA 1c.)
Establish the interior West as a priority for restoration.
(GPRA 1c.)
Direct funds--in an integrated fashion--to highest values
to be protected, especially for: watersheds (GPRA 1a), species (GPRA
1b), ecosystems (GPRA 1c), and human communities (GPRA 4b).
Explore innovative use of existing authorities for grants,
agreements, and contracts for project execution such as service
contracts to hire local people.
Emphasize long-term training and community development
opportunities through restoration activities.
Establish program reviews at regular intervals to
determine if adjustments are needed. Take into account: budget, the
findings of regional assessments, finer-scaled risk and hazard mapping,
and other planning efforts.
At the Regional Level
Conduct regional assessments, establishing restoration and
maintenance priorities consistent with values to be protected
(watersheds, species, human communities) in collaboration with other
federal agencies, tribes, state and local government, and constituents.
At the National Forest and Grassland Level
In Land and Resource Management Plan amendments and
revisions: identify land by condition class categories, discuss the
resources to be protected from catastrophic wildland fire including
human communities, watersheds, threatened and endangered species
habitats, and establish landscape goals to achieve sustainable
ecosystems. Goals should be included to reduce acres at risk.
Establish monitoring and evaluation programs and measures
in Land and Resource Management Plan revisions for restoration
activities in fire-adapted ecosystems.
Consistent with Land and Resource Management Plans,
develop fire management plans that provide for suppressing fires that
would threaten public safety, communities, species habitat, or degrade
ecosystems. Increase the management of natural ignitions for resource
benefits where values and resources will be increased or improved.
State and Private Forestry
Expand efforts such as the Firewise Communities Program to
assist communities and homeowners in the urban wildland interface to
take preventative and corrective actions to protect lives and property
from fire. Provide assistance in conducting risk and hazard assessments
in developing community disaster plans, and in educating the public
about measures they can take to protect their property.
Research and Development
Strengthen Forest Service research programs to evaluate
ecological, social, and economic tradeoffs and other issues; develop
more effective prediction systems; and quantify disturbance effects and
ecological interactions in fire regimes. Continue funding the Joint
Fire Sciences Program.
Study, document and monitor examples of various treatments
and their effectiveness in restoring ecological processes, protecting
communities, and protecting key ecosystem components.
Research the long-term results of rehabilitation
techniques and help determine those most effective at restoring
ecological processes and habitats.
[[Page 67490]]
Funding
Establish an integrated budget structure that facilitates
an accomplishment of the GPRA Strategic Plan elements: Watershed
Restoration, Species Conservation, Ecosystem Processes, and the
Protection of Human Communities.
Wildland fire preparedness funding requests should be made
at the most efficient level, as defined by the National Fire Management
Analysis System.
Actions Requiring External Collaboration
Long-Term Policy Assessment
Collaborate with the Environmental Protection Agency, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
addressing long-term impacts, tradeoffs, and issues to air quality,
watershed resilience, species conservation, ecosystem integrity, and
public safety as a result of each agency's respective policy in the
context of fire-adapted ecosystems. Identify opportunities for improved
coordination between regulatory and land management agencies in
achieving restoration and maintenance objectives to protect people and
sustain resources in fire-adapted ecosystems.
Economic Feasibility Assessment for Fuel Utilization
Because understory biomass has little or no value, disposing of it
becomes problematic. Small diameter material, however, may become more
economically feasible if assessments for its utilization more
comprehensively evaluate tradeoffs and risks to watershed and species
values, public health and safety, and other factors that may benefit
from reducing fuels in fire-adapted ecosystems. Projected wildland fire
costs, resource losses, and environmental damage, all suggest that
developing and supporting markets for utilization of over-accumulated
biomass may be desirable.
Consistent with Executive Order 13134 ``Developing and Promoting
Biobased Products and Bioenergy'', collaborate with other agencies and
organizations to conduct economic feasibility analyses of increased
biomass utilization.
The FY 2001 budget includes a Presidential bio-based products and
bio-energy initiative. This initiative supports research and
development, demonstration and commercialization, and outreach and
education activities. The Forest Service will take a leadership role in
this effort.
Projected Treatment Schedule at Full Program Implementation
Different treatment schedules are displayed below. The strategy
does not include a treatment target of a fixed number of acres within a
set period of time. The number of acres actually treated will depend on
different circumstances, including available funding. The treatment
schedule displayed below illustrates potential costs over varying time
frames. Actual treatment costs and rates will depend on a variety of
circumstances.
The purpose of the report is to establish priorities and a
rationale for restoration. Local Land and Resource Management Plans and
community involvement will help to guide the types and locations of
treatment actions. Enhancing forest ecosystem health is best
accomplished at the local level with on-site examination and
experience.
Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c provide estimates of a potential annual
program to achieve restoration goals within 10, 15, and 20-year time
periods.
This information was developed using regional input based on Land
and Resource Management Plan and other assessments. Strategy
implementation will be consistent with forest plan direction and other
ongoing initiatives. Acreage estimates give consideration to regulatory
obligations for clean air, clean water, and threatened or endangered
species habitat. These goals are expected to change as the Forest
Service refines these data. More accurate regional and sub-regional
assessments, integrated planning processes, and public collaboration
may refine these figures.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.002
Table 1a--10-Year Schedule To Increase the Annual Hazardous Fuels
Treatment Program.
[[Page 67491]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.003
Table 1b--15-Year Schedule To Increase the Annual Hazardous Fuels
Treatment Program
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.004
Table 1c--20-Year Schedule To Increase the Annual Hazardous Fuels
Treatment Program
V. Consequences of Deferral
``* * * in many of the interior West forests, the costs and risks
of inaction are greater than the costs and risks of remedial action.''
Concluding comments from academic and agency scientists. Assessing
Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West Workshop (November, 1993).
This chapter projects suppression costs, natural resource and
private property losses, and environmental damages expected under
present treatment schedules and compares them with the costs, losses
and damages anticipated for the mid-range treatment schedule shown on
Table 1c. If
[[Page 67492]]
treatment schedules are accelerated, objectives may be met sooner. If
treatment schedules are extended, results may be deferred. Three
alternative treatment timeframes are presented in the strategy. For
demonstrative purposes, changes over time are projected using the 15-
year treatment schedule (figures 8,10, 11, and 12).
Commodity values are well established. Non-commodity values,
however, are more difficult to determine. Economic research is ongoing
to better describe and quantify amenity values including ecosystem
components, natural resources, and safety considerations involved in
tradeoff analysis. Tradeoff analysis measures the costs, benefits, and
risks under different protection strategies. It is one way to compare
the expected outcomes of different management scenarios.
Fire-adapted ecosystems are dynamic. With any treatment schedule,
live vegetation will continue to grow and dead wood will continue to
accumulate. Risk conditions will continue to increase as some forests
and grasslands areas migrate from lower-risk conditions to higher-risk
conditions. During this same time period, severe wildland fires will
continue to occur--reducing high-risk acres, but also potentially
damaging ecosystem components and natural resources.
Areas at Risk
As human populations continue to expand, threats to species
viability, watershed health, and ecosystem integrity will grow. The
situation will be exacerbated as forest fuels accumulate and fire risks
increase. Even at current levels of treatment, risks to species,
watersheds, forest health, and human communities throughout the
interior West are escalating due to increasing fuels buildups
(vegetation) in fire-prone environments. The answer is not in bigger
and better firefighting apparatus. At very high fuel loadings, fire
behavior overwhelms even the best fire suppression efforts. Under
extreme conditions, control of fire becomes dependent on relief in
weather or a break in fuels.
Reducing fuels and restoring fire's ecological role in fire-adapted
ecosystems can reverse many adverse trends that serve as important
indicators of ecosystem sustainability. To demonstrate the strategy's
benefits, graphs from a recent assessment of several indicators for the
Western states were developed to illustrate trends (figures 8, 10, 11,
12). These graphs reflect assessments from a recently completed
national-scale evaluation (see Appendix D). They are based on coarse-
scale data that model averages for the area under study. They cannot be
directly applied to areas smaller in scale than the analysis area. The
data are not directly applicable to fine-scale analysis; they serve to
evaluate relative risk trends among different management options.
[[Page 67493]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.005
Figure 8
[[Page 67494]]
The assessment was based on a projection using the 15-year
treatment schedule. Results for the 10 and 20-year treatment
schedules will vary from this only in the time required to achieve
the same level of results. At 100 years, the social, economic, and
ecological benefits of restoration treatments become exponentially
greater. And, as treatments shift from restoration to maintenance,
treatment costs will go down.
At the current rate of treatment (0.75 million acres/year), the
acres at high risk in the interior West will increase over the next
15 years. Implementing the approaches outlined in this strategy can
increase levels of treatment and decrease moderate and high-risk
categories (Condition Classes 2 and 3). It will restore
proportionately more low-risk areas (Condition Class 1). The
strategy therefore substantially reduces risk over the current rate
of fuel reduction treatment.
Without increased restoration treatments in these ecosystems,
wildland fire suppression costs, natural resource losses, private
property losses, and environmental damage are certain to escalate as
fuels continue to accumulate and more acres become high-risk.
Suppression Costs
Suppression strategies (and their associated costs) are
determined using the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA), a
required assessment process on federal lands. Under this system,
suppression costs are calculated from an array of alternatives prior
to selecting a fire suppression strategy. The analysis weighs values
to be protected. Firefighter and public safety always serves as the
first criteria. As a general rule, depending on the circumstances
surrounding a particular wildland fire, resource or private values
to be protected are typically two to five times greater than the
expected suppression costs, as calculated using the WFSA.
The Line Officer selects the most appropriate strategy and, in
doing so, approves the expected suppression costs. If the strategy
fails or if costs exceed the expected level, the Line Officer must
reevaluate alternatives and approve any changes.
Suppression costs and wildland fire acres burned (Figure 9) have
increased due to over-accumulation of fuels and a corresponding
increase in high-risk acreage and drought conditions. In recent
years, large fires have become more damaging and more costly. Unless
the rate of restoration is increased, larger burned acreages and
higher wildland fire suppression costs should be expected.
[[Page 67495]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.006
Figure 9
[[Page 67496]]
Loss to Private Property and Resource-Based Commodities
As human populations grow and shifting demographics concentrate
more people in or adjacent to wildlands, more private property will be
at risk to catastrophic wildland fires.
According to the National Fire Protection Association, wildland-
urban interface fires from 1985 to 1994 destroyed 8,925 homes. During
dry years or under adverse weather conditions, because they occur in
high-risk fuels, many wildland-urban interface fires exceed
firefighting capabilities.
No forest can be made fireproof. As homes and communities are built
in the wildland interface, they face added risk of fire. Efforts to
reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands must be coupled with efforts to
assist private landowners to take preventative action in their own
communities.
Research suggests that the most effective way to reduce risk of
fire to homes in the wildland-urban interface is through fuels
treatment carried out within 200 feet of building structures (Cohen,
1999). Homes with high ignitibility factors, such as pine needle
accumulation on roofs and in yards and firewood piles next to houses,
frequently suffer more severe fire damage than other areas.
When fuel loadings are reduced, protection of life and property is
significantly improved (Fischer, 1988).
[[Page 67497]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.007
Figure 10
[[Page 67498]]
The National Research Council and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) recognized wildland fires in California
(1993) and Florida (1998) as among the defining natural disasters of
the 1990s. In terms of damage, the magnitude of these catastrophic
fires were compared with the Northridge earthquake, Hurricane
Andrew, and flooding of the Mississippi and Red rivers.
The 1991 Oakland, California fire was ranked by insurance claims
as one of the ten most costly all-time natural catastrophes. More
wildland fire disasters of this scale can be expected in the absence
of a mitigation strategy. FEMA is emphasizing mitigation and
prevention to state and local governments to address the growing
losses from natural disasters such as hurricanes and flooding. The
strategy outlined in this report complements the efforts to
forestall disaster-related costs and losses.
Damage to commodity resources such as wood fiber and watersheds
often result from severe wildland fire. These losses can be
significant. For example, the Big Bar Fire Complex, consisting of
five fires that burned during the late summer of 1999 in northern
California. The Complex burned 141,000 acres on and adjacent to the
Six Rivers National Forest. The Big Bar Complex cost $81 million to
suppress and $6 million for burned-area rehabilitation. It resulted
in a preliminary estimate of $122 million in resource losses,
including loss of marketable timber.
Environmental Damage
Any restoration strategy should be evaluated in the context of
the ecosystem under consideration. Wildland fires occurring in the
shorter interval fire-adapted ecosystems where fuels have
accumulated over several missed fire cycles often burn with
uncharacteristic wildfire effects. Consequently, habitats, soils,
and watersheds are burned beyond their adaptive limits. The severity
of these fires pose threats to species persistence and watershed
integrity. The damage from these fires is often long-lasting and,
within some ecosystems, may be irretrievable.
[[Page 67499]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.008
Figure 11
[[Page 67500]]
With an increasing number of large, uncharacteristically damaging
wildland fires in short interval fire systems, we can eventually
expect:
Loss of critical habitat for fish, wildlife, and plant
species at risk.
Soil erosion and loss of site stability and productivity.
Changes in temperatures and moisture regimes on certain
sites.
Increased spread of invasive weeds or non-native plants.
[[Page 67501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.009
Figure 12
[[Page 67502]]
On the 1999 Big Bar Complex, adverse effects were most commonly
found where the fires burned at higher intensities. Impacts from the
fires included:
Prolonged exposure of local communities to unhealthy smoke
concentrations.
Increased soil erosion and stream course sedimentation.
Loss of old-growth trees that provide significant wildlife
habitat.
Degradation and loss of fish habitat, especially in the
New River's tributaries.
Public and Firefighter Safety
In fire-adapted forests adjacent to human communities, concerns for
public health often compete with concerns for public and firefighter
safety. Treatments that use prescribed burning raise health issues
related to smoke. Although this strategy would employ mechanical
thinning prior to prescribed burning in some areas to reduce
particulate emissions, air quality will remain an important concern.
Current regulatory policies ``count'' prescribed fire emissions in
measuring air quality, but do not include wildland fire emissions.
Constraining prescribed fire use in fire-adapted ecosystems to ensure
public health may inadvertently increase risks to human safety.
Stagnant atmospheric conditions during the late summer and early
fall often inhibit smoke dispersal from wildland fires. Although these
episodes are exempt from regulatory control, they exceed public health
standards. In 1977 and 1987, southern Oregon and northern California
experienced long-term, unhealthy smoke concentrations. The 1999 Big Bar
Fire Complex in northern California and the 1994 Wenatchee, Washington
wildland fires also caused prolonged exposure of local communities to
unhealthy smoke levels.
In recent years, several tragedies have occurred as firefighters
tried to control wildland fires threatening human developments. In
1991, the Dude wildland fire near Payson, Arizona killed six
firefighters as they attempted to protect a rural subdivision. The
South Canyon fire in 1994 resulted in the death of 14 firefighters who
were suppressing a wildland fire that was approaching homes near
Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Among the general public, loss of life due to wildland fire is rare
but not unknown. In 1991, 25 lives were lost, 150 people injured, and
more than 3,000 structures were destroyed in a wildland fire in the
hills near Oakland, California. On March 8, 2000, three motorists lost
their lives and many more were injured in a multi-car pileup in
Florida--the result of wildland fire smoke obscuring visibility on a
highway.
While fuel treatments across the interior West have increased in
the last few years, further increases are needed to protect
communities, watershed health, species viability, and ecosystem
resilience.
VI. Conclusions and Next Steps
``Moving toward sustainability is a two-part process. First,
revising the uses of the ecosystem so that environmental values take an
economically relevant place in policy and practice; second,
incorporating the well-being of the ecosystem into the way management
is conceived and implemented.''--Kai N. Lee, Compass and Gyroscope,
1993
The cohesive strategy outlined in this report is based on the
premise that, within fire-adapted ecosystems, fire--at the right
intensities, frequency, and season--is fundamentally essential for
healthy, sustainable resources and the protection of nearby human
communities. The strategy clarifies agency goals and objectives,
establishes milestones and performance measures, and outlines an
approach for setting restoration priorities.
The strategy directs treatments to high-risk areas, specifically,
the wildland-urban interface, readily accessible municipal watersheds,
and threatened and endangered species habitat. Implementing it will
reduce the area in the interior West considered at highest risk of loss
or damage. It prioritizes treatment of additional acres to prevent them
from developing into high-risk conditions. It relies on a variety of
treatments--including thinning, some harvest, other mechanical
treatments and prescribed burning--to reduce fuels and the consequent
risks of loss or long-lasting damage resulting from wildland fire.
The strategy provides an iterative approach, based on adaptive
management and incremental steps. Actual treatment schedules will be
developed using regional input based on Land and Resource Management
Plans and other more recent assessments.
The strategy is responsive to regulatory responsibilities for clean
air, clean water, and threatened and endangered species. Over the long
term, the agency believes strategy implementation will better ensure
ecosystem integrity for the benefit of future generations. The strategy
does not attempt to treat all acres, nor does it eliminate all risks.
While it does not aim to return forests and grasslands to pre-European
settlement conditions--it does reduce risks by reducing over-
accumulated fuels (Figure 13). The strategy will continue to evolve as
the agency works with states, tribes, local communities and others.
The strategy also maintains that constituency support and
collaboration with tribal, other federal, state, local agencies, and
the public is an essential cornerstone for restoration work. It is
consistent with the guiding principles of the Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy (approved by the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture in 1995). In addition, it supports federal and state
initiatives aimed at improving forest ecosystem health on public lands.
This strategy effectively reduces risk on a scale that makes a
difference, but is potentially expensive and will take time and
collaborative planning to implement. The costs, losses, and damages
that will occur without this strategy are not always quantifiable or
precisely known. When evaluated against recent trends and projections,
however, wildland fire costs, loses, and damages, are expected to
compound and exceed treatment costs--unless the rate of treatment is
accelerated.
Large wildland fires will continue to occur. This cohesive strategy
aims to reduce losses and damages from these wildland fires by
concentrating treatments where human communities, watersheds, and
species are at risk. Until restoration efforts are significantly
expanded in fire-adapted ecosystems, the risks to watersheds, species,
and people will continue to increase.
Note: Figure 13 is not printed in the Federal Register. It is
available as indicated in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice.
Figure 13--The cohesive strategy outlined in this report aims to reduce
severe insect, disease, and wildland fire risk.
Next Steps
This report provides a broad iterative approach to restore fire-
adapted ecosystems and protect human values.
The coarse-scale assessments that establish the basis for the
strategy will be refined as finer scale data become available to
conduct forest-level planning. Implementation will occur consistent
with Land and Resource Management Plan direction and other ongoing
initiatives. More accurate assessments, integrated planning processes,
public input, and collaboration with other agencies are all included in
the work ahead.
Strategy actions to be addressed immediately:
Refine coarse-scale assessments for wildland fuel risks.
Develop regional implementation plans, integrating the
status and risk
[[Page 67503]]
information included in the Western Watershed Initiative, Human
Population Density Maps, and Species at Risk Analysis into forest
planning efforts at national, regional, and local levels as applicable.
Incorporate recommended adjustments to the Forest Service
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan (2000
revision).
Identify funding for priority projects.
Frame a research program to strengthen monitoring and
evaluation during the strategy's implementation.
Coordinate with states, tribes, and local communities for
work in the urban-wildland interface to help in risk reduction and
hazard mitigation.
Continue efforts to develop markets and ideas for small-
diameter material utilization.
VII. Team Members
Team Leaders
Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest
Service
Jerry Williams, Director, Fire and Aviation Management, Northern
Region, USDA Forest Service
Team Facilitator
Joe Michaels, Field Representative Forester, State and Private
Forestry, Northeast Area, USDA Forest Service
Core Team
Michael Hilbruner, Applied Fire Ecologist, Washington Office, USDA
Forest Service
Timothy Sexton, Fire Ecologist, Fire Program Management Program
Center, USDI National Park Service
Monica Schwalbach, Assistant Director, Wildlife and Terrestrial
Ecology, Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
James Morrison, Staff Assistant, Interregional Ecosystem Management
Coordination Group, Northern Region, USDA Forest Service
Andrea Tuttle, Director, California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
David Burich, Assistant Director, Financial Management, Washington
Office, USDA Forest Service
William Bradshaw, Assistant Director, Strategic Planning and
Assessment, Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
David Cleaves, Program Leader, Forest Fire Systems Research,
Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
Support Team
Mark Beighley, Strategic Fuels Planner, Washington Office, USDA
Forest Service
Doug MacCleery, Assistant Director, Forest Ecosystems and Planning,
Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
Gene Blankenbaker, Staff Specialist, Legislative Affairs,
Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
Michael da Luz, Branch Chief, Fire Ecology and Operations, Rocky
Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service
Marlin Johnson, Assistant Director of Forestry, Southwestern
Region, USDA Forest Service
Galen Hall, Regional Budget Officer, Northern Region, USDA Forest
Service
Paul Keller, Writer-Editor, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest
Service
VIII. Acknowledgements
R. Neil Sampson, President, The Sampson Group, Inc., Alexandria,
Virginia.
James Hubbard, State Forester, Colorado State Forest Service.
David Bunnell, National Fire Use Program Manager, National Interagency
Fire Center, USDA Forest Service.
Colin Hardy, Research Forester, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service.
Wendell Hann, Fire/Landscape Ecologist, Washington Office, Fire and
Aviation Management, USDA Forest Service.
Laurie Perrett (Pacific Northwest Region); Sue Husari (Pacific
Southwest Region); Bob Meuchel (Northern Region); Maggie Pittman
(Northern Region); Steve Pedigo (Rocky Mountain Region) for organizing
and hosting the ``Sounding Boards.''
The Cohesive Strategy Team also wishes to thank all those who
participated and provided feedback at the Sacramento, Denver and
Missoula ``Sounding Boards.'' The team also thanks the people who
reviewed drafts and provided comments during development and revision
of this report.
IX. Glossary
Uncharacteristic Wildfire Effects
An increase in wildfire size, severity and resistance to control,
and the associated impact to people and property, compared to that
which occurred in the native system.
Ecosystem Process
The actions or events that link organisms and their environment,
such as predation, mutualism, successional development, nutrient
cycling, carbon sequestration, primary productivity, and decay. Natural
disturbance processes often occur with some periodicity (From Webster's
dictionary, adapted to ecology.)
Ecosystem
The complex of a community of organisms and its environment
functioning as an ecological unit in nature. (Webster's dictionary.)
Ecosystem Integrity
The completeness of an ecosystem that, at multiple geographic and
temporal scales, maintains its characteristic diversity of biological
and physical components, spatial patterns, structure, and functional
processes within its approximate range of historic variability. These
processes include: disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling, hydrologic
functions, vegetation succession, and species adaptation and evolution.
Ecosystems with integrity are resilient and capable of self-renewal in
the presence of the cumulative effects of human and natural
disturbances. (Proposed Rule, Section 219.36, 1999.)
Ecosystem Management u
The careful and skillful use of ecological, economic, social, and
managerial principles in managing ecosystem integrity and desired
conditions, uses, products, and services over the long term.
Fire-Adapted Ecosystem
An ecosystem with the ability to survive and regenerate in a fire-
prone environment.
Fire Regime
A generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem.
It is characterized by fire frequency, seasonality, intensity, duration
and scale (patch size), as well as regularity or variability. (Agee, as
modified by Sexton.)
Fire Frequency (Fire Return Interval)
How often fire burns a given area; often expressed in terms of fire
return intervals (e.g., fire returns to a site every 5-15 years).
Interagency Wildland Fire Policy
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was
chartered by the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to ensure
that federal policies are uniform and programs are cooperative and
cohesive. For the first time, one set of federal fire policies will
enhance effective and
[[Page 67504]]
efficient operations across administrative boundaries to improve the
capability to meet challenges posed by current wildland fire
conditions.
The policy review team reexamined the role of fire in ecological
processes and the costs associated with fighting fire. An interagency
product has resulted in changes in terminology, funding, agency policy,
and analysis of ecological processes.
Landscape
An area composed of interacting and inter-connected patterns of
habitats (ecosystems) that are repeated because of the geology,
landform, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the
area. Landscape structure is formed by patches (tree stands or sites),
connections (corridors and linkages), and the matrix. Landscape
function is based on disturbance events, successional development of
landscape structure, and flows of energy and nutrients through the
structure of the landscape. A landscape is composed of watersheds and
smaller ecosystems. It is the building block of biotic provinces and
regions.
Restoration
In the context of this report's cohesive strategy, restoration
means the return of an ecosystem or habitat toward: its original
structure, natural complement of species, and natural functions or
ecological processes.
Sustainability
Meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Ecological
sustainability entails maintaining the composition, structure and
processes of a system, as well as species diversity and ecological
productivity. The core element of sustainability is that it is future-
oriented. (Committee of Scientists Report, 1999.)
X. References and Supporting Information
Fire Regimes, Historic Conditions, and Range of Historic
Variability
Agee, J.A. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island
Press, Washington, D.C. 493 p.
Brown, J.K. 1994. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem
management. pp. 171-178, In: Proceedings of the 1994 Society of
American Foresters Convention, September 18-22, 1994, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Cissell, J.H., F.J. Swanson, P.J. Weisberg. 1999. Landscape
management using historical fire regimes: Blue River, Oregon.
Ecological Applications 9(4): 1217-1231.
Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of
southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecological
Monographs 30: 129-164.
Cooper, C.F. 1961. Pattern in ponderosa pine forests. Ecology 42:
43-499.
Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine
forest structure: changes since Euro-America settlement. Journal of
Forestry 92: 39-47.
Hessburg, P.F., B.G. Smith, and R.B. Salter. 1999. Detecting change
in forest spatial patterns from reference conditions. Ecological
Applications 9(4): 1232-1252.
Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. Overview of the use of
natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems.
Ecological Applications 9(4): 1179-1188.
Leiburg, J. B. 1900. Bitterroot forest reserve. In: H. Gannett
(ed.), Twentieth Report of the United States Geological Survey, Pt
5: Forest Reserves. Government Printing Office.
Lemkuhl, J. F., P. F. Hessburg, R. L. Everett, M. H. Huff, and R. D.
Ottmar. 1994. Historical and current forest landscapes of eastern
Oregon and Washington. Part I: Vegetation pattern and insect and
disease hazards. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-328. USDA For. Serv.,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 88p.
Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush timber, and fire in southern Arizona.
Journal of Forestry 22: 2-10.
Millar, C. I., and W. W. Wolfenden. 1999. The role of climate change
in interpreting historical variability. Ecological Applications
9(4): 1207-1216.
Moore, M. M., W. W. Covington, and P. F. Zule. 1999. Reference
conditions and ecological restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine
perspective. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1266-1277.
Morgan, P., G. H. Aplet, J. B. Haufler, H. C. Humphries, M. M.
Moore, and W. D. Wilson. 1994. Historical range of variability: a
useful tool for evaluating ecological change. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry 2: 87-111.
Noss, R. F. 1983. On characterizing presettlement vegetation: how
and why. Natural Areas Journal 5: 5-13.
Parsons, D. J., T. W. Swetnam, and N. L. Christensen, Jr. 1999. Uses
and limitations of historical variability concepts in managing
ecosystems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1177-1178.
Savage, M., and T. W. Swetnam. 1990. Early 19th century fire decline
following sheep pasturing in a Navajo ponderosa pine forest. Ecology
71(6): 2374-2378.
Sousa, W.P. 1985. The role of disturbance in natural communities.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 353-391.
Stephenson, N. 1999. Reference conditions for Giant Sequoia forest
restoration: structure, process, and precision. Ecological
Applications 9(4): 1253-1265.
Swetnam, T.W. 1990. Fire history and climate in the southwestern
United States. pp. 6-17 In Krammes, J.S. (tech. Coord.), Effects of
fire management on southwestern natural resources. Proceedings of
the symposium, November 15-17, 1988, Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-
191. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Swetnam, T. W., C. D. Allen, J. L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied
historical ecology: using the past to manage the future. Ecological
Applications 9(4): 1189-1206.
Swetnam, T. W., and C. H. Baisan. 1994. Historical fire regime
patterns in the southwestern United States since AD 1700. In Allen,
C.D. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium, March 29-
30, 1994. Los Alamos, New Mexico, National Park Service publication.
White, A. S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration patterns in a
southwestern ponderosa pine stand. Ecology 66: 589-594.
Wright, H.A., and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY. 493 p.
Role of Fire in Ecosystems
Habeck, J. R., and R. W. Mutch. 1973. Fire-dependent forests in the
Northern Rocky Mountains. Quaternary Research 3: 408-424.
Hart, S. C., E. A. Paul, and M. K. Firestone. 1992. Decomposition
and nutrient dynamic in ponderosa pine needles in a Mediterranean-
type climate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22: 306-314.
Harvey, A. E., M. J. Larsen, and M. F. Jurgensen. 1979. Fire-decay
interactive roles regulating wood accumulation and soil development
in the northern Rocky Mountains. Research Note INT-263. USDA Forest
Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT
p. 4 p.
Harvey, A. E. 1994. Integrated roles for insects, diseases and
decomposers in fire dominated forests of the Inland Western United
States: past, present and future forest health. Journal of
Sustainable Forestry 2 (1/2): 211-220.
Jurgensen, M. F., A. E. Harvey, M. J. Larsen. 1981. Effects of
prescribed fire on soil nitrogen levels in a cutover Douglas-fir/
western-larch forest. Research Paper INT-275. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. p. 6
p.
Kilgore, B. M. 1981. The role of fire frequency and intensity in
ecosystem distribution and structure: western forests and
scrublands. pp. 58-89, In: Mooney, H.A. et al. (tech coords.).
Proceedings of the Conference on Fire Regimes and Ecosystem
Properties. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26, Washington, DC.
McKenzie, D., D. L. Peterson, and E. Alvarado. 1996. Predicting the
effect of fire on landscape vegetation patterns in North America.
Res. Pap. PNW-RP-489. USDA For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Research
Station, Portland, OR. 38 p.
Mooney, H. A., and E. E. Conrad (tech coords.). 1977. Proceedings of
the symposium on the environmental consequences of fire and fuel
management in Mediterranean ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. USDA
For. Serv., Washington, DC.
Mooney, H. A., and E. E. Conrad, and others (tech coords.). 1981.
Proceedings of the conference on fire regimes and ecosystem
properties. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. USDA For. Serv., Washington, DC.
Pickett, S. T. A., and P. S. White, editors. 1985. The ecology of
natural disturbance
[[Page 67505]]
and patch dynamics. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Pyne, S. J., P.L. Andrews, and R. D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to
Wildland Fire, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
769 p.
Wildland Fire Hazard, Risk, and Fuel Accumulation
Alexander, M. E. 1988. Help with making crown fire assessments. In:
Fischer, W. C., and S. F. Arno, comps. Protecting people and homes
from wildland fire in the interior West: proceedings of the
symposium and workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-251 USDA For. Serv.,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 213 p.
Coonrod, M. 1999. Arizona's strategic planning for the wildland-
urban interface. Fire Management Notes 59(3): 29-30.
Fischer, W. C., and S. F Arno, comps. 1988. Protecting people and
homes from wildland fire in the interior West: proceedings of the
symposium and workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-251. USDA For. Serv.,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 213 p.
Haynes, R., et al. 1993. RPA Assessment Update. RM-GTR-259. USDA
For. Serv. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft
Collins, CO.
Parsons, D. J. 1978. Fire and fuel accumulation in a giant sequoia
forest. Journal of Forestry 76(2): 104-105.
Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of
forest and range fires. Gen. Tech Rep. INT-143. USDA For. Serv.,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Rothermel, R. C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires
in the northern Rocky Mountains. Research Paper INT-438. USDA For.
Serv., Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Rothermel, R. C. 1995. Characterizing severe fire behavior. p. 262
In: Proceedings, Symposium on fire and wilderness and park
management. USDA For. Serv.
Steele, R., R. E. Williams, J. C. Weatherby, E. D. Reinhardt, J. T.
Hoffman, and R. W. Thier. 1996. Stand hazard rating for Central
Idaho forests. GTR INT-332. USDA For. Serv. Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 14 p.
Taylor, S. W., G. . Baxter, and B. C. Hawkes. 1998. Modeling the
effects of forest succession on fire behavior potential in
Southeastern British Columbia. Pp. 2059-2071, In: III International
Conf. on Fire and Forest Meteorology, Vol. II, Luso 16/20 November,
1998.
Hazard and Risk Reduction Techniques
Camp, A. E., and R. L. Everett. 1996. Fire, insects, and pathogens:
managing risk in late-successional reserves. In: Proceedings of
Society of American Foresters National Convention, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. pp. 214-219.
Delong, S. C., and D. Tanner. 1996. Managing the pattern of forest
harvest: lessons from wildland fire. Biodiversity and Conservation
5: 1191-1205.
Edminster, C. B., and W.K. Olsen. 1996. Thinning as a tool in
restoring and maintaining diverse structure in stands of
southwestern ponderosa pine. In: Conference on adaptive ecosystem
restoration and management: restoration of Cordilleran conifer
landscapes of North America, June 6-8,1995, Flagstaff, Arizona. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-278. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and
range Experiment Station, F Collins, CO. pp. 62-68.
Everrett, R. L., A. E. Camp, and R. Schellhaas. 1996. Building a new
forest with fire protection in mind. Proceedings 1995 Society of
American Foresters Annual Meeting, Portland, ME. SAF, Bethesda, MD.
Pp. 253-258.
Johnson, K. Norman, et al. 1999. Sustaining the People's Land--
Recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and
grasslands into the next century. USDA Forest Service, Washington,
D.C.
Graham, R. T., A. E. Harvey, T. B. Jain, J. R. Tonn. 1999. The
effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in
western forests. PNW-GTR-463. USDA For. Serv., Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, OR. 27 p.
Kilgore, B. M., and R. W. Sando. 1975. Crown-fire potential in a
sequoia forest after prescribed burning. For. Sci. 21:83-87.
Larson, D. L., and R. Mirth. 1998. Potential for using small-
diameter ponderosa pine a wood fiber projection. Forest products
Journal 48(6): 37-42.
Martin, R. E., J. B. Kauffman, and J. D. Landsberg. 1989. Use of
prescribed fire to reduce wildland fire potential. pp.17-22. In:
GTR-PSW-109. USDA, For. Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. Berkeley, CA.
Milburn, D. 1998. Northern Rockies restoration of short-interval
fire-dependent ecosystems. Unpublished document, USDA For. Serv.
Northern Region Headquarters, Missoula MT.
Mutch, R. W. 1992. Sustaining forest health to benefit people,
property, and natural resources. pp. 126-131, In: Proceedings:
Society of American Foresters National Convention, October 25-28,
1992, Richmond, VA.
Mutch, R. W. 1994. Fighting fire with prescribed fire, a return to
ecosystem health. Journal of Forestry 92(11): 31-33.
Oliver, C. D. 1994. Rebuilding biological diversity at the landscape
level. pp. 95-115, In: Proceedings of the conference, Forest health
and fire danger in the inland western forests, September 8-9, 1994,
Spokane, Washington.
Sackett, S. S., S. M. Haase, and M. G. Harrington. 1996. Lessons
learned from fire use for restoring southwestern ponderosa pine
ecosystems. pp. 54-61, In: Conference on adaptive ecosystem
restoration and management: restoration of Cordilleran conifer
landscapes of North America, June 6-8,1995, Flagstaff, Arizona. Gen
Tech Rep. RM-GTR-278. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO.
Wagle, R.F., and T.W. Eakle. 1979. A controlled burn reduces the
impact of a subsequent wildland fire in a ponderosa pine vegetation
type. For. Sci. 25(1): 123-129.
Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in
the ponderosa pine region of the Pacific Slope. Journal of Forestry
41: 7-14.
Williams, J.T. et al. 1993. Communicating fire-related
considerations along successional pathways using decision tree
analysis. 299-314. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fire and
Forest Meteorology, Oct. 26-28, 1993, Jekyll Island, Georgia.
Williams, J. T. 1996. Aligning land management objectives with
ecological processes in fire-dependent forests. pp. 32-34. In:
Conference on adaptive ecosystem restoration and management:
restoration of Cordiulleran conifer landscapes of North America,
June 6-8,1995, Flagstaff, Arizona. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-278. USDA
For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft.
Collins, CO.
Ecosystem Functioning, Management, and Restoration
Agee, J. K., and D. R. Johnson, editors. 1988. Ecosystem management
for parks and wilderness. University of Washington Press, Seattle,
WA.
Arno, S. F., M. G. Harrington, C. E. Fiedler, and C. E. Carlson.
1995. Restoring fire-dependent ponderosa pine forests in western
Montana. Restoration and Management Notes 13(1): 32-36.
Baker, W. L. 1994. Restoration of landscape structure altered by
fire suppression. Conservation Biology 8(3): 763-769.
Borman, F. H., and G. E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and process in a
forested ecosystem. Springer, New York, NY.
Chapin, F. S. III, M. S. Torn, and M. Tateno. 1996. Principles of
ecosystem sustainability. The American Naturalist 130: 1016-1037.
Christensen, N. L., Jr., et al. 1988. Report of committee evaluating
ecological effects of 1988 Yellowstone fires. National Park Service.
Christensen, N. L. Jr., et al. 1996. The report of the Ecological
Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem
management. Ecological Applications 6(3): 665-691.
Davenport, D. W., D. D. Breshears, B. P. Wilcox, and C. D. Allen.
1998. Viewpoint: sustainability of pinon-juniper ecosystems-a
unifying perspective of soil erosion thresholds. Journal of Range
Management 51: 231-240.
Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Fule, P. Z., W. Covington, and M. M. Moore. 1997. Determining
reference conditions for ecosystem management of southwestern
ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 7(3): 895-908.
Jordan, W. R., M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber. 1996. Restoration
Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 342 p.
Lee, Kai N., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope, Integrated Science and
Politics for the Environment.
Kimmins, J. P. 1987. Forest Ecology. MacMillan Publishing Co., New
York, NY.
[[Page 67506]]
Knick, Steven T. 1999. Requiem for a sagebrush ecosystem? Northwest
Science 73(i):53-57.
Noss, Reed F.; Michael A. O'Connell; and Dennis D. Murphy. 1997. The
science of conservation planning: habitat conservation under the
Endangered Species Act. Island Press. 246 pp.
Probst, John R.; and Jerry Weinrich. 1993. Relating Kirtland's
warbler population to changing landscape composition and structure.
Landscape Ecology 8(4):257-271.
Pickett, S. T. A., R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shackak, and G. E. Likens.
1997. The ecological basis of conservation. Chapman & Hall. New
York, NY. 466 p.
Richard, T., and S. Burns. 1999. The ponderosa pine forest
partnership, forging new relationships to restore a forest. Office
of Community Services, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO. 40 p.
San Juan National Forest. 1999. The ponderosa pine partnership,
community stewardship in southwestern Colorado. USDA For. Serv., San
Juan National Forest, Durango, CO. 44 p.
Smith, Jane Kapler, Editor. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems:
effects of fire on fauna. Gen Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. U.S.
Dept. Agric. Forest Service. 83 p.
Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on
process. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171-198.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Healthy forests for America's future a
strategic plan. MP-1513. USDA For. Serv., Washington, DC. 58 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Land management considerations in fire-
adapted ecosystems: conceptual guidelines. FS-590, USDA For. Serv.
Fire and Aviation Management, Washington, DC. 23 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1997. Integration of wildland fire management
into land management planning, a desk guide. USDA For. Serv. Fire
and Aviation Management, Washington, DC.
Wilcove, David S. 1999. The condor's shadow--the loss and recovery
of wildlife in America. W.H. Freeman and Company. 339 p.
US Forest Service Organization and Policy
Cortner, H. J., M. A. Shannon, M. G. Wallace, S. Burke, M. A. Moote.
1996.
Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management: a
problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-354. USDA For. Serv.
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 35 p.
Smith, T. B., et al. 1993. The Preservation of process: the missing
element of conservation programs. Biodiversity letters 1:164-167.
Wilcove, D. S. et al. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species
in the United States. BioScience 1998 8:607-615 (specifically, the
Wilcove and Chen in press manuscript and Wilcove's book--The
condor's shadow, published by Freeman NY in 1999.)
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Fire related considerations and
strategies in support of ecosystem management. USDA For. Serv., Fire
and Aviation Management. Washington, DC. 30 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Course to the future, positioning Fire
and Aviation Management. USDA For. Serv., Fire and Aviation
Management. Washington, DC. 19 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Fire suppression costs on large fires a
review of the 1994 fire season. USDA For. Serv., Fire and Aviation
Management. Washington, DC.
USDA, USDI. 1995. Federal wildland fire management, policy & program
review--final report. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID.
45 p.
XI. Appendices
Appendix A--The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition of Fire Regimes
and Condition Classes
Fire Regime Descriptors
Five combinations of fire frequency, expressed as fire return
interval and fire severity, are defined (Table 2) to create the map
of Historic Natural Fire Regimes (Figure 14). Groups I and II
include fire return intervals in the 0-35 year range. Group I
includes ponderosa pine, other long-needle pine species, and dry-
site Douglas fir. Group II includes the drier grassland types, tall
grass prairie, and some chaparral ecosystems. Groups III and IV
include fire return intervals in the 35-100+ year range; and Group V
is the long-interval (infrequent), stand replacement fire regime.
Table 2.--The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency (fire return
Fire Regime Group interval) Severity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................... 0-35 years.............. Low severity.
II.................. 0-35 years.............. Stand replacement
severity.
III................. 35-100+ year............ Mixed severity.
IV.................. 35-100+ year............ Stand replacement
severity.
V................... >200 years.............. Stand replacement
severity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Regime Groups I and II
These first two fire regime groups occupy nearly all the lower
elevation zones across the U.S. They have been most affected by the
presence of human intervention and our analysis shows that these
types demonstrate the most significant departure from historical
levels. The departures are affected largely by housing development,
agriculture, grazing, and logging. These areas are at greatest risk
to loss of highly valued resources, commodity interests, and human
health and safety. It is expected that these areas will receive
primary focus of wildland management agencies in the future.
Current Condition Class Attributes
Three Condition Classes have been developed to categorize the
current condition with respect to each of the five historic Fire
Regime Groups. Current condition is defined in terms of departure
from the historic fire regime, as determined by the number of missed
fire return intervals--with respect to the historic fire return
interval--and the current structure and composition of the system
resulting from alterations to the disturbance regime. The relative
risk of fire-caused losses of key components that define the system
increases for each respectively higher numbered condition class,
with little or no risk at the Class 1 level.
Condition Class \1\ Descriptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition class Fire regime Example management options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition Class 1.................. Fire regimes are within an historical Where appropriate, these areas can
range and the risk of losing key be maintained within the historical
ecosystem components is low. fire regime by treatments such as
Vegetation attributes (species fire use.
composition and structure) are
intact and functioning within an
historical range.
Condition Class 2.................. Fire regimes have been moderately Where appropriate, these areas may
altered from their historical range. need moderate levels of restoration
The risk of losing key ecosystem treatments, such as fire use and
components is moderate. Fire hand or mechanical treatments, to
frequencies have departed from be restored to the historical fire
historical frequencies by one or regime.
more return intervals (either
increased or decreased). This
results in moderate changes to one
or more of the following: fire size,
intensity and severity, and
landscape patterns. Vegetation
attributes have been moderately
altered from their historical range.
[[Page 67507]]
Condition Class 3.................. Fire regimes have been significantly Where appropriate, these areas may
altered from their historical range. need high levels of restoration
The risk of losing key ecosystem treatments, such as hand or
components is high. Fire frequencies mechanical treatments, before fire
have departed from historical can be used to restore the
frequencies by multiple return historical fire regime.
intervals This results in dramatic
changes to one or more of the
following: fire size, intensity,
severity, and landscape patterns.
Vegetation attributes have been
significantly altered from their
historical range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current conditions are a function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes resulting in
alterations of key ecosystem components such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, and canopy
closure. One or more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber
harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or
native), or other past management activities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.010
Figure 14--Forest Service Lands, Fire Regime Groups I and II
[[Page 67508]]
Appendix B--Recommended Adjustments to the Forest Service GPRA
Strategic Plan
Objective 1.c--RESTORE ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND RESILIENCE WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF NATURAL DISTURBANCE PROCESSES.
Strategies to Achieve the Objective
We will . . .
Identify priority health restoration needs through
national and regional environmental monitoring and ecological risk
assessments. Including:
social and economic factors and
sensitive species habitats at risk.
In regional, Land and Resource Management Plan, and
landscape scale assessments, clearly identify values to be
protected, relative risks, benefits, and costs of all treatment
options for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.
Research ecosystems (composition, structure, and
process), social and economic values at risk, and the role of
disturbance process.
Assess what fel treatment works most effectively to
protect communities and restore fire-adaped ecosystems.
Design and implement systematic methods for broad-scale
and landscape scale assessments of the history, status, and
trajectory of ecosystem conditions; values at risk; and management
opportunities for maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity.
Apply the latest knowledge to develop and implement
landscape scale protection and restoration projects that achieve
landscape goals established in Forest Plans.
Measure
Trends in acres at extreme risk from fire, insects, diseases,
and invasive species.
FY 2006 Milestones
A 5% decrease in acres at extreme risk from insects and
diseases.
Restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems in fire
regimes I and II. Reduce high risk areas by 25 percent.
Acres infested with targeted invasive species remains
unchanged or is diminished.
Key External Factors
Baseline data on acres at risk was collected in an inconsistent
manner in the past. Well-defined methods of data collection and
storage are being developed. Fires, insect and disease epidemics and
other unplanned large natural disturbances can radically alter the
landscape and rapidly change management strategies, priorities, and
budget allocations.
Local jurisdictions regulate homebuilding. As development
extends into wildlands, areas can experience higher intensity fires
that increase risks to human life and property and contribute to the
spread of invasive species.
Objective 3.e
Increase awareness among employees and constituents about the
need for restoration and management for ecosystem sustainability.
Educate homeowners about FIREWISE programs and principles.
Strategies to Achieve the Objective
We will . . .
Develop corporate training module for conservation awareness,
and ensure all employees participate in this training module.
Strengthen interagency conservation education efforts to
emphasize the importance of watershed protection, species
conservation, and management for long-term ecosystem integrity and
resilience.
Design and implement conservation awareness products that
facilitate understanding about natural disturbance processes,
particularly fire, and the potential values at risk when fire
regimes are altered.
Conduct FIREWISE workshops in all high-risk urban-interface
communities adjacent to National Forests. Assist states in
implementing the FIREWISE program nation-wide.
Measure
Increasing trend in employee and public awareness of
relationships among natural disturbance processes, ecosystem
integrity and social values.
All communities in high-risk urban-interface areas understand
FIREWISE principles.
FY 2006 Milestone
Complete corporate training module for conservation
awareness and require all employees to participate in this training,
by 2002.
Develop an MOU with the Department of Interior to
strengthen interagency conservation education to focus on the
importance of watershed protection, species conservation, and
management for ecosystem integrity and resilience, by 2002.
Conduct FIREWISE workshops in all high-risk urban-
interface areas adjacent to National Forest System lands.
Key External Factors
Cooperate with state, tribal, county, municipal, and local
governments.
Appendix C--Reconciling Stewardship Objectives--Assessing Values at
Risk
Considerable progress can be made in reconciling stewardship
objectives by assessing values at risk at national, regional, and
local scales. Emphasizing the agency's strategic objectives, a
framework for assessing values at risk can be developed.
Specifically, agency objectives for ecosystem health and public
safety define national priorities for values to be protected. These
objectives and their associated values are:
Public safety (GPRA SP Objective 4b)
Watershed protection (GPRA SP Objective 1a)
Species conservation (GPRA SP Objective 1b)
Ecosystem resilience (GPRA SP Objective 1c)
At a national level, we are working to integrate information on
human development, watershed condition, species and ecosystems of
concern, noxious weeds, insects and disease, roadless areas, and
plant community/ecosystem conditions by fire regimes. This requires
compilation of information on historic disturbance regimes,
watershed condition information, and development of a watershed-at-
risk map, and completion of the species-at-risk map. An integrated
map of relative risk to these values will provide broad-scale
context of the challenges for protecting people and sustaining
ecosystems at the national level. A standard process for integrating
and interpreting this information needs to be developed. National
leadership will use this information to refine priorities for annual
and long-term performance and accountability.
In assessing risk at the regional level, we need to integrate
information including, but not limited to: human development,
historic disturbance regimes, watershed condition, species and
ecosystems of concern, invasive weeds, insects and disease, roadless
areas, plant community/ecosystem conditions by fire regimes. This
will require compilation of appropriate information at finer scales
of resolution than that compiled for the national risk assessments.
Based on regional assessments, priorities for landscape scale
analyses and management action can be developed. On-the-ground
treatment priorities are then identified by the goals, objectives,
and strategies that are linked up through the agency to GPRA
strategic goal for restoring and maintaining ecosystem health.
Appendix D--Brief Summary for Future Projections of Condition Classes
and Risks
Introduction
The methods, results, and confidence in the future projections
of Condition Classes and associated risks in section VI,
``Consequences of Deferral,'' are discussed in detail in a paper by
Hann and Hilbruner (2000) titled ``Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources--Assessment of Management Options for the Western U.S.''
This paper can be found on the www web site ``fs.fed.us/fire/
fuelman.'' Methods for this analysis were based on adjustment and
re-calibration for Forest Service lands in the Western U.S. of a
vegetation and disturbance dynamics model developed by Hann and
Bunnell (In Press) for the contiguous Lower 48 States.
This appendix provides a brief overview of methods and
limitations of the modeling projections.
Methods
A landscape succession and disturbance network model was
developed for the assessment of the cohesive strategy options in the
Western U.S. (Hann and Hilbruner 2000) using the Vegetation Dynamics
Development Tool (VDDT) (Beukema and Kurz 2000). The model that was
developed used Condition Classes as states and incorporated
probabilities for succession, unplanned disturbances (such as fire),
and planned disturbances (such as mechanical and prescribed fire
restoration).
The concepts of this type of model of multiple succession and
disturbance pathways were first developed by Egler
[[Page 67509]]
(1954). These concepts were incorporated with other information into
the development of conceptual succession and disturbance models by
Noble and Slatyer (1977). Conceptual succession and disturbance
models were combined with ecosystem specific information into
computer models by Kessell and Fischer (1981) and Keane et al. (1989
to predict response over time of the interactions of vegetation
succession and disturbance dynamics. As space and time pattern and
process concepts developed in the field of landscape ecology, these
models were further advanced (Forman and Godrun 1986, Turner et al.
1989). State and transition model concepts were further expanded
with findings on multiple pathways and steady states in rangelands
by Tausch et al. (1993).
The accumulation of this long history and wide variety of kinds
of spatial and temporal landscape modeling were fully implemented to
support an assessment of management implications that included
characterization of the historical range and variation, as well as
future outcomes of management option for the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) by Keane et al. (1996) and
Hann et al. (1997 and 1998).
Dynamic relationships of basic landscape vegetation,
disturbance, and hydrologic regimes were then linked with aquatic
and terrestrial habitat and species population characteristics to
characterize basic relationships and project future outcomes (Lee et
al. 1997, Raphael et al. 1998, Wisdom et al. 2000). Similar linkages
were developed with social and economic variables to characterize
basic relationships and project future outcomes (Haynes and Horne
1997). Further developments have resulted in development of the Tool
for Exploratory Landscape Scenario Analyses (TELSA) (Kurz et al. In
Press) and the LAND and fire planning model which have been designed
to support assessment of ecosystem status and risk variables, and
prioritization of restoration opportunities to improve status and
reduce risk (Hann and Caratti 2000).
Much of the understanding developed from the comprehensive
scientific assessment and evaluation of management alternatives for
the ICBEMP (Quigley et al. 1996, 1997, 1999) became the foundation
for the modeling effort described briefly in this appendix and by
Hann and Bunnell (In Press) for the Lower 48 states and Hann and
Hilbruner (2000) for the western U.S. The modeling effort used the
description of the present conditions for the western U.S. from
Hardy et al. 2000.
Succession and disturbance probabilities were developed by
determining average rates for the Fire Regimes and between each
Condition Class. The model was calibrated for the historical range
and variation (HRV) by repeating 10 runs per simulation (to get
average, maximum, and minimum) until succession and disturbance
probability combinations were found that could represent the fire
regimes. The model was then calibrated from the late 1800s to the
present by activating disturbances associated with post-Euro-
American settlement, fire suppression, and management activities.
The methods for this calibration were similar to those for
calibration of HRV in that 10 runs per simulations were conducted
until the projected conditions at the year 2000 and the trends of
Condition Class and wildland fire graphs were similar to those of
the published literature (Agee 1993, Hardy et al. 2000).
Two future options were calibrated using the combined
understanding gained from the HRV and post-settlement calibration,
with adjustments for future management option projections. The two
future management options were: (1) Continuation of current
management using the current levels of prescribed fire and fuel
management combined with current levels of other activities (such as
timber management, range improvement, wildlife habitat restoration,
watershed restoration); and (2) implementation of the cohesive
restoration strategy. In comparison to the HRV and post-settlement
calibrations, these were relatively simple to calibrate, since the
current levels of activities and the cohesive strategy level of
activities were known entities.
Attributes for projections of loss of life and property, severe
event degraded ecosystems, and relative risks of smoke/air quality,
native species endangerment, and stream/watershed were developed
using correlation of trends in landscape Condition Classes and
assumptions similar to relationships found within ICBEMP (Quigley et
al. 1999), but adjusted for conditions in the western U.S. (Elmore
et al. 1994, Flatherer et al. 1994 and 1998, Hann and Caratti 2000,
Hardy et al. 2000, Leenhouts 1998, Mangan 1999).
Loss of life and property was based on the relationship between
firefighter fatalities and property losses correlated with amount of
uncharacteristic wildland fire events. The amount of severe event
degraded ecosystems was projected based on the correlation of
uncharacteristic wildland fire events with high risk conditions.
Relative risk of smoke/air quality was correlated with tons of
particulates produced for both wildland fire and prescribed fire
events. Native species endangerment patterns were correlated with
the number of species of concern in the western U.S. and cumulative
effect patterns of association with loss of habitat quality. Stream
and watershed risk was correlated with effects of uncharacteristic
wildland fires in cumulation with other effects. Many of the risks
(such as land use or human disturbance on adjacent lands) that cause
cumulative negative effects to native species, air quality, and
streams and watersheds are not reduced by restoration on Forest
Service lands. This was factored in to the model relationships.
Three key assumptions served as a basis for the Condition Class,
disturbance, and associated attribute modeling:
Assumption 1--based on the landscape pattern and causes of
fragmentation findings from ICBEMP, it was assumed that a step-down
prioritization would occur that would identify priority watersheds
to be restored. The watersheds would be selected based on high
composition of Fire Regimes I and II and opportunities for
maintenance of low risk or reduction of high risk conditions.
However, once a priority watershed was selected, restoration
activities would be designed to restore habitats and regimes across
all Forest Service lands within the watershed, irrespective of the
Condition Class and Fire Regime. This would achieve a landscape
approach to restoration. This would avoid a fragmented outcome
associated with the fragmented landscape pattern of Fire Regimes I
and II that often occur in association with variation in elevation,
terrain, road access, or history of land use within the watershed.
In turn this would restore wildlife and fish habitats, and
hydrologic and air regimes at a watershed scale, thus providing a
positive outcome to those resources.
Assumption 2--based on aquatic native species strongholds and
vulnerability of wildlife species, air quality and hydrologic
regimes to the combination of land use, human activities, and
proposed restoration; the step-down prioritization would result in
an integrated design as described by Reiman et al. (2000). This
would assure that vulnerable native species or ecosystems would not
be selected for restoration activities that could cause a decline in
these resources. This would also assure that watersheds selected for
restoration would be restored in an integrated fashion, such that
vegetation and fuel restoration activities would be paralleled with
the necessary road, stream, and watershed restoration activities
that would cumulatively result in a healthy watershed.
Assumption 3--the future projections assumed a minor level of
continuation of increasing drought and warming temperatures in both
management options. However, for the future projections of the
cohesive strategy it was assumed that a landscape approach to
restoration would occur. This would result in a re-patterning of the
fuels and vegetation such that the present contiguous high risk fuel
bodies would be restored to a pattern somewhat similar to that of
HRV, thus resulting in lower risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire
event continuity or continuation of uncharacteristic succession/
disturbance momentum. For the cohesive strategy, this assumption
resulted in the slowing of succession rates to higher risk Condition
Classes and lowering of probabilities of large uncharacteristic
wildland fire events.
Limitations of Modeling
There are considerable limitations to this type of general
modeling at a scale that accounts for all Forest Service lands in
the western U.S. Modeling could be much more precise with more
detailed pixel modeling using refined stratification of succession,
disturbance, and attribute parameters, such as accomplished by Keane
et al. (1996) with the Columbia River Basin Succession Model.
However, given experience with validation of this and other detailed
spatial and temporal geographic information systems, it is unlikely
that the relative differences between the outcomes of the two
options would change substantially with more detailed modeling. This
appears to be particularly true at the broad scale of Forest Service
lands in the western U.S.
One key caution is emphasized relative to use of the projected
outcomes:
Caution--the strength of this type of modeling is in reliance on
relative differences and not on the absolute. The absolute value of
the area for a Condition Class, disturbance effect, or associated
[[Page 67510]]
attribute class does not have high confidence at this scale.
However, the relative difference (percent difference) between
management options for the Condition Class, disturbance effect, or
associated attribute class has fairly high confidence. This is
because the confidence in relative differences between management
options for the same attribute class increases with increasing size
of summary area, while the confidence in the absolute area of an
attribute class decreases with increasing size of summary area (Hann
et al. 1997).
Appendix E--Key References
Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests.
Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 p.
Beukema, S.J.; Kurz, W.A. 2000. Vegetation Dynamics Development
Tool: Test Version 4.0. March 18, 2000 executable. ESSA Technologies
Ltd. Vancouver, B.C. 70 pp and model.
Connell, J.H.; Slatyer, R.O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in
natural communities and their role in community stability and
organization. The Amer. Natur. 3:1119-1144.
Egler, F.E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts. I. Initial floristic
composition, a factor in old-field vegetation development.
Vegetatio. 4:412-417.
Elmore, D.W., Kovalchik, B. L. Jurs, L.D. 1994. Restoration of
riparian ecosystems. In: Everett, R.L. (compiler). Volume 4:
Restoration of stressed sites, and processes, Eastside Forest
Ecosystem Health Assessment, pages 87-92. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-
330. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 123 p.
Flatherer, C.H.; Joyce, L.A.; Bloomgarden, C.A. 1994. Species
endangerment patterns in the United States. USDA For. Sev. Gen.
Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-241. Fort Collins, Colorado. 42 pp.
Flatherer, C.H.; Knowles, M.S.; Kendall, I.A. 1998. Threatened and
endangered species geography: Characteristics of species hot spots
in the conterminous United States. BioScience 48(5):365-376.
Forman, Richard T.T.; Godrun, Michael. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New
York: John Wiley and Sons. 619 p.
Hann, Wendel J.; Jones, Jeffrey L.; Karl, Michael G. Sherm, [and
others]. 1997. Landscape Dynamics of the Basin. Chapter 3. In:
Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. Eds. 1997. An
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin
and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 2. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley,
Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project: Scientific Assessment).
Hann, W.J.; Jones, J.L; Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Gravenmier,
R.A. 1998. Landscape dynamics. Journal of Forestry. 96(10)10-15.
Hann, W.J.; Caratti, J. 2000. LAND and fire planning--a computer
temporal and spatial model for assessing ecosystem status and risk,
and prioritizing restoration opportunities to improve status and
reduce risk. Draft paper posted on the www web site ``fs.fed.us/
fire/fuelman.'' Fire Modeling Institute, Fire Sciences Lab, USDA
Forest Service Rocky Mt. Research Station, Missoula Montana. 15 p,
Maps, Data.
Hann, W. J.; Hilbruner, M.2000. Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources--Assessment of Management Options in the Western U.S.
Draft methods and results paper posted on the www web site
``fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman.'' Fire Modeling Institute, Fire Sciences
Lab, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mt. Research Station, Missoula
Montana. 18 p, Maps, Data.
Hann, W. J.; Bunnell, D. L. In Press. Fire and land management
planning and implementation across multiple scales. February 4, 2000
Draft of invited paper submitted for publication in the
International Journal of Wildland Fire. Paper presented at the June
15-17, 1999 Joint Fire Sciences International Conference Crossing
the Millennium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological
Principles for a New Age in Fire Management. Eds. Greg Gollberg and
Jerry Dean Greer. Boise, Idaho.
Hardy, Colin C.; Menakis, James P.; Schmidt, Kirsten M.; Sampson,
Neil R. 2000. Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel
management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, in press.
Haynes, Richard W.; Horne, Amy L. 1997. Chapter 6: Economic
assessment of the Basin. In: Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia
J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the
interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great
Basins: volume 4. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 4 vol: 1715-1869. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.;
The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific
Assessment).
Keane, R.E 1987. Forest succession in western Montana--a computer
model designed for resource managers. Res. Note INT-376. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Dept. Ag., Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 8 p.
Keane, Robert E.; Long, Donald G.; Menakis, James P. [and others].
1996b. Simulating course-scale vegetation dynamics using the
Columbia River Basin Succession Model: CRBSUM. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-
GTR-340. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station. 50 p.
Kurz, W.A.; Beukema, S.J.; Klenner, W.; Greenough, J.A.; Robinson,
D.C.E.; Sharpe, A.D.; Webb, T.M. In Press. TELSA: The tool for
exploratory landscape scenario analyses. J. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture. Presented at ``The Application of
Scientific Knowledge to Decision making in Managing Forest
Ecosystems,'' May 3-7, 1999, Asheville, NC, USA. 17 p.
Lee, Danny C.; Sedell, James R.; Rieman, Bruce E. [and others].
1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. In:
Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin
and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 3. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol: 1057-
1713. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).
Leenhouts, Bill. 1998. Assessment of biomass burning in the
conterminous United States. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(1):1-22.
URL: http//www.consecol.org/vol2/iss1/art1.
Mangan, R. 1999. Wildland fire fatalities in the United States:
1990-1998. Tech. Rep. 9951-2808-MTDC.: USDA Forest Service,
Missoula, Montana. 14 pp.
Noble, I.R.; Slatyer, R.O. 1977. Postfire succession of plants in
Mediterranean ecosystems. In: Mooney, H.A.; Conrad, C.E., eds.
Proceedings of the symposium-- environmental consequences of fire
and fuel management in Mediterranean climate ecosystems. Gen. Tech.
Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Ag. Forest Service: 27-36.
Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech.
eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management
in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great
basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
303 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment.)
Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin
and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 4. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley,
Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project: Scientific Assessment).
Quigley, Thomas M.; Gravenmier, R.A.; Hann, W.J. [and others]. 1999.
Scientific evaluation of supplemental EIS alternatives by the
Science Integration Team. Report on File. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station.
Raphael, M.G.; Marcot, B.G.; Holthausen, R.S.; Wisdom, M.J. 1998.
Terrestrial species and habitats. Journ. For. 96(10):22-27.
Rieman, B.E.; Lee, D.C.; Thurow, R.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Sedell, J.R.
2000. Toward an integrated classification of ecosystems: defining
opportunities for managing fish and forest health. Environmental
Management. 25(4):425-444.
Tausch, Robin T.; Wigand, Peter E.; Burkhardt, J. Wayne. 1993.
Viewpoint: plant community thresholds, multiple steady states, and
multiple successional pathways: legacy of the quaternary? Journal of
Range Management. 46(5):439-447.
[[Page 67511]]
Turner, M.G.; O'Neill, R.V.; Garner, R.H.; Milne, B.T. 1989. Effects
of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern.
Landscape Ecology. 3:153-163.
Wisdom, M.J.; Holthausen, R.J.; Wales, B.K.Richard S.; [and others].
in press. 1999. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus
in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management
implications. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Wisdom, M.J.; Wales, B.C.; Holthausen, R.S.; Hargis, C.D.; Saab,
V.A.; Hann, W.J.; Rich, T.D.; Lee, D.C.; Rowland, M.W. 1999.
Wildlife habitats in forests of the interior northwest: history,
status, trends , and critical issues confronting land managers.
Transactions of 64th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 79-93.
[FR Doc. 00-28509 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P