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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

2

 

 

Submitted By 

 /s/ Lyle Laverty 

 

 /s/ Jerry Williams 

Lyle Laverty 

Report Team Leader 

Rocky Mountain Region 

Regional Forester 

Jerry Williams 

Report Team Co-Leader 

Northern Region 

Director Fire Management 

 

 

Approved By 

 /s/ Mike Dombeck

Mike Dombeck 

Chief 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

3

Table of Contents 

Resilience in Fire-Prone Forests.......................................... 7 

Executive Summary........................................................ 9 

I Purpose and Intent of a Cohesive Strategy.................................... 11 

II Background, Land Use History, and Ecological Change................... 21 

III Ensuring Clean Air, Clean Water, and Biodiversity 

 in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems................................................... 29 

IV A Cohesive Strategy to Protect People and Sustain Resources 

 in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems................................................... 33 

V Consequences of Deferral...................................................... 41 

VI Conclusions and Next Steps.................................................. 49 

VII Team Members............................................................... 53 

VIII Acknowledgements.......................................................... 55 

IX Glossary........................................................................... 57 

X References and Supporting Information .................................... 59 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

4

XI Appendices 

Appendix A: The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition 

 of Fire Regimes and Condition Classes........................ 70 

Appendix B: Recommended Adjustments to Forest Service 

 GPRA Strategic Plan ............................................. 73 

Appendix C: Reconciling Stewardship Objectives -- 

 Assessing Values at Risk.......................................... 77 

Appendix D: Summary for Future Projections of Condition 

 Classes and Risks.................................................. 79 

Figures 

Figure 1 – General affected area within the interior West............................. 21 

Figure 2 – Figure 3 – Changes in forest structure and condition 

 class over time.................................................................. 23 

Figure 4 – National forest wildland fire acres burned trend in the 

 11 Western states............................................................... 24 

Figure 5 – Increased density of smaller trees provides fuel for 

 vertical fire spread.............................................................. 25 

Figure 6 – Buffalo Creek Fire erosion effects........................................... 26 

Figure 7 – Homes burning in the Dude Fire, Arizona, 1990........................... 27 

Figure 8 – Changes in projected amount in Condition Classes on 

 Western National Forest System lands...................................... 42 

Figure 9 – National forest wildland fire acres/suppression costs, 1980-99........ 44 

Figure 10 – Projected risk to life and property on Western National 

 Forest System lands based on changes in fuel condition................ 45 

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 ................................. 46 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

5

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........................ 47 

Figure 13 – Cohesive Strategy aims to reduce severe insect, disease, 

 and wildland fire risk......................................................... 50 

Figure 14 – Forest Service Lands – Fire Regimes I & II............................... 72 

Tables 

Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c – 10, 15 and 20-year treatment schedules to increase 

 the hazardous fuels treatment program..................... 39 

Table 2 – The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups.............................. 70 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

6
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

7

 

Treated Forestm Survives Wildland fire 

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 wildland fire. It shows the differences in resilience

between treated and untreated forests. The (blackened) untreated forest – located on either side 

of this green strip area – burned in the Wenatchee National Forest’s 1994 Tyee Fire. 

In this example, treatment was in the form of a “shaded fuel break” (the green strip) established 

several years ago. Shaded fuel breaks are located in tactically important to provide firefighters 

an anchor from which to safely fight fire. These shaded fuel breaks leave older-age trees 

overhead and thin out the smaller trees beneath them – removing surface fuels to reduce fire 

intensities should fire occur. 

On the Tyee Fire, extreme conditions that included high winds and rapid spread of fire growth, 

precluded safe attack. Therefore, no suppression actions were taken in this area. Nevertheless, 

Resilience and the Effects of Restoration Treatments 

in Fire-Prone Forests 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

8
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

9

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, firemaintained 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 fireadapted 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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

10

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

11

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 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

12

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

13

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

14

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. 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

15

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. 

Artwork Jim Dawson, © National Geographic Society, 1996 

Over-accumulated vegetation can fuel severe wildland fires. 

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

16

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

17

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 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 higherrisk 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 effectivenes 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 reciepts 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

18

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

19

private forestry, and National Forest System programs. Restoration and maintenance of fireadapted 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

20
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

21

II Background, Land Use History and 

 Ecological Change 

Background 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

22

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 wellspaced, 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 fireadapted ecosystems. These changes, in turn, predisposed extensive areas to many of today’s 

wildland fire and forest ecosystem health problems in the interior West. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

23

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. 

 

Changes in Species Composition and Forest Structure 

Figure 2 Bitterroot National Forest 1871 Photo 

Figure 3 Bitterroot National Forest 1982 Photo 

 

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. 

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 fireintolerant 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. 

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.
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

24

National Forest Wildfire Annual Acres Burned

 and Trend for the 11 Western States, 1945-1997

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

1100000

1200000

1300000

1400000

1500000

194519481951195419571960196319661969197219751978198119841987199019931996

Years

Acres

Figure 4 – National forest wildland fire acres burned trend in the 11 Western states. 

Under these conditions, wildland fires exceed nearly all control efforts and often result in longlasting 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 11 (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. 

 

1

 For complete definition, see Appendix A The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition of Fire Regimes and Fire 

Classes. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

25

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. 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

26

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). 

At extreme fire intensities, the soil’s capacity to absorb water is often lost. The fine, powderlike 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. 

Figure 6 – Buffalo Creek Fire, Colorado 

These photos, of Colorado’s Buffalo Creek Fire aftermath, 

illustrate soil severely burned and left exposed to rain and 

runoff. This produced the subsequent 1996 flash flood 

event that claimed two lives. The ensuing erosion also 

washed topsoil off the hillsides, clogging downstream 

watercourses. This erosion reduced future storage capacity 

of reservoirs and silted over the river’s gravel beds – 

significantly reducing spawning habitat. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

27

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

28
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

29

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

30

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

31

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 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 fireadapted 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 fireadapted 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

32

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

33

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

34

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 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

35

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

36

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, finerscaled 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

37

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. 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

38

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

39

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. 

10-YEAR TREATMENT SCHEDULE 

Regions 1-6 Treatment Schedule (acres) 

 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4-10 

CC1 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 

CC2 500,000 850,000 1,400,000 2,500,000 

CC3 300,000 700,000 1,100,000 1,650,000 

Total 1,000,000 1,950,000 3,100,000 4,950,000 

 

Regions 8-9 Treatment Schedule (acres) 

 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4-10 

CC1 770,000 1,000,000 1,150,000 1,250,000 

CC2 220,000 350,000 470,000 640,000 

CC3 50,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 

Total 1,040,000 1,410,000 1,680,000 1,950,000 

Table 1a – 10-year schedule to increase the annual hazardous fuels treatment program. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

40

15-YEAR TREATMENT SCHEDULE 

Regions 1-6 Treatment Schedule (acres) 

 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4-15 

CC1 150,000 250,000 400,000 500,000 

CC2 450,000 700,000 1,100,000 1,500,000 

CC3 200,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 

Total 800,000 1,450,000 2,250,000 3,000,000 

 

Regions 8-9 Treatment Schedule (acres) 

 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4-15 

CC1 750,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 

CC2 200,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 

CC3 300,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 

Total 980,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Table 1b – 15-year schedule to increase the annual hazardous fuels treatment program. 

20-YEAR TREATMENT SCHEDULE 

Regions 1-6 Treatment Schedule (acres) 

 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5-20 

CC1 100,000 150,000 225,000 325,000 375,000

CC2 400,000 600,000 750,000 900,000 1,100,000

CC3 200,000 300,000 400,000 550,000 750,000

Total 700,000 1,050,000 1,375,000 1,775,000 2,000,000

 

Regions 8-9 Treatment Schedule (acres) 

 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5-20 

CC1 400,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 620,000

CC2 120,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

CC3 25,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

Total 545,000 575,000 680,000 780,000 950,000

Table 1c – 20-year schedule to increase the annual hazardous fuels treatment program. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

41

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 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

42

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. 

Changes in P rojected Am ount in Condition Classes on W estern

National Forest S ystem Lands (from: Hann and Bunnell, in press)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Co ndition Class 3

Co ndition Class 2

Co ndition Class 1

Percent of Western National Forest System Land Area

Current Rate of Treatment After 15 Years

Cohesive Restoration After 15 Years

Figure 8: 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

43

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 overaccumulation 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

44

National Forest Wildfire Expenditures

 and Acres Burned 1980-1999

0

100000000

200000000

300000000

400000000

500000000

600000000

700000000

800000000

900000000

1980

1981

1982

198319841985198619871988198919901991

19921993

1994

1995

1996

1997

19981999

Year

Cost

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

Acres

Cost

Acres

Figure 9 

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 wildlandurban 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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

45

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). 

Projected Risks to Life and Property on Western National Forest

 System Lands Based on Changes in Fuel Conditon

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Strategic Options

Relative Risk Index 

Current Rate of Treatent After 15 Years

C ohesive Restoration After 15 Years

N ote: Relative risk is indexed from projected fire fighter fatalities and private property loss based on historical and extrapolated data.

Figure 10 

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 disasterrelated costs and losses. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

46

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. 

Projected Amount of Degradation or Loss of Key Ecosystem Elements

 from Severe Wildland Fires on Western National Forest System Lands

 Based on Changes in Fuel Condition

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Strategic Options

Percent of National Forest Lands A dversely Affected

Current Rate of Treatment After 15 Years

Cohesive Restoration Ater 15 Years

Note: Key ecosystem elem ents include large trees, nativ e species, water quality, and soil productivity.

Figure 11 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

47

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. 

Projected Risk Among Strategic Options to Air Quality, Native Species, and 

Watersheds on Western National Forest System Lands

Based on Changes in Fuel Conditions.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 .6 0.7 0 .8 0.9 1

W atershed Risk

Native Spec ies Risk

Air Q uality Risk

Relative Risk Index

Current Rate of Treatment After 15 Years

Cohesive Restoratio n After 15 Years

Note: Relative risk is indexed from projected sm oke events (for air quality risk), decline in native

species habitat (for native species risk), and degradation of water quality (for watershed risk).

Figure 12 

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

48

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

49

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 highrisk 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

50

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 fireadapted ecosystems, the risks to watersheds, species, and people will continue to increase. 

Figure 13 – The cohesive strategy outlined in this report aims to reduce severe insect, disease, and 

wildland fire risk.
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

51

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 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 urbanwildland interface to help in risk reduction and hazard mitigation. 

• Continue efforts to develop markets and ideas for small-diameter material 

utilization. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

52
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

53

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

54

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

55

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

56
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

57

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 selfrenewal in the presence of the cumulative effects of human and natural disturbances. 

(Proposed Rule, Section 219.36, 1999.) 

Ecosystem Management 

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.)
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

58

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 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.) 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

59

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: 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

60

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

61

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 INT275. 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

62

Pickett, S. T. A., and P. S. White, editors. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance 

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- 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

63

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

64

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

65

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. 

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

66

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. MP1513. 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

67

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

68
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

69

XI Appendices 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

70

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. 

Fire Regime 

Group 

Frequency 

(Fire Return 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 

Table 2 -- The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups. 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

71

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 Class1

 descriptions 

Condition 

 Class

Fire Regime Example Management 

Options 

Condition 

Class 1 

Fire regimes are within an historical range and the 

risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. 

Vegetation attributes (species composition and 

structure) are intact and functioning within an 

historical range. 

Where appropriate, these 

areas can be maintained 

within the historical fire 

regime by treatments such 

as fire use. 

Condition 

Class 2 

Fire regimes have been moderately altered from 

their historical range. The risk of losing key 

ecosystem components is moderate. Fire 

frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by one or 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. 

Where appropriate, these 

areas may need moderate 

levels of restoration 

treatments, such as fire use 

and hand or mechanical 

treatments, to be restored 

to the historical fire 

regime. 

Condition 

Class 3 

Fire regimes have been significantly altered from 

their historical range. The risk of losing key 

ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies 

have departed from historical frequencies by 

multiple return 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. 

Where appropriate, these 

areas may need high levels 

of restoration treatments, 

such as hand or mechanical 

treatments, before fire can 

be used to restore the 

historical fire regime. 

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

72

 Figure 14 – Forest Service lands, Fire Regime Groups I and II.
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

73

Appendix B

Recommended Adjustments to the Forest Service 

GPRA Strategic Plan 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

74

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

75

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 FIREWSE 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

76
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

77

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

78
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

79

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 recalibration 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 (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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

80

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 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

81

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

82

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 repatterning 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 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

83

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-GTR405. 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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

84

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-GTR340. 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. PNWGTR-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. 

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. 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 

85

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.