a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2004 WILDLAND FIRES

Forest Service and 

BLM Need Better 

Information and a 

Systematic Approach 

for Assessing the 

Risks of 

Environmental Effects

GAO-04-705
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-705.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-9775 or hillbt@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-705, a report to 

congressional requesters 

June 2004

WILDLAND FIRES

Forest Service and BLM Need Better 

Information and a Systematic Approach 

for Assessing the Risks of Environmental 

Effects 

Wildland fires can have dramatic effects on environmental resources and 

ecosystems, including production of large amounts of smoke, loss of trees, 

and erosion of soil into streams and lakes. However, fires can also benefit 

resources by recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth, and 

adding gravel to streams, which improves spawning habitat for fish. The 20 

wildland fires that we surveyed burned over 158,000 acres of federal land 

and had complex, wide-ranging, and sometimes contradictory, effects on 

both individual resources, such as trees and streams, and ecosystems. For 

example, the short-term effects of the Missionary Ridge fire in Colorado that 

burned almost 50,000 acres of trees and other vegetation included increased 

debris and sediment that affected water quality in some areas. However, in 

other areas, officials said even dramatic changes to streams would not be 

detrimental in the long term. 

The Forest Service and BLM gather specific information on the 

environmental effects of individual wildland fires, such as soil erosion. The 

agencies do not, however, gather comprehensive data on the severity of 

wildland fire effects on broad landscapes and ecosystems—that is, large 

areas that may involve one or more fires. The agencies recently developed a 

monitoring framework to gather severity data for fires, but they have not yet 

implemented it. These data are needed to monitor the progress of the 

agencies’ actions to restore and maintain resilient fire-adapted ecosystems, a 

goal of the National Fire Plan. 

The National Fire Plan directs the Forest Service and BLM to target their fuel

reduction activities with the purpose of lowering the risk of environmental 

effects from wildland fires in areas that face the greatest losses. However, 

the agencies do not systematically assess the risks across landscapes that 

fires pose to different environmental resources or ecosystems or the risks of 

taking no action on fuel reduction projects. At the landscape level, the 

Forest Service and BLM do not have a formal framework for systematically 

assessing the risk of fire to resources and ecosystems, although some of the 

forests and BLM field offices have developed risk assessments on their own 

or in collaboration with regional, state, or local efforts. At the project level, 

while the agencies recognize the need to better analyze the risk of acting to 

reduce fuels versus not doing so, neither fire planning guidance nor National 

Environmental Policy Act guidance specify how to do this. Opportunities 

exist to clarify how the agencies should analyze the effects of not taking 

action to reduce fuels. The agencies can clarify interim guidance to 

implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and the agencies can, in 

conjunction with CEQ, further develop the lessons learned from a CEQ 

demonstration program carried out in 2003. Without a risk-based approach, 

these agencies cannot target their fuel reduction projects across landscapes 

or make fully informed decisions about which effects and project 

alternatives are more desirable. 

Decades of fire suppression, as 

well as changing land management 

practices, have caused vegetation 

to accumulate and become altered 

on federal lands. Concerns about 

the effects of wildland fires have 

increased efforts to reduce fuels on 

federal lands. These efforts also 

have environmental effects. The 

requesters asked GAO to 

(1) describe effects from fires on 

the environment, (2) assess the 

information gathered by the Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) on such 

effects, and (3) assess the agencies’ 

approaches to environmental risks 

associated with reducing fuels. 

This report recommends that the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior (1) develop a plan to 

implement the agencies’ 

monitoring framework, (2) develop 

guidance that formalizes the 

assessment of landscape-level risks 

to ecosystems, and (3) clarify 

existing guidance, working with the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), to assess the risks of 

environmental effects from 

reducing fuels. 

Commenting on the draft report, 

Agriculture and Interior agreed that 

more data are needed and 

prioritization of fuels work can be 

improved, but had concerns about 

developing guidance on a riskbased approach. CEQ commented 

that its guidance is not intended to 

address risk analysis. 
Page i GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8

Wildland Fires Have Wide-Ranging Effects on Environmental 

Resources and Ecosystems, Depending on a Range of Factors 15

Forest Service and BLM Do Not Gather Comprehensive Information 

on the Varied Effects of Wildland Fires on Ecosystems and 

Landscapes 31

The Forest Service and BLM Do Not Systematically Assess the Risks 

to Environmental Resources and Ecosystems to Target and 

Conduct Fuel Reduction Activities 35

Conclusions 48

Recommendations for Executive Action 50

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 50

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 57

Appendix II: Fire Regime Condition Class Analysis 61

Appendix III: Definition of Fire/Burn Severity 64

Appendix IV: Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results 65

Appendix V: Remote Sensing Data and Systems 75

Appendix VI: Examples of Models for Assessing Wildland Fires and 

Fuels 78

Appendix VII: Consolidated Comments from the Departments of 

Agriculture and the Interior 82

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality 86

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 88

GAO Contacts 88

Staff Acknowledgments 88

Tables Table 1: Assessment of Overall Effects on Individual Resources in 

the Short and Long Term 17

Table 2: Description of Characteristic and Uncharacteristic Fire 

Effects and Vegetation Conditions 22

Table 3: Forest Service and BLM Office Assessments and the Risk 

Elements Addressed 40
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 4: Results of GAO’s Review of 10 Fuel Reduction Project 

Environmental Assessments 45

Table 5: Classes of Fire Severity for Soils and Vegetation 64

Table 6: Acres Burned by Fire, Land Ownership, and Percent of 

Forest and BLM Field Office Land Base 65

Table 7: Types and Uses of Federal Land within Fire Perimeters 67

Table 8: Miles of Perennial Streams and Number of Floods, Debris 

Flows, or Landslides within Fire Perimeters 68

Table 9: Municipal Watersheds within Severely Burned Areas 69

Table 10: Fires Affecting Threatened and Endangered Species 

Populations and Habitats 70

Table 11: Air Emissions by Fire 71

Table 12: Fire Effects on Soils by Burn Severity and Erosion 

Potential 72

Table 13: Fire Effects on Vegetation 73

Figures Figure 1: Number of Fires and Acres Burned, 1960-2002 9

Figure 2: Effects of Wildland Fire in Treated and Untreated Areas 

Burned by Wildland Fire 13

Figure 3: Conceptual Short- and Long-Term Effects on Vegetation 

After a High-Severity Wildland Fire 16

Figure 4: Relationship of Ecosystem and Landscape Levels 25

Figure 5: Acres of Vegetation Burned Lightly, Moderately, and 

Severely in 20 Sample Fires 27

Figure 6: Location of Forest Service and BLM Wildland Fires 

Visited and Surveyed 58

Figure 7: Wildland Fire Hazard 62

Figure 8: Remote Sensing Technologies and the Data Produced 76

Figure 9: Images and Data Collected Using Aerial and Satellite 

Technology Compared with an Actual Site 77
Contents

Page iii GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Abbreviations

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 24, 2004 Letr

Congressional Requesters

Decades of fire suppression, in conjunction with land management 

activities that have excluded fire from the nation’s forests and rangelands,1

such as roads and trails, grazing, and development near public land, have 

caused the accumulation of brush, small trees, and other vegetation on 

federal and other lands. Recent fire seasons have shown that these land 

management practices have had unforeseen consequences. The 

accumulation and alteration of vegetation, in combination with an 

extended drought that has covered much of the country, has caused 

wildland fires to burn more intensely than they would under more natural 

or historical vegetation conditions. In response to changing views of 

wildland fire, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy developed by 

the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior in 1995 recognized the 

natural role of wildland fire and the potential for “catastrophic” fires to 

occur in areas of accumulated vegetation. In 2000, federal scientists and 

land managers estimated that 182 million acres of land in the United States 

had accumulations of vegetation that were highly altered from more 

historical conditions. 

Under historical conditions, many forest and rangeland ecosystems—

which are different ecological units distinguished by physical 

characteristics such as mountains, plains, and river basins, as well as their 

associated plant and animal communities—have adapted to wildland fire, 

surviving and regenerating after fires occur. Under these conditions, 

wildland fire can often have beneficial effects for resources and 

ecosystems, such as recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth, 

and sustaining ecological functions. However, federal scientists and land 

managers believe that the adverse effects of wildland fires are exacerbated 

in ecosystems with uncharacteristic vegetation conditions, that is, in which 

vegetation has accumulated or been altered by fire exclusion. Adverse 

effects of wildland fire on individual resources include reduced air and 

water quality, soil loss, and loss of threatened and endangered species and 

their habitat. In addition, wildland fires that cover broad landscapes can 

adversely affect all or parts of forest or rangeland ecosystems. In particular, 

scientists and land managers are concerned that, after years of fire 

exclusion, in dry forest ecosystems the large old trees that used to survive 

1

We use the term rangelands to refer to grasslands and shrublands. 
Page 2 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

fires now burn and die, and will not be replaced for over 100 years, 

eliminating sources of seeds and turning forests into shrubfields. Scientists 

and land managers are also concerned that the natural occurrence of 

wildland fire in grassland ecosystems has been altered by invasive species, 

such as cheatgrass, that have replaced native vegetation. Furthermore, 

communities in the interface of wildland areas that develop into areas 

where there are uncharacteristic fuel accumulations may experience 

exacerbated effects of wildland fires. 

In 2001, in response to one of the worst fire seasons in over 50 years, the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior reiterated the principles in the 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and began working with state 

and local agencies and tribal governments to develop an interagency 

National Fire Plan to coordinate federal, state, local, and tribal efforts. 

Together, the policy and plan offer a new approach to wildland fires by 

broadening the emphasis to include reducing vegetation, or fuels, and 

reintroducing fire, where possible, to restore ecosystems to more resilient 

fire-adapted conditions. The reintroduction of fire to certain federal lands 

does not mean, however, that all fires will be allowed to burn without 

management. Currently, there are two approaches to wildland fire 

management. First, all unplanned wildland fires are suppressed or are 

managed—given favorable weather conditions—to achieve beneficial 

effects to resources. Second, wildland fire management activities also 

include the reduction of fuels to protect communities and maintain or 

improve ecological conditions of the land. Fuel reduction activities include 

mechanical methods such as chainsaws, chippers, mulchers, and 

bulldozers, and prescribed burns. Prescribed burns may be set to restore or 

maintain desired vegetation conditions.

The degree to which fire can be reintroduced to different forest and 

rangeland ecosystems depends on the risk fire poses to environmental 

resources and ecosystems. Under the National Fire Plan, land managers are 

to identify ways to reduce the risk to communities and ecosystems from 

wildland fire. Risk, according to the National Academy of Sciences, 

involves hazardous events or conditions and the potential loss of or 

damage to something of value because of the hazard. In the case of 

wildland fires, the hazard involved is not only the fire, but also the excess 

vegetation, or fuel, that has accumulated or been altered on federal lands. A 

primary way to lower risks involves reducing the amount, type, or 

continuity of vegetation available to burn. The National Fire Plan applies to 

several federal agencies that manage public lands and wildland fires, 

including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the 
Page 3 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the 

Interior. These agencies are all members of the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council, formed in 2002 to support and coordinate implementation of the 

National Fire Plan and Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Two of 

these agencies—the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)—manage approximately 450 million acres or 60 percent of the 

nation’s federal land.

In managing the effects of wildland fires, the Forest Service and BLM face a 

second type of risk—that the actions they take to reduce fuels and to 

restore ecosystems may damage additional resources such as species, 

habitat, or water, whereas if they do not take action, the effects of a future 

fire may be exacerbated. Consequently, the agencies’ assessment of the 

potential effects of their activities involves weighing the risk of action to 

reduce fuels against the risk of doing nothing. Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, agencies generally evaluate the 

likely environmental effects of projects they are proposing using a 

relatively brief environmental assessment, or, if the action would be likely 

to significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental 

impact statement.2

 One purpose of this analysis is to ensure that agencies 

have available detailed information concerning potentially significant 

environmental impacts to inform their decision making. The Forest Service 

and BLM typically conduct such analyses at two levels: the entire national 

forest or BLM land unit, which can encompass several broad landscapes, 

and the more specific project level, which addresses smaller areas within 

the landscape. 

2

In determining the significance of a proposed action, agencies must consider a variety of 

factors, including the action’s geographic scope, potential for controversy, and the degree to 

which the proposed action threatens to violate federal, state, or local law. A significant 

effect may exist even if the federal agency believes on balance that the effect will be 

beneficial. When it is uncertain whether the proposed action would have significant 

environmental effects, agencies use environmental assessments to determine whether the 

proposed action would have such effects and therefore whether an environmental impact 

statement is necessary.
Page 4 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Concerns about the severity of recent wildland fires and their 

environmental effects have led to increased efforts to reduce fuels on 

federal lands, which culminated in the enactment of the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA) in December 2003.3

 There has been considerable 

disagreement over the extent of environmental effects of wildland fire on 

federal lands, and what, if anything, to do about them. The timber industry 

and other groups advocated increasing the use of mechanical tree thinning 

and timber sales to reduce the vegetation accumulating on the nation’s 

forests and rangelands. Critics of this approach, which included 

environmental groups, cited its potentially detrimental effects on 

environmental resources, particularly large old trees. Both the advocates 

and the critics generally agreed on the actions needed to address risk to 

communities; however, there is little agreement as to what steps, if any, 

should be taken to reduce the risk posed to ecosystems. In this context, 

you asked us to (1) describe the effects wildland fires have on 

environmental resources and ecosystems, (2) assess the information the 

Forest Service and BLM gather on the extent of environmental effects of 

wildland fires, and (3) assess the approaches the Forest Service and BLM 

take to assess the risk to environmental resources from wildland fires and 

the vegetation that has accumulated or been altered on federal lands. 

3

Pub. L. No. 108-148 (2003). One of the main purposes of the act is to reduce wildfire risk to 

communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk federal land through a 

collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuel reduction 

projects. 
Page 5 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

To describe the effects that wildland fires have on environmental resources 

and ecosystems and assess the information the Forest Service and BLM 

gather on the extent of these effects, we designed a survey of local federal 

land managers who maintain this data. Our survey contained questions 

about 20 wildland fires that we randomly selected from a universe of 614 

wildland fires. Some of the questions required that the land managers 

provide their opinions of conditions or make predictions about the future 

effects of a wildland fire rather than providing data about effects that had 

already occurred, and therefore there is a greater amount of uncertainty 

regarding the accuracy of these responses. We identified the 614 fires 

through Forest Service and BLM reports completed in fiscal years 2000 

through 2002 on the emergency actions needed to stabilize areas burned in 

the fires. We used these reports to identify our sample because the reports 

are developed for wildland fires that the agencies determined are likely to 

have had considerable environmental effects. We conducted a random 

sample of these 614 fires to ensure that we had a range of small, medium, 

and large wildland fires.4

 To gather information on the approaches the 

Forest Service and BLM use to assess the risks to environmental resources 

posed by wildland fire, we reviewed federal wildland fire policies, the 

National Fire Plan, and agency guidance and planning and project 

documents. We also interviewed federal and state agency officials, 

scientists from several of the Forest Service’s research stations, and 

university experts on fire and fire effects. We attended two national 

conferences on fire issues and visited national forests and BLM state 

offices in eight western states that had experienced large fires. We 

conducted our review from April 2003 through April 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I 

provides further details about the scope and methodology of our review. 

Results in Brief The 20 wildland fires that we surveyed burned over 158,000 acres of federal 

land and had complex, wide-ranging, and sometimes contradictory, effects 

on both individual resources, such as trees and streams, and ecosystems. 

For example, the Missionary Ridge fire in Colorado burned almost 50,000 

acres. The loss of trees and vegetation in some of the burned areas, as well 

as chemical and physical changes in the soil, has caused increased flooding 

and debris flows in local streams, which has affected water quality in the 

short term. However, in the long term, land managers indicated that even 

4

To ensure that all sizes were represented, we conducted a systematic random sample. In 

this method, the fires were ordered by size and then fires were selected at regular intervals. 
Page 6 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

dramatic changes to streams in other burned areas would not be 

detrimental. Of the 20 wildland fires in our survey, the land managers 

viewed the effects of the wildland fires as adverse, neutral, or beneficial, 

depending on a number of factors, including the short- and long-term time 

frames in which the effects were described, and the type and condition of 

the vegetation that had existed in the burned area. The managers also 

reported that the 20 fires had effects across broad landscapes and that 

these effects varied in severity. 

The Forest Service and BLM gather specific information and data on the 

effects of some individual wildland fires on environmental resources, such 

as soil erosion or acres of trees burned, for the purpose of stabilizing 

burned areas. However, they do not gather comprehensive data on the longterm severity of wildland fire effects on broad landscapes and 

ecosystems—that is, on large areas that may involve one or more burns—

because they do not have a monitoring plan to gather landscape data across 

fires. Wildland fires can have varying effects over time and space, and, as a 

result, it is important that the agencies have comprehensive data to 

monitor the progress of the their actions to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems, a goal of the National Fire Plan. The agencies recently 

developed a monitoring framework that includes fire severity, but this plan 

has not yet been implemented. Data on severity would help the agencies to 

assess whether, over time, fires in forest and rangeland ecosystems are 

burning with more or less severe effects and whether the ecosystems are 

being restored to more fire-adapted, or resilient, conditions. Without the 

ability to identify the broad landscape effects of fire on vegetation 

conditions as fires occur, the agencies will have difficulty showing whether 

they have met their identified desired conditions and whether different 

ecosystems are becoming more or less resilient to fire. 

The Forest Service and BLM, when planning fuel reduction activities, do 

not have a systematic approach that allows them to assess the risks of 

environmental effects from wildland fires at the landscape level or the 

specific project level. As a result, the agencies do not systematically assess 

the risks that fires pose to different environmental resources or ecosystems 

or the risks of taking no action on fuel reduction projects, although the 

National Fire Plan directs them to target their fuel reduction activities in 

areas that face the greatest losses. At the landscape level, the Forest 

Service and BLM do not have a common framework for assessing the risk 

of fire to environmental resources and ecosystems as part of their fuel 

reduction efforts because they and the Congress have placed high priority 

on assessing areas that threaten communities. The agencies have not 
Page 7 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

focused exclusively on communities, as several of their field offices have 

begun efforts to assess the risks of environmental and ecosystem effects in 

planning their fuel reduction activities. Without a systematic approach to 

assessing risk to ecosystems at the landscape level, the agencies cannot 

effectively target their fuel reduction activities to protect areas that face 

the greatest losses, or, conversely, identify areas that can benefit from the 

reintroduction of fire. To formalize a common framework for such risk 

assessments, the Forest Service and BLM could use the experience of other 

agencies that conduct risk assessments, such as the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency or the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as 

the experience of those field offices that have independently conducted 

such assessments. In assessing the risks associated with individual 

projects, the Forest Service and BLM have in some instances assessed, 

under NEPA, the risk of acting to reduce fuels versus the risk of not doing 

so. We reviewed 10 of the agencies’ assessments and determined the 

agencies did not systematically assess the risks of taking or not taking 

action to reduce fuels. Agency guidance is not specific about how this 

assessment should be performed and whether these analyses should be 

contained in NEPA documentation. The agencies have opportunities to 

specify how the risks of not reducing fuels should be assessed and where 

this assessment should be documented. The agencies have developed 

interim guidance for implementing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 

but the guidance does not go far enough in describing the analysis needed 

for showing the effects of not reducing fuels. Also, the agencies and the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) are developing model 

environmental assessments and lessons learned from a demonstration 

program developing model environmental assessments for fuel reduction 

projects, in which the agencies participated. Without a risk-based approach 

at the project level, the agencies cannot make fully informed decisions 

about which effects and project alternatives are more desirable. 

We are making recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior to help ensure that the Forest Service and BLM develop (1) the 

information needed to better understand the full extent of environmental 

and ecosystem effects from wildland fires, (2) a systematic framework for 

the assessment of risks at the landscape level to target where fuel 

reduction activities need to occur, and (3) specific guidance on a risk-based 

approach to make trade-offs among the environmental effects of acting to 

reduce fuels or doing nothing. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Departments of Agriculture and 

the Interior stated that the report provided a thorough analysis of a 
Page 8 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

complex set of issues. They agreed that information on the long-term 

effects of fire is needed and noted that on May 18, 2004, they approved a 

monitoring framework that includes such information. They also agreed 

that prioritization of fuel reduction projects can be improved but expressed 

a number of concerns about our recommendation that they develop a 

systematic risk-based approach to help prioritize projects. Finally, they did 

not agree with our recommendation that they provide specific guidance on 

the assessment of the effects of not taking action to reduce fuels. CEQ also 

provided comments on this recommendation, stating that we should not 

imply that CEQ’s guidance to help develop fuel reduction projects was 

meant to discuss risk analysis and the risks of not taking action to reduce 

fuels. While we made modifications to our report to address these concerns 

and to clarify our recommendations, we continue to believe that our 

recommendations are warranted. 

Background Wildland fire is an inevitable natural ecological disturbance that has helped 

to shape ecosystems over time. Fires are driven by climate and weather 

conditions, topography, and fuels—including trees, brush, grasses, dead 

leaves and needles, and other material that will burn. Thousands of fires 

are started each year by natural causes, such as lightning, or human causes, 

such as arson. These fires burn millions of acres of state and federally 

owned land (see fig. 1). 
Page 9 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Figure 1: Number of Fires and Acres Burned, 1960-2002

Calendar year

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

0

60,000

120,000

180,000

240,000

300,000

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

Number of acres

Sources: National Interagency Fire Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Number of fires

Acres of land burned

Number of fires
Page 10 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Although fire is a natural component of many ecosystems, and although 

humans have used fire for land and resource management purposes for 

thousands of years—such as creating improved pasture for animals and 

improved land for agriculture—fire can be unpredictable and potentially 

destructive. The potential destructiveness of fire is a particular concern for 

the growing number of communities on the fringe of wildland areas that are 

prone to fire. These communities create a wildland-urban interface, where 

houses and other infrastructure are in or near wildland fuels. Because fires 

can have dramatic social, economic, and environmental effects, land 

management agencies and federal land managers have sought to suppress 

fires for much of the twentieth century. In particular, large, intense fires in 

1910 focused federal policy on suppression to prevent damage to ecological 

resources. Suppression, in combination with land management activities 

such as building roads and trails, grazing, and increasing development near 

public lands, has excluded fire from ecosystems and caused the 

uncharacteristic accumulation of vegetation in some forest and grassland 

ecosystems. In 2000, the Forest Service and BLM completed a national 

study of fuel conditions called the Coarse-Scale Analysis, which estimated 

that 182 million acres of the nation’s land have an uncharacteristic buildup 

of fuels.5

 The analysis produced categories of vegetation conditions ranked 

as low, medium, and high. The categories, called fire regime condition 

classes, represent the increasing accumulation and alteration of vegetation 

conditions and the potential for uncharacteristic wildland fire and its 

effects. (See app. II for a detailed description of the analysis.) In 2002, the 

agencies updated the analysis for the western states, estimating that almost 

183 million acres in western states alone have highly altered vegetation. 

Based on additional analysis, the agencies estimated that the amount of 

highly altered vegetation nationwide could vary from 90 to 200 million 

acres. In the 2002 analysis, the agencies estimated that 99 million acres of 

Forest Service and BLM lands in western states have highly altered 

vegetation. Refinement of the analysis for the nation is expected to be 

completed in 2005. 

5

Kirsten M. Schmidt, James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendel J. Hann, and David L. 

Bunnell, Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel 

Management, GTR RMRS-87 (Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station: April 2002).
Page 11 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

The National Fire Plan6 recognizes the need for restoring historic, or 

characteristic, vegetation conditions as an important way to reduce the 

risks of wildland fire and its effects. Under historic conditions, each 

vegetation type has a characteristic fire “regime,” in which the vegetation 

and species have adapted to, and benefit from, the kind of fires that occur 

there. Fires that occur in a given fire regime display similar fire behavior, 

which refers to how frequently fires burn, how intensely they burn, and 

how large they grow. Furthermore, the effects of fires in different fire 

regimes can be more or less severe, depending on the types of fires that 

typically burn there. For example, ecosystems such as ponderosa pine 

forests benefit from and are sustained by the frequent occurrence of less 

intense fires to remove brush and small trees, which allows the large trees 

to survive and grow. The severity of effects of these fires on resources and 

the ecosystem are usually low or moderate. On the other hand, other 

ecosystems, such as lodgepole pine forests, rely on less frequent but more 

intense fires to remove all the trees and regenerate a new stand from seeds 

dropped by fire-adapted cones. These fires are typically intense, but they 

are characteristic of the ecosystem and are needed to sustain it. 

In 2001 and 2002, as part of the National Fire Plan, the federal agencies, 

states, and others involved in wildland fire management developed a 10-

year strategy and implementation plan to reduce the risks of wildland fire 

to communities and ecosystems. The strategy established four broad goals 

for wildland fire management: (1) improving fire prevention and 

suppression for those areas that need it; (2) reducing hazardous fuels, using 

both natural and managed fire or mechanical means; (3) restoring fireadapted ecosystems, both by reducing fuels and rehabilitating burned 

areas; and (4) promoting community assistance to help conduct all these 

fire management activities. The implementation plan established specific 

measures for showing progress toward each of the goals.7

6

While the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and the National Fire Plan are distinct 

efforts, they are complementary. The policy, updated in 2001, provides broad policy for 

federal agencies, while the National Fire Plan focuses on implementing interagency plans. 

7

To deal with the need for fuel reduction and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, the 

departments have drafted a joint fuel reduction policy entitled Protecting People and 

Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuel Treatment Strategy. The cohesive strategy, although 

first drafted in 2002, had not been released as of June 2004. It identifies the federal agencies’ 

strategy for dealing with fuel reduction and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. 
Page 12 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Reducing hazardous fuels is one of the key tools for reducing the risks of 

wildland fires. Evidence from fires, such as that shown in figure 2, 

encourages managers and scientists to believe that areas treated to reduce 

vegetation can help to slow down the progress of wildland fires that occur; 

in addition, the evidence leads managers to believe that treated areas do 

not suffer as severe effects from burning as they would without the 

treatment.8

 In addition, researchers have conducted modeling that 

indicates strategically placed fuel reduction areas can slow the spread of 

wildland fire across a landscape. Empirical confirmation is needed, 

although some forests, such as the forests in the Sierra Nevada, are 

working to apply these ideas in their fuel reduction treatments. Debate 

continues not only over the effectiveness of treatments, but over the extent 

and duration of treatments needed. These are areas that federal and 

university researchers continue to pursue through the Joint Fire Science 

Program9

 and other research programs. Despite uncertainties related to the 

effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments, federal and other wildland fire 

managers believe that they know enough to proceed with treatments in 

particular areas while research is completed. 

8

See Graham, Russell, et al., Scientific Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify 

Wildfire Behavior and Severity, RMRS-GTR-120 (Ogden, Utah, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station: April 2004).

9

The Congress established the Joint Fire Science Program in 1998 for the Forest Service and 

the Department of the Interior to conduct and sponsor research projects aimed at better 

understanding accumulated fuels and ways to reduce them.
Page 13 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Figure 2: Effects of Wildland Fire in Treated and Untreated Areas Burned by 

Wildland Fire

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy requires that federal lands 

with burnable vegetation have a fire management plan. Of the 750 million 

acres managed by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, the 

Forest Service and BLM manage 453 million acres of forest and rangeland. 

Although the Forest Service manages most of the federal forested land in 

the nation—about 192 million acres—about 55 million acres of BLM’s 261 

million acres are forested, while the remainder contain grass and 

shrublands.10 A fire management plan produced by each forest or BLM field 

office establishes the objectives, strategies, and resources needed to carry 

10BLM’s lands include about 11 million acres of forested land, which is determined to have 

commercially viable species, and almost 44 million acres of woodlands, which are 

determined to be covered in tree species that are not considered commercially viable, such 

as juniper trees.

(A)

1.

3.

2.

(B)

Photo (B)

Shows an area at ground-level that 

was mechanically treated prior to the 

Hayman fire. Because of the 

treatment the area burned with low 

intensity.

(Note: Photos (A) and (B) were taken 

in September, a few months later 

after the fire.)

Sources: Forest Service (photos); GAO (presentation).

Photo (A)

Location 1. shows an 

aerial view of an area that 

had been treated with a 

prescribed burn prior to 

the Hayman fire in 

Colorado. The treated 

area decreased the local 

intensity of the fire.

Locations 2. and 3. show 

surrounding aerial views 

of areas that were 

untreated prior to the 

Hayman fire and burned 

with greater intensity.
Page 14 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

out the fire program for that office. The plan divides a forest or BLM field 

office into smaller fire management units for which fire management 

strategies, including suppression, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and 

nonfire fuel treatments, are coordinated. The forests and BLM offices—in 

conjunction with other federal agencies—have been directed to complete 

updated fire plans in 2004. 

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy also states that each forest 

and BLM field office should base its fire plan on its land management plan. 

Both the Forest Service and BLM manage their lands for multiple uses, 

including timber production, wildlife, recreation, and wilderness uses. 

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the law that directs 

the planning of national forests in the Forest Service, all of the 155 national 

forests have land and resource management plans for the lands they 

manage.11 Generally, these plans divide a forest into smaller management 

units with specific desired conditions to meet the agency’s objectives for 

the different resources in that area. Similarly, BLM field offices, which are 

organized under state offices in 12 western states, develop resource 

management plans under the Federal Land Management Policy Act for the 

lands they manage. Similar to the national forests’ plans, these plans 

identify the specific desired conditions that will meet the agency’s 

objectives in that area. During the next 8 years, over half of the forests will 

be updating their land and resource management plans; BLM offices are 

also in the process of updating their resource management plans. Although 

many of the existing plans included little or no discussion of wildland fire 

and its effects, vegetation and fuel conditions, or the tools for managing 

wildland fire, the new plans will discuss these as appropriate. Currently, 

each agency’s regulations require an environmental impact statement to 

accompany a plan revision.12 

11Because some forests are grouped with others in administrative units, these forests 

develop one combined plan. For this reason, 123 forests will revise their resource 

management plans.

12In proposed amendments to its NFMA regulations, the Forest Service would not require 

the preparation of an environmental impact statement for every plan revision. The agency 

asserts that it may comply with NEPA by preparing an environmental assessment for plan 

revisions under some circumstances, or by categorically excluding certain plan revisions 

from NEPA analysis because not all plan revisions will have significant environmental 

effects. An environmental group has indicated it will challenge the new planning rule in 

court. According to the Forest Service, regardless of whether it prepares an environmental 

impact statement to accompany a forest plan revision, it will conduct environmental 

analyses for these revisions. 
Page 15 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

To implement their land and resource management plans, the agencies 

carry out specific projects—addressing, for example, fuel reduction, timber 

sales, grazing, habitat improvement, and recreation. Because these projects 

may cause environmental effects, the agencies generally carry out either an 

environmental assessment, which is a less detailed analysis, or an 

environmental impact statement for their proposed projects. These 

analyses may consider different approaches for carrying out a project—

called action alternatives. The agencies may also consider an alternative 

that involves taking no action—called the no-action alternative. In 

developing their analyses, the agencies are required to disclose the 

potential environmental effects of alternatives. 

Wildland Fires Have 

Wide-Ranging Effects 

on Environmental 

Resources and 

Ecosystems, 

Depending on a Range 

of Factors

While they burn and afterward, wildland fires have dramatic effects on 

environmental resources and ecosystems, including the production of large 

amounts of smoke, the burning of trees and other vegetation, and the 

erosion of soil into streams and lakes. However, fires can also benefit 

resources by recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth, and 

adding material to streams that improves spawning habitat for fish. The 20 

fires included in our survey highlighted the complex, wide-ranging—and 

sometimes contradictory—effects of fire on both individual resources, 

such as trees and streams, and ecosystems. For the 20 wildland fires in our 

survey, the land managers viewed the effects of the wildland fires as 

adverse, neutral, or beneficial, depending on a number of factors, including 

when the effects were described—in the short term or the long term—and 

the type and condition of the vegetation in the area that burned. The 

managers also reported that the 20 fires had effects across broad 

landscapes and that these effects varied in severity. The wildland fires in 

our survey burned over 158,000 acres of federal land in 10 states: Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 

and Wyoming, with as few as 243 acres and as many as almost 50,000 acres 

burning in one fire. (See app. III for the definition of severity used in our 

survey and app. IV for a detailed description of our survey results.)
Page 16 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Fire Effects on Individual 

Resources Vary in the Short 

and Long Term

Fire effects can be considered as adverse, neutral, or beneficial depending, 

in part, on which resource is evaluated and the time frame over which the 

effects are considered. Fire effects are often described at three times: (1) 

immediately after the fire; (2) in the short term, which lasts from 1 to less 

than 10 years after the fire; and (3) in the long term, which lasts 10 years or 

more after a fire.13 Unlike fire damage to homes, ecological damages from 

fire are more difficult to determine immediately after the fire because 

burned areas look devastated, even when these conditions are part of the 

natural, fire-adapted cycle. For example, although large, intense fires can 

kill vegetation in the burned area and generate substantial smoke, some 

vegetation, such as aspen and native grasses, regrows quickly from root 

systems. Also, although fires can kill individual animals in the short term, in 

the long term, many species are attracted to burned areas because of 

increases in food sources from new plant growth, increased numbers of 

insects and other prey, or because of increased denning or nesting habitat 

that dead trees provide. Figure 3 shows, conceptually, the effects and 

recovery of vegetation after a high-severity wildland fire over the short and 

long term.

Figure 3: Conceptual Short- and Long-Term Effects on Vegetation After a HighSeverity Wildland Fire

13We used the Forest Service’s Fire Effects Information System to define short-term effects 

as those lasting less than 10 years and long-term effects as those lasting 10 or more years.

Long-term severity

Recovery period (in years)

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fire

occurs

Ecological response (change in green biomass)

Burned

Forest site

Short-term Long-term

Growth

Sources: Forest Service (graph); GAO (presentation).
Page 17 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

When we surveyed Forest Service and BLM officials about the effects of the 

20 fires that occurred on federal lands, land managers consistently 

responded that fire effects would be less adverse in the long term than in 

the short term for each ecological resource, even though their responses 

differed across resources. Officials identified whether the fire had an 

adverse, neutral, or beneficial effect on each of several resources in both 

the short and long term. As shown in table 1, while many land managers in 

our survey indicated these fires would have adverse effects on individual 

resources in the short term, fewer responded that the effects would be 

adverse in the long term. A discussion of the effects on each of the 

individual resources follows the table.

Table 1: Assessment of Overall Effects on Individual Resources in the Short and 

Long Term 

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM land managers.

Notes: Because the officials provided answers about the effects of a fire on each resource, the 

columns do not add to 20.

The responses are based on the opinions of land managers.

Resource and time 

period Beneficial 

Neither 

beneficial nor 

adverse Adverse 

No basis to judge, 

not applicable, or

not answered

Air

 Short term 1 7 9 3

 Long term 1 1 2 16

Threatened and endangered species habitat

 Short term 4 3 3 10

 Long term 3 8 1 8

Other species’ habitat

 Short term 5 5 10 0

 Long term 9 6 4 1

Soil

 Short term 5 5 10 0

 Long term 4 9 7 0

Vegetation

 Short term 10 0 10 0

 Long term 8 4 6 2

Water and watersheds

 Short term 11 0 9 0

 Long term 6 9 5 0
Page 18 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Effects on air: Although officials reported that nine fires in our sample had 

adverse short-term effects on the air, only two expected long-term adverse 

effects on air quality, while many did not indicate what long-term effects 

these fires had on the air. For example, although the Pony Express II fire in 

Nevada released an estimated 54 tons of particulate matter into the air 

when it burned, BLM officials did not expect any long-term effects from 

this fire on air quality because the burned area is far from homes or towns 

and there are no nearby sources of air pollution that might have a 

cumulative effect.

Effects on threatened and endangered species habitat: Agency officials 

reported that 10 of the fires in our sample had no identifiable effect on 

threatened and endangered species habitat in the short term. Similarly, the 

majority of the fires had either no identifiable long-term effect on the 

habitat of these species or had a neutral effect. Eight threatened and 

endangered species inhabited the areas covered by 5 fires in our sample, 

including the Canada lynx and the Northern spotted owl. (See table 10 in 

app. IV.) Officials indicated that although none of the fires in our sample 

posed a threat to the survival and recovery of a threatened or endangered 

species population in the short term, these 5 fires had at least some local 

impact on a threatened or endangered species or its habitat. Fires have 

complex effects within and among populations of endangered species 

because their effects on habitat can both negatively and positively 

influence their chances of survival. For example, a nearly 2,500 acre fire in 

Louisiana’s Kisatchie National Forest had a negative effect on the redcockaded woodpecker’s nesting habitat, while improving its foraging 

habitat by thinning vegetation—a factor the Forest Service official reported 

is likely to aid in its recovery. During site visits, Forest Service officials in 

Montana told us that the effect of a wildland fire on endangered fish, such 

as the bull trout, depends more on whether the affected streams are 

contiguous to other streams than on the fire itself. Locally, some fish may 

be killed, but if streams are well connected, other fish can find refuge by 

migrating away until the fire is over and then returning to recolonize 

burned areas. On the other hand, isolated fish populations living in an 

environment without these critical stream linkages are likely to be very 

vulnerable to fire. For example, in Arizona after the Aspen fire in 2003, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service removed the endangered fish, the Gila chub, from 

isolated reaches of Sabino Creek near Tucson to prevent it from being 

killed by potential runoff from burned lands. 

Effects on other species’ habitats: Agency officials reported that 10 fires 

had adverse effects on other species’ habitat in the short term, while 5 fires 
Page 19 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

had beneficial effects. In some cases, officials indicated that the loss of 

vegetation caused a loss of cover and habitat for species such as the sage 

grouse, which is a species that concerns land managers. However, officials 

stated that fires had beneficial effects on grasses by increasing their 

productivity, in turn providing forage for grazing animals. In the long term, 

officials reported that 9 fires had a beneficial effect on species’ habitat, 

while 6 had neutral effects. For example, officials stated that although 

short-term effects may be adverse, the return to a historic fire regime 

increased the diversity of vegetation and would ultimately help species like 

the snowshoe hare.

Effects on soil: While officials reported that 10 fires had adverse effects on 

soil in the short term, they reported that 9 fires had neutral effects in the 

long term. For example, officials indicated that the short-term loss of 

vegetation cover after the Horse Creek fire would cause soil erosion and 

loss. In the long term, officials reported that most effects on soil would 

diminish, although an official reported that soil erosion after the Pony 

Express II fire would decrease soil productivity in intensely burned areas, 

and another official indicated that soil productivity would be increased 

because of increased organic matter released in the Sheep Mountain fire.

Effects on vegetation: Officials reported that, in the short term, 10 fires had 

beneficial effects on vegetation, while 10 fires had adverse effects. For 

example, BLM officials described the mix of burned and unburned areas 

within the perimeter of the Sheep Mountain fire in Wyoming as beneficial 

because it created a mosaic of vegetation types of different ages, with more 

grasses growing in burned areas. After another fire, however, officials 

stated that the fire had removed native vegetation and allowed the spread 

of cheat grass. In the long term, officials viewed 8 fires as having beneficial 

effects, while 6 had adverse effects. For example, officials described the 

Missionary Ridge fire as helping to return the long-term balance of different 

vegetation. Officials indicated that other fires would increase the chance of 

invasive species to spread.

Effects on watersheds: Nine of the fires in our sample had adverse effects 

on water and watersheds in the short term, while 11 had beneficial effects. 

In the long term, officials reported that 9 fires will have neutral effects and 

5 fires will likely cause adverse effects to water and watersheds. Of the 20 

fires, 3 severely burned 10 watersheds that supply domestic water to 

municipalities or towns, and in two cases, officials said the fires had a 

negative effect on water quality that lasted from 3 to 5 years. In areas 

burned by 8 fires, floods, debris flows, or landslides occurred within the 
Page 20 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

fire perimeter, yet the long-term effects of fire on water and watersheds are 

expected to be more neutral as these effects subside. For example, 

although the Horse Creek fire in Oregon resulted in a short-term increase in 

the sediment in stream channels, BLM officials reported that the 

sedimentation will decline as vegetation recovers and sediment deposited 

into the channels will be moved downstream by natural stream flows in the 

long term. 

Effects of Wildland Fire 

Vary Depending on 

Topography, Climate and 

Weather, and Vegetation 

Conditions

Researchers and land managers describe fire effects using levels of 

severity: low severity, moderate severity, and high severity. (See app. III for 

the definition of severity used in our survey.)14 The severity of effects 

depends on the intensity of the fire—the amount of heat released in a fire—

and its duration in relation to the historic fire regime. The intensity of a fire 

depends on its topography, climate and weather, and vegetation or fuels. 

First, topography includes locally unique site properties, such as the slope 

of the terrain, the direction in which the ground slopes, and the soil 

moisture, each of which affect how intensely a fire burns. For example, 

fires burn faster and more intensely on steep slopes, which allow a fire to 

move uphill driven by winds, and on south-facing slopes, which are drier 

than north-facing slopes. Second, climate and seasonal weather conditions 

such as drought cycles and high winds also determine how a fire will burn 

and how severe the effects of burning will be. Climate and weather also 

determine the extent to which storms occur after a fire; stronger and more 

frequent storms can result in increased erosion and landslides. Finally, the 

type and condition of vegetation in an area determines how much “fuel” is 

available to burn and thus how intense a fire will be and how severe its 

effects may be. For example, rangelands have less vegetation, and 

therefore lower amounts of fuel to burn, than forested areas. Furthermore, 

areas with accumulated vegetation have more fuels to burn than they 

would under more natural conditions. 

Whether or not the environmental effects of a wildland fire are considered 

as adverse, neutral, or beneficial depends on the degree to which 

vegetation conditions have been changed from the historic fire regime in an 

area. For example, a fire that burns in a high- elevation forest filled with 

spruce and fir trees—a fire regime that historically has fewer but more 

14Fire or burn severity is a term that qualitatively describes how fire affects vegetation and 

soil. It is a term that refers to how much of the vegetation or soil is consumed in the fire 

rather than a term that describes the beneficial or adverse nature of the effects. 
Page 21 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

intense fires, with more severe effects—is less likely to have adverse 

effects to the environment and that ecosystem than an uncharacteristically 

intense wildfire that burns in an ecosystem in which frequent, low-intensity 

fires occurred historically, such as ponderosa pine. Forest Service and BLM 

scientists and land managers describe areas in which vegetation has 

accumulated abnormally or has been altered as having uncharacteristic 

vegetation and fuel conditions and areas in which vegetation has 

accumulated at normal levels or not been altered as having characteristic 

vegetation and fuel conditions. Likewise, they describe fires that are similar 

to those that occurred under an area’s historic fire regime as characteristic 

and those that are not similar to the historic fire regime as uncharacteristic. 

Characteristic fires tend to have effects on the environment and 

ecosystems that are appropriately severe for that vegetation type and fire 

regime, and which are therefore not considered negative, whereas 

uncharacteristic fires usually have unexpectedly severe environmental 

effects, which are often considered negative. Of the 20 fires included in our 

survey, 10 burned with predominantly characteristic effects, 3 burned with 

a mix of characteristic and uncharacteristic effects, and 7 burned with 

predominantly uncharacteristic effects. Table 2 shows that of the 10 fires 

with predominantly characteristic effects, 6 occurred in areas in which 

vegetation conditions experienced low levels of alteration or accumulation, 

and the remaining 4 occurred in areas with moderate levels of vegetation 

alteration or accumulation. Fires that resulted in both mixed and 

uncharacteristic effects occurred only in areas in which vegetation 

conditions were moderately or highly altered or accumulated (see table 2).
Page 22 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 2: Description of Characteristic and Uncharacteristic Fire Effects and Vegetation Conditions

Vegetation conditions, amount of alteration

Fire 

Federal acres 

burned Low Medium High

Characteristic (+)

Mixed (+/-)

Uncharacteristic (-)

Sheep Mountain

(Wyoming) 21,370 x +

Burgdorf Junction 

(Idaho) 17,207 x +

Elko 13/#3 

(Nevada) 12,544 x +

Abert 

(Oregon) 10,100 x +

Stables

(California) 4,162 x +

Horse Creek

(Oregon) 1,839 x +

Pony Express II 

(Nevada) 1,806 x +

Crusoe

(Nevada) 1,386 x +

Elk Mountain

(Montana) 667 x +

Y-Mountain

(Utah) 437 x +

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado) 49,990 x +/-

Rough Diamonds 

(Idaho) 7,268 x +/-

Springer

(Arizona) 666 x +/-

Crimson Clover 

(Idaho) 14,466 x -

Boulder Hills 

(Montana) 5,400 x -

Cow Hollow 

(Oregon) 3,022 x -

Longleaf Vista 

(Louisiana) 2,497 x -

Tipton Ranch

(Nevada) 2,025 x -

Hyampom 

(California) 1,053 x -
Page 23 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM land managers.

Notes: This sample cannot be projected to all wildland fires. 

The responses are based on the opinions of land managers.

As table 2 shows, the third largest fire in our sample, the Burgdorf Junction 

fire in Idaho, had characteristic effects. For this reason, Forest Service 

officials considered the majority of the effects from this fire to be 

beneficial, even though the fire burned more than 17,000 acres of federal 

land, including areas that provided habitat for several threatened and 

endangered species. Overall, the officials considered the fire effects to 

support processes for maintaining the ecosystem, which includes 

lodgepole pine and Douglas fir forests. For example, officials stated that 

the debris flows from the fire introduced gravel into streams, providing 

new spawning grounds for fish. In addition, officials stated that burned 

areas of the lodgepole forest were turned into more open stands of brush 

and grasses, improving gray wolf and lynx habitat. 

Of the three fires that officials identified as having a mix of characteristic 

and uncharacteristic effects, one—the Missionary Ridge fire in Colorado—

was the largest fire included in our sample. Forest Service officials noted 

that the adverse effects of the fire in the short term included numerous 

floods and debris flows, which affected the water quality of streams 

supplying water to surrounding municipalities. They also indicated that in 

areas where the fire burned uncharacteristically, long-term adverse effects 

on streams included destabilized banks and loss of riparian area. On the 

other hand, the officials noted that in areas where the fire burned 

characteristically, changes to the streambed and riparian areas would not 

be adverse over the long term. 

Of the seven fires with uncharacteristic effects, Forest Service officials 

identified the smallest fire in our sample—the Horse fire of 243 acres—as 

having adverse effects on resources. A Forest Service official reported that 

this fire in Idaho’s Salmon-Challis National Forest had immediate adverse 

effects on the vegetation because of the size of the severely burned area, 

although he believed that in the long term, fire-killed trees might benefit the 

Horse

(Idaho) 243 x -

Total acres 158,148

(Continued From Previous Page)

Vegetation conditions, amount of alteration

Fire 

Federal acres 

burned Low Medium High

Characteristic (+)

Mixed (+/-)

Uncharacteristic (-)
Page 24 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Canada lynx by providing denning areas. Similarly, BLM officials viewed 

the 2,025-acre Tipton Ranch fire in Nevada as having adverse effects on 

vegetation because the fire exacerbated the conversion of native plant 

species such as grass and sage brush to invasive grasses such as cheat 

grass. Our survey showed that the number of acres vulnerable to 

population by noxious and invasive plant species such as cheat grass—

which competes with native vegetation and alters the historic fire regime—

after the 20 fires increased from about 32,130 acres to about 58,800 acres 

(83 percent). Several officials raised concerns about the spread of such 

invasive species as cheat grass into sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper 

vegetation types because it is highly flammable, and areas dominated by it 

may burn frequently. More frequent fires in such ecosystems may eliminate 

the native plants such as sage brush, which is important habitat for sage 

grouse.

Fires Have Broad 

Landscape Effects 

In addition to its effects on individual resources such as soil, water, and air, 

fire creates landscape patterns to the extent that it burns large areas and 

leaves other areas lightly burned or unburned. As shown in figure 4, 

landscapes are geographic areas of varying sizes, encompassing tens of 

thousands of acres or more, that may contain smaller landscapes and 

interacting and interconnected ecosystems that are defined by geological, 

soil, climate, and other physical factors. Landscapes are separated by 

natural features, including watersheds, such as the example in figure 4 

from the Interior Columbia Basin, and encompass different stands of trees 

and, in some ecosystems, patches of open areas among the stands of trees. 

Landscapes may include a mix of government and private lands and may 

cross state boundaries. 
Page 25 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Figure 4: Relationship of Ecosystem and Landscape Levels 

The landscape effects of fire include the patterns, or patches, of vegetation 

that are burned with varying degrees of severity, including some that are 

not burned at all. Under natural conditions, when fires burn some areas 

severely and other areas lightly or not at all, they create irregularly sized 

openings in vegetation layers, changing the size, shape, and age of the 

vegetation in those patches. These landscape effects, which reflect the 

degree of environmental change from burning and affect other 

N

Regional ecosystem (A):

An area encompassing parts of 

several states and containing 

numerous geologically and 

climatically distinct areas and 

subbasins.

Landscape -- subbasin (B):

A large landscape level 

encompassing several watersheds 

and subwatersheds, which are 

smaller hydrologic and topographic 

areas.

Landscape -- subwatershed (C):

A smaller landscape level defined 

by hydrology and topography and 

comprised of patches of varying 

forest and rangeland types. 

B

C

D

A

0 100 200

0 10 20

Miles

Miles

012 34 5

Miles

Stand (D): 

Typical dense, multilayered forest 

stand in a subwatershed in which, 

according to agency officials, a fuel 

reduction project may be considered.

Sources: Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Laboratory (graphic); GAO (adaptation).
Page 26 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

environmental resources accordingly, can be described as being of low, 

moderate, or high severity. Under natural conditions, fires with lowseverity effects are those that kill the least amount of vegetation; some 

burned areas may appear much like the unburned forest. Fires with 

moderate-severity effects are those in which vegetation is killed but some 

trees remain standing; the regeneration that occurs after the fire results in 

stands of trees of different ages. Fires with high-severity effects are those 

in which most of the trees and vegetation are killed over large areas, 

leaving open areas in which the tree stands that regenerate will be the same 

age. Ecosystems in which vegetation and fire are characteristic, or fireadapted, are resilient, and the landscape reflects the functioning of 

interdependent plant and animal communities. In ecosystems in which 

vegetation and fire are uncharacteristic, fire severity can exceed the 

capacity of the ecosystem to regenerate, and the landscape reflects 

changes to the plant and animal communities that used to exist there. 

Figure 5 shows the range of burn severity patterns attributed to our sample 

of 20 fires. Of the 7 fires with uncharacteristic effects in our survey, the 

most frequent reason officials cited for a fire to be considered 

uncharacteristic was not the size of the fire, but the size of the patches the 

fire had burned severely. The fires demonstrate a wide variety of burn 

severity patterns within two extremes. While Wyoming’s Sheep Mountain 

fire severely burned 100 percent of the federal lands within its perimeter, 

all of the federal acreage burned by Oregon’s Abert fire burned at low 

severity. 
Page 27 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Figure 5: Acres of Vegetation Burned Lightly, Moderately, and Severely in 20 Sample Fires 

Federal acres burneda State Location Fire

Colorado Missionary Ridge

Wyoming Sheep Mountain

Burgdorf Junctionb

Crimson Clover

Elko 13/#3

Idaho

Range of total

federal acres

< 50,000 to

 >10,000

<10,000 to

 > 100

Idaho

Nevada

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (30%)

Moderately (30%)

Lightly (40%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

49,990

70,479

15,000

15,000

19,900

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (7%)

Moderately (93%)

Lightly (0%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

12,544

13,360

11,644

900

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (25%)

Moderately (10%)

Lightly (65%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

14,466

16,502

3,615

1,450

9,401

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (100%)

Moderately (0%)

Lightly (0%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

21,370

21,370

33,929

0

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (0%)

Moderately (63%)

Lightly (32%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

17,207

64,207

10,900

0

5,500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Page 28 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Federal acres burneda State Location Fire

Oregon Abert

Idaho Rough Diamonds

Boulder Hills

Stables

Cow Hollow

Montana

Range of total

federal acres

< 50,000 to

 >10,000

<10,000 to

 > 100

California

Oregon

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (61%)

Moderately (15%)

Lightly (24%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

5,400

12,346

3,300

800

1,300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (0%)

Moderately (0%)

Lightly (100%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0

0

10,100

10,100

10,100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (78%)

Moderately (22%)

Lightly (0%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

8,913

7,268

5,662

1,606

0

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (12%)

Moderately (81%)

Lightly (7%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

6,544

4,162

480

3,382

300

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (0%)

Moderately (10%)

Lightly (90%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

4,131

3,022

0

300

2,722
Page 29 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Federal acres burneda State Location Fire

Louisiana Longleaf Vista

Nevada Tipton Ranch

Horse Creek

Pony Express II

Crusoe

Oregon

Range of total

federal acres

< 50,000 to

 >10,000

<10,000 to

 > 100

Nevada

Nevada

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (49%)

Moderately (51%)

Lightly (0%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

3,763

1,839

900

939

0

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (64)

Moderately (0%)

Lightly (36%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

1,806

1,806

1,151

0

655

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (30%)

Moderately (66%)

Lightly (4%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

1,386

1,386

415

921

50

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (0%)

Moderately (90%)

Lightly (10%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

2,031

2,025

0

1,825

200

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (56%)

Moderately (38%)

Lightly (6%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

2,500

2,497

1,400

950

147
Page 30 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

a

Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

b

Percentages do not add to 100 because the method used to measure burn severity did not always 

distinguish unburned acres. Acres in the fire perimeter include only federal acres.

c

Survey respondent indicated these values are unknown.

Federal acres burneda State Location Fire

California Hyampom

Montana Elk Mountain

Springer

Y-Mountain

Horse

Arizona

Range of total

federal acres

< 50,000 to

 >10,000

<10,000 to

 > 100

Utah

Idaho

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (36%)

Moderately (47%)

Lightly (16%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

1,065

1,053

380

500

173

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (95%)

Moderately (3%)

Lightly (2%)

Acres burned (in hundreds)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

270

243

230

7

6

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (4%)

Moderately (11%)

Lightly (85%)

Acres burned (in hundreds)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

874

666

26

72

568

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely (67%)

Moderately (30%)

Lightly (3%)

Acres burned (in thousands)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

1,024

667

445

202

20

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Total federal acres

Acres in fire perimeter

Severely

Moderately

Lightly

Acres burned (in hundreds)

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510

461

437

c

c

c
Page 31 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Forest Service and 

BLM Do Not Gather 

Comprehensive 

Information on the 

Varied Effects of 

Wildland Fires on 

Ecosystems and 

Landscapes 

Although the National Fire Plan established a goal of restoring forest and 

rangeland ecosystems to conditions that are more fire-adapted, and 

therefore more resilient to fire, land managers do not have comprehensive 

data on the broad landscape effects of wildland fire to help them monitor 

these effects over time. While the Forest Service and BLM gather 

information on the severity of environmental effects from individual 

wildland fires, they do not gather data that captures the long-term severity 

of fires across landscapes. Through emergency stabilization programs, the 

forests and BLM field offices gather information on the effects on soils and 

watersheds to estimate the likelihood that soil disturbances caused by 

individual fires will result in flooding and landslides. However, while the 

agencies’ data collection efforts include fire histories—that is, the 

occurrence, location, and size of fires—they do not have a monitoring plan 

to gather landscape data across fires and they do not yet consistently map 

the long-term, landscape-level severity of wildland fires. This data would 

help the agencies to assess whether, over time, fires in forest and rangeland 

ecosystems are burning with more or less severe effects and whether they 

are being restored to more resilient, or fire-adapted, conditions. 

Forest Service and BLM 

Collect Data on the 

Environmental Effects of 

Individual Fires to Help 

Them Restore and 

Rehabilitate Burned Lands

Although the Forest Service and BLM are generally not required to gather 

environmental data on the effects of wildland fires, the agencies’ field 

offices do collect data that indicate the potential for flooding, erosion, and 

landslides to occur in the short term after a fire for the purpose of treating 

areas that need emergency stabilization. Both the Forest Service and BLM 

use multidisciplinary teams of experts, such as ecologists and soil 

scientists, to gather and review data on individual fires that have altered 

conditions enough to warrant the emergency stabilization. These teams—

called Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) teams by the Forest 

Service and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) teams by 

BLM—gather data on vegetation, soils, and stream channels and evaluate 

burn severity and erosion hazard potential in areas affected by fire. Both 

agencies use this evaluation process to assess the potential emergency and 

identify appropriate treatments to stabilize areas and to protect homes and 

other values at risk, such as roads. The data are reported and maintained in 

fire-specific files in the forest and BLM field offices. 
Page 32 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Although the BAER and ESR reports do not address the long-term effects 

of fires, the Forest Service and BLM generally collect more extensive data 

on the effects of large fires affecting areas where they plan to conduct 

rehabilitation or restoration work.15 The Forest Service uses a variety of 

funds, including funds raised from salvaging dead and damaged trees, to 

pay for rehabilitation work. When the forest staff identify fire-damaged 

areas that they wish to rehabilitate, they gather data on environmental 

resources for the purpose of developing an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement for a salvage sale and associated 

rehabilitation or restoration projects. For example, the staff at Bitterroot 

and Sequoia National Forests determined that they would conduct 

rehabilitation projects for very large fires that occurred on their lands in 

2000—the Bitterroot fires and the McNally fire. In the case of the Bitterroot 

fires, the forest staff collected extensive data, including detailed 

information on soil and watershed characteristics, vegetation, wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, and noxious weeds. During and after the McNally fire in 

central California, the Sequoia National Forest staff gathered similar data 

on the fire’s effects and measured the smoke output from the fire and its 

effect on air quality. Because the rehabilitation of rangelands that have 

burned often involves seeding the burned sites with fast-growing grasses to 

retain soils and forage for wildlife, BLM receives funding to pay for such 

work. Field office staff collect data on these rehabilitation needs as part of 

their rehabilitation efforts; the data collected under this program includes 

data on topography, soils, native and non-native plants, wildlife habitat, and 

threatened and endangered species that inhabit the project area. 

Furthermore, some forest and BLM staff, after years in which numerous 

fires have occurred, have developed special reports on the effects of the 

different fires across the region. For example, the Intermountain and 

Northern Regions of the Forest Service16 assessed the extent and effects of 

the large wildland fires these areas experienced during 2000. They 

collected data on the (1) number of air quality advisories to communities 

affected by the many fires involved; (2) flooding and sediment in streams 

15The Forest Service and BLM typically conduct emergency treatments in the first year after 

a fire. Within the first 3 years after a fire, the agencies conduct rehabilitation work, and after 

the third year, the agencies conduct restoration work.

16These regions include Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah, and portions of South 

Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, A Preliminary 

Assessment of the Extent and Effects of the 2000 Fires (Intermountain and Northern 

Regions, 2000).
Page 33 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

with native fish species, such as cutthroat and bull trout; and (3) adverse 

effects to sage grouse habitat. In addition, after a number of fires in 1999 

burned about 1.7 million acres in portions of four states that comprise the 

Great Basin—Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah—BLM issued17 a general 

report on the fires’ combined effects on this large geographic area. As part 

of this effort, BLM assessed the role wildland fire has played over time in 

the Great Basin—changing some healthy rangeland ecosystems populated 

by native plants into systems dominated by annual weeds, such as 

cheatgrass. According to the report, because this annual grass provides 

little or no cover or food for wildlife, sage grouse populations had 

decreased by more than one-third, a factor in the grouse’s possible 

consideration for listing as a threatened and endangered species.

Agencies’ Data Collection 

Does Not Address LongTerm Landscape Severity of 

Wildland Fire Effects

Over the long term, as the National Fire Plan and its activities are 

implemented, the Forest Service and BLM will need landscape data on 

wildland fire effects, including fire severity, to monitor whether they are 

restoring and maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems. Because wildland fires 

and the severity of their effects vary across different landscapes and 

ecosystems, land managers and scientists need data on the severity of 

effects to understand whether the severity of fires is changing, and 

therefore whether vegetation conditions need to be managed differently. A 

monitoring plan would provide the means for gathering consistent and 

comprehensive data over the long term on fire trends and severity. The 

agencies have started to develop systems and methods to gather the 

needed data including: (1) vegetation data, (2) historical fire and severity 

data, and (3) current severity data. However, they do not yet have the full 

capability to gather and use these data. When these data are integrated and 

assessed, they will provide the Forest Service and BLM with information on 

the historical fire regime that occurred in a given area and the expected fire 

severity. With such data, the agencies will have a baseline to determine 

whether fire severity is changing because of vegetation and fuel conditions. 

While the Forest Service and BLM use several different methods to gather 

information on vegetation conditions, they are working to develop a system 

of protocols and procedures to gather consistent nationwide data. Satellite 

images are currently used to provide data for individual forests and BLM 

offices to use in assessing their vegetation conditions. However, the Forest 

17Bureau of Land Management, National Office of Fire and Aviation, Out of the Ashes, an 

Opportunity (Boise, Idaho, 1999).
Page 34 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Service and BLM, as part of an interagency effort to gather consistent 

national data on vegetation conditions and related fuel conditions, are 

developing a database and related modeling tools called LANDFIRE to 

gather satellite data, interpret it, and compare and validate the data with 

data from actual sites on the ground. Satellite images capture data on 

thousands of acres or more, providing a landscape-level view of the 

resources for land managers. (See app. V for a discussion of the recording 

and use of satellite data.) When it is completed, LANDFIRE is expected to 

provide land management agencies with maps of their vegetation that, 

when combined with data on the physical conditions of the same areas, will 

show the natural vegetation cover type that should exist on the areas. The 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior funded the implementation of 

the system in 2004 and expect it to be completed for western states in 2006, 

for eastern states in 2008, and for the entire nation in 2009. In the interim, 

the agencies will use data that are already available.

In addition to vegetation data, historical fire and severity data are 

important for the agencies to understand the landscape severity of current 

fires. While the national forest and BLM field office staff collect historical 

fire data, including the occurrence, location, and size of wildland fires that 

have burned across a landscape, they do not consistently collect this data 

or data on the severity of effects for individual fires. Of the 13 forests and 

BLM offices we visited during our review, most were collecting severity 

data for large fires, but only one office had these data in a geographic 

information system database. A national database of fire history and 

severity data would help the agencies identify and monitor the actual 

effects of fire on vegetation and ecosystem conditions. While the Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council adopted a monitoring framework that includes fire 

severity in May 2004, it has not yet been implemented. The agencies are 

currently developing cost estimates and specific plans for implementing 

the framework.

Finally, while the forest and BLM field offices gather some data on severity 

of fires that burn on their lands, the agencies do not consistently collect 

data on burn severity that reflect the long-term effects of fires. The 

agencies use a mix of ground, aerial, and satellite data to measure the burn 

severity of different fires; however, the satellite data that they typically 

gather are better suited to show the short-term effects of wildland fire. The 

Forest Service and BLM generally compile satellite images taken a year 

before the fire and immediately after it to help them estimate the 

emergency stabilization needs of the area. In contrast, another approach to 

measuring severity involves comparing one satellite image taken 
Page 35 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

immediately before a fire and another about a year after to more accurately 

estimate the long-term ecological effects of the fire. This approach, 

developed by the National Park Service in an effort to measure the longterm effects of fire, includes factors that affect the recovery of an area over 

the long term, such as the number of seeds that remain in the soil, the 

proximity of seed sources from unburned areas, slope, soil moisture, and 

the amount of erosion that may occur. Although this approach has been 

used successfully on Park Service lands and by some forests and BLM 

offices, its use in evaluating Forest Service and BLM lands has not been 

widely tested. One of the applications that is still being developed and 

tested is the ability to update vegetation maps from the severity maps. This 

application could be useful in updating vegetation maps, including those 

that will be created by the LANDFIRE system once it is completed. If it is 

implemented as planned, LANDFIRE’s vegetation maps will be available to 

the forests and BLM offices about every 5 years. According to the National 

Park Service, this approach has been used to update some of the parks’ 

vegetation maps, thereby maintaining their usefulness in tracking progress 

in managing vegetation conditions and planning management activities.

The Forest Service and 

BLM Do Not 

Systematically Assess 

the Risks to 

Environmental 

Resources and 

Ecosystems to Target 

and Conduct Fuel 

Reduction Activities 

Although the National Fire Plan identifies the need to reduce the risk of 

environmental and ecosystem effects from wildland fires by targeting fuel 

reduction activities to the areas that face the greatest potential losses, the 

Forest Service and BLM do not systematically assess the risks to resources 

and ecosystems for the purpose of targeting fuel reduction projects. 

Because wildland fires affect both large landscapes and individual 

resources at specific sites, it is important to assess risk at both the broad 

landscape level and the more specific project-planning level. At the 

landscape level, the Forest Service and BLM do not have a common 

framework that includes the three elements for assessing risks: hazard, 

risk, and values. At the project level, although the agencies have recognized 

the need to better analyze the relative risks of undertaking fuel reduction 

activities versus not doing so, they do not have a systematic approach to 

assess these risks. Because they lack a systematic risk-based approach for 

targeting their fuel reduction projects across a landscape and within a 

project area, the agencies cannot ensure that they are reducing fuels in 

areas of highest risk to environmental resources and ecosystems. 
Page 36 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

A Risk Assessment 

Framework Would 

Systematically Analyze 

Hazard, Risk, and Values

In general, risk assessment is a process for evaluating a natural hazard, 

such as wildland fire, as well as the probability of the hazardous event 

occurring and the consequences or potential losses that would result if the 

event did occur. According to the National Academy of Public 

Administration, a systematic approach to risk assessment involves three 

elements: 

Hazard: A hazard is the potential event, such as a wildland fire, hurricane, 

or earthquake, and the conditions that cause it. In the case of wildland fire, 

both the fuel conditions that exist and the fire itself are the hazard. 

According to scientists and land managers, the increased vegetation in 

different ecosystems around the country has become more continuous and 

dense, resulting in larger fires that burn more intensely. For example, the 

Tyee fire burned 140,000 acres in Washington in 1994, in part because 

excess vegetation had grown into areas that, under natural conditions, 

would have less vegetation to act as fuel for the fire. 

Risk: Risk is the probability that an event such as a wildland fire will occur. 

By mapping the number and location of fires, scientists have discovered 

that some areas are more prone to fires than others. For example, Florida 

and the western states are more likely to experience wildland fire than the 

states along the East Coast and in the Midwest. Wildland fire ignites either 

because of lightning strikes, which occur along storm paths and prominent 

landscape features, such as mountain ridges, or because of human 

activities, such as camping, logging, agricultural burning, and careless 

smoking. 

Values: In general, values are the things that might be lost or damaged 

because of a hazard. In the case of wildland fire, social values that might be 

lost include the lives of both civilians and firefighters, cultural and 

historical resources, and artifacts and sacred sites. Economic values that 

might be lost include property and other infrastructure, resources such as 

timber and water, and recreation and tourism opportunities. In the case of 

environmental values, however, wildland fire can both damage and 

improve different environmental resources and ecosystems. The values 

that might be affected include ecosystems, species and their habitat, air 

and water quality, and soil and vegetation.

To prioritize areas needing fuel reduction, all three elements—hazard, risk, 

and value—need to be considered and ranked because, for example, an 

area with high vegetation hazard may or may not be in an area where fires 

are likely to occur, making it a lower priority for treatment. Furthermore, a 
Page 37 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

high hazard area may not be close to something of value that would be lost 

or damaged in a fire, also making it a lower priority for treatment. The 

National Fire Plan calls for the Forest Service and BLM to collaborate with 

state, local, and tribal entities in making decisions about what specific 

areas are in need of fuel reduction treatment. An assessment of hazard, 

risk, and values can form the basis for informing this collaborative 

approach.

According to the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research 

Council, a risk assessment supports decisions that need to be made.18 For 

this reason, a framework for assessing the risks of effects from wildland 

fires would also identify the types of decisions that need to be made at 

different organizational levels—the national, landscape, and project 

levels—and the risk information required to make the decisions. For 

example, in the case of fuel reduction activities, the types of decisions that 

need to be made at the national level include how many resources to 

allocate per year to reduce risk. Landscape-level decisions include 

determining which parts of the landscape are at the greatest risk of 

wildland fire and its potential effects. Project-level decisions include 

making tradeoffs among alternatives and their different effects.

Forest Service and BLM 

Lack a Framework for 

Assessing Risks to 

Ecosystems Across 

Landscapes to Target Fuel 

Reduction Activities

The Forest Service and BLM have not adopted a framework to 

systematically assess the risks of environmental effects of fires to support 

their fuel reduction efforts. Without addressing the three elements of a risk 

assessment—hazard, risk, and value—the agencies do not have a 

systematic way to target their fuel reduction activities across a landscape. 

The Forest Service and BLM nationwide assessment of vegetation, or fuel, 

conditions, conducted in 2000 and updated in 2002, addressed only one 

element of a risk assessment—hazard. Because of the need to prioritize 

their fuel reduction efforts, some Forest Service and BLM field offices have 

conducted assessments that include one or more elements of a risk 

assessment. However, these efforts are informal, incomplete or 

uncoordinated and therefore do not systematically address the need to 

identify and reduce ecosystem risks. 

18Paul C. Stern and Harvey V. Fineberg, eds., Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in 

a Democratic Society (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1996). 
Page 38 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Nationwide Assessment of 

Vegetation Conditions 

Considered Only Hazard 

Information, Not Risks and 

Values

In 2002, the Forest Service and BLM updated the national assessment of 

fuel conditions that estimated that about 99 million acres of the agencies’ 

land in 11 western states were highly altered from historic vegetation 

conditions.19 While the assessment also identified and collected data on fire 

occurrence, a factor in determining the probability that a fire will occur, the 

researchers did not include these risk data in the assessment because they 

were incomplete or inconsistent. In addition, although the assessment 

indicated which ecosystems might burn uncharacteristically and 

experience uncharacteristically severe effects from fire, it did not consider 

other values at risk, such as threatened and endangered species habitat 

that might be damaged or lost. A complete risk assessment—one that 

includes risk and values—could give national leaders a better idea of (1) 

the amount of fuel reduction that needs to be done per year to reduce the 

risks of wildland fires at the national level and (2) the amount of funding 

that needs to be allocated to reduce risks. For example, in 2002, a group of 

researchers involved in developing the national assessment conducted an 

independent study of options for reducing risks of effects from wildland 

fire through fuel reduction projects across landscapes and nationally.20 The 

study, which included information on the probability of fire occurring and 

the values at risk, concluded that reducing risks would require more work 

and funding than was allocated in 2002. While the study results have not 

been officially confirmed by the multiple agencies and organizations 

involved in conducting fuel reduction activities, it is an example of the riskbased approach needed to target fuel reduction activities and funding.

In late 2003, recognizing the need for some direction in how to conduct risk 

assessments, the Forest Service and BLM issued guidance in conjunction 

with the National Association of State Foresters. The guidance states that 

there are a number of valid assessment processes available for the agencies 

to use, including one approach that involves mapping data on four factors: 

(1) fire occurrence, (2) hazard, (3) values to be protected, and (4) 

protection capabilities. This guidance, however, focuses on communities 

and does not discuss how the risks to the environmental resources and 

19The national assessment was a one-time effort. The agencies expect the LANDFIRE system 

to provide periodic assessments of fuel conditions similar to this assessment. Like the 

national assessment, LANDFIRE will be based on hazard conditions and will not include 

risk and values at risk.

20W. Hann, M. Beighley, P. Teensma, T. Sexton, and M. Hilbruner, “A Cohesive Strategy for 

Protecting People and Sustaining Natural Resources: Predicting Outcomes for Program 

Options,” (Paper presented at “Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration 

Conference,” April 16-18, 2002). 
Page 39 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

ecosystems that the agencies are responsible for managing are to be 

assessed. It is important that the risks to environmental resources and 

ecosystems be assessed in considering fuel reduction across landscapes 

because different approaches are needed to manage environmental 

resources and ecosystems in different fire regimes. For example, it can be 

more difficult to treat forests and rangelands that burn with low frequency 

and high intensity, such as lodgepole pine forests, as opposed to areas that 

burn with high frequency and low intensity, such as ponderosa pine forests.

The Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station has developed a 

modeling protocol to assess the risks, as well as the benefits, of fire by 

considering three factors: (1) the probability of fire occurrence; (2) the 

expected severity of a fire; and (3) the ecological, social, and economic 

value ascribed to an area.21 Other agencies have developed risk assessment 

frameworks, tailored to their particular needs, that include hazard, risk, 

and values and identify the organizational levels that should conduct the 

risk assessment. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

provides funding to state and local governments for hazard mitigation on 

the basis of their assessment of (1) the natural hazard and the probability of 

future hazardous events, (2) state and local vulnerability to the hazards, 

and (3) the potential losses from the hazardous event. In addition, the 

Environmental Protection Agency has developed an ecological risk 

assessment framework that defines the values at risk on the basis of 

desired environmental conditions and can be applied at different 

organizational levels depending on the risk problem.

Some Forest Service and BLM 

Offices Have Conducted 

Independent Risk Assessments

To identify the areas with the highest levels of risk at the landscape level, 

some forests and BLM field offices, in conjunction with state and local 

governments, have applied their own approaches to assessing fuel 

conditions and risks. We reviewed fire planning processes and documents 

at 13 forest and BLM offices and found that several offices had applied risk 

assessment frameworks that they had either developed themselves or 

contributed to developing. Table 3 shows the forest and BLM offices that 

we visited and describes the type of assessment they conducted, including 

the elements of a risk assessment that were addressed.

21C. Miller, P. Landres, and P. Alaback, “Evaluating Risks and Benefits of Wildland Fire at 

Landscape Scales,” in L.F. Neuenschwander and K.C. Ryan, eds. Joint Fire Sciences 

Conference and Workshop: Proceedings, June 15-17, 2001: 78-87. 
Page 40 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 3: Forest Service and BLM Office Assessments and the Risk Elements Addressed 

Source: GAO.

Although the forests and BLM offices have undertaken independent efforts, 

some similarities exist in their approaches. Specifically, several of the units 

have attempted to include environment and ecosystem values in their 

mapping efforts. For example, Region 1 of the Forest Service assembled 

data on species habitat, water quality, soils, erosion potential, airsheds, and 

vegetation. The data are mapped, which provides managers with the 

location of important resources as they plan their fuel reduction activities. 

This team developed a computer program called the Multi-Resource 

Information Tool that uses the hazard, risk, and values information to rank 

different watersheds by different risk categories. In a similar way, some of 

National forest Assessment conducted and elements addressed

Arapaho-Roosevelt

(Region 2, Colorado) 

Joint effort with state and other federal agencies included hazard, risk, and communities at 

risk. Subsequent land management plan included environmental values, such as threatened 

and endangered species and old-growth vegetation.

Pike San Isabel

(Region 2, Colorado)

Joint effort with state and other federal agencies included hazard, risk, and communities at 

risk. Land management plan is being revised starting in 2004 and will include environmental 

values such as threatened and endangered species and watersheds.

Bitterroot

(Region 1, Montana)

Region conducted an assessment of hazard, risk, and values, including environmental 

values such as threatened and endangered species, water quality, air quality, and soil 

condition. The forest’s land management plan is being revised, and the forest will add some 

of this information.

Sequoia

(Region 5, California)

Joint effort with other forests and federal agencies included hazard, risk, and communities at 

risk. Data on environmental values have been collected.

Wenatchee

(Region 6, Washington)

An assessment of fire regime and vegetation conditions began in 2004. 

Payette

(Region 4, Idaho)

Joint effort with two other forests included hazard and risk. Another assessment identified 

watersheds of concern. 

Coronado 

(Region 3, Arizona)

Assessment of fire regime and vegetation conditions began in 2004. 

BLM office Assessment conducted and elements addressed

Colorado Joint effort with the state of Colorado included hazard, risk, and values at risk, including 

environmental values such as threatened and endangered species.

California Assessment of fire regime and vegetation conditions began in 2004.

Nevada Joint effort with other federal and state agencies will assess hazard, risk, and communities 

at risk. BLM began its assessment of fire regime and vegetation conditions in 2004.

Oregon/Washington Assessment of fire regime and vegetation conditions began in 2004.

Idaho Joint effort with state and other federal agencies to assess hazard, risk, and values, 

including environmental values such as threatened and endangered species, water quality, 

air quality, and soil.

Arizona Assessment of fire regime and vegetation conditions completed in 2003.
Page 41 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

the BLM offices identified the values present in different management 

areas, including environmental resource values. Other BLM offices use a 

computer program called the Risk Assessment and Mitigation System to 

model the protection afforded these values from their chosen fuel 

reduction programs. 

The purpose of conducting risk assessments at the forest and BLM field 

office level is to support decisions about where to target fuel reduction 

efforts and where naturally caused fires can be managed and controlled to 

achieve resource benefits. The forests and BLM field offices are required to 

identify in their fire management plans the areas in which they will 

continue suppressing fires, those in which they will conduct fuel reduction 

projects, and those in which they can allow wildland fires to burn to reduce 

fuels and provide resource benefits. A risk assessment would help the 

offices identify these areas. For example, officials at some of the forests we 

visited stated that they wanted to increase their use of wildland fires to 

achieve resource benefits. Using wildland fire in this way not only provides 

resource benefits, but may also help to limit the overall costs of 

suppressing fires. For example, if the Forest Service had been able to let 

the Burgdorf Junction fire in Idaho burn, the fire would have benefited 

most resources and the agency would have spent much less than the $26 

million used to suppress the fire. The fire, which occurred in an area 

identified as having low accumulations of fuel that could have benefited 

from a fire to maintain its conditions, was suppressed to protect a nearby 

community—a community that would have been protected by a $1 million 

fuel reduction project that was considered lower priority, given funding 

and the assessment of vegetation conditions.

Although a framework for conducting risk assessments to support the 

agencies’ landscape-level fuel reduction activities would identify the 

organizational level at which the assessment should be conducted, agency 

guidance issued in 2002 and 2003 does not direct the forests or BLM field 

offices to conduct risk assessments to support their landscape-level fuel 

reduction plans. Specifically, guidance issued in April 2002 directs the 

Forest Service and BLM to collaborate with other agencies, including state, 

local, and tribal agencies responsible for managing wildland fire and fuels, 

in planning treatments across landscapes. This guidance recommends that 

landscape plans be developed; however, it does not require a formal risk 

assessment to support a plan. In addition, guidance issued in February and 

March 2003 directs the forests and BLM field offices to use the methods 

from the national assessment of fuel conditions to classify their local lands 

and fuel reduction projects according to their alteration from historic fire 
Page 42 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

regimes. The purpose for classifying projects, in the short term, is to 

determine if the agencies are making progress toward reducing the number 

of acres of land they manage that have high accumulations of vegetation. In 

the long term, the guidance directs that the methods be used as part of land 

management planning.

Forest Service and BLM 

Also Lack a Systematic 

Approach to Assess the 

Risks of Environmental 

Effects Associated with 

Fuel Reduction Projects 

The Forest Service and BLM also do not have a systematic approach for 

assessing the risks of environmental effects associated with fuel reduction 

projects. Because the agencies generally assess the environmental effects 

of fuel reduction projects in NEPA documents, we reviewed 10 

environmental assessments for such projects. Although the agencies’ 

assessments were for projects that would mitigate or avoid the effects of 

wildland fire, the assessments did not systematically assess the hazard, 

risks, or values associated with the projects. This is because the agencies 

lack clear guidance on how to assess the risks of environmental effects of 

projects and where to document the assessment and effects—in 

environmental assessments or in other documents. Interim guidance issued 

for the Healthy Forests Restoration Act partially addresses the need for 

documentation of the effects of not taking action to reduce fuels, but is not 

yet complete or final. CEQ guidance on developing model environmental 

assessments for fuel reduction projects, issued in 2002, does not address 

the risks of environmental effects from reducing fuels or not because the 

purpose of the guidance was to facilitate the development of concise 

environmental assessment documentation. Guidance on how to do such 

assessments and where to document them is important if the agencies are 

to effectively use fuel reduction projects to address the risks of 

environmental effects from wildland fires.

Some Environmental 

Assessments Did Not 

Systematically Assess the Risks 

of Not Reducing Fuels

Our review of 10 environmental assessments of fuel reduction projects—6 

prepared by the Forest Service and 4 by BLM—revealed that some of these 

assessments did not systematically assess the risks of the likely 

environmental effects from not implementing fuel reduction projects. 

Forest Service and BLM officials recognize that taking no action to reduce 

fuels while continuing to suppress fires will contribute to continued 

accumulation and alteration of vegetation, perpetuating hazardous 

conditions that can create severe fire effects. At the same time, fuel 

reduction projects themselves can pose risks to environmental resources. 

For these reasons, it is important that the agencies, in developing fuel 

reduction projects, discuss the hazard, risk, and values at risk associated 

with project alternatives. It is also important that the agencies analyze a 

project’s environmental effects. We reviewed the environmental 
Page 43 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

assessments prepared by the Forest Service and BLM to determine the 

extent to which they (1) included a discussion of, or referred to, other 

documents that discussed hazard, risk, and value in assessing project 

alternatives and (2) presented information and data on the environmental 

effects of the no-action alternative. We did not determine whether the 

assessments complied with NEPA. 

Generally, the agencies analyze the environmental effects of a fuel 

reduction project in an environmental assessment, which is an analysis 

conducted under NEPA regulations and guidance to discusses such effects. 

In general, fuel reduction projects can range in size from a few hundred 

acres to several thousand acres. In developing a project, forest and BLM 

staff determine the purpose and need for the project and design one or 

more alternatives. Although NEPA regulations do not require the agencies 

to consider a no-action alternative and its effects in an environmental 

assessment, the agencies often do develop a no-action alternative and 

consider its effects. The agencies can use several different models of fire 

effects and fire behavior to show how different vegetation will burn in 

different conditions, such as weather. (See app. VI for a discussion of 

models.) Through this modeling, agency staff can show that reducing 

vegetation can reduce the risk of a fire becoming uncharacteristically large 

and intense and the risk of associated adverse effects. 
Page 44 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Furthermore, in analyzing the effects of a fuel reduction project, the 

agencies are also to consider whether the project meets the requirements 

of several environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air 

Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In analyzing water quality effects, for 

example, forest and BLM staff estimate what effects fuel reduction 

activities such as mechanical thinning—which can involve heavy 

equipment that compacts soils—will have on soils and sedimentation of 

local streams. In analyzing air quality effects, forest and BLM staff estimate 

the amount of smoke that a prescribed burn may produce. Finally, in 

analyzing the effects of a project on threatened and endangered species—

such as the Northern spotted owl or the Canada lynx—the agencies may be 

required to develop biological assessments of the effects on species 

population and habitat. In consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, the 

agencies use these biological assessments to determine what risks the 

alternatives pose for species and their continued existence and survival.22

22In December 2003, the administration promulgated regulations authorizing the Forest 

Service and BLM to determine that a fuel reduction project carried out pursuant to the 

National Fire Plan would not likely adversely affect a listed species without consulting Fish 

and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries. Formal consultation would still be required if the 

action agency determined that a project would be likely to have an adverse effect. In March, 

2004, an environmental group filed a notice of intent to sue the administration, contending 

that the new regulations violate the consultation requirements of section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act.
Page 45 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 4 shows the results of our review of the 10 environmental 

assessments. 

Table 4: Results of GAO’s Review of 10 Fuel Reduction Project Environmental 

Assessments

Sources: Forest Service and BLM (documents); GAO (analysis).

Of the 10 assessments we reviewed, 4—3 from the Forest Service and 1 

from BLM—used the hazard, risk, and value framework for a risk 

assessment to discuss the action and no-action alternatives. In one case, for 

example, the BLM’s Rogue assessment estimated the number of days per 

year that intense fires would reach the crowns of trees—known as crown 

fire—and kill whole trees. The assessment also estimated how much of the 

project area contained environmental resources at risk. The Forest 

Service’s Sheafman project assessment described the risk of fire on the 

basis of a recent trend toward large fires in the project area. However, 6 of 

the 10 assessments did not use a hazard, risk, and value framework to 

discuss the risk of environmental effects. Existing guidance does not 

specifically require this or describe how the assessment should be done. 

Each of the 10 assessments included some level of discussion of the 

environmental effects of the no-action alternative (see table 4). The level of 

detail about the effects varied from a minimal description of some effects 

to a detailed discussion of effects that was comparable to the discussion 

provided in other alternatives. For example, one of the assessments only 

described the general effects of no action as “increasing risk of damage to 

Project name

Hazard, risk, and values 

included?

Discussion of environmental 

effects specifically for not 

reducing fuels?

Rogue Yes Yes

Horsethief No Yes

Weaver Mountain No Yes

Pine Valley No Yes

Last Chance Yes Yes

Sheafman Yes Yes

Deer Point Yes Yes

Pinaleno No Yes

Cache la Poudre No Yes

Ely No Yes
Page 46 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

water resources.” On the other hand, another of the 10 assessments used 

extensive tables comparing the specific effects on a wide range of 

environmental resources that could result from taking or not taking action 

to reduce fuels. 

Although each of the 10 assessments we reviewed contained some effects 

of not reducing fuels, the effects were not described systematically in all of 

the assessments. According to forest and BLM staff, as well as biologists 

from the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, predicting the 

environmental effects of the no-action alternative is difficult. This difficulty 

stems from having to predict the occurrence of wildland fires, which are 

random events. The staff noted that such an analysis would need to be 

based on the assumption that a particular fire would occur and on 

estimates of the environmental effects of that assumed fire—a process they 

said might be considered “speculative.” For example, to project the 

potential effects of wildland fire in a project area on a threatened or 

endangered species—such as the Northern spotted owl or Canada lynx—a 

wildlife specialist would take data produced by fire models to determine 

what habitat and food sources would be affected under anticipated fire 

conditions. While some say that this cannot be done, according to agency 

and CEQ officials, NEPA involves making reasonable forecasts of effects, 

and models can provide a reasonable basis on which to make such 

forecasts. 

Guidance Is Unclear About How 

to Assess and Document the 

Risks of Environmental Effects 

of Fuel Reduction Projects

The varied use of risk assessment at the project level is a result of the fact 

that the agencies do not have clear guidance about the systematic 

assessment of the risks of environmental effects from wildland fire from 

fuel reduction projects. Guidance would describe how relevant hazards, 

risks, and values would be assessed for fuel reduction projects and where 

such information would be documented. Such guidance could be expected 

to appear in the agencies’ fire planning or NEPA guidance. However, Forest 

Service and BLM fire planning guidance does not provide clear direction on 

how to conduct and document an assessment of risk of environmental 

effects at the project level, although the agencies recognize the importance 

of reducing fuels to mitigate or avoid the environmental effects of wildland 

fires. As described above, the agencies’ fire planning guidance refers to 

assessing the risks to communities at the landscape level and to assessing 

the condition of vegetation at the project level. Just as the guidance does 

not address the assessment of hazard, risk, and values at risk at the 

landscape level, it does not discuss the assessment of hazard, risk, and 

value at the project level.
Page 47 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Similarly, NEPA guidance does not describe how to conduct or document 

an assessment of the risks of environmental effects associated with fuel 

reduction project alternatives. In terms of describing how to conduct such 

an assessment, although NEPA guidance requires the description of an 

alternative’s environmental effects, it does not discuss an explicit risk 

assessment approach involving the assessment of hazard, risk, and value. 

In terms of documenting the environmental effects of a project, NEPA does 

not explicitly require the discussion of the effects of the no-action 

alternative in an environmental assessment. Analysis and documentation of 

the effects of a no-action alternative in relation to the effects of action 

alternatives facilitates the comparison of the relative risks of taking action 

or not to reduce fuels at the project level. While NEPA requires 

environmental impact statements to discuss a no-action alternative for a 

proposed project, it does not require this of environmental assessments. In 

2002, CEQ issued NEPA guidance for a demonstration program to develop 

examples of model environmental assessments for fuel reduction projects. 

The demonstration program sought to make environmental documents 

more concise by removing unnecessary information. While the CEQ 

guidance stated that the agencies may compare the impact of the proposed 

action and alternatives with the current condition and expected future 

condition in the absence of the project, it did not address the no-action 

alternative or its effects in environmental assessments of fuel reduction 

projects. 

The agencies have opportunities to clarify the analysis and documentation 

of the risks of environmental effects from not taking action to reduce fuels. 

In February 2004, the agencies issued interim guidance on the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act (HFRA).23 This guidance, which does not clearly 

state when a no-action alternative should be developed, states that the 

effects of not reducing fuels should be documented in a project’s files. It 

also identifies some effects that may be analyzed as part of the 

23HFRA, enacted in December 2003, states that the Forest Service and BLM should study, 

develop, and describe both an action and a no-action alternative for fuel reduction projects 

covered by the act that take place outside the wildland-urban interface. Projects authorized 

under the act include those implemented in accordance with the10-year implementation 

plan on federal lands (1) in the wildland-urban interface, (2) with highly altered fuels (fire 

regime condition class 3) near a municipal water supply system; (3) with moderately altered 

fuels (fire regime condition class 2) near a municipal water supply system; (4) with trees 

blown down by winds or storms or killed by insects; or (5) that contain threatened and 

endangered species habitat, where, among other things, the project would provide 

enhanced fire protection to the species or its habitat. No more than 20 million acres may be 

treated under the act.
Page 48 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

documentation. However, the guidance does not include the range of 

environmental resources that may be affected by wildland fire nor does it 

state clearly what analyses should be done. In addition, the agencies and 

CEQ met in March 2004 to evaluate the lessons learned from the 

demonstration program, which CEQ used to develop examples. The 

agencies are compiling lessons learned from the demonstration program 

that they intend to use in future environmental assessments. Through these 

evaluations, CEQ and the agencies have another opportunity to clarify how 

the agencies will address the risks of environmental effects associated with 

fuel reduction projects and whether or not the discussion of the effects of 

taking no action should be included in environmental documents for 

projects. 

Conclusions The Forest Service and BLM, in conjunction with the other federal, state, 

local, and tribal land management agencies, face important and complex 

challenges in managing wildland fires, and, in particular, minimizing risks 

from future fires, including the effects of fires on environmental resources 

and ecosystems. The primary challenge that relates to these effects is, over 

the long term, balancing the risks of adverse effects caused by wildland 

fires with the benefits that such fires offer to restoring resources and 

ecosystems. The agencies will not be able to find such a balance without 

understanding the range of environmental and ecosystem effects created 

by wildland fire, including the adverse, neutral, and beneficial effects, and 

without gathering data and information to monitor and support their 

decision making about fire management. The range and variety of effects 

complicates their data-gathering efforts, which makes it important that the 

agencies select the right effects to monitor and that the agencies test and 

adopt new tools that can help them capture the range of effects of wildland 

fire. Without collecting landscape data on wildland fire effects as the 

National Fire Plan and its activities are implemented, the Forest Service 

and BLM—as well as the other fire management agencies—will not have 

information and data to give them a better understanding of how fires are 

affecting environmental resources and ecosystems over the long term. With 

such data, the agencies would be in a better position to answer the question 

whether fires are burning with more than normal severity because of 

vegetation and fuel conditions or as a result of other factors. For these 

reasons, it is important that the agencies, and more broadly the Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council, follow through on their commitment to 

implement the monitoring framework passed in May 2004.
Page 49 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

A second challenge is that the agencies will not be able to stop all fires, nor 

will they be able to reduce fuels on all lands. Without a risk-based 

approach, the agencies cannot adequately determine where they will take 

deliberate action to reduce fuels and the risks of potential fire effects and 

where they will take the risk of fire occurring. Successful risk management 

is grounded in risk identification and assessment. Until the agencies 

formalize a framework for assessing the elements of risk at appropriate 

organizational levels, they will not have a systematic process for assessing 

the risks to environmental resources and ecosystems posed by wildland 

fires and will not be able to coordinate their efforts to ensure that they 

succeed in reducing these risks. A framework should incorporate and build 

on the data that are to be generated by LANDFIRE, as well as fire and other 

models. At the landscape level, a framework would clarify what elements 

will be included in agency risk assessments, what decisions will be 

supported by risk assessments, who will do the assessments, and when 

they will be done. This is particularly important as state and local agencies 

are moving ahead with risk assessments and the federal agencies will need 

to coordinate and collaborate with them. 

In carrying out fuel reduction projects, it is important that the agencies 

consider the risk of not taking action to reduce fuels and the long-term risk 

of wildland fire effects. In fact, HFRA now specifically requires the 

agencies to develop a no-action alternative for fuels reduction projects 

covered by the act. However, the agencies must also assess the risks of 

effects from their actions to reduce fuels to ensure that they will not 

exacerbate existing resource problems or create new problems. Such 

decisions require information on the potential environmental effects of all 

project alternatives and the ability to make clear comparisons among 

project alternatives and their potential effects. Without clear guidance on 

the complicated analysis and comparisons that seem warranted to 

adequately address the effects of taking action or not to reduce fuels, the 

agencies lack the ability to make informed decisions to conduct fuel 

reduction projects, and as a result, these projects could face challenges and 

delay rather than proceeding more quickly in the face of increased risks. 

The agencies’ guidance needs to be more specific about (1) how the 

assessment of hazard, risk, and values at risk should be done at the project 

level and (2) where the assessment of such risks should be documented. 

Both the HFRA guidance and the lessons learned from the CEQ 

demonstration program provide an opportunity for the agencies and CEQ 

to clarify appropriate guidance.
Page 50 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve the agencies’ ability to identify and manage the actual and 

potential effects of wildland fires on the environment, we recommend that 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, after consulting with the 

Wildland Fire Leadership Council, direct the Forest Service and BLM to 

• develop a monitoring plan to implement the agencies’ framework 

approved in May 2004 and include a pilot program for testing on Forest 

Service and BLM lands the applicability of, and resource needs 

associated with, the burn severity mapping and data tool developed by 

the National Park Service;

• develop and issue guidance, in consultation with experts inside and 

outside the agencies, that formalizes a framework for systematically 

assessing landscape-level risks to ecosystems from wildland fires; and

• clarify existing guidance, working with CEQ and taking into account any 

lessons learned from the CEQ demonstration program, on the 

assessment and documentation of the risks of environmental effects 

associated with not conducting fuel reduction projects.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior and the Chairman of CEQ for review and comment. The 

departments provided a consolidated written response to our draft, which 

is included in appendix VII of this report. CEQ provided written comments, 

which are included in appendix VIII. 

The departments stated that the draft was well prepared and provided a 

thorough analysis of a complex set of issues. In commenting on our 

recommendation to develop a monitoring plan and pilot project to test a 

tool for mapping the long-term effects of wildand fires, the departments 

said they presently have several methods for assessing such effects. 

Specifically, the departments said that the Forest Service and BLM work 

with the U.S. Geological Survey to assess the burn severity of large or 

severe fires and that, at the field level, the agencies collect site-specific data 

on wildland fires to support their land management plans and postfire 

rehabilitation plans. Furthermore, the departments mentioned that in May 

2004, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council approved a nationwide 

monitoring framework for wildland fire data, including fire severity data. 

We agree that the agencies have various methods for assessing the effects 

of wildland fire, and we identified several of these in the report. We are also 
Page 51 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

encouraged by the recent development of a nationwide monitoring 

framework. However, this framework does not address the part of our 

recommendation that calls for a pilot program for testing a different tool 

for measuring burn severity. The pilot program would allow the agencies to 

determine the extent to which the National Park Service tool is applicable 

for assessing the environmental and ecosystem effects from wildland fires 

that start on the agencies’ lands. Furthermore, since the framework has just 

been approved, no plan for its implementation has been developed. 

Accordingly, we are recommending that such a plan be developed. We 

modified the report text and recommendation to reflect the recent approval 

of a monitoring framework. 

In commenting on our second recommendation that the agencies develop 

and adopt a framework that supports systematic assessment of the 

landscape-level risks to ecosystems from wildland fire and issue guidance 

implementing that framework, the departments had several concerns. 

First, the departments stated that the Forest Service and BLM are designing 

and refining a number of analytical tools to assess project and landscapelevel risk. Specifically, the departments noted that the Fireshed Assessment 

process is a promising approach for evaluating fuel treatment effectiveness 

across landscapes and that LANDFIRE will provide nationally consistent 

data to be used in landscape-level risk assessments. Second, the 

departments stated that the agencies already include a significant amount 

of risk assessment in their fuels programs. The departments said that 

national fuel reduction priorities represent a judgment about risk; the 

classification of wildland-urban interface areas into high, medium, and low 

priorities represents another judgment about risk; and the emphasis on 

treating lands in different fire regimes and condition classes represents yet 

another judgment about risk. The departments also stated that the relative 

value of resources is decided through the collaborative project selection 

and prioritization process developed with states for the implementation of 

the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, as directed by the Congress, and that 

community wildfire protection plans called for in HFRA include an 

assessment of risks associated with high-priority areas and values 

identified by the communities. Third, while the departments agree that 

prioritization of fuel reduction treatments can be improved and in their 

technical comments they agree that they do not have a single, consistent 

risk-based approach, they do not believe that a model or methodology that 

assesses the risks associated with fuel reduction treatments across time 

and at the landscape and project scales can be developed. Finally, the 

departments said that it is misleading to assert that the Forest Service and 
Page 52 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

BLM have focused on the wildland-urban interface, preventing them from 

developing a systematic approach to ecosystem risk assessment. 

Our recommendation is based on our belief that to systematically identify 

fuel reduction projects, the agencies should support a single common 

approach or framework for assessing risk. We recognize that the agencies 

are developing a number of analytical tools useful for assessing landscapelevel risk. We note several of these in our report and believe that they can 

serve as good examples for the agencies in developing an overall risk 

assessment framework. However, a common approach will allow the 

agencies to prioritize projects systematically. In addition, we recommended 

that the agencies seek the assistance of external and internal experts, 

which would allow them to identify the best tools for conducting risk 

assessments and would leverage the experience of the field offices in 

developing and using different risk tools, such as the Fireshed Assessment 

process the departments mention. In addition to Fireshed, several other 

worthwhile efforts that are being implemented in the field could serve as 

examples. 

Regarding the departments’ views that they already carry out a significant 

amount of risk assessment, it is our view that the results of these 

assessments are too broad to target fuel reduction projects at the 

landscape or project levels. Given the level of fuel reduction needs (90-200 

million acres) identified in the Coarse-Scale Analysis and the emphasis of 

the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan on reducing 

risks to the wildland-urban interface and environment, the agencies need a 

systematic way to further target their projects to areas of high risk and to 

demonstrate to decision makers and to the public how the decisions have 

been made and what results have been achieved with the use of public 

funds. The departments state that the collaborative process will identify 

relative values and priorities and that community wildfire protection plans 

will include assessment of the risks to community-defined values. 

Recognizing that the 10-Year Comprehensive Implementation Plan does not 

change existing agency statutory and regulatory responsibilities, we do not 

disagree. However, we believe that a formalized, common risk assessment 

framework would better inform the collaborative efforts under way, as well 

as future community efforts, by providing the groups involved with 

consistent hazard and risk information and allowing them to identify values 

at risk. We did not, as the departments’ comments state, suggest they 

develop a single, all-encompassing model or methodology to assess risks 

associated with fuel reduction treatments across multiple time frames and 

geographic scales. Rather, our recommendation is directed at ensuring that 
Page 53 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

the agencies develop a common approach to assessing landscape-level 

risks to environmental resources and ecosystems from wildland fires. We 

modified our report text and recommendation language to clarify that we 

mean a formalized, common approach to assessing risks.

Furthermore, we did not criticize the agencies’ emphasis on addressing 

threats within the wildland-urban interface. We merely observed that the 

agencies have not made the same degree of progress in developing an 

approach for assessing the risks from wildland fire to ecosystems and 

environmental resources as they have for areas within the wildland-urban 

interface. We concur with the agencies’ statements in the 10-Year 

Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan that threats outside the 

wildland-urban interface also need to be addressed, and our 

recommendation is directed at that need. We did not mean to imply that 

communities should not be a high priority for fuel reduction, and we 

modified our report text accordingly.

Lastly, the departments disagree with our recommendation that the 

agencies develop and issue guidance to clarify the assessment and 

documentation of risks of environmental effects associated with taking or 

not taking action to reduce fuels. They said that current NEPA guidance is 

sufficient and that additional guidance on conducting risk assessments 

would be inconsistent with new CEQ guidance, which calls for short 

concise environmental assessments. Furthermore, the departments said 

that existing direction is generally adequate for implementing the lessons 

learned from the CEQ demonstration program. We did not state that CEQ's 

guidance fails to meet the intent of NEPA, nor did we recommend any 

amendments to that guidance. The purpose of our recommendation is to 

help ensure that the agencies have a sound scientific basis for the 

prioritization decisions that they will need to make to implement fuels 

reduction projects as effectively as possible, not to enhance agency 

compliance with NEPA. In fact, interim guidance issued by the agencies for 

HFRA partially addresses the need to document the risks associated with 

not taking action to reduce fuels. Specifically, the interim guidance says 

that “it is important that the specialists’ report retained in the project files 

document the anticipated short- and long-term effects of proposed HFRA 

treatments.” We believe, however, that if the agencies agree that the 

documentation of risks and effects is important, this guidance should 

specifically require the need for such documentation and should clarify 

how the environmental assessment should refer to the effects of the noaction alternative documented in the project files. Accordingly, we 

continue to believe that clear guidance for helping agency personnel 
Page 54 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

determine the appropriate form and content of the risk assessment 

associated with not taking action would improve the agencies’ fuel 

reduction efforts. We modified our report text and our recommendation 

language to reflect the fact that the agencies’ interim guidance provides 

another opportunity to clarify the analysis of risks of not reducing fuels.

CEQ provided us written comments on the aspects of the report that reflect 

CEQ policies. CEQ stated that our draft should not imply that CEQ’s 

guidance for its demonstration program could, or was intended to, describe 

“how to” assess the risks of environmental effects of taking action to 

reduce fuels against those of not taking action. CEQ stated that the purpose 

of this guidance was to provide a framework to support the development of 

environmental assessments that are “concise” and “public” documents that 

better serve their core function: briefly describing sufficient evidence and 

analysis to support a decision about whether or not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement and to assist agency NEPA compliance. 

We did not intend to imply that CEQ’s guidance should discuss risk 

assessment methods, and we directed our recommendation to the agencies 

to clarify their guidance and methodology. We referred to the CEQ 

guidance in our discussion of risk assessments for conducting or not 

conducting fuel reduction projects only to demonstrate that such guidance 

does not exist. 

CEQ also said that our draft incorrectly states that CEQ and the agencies 

plan to finalize a report on the “lessons learned” from the demonstration 

program. Rather, CEQ said that it has issued examples of completed 

environmental assessments on the Internet and that the agencies have 

drafted a document on these lessons. We deleted the reference to CEQ 

being a participant with the Forest Service and BLM in documenting the 

lessons learned from the program. 

The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and CEQ made other 

technical comments, which we addressed as appropriate in the report. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other 

interested congressional committees. We will also send copies of this 

report to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the Chief of the 

Forest Service, the Director of BLM, and the Chairman, CEQ. We will make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Page 55 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.

Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 56 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

List of Requesters

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Larry E. Craig

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Mike Crapo

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Kit Bond

United States Senate

The Honorable Conrad Burns

United States Senate

The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell

United States Senate

The Honorable John Ensign

United States Senate

The Honorable Jon Kyl

United States Senate

The Honorable Gordon H. Smith

United States Senate
Page 57 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

This appendix presents the scope and methodology we used to gather 

information on the environmental effects of wildland fire and to 

understand the data collected on these effects by the Forest Service and 

the Bureau of Land Management. It also addresses how we identified the 

approaches that these agencies use to assess the risk posed to 

environmental resources by wildland fire and the relative risks of 

undertaking and not undertaking fuel reduction activities. 

To describe the environmental effects of wildland fire and assess the 

information the Forest Service and BLM gather on these effects, we 

randomly selected a sample of 20 fires from a universe of 614 wildland fires 

to include in a survey. The fires we selected ranged in size from hundreds 

to tens of thousands of acres in diverse geographic locations. To identify 

the universe of wildland fires, we created a database from two separate 

lists of Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) reports 

and BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) reports 

completed in 2000, 2001, and 2002. We requested these lists of BAER and 

ESR reports because the agencies’ official lists of wildland fires did not 

contain information on the environmental effects of these fires. Both 

Forest Service and BLM officials indicated that BAER and ESR reports 

contain data on the environmental effects of fire because they are prepared 

for the purpose of requesting emergency stabilization funds to aid in the 

recovery of the burned areas. We assessed the lists of these reports for 

completeness and accuracy and found them to be reliable for the purpose 

of selecting a sample of wildland fires. We also visited the locations of 6 

western fires and discussed the data collected on their environmental 

effects with local Forest Service and BLM officials. Figure 6 shows the fires 

we included in our survey sample, as well as the fire locations we visited in 

eight western states. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Figure 6: Location of Forest Service and BLM Wildland Fires Visited and Surveyed

Fires surveyed

Fires visited

Fires visited and surveyed

Legend

Glenns Ferry, Idaho:

Crimson Clover Fire

McCall, Idaho:

Burgdorf Junction Fire

Libby, Montana:

Elk Mountain Fire

Darby, Montana:

Bitterroot Fire

Murphy, Idaho:

Rough Diamonds Fire

Jordan Valley, Oregon:

Horse Creek Fire

Vale, Oregon:

Cow Hollow Fire

Valley Falls, Oregon:

Abert Fire

North Fork, Idaho:

Horse Fire

Rock Springs, Wyoming:

Sheep Mountain Fire

Kisatchie, Louisiana:

Longleaf Vista Fire

Cold Springs, Nevada:

Pony Express II Fire

Deckers, Colorado:

Hayman Fire

Durango, Colorado:

Missionary Ridge Fire Winnemucca, Nevada:

Tipton Ranch Fire

Roads End, California:

McNally Fire

Provo, Utah:

Y-Mountain Fire

Santa Clarita, California:

Stables Fire

Pine, Arizona

Springer Fire

Tucson, Arizona

Aspen Fire

Boulder, Montana:

Boulder Hills Fire

Hayfork, California:

Hyampom Fire

Ely, Nevada:

Crusoe Fire

Elko, Nevada:

Elko 13/#3 Fire

Leavenworth, 

Washington:

Tyee Fire

Source: Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (data); GAO (presentation). 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 59 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

To develop survey questions for the sample of 20 wildland fires and better 

understand the data that the Forest Service and BLM collect on the 

environmental effects of these fires, we (1) conducted a literature review 

and read reports and scientific studies on this topic; (2) reviewed federal 

fire policy documents, handbooks, BAER and ESR reports, and other 

reports; and (3) interviewed Forest Service and BLM officials in national, 

regional, and state offices, as well as local land units. Information gathered 

from the agencies on the environmental effects of wildland fire allowed us 

to develop a series of questions for our survey about the size and extent of 

a wildland fire and how it affected individual resources, such as soil, 

vegetation, air, watersheds, and threatened and endangered species over 

the short and long term. Our survey also contained questions on short-term 

(defined as less than 10 years), long-term (defined as greater than 10 years), 

and cumulative effects of the sample fire on the landscape or ecosystem. 

Some of these questions requested that the land managers make 

predictions about the future effects of a wildland fire rather than providing 

data about effects that had already occurred. Therefore, there is a greater 

degree of uncertainty regarding the accuracy of responses to these 

questions than to questions about observed effects. 

Once we developed the survey questions, we pretested the content and 

format of the survey with BAER and ESR team leaders and other agency 

staff, as well as with two scientific and technical experts at the University 

of Arizona and the University of Washington. We conducted pretests with 

agency officials located in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Washington, and 

Washington, D.C. During pretesting, we simulated the actual survey 

experience by asking the individual to complete the survey, and then we 

conducted a semistructured interview to determine whether (1) the 

questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, and (3) how long it 

took individuals to answer the questions. In mid-November 2003, we 

electronically mailed the survey to staff the agencies identified as 

knowledgeable about each fire and instructed them to return the survey by 

electronic mail. We obtained a 100 percent response rate from staff at all 20 

field locations.

To identify the approaches the Forest Service and BLM take to assess the 

risk to environmental resources from wildland fire and the risks associated 

with undertaking and not undertaking fuel reduction projects, we reviewed 

National Fire Plan policies, National Environmental Policy Act regulations,
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 60 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

and the December 2001 report1 prepared by the National Academy of 

Public Administration on risk assessment and its application to the 

National Fire Plan. We also obtained agency guidance and selected 

planning and project documents to see how they addressed the potential 

environmental effects of future fires. To obtain specific information on the 

agencies’ risk assessment practices, we interviewed Forest Service and 

BLM officials representing seven national forests and six BLM field offices 

and reviewed their land and resource management plans, in addition to 

their fire management plans. We also examined existing and proposed risk 

assessment approaches discussed in research papers and governmental 

and nongovernmental publications, and we interviewed some of the 

authors. During 2003, we attended two national conferences on wildland 

fire and risk assessment decisions held in Denver, Colorado, and Portland, 

Oregon. We also contacted the National Park Service, professors from five 

universities, and scientists from the Forest Service’s research stations in 

California, Montana, and Colorado, including those who participated in 

developing the national assessment of fuel conditions and LANDFIRE. 

To identify how the Forest Service and BLM evaluate the relative risks of 

undertaking or not undertaking projects to reduce fuels, we reviewed 10 

environmental assessments of fuel reduction projects in eight western 

states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and 

Washington. We selected 6 environmental assessments prepared by the 

Forest Service and 4 prepared by BLM for analysis. Of the assessments we 

selected, 5 were part of a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

demonstration program for developing model environmental assessments 

and 5 were not. We also interviewed officials at Forest Service and BLM 

headquarters and staff members at CEQ to obtain information on agency 

guidance to field offices and CEQ program guidance to agencies. Finally, 

we interviewed headquarters and regional staff from NOAA Fisheries and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain information on how agency 

biologists could compare the short-term effects of fuel reduction projects 

on threatened and endangered species with the long-term effects of a 

future wildland fire in their environmental assessments.

We conducted our work from April 2003 through April 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1

National Academy of Public Administration, Managing Wildland Fire: Enhancing 

Capacity to Implement the Federal Interagency Policy (Washington, D.C., 2001).
Page 61 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix II

Fire Regime Condition Class Analysis ApendxiI

Wildland fire managers have recognized for several years the need to 

reduce excessive vegetation levels that have accumulated and been altered 

after decades of excluding fire from different ecosystems. Until 2000, 

managers did not have national-level data that could be used to distinguish 

and prioritize the different ecosystems that are more affected than others 

by fire exclusion. To accomplish such a prioritization, land managers need 

data on the current conditions of vegetation and fuels. In 2000, the staff of 

the Forest Service’s Fire Sciences Laboratory at the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station produced an assessment of spatial data for wildland fire 

and fuel management called the Coarse-Scale Analysis.1

 The staff gathered 

and analyzed national-level data from several sources to create vegetation 

maps and from that assessed the condition of this vegetation to act as fuel 

for wildland fire. The assessment resulted in a national map of vegetation 

and fuel conditions. The assessment was based on “coarse-scale” or coarse 

resolution data that are not, and were never intended to be, applicable for 

site-level use.

The assessment identified three categories of fuel conditions, called fire 

regime condition classes (FRCC), using estimates of the historical fire 

regimes—the frequency and intensity of fires typical for different 

vegetation types—and estimates of the alteration in current vegetation. 

Figure 7 shows the three categories of hazard and the levels of alteration 

from historic conditions (hazard) that they represent.

1

Kirsten M. Schmidt, James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendel J. Hann, and David L. 

Bunnell, Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel 

Management, GTR RMRS-87 (Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station: April 2002).
Appendix II

Fire Regime Condition Class Analysis

Page 62 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Figure 7: Wildland Fire Hazard

The original assessment estimated that wildland fire could cause severe 

effects on about 182 million acres of land in the United States. Of that land, 

an estimated 75 million acres of federal land, including land managed by 

the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service within the 

Department of Agriculture, could suffer from severe effects as a result of 

wildland fire. In 2002, the original assessment was updated to more 

thoroughly examine grassland vegetation and to make corrections from 

more specific data gathered through samples on the ground. This update 

Low Hazard. For the most part, fires occur at 

frequencies and severities similar to historic 

patterns. In forests, vegetation has not 

accumulated beyond historic levels, and on 

rangelands, native species are predominant. 

Thus, the probability of damage to soil, 

vegetation, and water quality from fire 

remains relatively low. Maintenance such as 

prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, or 

preventing the invasion of nonnative weeds 

is required to prevent these lands from 

becoming degraded.

Moderate Hazard. The role of fire in the 

ecosystem has been altered, allowing fires 

to occur less frequently than they did 

historically. In forests, there are moderate 

levels of fuels buildup, and on rangelands, 

nonnative species have replaced some 

native species. A moderate probability of 

damage to soil, vegetation, and water 

quality has been identified on these lands. 

To restore their historic fire patterns, these 

lands may require some prescribed burns, 

mechanical thinning, and the subsequent 

reintroduction of native plants.

High Hazard. The probability of damage to 

soil, vegetation, and water quality from fire 

is high. In forests, there are excess levels of 

fuels buildup, and on rangelands, nonnative 

species are predominant. Vegetation 

composition, structure, and diversity have 

been significantly altered. Consequently, 

these lands have the greatest probability of 

catastrophic, destructive wildland fires. To 

restore their historic fire patterns–before 

prescribed fire can be utilized–these lands 

may require multiple mechanical thinning 

projects, or reseeding.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Department of the Interior data.
Appendix II

Fire Regime Condition Class Analysis

Page 63 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

focused on 11 western states, reporting that 183 million acres across the 

west were highly altered from historical conditions and would experience 

severe effects from wildland fire. Based on additional analysis, the agencies 

estimated that the amount of highly altered vegetation nationwide could 

vary from 90 to 200 million acres.

Federal land management agencies and the National Fire Plan have 

adopted the FRCC categories as an indicator of whether forest and 

grassland ecosystems are in good condition. The National Fire Plan, under 

its goal for achieving fire-adapted ecosystems, tracks the acres of land that 

are in the second and third FRCC categories for which fuels are reduced 

and conditions changed to a lower category—either the first or second 

category. The agencies’ field offices, which plan and implement all projects 

to reduce fuels, are responsible for monitoring their progress through a 

new national reporting system, which tracks National Fire Plan goals and 

performance measures. 

Because the national-scale data is based on coarse resolution data, the data 

cannot be used to identify the areas on the ground that need to have fuel 

reduction activities—it can only be used at a Forest Service regional level 

or summarized to several western states. To help the field offices identify 

which acres need fuel reduction treatment projects, the Forest Service and 

the Department of the Interior are developing a project-level analysis tool. 

This tool, which the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior 

began to implement in spring 2004, requires the field office staff to conduct 

a field visit to examine vegetation conditions, to consider them in context 

of past and current fire regimes, and to estimate the alteration of fire 

regimes and fire intensity if a fire were to burn in the current conditions. 

The FRCC concept has been incorporated into LANDFIRE, which is a data 

system that, when completed, will provide periodic updates of national 

vegetation maps at a higher resolution than the original assessment 

provided in 2000. LANDFIRE is also expected to provide FRCC maps and 

will contain computer models to help fire planners and land managers 

estimate how wildland fire might behave in the estimated fuel conditions. 

Full implementation of LANDFIRE was approved in 2003 and funded by the 

Forest Service and the Department of the Interior in 2004. The system is 

expected to be completed for application across the nation in 2009. In the 

interim, the agencies will use the FRCC assessment and project tool to 

track progress in reducing high levels of fuels across the nation.
Page 64 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix III

Definition of Fire/Burn Severity ApendxiI

Table 5 presents the definitions of fire/burn severity as it relates to effects 

on soils and vegetation. We asked Forest Service and BLM officials to use 

this table in responding to questions about the specific fires and their 

effects on soil and vegetation for the 20 wildland fires in our sample.

Table 5: Classes of Fire Severity for Soils and Vegetation

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Note: The definition appears in the National Wildlife Coordinating Group Fire Use Working Team, 

National Interagency Fire Center, Fire Effects Guide (NFES 2394), (Boise, Idaho: June 2001), citing 

Fuel and Fire Effects Monitoring Guide, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 2001.

Class Soil substrate—litter/duff Vegetation—understory/brush/herbs

Unburned Not burned Not burned

Scorched Litter partially blackened; duff nearly 

unchanged; wood/leaf structures 

unchanged

Foliage scorched and attached to supporting 

twigs

Lightly burned Litter charred to partially consumed; upper 

duff layer burned; wood/leaf structures 

charred, but recognizable

Foliage and smaller twigs partially to 

completely consumed

Moderately burned Litter mostly to entirely consumed, leaving 

coarse, light-colored ash; duff deeply 

burned; wood/leaf structures 

unrecognizable

Foliage, twigs, and small stems consumed

Heavily burned Litter and duff consumed, leaving fine, white 

ash; mineral soil visibly altered, often 

reddish

All plant parts consumed, leaving some or no 

major stems/trunks

Not applicable Inorganic Not present
Page 65 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results ApendxiIV

This appendix provides selected results from our survey of Forest Service 

and BLM officials on the environmental effects of 20 sample wildland fires 

(app. I). Tables 6 and 7 present general information about each fire and the 

fire location. Tables 8 through 13 provide information on the generally 

short-term effects that these fires had on individual environmental 

resources such as streams and watersheds, threatened and endangered 

species and their habitats, air, soils, and vegetation.

Table 6 lists each wildland fire by size according to the total number of 

federal and nonfederal acres of land burned. It also presents information 

on federal and nonfederal acreage within the fire perimeter but not burned 

by fire.

Table 6: Acres Burned by Fire, Land Ownership, and Percent of Forest and BLM Field Office Land Base

Fire name Total acres burned

Federal acres 

burned

Nonfederal acres 

burned 

Federal acres 

unburned

Nonfederal 

acres 

unburned 

Percent of 

forest or BLM 

office land 

base affected 

by fire

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado) 57,935 49,990 7,945 11,929 615 3.80

Sheep Mountain 

(Wyoming) 27,574 21,370 6,204 5,102 1,253 0.59

Burgdorf Junction 

(Idaho) 17,207a 17,207 D/K 47,000 D/K 2.90

Crimson Clover 

(Idaho) 16,172 14,466 1,706 330 0 1.00

Elko 13/#3 (Nevada) 13,104 12,544 560 256 0 <.01

Boulder Hills 

(Montana) 11,394 5,400 5,994 287 665 2.00

Abert (Oregon) 10,100 10,100 0 0 0 0.30

Rough Diamonds 

(Idaho) 8,467 7,268 1,199 383 63 0.04

Stables (California) 6,349 4,162 2,187 115 80 0.67

Horse Creek 

(Oregon) 3,763 1,839 1924 0 0 <.01

Cow Hollow (Oregon) 3,718 3,022 696 336 77 0.20

Longleaf Vista

(Louisiana) 2,500 2,497 3 0 0 0.40
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 66 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: D/K = did not know; N/A = not applicable.

a

Total acres burned include only federal acres.

Fire name Total acres burned

Federal acres 

burned

Nonfederal acres 

burned 

Federal acres 

unburned

Nonfederal 

acres 

unburned 

Percent of 

forest or BLM 

office and base 

affected by fire

Tipton Ranch 

(Nevada) 2,031 2,025 6 0 0 <.01

Pony Express II 

(Nevada) 1,806 1,806 0 0 0 0.50

Crusoe (Nevada) 1,386 1,386 0 0 0 <.01

Hyampom (California) 1,065 1,053 12 0 0 1.00

Elk Mountain 

(Montana) 1,024 667 357 0 0 <.01

Springer (Arizona) 666 666 N/A 208 N/A 0.20

Y-Mountain (Utah) 461 437 24 0 0 0.05

Horse (Idaho) 243 243 0 27 0 <.01

Total 186,965 158,148 28,817 65,973 2,753

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 67 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 7 presents information on the major types and uses of federal land 

affected by each wildland fire. 

Table 7: Types and Uses of Federal Land within Fire Perimeters

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: Data do not include land managed by federal agencies other than the Forest Service or the BLM 

or lands not owned by the federal government. Uses in this table are mutually exclusive.

a

Includes wilderness, recommended wilderness, wilderness study areas, research natural areas, wild 

and scenic rivers, and inventoried roadless areas.

Fire name 

Woodland 

acres

Rangeland 

acres

Number of 

acres 

permitted for 

grazing

Forested or 

timbered 

acres

Number of 

acres 

permitted for 

timber 

harvest

Congressionally or 

administratively 

designated acresa

Missionary Ridge (Colorado) 0 3,167 36,752 46,431 7,134 5,712

Sheep Mountain (Wyoming) 8,382 12,297 21,370 691 0 0

Burgdorf Junction (Idaho) 0 0 0 17,207 0 17,207 

Crimson Clover (Idaho) 0 14,466 14,466 0 0 0

Elko 13/#3 (Nevada) 0 12,544 12,544 0 0 0

Boulder Hills (Montana) 2,170 1,867 3,650 1,363 0 1,750

Abert (Oregon) 0 10,100 10,100 0 0 0

Rough Diamonds (Idaho) 3,556 3,556 7,268 156 0 0

Stables (California) 70 4,092 0 0 0 0

Horse Creek (Oregon) 0 1,839 1,839 0 0 0

Cow Hollow (Oregon) 0 3,022 3,022 0 0 0

Longleaf Vista (Louisiana) 0 0 0 2,497 310 2,187

Tipton Ranch (Nevada) 0 2,025 2,025 0 0 0

Pony Express II (Nevada) 1,806 0 6 0 0 1,800

Crusoe (Nevada) 277 1,109 1,386 0 0 0

Hyampom (California) 133 0 0 920 815 238

Elk Mountain (Montana) 0 0 422 667 245 0

Springer (Arizona) 0 7 333 659 333 0

Y-Mountain (Utah) 326 41 0 70 0 0

Horse (Idaho) 0 0 0 243 30 213

Total 16,720 70,132 115,183 70,904 8,867 29,107
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 68 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 8 presents information on the size and extent of each wildland fire’s 

effects on streams and watersheds.

Table 8: Miles of Perennial Streams and Number of Floods, Debris Flows, or Landslides within Fire Perimeters

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: D/K = did not know; N/A = not applicable. 

Fire name

Miles of perennial streams 

within fire perimeter

Percent of perennial 

stream miles in forest or 

field office within fire 

perimeter

Number of floods, debris 

flows or landslides within 

fire perimeter

Missionary Ridge (Colorado) 84.00 4 60

Sheep Mountain (Wyoming) 34.00 6 1

Burgdorf Junction (Idaho) 107.00 2 1

Crimson Clover (Idaho) N/A N/A 0

Elko 13/#3 (Nevada) 5.00 0 2

Boulder Hills (Montana) 3.00 2 3

Abert (Oregon) 0.00 0 N/A

Rough Diamonds (Idaho) 0.00 N/A 0

Stables (California) 0.10 0 1

Horse Creek (Oregon) 7.00 0 0

Cow Hollow (Oregon) 0.00 0 0

Longleaf Vista (Louisiana) 2.00 1 0

Tipton Ranch (Nevada) 0.00 N/A 0

Pony Express II (Nevada) 3.00 1 0

Crusoe (Nevada) 0.00 0 0

Hyampom (California) 11.00 1 11

Elk Mountain (Montana) 1.00 0 0

Springer (Arizona) 0.00 0 0

Y-Mountain (Utah) 0.00 0 1

Horse (Idaho) 1.00 0 D/K

Total 258.10 80
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 69 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 9 presents the three wildland fires that severely burned municipal 

watersheds and affected water quality.

Table 9: Municipal Watersheds within Severely Burned Areas

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: A municipality may be served by more than one watershed.

Fire name

Number of 

municipal 

watersheds within 

severely burned 

area

Locations affected 

by fire

Number of 

months water 

quality 

degraded

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado)

3 Durango, Bayfield, 

Ignacio, Colorado

60

Stables 

(California)

2 Santa Clarita, 

California

Not degraded

Hyampom 

(California)

5 Hayfork, California 36

Total 10
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 70 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 10 presents the five wildland fires that affected federally listed 

threatened or endangered species or their habitats.

Table 10: Fires Affecting Threatened and Endangered Species Populations and 

Habitats

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: D/K = did not know; N/A = not applicable. 

a

Species located downstream of fire, not within fire perimeter.

b

These fish species were not directly affected by the fire but by stream depletions during suppression 

of the fire.

c

Respondent also indicated the fire beneficially affected the species population. 

d

The area burned by the fire is potential transitory habitat for this species, not forage habitat.

Fire name

Threatened or endangered 

species

Percent of 

species’ 

range 

burned

Did fire 

adversely 

affect 

species 

population?

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado)

Canada lynx 1.8 no

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado)

Bald eagle <.01 yes

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado)

Southwestern willow fly 

catcher

<.01 D/K

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado)

Colorado pikeminnow N/Aa yesb

Missionary Ridge 

(Colorado)

Razorback sucker N/Aa yesb

Longleaf Vista (Louisiana) Red-cockaded woodpecker 2.0 yesc

Hyampom (California) Bald eagle N/Ad no

Hyampom (California) Northern spotted owl <.01 no

Springer (Arizona) Mexican spotted owl <.01 no

Horse (Idaho) Canada lynx <.01 no
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 71 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 11 presents the volume of air pollutants each wildland fire released 

and relates the impact of the particulate matter emissions to a national air 

quality standard.

Table 11: Air Emissions by Fire 

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: D/K = did not know. 

a

The Environmental Protection Agency defines PM 2.5 as fine particles measuring 2.5 microns or less 

in diameter. When these solid particles mix with liquid droplets in the air, they form a common air 

pollutant known as particulate matter. 

Fire name 

Tons of total 

particulate matter 

(PM)

Tons of carbon 

monoxide (CO)

Tons of carbon 

dioxide (CO2

)

Number of days air 

quality exceeded 

PM 2.5 standardsa

Missionary Ridge (Colorado) D/K D/K D/K 5.00

Sheep Mountain (Wyoming) 3,845.00 22,511.00 423,351.00 D/K

Burgdorf Junction (Idaho) 8,250.00 D/K D/K D/K

Crimson Clover (Idaho) D/K D/K D/K D/K

Elko 13/#3 (Nevada) 184.00 694.00 29,706.00 0.00

Boulder Hills (Montana) 902.00 4,056.00 72,967.00 D/K

Abert (Oregon) 1,190.00 6,126.00 82,058.00 1.00

Rough Diamonds (Idaho) D/K D/K D/K D/K

Stables (California) 3,500.00 15,200.00 317,700.00 8.00

Horse Creek (Oregon) 165.50 570.00 11,758.50 0.00

Cow Hollow (Oregon) 37.18 128.06 2,641.36 D/K

Longleaf Vista (Louisiana) 261.00 1,172.00 21,087.00 D/K

Tipton Ranch (Nevada) 0.60 0.16 0.32 0.50

Pony Express II (Nevada) 54.00 443.00 7,923.00 D/K

Crusoe (Nevada) 193.00 912.00 14,625.00 D/K

Hyampom (California) D/K D/K D/K 8.00

Elk Mountain (Montana) 286.00 1,978.00 31,016.00 8.00

Springer (Arizona) 197.00 889.00 15,994.00 D/K

Y-Mountain (Utah) 15.60 91.30 1,652.10 0

Horse (Idaho) 105.00 528.00 7,191.00 0

Total 19,185.88 55,298.52 1,039,670.28 30.50
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 72 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 12 identifies two significant effects the wildland fires had on soils 

located on federal lands. The first three columns identify the acres on 

which the fire burned but had beneficial effects, grouped by (1) severely 

burned acres, (2) moderately burned acres, and (3) lightly burned acres. 

The last column shows the percentage of acres burned by the fire that may 

experience the adverse effects of soil erosion.

Table 12: Fire Effects on Soils by Burn Severity and Erosion Potential

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: D/K = did not know; N/A = not applicable.

Fire name

Percent of severely 

burned federal 

acres with beneficial 

effects on soils

Percent of 

moderately burned 

federal acres

with beneficial 

effects on soils

Percent of lightly 

burned federal acres 

with beneficial 

effects on soils

Percent of

acres with high

potential erosion

hazard

Missionary Ridge (Colorado) 0 0 0 40

Sheep Mountain (Wyoming) 0 30 100 56

Burgdorf Junction (Idaho) N/A 100 100 43

Crimson Clover (Idaho) 0 0 50 4

Elko 13/#3 (Nevada) 11 60 0 12

Boulder Hills (Montana) 0 20 20 84

Abert (Oregon) 0 0 100 0

Rough Diamonds (Idaho) 0 34 0 81

Stables (California) 0 0 0 91

Horse Creek (Oregon) 11 43 0 0

Cow Hollow (Oregon) 0 0 0 0

Longleaf Vista (Louisiana) 0 0 0 72

Tipton Ranch (Nevada) 0 0 0 0

Pony Express II (Nevada) 61 0 100 D/K

Crusoe (Nevada) 50 0 100 0

Hyampom (California) 0 0 82 47

Elk Mountain (Montana) 0 0 0 0

Springer (Arizona) 0 0 100 6

Y-Mountain (Utah) 0 0 0 34

Horse (Idaho) 0 50 100 8
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 73 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Table 13 identifies three significant effects the wildland fires had on 

vegetation. The first three columns identify the percentage of federal acres 

burned and the severity with which the vegetation burned. The fourth and 

fifth columns identify the federal acres that experienced stand-replacing 

fire and the number of acres in which this fire behavior is characteristic of 

the historic fire regime. The last two columns show the number of acres 

populated by noxious or invasive weeds prior to the fire, as well as the 

number of these acres vulnerable to weeds after the fire.

Table 13: Fire Effects on Vegetation

Fire name 

Percent of 

federal acres 

severely 

burned with 

beneficial 

effects on 

vegetation

Percent of 

federal acres 

moderately 

burned with 

beneficial 

effects on 

vegetation 

Percent of 

federal 

acres 

lightly 

burned 

with 

beneficial 

effects on 

vegetation

Federal 

acres of 

trees 

burned in 

standreplacing 

firea

Federal acres of 

trees in which 

stand-replacing

fire is

characteristic 

Federal 

acres 

with 

weeds 

prior to 

fire 

Federal 

acres 

vulnerable 

to weeds 

after fire

Missionary Ridge (Colorado) 0 N/R 100 6,500 1,950 D/K D/K

Sheep Mountain (Wyoming) 100 0 0 9,000 9,000 1,000 5,000

Burgdorf Junction (Idaho) 0 100 100 10,900 10,900 20 9,900

Crimson Clover (Idaho) 0 0 69 N/A N/A 10,120 14,466

Elko 13/#3 (Nevada) 22 60 0 20 15 6,272 10,000

Boulder Hills (Montana) 50 50 100 2300 800 500 1,800

Abert (Oregon) 0 0 100 0 0 0 0

Rough Diamonds (Idaho) 63 100 0 4,096 4,096 618 1,000

Stables (California) 0 35 90 0 N/R 3,800 4,000

Horse Creek (Oregon) 11 43 0 0 N/R 100 900

Cow Hollow (Oregon) 0 0 0 0 0 3,058 3,358

Longleaf Vista (Louisiana) 0 100 100 100 100 1,875 1,875

Tipton Ranch (Nevada) 0 0 0 NA 100 2,025 2,025

Pony Express II (Nevada) 9 0 100 705 705 D/K 705

Crusoe (Nevada) 60 100 100 277 277 1,386 1,386

Hyampom (California) 0 100 100 380 50 1,053 1,053

Elk Mountain (Montana) 55 100 100 445 290 0 1,024
Appendix IV

Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results

Page 74 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM officials.

Note: D/K = did not know; N/A = not applicable; N/R = no response. 

a

Stand-replacing fire refers to a fire that burns 80 percent or more of the vegetation.

Springer (Arizona) 0 50 100 26 0 26 26

Y-Mountain (Utah) D/K D/K D/K D/K 0 280 380

Horse (Idaho) 40 100 100 230 81 0 0

Total 34,979 28,364 32,133 58,898

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fire name 

Percent of 

federal acres 

severely 

burned with 

beneficial 

effects on 

vegetation

Percent of 

federal acres 

moderately 

burned with 

beneficial 

effects on 

vegetation 

Percent of 

federal 

acres 

lightly 

burned 

with 

beneficial 

effects on 

vegetation

Federal 

acres of 

trees 

burned in 

standreplacing 

firea

Federal acres of 

trees in which 

stand-replacing 

fire is

characteristic 

Federal 

acres 

with 

weeds 

prior to 

fire 

Federal 

acres 

vulnerable 

to weeds 

after fire
Page 75 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix V

Remote Sensing Data and Systems ApendxiV

To gather data on features of the earth, land management agencies use 

remote sensing technologies and data. Remote sensing means that different 

technologies are used to gather data from some distance away from the 

earth—that is, remotely. As shown in figure 8, the technologies used to 

collect data can be based on satellites, airplanes, or towers of some kind. 

These platforms carry sensors that collect data through spectral images, or 

wavelengths that reflect off objects. Different objects on the earth reflect 

light differently, and the images can be filtered and analyzed to identify the 

objects. For example, the amount of greenness reflecting back from burned 

acres varies depending on the amount of vegetation burned, which gives 

land managers an idea of how severely different areas have been affected 

by fire. 
Appendix V

Remote Sensing Data and Systems

Page 76 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Figure 8: Remote Sensing Technologies and the Data Produced
Appendix V

Remote Sensing Data and Systems

Page 77 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Remote sensing data is analyzed using geographic information system 

tools. Through these computer systems, the image data can be integrated 

and analyzed with other spatially referenced data, such as topography, 

weather, and soils. 

Depending on the resolution of the images that are taken, the data gathered 

through remote sensing systems are more or less detailed. For example, a 

resolution commonly used for gathering information on natural resources 

is 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer (250 acres), which refers to the size of the 

area of ground that is recorded in 1 pixel—that is, 1 point of remote sensing 

data. A more specific resolution is 30 meters by 30 meters, which is 

equivalent to about one-quarter acre. Figure 9 compares an actual site, on 

the left, with the site represented through two remote-sensing methods. 

The center photograph represents the view taken from an airplane (the 

square outlines the actual site from the photograph on the left), and the 

photograph on the right depicts 30-meter by 30-meter data captured by a 

satellite-based sensor (the square outlines the actual site from the 

photograph on the left).

Figure 9: Images and Data Collected Using Aerial and Satellite Technology 

Compared with an Actual Site

Sources: National Park Service (pictures); GAO (presentation).
Page 78 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix VI

Examples of Models for Assessing Wildland 

Fires and Fuels ApendxiVI

Fire ecologists and researchers have been studying wildland fire for many 

years and through this process have developed models, databases, and 

other tools that are helpful for land and fire managers in planning and 

managing fires and their effects. Not only does the Forest Service maintain 

a system of laboratories that conduct research on many aspects of wildland 

fire, including wildland fire behavior, fire effects, air quality, and more, but 

the Bureau of Land Management maintains an agreement with the Desert 

Research Institute to study fire, atmosphere, and ecological effects. In 

addition, universities and nonprofit organizations are studying different 

aspects of fire and its effects. The Joint Fire Science Program is a key 

source of funding for fire researchers, providing almost $16 million in 2002 

to study (1) fire effects and fuel treatments; (2) planning and preparedness; 

(3) air quality, smoke management, and climate; (4) social and economic 

impacts; (5) fire and invasive plant species; (6) remote sensing; (7) 

demonstration projects; and (8) local and other projects. Some of the 

important tools that have been developed to model fire and its effects are 

described below.

BehavePlus: This is a modeling system that uses vegetation information to 

predict a number of different factors that describe a wildland fire for the 

purposes of planning a prescribed fire or predicting the behavior of a 

potential wildland fire. The factors that describe fire behavior include the 

rate of spread of fire, length of flames the vegetation would produce, size of 

the fire that would burn, distance that embers would fly to unburned areas, 

and amount of trees and other vegetation that would die from the fire, 

among others. 

FARSITE: This is a fire growth simulation model that computes fire 

behavior and growth over a long period of time across a geographic area. 

Using fire behavior models integrated with spatial vegetation data, terrain 

data, and weather data, the model projects where and how fast a fire will 

spread across a landscape with variable vegetation, and how hot or intense 

the fire will be. 

Fire and Fuels Extension-Forest Vegetation Simulator (FFE-FVS): This is 

a model originally developed to simulate forest growth and yield, which has 

been adapted to provide information for fuels reduction projects. It uses 

data on specific stands of trees and “grows” the trees to show stand 

development over time. It also simulates accumulation and decay of 

surface fuels due to litter, tree mortality, and fuel reduction resulting from 

treatments. Expected fire behavior and effects if a wildland fire should 
Appendix VI

Examples of Models for Assessing Wildland 

Fires and Fuels

Page 79 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

occur are also shown over the simulation period. This information is used 

by fuels planners to assess the need for fuel treatment. 

Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT): This model uses “state in 

transition” models or box and arrow diagrams to show how vegetation is 

changing and will change.

NEXUS: This is a model that estimates surface, transition, and crown fire 

behavior, which occurs in the forest canopy. The model shows the 

conditions that may cause a crown fire in an area with particular 

combinations of surface and canopy fuels and fuel moisture conditions. 

The wind speed at which crown fire can occur is computed based on the 

potential for crown fire in the stand. This information can be used to 

evaluate alternatives for treating fuels to reduce the risk of crown fire.

FlamMap: This software creates geographic information system maps 

(raster maps) of potential fire behavior characteristics, including rate of 

spread, flame length, crown fire, and others, as well as environmental 

factors such as fuel moistures and wind speeds. It does not simulate fire 

growth but uses spatial information on topography and fuels to calculate 

fire behavior factors at a point in time. 

Simulating Vegetative Patterns and Processes at Landscape Scales 

(SIMPPLLE): This simulation model shows the succession of vegetation 

after fire or other disturbance has been introduced. It is spatially explicit, 

meaning that the results are mapped in a geographic information system. It 

also models the change in vegetation over time. Planners can use it to 

explore how fire will affect a landscape and how their fuel reduction 

treatments can change the outcome.

Multi-Resource Analysis and Geographic Information System (MAGIS):

MAGIS is an optimization model that schedules fuel reduction treatments 

across a landscape. It is a spatial model that considers land management 

objectives for deciding which projects are optimal and also functions under 

user-imposed resource constraints.

First-Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM): This model estimates the firstorder effects of a fire in a particular area based on a set of fuel loadings 

provided by the users. First-order effects include those effects that result 

directly from the fire: fuel consumption, tree mortality, smoke, and soil 

heating. Second-order effects refer to the indirect effects of fire: erosion, 

soil loss, and species or habitat loss. 
Appendix VI

Examples of Models for Assessing Wildland 

Fires and Fuels

Page 80 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Fire Effects Information System (FEIS): This system provides literature 

reviews for about 900 plant species, 100 animal species, and 16 plant 

communities (as defined by Kuchler in North America). The reviews, called 

“species summaries,” are online at www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. The 

objective of each summary is to synthesize information on fire and its 

effects on the species, but background information on taxonomy, 

distribution, basic biology, and ecology is also provided. Summaries are 

documented and each contains a complete bibliography. 

LANDFIRE: This system consists of a database and models that will 

provide nationwide data on vegetation conditions and departure from fire 

regimes. The data and system will be used by forests and BLM field offices 

to identify how much vegetation has accumulated beyond historical 

conditions for purposes of reducing fuels. 

Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS): This is a database of 

different fuelbeds that can exist around the country. A fuelbed is a unit of 

land on a landscape that contains relatively homogenous fuel conditions in 

the form of different vegetation. The fuelbeds are created by classifying the 

amount and type of vegetation—which acts as fuel—in six different 

strata—canopy, shrub, low vegetation, woody fuel, mosses, and ground 

fuels.

Fuel Photo Series: The series contains a collection of photos showing a 

range of natural vegetation conditions in the field and their related fuel 

conditions. The photos can be compared to actual conditions on the 

ground for fire and land managers to use in running fire effects models and 

to plan fuel reduction projects.

Bluesky: This smoke-dispersion model simulates the cumulative impacts 

from wildland fires, prescribed fires, and agricultural burn activities. The 

model can be used by air quality regulators and land managers who are 

planning prescribed burns for purposes of minimizing the effects of smoke 

on communities and other areas with impaired air quality.

Ventilation Climate Information System (VCIS): This is a national climate 

model that predicts localized inversions that can hold in smoke, causing 

impaired air quality. Fire and land managers can use the model to plan 

prescribed burns to minimize their effect on air quality.

CONSUME: CONSUME is an interactive model of fuel consumption that 

estimates the amount of fuels consumed during prescribed and wildland 
Appendix VI

Examples of Models for Assessing Wildland 

Fires and Fuels

Page 81 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

fires. It predicts the amount of smoke and pollutants emitted from a 

particular fire based on weather data, the amount of fuel, fuel moisture, 

and other factors. Land managers use the model to plan for prescribed 

burns.

Fire Emissions Production Simulator (FEPS): This model estimates the 

rate of gas, heat, and particle emissions from a fire. It calculates total fuel 

consumption and determines short-term and long-term smoldering and 

consumption. Land managers use this to plan a response to smoke 

emissions from a wildland fire.

Fire Effects Tradeoff Model (FETM): This model simulates changes in 

vegetation composition over time—1 to 300 years—and shows the different 

outcomes from alternative land management practices over the selected 

time frame. It does not display these spatially but summarizes the 

landscape composition in various categories, such as density classes, acres 

disturbed, and fire emissions. It can be used by managers when planning a 

number of activities over a large area—over 1 million acres.

National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS): The system combines 

weather, climate, and fuels information to predict the potential for wildland 

fires to occur on a daily basis. Land managers use the system to plan the 

timing of prescribed burns and to anticipate when wildland fires might 

occur.
Page 82 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix VII

Consolidated Comments from the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior ApendxiVI
Appendix VII

Consolidated Comments from the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior

Page 83 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire
Appendix VII

Consolidated Comments from the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior

Page 84 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire
Appendix VII

Consolidated Comments from the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior

Page 85 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire
Page 86 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix VIII

Comments from the Council on 

Environmental Quality ApendxiVI
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Council on 

Environmental Quality

Page 87 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire
Page 88 GAO-04-705 Environmental Effects of Wildland Fire

Appendix IX

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIX

GAO Contacts Barry T. Hill, (202) 512-3841

Roy Judy, (202) 512-3482

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Nancy Crothers, Sandy Davis, Susan Iott, 

Rich Johnson, and Ches Joy made key contributions to this report. Mark 

Braza, Jean McSween, Kim Raheb, Jena Sinkfield, and Joan Vogel made 

important methodological and graphic contributions to the report.

(360333)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00