[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67480-67511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28509]



[[Page 67479]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Forest Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / 
Notices

[[Page 67480]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


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

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is adopting a cohesive strategy for fire 
management and forest health programs. The full text of the report, 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--
A Cohesive Strategy, is set out at the end of this notice. This report 
responds to direction from Congress and the President to provide a 
strategic plan to reduce wildland fire risk, protect communities, and 
restore and maintain forest ecosystem health in the interior West. The 
report also responds to findings and recommendations in a recent 
General Acounting Office report, and it provides a strategic framework 
for reducing hazardous fuels buildup as addressed in the September 8 
report to the President by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
Interior, Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the 
Environment.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the cohesive strategy report and related materials 
are available electronically from the Forest Service World Wide Web/
Internet home page at http://www.fs.fed.us/. Paper copies of the report 
also may be obtained by writing to Director, Fire and Aviation 
Management Staff, 2nd Floor-SW, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building (Mail 
Stop 1107), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 
20090-6090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Beighley, Fire and Aviation 
Management Staff, (202) 205-0888.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the 2000 fire season more than 6.8 
million acres of public and private lands had burned as of early 
October--more than twice the 10-year national average. The magnitude of 
these fires is the result of two primary factors: a severe drought, 
accompanied by a series of storms that produced thousands of lightning 
strikes followed by windy conditions; and the long-term effects of 
almost a century of suppressing all wildfires that has led to a buildup 
of brush and small trees in the nation's forests and rangelands.
    On August 8, 2000, the President directed the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and the Interior to prepare a report recommending how best 
to respond to this year's severe fires, reduce the impacts of those 
fires on rural communities, and ensure sufficient firefighting 
resources in the future. On September 8, 2000, the President accepted 
their report, Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the 
Environment, which provides an overall framework for forest health and 
fire management.
    Subsequently, the Forest Service issued the report entitled, 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--
A Cohesive Strategy, which is set out in its entirety, with the 
exception of certain illustrations which could not be printed in the 
Federal Register, in this notice. This report provides the strategic 
framework for reducing hazardous fuels buildup within wildland--urban 
interface communities, readily accessible municipal watersheds, 
threatened and endangered species habitat, and other impotant local 
features. The Chief of the Forest Service signed the cohesive strategy 
report on October 13, and it was released to agency managers on October 
17.
    The report responds to Congressional direction to provide a 
strategic plan to reduce wildland fire risk and restore forest 
ecosystem health in the interior West. The report is set out at the end 
of this notice as directed by Title IV of the fiscal year 2001 
appropriations act for Interior and related agencies (Public Law 106-
291). As further directed by the act, the agency also has reviewed 
other policies and rulemakings currently in development for consistency 
with the cohesive strategy, including proposed rules and policies for 
the National Forest System road management and transportation system 
(65 FR 11675, March 3, 2000) and roadless area conservation (65 FR 
30276, May 10, 2000); and the Interior Columbia Basin Supplemental 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Sierra Nevada Framework/
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This 
report also responds to the General Acounting Office report, Western 
National Forests: A Cohesive Stratgey Is Needed To Address Catastrophic 
Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65).
    This cohesive strategy addresses the restoration and maintenance of 
ecosystem health in fire-adapted ecosystems for priority areas, with 
emphasis on the interior West. The focus of the strategy is on 
protecting communities at risk and restoring ecosytems that evolved 
with frequently occurring, low-intensity fire. Many of these forests 
and rangelands have grown out of balance due in part to past management 
practices and decades of fire suppression. The strategy identifies 
restoration priorities in fire dependent ecosystems for urban-wildland 
interface areas, threatened and endangered species habitat, and readily 
accessible municipal watersheds.

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Mike Dombeck,
Chief.

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

The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting 
Office Report, GAO/RCED-99-65,

October 13, 2000.

Submitted by: Lyle Laverty, Report Team Leader, Rocky Mountain Region 
Regional Forester; and Jerry Williams, Report Team Co-Leader, Northern 
Region Director Fire Management
Approved by: Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service

Table of Contents

Resilience in Fire-Prone Forests
Executive Summary
    I Purpose and Intent of a Cohesive Strategy
    II Background, Land Use History, and Ecological Change
    III Ensuring Clean Air, Clean Water, and Biodiversity in Fire-
Adapted Ecosystems
    IV A Cohesive Strategy to Protect People and Sustain Resources 
in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems
    V Consequences of Deferral
    VI Conclusions and Next Steps
    VII Team Members
    VIII Acknowledgements
    IX Glossary
    X References and Supporting Information
    XI Appendices
Appendix A: The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition of Fire 
Regimes and Condition Classes
Appendix B: Recommended Adjustments to Forest Service GPRA Strategic 
Plan
Appendix C: Reconciling Stewardship Objectives--Assessing Values at 
Risk
Appendix D: Summary for Future Projections of Condition Classes and 
Risks
Figures
    Figure 1--General affected area within the interior West
    Figure 2--Figure 3--Changes in forest structure and condition 
class over time
    Figure 4--National forest wildland fire acres burned trend in 
the 11 Western states
    Figure 5--Increased density of smaller trees provides fuel for 
vertical fire spread
    Figure 6--Buffalo Creek Fire erosion effects
    Figure 7--Homes burning in the Dude Fire, Arizona, 1990
    Figure 8--Changes in projected amount in Condition Classes on 
Western National Forest System lands
    Figure 9--National forest wildland fire acres/suppression costs, 
1980-99
    Figure 10--Projected risk to life and property on Western 
National Forest System lands based on changes in fuel condition

[[Page 67481]]

    Figure 11--Projected amount of degradation or loss of key 
ecosystem elements from severe wildland fires on National Forest 
System lands based on changes in fuel condition
    Figure 12--Projected risk among strategic options to air 
quality, native species, and watersheds on Western National Forest 
System lands based on changes in fuel conditions
    Figure 13--Cohesive Strategy aims to reduce severe insect, 
disease, and wildland fire risk
    Figure 14--Forest Service Lands--Fire Regimes I & II
Tables
    Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c--10, 15 and 20-year treatment schedules to 
increase the hazardous fuels treatment program
    Table 2--The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups

Resilience and the Effects of Restoration Treatments in Fire-Prone 
Forests

    Note: The photograph mentioned below is not printed in the 
Federal Register. It is available as indicated in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this notice.

    This photograph illustrates how a treated forest--the green strip 
running toward the crest of the ridge in the photo's center--can 
survive a severe wildland fire. It also shows the differences in 
resilience between treated and untreated forests. The untreated 
forest--the blackened areas located on either side of this green 
strip--burned in the Wenatchee National Forest's 1994 Tyee Fire.
    In this example, treatment was in the form of a ``shaded fuel 
break'' (area of green trees in above photo) established several years 
before. The purpose of these shaded fuel breaks--located in tactically 
important areas--is to provide firefighters an anchor from which to 
safely fight fire. The shaded fuel break (pictured) left older-age 
trees overhead and thinned out the smaller trees beneath them--removing 
surface fuels to reduce potential fire intensities.
    On the Tyee Fire, extreme conditions that included high winds and 
rapid fire growth, precluded safe attack. No suppression actions were 
therefore taken in this area. Nevertheless, because the fuels had been 
reduced and fire intensities did not burn hot enough to kill all of the 
older trees, much of the treated forest survived the fire--even without 
the efforts of firefighters.
    The cohesive strategy described in this report attempts to achieve 
improved forest and grassland resilience--as illustrated in this Tyee 
Fire photo. The strategy provides an approach to reduce fuel loadings 
in fire-prone forests to protect people and sustain resources.

Executive Summary

Premise

    This strategy is based on the premise that sustainable resources 
are predicated on healthy, resilient ecosystems. In fire-adapted 
ecosystems, some measure of fire use--at appropriate intensity, 
frequency, and time of year--should be included in management 
strategies intended to protect and sustain watersheds, species, and 
other natural resources over the long term.
    The strategy is also based on the premise that, within fire-adapted 
ecosystems, fire-maintained forests and grasslands are inherently safer 
for firefighters and the public than ecosystems in which fire is 
excluded.

Purpose

    The strategy establishes a framework that restores and maintains 
ecosystem health in fire-adapted ecosystems for priority areas across 
the interior West. In accomplishing this, it is intended to:
    <bullet> Improve the resilience and sustainability of forests and 
grasslands at risk,
    <bullet> Conserve priority watersheds, species and biodiversity,
    <bullet> Reduce wildland fire costs, losses, and damages, and
    <bullet> Better ensure public and firefighter safety.

Priorities

    Wildland-urban interface. Wildland-urban interface areas include 
those areas where flammable wildland fuels are adjacent to homes and 
communities.
    Readily accessible municipal watersheds. Water is the most critical 
resource in many western states. Watersheds impacted by 
uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less resilient to disturbance and 
unable to recover as quickly as those that remain within the range of 
ecological conditions characteristic of the fire regime under which 
they developed.
    Threatened and endangered species habitat. The extent of recent 
fires demonstrates that in fire-adapted ecosystems few areas are 
isolated from wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many threatened and 
endangered species will eventually be impacted by wildland fire. The 
severity and extent of fire could eventually push declining populations 
beyond recovery.
    Maintenance of existing low risk Condition Class 1 areas. This is 
especially important in the southern and eastern states where high 
rates of vegetation growth can eliminate the effects of treatment in 5-
10 years. Recent droughts have caused severe wildland fire problems in 
Florida and Texas.

Elements

    For the purposes of this report, the following are used as the 
elements of a cohesive strategy:
    <bullet> Institutional Objectives and Priorities
    <bullet> Program Management Budgets and Authorities
    <bullet> Social Awareness and Support
    The strategy is based on the alignment of these institutional, 
program management, and constituency elements. The cohesion of this 
strategy stands on the collective strength of these three core 
elements.
    Within the Forest Service, ecosystem management concepts continue 
to evolve into practice. This report describes a cohesive set of 
actions from which the Forest Service may choose to initiate 
restoration and maintenance objectives within fire-adapted ecosystems.

I. Purpose and Intent of a Cohesive Strategy

    ``The most extensive and serious problem related to the health of 
national forests in the interior West is the over-accumulation of 
vegetation.''--General Accounting Office Report (99-65)

Preface

    The 2000 fire season was undoubtedly one of the most challenging on 
record. As of early October, more than 6.8 million acres of public and 
private lands burned--more than twice the 10-year national average. The 
magnitude of these fires is the result of two primary factors: A severe 
drought, accompanied by a series of storms that produced thousands of 
lightning strikes followed by windy conditions; and the long-term 
effects of almost a century of aggressively suppressing all wildfires 
that has led to an unnatural buildup of brush and small trees in our 
forests and rangelands.
    On August 8, 2000, President Clinton asked Secretaries Babbitt and 
Glickman to prepare a report that recommends how best to respond to 
this year's severe fires, reduce the impacts of those fires on rural 
communities, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the 
future. On September 8, 2000, President Clinton accepted their report 
Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment.
    Operating principles directed by The Chief of the Forest Service in 
implementing this report include:
    Firefighting Readiness. Increase firefighting capability and 
capacity for initial attack, extended attack, and large

[[Page 67482]]

fire support that will reduce the number of small fires becoming large, 
to better protect natural resources, to reduce the threat to adjacent 
communities, and reduce the cost of large fire suppression.
    Prevention Through Education. Assist state and local partners to 
take actions to reduce fire risk to homes and private property through 
programs such as FIREWISE.
    Rehabilitation. Focus rehabilitation efforts on restoring watershed 
function, including the protection of basic soil, water resources, 
biological communities, and prevention of invasive species.
    Hazardous Fuel Reduction. Assign highest priority for hazardous 
fuels reduction to communities at risk, readily accessible municipal 
watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and other 
important local features, where conditions favor uncharacteristically 
intense fires.
    Restoration. Restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological 
systems to minimize uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority 
watershed basis. Methods will include removal of excessive vegetation 
and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatment 
methods.
    Collaborative Stewardship. Focus on achieving the desired future 
condition on the land in collaboration with communities, interest 
groups, and state and federal agencies. Streamline process, maximize 
effectiveness, use an ecologically conservative approach, and minimize 
controversy in accomplishing restoration projects.
    Monitoring. Monitor to evaluate the effectiveness of various 
treatments to reduce unnaturally intense fires while restoring forest 
ecosystem health and watershed function.
    Jobs. Encourage new stewardship industries and collaborate with 
local people, volunteers, Youth Conservation Corps members, service 
organizations, and Forest Service work crews, as appropriate.
    Applied Research and Technology Transfer. Focus research on the 
long-term effectiveness of different restoration and rehabilitation 
methods to determine those methods most effective in protecting and 
restoring watershed function and forest health. Seek new uses and 
markets for byproducts of restoration.
    Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment 
provides an overall framework for implementing fire management and 
forest health programs. This report provides the strategic framework 
for reducing hazardous fuels buildup within wildland-urban interface 
communities, readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and 
endangered species habitat, and other important local features. The 
objective of this strategy is to describe actions that could restore 
healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological systems to minimize the 
potential for uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority basis. 
Methods will include removal of excessive vegetation and dead fuels 
through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatment methods.
    This report is based on Forest Service experience and analysis. It 
also responds to Congressional direction to provide a strategic plan to 
reduce wildland fire risk and restore forest ecosystem health in the 
interior West. It reflects the findings of the U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO) Report, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is 
Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildland fire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65).
    The General Accounting Office report concludes, ``The most 
extensive and serious problem related to the health of national forests 
in the interior West is the over-accumulation of vegetation.'' The 
General Accounting Office estimated that the over-accumulation of fuels 
problem affects approximately 39 million acres in the interior West.
    The Chief of the Forest Service chartered the strategy outlined in 
this report. The National Association of State Foresters and the U.S. 
Department of the Interior participated with the Forest Service in 
developing this report.
    It is important to note that this is an iterative strategy. It will 
be refined by: further programmatic and manual direction; ongoing 
roadless, roads, and planning rulemakings; and environmental impact 
statements and decision documents for the national grasslands and 
ongoing regional initiatives.
    At the national level the strategy articulates:
    <bullet> Agency-wide objectives and milestones.
    <bullet> Geographic priorities, broad management guidance, and 
performance measures for accountability.
    <bullet> Alternative schedules to accomplish restoration and 
maintenance objectives over various timeframes.
    Separate action plans, consistent with the strategy and regional 
assessments and direction, and ongoing national rulemakings, will 
outline implementation steps at the organization's regional, forest, 
and ranger district levels.
    The acreage and cost estimate numbers used in this report are 
preliminary and derived from coarse-scale assessments. Further 
refinement and analysis will initiate appropriate adjustment in the 
strategy and will occur as more site-specific assessments are 
completed.

Focus

    The focus of this strategy is on restoring ecosystems that evolved 
with frequently occurring, low intensity fires. These fires typically 
occurred at intervals of between 1 to 35 years and served to reduce 
growth of brush and other understory vegetation while generally leaving 
larger, older trees intact.
    Fire suppression activities and some past management practices over 
the past 100 years have excluded fire from many of these fire-adapted 
ecosystems. In the absence of fire, many of these lands have become 
subject to an over-accumulation of shrubs and small trees, diminishing 
ecosystem diversity, health, and resiliency and fueling conditions for 
unnaturally intense fires that threaten communities, air, soil, water 
quality, and plant and animal species.

Premise

    This strategy outlines approaches to protect communities and 
restore and maintain land health in fire-adapted ecosystems across the 
interior West. The report is based on the premise that sustainable 
resources depend on healthy, properly functioning, resilient 
ecosystems.
    Within fire-adapted ecosystems, fire-maintained forests and 
grasslands are inherently safer for firefighters and the public than 
ecosystems in which fire is excluded.
    In fire-adapted ecosystems, some measure of fire use--at the 
appropriate intensity, frequency, and time of year--should be an 
essential component of management strategies intended to protect and 
sustain watersheds, species, and other natural resources over the long 
term.

Purpose

    The strategy outlines approaches to restore and maintain land 
health in fire-adapted ecosystems across the interior West. In 
accomplishing this, it is intended to:
    <bullet> Improve the resilience and sustainability of forests and 
grasslands at risk,
    <bullet> Conserve priority watersheds, species and biodiversity,
    <bullet> Reduce wildland fire costs, losses, and damages, and
    <bullet> Better ensure public and firefighter safety.

[[Page 67483]]

Priorities

    <bullet> Wildland-urban interface. Wildland-urban interface areas 
include those areas where flammable wildland fuels are adjacent to 
homes and communities.
    <bullet> Readily accessible municipal watersheds. Water is the most 
critical resource in many western states. Watersheds impacted by 
uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less resilient to disturbance and 
unable to recover as quickly as those that remain within the range of 
ecological conditions characteristic of the fire regime under which 
they developed.
    <bullet> Threatened and endangered species habitat. The extent of 
recent fires demonstrates that in fire-adapted ecosystems few areas are 
isolated from wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many threatened and 
endangered species will eventually be impacted by wildland fire. The 
severity and extent of fire could eventually push declining populations 
beyond recovery.
    <bullet> Maintenance of existing low risk Condition Class 1 areas. 
This is especially important in the southern and eastern states where 
high rates of vegetation growth can eliminate the effects of treatment 
in 5-10 years. Recent droughts have caused severe wildland fire 
problems in Florida and Texas.

Present Situation

    Most forests and grasslands in the interior West and their 
associated species are fire-adapted. Some, known as ``short interval'' 
fire-adapted ecosystems, evolved from frequent, low-intensity fires 
that burned surface fuels. These fires recycled nutrients, checked 
encroachment of competing vegetation, and maintained healthy conditions 
(see below in top picture).
    Generally, the prolonged absence of low-intensity burning in these 
ecosystems creates a surface fuel buildup and an over-accumulation of 
small trees and brush that makes forests more susceptible to insect 
infestations, disease outbreaks, and severe wildland fires.
    Before the turn of the last century, livestock grazing, selective 
logging, and curtailment of burning by Native Americans began to alter 
the composition, structure, and function of these fire-adapted forest 
ecosystems. As a result of human influences, fire-intolerant species 
replaced fire-tolerant species. Forest stands that typically grew 50 
larger fire-tolerant trees per acre became encroached with more than 
600 mostly small, fire-intolerant trees per acre. Without recurring 
underburns, seedlings filled in beneath the older trees--transforming 
open park-like forests into dense forests.
    Expanded human development, changes in climate, and fire 
suppression have contributed to substantial accumulations of understory 
vegetation. This over-accumulated vegetation predisposes some areas to 
severe wildland fires, potentially leaving watersheds, species, and 
people at risk.
    Today, primarily as a result of prolonged fire exclusion, many of 
the most serious wildland fire threats and forest ecosystem health 
issues are concentrated within fire-adapted ecosystems that evolved 
with frequent, low-intensity fires.

The Strategy

    This report outlines a strategy to reduce wildland fire threats and 
restore forest ecosystem health in the interior West. The strategy 
builds on the premise that within fire-adapted ecosystems, reducing 
fuel levels and using fire at appropriate intensities, frequencies, and 
time of year are key to: Restoring healthy, resilient conditions; 
sustaining natural resources; and protecting people.
    The strategy introduces institutional objectives, establishes 
program management priorities and cost estimates, and confirms the 
importance of expanding constituency support. The strategy's success 
stands on the cohesion and collective strength of these elements.
    The strategy places a high priority on treating areas where human 
communities, watersheds, or species are at risk from severe wildfire. 
It relies on a variety of treatment options to achieve restoration 
objectives in wildland-urban interface areas, readily accessible 
municipal watersheds, and habitats of threatened and endangered 
species. Immediate treatment efforts would be concentrated in the 
shorter interval fire-adapted ecosystems. These priority ecosystems are 
farthest outside the historic range of variability and are in close 
proximity to human communities.
Strategy--Ties to Ongoing Planning and Rulemaking Efforts
    First, the strategy meets the requirements of the Forest Service 
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan (2000 
revision) by establishing objectives, milestones, and performance 
elements for ecosystem restoration and maintenance, and conservation 
education.
    Second, few wildland-urban interface areas are adjacent to 
inventoried roadless areas making roadless areas a lower priority for 
treatment. More over, all of the alternatives currently under 
consideration in the roadless initiative allow for the construction of 
roads to suppress fire where public health and safety are at risk.
    Third, the ongoing roads policy will ensure that operational 
decisions relative to implementation--such as which roads should be 
left open or maintained to enhance firefighting or other fire 
management activities--are made locally through cooperative planning.
    Finally, efforts to revise management plans governing the national 
forests and grasslands and the Columbia River Basin and Sierra Nevada 
ecosystems will integrate fire management with other agency multiple-
use objectives. This strategy will be refined and adapted to ensure 
consistency with the outcomes of these regional conservation efforts.
Strategy--How Much Treatment Is Needed?
    The strategy does not require that every high, medium or low risk 
acre be treated, nor does it eliminate all risks. By strategically 
identifying fuel treatment areas to protect values associated with 
human communities, municipal watersheds and critical species habitat, 
the damaging effects of wildland fire can be effectively minimized.
    Due to other agency priorities and funding constraints, historic 
efforts to reduce fire risk often focused treatment efforts on areas 
that posed the least risk to communities. The result: areas where 
treatments could be implemented at the least cost often took priority 
over other areas with higher costs.
    The purpose of this report is to establish priorities for 
treatment. The strategy will be refined as hazardous fuels reduction 
and restoration priorities are considered in local, regional and 
national planning efforts.
Strategy--Focus on High-Risk Areas
    The strategy focuses treatment on high-risk areas, rather than 
least-cost acres. Existing roads will be used to access high-risk 
areas. Where roads are scheduled for closure, consideration will be 
given to accomplishing ecosystem restoration objectives prior to 
closure.
    While emphasizing restoration in the interior West, the strategy 
also supports ongoing efforts to maintain healthy ecosystems where they 
currently exist. For example, in the South, fuels can rapidly 
accumulate to dangerous levels in the absence of treatment. The Forest

[[Page 67484]]

Service must therefore continue treating these areas.
    Fuel reduction treatment techniques will range from maintenance 
prescribed burning, where fire is used to maintain forest conditions in 
lower-risk acres, to restoration treatments in higher-risk areas where 
mechanical thinning is followed by prescribed burning. Forest planning 
and collaboration with states, local governments, tribes and the public 
will determine the number of acres to be treated and where and how the 
treatment will occur.
    The first priority for restoration will be the millions of acres of 
already roaded and managed landscapes that are in close proximity to 
communities. Extensive use of service contracts will provide local jobs 
and accomplish land management objectives while helping to protect 
people and property.
    In order to maximize effectiveness and minimize controversy, 
mechanical treatments will be prioritized toward wildland-urban 
interface areas within already roaded and managed portions of the 
landscape. Under this strategy, ecologically sensitive areas, such as 
old growth and late successional forests, will be avoided. In some 
areas, where old growth characteristics are threatened by the risk of 
uncharacteristic wildfire effects, the agency may conduct fuel 
treatments designed to protect older, larger trees while reducing 
unnatural buildups of understory vegetation.
    Better integration of existing program budgets could reduce the 
amount of money requested. In most cases, any receipts associated with 
treatments will not be significant due to the need to reduce the 
disproportionately large number of small, non-merchantable trees, 
brush, and shrubs that dominate short interval fire-adapted ecosystems 
and leave standing the larger, fire-tolerant trees.
Strategy--Complements Other Efforts
    The strategy complements other work, including efforts to protect 
roadless areas and to better manage the existing road system. For 
example, in most places roadless areas are often less affected by past 
management practices and found at higher elevations with vegetation 
that evolved with longer fire return intervals. Furthermore, roadless 
areas are typically removed from human communities. Thus, fires in 
these areas may pose less of a threat to lives and property. The 
proposed road policy would require that issues such as the need for 
hazardous fuels treatments be considered prior to making decisions 
about road decommissioning, upgrading, or new construction.
    The strategy also builds on the Joint Fire Sciences Program. It 
relies on adaptive management, monitoring, research, and the further 
integration of social sciences. It encourages development of procedures 
that bring together and overlay agency objectives for watershed 
protection, species conservation, ecosystem resilience, and public 
safety.
    Research is needed to support restoration. The need for assertive 
action must be coupled with prudence and caution to minimize unintended 
consequences. Additional research is needed to support managers in 
prescribing land management treatments to improve forest ecosystem 
health, as well as to find ways to increase utilization of small 
diameter material.

The Consequences of Deferral

    The costs of implementing the restoration and maintenance 
approaches outlined under this strategy are high. Yet, fire suppression 
costs, public resource losses, private property losses, and 
environmental damages accruing without treatment are expected to be 
significantly greater over time.

Successful Restoration and Maintenance Efforts

    The optimum method to ensure success in restoring ecosystems is 
collaborating with the local public in planning efforts. Regional 
planning, including stakeholders in identifying and assessing values at 
risk, is an important component of the strategy. The Sierra Nevada 
Ecosystem Management Project and the Interior Columbia River Basin 
Management Project are examples of regional-scale planning that address 
resources at risk and establish priorities for broad geographic areas.
    More localized planning processes, including Land and Resource 
Management Plan (forest plan) revisions and amendments, will integrate 
specific concerns and priorities at a watershed or landscape scale 
within the context of regional plans and the Forest Service GPRA 
Strategic Plan.
    Across the nation, awareness is growing about the fire-related 
consequences that occur in untreated forests and grasslands prone to 
wildland fire. The following are two examples of citizen-based efforts 
that have been developed to reduce risks within the interior West's 
urban interface:
    <bullet> The Grand Canyon Forests Partnership (joining Arizona Game 
and Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Land 
Department, Coconino County, City of Flagstaff, Northern Arizona 
University, Grand Canyon Trust and the Nature Conservancy);
    <bullet> The Priest-Pend Oreille Stewardship Project that focuses 
on 7,200 acres of wildland-urban interface lands in the Idaho Panhandle 
National Forest (joining two community project teams with the Forest 
Service).
    To improve forest ecosystem health and reduce wildland fire risks 
at larger scales, action needs to be expanded over broader areas and 
coordinated among Forest Service research, state and private forestry, 
and National Forest System programs. Restoration and maintenance of 
fire-adapted ecosystems depends on:
    <bullet> Understanding and valuing ecological processes as the 
means to sustain ecosystem health.
    <bullet> An ability to evaluate options and weigh decisions for 
long-term outcomes.
    <bullet> An understanding and acceptance of the tools needed to 
accomplish restoration goals.
    <bullet> A commitment to monitoring, evaluation, and research as 
the basis for adaptive management.
    <bullet> Working collaboratively with communities and interested 
parties to build project plans with broad-based local ownership.
    Successful implementation of the approach outlined in this strategy 
requires strong support from Congress and constituents. It must also be 
recognized that success will depend on applying a combination of 
traditional and newly developed methods and knowledge.

[[Page 67485]]

II. Background, Land Use History and Ecological Change

Background
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.000

    Figure 1--General Affected Area Within the Western United States
    Approximately 134 million acres, or about 70 percent of National 
Forest System lands are in the western U.S. The area is a fire-
influenced environment. For thousands of years, the magnitude of 
burning that occurred in this area was much greater than today. In the 
upper Columbia River Basin alone--a small portion of the interior 
West--scientific assessments indicate that prior to European 
settlement, more than six million acres per year burned. Today, fewer 
than one-half million acres burn per year in this same area.
    Nearly all forests and grasslands in this region evolved and 
adapted as a result of widespread fire from lightning and burning by 
Native Americans. These adaptations enabled plant species to survive 
and regenerate in the presence of fire. Some interior West ecosystems 
depend on frequently recurring, low-intensity surface burns to cycle 
nutrients, control pathogens, and maintain healthy, resilient 
conditions.
    These are called ``short interval'' fire-adapted ecosystems. Before 
the turn of the century, these forested ecosystems were often described 
as open and savannah or ``park-like,'' with well-spaced, older-aged 
trees. Grasses and forbs dominated the understories of these forest 
communities. They were kept in this condition by frequent, low-
intensity fires that swept the forest floor.

Land Use History

    Many of the wildland fire threats and forest ecosystem health 
issues that confront us today were triggered more than 100 years ago. 
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, ``high grade'' logging selectively 
removed the largest, most valuable trees--often the fire-tolerant 
ponderosa and other long-needle pine species.
    Slash and other brush left behind from logging practices of this 
era posed tremendous fire risks and contributed to devastating fires in 
the Great Lakes states and elsewhere. In later years, fire exclusion 
from plantations of uniform trees of the same age class created 
conditions conducive to insect and disease infestation and subsequent 
fires. In later years, logging and other management practices may have 
further compromised land health by removing overstory trees while 
leaving smaller trees, slash, and other highly flammable fine fuels 
behind.
    Across open landscapes, early livestock grazing also reduced grass 
cover and scarified the soil. In forested areas, the bare soil seedbeds 
that resulted from logging and intensive grazing allowed hundreds of 
trees to establish on each acre. Without grass fuels to carry surface 
fires, the number of trees (including fire-intolerant species) 
multiplied rapidly. These became dense tree stands that foresters 
termed ``dog-hair'' thickets. Elsewhere, grasslands often converted to 
brushlands and woodlands.
    In the West, the notion of forest protection has historically been 
equated with fire exclusion. Thus, a primary function of the Forest 
Service's overall mission became forest fire suppression.

Ecological Change

    The unintended consequences of logging, livestock grazing, and fire 
control resulted in significant changes to species composition and 
structure--especially in short interval fire-adapted ecosystems. These 
changes, in turn, predisposed extensive areas to many of today's 
wildland fire and forest ecosystem health problems in the interior 
West.
    The following photos (figures 2-3), from the Bitterroot National 
Forest in western Montana, illustrate the changes that have occurred in 
species composition and forest structure over a 111-year period in a 
short interval fire-adapted ponderosa pine forest ecosystem. Each photo 
was taken from the same place, looking at the same forest, at different 
periods in time. The photos capture the differences that have developed 
in species composition and forest structure in the prolonged absence of 
periodic surface burning. Within these ecosystems, these changes become 
indicators of potential risk.

[[Page 67486]]

Changes in Species Composition and Forest Structure

    Note: Figures 2 and 3 are not printed in the Federal Register. 
They are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES section at the 
beginning of this notice.

Figure 2--Bitterroot National Forest 1871 Photo

1871 Photo

    This serves as the baseline reference of forest stand conditions 
that evolved from regularly occurring, low-intensity surface 
burning. The forest was open and dominated by fire-tolerant, fire-
adapted ponderosa pine.

Figure 3--Bitterroot National Forest 1982 Photo

1982 Photo

    By 1982, the forest has changed dramatically from the one that 
existed here in 1871. Over this 111-year period, small trees have 
established in dense thickets and fire-intolerant tree species now 
crowd the forest. During drought periods the overabundance of 
vegetation stresses the site, predisposing the forest to insect 
infestations, disease outbreaks, and severe wildland fire.

    In the prolonged absence of periodic surface burning, vegetative 
growth compounds and dead fuels accumulate. Within the forest, this 
biomass--in the form of multi-layered tree canopies--can carry flames 
from the surface where dead branchwood burns up into the tree crowns. 
In drought years, when vegetation dries, these ``ladder fuels'' 
contribute to severe, high-intensity wildland fires.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.001

Figure 4--National Forest Wildland Fire Acres Burned Trend in 11 
Western States

    Under these conditions, wildland fires exceed nearly all control 
efforts and often result in long-lasting damage to the soil and to the 
watershed.
    In 1871, practically all of the short interval fire-adapted 
ecosystems in the interior West were considered to be relatively low 
risk. They were typically open and because of frequent fire had little 
fuel accumulation. By 1982, the situation had reversed. This elevated 
risk is apparent when evaluated in the context of Western wildland fire 
trends (Figure 4). Since approximately 1987--despite better 
firefighting capabilities--the change in fuel conditions has resulted 
in an increase in wildland fire acres burned.
    For the purpose of this strategy, risk conditions are assigned 
``condition class'' descriptors. In short interval fire-adapted 
ecosystems, Condition Class 1 [for a complete definition, see Appendix 
A The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition of Fire Regimes and Fire 
Classes] (which corresponds to the 1871 Bitterroot N.F. photo) 
represents low relative risk. As Figure 2 indicates, the Condition 
Class 1 trend has few small trees and little ground fuel. The scarcity 
of fuel tends to limit the intensity of wildland fires. At low 
intensities, wildland fires typically do not kill the larger fire-
tolerant trees but often consume small encroaching trees, other 
vegetation, and dead fuels.
    At low intensities, fire is ecologically beneficial because 
nutrients are cycled. In addition, the soil's organic layer is not 
consumed at these low fire intensities. The remaining organic material 
stabilizes the soil surface and helps prevent erosion.
    Because fires in Condition Class 1 areas are low-intensity within 
these ecosystems, they leave the soil intact and functioning normally. 
These fires generally pose little risk and have positive effects to 
biodiversity, soil productivity, and water quality.

    Note: Figures 5 through 7 are not printed in the Federal 
Register. They are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this notice.

Figure 5--Increased Density of Smaller Trees Provides Fuel for 
Vertical Fire Spread

    Condition Class 2 situations develop as one or more fire return 
intervals are missed, primarily due to well-intentioned suppression 
efforts, while understory vegetation continues to grow, becoming 
denser. If this accumulating vegetation is not treated, fires begin to 
burn more intense--making them more difficult to suppress. The impact 
of fires to biodiversity, soil productivity and water quality become 
more pronounced.
    In Condition Class 3 areas within these same ecosystems, fires are 
relatively high risk. As Figure 5 indicates, the forest is littered 
with considerable amounts of dead material and is choked with hundreds 
of small trees that reach into the crowns of the larger, older-age 
forest above. During drought years, small trees and other vegetation 
dry out and burn along with the dead material--fueling severe, high 
intensity wildland fires. At these intensities, wildland fires kill all 
of the trees--even the large ones that, at lower fire intensities, 
would normally survive.

[[Page 67487]]

    Within Condition Class 3 in these short interval fire-adapted 
ecosystems, wildland fires usually damage key ecosystem components, 
including the soil. High-intensity fires consume the soil's organic 
layer and burn off or volatilize nutrients. When small twigs, pine 
needles, and other litter are consumed, water runs unimpeded over the 
surface. Under these circumstances, the soil becomes more susceptible 
to erosion (Figure 6).

Figure 6--Buffalo Creek Fire, Colorado

    These photos, of Colorado's Buffalo Creek Fire aftermath, 
illustrate soil severity burned and left exposed to rain and runoff. 
This produced the subsequent 1996 flash flood that claimed two 
lives. The ensuing erosion also washed topsoil off hillsides, 
clogging downstream watercourses. This erosion reduced future 
storage capacity of reservoirs and silted-over the river's gravel 
beds--significantly reducing spawning habitat.

    At extreme fire intensities, the soil's capacity to absorb water is 
often lost. The fine, powder-like ash that follows a severe wildland 
fire on these sites makes water bead on the surface. These so-called 
``hydrophobic conditions'' result in highly erodable soils.
    Condition Class 3 is classified as high risk because of the danger 
it poses to people and the severe, long-lasting damage likely to result 
to species and watersheds when a fire burns--particularly in drought 
years. Firefighters are especially cognizant of hazards in Condition 
Class 3 situations. In a national survey (Tri-data, 1995), nearly 80% 
of all firefighters identified fuel reduction as the single-most 
important factor for improving their margin of safety on wildland 
fires.
    In Condition Class 3, fires become more costly when homes are 
involved. Throughout much of the interior West, short interval fire-
adapted ecosystems are typically located in valley-bottoms where homes 
and human development are most concentrated. Just as building homes in 
floodplains exposes homeowners to risk of floods, if hazardous fuels 
accumulations persist, development in fire-adapted ecosystems may pose 
a tangible risk to communities.
    An example from the 2000 fire season demonstrates the increased 
costs of fighting fire near people and homes. The Skalkaho Fire on the 
Bitterroot National Forest covered 64,000 acres of forest interspersed 
with homes. It employed 755 firefighting personnel at a cost of $7.2 
million dollars. Meanwhile, on the same forest within the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness Area, a fire that burned about the same acreage 
(63,0000 acres) only required 25 firefighters at a cost of 
approximately $709,999.
    Efforts to reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands must be coupled 
with efforts to assist private landowners to take preventative action 
in their own communities. Creating defensible perimeters around homes, 
improving building codes, and employing fire resistant landscaping will 
help reduce fire risk to communities. These and other such actions can 
help prevent wildland fires from burning homes, reduce insurance 
premiums, and reduce suppression cost.

Figure 7--Homes Burning in the Dude Fire, Arizona, 1990

    The Dude Fire burned in central Arizona in Condition Class 3 
stand conditions. Although the fire only burned a few days, it 
resulted in the death of six firefighters and cost $7.5 million to 
control. It destroyed 75 homes, resulting in property loss of $12 
million. No estimate is available on the resource losses involved.

III. Ensuring Clean Air, Clean Water, and Biodiversity in Fire-
Adapted Ecosystems

    Sustainability: ``Meeting the needs of the current generation 
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 
needs. Ecological sustainability entails maintaining the composition, 
structure and processes of a system, as well as species diversity and 
ecological productivity. The core element of sustainability is that it 
is future oriented.'' Committee of Scientists Report, 1999.

The Legal Basis for Sustainability

    A suite of federal laws and regulations guide management of 
National Forest System lands and fire-related activities on those 
lands. These include the Organic Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, 
Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and National 
Forest Management Act. Long-term sustainability is a consistent theme 
embodied within these laws.
    Sustaining natural resources in short interval fire-adapted 
ecosystems is a basis of the cohesive strategy outlined in this report.

Legal Basis for Sustainability

Endangered Species Act
    ``The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the 
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend 
may be conserved * * * ''
Clean Water Act
    ``(a) Restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and 
biological integrity of the nation's waters * * * The objective of this 
chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
biological integrity of the nation's waters.''
Clean Air Act
    ``(1) to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air 
resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the 
productive capacity of its population.''
National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
    ``(6) the Forest Service * * * has both a responsibility and an 
opportunity to be a leader in assuring that the nation maintains a 
natural resource conservation posture that will meet the requirements 
of our people in perpetuity.''
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
    ``(a) Creation and maintenance of conditions under which man and 
nature can exist in productive harmony.''
    The Forest Service Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 
Strategic Plan (2000 revision) bridges law and Forest Service 
activities. This report's cohesive strategy anchors to the following 
GPRA Strategic Plan's specific objectives:
    <bullet> Improve watershed conditions and restore hydrological 
processes;
    <bullet> Improve habitat quality; and conserve fish, wildlife and 
plant populations;
    <bullet> Improve ecosystem resiliency associated with fire adapted 
ecosystems; and
    <bullet> Reduce the relative risk of damage to human communities 
associated with wildland fire.
    The overarching purpose of the GPRA Strategic Plan, consistent with 
these laws, is to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that meet human 
needs on a long-term basis. Sustaining healthy, diverse conditions 
requires consideration of entire landscapes in the context of specific 
ecosystems and their ecological dynamics.

The Need for Adaptive Management

    Increased human population growth, expanded land-use development, 
and changes in natural ecosystems affect ecosystem dynamics and 
processes. In the short interval fire-adapted systems, over-accumulated 
fuels indicate that more wildland fires in the future may burn with 
uncharacteristic fire effects. This trend may result in higher 
corresponding threats to human life and property, as well as 
potentially more degraded ecosystems.
    Planning in fire-adapted ecosystems requires an integration and

[[Page 67488]]

understanding of: fire history, potential fire behavior, past 
management actions, land-use change, watershed needs, species 
viability, and relative risk to human communities. Uncertainties 
associated with these considerations are addressed through monitoring, 
research, and adaptive management. During planning and implementation 
of restoration activities, the best available science and frequent 
monitoring must be used to reduce uncertainty and to facilitate 
learning. In addition, public outreach and collaboration will be 
critical components to successful ecosystem restoration.
    While some ecosystems are adapted to infrequent high-intensity 
burning, the short interval fire-adapted ecosystems are not. The 
primary emphasis of the strategy is ensuring protection of human values 
and the sustainability of natural resources in the context of short 
interval fire-adapted ecosystems

Active Management Improves Habitat

    Most research involving relationships between fire and wildlife has 
focused on mammals and birds, with an emphasis on habitat, rather than 
populations (Smith, 2000). The cause and effect relationships between 
fire and wildlife are only correctly understood in the context of 
specific ecosystems.
    Research reveals that active management can improve habitat quality 
for some species dependent on fire-adapted ecosystems, such as 
Kirtland's warbler (Probst and Weinrich, 1993) and the red cockaded 
woodpecker. For example, the relationship between fire and bobwhite 
quail populations served as an important factor in initiating the 
prescribed burning program in the South's fire-adapted forests.
    The effectiveness of ecosystem restoration in contributing to 
species conservation is dependent on the extent to which landscape 
patterns and processes support population persistence over the long 
term (Wilcove, 1999). For example, sage grouse population dynamics are 
dependent on landscape patterns (Knick, 1999); yet many factors affect 
the integrity of sagebrush ecosystems across landscapes following fire 
(such as the expansion of cheat grass).
    Considering the extent of habitat alteration that has occurred over 
the past century, management for species conservation in fire-adapted 
ecosystems is complicated. In many areas, habitat is currently at risk 
of long-term loss from severe wildland fires. In some cases, further 
reduction of habitat due to severe wildland fires may threaten species 
viability.
    Integrating ecosystem restoration goals with species conservation 
priorities will require coordinated effort between planned land uses to 
improve the quantity and quality of potentially suitable, but presently 
unoccupied habitat. This must occur prior to treating any areas that 
serve as refugia for remnant populations (Noss et al. 1997).

Using Adaptive Management to Evaluate Results

    The type, intensity and frequency of management activity in fire-
adapted ecosystems will influence the ability to provide for clean air, 
clean water, and biodiversity over the long term. A considerable amount 
of science supports an understanding of fire-adapted ecosystems. Some 
uncertainty, however, surrounds management treatments. It is therefore 
essential that an adaptive management framework involving the public be 
used in designing, monitoring, and evaluating activities. Assumptions 
associated with management approaches across broad landscapes need to 
be clearly identified and articulated as a part of the adaptive 
management process.
    In developing manual direction and regional and local level plans 
for implementing the strategy, it is essential that monitoring be 
conducted to validate assumptions, reduce uncertainties, and measure 
progress. Upon completion of these actions, the agency will determine 
whether to continue pursuing ongoing management, modified management 
approaches, or to propose new actions in response to what was learned 
through monitoring. The strategy will evolve as planning decisions are 
made on the ground and results are evaluated. While some uncertainties 
exist, implementing this strategy may help to avoid serious 
consequences that are certain to occur if fuel reduction treatments are 
deferred.

IV. A Cohesive Strategy to Protect People and Sustain Resources in 
Fire-Adapted Ecosystems

    This cohesive strategy provides a broad national framework for 
aligning the social, program management, and institutional elements 
that will be required to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. These three 
elements underpin this strategy.
    Implementation will be based on regional assessments, integrated 
planning processes, public input, and collaboration with other 
agencies. Environmental documentation for on-the-ground projects will 
contain many of the ``how to'' actions necessary to move the strategy 
forward in a manner that is consistent with law, regulations, and 
Forest Service policy.

Priorities for Restoration

    Specific areas of emphasis in the strategy include reducing risk 
within the wildland-urban interface, readily accessible municipal 
watersheds, and threatened and endangered species habitat. However, it 
is equally important to maintain existing low risk areas from 
developing into moderate or high-risk. To this end, the following 
priorities will apply when designating areas for treatment.
    <bullet> Wildland-urban interface. Wildland-urban interface areas 
include those areas where flammable wildland fuels are adjacent to 
homes and communities.
    <bullet> Readily accessible municipal watersheds. Clean water is 
the most critical resource in many western states. Watersheds impacted 
by uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less resilient to disturbance 
and unable to recover as quickly as those that remain within the range 
of ecological conditions characteristic of the fire regime under which 
they developed.
    <bullet> Threatened and endangered species habitat. The extent of 
recent fires demonstrates that in fire-adapted ecosystems few areas are 
isolated from wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many threatened and 
endangered species will eventually be impacted by wildland fire. The 
severity and extent of fire could eventually push declining populations 
beyond recovery.
    <bullet> Maintenance of existing low risk Condition Class 1 areas. 
This is especially important in the southern and eastern states where 
high rates of vegetation growth can eliminate the effects of treatment 
in 5-10 years. Recent droughts have caused severe wildland fire 
problems in Florida and Texas.

Supporting Scientific Evidence

    Considerable scientific evidence supports use of prescribed fire 
and other management treatments in fire-adapted ecosystems to reduce 
risk of catastrophic wildland fire, improve ecosystem resilience, and 
restore plant community composition, structure, and landscape patterns.
    Several examples of small-scale watershed improvement projects 
exist in national forests in fire-adapted systems. Virtually all use 
prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to improve watershed 
conditions. Fuel reduction work can reduce potential fire severity, 
which, in turn, can reduce potential erosion. Conditions that favor low 
intensity burning on these sites help

[[Page 67489]]

prevent erosion and leave more organic material that filters water and 
improves water quality characteristics.
    At landscape scales, the effectiveness of treatments in improving 
watershed conditions has not been well documented. Many scientists, 
however, agree that careful application of treatments across larger 
scales can restore water quality.
    Degraded air quality associated with long-duration wildland fires 
has been widely experienced in the West. Because wildland fires tend to 
occur at the driest time of year when dead fuels and vegetation is also 
driest, they are more completely consumed and typically produce three 
to five times more emissions than early or late-season prescribed 
fires.
    In Condition Class 3 and some Condition Class 2 situations, the 
strategy advocates mechanical thinning of small trees, brush and shrubs 
to reduce fire intensities and particulate emissions during prescribed 
burning. This practice, although expensive, opens prescription windows 
of opportunity--enabling managers to capitalize on better weather 
conditions for smoke ventilation and dispersal.
    The extent to which management for ecosystem resilience can improve 
air quality over the long term is not completely known. Present 
regulatory policies measure prescribed fire emissions, but not wildland 
fire emissions. The emissions policy tends to constrain treatments 
and--in short interval fire systems--may act to inadvertently compound 
wildland fire risks. A growing body of scientific evidence suggests 
that mechanical treatments followed by prescribed fire can reduce the 
overall adverse impacts to air quality by reducing the amount of fuel 
that would otherwise be available during the wildland fire season.

The Three Cohesive Elements

Social

    <bullet> Establish an objective for conservation awareness in the 
Forest Service Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic 
Plan (2000 revision). Emphasize the need to increase public awareness 
of the role of ecological processes in ecosystem sustainability 
(Appendix B).
    <bullet> Initiate collaborative planning with stakeholders to 
identify and evaluate ecosystem restoration and maintenance needs and 
opportunities. Utilize science-based assessments of present and 
projected ecosystem conditions as a basis for determining restoration 
needs.
    <bullet> To promote fire-safe local planning, zoning, and building 
requirements, establish partnerships with other federal agencies, 
states, communities, and the insurance industry.
    Encourage and assist communities to take responsibility for sharing 
in risk reduction and fire prevention efforts.

Institutional

Long-Term Policy Assessment
    <bullet> Establish objectives, strategies, and milestones for 
restoration and maintenance of fire-adapted ecosystems in the Forest 
Service GPRA Strategic Plan. Emphasize integration in objectives for 
public safety, watershed protection, species conservation, and 
ecosystem resilience. (Appendix B.)
    <bullet> Establish ecosystem restoration as a performance element 
in the Forest Service Annual Performance Plan. Use changes in condition 
class as one of the measures for annual performance and accountability. 
(Appendix B.)
    <bullet> Establish assessment procedures that integrate 
considerations of current ecosystem condition (status), probability of 
degradation from disturbance events (risk), and alternatives to reduce 
risk or improve conditions (opportunity). Include objectives at the 
national, regional and local scales for: watershed protection, species 
conservation, ecosystem resilience, and public safety. Coordinate 
information across all program areas.

Program Management

At the National Level
    <bullet> Concentrate projects in the shorter interval fire-adapted 
ecosystems (Fire Regimes I and II), with emphasis in Condition Classes 
2 and 3. (GPRA 1c.)
    <bullet> Establish the interior West as a priority for restoration. 
(GPRA 1c.)
    <bullet> Direct funds--in an integrated fashion--to highest values 
to be protected, especially for: watersheds (GPRA 1a), species (GPRA 
1b), ecosystems (GPRA 1c), and human communities (GPRA 4b).
    <bullet> Explore innovative use of existing authorities for grants, 
agreements, and contracts for project execution such as service 
contracts to hire local people.
    <bullet> Emphasize long-term training and community development 
opportunities through restoration activities.
    <bullet> Establish program reviews at regular intervals to 
determine if adjustments are needed. Take into account: budget, the 
findings of regional assessments, finer-scaled risk and hazard mapping, 
and other planning efforts.
At the Regional Level
    <bullet> Conduct regional assessments, establishing restoration and 
maintenance priorities consistent with values to be protected 
(watersheds, species, human communities) in collaboration with other 
federal agencies, tribes, state and local government, and constituents.
At the National Forest and Grassland Level
    <bullet> In Land and Resource Management Plan amendments and 
revisions: identify land by condition class categories, discuss the 
resources to be protected from catastrophic wildland fire including 
human communities, watersheds, threatened and endangered species 
habitats, and establish landscape goals to achieve sustainable 
ecosystems. Goals should be included to reduce acres at risk.
    <bullet> Establish monitoring and evaluation programs and measures 
in Land and Resource Management Plan revisions for restoration 
activities in fire-adapted ecosystems.
    <bullet> Consistent with Land and Resource Management Plans, 
develop fire management plans that provide for suppressing fires that 
would threaten public safety, communities, species habitat, or degrade 
ecosystems. Increase the management of natural ignitions for resource 
benefits where values and resources will be increased or improved.
State and Private Forestry
    <bullet> Expand efforts such as the Firewise Communities Program to 
assist communities and homeowners in the urban wildland interface to 
take preventative and corrective actions to protect lives and property 
from fire. Provide assistance in conducting risk and hazard assessments 
in developing community disaster plans, and in educating the public 
about measures they can take to protect their property.
Research and Development
    <bullet> Strengthen Forest Service research programs to evaluate 
ecological, social, and economic tradeoffs and other issues; develop 
more effective prediction systems; and quantify disturbance effects and 
ecological interactions in fire regimes. Continue funding the Joint 
Fire Sciences Program.
    <bullet> Study, document and monitor examples of various treatments 
and their effectiveness in restoring ecological processes, protecting 
communities, and protecting key ecosystem components.
    <bullet> Research the long-term results of rehabilitation 
techniques and help determine those most effective at restoring 
ecological processes and habitats.

[[Page 67490]]

Funding
    <bullet> Establish an integrated budget structure that facilitates 
an accomplishment of the GPRA Strategic Plan elements: Watershed 
Restoration, Species Conservation, Ecosystem Processes, and the 
Protection of Human Communities.

    <bullet> Wildland fire preparedness funding requests should be made 
at the most efficient level, as defined by the National Fire Management 
Analysis System.

Actions Requiring External Collaboration

Long-Term Policy Assessment
    Collaborate with the Environmental Protection Agency, National 
Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 
addressing long-term impacts, tradeoffs, and issues to air quality, 
watershed resilience, species conservation, ecosystem integrity, and 
public safety as a result of each agency's respective policy in the 
context of fire-adapted ecosystems. Identify opportunities for improved 
coordination between regulatory and land management agencies in 
achieving restoration and maintenance objectives to protect people and 
sustain resources in fire-adapted ecosystems.
Economic Feasibility Assessment for Fuel Utilization
    Because understory biomass has little or no value, disposing of it 
becomes problematic. Small diameter material, however, may become more 
economically feasible if assessments for its utilization more 
comprehensively evaluate tradeoffs and risks to watershed and species 
values, public health and safety, and other factors that may benefit 
from reducing fuels in fire-adapted ecosystems. Projected wildland fire 
costs, resource losses, and environmental damage, all suggest that 
developing and supporting markets for utilization of over-accumulated 
biomass may be desirable.
    Consistent with Executive Order 13134 ``Developing and Promoting 
Biobased Products and Bioenergy'', collaborate with other agencies and 
organizations to conduct economic feasibility analyses of increased 
biomass utilization.
    The FY 2001 budget includes a Presidential bio-based products and 
bio-energy initiative. This initiative supports research and 
development, demonstration and commercialization, and outreach and 
education activities. The Forest Service will take a leadership role in 
this effort.
Projected Treatment Schedule at Full Program Implementation
    Different treatment schedules are displayed below. The strategy 
does not include a treatment target of a fixed number of acres within a 
set period of time. The number of acres actually treated will depend on 
different circumstances, including available funding. The treatment 
schedule displayed below illustrates potential costs over varying time 
frames. Actual treatment costs and rates will depend on a variety of 
circumstances.
    The purpose of the report is to establish priorities and a 
rationale for restoration. Local Land and Resource Management Plans and 
community involvement will help to guide the types and locations of 
treatment actions. Enhancing forest ecosystem health is best 
accomplished at the local level with on-site examination and 
experience.
    Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c provide estimates of a potential annual 
program to achieve restoration goals within 10, 15, and 20-year time 
periods.
    This information was developed using regional input based on Land 
and Resource Management Plan and other assessments. Strategy 
implementation will be consistent with forest plan direction and other 
ongoing initiatives. Acreage estimates give consideration to regulatory 
obligations for clean air, clean water, and threatened or endangered 
species habitat. These goals are expected to change as the Forest 
Service refines these data. More accurate regional and sub-regional 
assessments, integrated planning processes, and public collaboration 
may refine these figures.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.002

Table 1a--10-Year Schedule To Increase the Annual Hazardous Fuels 
Treatment Program.

[[Page 67491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.003

Table 1b--15-Year Schedule To Increase the Annual Hazardous Fuels 
Treatment Program
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.004

Table 1c--20-Year Schedule To Increase the Annual Hazardous Fuels 
Treatment Program

V. Consequences of Deferral

    ``* * * in many of the interior West forests, the costs and risks 
of inaction are greater than the costs and risks of remedial action.''
    Concluding comments from academic and agency scientists. Assessing 
Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West Workshop (November, 1993).
    This chapter projects suppression costs, natural resource and 
private property losses, and environmental damages expected under 
present treatment schedules and compares them with the costs, losses 
and damages anticipated for the mid-range treatment schedule shown on 
Table 1c. If

[[Page 67492]]

treatment schedules are accelerated, objectives may be met sooner. If 
treatment schedules are extended, results may be deferred. Three 
alternative treatment timeframes are presented in the strategy. For 
demonstrative purposes, changes over time are projected using the 15-
year treatment schedule (figures 8,10, 11, and 12).
    Commodity values are well established. Non-commodity values, 
however, are more difficult to determine. Economic research is ongoing 
to better describe and quantify amenity values including ecosystem 
components, natural resources, and safety considerations involved in 
tradeoff analysis. Tradeoff analysis measures the costs, benefits, and 
risks under different protection strategies. It is one way to compare 
the expected outcomes of different management scenarios.
    Fire-adapted ecosystems are dynamic. With any treatment schedule, 
live vegetation will continue to grow and dead wood will continue to 
accumulate. Risk conditions will continue to increase as some forests 
and grasslands areas migrate from lower-risk conditions to higher-risk 
conditions. During this same time period, severe wildland fires will 
continue to occur--reducing high-risk acres, but also potentially 
damaging ecosystem components and natural resources.

Areas at Risk

    As human populations continue to expand, threats to species 
viability, watershed health, and ecosystem integrity will grow. The 
situation will be exacerbated as forest fuels accumulate and fire risks 
increase. Even at current levels of treatment, risks to species, 
watersheds, forest health, and human communities throughout the 
interior West are escalating due to increasing fuels buildups 
(vegetation) in fire-prone environments. The answer is not in bigger 
and better firefighting apparatus. At very high fuel loadings, fire 
behavior overwhelms even the best fire suppression efforts. Under 
extreme conditions, control of fire becomes dependent on relief in 
weather or a break in fuels.
    Reducing fuels and restoring fire's ecological role in fire-adapted 
ecosystems can reverse many adverse trends that serve as important 
indicators of ecosystem sustainability. To demonstrate the strategy's 
benefits, graphs from a recent assessment of several indicators for the 
Western states were developed to illustrate trends (figures 8, 10, 11, 
12). These graphs reflect assessments from a recently completed 
national-scale evaluation (see Appendix D). They are based on coarse-
scale data that model averages for the area under study. They cannot be 
directly applied to areas smaller in scale than the analysis area. The 
data are not directly applicable to fine-scale analysis; they serve to 
evaluate relative risk trends among different management options.

[[Page 67493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.005

Figure 8

[[Page 67494]]

    The assessment was based on a projection using the 15-year 
treatment schedule. Results for the 10 and 20-year treatment 
schedules will vary from this only in the time required to achieve 
the same level of results. At 100 years, the social, economic, and 
ecological benefits of restoration treatments become exponentially 
greater. And, as treatments shift from restoration to maintenance, 
treatment costs will go down.
    At the current rate of treatment (0.75 million acres/year), the 
acres at high risk in the interior West will increase over the next 
15 years. Implementing the approaches outlined in this strategy can 
increase levels of treatment and decrease moderate and high-risk 
categories (Condition Classes 2 and 3). It will restore 
proportionately more low-risk areas (Condition Class 1). The 
strategy therefore substantially reduces risk over the current rate 
of fuel reduction treatment.
    Without increased restoration treatments in these ecosystems, 
wildland fire suppression costs, natural resource losses, private 
property losses, and environmental damage are certain to escalate as 
fuels continue to accumulate and more acres become high-risk.

Suppression Costs

    Suppression strategies (and their associated costs) are 
determined using the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA), a 
required assessment process on federal lands. Under this system, 
suppression costs are calculated from an array of alternatives prior 
to selecting a fire suppression strategy. The analysis weighs values 
to be protected. Firefighter and public safety always serves as the 
first criteria. As a general rule, depending on the circumstances 
surrounding a particular wildland fire, resource or private values 
to be protected are typically two to five times greater than the 
expected suppression costs, as calculated using the WFSA.
    The Line Officer selects the most appropriate strategy and, in 
doing so, approves the expected suppression costs. If the strategy 
fails or if costs exceed the expected level, the Line Officer must 
reevaluate alternatives and approve any changes.
    Suppression costs and wildland fire acres burned (Figure 9) have 
increased due to over-accumulation of fuels and a corresponding 
increase in high-risk acreage and drought conditions. In recent 
years, large fires have become more damaging and more costly. Unless 
the rate of restoration is increased, larger burned acreages and 
higher wildland fire suppression costs should be expected.

[[Page 67495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.006

Figure 9

[[Page 67496]]

Loss to Private Property and Resource-Based Commodities

    As human populations grow and shifting demographics concentrate 
more people in or adjacent to wildlands, more private property will be 
at risk to catastrophic wildland fires.
    According to the National Fire Protection Association, wildland-
urban interface fires from 1985 to 1994 destroyed 8,925 homes. During 
dry years or under adverse weather conditions, because they occur in 
high-risk fuels, many wildland-urban interface fires exceed 
firefighting capabilities.
    No forest can be made fireproof. As homes and communities are built 
in the wildland interface, they face added risk of fire. Efforts to 
reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands must be coupled with efforts to 
assist private landowners to take preventative action in their own 
communities.
    Research suggests that the most effective way to reduce risk of 
fire to homes in the wildland-urban interface is through fuels 
treatment carried out within 200 feet of building structures (Cohen, 
1999). Homes with high ignitibility factors, such as pine needle 
accumulation on roofs and in yards and firewood piles next to houses, 
frequently suffer more severe fire damage than other areas.
    When fuel loadings are reduced, protection of life and property is 
significantly improved (Fischer, 1988).

[[Page 67497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.007

Figure 10

[[Page 67498]]

    The National Research Council and the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) recognized wildland fires in California 
(1993) and Florida (1998) as among the defining natural disasters of 
the 1990s. In terms of damage, the magnitude of these catastrophic 
fires were compared with the Northridge earthquake, Hurricane 
Andrew, and flooding of the Mississippi and Red rivers.
    The 1991 Oakland, California fire was ranked by insurance claims 
as one of the ten most costly all-time natural catastrophes. More 
wildland fire disasters of this scale can be expected in the absence 
of a mitigation strategy. FEMA is emphasizing mitigation and 
prevention to state and local governments to address the growing 
losses from natural disasters such as hurricanes and flooding. The 
strategy outlined in this report complements the efforts to 
forestall disaster-related costs and losses.
    Damage to commodity resources such as wood fiber and watersheds 
often result from severe wildland fire. These losses can be 
significant. For example, the Big Bar Fire Complex, consisting of 
five fires that burned during the late summer of 1999 in northern 
California. The Complex burned 141,000 acres on and adjacent to the 
Six Rivers National Forest. The Big Bar Complex cost $81 million to 
suppress and $6 million for burned-area rehabilitation. It resulted 
in a preliminary estimate of $122 million in resource losses, 
including loss of marketable timber.

Environmental Damage

    Any restoration strategy should be evaluated in the context of 
the ecosystem under consideration. Wildland fires occurring in the 
shorter interval fire-adapted ecosystems where fuels have 
accumulated over several missed fire cycles often burn with 
uncharacteristic wildfire effects. Consequently, habitats, soils, 
and watersheds are burned beyond their adaptive limits. The severity 
of these fires pose threats to species persistence and watershed 
integrity. The damage from these fires is often long-lasting and, 
within some ecosystems, may be irretrievable.

[[Page 67499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.008

Figure 11

[[Page 67500]]

    With an increasing number of large, uncharacteristically damaging 
wildland fires in short interval fire systems, we can eventually 
expect:
    <bullet> Loss of critical habitat for fish, wildlife, and plant 
species at risk.
    <bullet> Soil erosion and loss of site stability and productivity.
    <bullet> Changes in temperatures and moisture regimes on certain 
sites.
    <bullet> Increased spread of invasive weeds or non-native plants.

[[Page 67501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.009

Figure 12

[[Page 67502]]

    On the 1999 Big Bar Complex, adverse effects were most commonly 
found where the fires burned at higher intensities. Impacts from the 
fires included:
    <bullet> Prolonged exposure of local communities to unhealthy smoke 
concentrations.
    <bullet> Increased soil erosion and stream course sedimentation.
    <bullet> Loss of old-growth trees that provide significant wildlife 
habitat.
    <bullet> Degradation and loss of fish habitat, especially in the 
New River's tributaries.

Public and Firefighter Safety

    In fire-adapted forests adjacent to human communities, concerns for 
public health often compete with concerns for public and firefighter 
safety. Treatments that use prescribed burning raise health issues 
related to smoke. Although this strategy would employ mechanical 
thinning prior to prescribed burning in some areas to reduce 
particulate emissions, air quality will remain an important concern.
    Current regulatory policies ``count'' prescribed fire emissions in 
measuring air quality, but do not include wildland fire emissions. 
Constraining prescribed fire use in fire-adapted ecosystems to ensure 
public health may inadvertently increase risks to human safety.
    Stagnant atmospheric conditions during the late summer and early 
fall often inhibit smoke dispersal from wildland fires. Although these 
episodes are exempt from regulatory control, they exceed public health 
standards. In 1977 and 1987, southern Oregon and northern California 
experienced long-term, unhealthy smoke concentrations. The 1999 Big Bar 
Fire Complex in northern California and the 1994 Wenatchee, Washington 
wildland fires also caused prolonged exposure of local communities to 
unhealthy smoke levels.
    In recent years, several tragedies have occurred as firefighters 
tried to control wildland fires threatening human developments. In 
1991, the Dude wildland fire near Payson, Arizona killed six 
firefighters as they attempted to protect a rural subdivision. The 
South Canyon fire in 1994 resulted in the death of 14 firefighters who 
were suppressing a wildland fire that was approaching homes near 
Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
    Among the general public, loss of life due to wildland fire is rare 
but not unknown. In 1991, 25 lives were lost, 150 people injured, and 
more than 3,000 structures were destroyed in a wildland fire in the 
hills near Oakland, California. On March 8, 2000, three motorists lost 
their lives and many more were injured in a multi-car pileup in 
Florida--the result of wildland fire smoke obscuring visibility on a 
highway.
    While fuel treatments across the interior West have increased in 
the last few years, further increases are needed to protect 
communities, watershed health, species viability, and ecosystem 
resilience.

VI. Conclusions and Next Steps

    ``Moving toward sustainability is a two-part process. First, 
revising the uses of the ecosystem so that environmental values take an 
economically relevant place in policy and practice; second, 
incorporating the well-being of the ecosystem into the way management 
is conceived and implemented.''--Kai N. Lee, Compass and Gyroscope, 
1993
    The cohesive strategy outlined in this report is based on the 
premise that, within fire-adapted ecosystems, fire--at the right 
intensities, frequency, and season--is fundamentally essential for 
healthy, sustainable resources and the protection of nearby human 
communities. The strategy clarifies agency goals and objectives, 
establishes milestones and performance measures, and outlines an 
approach for setting restoration priorities.
    The strategy directs treatments to high-risk areas, specifically, 
the wildland-urban interface, readily accessible municipal watersheds, 
and threatened and endangered species habitat. Implementing it will 
reduce the area in the interior West considered at highest risk of loss 
or damage. It prioritizes treatment of additional acres to prevent them 
from developing into high-risk conditions. It relies on a variety of 
treatments--including thinning, some harvest, other mechanical 
treatments and prescribed burning--to reduce fuels and the consequent 
risks of loss or long-lasting damage resulting from wildland fire.
    The strategy provides an iterative approach, based on adaptive 
management and incremental steps. Actual treatment schedules will be 
developed using regional input based on Land and Resource Management 
Plans and other more recent assessments.
    The strategy is responsive to regulatory responsibilities for clean 
air, clean water, and threatened and endangered species. Over the long 
term, the agency believes strategy implementation will better ensure 
ecosystem integrity for the benefit of future generations. The strategy 
does not attempt to treat all acres, nor does it eliminate all risks. 
While it does not aim to return forests and grasslands to pre-European 
settlement conditions--it does reduce risks by reducing over-
accumulated fuels (Figure 13). The strategy will continue to evolve as 
the agency works with states, tribes, local communities and others.
    The strategy also maintains that constituency support and 
collaboration with tribal, other federal, state, local agencies, and 
the public is an essential cornerstone for restoration work. It is 
consistent with the guiding principles of the Federal Wildland Fire 
Management Policy (approved by the Secretaries of Interior and 
Agriculture in 1995). In addition, it supports federal and state 
initiatives aimed at improving forest ecosystem health on public lands.
    This strategy effectively reduces risk on a scale that makes a 
difference, but is potentially expensive and will take time and 
collaborative planning to implement. The costs, losses, and damages 
that will occur without this strategy are not always quantifiable or 
precisely known. When evaluated against recent trends and projections, 
however, wildland fire costs, loses, and damages, are expected to 
compound and exceed treatment costs--unless the rate of treatment is 
accelerated.
    Large wildland fires will continue to occur. This cohesive strategy 
aims to reduce losses and damages from these wildland fires by 
concentrating treatments where human communities, watersheds, and 
species are at risk. Until restoration efforts are significantly 
expanded in fire-adapted ecosystems, the risks to watersheds, species, 
and people will continue to increase.

    Note: Figure 13 is not printed in the Federal Register. It is 
available as indicated in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 
this notice.

Figure 13--The cohesive strategy outlined in this report aims to reduce 
severe insect, disease, and wildland fire risk.

Next Steps

    This report provides a broad iterative approach to restore fire-
adapted ecosystems and protect human values.
    The coarse-scale assessments that establish the basis for the 
strategy will be refined as finer scale data become available to 
conduct forest-level planning. Implementation will occur consistent 
with Land and Resource Management Plan direction and other ongoing 
initiatives. More accurate assessments, integrated planning processes, 
public input, and collaboration with other agencies are all included in 
the work ahead.
    Strategy actions to be addressed immediately:
    <bullet> Refine coarse-scale assessments for wildland fuel risks.
    <bullet> Develop regional implementation plans, integrating the 
status and risk

[[Page 67503]]

information included in the Western Watershed Initiative, Human 
Population Density Maps, and Species at Risk Analysis into forest 
planning efforts at national, regional, and local levels as applicable.
    <bullet> Incorporate recommended adjustments to the Forest Service 
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan (2000 
revision).
    <bullet> Identify funding for priority projects.
    <bullet> Frame a research program to strengthen monitoring and 
evaluation during the strategy's implementation.
    <bullet> Coordinate with states, tribes, and local communities for 
work in the urban-wildland interface to help in risk reduction and 
hazard mitigation.
    <bullet> Continue efforts to develop markets and ideas for small-
diameter material utilization.

VII. Team Members

Team Leaders
    Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest 
Service
    Jerry Williams, Director, Fire and Aviation Management, Northern 
Region, USDA Forest Service
Team Facilitator
    Joe Michaels, Field Representative Forester, State and Private 
Forestry, Northeast Area, USDA Forest Service
Core Team
    Michael Hilbruner, Applied Fire Ecologist, Washington Office, USDA 
Forest Service
    Timothy Sexton, Fire Ecologist, Fire Program Management Program 
Center, USDI National Park Service
    Monica Schwalbach, Assistant Director, Wildlife and Terrestrial 
Ecology, Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
    James Morrison, Staff Assistant, Interregional Ecosystem Management 
Coordination Group, Northern Region, USDA Forest Service
    Andrea Tuttle, Director, California Department of Forestry and Fire 
Protection
    David Burich, Assistant Director, Financial Management, Washington 
Office, USDA Forest Service
    William Bradshaw, Assistant Director, Strategic Planning and 
Assessment, Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
    David Cleaves, Program Leader, Forest Fire Systems Research, 
Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
Support Team
    Mark Beighley, Strategic Fuels Planner, Washington Office, USDA 
Forest Service
    Doug MacCleery, Assistant Director, Forest Ecosystems and Planning, 
Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
    Gene Blankenbaker, Staff Specialist, Legislative Affairs, 
Washington Office, USDA Forest Service
    Michael da Luz, Branch Chief, Fire Ecology and Operations, Rocky 
Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service
    Marlin Johnson, Assistant Director of Forestry, Southwestern 
Region, USDA Forest Service
    Galen Hall, Regional Budget Officer, Northern Region, USDA Forest 
Service
    Paul Keller, Writer-Editor, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest 
Service

VIII. Acknowledgements

R. Neil Sampson, President, The Sampson Group, Inc., Alexandria, 
Virginia.
James Hubbard, State Forester, Colorado State Forest Service.
David Bunnell, National Fire Use Program Manager, National Interagency 
Fire Center, USDA Forest Service.
Colin Hardy, Research Forester, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 
Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service.
Wendell Hann, Fire/Landscape Ecologist, Washington Office, Fire and 
Aviation Management, USDA Forest Service.
Laurie Perrett (Pacific Northwest Region); Sue Husari (Pacific 
Southwest Region); Bob Meuchel (Northern Region); Maggie Pittman 
(Northern Region); Steve Pedigo (Rocky Mountain Region) for organizing 
and hosting the ``Sounding Boards.''

    The Cohesive Strategy Team also wishes to thank all those who 
participated and provided feedback at the Sacramento, Denver and 
Missoula ``Sounding Boards.'' The team also thanks the people who 
reviewed drafts and provided comments during development and revision 
of this report.

IX. Glossary

Uncharacteristic Wildfire Effects

    An increase in wildfire size, severity and resistance to control, 
and the associated impact to people and property, compared to that 
which occurred in the native system.

Ecosystem Process

    The actions or events that link organisms and their environment, 
such as predation, mutualism, successional development, nutrient 
cycling, carbon sequestration, primary productivity, and decay. Natural 
disturbance processes often occur with some periodicity (From Webster's 
dictionary, adapted to ecology.)

Ecosystem

    The complex of a community of organisms and its environment 
functioning as an ecological unit in nature. (Webster's dictionary.)

Ecosystem Integrity

    The completeness of an ecosystem that, at multiple geographic and 
temporal scales, maintains its characteristic diversity of biological 
and physical components, spatial patterns, structure, and functional 
processes within its approximate range of historic variability. These 
processes include: disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling, hydrologic 
functions, vegetation succession, and species adaptation and evolution. 
Ecosystems with integrity are resilient and capable of self-renewal in 
the presence of the cumulative effects of human and natural 
disturbances. (Proposed Rule, Section 219.36, 1999.)

Ecosystem Management u

    The careful and skillful use of ecological, economic, social, and 
managerial principles in managing ecosystem integrity and desired 
conditions, uses, products, and services over the long term.

Fire-Adapted Ecosystem

    An ecosystem with the ability to survive and regenerate in a fire-
prone environment.

Fire Regime

    A generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem. 
It is characterized by fire frequency, seasonality, intensity, duration 
and scale (patch size), as well as regularity or variability. (Agee, as 
modified by Sexton.)

Fire Frequency (Fire Return Interval)

    How often fire burns a given area; often expressed in terms of fire 
return intervals (e.g., fire returns to a site every 5-15 years).

Interagency Wildland Fire Policy

    The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was 
chartered by the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to ensure 
that federal policies are uniform and programs are cooperative and 
cohesive. For the first time, one set of federal fire policies will 
enhance effective and

[[Page 67504]]

efficient operations across administrative boundaries to improve the 
capability to meet challenges posed by current wildland fire 
conditions.
    The policy review team reexamined the role of fire in ecological 
processes and the costs associated with fighting fire. An interagency 
product has resulted in changes in terminology, funding, agency policy, 
and analysis of ecological processes.

Landscape

    An area composed of interacting and inter-connected patterns of 
habitats (ecosystems) that are repeated because of the geology, 
landform, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the 
area. Landscape structure is formed by patches (tree stands or sites), 
connections (corridors and linkages), and the matrix. Landscape 
function is based on disturbance events, successional development of 
landscape structure, and flows of energy and nutrients through the 
structure of the landscape. A landscape is composed of watersheds and 
smaller ecosystems. It is the building block of biotic provinces and 
regions.

Restoration

    In the context of this report's cohesive strategy, restoration 
means the return of an ecosystem or habitat toward: its original 
structure, natural complement of species, and natural functions or 
ecological processes.

Sustainability

    Meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising 
the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Ecological 
sustainability entails maintaining the composition, structure and 
processes of a system, as well as species diversity and ecological 
productivity. The core element of sustainability is that it is future-
oriented. (Committee of Scientists Report, 1999.)

X. References and Supporting Information

Fire Regimes, Historic Conditions, and Range of Historic 
Variability

Agee, J.A. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island 
Press, Washington, D.C. 493 p.
Brown, J.K. 1994. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem 
management. pp. 171-178, In: Proceedings of the 1994 Society of 
American Foresters Convention, September 18-22, 1994, Anchorage, 
Alaska.
Cissell, J.H., F.J. Swanson, P.J. Weisberg. 1999. Landscape 
management using historical fire regimes: Blue River, Oregon. 
Ecological Applications 9(4): 1217-1231.
Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of 
southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecological 
Monographs 30: 129-164.
Cooper, C.F. 1961. Pattern in ponderosa pine forests. Ecology 42: 
43-499.
Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine 
forest structure: changes since Euro-America settlement. Journal of 
Forestry 92: 39-47.
Hessburg, P.F., B.G. Smith, and R.B. Salter. 1999. Detecting change 
in forest spatial patterns from reference conditions. Ecological 
Applications 9(4): 1232-1252.
Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. Overview of the use of 
natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. 
Ecological Applications 9(4): 1179-1188.
Leiburg, J. B. 1900. Bitterroot forest reserve. In: H. Gannett 
(ed.), Twentieth Report of the United States Geological Survey, Pt 
5: Forest Reserves. Government Printing Office.
Lemkuhl, J. F., P. F. Hessburg, R. L. Everett, M. H. Huff, and R. D. 
Ottmar. 1994. Historical and current forest landscapes of eastern 
Oregon and Washington. Part I: Vegetation pattern and insect and 
disease hazards. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-328. USDA For. Serv., 
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 88p.
Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush timber, and fire in southern Arizona. 
Journal of Forestry 22: 2-10.
Millar, C. I., and W. W. Wolfenden. 1999. The role of climate change 
in interpreting historical variability. Ecological Applications 
9(4): 1207-1216.
Moore, M. M., W. W. Covington, and P. F. Zule. 1999. Reference 
conditions and ecological restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine 
perspective. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1266-1277.
Morgan, P., G. H. Aplet, J. B. Haufler, H. C. Humphries, M. M. 
Moore, and W. D. Wilson. 1994. Historical range of variability: a 
useful tool for evaluating ecological change. Journal of Sustainable 
Forestry 2: 87-111.
Noss, R. F. 1983. On characterizing presettlement vegetation: how 
and why. Natural Areas Journal 5: 5-13.
Parsons, D. J., T. W. Swetnam, and N. L. Christensen, Jr. 1999. Uses 
and limitations of historical variability concepts in managing 
ecosystems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1177-1178.
Savage, M., and T. W. Swetnam. 1990. Early 19th century fire decline 
following sheep pasturing in a Navajo ponderosa pine forest. Ecology 
71(6): 2374-2378.
Sousa, W.P. 1985. The role of disturbance in natural communities. 
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 353-391.
Stephenson, N. 1999. Reference conditions for Giant Sequoia forest 
restoration: structure, process, and precision. Ecological 
Applications 9(4): 1253-1265.
Swetnam, T.W. 1990. Fire history and climate in the southwestern 
United States. pp. 6-17 In Krammes, J.S. (tech. Coord.), Effects of 
fire management on southwestern natural resources. Proceedings of 
the symposium, November 15-17, 1988, Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-
191. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 
Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Swetnam, T. W., C. D. Allen, J. L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied 
historical ecology: using the past to manage the future. Ecological 
Applications 9(4): 1189-1206.
Swetnam, T. W., and C. H. Baisan. 1994. Historical fire regime 
patterns in the southwestern United States since AD 1700. In Allen, 
C.D. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium, March 29-
30, 1994. Los Alamos, New Mexico, National Park Service publication.
White, A. S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration patterns in a 
southwestern ponderosa pine stand. Ecology 66: 589-594.
Wright, H.A., and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology. John Wiley & 
Sons, New York, NY. 493 p.

Role of Fire in Ecosystems

Habeck, J. R., and R. W. Mutch. 1973. Fire-dependent forests in the 
Northern Rocky Mountains. Quaternary Research 3: 408-424.
Hart, S. C., E. A. Paul, and M. K. Firestone. 1992. Decomposition 
and nutrient dynamic in ponderosa pine needles in a Mediterranean-
type climate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22: 306-314.
Harvey, A. E., M. J. Larsen, and M. F. Jurgensen. 1979. Fire-decay 
interactive roles regulating wood accumulation and soil development 
in the northern Rocky Mountains. Research Note INT-263. USDA Forest 
Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT 
p. 4 p.
Harvey, A. E. 1994. Integrated roles for insects, diseases and 
decomposers in fire dominated forests of the Inland Western United 
States: past, present and future forest health. Journal of 
Sustainable Forestry 2 (1/2): 211-220.
Jurgensen, M. F., A. E. Harvey, M. J. Larsen. 1981. Effects of 
prescribed fire on soil nitrogen levels in a cutover Douglas-fir/
western-larch forest. Research Paper INT-275. USDA Forest Service, 
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. p. 6 
p.
Kilgore, B. M. 1981. The role of fire frequency and intensity in 
ecosystem distribution and structure: western forests and 
scrublands. pp. 58-89, In: Mooney, H.A. et al. (tech coords.). 
Proceedings of the Conference on Fire Regimes and Ecosystem 
Properties. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26, Washington, DC.
McKenzie, D., D. L. Peterson, and E. Alvarado. 1996. Predicting the 
effect of fire on landscape vegetation patterns in North America. 
Res. Pap. PNW-RP-489. USDA For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Research 
Station, Portland, OR. 38 p.
Mooney, H. A., and E. E. Conrad (tech coords.). 1977. Proceedings of 
the symposium on the environmental consequences of fire and fuel 
management in Mediterranean ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. USDA 
For. Serv., Washington, DC.
Mooney, H. A., and E. E. Conrad, and others (tech coords.). 1981. 
Proceedings of the conference on fire regimes and ecosystem 
properties. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. USDA For. Serv., Washington, DC.
Pickett, S. T. A., and P. S. White, editors. 1985. The ecology of 
natural disturbance

[[Page 67505]]

and patch dynamics. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Pyne, S. J., P.L. Andrews, and R. D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to 
Wildland Fire, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 
769 p.

Wildland Fire Hazard, Risk, and Fuel Accumulation

Alexander, M. E. 1988. Help with making crown fire assessments. In: 
Fischer, W. C., and S. F. Arno, comps. Protecting people and homes 
from wildland fire in the interior West: proceedings of the 
symposium and workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-251 USDA For. Serv., 
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 213 p.
Coonrod, M. 1999. Arizona's strategic planning for the wildland-
urban interface. Fire Management Notes 59(3): 29-30.
Fischer, W. C., and S. F Arno, comps. 1988. Protecting people and 
homes from wildland fire in the interior West: proceedings of the 
symposium and workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-251. USDA For. Serv., 
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 213 p.
Haynes, R., et al. 1993. RPA Assessment Update. RM-GTR-259. USDA 
For. Serv. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft 
Collins, CO.
Parsons, D. J. 1978. Fire and fuel accumulation in a giant sequoia 
forest. Journal of Forestry 76(2): 104-105.
Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of 
forest and range fires. Gen. Tech Rep. INT-143. USDA For. Serv., 
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Rothermel, R. C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires 
in the northern Rocky Mountains. Research Paper INT-438. USDA For. 
Serv., Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Rothermel, R. C. 1995. Characterizing severe fire behavior. p. 262 
In: Proceedings, Symposium on fire and wilderness and park 
management. USDA For. Serv.
Steele, R., R. E. Williams, J. C. Weatherby, E. D. Reinhardt, J. T. 
Hoffman, and R. W. Thier. 1996. Stand hazard rating for Central 
Idaho forests. GTR INT-332. USDA For. Serv. Intermountain Forest and 
Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 14 p.
Taylor, S. W., G. . Baxter, and B. C. Hawkes. 1998. Modeling the 
effects of forest succession on fire behavior potential in 
Southeastern British Columbia. Pp. 2059-2071, In: III International 
Conf. on Fire and Forest Meteorology, Vol. II, Luso 16/20 November, 
1998.

Hazard and Risk Reduction Techniques

Camp, A. E., and R. L. Everett. 1996. Fire, insects, and pathogens: 
managing risk in late-successional reserves. In: Proceedings of 
Society of American Foresters National Convention, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico. pp. 214-219.
Delong, S. C., and D. Tanner. 1996. Managing the pattern of forest 
harvest: lessons from wildland fire. Biodiversity and Conservation 
5: 1191-1205.
Edminster, C. B., and W.K. Olsen. 1996. Thinning as a tool in 
restoring and maintaining diverse structure in stands of 
southwestern ponderosa pine. In: Conference on adaptive ecosystem 
restoration and management: restoration of Cordilleran conifer 
landscapes of North America, June 6-8,1995, Flagstaff, Arizona. Gen. 
Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-278. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and 
range Experiment Station, F Collins, CO. pp. 62-68.
Everrett, R. L., A. E. Camp, and R. Schellhaas. 1996. Building a new 
forest with fire protection in mind. Proceedings 1995 Society of 
American Foresters Annual Meeting, Portland, ME. SAF, Bethesda, MD. 
Pp. 253-258.
Johnson, K. Norman, et al. 1999. Sustaining the People's Land--
Recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and 
grasslands into the next century. USDA Forest Service, Washington, 
D.C.
Graham, R. T., A. E. Harvey, T. B. Jain, J. R. Tonn. 1999. The 
effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in 
western forests. PNW-GTR-463. USDA For. Serv., Pacific Northwest 
Research Station, Portland, OR. 27 p.
Kilgore, B. M., and R. W. Sando. 1975. Crown-fire potential in a 
sequoia forest after prescribed burning. For. Sci. 21:83-87.
Larson, D. L., and R. Mirth. 1998. Potential for using small-
diameter ponderosa pine a wood fiber projection. Forest products 
Journal 48(6): 37-42.
Martin, R. E., J. B. Kauffman, and J. D. Landsberg. 1989. Use of 
prescribed fire to reduce wildland fire potential. pp.17-22. In: 
GTR-PSW-109. USDA, For. Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 
Experiment Station. Berkeley, CA.
Milburn, D. 1998. Northern Rockies restoration of short-interval 
fire-dependent ecosystems. Unpublished document, USDA For. Serv. 
Northern Region Headquarters, Missoula MT.
Mutch, R. W. 1992. Sustaining forest health to benefit people, 
property, and natural resources. pp. 126-131, In: Proceedings: 
Society of American Foresters National Convention, October 25-28, 
1992, Richmond, VA.
Mutch, R. W. 1994. Fighting fire with prescribed fire, a return to 
ecosystem health. Journal of Forestry 92(11): 31-33.
Oliver, C. D. 1994. Rebuilding biological diversity at the landscape 
level. pp. 95-115, In: Proceedings of the conference, Forest health 
and fire danger in the inland western forests, September 8-9, 1994, 
Spokane, Washington.
Sackett, S. S., S. M. Haase, and M. G. Harrington. 1996. Lessons 
learned from fire use for restoring southwestern ponderosa pine 
ecosystems. pp. 54-61, In: Conference on adaptive ecosystem 
restoration and management: restoration of Cordilleran conifer 
landscapes of North America, June 6-8,1995, Flagstaff, Arizona. Gen 
Tech Rep. RM-GTR-278. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and 
Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO.
Wagle, R.F., and T.W. Eakle. 1979. A controlled burn reduces the 
impact of a subsequent wildland fire in a ponderosa pine vegetation 
type. For. Sci. 25(1): 123-129.
Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in 
the ponderosa pine region of the Pacific Slope. Journal of Forestry 
41: 7-14.
Williams, J.T. et al. 1993. Communicating fire-related 
considerations along successional pathways using decision tree 
analysis. 299-314. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fire and 
Forest Meteorology, Oct. 26-28, 1993, Jekyll Island, Georgia.
Williams, J. T. 1996. Aligning land management objectives with 
ecological processes in fire-dependent forests. pp. 32-34. In: 
Conference on adaptive ecosystem restoration and management: 
restoration of Cordiulleran conifer landscapes of North America, 
June 6-8,1995, Flagstaff, Arizona. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-278. USDA 
For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. 
Collins, CO.

Ecosystem Functioning, Management, and Restoration

Agee, J. K., and D. R. Johnson, editors. 1988. Ecosystem management 
for parks and wilderness. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 
WA.
Arno, S. F., M. G. Harrington, C. E. Fiedler, and C. E. Carlson. 
1995. Restoring fire-dependent ponderosa pine forests in western 
Montana. Restoration and Management Notes 13(1): 32-36.
Baker, W. L. 1994. Restoration of landscape structure altered by 
fire suppression. Conservation Biology 8(3): 763-769.
Borman, F. H., and G. E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and process in a 
forested ecosystem. Springer, New York, NY.
Chapin, F. S. III, M. S. Torn, and M. Tateno. 1996. Principles of 
ecosystem sustainability. The American Naturalist 130: 1016-1037.
Christensen, N. L., Jr., et al. 1988. Report of committee evaluating 
ecological effects of 1988 Yellowstone fires. National Park Service.
Christensen, N. L. Jr., et al. 1996. The report of the Ecological 
Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem 
management. Ecological Applications 6(3): 665-691.
Davenport, D. W., D. D. Breshears, B. P. Wilcox, and C. D. Allen. 
1998. Viewpoint: sustainability of pinon-juniper ecosystems-a 
unifying perspective of soil erosion thresholds. Journal of Range 
Management 51: 231-240.
Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley 
& Sons, New York, NY.
Fule, P. Z., W. Covington, and M. M. Moore. 1997. Determining 
reference conditions for ecosystem management of southwestern 
ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 7(3): 895-908.
Jordan, W. R., M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber. 1996. Restoration 
Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 342 p.
Lee, Kai N., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope, Integrated Science and 
Politics for the Environment.
Kimmins, J. P. 1987. Forest Ecology. MacMillan Publishing Co., New 
York, NY.

[[Page 67506]]

Knick, Steven T. 1999. Requiem for a sagebrush ecosystem? Northwest 
Science 73(i):53-57.
Noss, Reed F.; Michael A. O'Connell; and Dennis D. Murphy. 1997. The 
science of conservation planning: habitat conservation under the 
Endangered Species Act. Island Press. 246 pp.
Probst, John R.; and Jerry Weinrich. 1993. Relating Kirtland's 
warbler population to changing landscape composition and structure. 
Landscape Ecology 8(4):257-271.
Pickett, S. T. A., R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shackak, and G. E. Likens. 
1997. The ecological basis of conservation. Chapman & Hall. New 
York, NY. 466 p.
Richard, T., and S. Burns. 1999. The ponderosa pine forest 
partnership, forging new relationships to restore a forest. Office 
of Community Services, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO. 40 p.
San Juan National Forest. 1999. The ponderosa pine partnership, 
community stewardship in southwestern Colorado. USDA For. Serv., San 
Juan National Forest, Durango, CO. 44 p.
Smith, Jane Kapler, Editor. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 
effects of fire on fauna. Gen Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. U.S. 
Dept. Agric. Forest Service. 83 p.
Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on 
process. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171-198.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Healthy forests for America's future a 
strategic plan. MP-1513. USDA For. Serv., Washington, DC. 58 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Land management considerations in fire-
adapted ecosystems: conceptual guidelines. FS-590, USDA For. Serv. 
Fire and Aviation Management, Washington, DC. 23 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1997. Integration of wildland fire management 
into land management planning, a desk guide. USDA For. Serv. Fire 
and Aviation Management, Washington, DC.
Wilcove, David S. 1999. The condor's shadow--the loss and recovery 
of wildlife in America. W.H. Freeman and Company. 339 p.

US Forest Service Organization and Policy

Cortner, H. J., M. A. Shannon, M. G. Wallace, S. Burke, M. A. Moote. 
1996.
Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management: a 
problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-354. USDA For. Serv. 
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 35 p.
Smith, T. B., et al. 1993. The Preservation of process: the missing 
element of conservation programs. Biodiversity letters 1:164-167.
Wilcove, D. S. et al. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species 
in the United States. BioScience 1998 8:607-615 (specifically, the 
Wilcove and Chen in press manuscript and Wilcove's book--The 
condor's shadow, published by Freeman NY in 1999.)
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Fire related considerations and 
strategies in support of ecosystem management. USDA For. Serv., Fire 
and Aviation Management. Washington, DC. 30 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Course to the future, positioning Fire 
and Aviation Management. USDA For. Serv., Fire and Aviation 
Management. Washington, DC. 19 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Fire suppression costs on large fires a 
review of the 1994 fire season. USDA For. Serv., Fire and Aviation 
Management. Washington, DC.
USDA, USDI. 1995. Federal wildland fire management, policy & program 
review--final report. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 
45 p.

XI. Appendices

Appendix A--The Coarse-Scale Assessment and Definition of Fire Regimes 
and Condition Classes

Fire Regime Descriptors

    Five combinations of fire frequency, expressed as fire return 
interval and fire severity, are defined (Table 2) to create the map 
of Historic Natural Fire Regimes (Figure 14). Groups I and II 
include fire return intervals in the 0-35 year range. Group I 
includes ponderosa pine, other long-needle pine species, and dry-
site Douglas fir. Group II includes the drier grassland types, tall 
grass prairie, and some chaparral ecosystems. Groups III and IV 
include fire return intervals in the 35-100+ year range; and Group V 
is the long-interval (infrequent), stand replacement fire regime.

         Table 2.--The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Frequency (fire return
 Fire  Regime Group           interval)                 Severity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................  0-35 years..............  Low severity.
II..................  0-35 years..............  Stand replacement
                                                 severity.
III.................  35-100+ year............  Mixed severity.
IV..................  35-100+ year............  Stand replacement
                                                 severity.
V...................  >200 years..............  Stand replacement
                                                 severity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire Regime Groups I and II

    These first two fire regime groups occupy nearly all the lower 
elevation zones across the U.S. They have been most affected by the 
presence of human intervention and our analysis shows that these 
types demonstrate the most significant departure from historical 
levels. The departures are affected largely by housing development, 
agriculture, grazing, and logging. These areas are at greatest risk 
to loss of highly valued resources, commodity interests, and human 
health and safety. It is expected that these areas will receive 
primary focus of wildland management agencies in the future.

Current Condition Class Attributes

    Three Condition Classes have been developed to categorize the 
current condition with respect to each of the five historic Fire 
Regime Groups. Current condition is defined in terms of departure 
from the historic fire regime, as determined by the number of missed 
fire return intervals--with respect to the historic fire return 
interval--and the current structure and composition of the system 
resulting from alterations to the disturbance regime. The relative 
risk of fire-caused losses of key components that define the system 
increases for each respectively higher numbered condition class, 
with little or no risk at the Class 1 level.

                                        Condition Class \1\ Descriptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Condition class                         Fire regime                    Example management options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition Class 1..................  Fire regimes are within an historical  Where appropriate, these areas can
                                      range and the risk of losing key       be maintained within the historical
                                      ecosystem components is low.           fire regime by treatments such as
                                      Vegetation attributes (species         fire use.
                                      composition and structure) are
                                      intact and functioning within an
                                      historical range.
Condition Class 2..................  Fire regimes have been moderately      Where appropriate, these areas may
                                      altered from their historical range.   need moderate levels of restoration
                                      The risk of losing key ecosystem       treatments, such as fire use and
                                      components is moderate. Fire           hand or mechanical treatments, to
                                      frequencies have departed from         be restored to the historical fire
                                      historical frequencies by one or       regime.
                                      more return intervals (either
                                      increased or decreased). This
                                      results in moderate changes to one
                                      or more of the following: fire size,
                                      intensity and severity, and
                                      landscape patterns. Vegetation
                                      attributes have been moderately
                                      altered from their historical range.

[[Page 67507]]

 
Condition Class 3..................  Fire regimes have been significantly   Where appropriate, these areas may
                                      altered from their historical range.   need high levels of restoration
                                      The risk of losing key ecosystem       treatments, such as hand or
                                      components is high. Fire frequencies   mechanical treatments, before fire
                                      have departed from historical          can be used to restore the
                                      frequencies by multiple return         historical fire regime.
                                      intervals This results in dramatic
                                      changes to one or more of the
                                      following: fire size, intensity,
                                      severity, and landscape patterns.
                                      Vegetation attributes have been
                                      significantly altered from their
                                      historical range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current conditions are a function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes resulting in
  alterations of key ecosystem components such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, and canopy
  closure. One or more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber
  harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or
  native), or other past management activities.

  [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO00.010
  
Figure 14--Forest Service Lands, Fire Regime Groups I and II

[[Page 67508]]

Appendix B--Recommended Adjustments to the Forest Service GPRA 
Strategic Plan

Objective 1.c--RESTORE ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND RESILIENCE WITHIN THE 
CONTEXT OF NATURAL DISTURBANCE PROCESSES.

Strategies to Achieve the Objective

We will . . .

    <bullet> Identify priority health restoration needs through 
national and regional environmental monitoring and ecological risk 
assessments. Including:

    <bullet> social and economic factors and
    <bullet> sensitive species habitats at risk.

    <bullet> In regional, Land and Resource Management Plan, and 
landscape scale assessments, clearly identify values to be 
protected, relative risks, benefits, and costs of all treatment 
options for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.
    <bullet> Research ecosystems (composition, structure, and 
process), social and economic values at risk, and the role of 
disturbance process.
    <bullet> Assess what fel treatment works most effectively to 
protect communities and restore fire-adaped ecosystems.
    <bullet> Design and implement systematic methods for broad-scale 
and landscape scale assessments of the history, status, and 
trajectory of ecosystem conditions; values at risk; and management 
opportunities for maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity.
    <bullet> Apply the latest knowledge to develop and implement 
landscape scale protection and restoration projects that achieve 
landscape goals established in Forest Plans.

Measure

    Trends in acres at extreme risk from fire, insects, diseases, 
and invasive species.

FY 2006 Milestones

    <bullet> A 5% decrease in acres at extreme risk from insects and 
diseases.
    <bullet> Restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems in fire 
regimes I and II. Reduce high risk areas by 25 percent.
    <bullet> Acres infested with targeted invasive species remains 
unchanged or is diminished.

Key External Factors

    Baseline data on acres at risk was collected in an inconsistent 
manner in the past. Well-defined methods of data collection and 
storage are being developed. Fires, insect and disease epidemics and 
other unplanned large natural disturbances can radically alter the 
landscape and rapidly change management strategies, priorities, and 
budget allocations.
    Local jurisdictions regulate homebuilding. As development 
extends into wildlands, areas can experience higher intensity fires 
that increase risks to human life and property and contribute to the 
spread of invasive species.

Objective 3.e

    Increase awareness among employees and constituents about the 
need for restoration and management for ecosystem sustainability.
    Educate homeowners about FIREWISE programs and principles.

Strategies to Achieve the Objective

We will . . .

    Develop corporate training module for conservation awareness, 
and ensure all employees participate in this training module.
    Strengthen interagency conservation education efforts to 
emphasize the importance of watershed protection, species 
conservation, and management for long-term ecosystem integrity and 
resilience.
    Design and implement conservation awareness products that 
facilitate understanding about natural disturbance processes, 
particularly fire, and the potential values at risk when fire 
regimes are altered.
    Conduct FIREWISE workshops in all high-risk urban-interface 
communities adjacent to National Forests. Assist states in 
implementing the FIREWISE program nation-wide.

Measure

    Increasing trend in employee and public awareness of 
relationships among natural disturbance processes, ecosystem 
integrity and social values.
    All communities in high-risk urban-interface areas understand 
FIREWISE principles.

FY 2006 Milestone

    <bullet> Complete corporate training module for conservation 
awareness and require all employees to participate in this training, 
by 2002.
    <bullet> Develop an MOU with the Department of Interior to 
strengthen interagency conservation education to focus on the 
importance of watershed protection, species conservation, and 
management for ecosystem integrity and resilience, by 2002.
    <bullet> Conduct FIREWISE workshops in all high-risk urban-
interface areas adjacent to National Forest System lands.

Key External Factors

    Cooperate with state, tribal, county, municipal, and local 
governments.

Appendix C--Reconciling Stewardship Objectives--Assessing Values at 
Risk

    Considerable progress can be made in reconciling stewardship 
objectives by assessing values at risk at national, regional, and 
local scales. Emphasizing the agency's strategic objectives, a 
framework for assessing values at risk can be developed. 
Specifically, agency objectives for ecosystem health and public 
safety define national priorities for values to be protected. These 
objectives and their associated values are:
    <bullet> Public safety (GPRA SP Objective 4b)
    <bullet> Watershed protection (GPRA SP Objective 1a)
    <bullet> Species conservation (GPRA SP Objective 1b)
    <bullet> Ecosystem resilience (GPRA SP Objective 1c)
    At a national level, we are working to integrate information on 
human development, watershed condition, species and ecosystems of 
concern, noxious weeds, insects and disease, roadless areas, and 
plant community/ecosystem conditions by fire regimes. This requires 
compilation of information on historic disturbance regimes, 
watershed condition information, and development of a watershed-at-
risk map, and completion of the species-at-risk map. An integrated 
map of relative risk to these values will provide broad-scale 
context of the challenges for protecting people and sustaining 
ecosystems at the national level. A standard process for integrating 
and interpreting this information needs to be developed. National 
leadership will use this information to refine priorities for annual 
and long-term performance and accountability.
    In assessing risk at the regional level, we need to integrate 
information including, but not limited to: human development, 
historic disturbance regimes, watershed condition, species and 
ecosystems of concern, invasive weeds, insects and disease, roadless 
areas, plant community/ecosystem conditions by fire regimes. This 
will require compilation of appropriate information at finer scales 
of resolution than that compiled for the national risk assessments. 
Based on regional assessments, priorities for landscape scale 
analyses and management action can be developed. On-the-ground 
treatment priorities are then identified by the goals, objectives, 
and strategies that are linked up through the agency to GPRA 
strategic goal for restoring and maintaining ecosystem health.

Appendix D--Brief Summary for Future Projections of Condition Classes 
and Risks

Introduction

    The methods, results, and confidence in the future projections 
of Condition Classes and associated risks in section VI, 
``Consequences of Deferral,'' are discussed in detail in a paper by 
Hann and Hilbruner (2000) titled ``Protecting People and Sustaining 
Resources--Assessment of Management Options for the Western U.S.'' 
This paper can be found on the www web site ``fs.fed.us/fire/
fuelman.'' Methods for this analysis were based on adjustment and 
re-calibration for Forest Service lands in the Western U.S. of a 
vegetation and disturbance dynamics model developed by Hann and 
Bunnell (In Press) for the contiguous Lower 48 States.
    This appendix provides a brief overview of methods and 
limitations of the modeling projections.

Methods

    A landscape succession and disturbance network model was 
developed for the assessment of the cohesive strategy options in the 
Western U.S. (Hann and Hilbruner 2000) using the Vegetation Dynamics 
Development Tool (VDDT) (Beukema and Kurz 2000). The model that was 
developed used Condition Classes as states and incorporated 
probabilities for succession, unplanned disturbances (such as fire), 
and planned disturbances (such as mechanical and prescribed fire 
restoration).
    The concepts of this type of model of multiple succession and 
disturbance pathways were first developed by Egler

[[Page 67509]]

(1954). These concepts were incorporated with other information into 
the development of conceptual succession and disturbance models by 
Noble and Slatyer (1977). Conceptual succession and disturbance 
models were combined with ecosystem specific information into 
computer models by Kessell and Fischer (1981) and Keane et al. (1989 
to predict response over time of the interactions of vegetation 
succession and disturbance dynamics. As space and time pattern and 
process concepts developed in the field of landscape ecology, these 
models were further advanced (Forman and Godrun 1986, Turner et al. 
1989). State and transition model concepts were further expanded 
with findings on multiple pathways and steady states in rangelands 
by Tausch et al. (1993).
    The accumulation of this long history and wide variety of kinds 
of spatial and temporal landscape modeling were fully implemented to 
support an assessment of management implications that included 
characterization of the historical range and variation, as well as 
future outcomes of management option for the Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) by Keane et al. (1996) and 
Hann et al. (1997 and 1998).
    Dynamic relationships of basic landscape vegetation, 
disturbance, and hydrologic regimes were then linked with aquatic 
and terrestrial habitat and species population characteristics to 
characterize basic relationships and project future outcomes (Lee et 
al. 1997, Raphael et al. 1998, Wisdom et al. 2000). Similar linkages 
were developed with social and economic variables to characterize 
basic relationships and project future outcomes (Haynes and Horne 
1997). Further developments have resulted in development of the Tool 
for Exploratory Landscape Scenario Analyses (TELSA) (Kurz et al. In 
Press) and the LAND and fire planning model which have been designed 
to support assessment of ecosystem status and risk variables, and 
prioritization of restoration opportunities to improve status and 
reduce risk (Hann and Caratti 2000).
    Much of the understanding developed from the comprehensive 
scientific assessment and evaluation of management alternatives for 
the ICBEMP (Quigley et al. 1996, 1997, 1999) became the foundation 
for the modeling effort described briefly in this appendix and by 
Hann and Bunnell (In Press) for the Lower 48 states and Hann and 
Hilbruner (2000) for the western U.S. The modeling effort used the 
description of the present conditions for the western U.S. from 
Hardy et al. 2000.
    Succession and disturbance probabilities were developed by 
determining average rates for the Fire Regimes and between each 
Condition Class. The model was calibrated for the historical range 
and variation (HRV) by repeating 10 runs per simulation (to get 
average, maximum, and minimum) until succession and disturbance 
probability combinations were found that could represent the fire 
regimes. The model was then calibrated from the late 1800s to the 
present by activating disturbances associated with post-Euro-
American settlement, fire suppression, and management activities. 
The methods for this calibration were similar to those for 
calibration of HRV in that 10 runs per simulations were conducted 
until the projected conditions at the year 2000 and the trends of 
Condition Class and wildland fire graphs were similar to those of 
the published literature (Agee 1993, Hardy et al. 2000).
    Two future options were calibrated using the combined 
understanding gained from the HRV and post-settlement calibration, 
with adjustments for future management option projections. The two 
future management options were: (1) Continuation of current 
management using the current levels of prescribed fire and fuel 
management combined with current levels of other activities (such as 
timber management, range improvement, wildlife habitat restoration, 
watershed restoration); and (2) implementation of the cohesive 
restoration strategy. In comparison to the HRV and post-settlement 
calibrations, these were relatively simple to calibrate, since the 
current levels of activities and the cohesive strategy level of 
activities were known entities.
    Attributes for projections of loss of life and property, severe 
event degraded ecosystems, and relative risks of smoke/air quality, 
native species endangerment, and stream/watershed were developed 
using correlation of trends in landscape Condition Classes and 
assumptions similar to relationships found within ICBEMP (Quigley et 
al. 1999), but adjusted for conditions in the western U.S. (Elmore 
et al. 1994, Flatherer et al. 1994 and 1998, Hann and Caratti 2000, 
Hardy et al. 2000, Leenhouts 1998, Mangan 1999).
    Loss of life and property was based on the relationship between 
firefighter fatalities and property losses correlated with amount of 
uncharacteristic wildland fire events. The amount of severe event 
degraded ecosystems was projected based on the correlation of 
uncharacteristic wildland fire events with high risk conditions. 
Relative risk of smoke/air quality was correlated with tons of 
particulates produced for both wildland fire and prescribed fire 
events. Native species endangerment patterns were correlated with 
the number of species of concern in the western U.S. and cumulative 
effect patterns of association with loss of habitat quality. Stream 
and watershed risk was correlated with effects of uncharacteristic 
wildland fires in cumulation with other effects. Many of the risks 
(such as land use or human disturbance on adjacent lands) that cause 
cumulative negative effects to native species, air quality, and 
streams and watersheds are not reduced by restoration on Forest 
Service lands. This was factored in to the model relationships.
    Three key assumptions served as a basis for the Condition Class, 
disturbance, and associated attribute modeling:
    Assumption 1--based on the landscape pattern and causes of 
fragmentation findings from ICBEMP, it was assumed that a step-down 
prioritization would occur that would identify priority watersheds 
to be restored. The watersheds would be selected based on high 
composition of Fire Regimes I and II and opportunities for 
maintenance of low risk or reduction of high risk conditions. 
However, once a priority watershed was selected, restoration 
activities would be designed to restore habitats and regimes across 
all Forest Service lands within the watershed, irrespective of the 
Condition Class and Fire Regime. This would achieve a landscape 
approach to restoration. This would avoid a fragmented outcome 
associated with the fragmented landscape pattern of Fire Regimes I 
and II that often occur in association with variation in elevation, 
terrain, road access, or history of land use within the watershed. 
In turn this would restore wildlife and fish habitats, and 
hydrologic and air regimes at a watershed scale, thus providing a 
positive outcome to those resources.
    Assumption 2--based on aquatic native species strongholds and 
vulnerability of wildlife species, air quality and hydrologic 
regimes to the combination of land use, human activities, and 
proposed restoration; the step-down prioritization would result in 
an integrated design as described by Reiman et al. (2000). This 
would assure that vulnerable native species or ecosystems would not 
be selected for restoration activities that could cause a decline in 
these resources. This would also assure that watersheds selected for 
restoration would be restored in an integrated fashion, such that 
vegetation and fuel restoration activities would be paralleled with 
the necessary road, stream, and watershed restoration activities 
that would cumulatively result in a healthy watershed.
    Assumption 3--the future projections assumed a minor level of 
continuation of increasing drought and warming temperatures in both 
management options. However, for the future projections of the 
cohesive strategy it was assumed that a landscape approach to 
restoration would occur. This would result in a re-patterning of the 
fuels and vegetation such that the present contiguous high risk fuel 
bodies would be restored to a pattern somewhat similar to that of 
HRV, thus resulting in lower risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire 
event continuity or continuation of uncharacteristic succession/
disturbance momentum. For the cohesive strategy, this assumption 
resulted in the slowing of succession rates to higher risk Condition 
Classes and lowering of probabilities of large uncharacteristic 
wildland fire events.

Limitations of Modeling

    There are considerable limitations to this type of general 
modeling at a scale that accounts for all Forest Service lands in 
the western U.S. Modeling could be much more precise with more 
detailed pixel modeling using refined stratification of succession, 
disturbance, and attribute parameters, such as accomplished by Keane 
et al. (1996) with the Columbia River Basin Succession Model. 
However, given experience with validation of this and other detailed 
spatial and temporal geographic information systems, it is unlikely 
that the relative differences between the outcomes of the two 
options would change substantially with more detailed modeling. This 
appears to be particularly true at the broad scale of Forest Service 
lands in the western U.S.
    One key caution is emphasized relative to use of the projected 
outcomes:
    Caution--the strength of this type of modeling is in reliance on 
relative differences and not on the absolute. The absolute value of 
the area for a Condition Class, disturbance effect, or associated

[[Page 67510]]

attribute class does not have high confidence at this scale. 
However, the relative difference (percent difference) between 
management options for the Condition Class, disturbance effect, or 
associated attribute class has fairly high confidence. This is 
because the confidence in relative differences between management 
options for the same attribute class increases with increasing size 
of summary area, while the confidence in the absolute area of an 
attribute class decreases with increasing size of summary area (Hann 
et al. 1997).

Appendix E--Key References

Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. 
Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 p.
Beukema, S.J.; Kurz, W.A. 2000. Vegetation Dynamics Development 
Tool: Test Version 4.0. March 18, 2000 executable. ESSA Technologies 
Ltd. Vancouver, B.C. 70 pp and model.
Connell, J.H.; Slatyer, R.O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in 
natural communities and their role in community stability and 
organization. The Amer. Natur. 3:1119-1144.
Egler, F.E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts. I. Initial floristic 
composition, a factor in old-field vegetation development. 
Vegetatio. 4:412-417.
Elmore, D.W., Kovalchik, B. L. Jurs, L.D. 1994. Restoration of 
riparian ecosystems. In: Everett, R.L. (compiler). Volume 4: 
Restoration of stressed sites, and processes, Eastside Forest 
Ecosystem Health Assessment, pages 87-92. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-
330. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 
Station. 123 p.
Flatherer, C.H.; Joyce, L.A.; Bloomgarden, C.A. 1994. Species 
endangerment patterns in the United States. USDA For. Sev. Gen. 
Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-241. Fort Collins, Colorado. 42 pp.
Flatherer, C.H.; Knowles, M.S.; Kendall, I.A. 1998. Threatened and 
endangered species geography: Characteristics of species hot spots 
in the conterminous United States. BioScience 48(5):365-376.
Forman, Richard T.T.; Godrun, Michael. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New 
York: John Wiley and Sons. 619 p.
Hann, Wendel J.; Jones, Jeffrey L.; Karl, Michael G. Sherm, [and 
others]. 1997. Landscape Dynamics of the Basin. Chapter 3. In: 
Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. Eds. 1997. An 
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin 
and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 2. Gen. Tech. 
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, 
Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project: Scientific Assessment).
Hann, W.J.; Jones, J.L; Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Gravenmier, 
R.A. 1998. Landscape dynamics. Journal of Forestry. 96(10)10-15.
Hann, W.J.; Caratti, J. 2000. LAND and fire planning--a computer 
temporal and spatial model for assessing ecosystem status and risk, 
and prioritizing restoration opportunities to improve status and 
reduce risk. Draft paper posted on the www web site ``fs.fed.us/
fire/fuelman.'' Fire Modeling Institute, Fire Sciences Lab, USDA 
Forest Service Rocky Mt. Research Station, Missoula Montana. 15 p, 
Maps, Data.
Hann, W. J.; Hilbruner, M.2000. Protecting People and Sustaining 
Resources--Assessment of Management Options in the Western U.S. 
Draft methods and results paper posted on the www web site 
``fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman.'' Fire Modeling Institute, Fire Sciences 
Lab, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mt. Research Station, Missoula 
Montana. 18 p, Maps, Data.
Hann, W. J.; Bunnell, D. L. In Press. Fire and land management 
planning and implementation across multiple scales. February 4, 2000 
Draft of invited paper submitted for publication in the 
International Journal of Wildland Fire. Paper presented at the June 
15-17, 1999 Joint Fire Sciences International Conference Crossing 
the Millennium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological 
Principles for a New Age in Fire Management. Eds. Greg Gollberg and 
Jerry Dean Greer. Boise, Idaho.
Hardy, Colin C.; Menakis, James P.; Schmidt, Kirsten M.; Sampson, 
Neil R. 2000. Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel 
management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, in press.
Haynes, Richard W.; Horne, Amy L. 1997. Chapter 6: Economic 
assessment of the Basin. In: Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia 
J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the 
interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great 
Basins: volume 4. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 
Research Station. 4 vol: 1715-1869. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; 
The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific 
Assessment).
Keane, R.E 1987. Forest succession in western Montana--a computer 
model designed for resource managers. Res. Note INT-376. Ogden, UT: 
U.S. Dept. Ag., Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 8 p.
Keane, Robert E.; Long, Donald G.; Menakis, James P. [and others]. 
1996b. Simulating course-scale vegetation dynamics using the 
Columbia River Basin Succession Model: CRBSUM. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-
GTR-340. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 
Intermountain Research Station. 50 p.
Kurz, W.A.; Beukema, S.J.; Klenner, W.; Greenough, J.A.; Robinson, 
D.C.E.; Sharpe, A.D.; Webb, T.M. In Press. TELSA: The tool for 
exploratory landscape scenario analyses. J. Computers and 
Electronics in Agriculture. Presented at ``The Application of 
Scientific Knowledge to Decision making in Managing Forest 
Ecosystems,'' May 3-7, 1999, Asheville, NC, USA. 17 p.
Lee, Danny C.; Sedell, James R.; Rieman, Bruce E. [and others]. 
1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. In: 
Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An 
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin 
and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 3. Gen. Tech. 
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol: 1057-
1713. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).
Leenhouts, Bill. 1998. Assessment of biomass burning in the 
conterminous United States. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(1):1-22. 
URL: http//www.consecol.org/vol2/iss1/art1.
Mangan, R. 1999. Wildland fire fatalities in the United States: 
1990-1998. Tech. Rep. 9951-2808-MTDC.: USDA Forest Service, 
Missoula, Montana. 14 pp.
Noble, I.R.; Slatyer, R.O. 1977. Postfire succession of plants in 
Mediterranean ecosystems. In: Mooney, H.A.; Conrad, C.E., eds. 
Proceedings of the symposium-- environmental consequences of fire 
and fuel management in Mediterranean climate ecosystems. Gen. Tech. 
Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Ag. Forest Service: 27-36.
Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech. 
eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management 
in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great 
basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 
303 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment.)
Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An 
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin 
and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 4. Gen. Tech. 
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, 
Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project: Scientific Assessment).
Quigley, Thomas M.; Gravenmier, R.A.; Hann, W.J. [and others]. 1999. 
Scientific evaluation of supplemental EIS alternatives by the 
Science Integration Team. Report on File. Portland, OR: U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 
Research Station.
Raphael, M.G.; Marcot, B.G.; Holthausen, R.S.; Wisdom, M.J. 1998. 
Terrestrial species and habitats. Journ. For. 96(10):22-27.
Rieman, B.E.; Lee, D.C.; Thurow, R.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Sedell, J.R. 
2000. Toward an integrated classification of ecosystems: defining 
opportunities for managing fish and forest health. Environmental 
Management. 25(4):425-444.
Tausch, Robin T.; Wigand, Peter E.; Burkhardt, J. Wayne. 1993. 
Viewpoint: plant community thresholds, multiple steady states, and 
multiple successional pathways: legacy of the quaternary? Journal of 
Range Management. 46(5):439-447.

[[Page 67511]]

Turner, M.G.; O'Neill, R.V.; Garner, R.H.; Milne, B.T. 1989. Effects 
of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. 
Landscape Ecology. 3:153-163.
Wisdom, M.J.; Holthausen, R.J.; Wales, B.K.Richard S.; [and others]. 
in press. 1999. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus 
in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management 
implications. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. 
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Wisdom, M.J.; Wales, B.C.; Holthausen, R.S.; Hargis, C.D.; Saab, 
V.A.; Hann, W.J.; Rich, T.D.; Lee, D.C.; Rowland, M.W. 1999. 
Wildlife habitats in forests of the interior northwest: history, 
status, trends , and critical issues confronting land managers. 
Transactions of 64th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 
Conference. 79-93.

[FR Doc. 00-28509 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P