67480 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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 FloorSW, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 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 fireadapted ecosystems, some measure of

fire use—at appropriate intensity,

frequency, and time of year—should be

included in management strategies

intended to protect and sustain

watersheds, species, and other natural

resources over the long term.

The strategy is also based on the

premise that, within fire-adapted

ecosystems, fire-maintained forests and

grasslands are inherently safer for

firefighters and the public than

ecosystems in which fire is excluded.

Purpose

The strategy establishes a framework

that restores and maintains ecosystem

health in fire-adapted ecosystems for

priority areas across the interior West.

In accomplishing this, it is intended to:

• Improve the resilience and

sustainability of forests and grasslands

at risk,

• Conserve priority watersheds,

species and biodiversity,

• Reduce wildland fire costs, losses,

and damages, and

• Better ensure public and firefighter

safety.

Priorities

Wildland-urban interface. Wildlandurban interface areas include those areas

where flammable wildland fuels are

adjacent to homes and communities.

Readily accessible municipal

watersheds. Water is the most critical

resource in many western states.

Watersheds impacted by

uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less

resilient to disturbance and unable to

recover as quickly as those that remain

within the range of ecological

conditions characteristic of the fire

regime under which they developed.

Threatened and endangered species

habitat. The extent of recent fires

demonstrates that in fire-adapted

ecosystems few areas are isolated from

wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many

threatened and endangered species will

eventually be impacted by wildland fire.

The severity and extent of fire could

eventually push declining populations

beyond recovery.

Maintenance of existing low risk

Condition Class 1 areas. This is

especially important in the southern

and eastern states where high rates of

vegetation growth can eliminate the

effects of treatment in 5–10 years.

Recent droughts have caused severe

wildland fire problems in Florida and

Texas.

Elements

For the purposes of this report, the

following are used as the elements of a

cohesive strategy:

• Institutional Objectives and

Priorities

• Program Management Budgets and

Authorities

• Social Awareness and Support

The strategy is based on the alignment

of these institutional, program

management, and constituency

elements. The cohesion of this strategy

stands on the collective strength of these

three core elements.

Within the Forest Service, ecosystem

management concepts continue to

evolve into practice. This report

describes a cohesive set of actions from

which the Forest Service may choose to

initiate restoration and maintenance

objectives within fire-adapted

ecosystems.

I. Purpose and Intent of a Cohesive

Strategy

‘‘The most extensive and serious

problem related to the health of national

forests in the interior West is the overaccumulation 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

67482 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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 longterm effectiveness of different

restoration and rehabilitation methods

to determine those methods most

effective in protecting and restoring

watershed function and forest health.

Seek new uses and markets for

byproducts of restoration.

Managing Impacts of Wildfires on

Communities and the Environment

provides an overall framework for

implementing fire management and

forest health programs. This report

provides the strategic framework for

reducing hazardous fuels buildup

within wildland-urban interface

communities, readily accessible

municipal watersheds, threatened and

endangered species habitat, and other

important local features. The objective

of this strategy is to describe actions that

could restore healthy, diverse, and

resilient ecological systems to minimize

the potential for uncharacteristically

intense fires on a priority basis.

Methods will include removal of

excessive vegetation and dead fuels

through thinning, prescribed fire, and

other treatment methods.

This report is based on Forest Service

experience and analysis. It also

responds to Congressional direction to

provide a strategic plan to reduce

wildland fire risk and restore forest

ecosystem health in the interior West. It

reflects the findings of the U.S. General

Accounting Office (GAO) Report,

Western National Forests: A Cohesive

Strategy is Needed to Address

Catastrophic Wildland fire Threats

(GAO/RCED–99–65).

The General Accounting Office report

concludes, ‘‘The most extensive and

serious problem related to the health of

national forests in the interior West is

the over-accumulation of vegetation.’’

The General Accounting Office

estimated that the over-accumulation of

fuels problem affects approximately 39

million acres in the interior West.

The Chief of the Forest Service

chartered the strategy outlined in this

report. The National Association of

State Foresters and the U.S. Department

of the Interior participated with the

Forest Service in developing this report.

It is important to note that this is an

iterative strategy. It will be refined by:

further programmatic and manual

direction; ongoing roadless, roads, and

planning rulemakings; and

environmental impact statements and

decision documents for the national

grasslands and ongoing regional

initiatives.

At the national level the strategy

articulates:

• Agency-wide objectives and

milestones.

• Geographic priorities, broad

management guidance, and performance

measures for accountability.

• Alternative schedules to

accomplish restoration and maintenance

objectives over various timeframes.

Separate action plans, consistent with

the strategy and regional assessments

and direction, and ongoing national

rulemakings, will outline

implementation steps at the

organization’s regional, forest, and

ranger district levels.

The acreage and cost estimate

numbers used in this report are

preliminary and derived from coarsescale 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 overaccumulation 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, firemaintained 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 fireadapted ecosystems across the interior

West. In accomplishing this, it is

intended to:

• Improve the resilience and

sustainability of forests and grasslands

at risk,

• Conserve priority watersheds,

species and biodiversity,

• Reduce wildland fire costs, losses,

and damages, and

• Better ensure public and firefighter

safety.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67483

Priorities

• Wildland-urban interface.

Wildland-urban interface areas include

those areas where flammable wildland

fuels are adjacent to homes and

communities.

• Readily accessible municipal

watersheds. Water is the most critical

resource in many western states.

Watersheds impacted by

uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less

resilient to disturbance and unable to

recover as quickly as those that remain

within the range of ecological

conditions characteristic of the fire

regime under which they developed.

• Threatened and endangered species

habitat. The extent of recent fires

demonstrates that in fire-adapted

ecosystems few areas are isolated from

wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many

threatened and endangered species will

eventually be impacted by wildland fire.

The severity and extent of fire could

eventually push declining populations

beyond recovery.

• Maintenance of existing low risk

Condition Class 1 areas. This is

especially important in the southern

and eastern states where high rates of

vegetation growth can eliminate the

effects of treatment in 5–10 years.

Recent droughts have caused severe

wildland fire problems in Florida and

Texas.

Present Situation

Most forests and grasslands in the

interior West and their associated

species are fire-adapted. Some, known

as ‘‘short interval’’ fire-adapted

ecosystems, evolved from frequent, lowintensity 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, fireintolerant 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 fireadapted 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

67484 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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, firetolerant trees.

Strategy—Complements Other Efforts

The strategy complements other work,

including efforts to protect roadless

areas and to better manage the existing

road system. For example, in most

places roadless areas are often less

affected by past management practices

and found at higher elevations with

vegetation that evolved with longer fire

return intervals. Furthermore, roadless

areas are typically removed from human

communities. Thus, fires in these areas

may pose less of a threat to lives and

property. The proposed road policy

would require that issues such as the

need for hazardous fuels treatments be

considered prior to making decisions

about road decommissioning,

upgrading, or new construction.

The strategy also builds on the Joint

Fire Sciences Program. It relies on

adaptive management, monitoring,

research, and the further integration of

social sciences. It encourages

development of procedures that bring

together and overlay agency objectives

for watershed protection, species

conservation, ecosystem resilience, and

public safety.

Research is needed to support

restoration. The need for assertive

action must be coupled with prudence

and caution to minimize unintended

consequences. Additional research is

needed to support managers in

prescribing land management

treatments to improve forest ecosystem

health, as well as to find ways to

increase utilization of small diameter

material.

The Consequences of Deferral

The costs of implementing the

restoration and maintenance approaches

outlined under this strategy are high.

Yet, fire suppression costs, public

resource losses, private property losses,

and environmental damages accruing

without treatment are expected to be

significantly greater over time.

Successful Restoration and

Maintenance Efforts

The optimum method to ensure

success in restoring ecosystems is

collaborating with the local public in

planning efforts. Regional planning,

including stakeholders in identifying

and assessing values at risk, is an

important component of the strategy.

The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem

Management Project and the Interior

Columbia River Basin Management

Project are examples of regional-scale

planning that address resources at risk

and establish priorities for broad

geographic areas.

More localized planning processes,

including Land and Resource

Management Plan (forest plan) revisions

and amendments, will integrate specific

concerns and priorities at a watershed

or landscape scale within the context of

regional plans and the Forest Service

GPRA Strategic Plan.

Across the nation, awareness is

growing about the fire-related

consequences that occur in untreated

forests and grasslands prone to wildland

fire. The following are two examples of

citizen-based efforts that have been

developed to reduce risks within the

interior West’s urban interface:

• The Grand Canyon Forests

Partnership (joining Arizona Game and

Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Arizona State Land Department,

Coconino County, City of Flagstaff,

Northern Arizona University, Grand

Canyon Trust and the Nature

Conservancy);

• The Priest-Pend Oreille

Stewardship Project that focuses on

7,200 acres of wildland-urban interface

lands in the Idaho Panhandle National

Forest (joining two community project

teams with the Forest Service).

To improve forest ecosystem health

and reduce wildland fire risks at larger

scales, action needs to be expanded over

broader areas and coordinated among

Forest Service research, state and

private forestry, and National Forest

System programs. Restoration and

maintenance of fire-adapted ecosystems

depends on:

• Understanding and valuing

ecological processes as the means to

sustain ecosystem health.

• An ability to evaluate options and

weigh decisions for long-term outcomes.

• An understanding and acceptance

of the tools needed to accomplish

restoration goals.

• A commitment to monitoring,

evaluation, and research as the basis for

adaptive management.

• Working collaboratively with

communities and interested parties to

build project plans with broad-based

local ownership.

Successful implementation of the

approach outlined in this strategy

requires strong support from Congress

and constituents. It must also be

recognized that success will depend on

applying a combination of traditional

and newly developed methods and

knowledge.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67485

II. Background, Land Use History and Ecological Change

Background

Figure 1—General Affected Area Within

the Western United States

Approximately 134 million acres, or

about 70 percent of National Forest

System lands are in the western U.S.

The area is a fire-influenced

environment. For thousands of years,

the magnitude of burning that occurred

in this area was much greater than

today. In the upper Columbia River

Basin alone—a small portion of the

interior West—scientific assessments

indicate that prior to European

settlement, more than six million acres

per year burned. Today, fewer than onehalf 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’’ fireadapted ecosystems. Before the turn of

the century, these forested ecosystems

were often described as open and

savannah or ‘‘park-like,’’ with wellspaced, older-aged trees. Grasses and

forbs dominated the understories of

these forest communities. They were

kept in this condition by frequent, lowintensity 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 fireadapted 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.

67486 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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.

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 fireadapted 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 wellintentioned 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67487

Within Condition Class 3 in these

short interval fire-adapted ecosystems,

wildland fires usually damage key

ecosystem components, including the

soil. High-intensity fires consume the

soil’s organic layer and burn off or

volatilize nutrients. When small twigs,

pine needles, and other litter are

consumed, water runs unimpeded over

the surface. Under these circumstances,

the soil becomes more susceptible to

erosion (Figure 6).

Figure 6—Buffalo Creek Fire, Colorado

These photos, of Colorado’s Buffalo Creek

Fire aftermath, illustrate soil severity burned

and left exposed to rain and runoff. This

produced the subsequent 1996 flash flood

that claimed two lives. The ensuing erosion

also washed topsoil off hillsides, clogging

downstream watercourses. This erosion

reduced future storage capacity of reservoirs

and silted-over the river’s gravel beds—

significantly reducing spawning habitat.

At extreme fire intensities, the soil’s

capacity to absorb water is often lost.

The fine, powder-like ash that follows a

severe wildland fire on these sites

makes water bead on the surface. These

so-called ‘‘hydrophobic conditions’’

result in highly erodable soils.

Condition Class 3 is classified as high

risk because of the danger it poses to

people and the severe, long-lasting

damage likely to result to species and

watersheds when a fire burns—

particularly in drought years.

Firefighters are especially cognizant of

hazards in Condition Class 3 situations.

In a national survey (Tri-data, 1995),

nearly 80% of all firefighters identified

fuel reduction as the single-most

important factor for improving their

margin of safety on wildland fires.

In Condition Class 3, fires become

more costly when homes are involved.

Throughout much of the interior West,

short interval fire-adapted ecosystems

are typically located in valley-bottoms

where homes and human development

are most concentrated. Just as building

homes in floodplains exposes

homeowners to risk of floods, if

hazardous fuels accumulations persist,

development in fire-adapted ecosystems

may pose a tangible risk to

communities.

An example from the 2000 fire season

demonstrates the increased costs of

fighting fire near people and homes. The

Skalkaho Fire on the Bitterroot National

Forest covered 64,000 acres of forest

interspersed with homes. It employed

755 firefighting personnel at a cost of

$7.2 million dollars. Meanwhile, on the

same forest within the Selway-Bitterroot

Wilderness Area, a fire that burned

about the same acreage (63,0000 acres)

only required 25 firefighters at a cost of

approximately $709,999.

Efforts to reduce hazardous fuels on

federal lands must be coupled with

efforts to assist private landowners to

take preventative action in their own

communities. Creating defensible

perimeters around homes, improving

building codes, and employing fire

resistant landscaping will help reduce

fire risk to communities. These and

other such actions can help prevent

wildland fires from burning homes,

reduce insurance premiums, and reduce

suppression cost.

Figure 7—Homes Burning in the Dude Fire,

Arizona, 1990

The Dude Fire burned in central Arizona

in Condition Class 3 stand conditions.

Although the fire only burned a few days, it

resulted in the death of six firefighters and

cost $7.5 million to control. It destroyed 75

homes, resulting in property loss of $12

million. No estimate is available on the

resource losses involved.

III. Ensuring Clean Air, Clean Water,

and Biodiversity in Fire-Adapted

Ecosystems

Sustainability: ‘‘Meeting the needs of

the current generation without

compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their needs.

Ecological sustainability entails

maintaining the composition, structure

and processes of a system, as well as

species diversity and ecological

productivity. The core element of

sustainability is that it is future

oriented.’’ Committee of Scientists

Report, 1999.

The Legal Basis for Sustainability

A suite of federal laws and regulations

guide management of National Forest

System lands and fire-related activities

on those lands. These include the

Organic Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water

Act, Endangered Species Act, National

Environmental Policy Act, and National

Forest Management Act. Long-term

sustainability is a consistent theme

embodied within these laws.

Sustaining natural resources in short

interval fire-adapted ecosystems is a

basis of the cohesive strategy outlined in

this report.

Legal Basis for Sustainability

Endangered Species Act

‘‘The purposes of this Act are to

provide a means whereby the

ecosystems upon which endangered

species and threatened species depend

may be conserved * * * ’’

Clean Water Act

‘‘(a) Restoration and maintenance of

chemical, physical and biological

integrity of the nation’s waters

* * * The objective of this chapter is to

restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the

nation’s waters.’’

Clean Air Act

‘‘(1) to protect and enhance the

quality of the nation’s air resources so

as to promote the public health and

welfare and the productive capacity of

its population.’’

National Forest Management Act

(NFMA)

‘‘(6) the Forest Service * * * has

both a responsibility and an opportunity

to be a leader in assuring that the nation

maintains a natural resource

conservation posture that will meet the

requirements of our people in

perpetuity.’’

National Environmental Protection Act

(NEPA)

‘‘(a) Creation and maintenance of

conditions under which man and nature

can exist in productive harmony.’’

The Forest Service Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

Strategic Plan (2000 revision) bridges

law and Forest Service activities. This

report’s cohesive strategy anchors to the

following GPRA Strategic Plan’s specific

objectives:

• Improve watershed conditions and

restore hydrological processes;

• Improve habitat quality; and

conserve fish, wildlife and plant

populations;

• Improve ecosystem resiliency

associated with fire adapted ecosystems;

and

• Reduce the relative risk of damage

to human communities associated with

wildland fire.

The overarching purpose of the GPRA

Strategic Plan, consistent with these

laws, is to maintain healthy, diverse

ecosystems that meet human needs on

a long-term basis. Sustaining healthy,

diverse conditions requires

consideration of entire landscapes in the

context of specific ecosystems and their

ecological dynamics.

The Need for Adaptive Management

Increased human population growth,

expanded land-use development, and

changes in natural ecosystems affect

ecosystem dynamics and processes. In

the short interval fire-adapted systems,

over-accumulated fuels indicate that

more wildland fires in the future may

burn with uncharacteristic fire effects.

This trend may result in higher

corresponding threats to human life and

property, as well as potentially more

degraded ecosystems.

Planning in fire-adapted ecosystems

requires an integration and

67488 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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 fireadapted 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 FireAdapted 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 onthe-ground projects will contain many

of the ‘‘how to’’ actions necessary to

move the strategy forward in a manner

that is consistent with law, regulations,

and Forest Service policy.

Priorities for Restoration

Specific areas of emphasis in the

strategy include reducing risk within

the wildland-urban interface, readily

accessible municipal watersheds, and

threatened and endangered species

habitat. However, it is equally important

to maintain existing low risk areas from

developing into moderate or high-risk.

To this end, the following priorities will

apply when designating areas for

treatment.

• Wildland-urban interface.

Wildland-urban interface areas include

those areas where flammable wildland

fuels are adjacent to homes and

communities.

• Readily accessible municipal

watersheds. Clean water is the most

critical resource in many western states.

Watersheds impacted by

uncharacteristic wildfire effects are less

resilient to disturbance and unable to

recover as quickly as those that remain

within the range of ecological

conditions characteristic of the fire

regime under which they developed.

• Threatened and endangered species

habitat. The extent of recent fires

demonstrates that in fire-adapted

ecosystems few areas are isolated from

wildfire. Dwindling habitat for many

threatened and endangered species will

eventually be impacted by wildland fire.

The severity and extent of fire could

eventually push declining populations

beyond recovery.

• Maintenance of existing low risk

Condition Class 1 areas. This is

especially important in the southern

and eastern states where high rates of

vegetation growth can eliminate the

effects of treatment in 5–10 years.

Recent droughts have caused severe

wildland fire problems in Florida and

Texas.

Supporting Scientific Evidence

Considerable scientific evidence

supports use of prescribed fire and other

management treatments in fire-adapted

ecosystems to reduce risk of

catastrophic wildland fire, improve

ecosystem resilience, and restore plant

community composition, structure, and

landscape patterns.

Several examples of small-scale

watershed improvement projects exist

in national forests in fire-adapted

systems. Virtually all use prescribed fire

and mechanical treatments to improve

watershed conditions. Fuel reduction

work can reduce potential fire severity,

which, in turn, can reduce potential

erosion. Conditions that favor low

intensity burning on these sites help

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67489

prevent erosion and leave more organic

material that filters water and improves

water quality characteristics.

At landscape scales, the effectiveness

of treatments in improving watershed

conditions has not been well

documented. Many scientists, however,

agree that careful application of

treatments across larger scales can

restore water quality.

Degraded air quality associated with

long-duration wildland fires has been

widely experienced in the West.

Because wildland fires tend to occur at

the driest time of year when dead fuels

and vegetation is also driest, they are

more completely consumed and

typically produce three to five times

more emissions than early or late-season

prescribed fires.

In Condition Class 3 and some

Condition Class 2 situations, the

strategy advocates mechanical thinning

of small trees, brush and shrubs to

reduce fire intensities and particulate

emissions during prescribed burning.

This practice, although expensive,

opens prescription windows of

opportunity—enabling managers to

capitalize on better weather conditions

for smoke ventilation and dispersal.

The extent to which management for

ecosystem resilience can improve air

quality over the long term is not

completely known. Present regulatory

policies measure prescribed fire

emissions, but not wildland fire

emissions. The emissions policy tends

to constrain treatments and—in short

interval fire systems—may act to

inadvertently compound wildland fire

risks. A growing body of scientific

evidence suggests that mechanical

treatments followed by prescribed fire

can reduce the overall adverse impacts

to air quality by reducing the amount of

fuel that would otherwise be available

during the wildland fire season.

The Three Cohesive Elements

Social

• Establish an objective for

conservation awareness in the Forest

Service Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan (2000

revision). Emphasize the need to

increase public awareness of the role of

ecological processes in ecosystem

sustainability (Appendix B).

• Initiate collaborative planning with

stakeholders to identify and evaluate

ecosystem restoration and maintenance

needs and opportunities. Utilize

science-based assessments of present

and projected ecosystem conditions as a

basis for determining restoration needs.

• To promote fire-safe local planning,

zoning, and building requirements,

establish partnerships with other federal

agencies, states, communities, and the

insurance industry.

Encourage and assist communities to

take responsibility for sharing in risk

reduction and fire prevention efforts.

Institutional

Long-Term Policy Assessment

• Establish objectives, strategies, and

milestones for restoration and

maintenance of fire-adapted ecosystems

in the Forest Service GPRA Strategic

Plan. Emphasize integration in

objectives for public safety, watershed

protection, species conservation, and

ecosystem resilience. (Appendix B.)

• Establish ecosystem restoration as a

performance element in the Forest

Service Annual Performance Plan. Use

changes in condition class as one of the

measures for annual performance and

accountability. (Appendix B.)

• Establish assessment procedures

that integrate considerations of current

ecosystem condition (status), probability

of degradation from disturbance events

(risk), and alternatives to reduce risk or

improve conditions (opportunity).

Include objectives at the national,

regional and local scales for: watershed

protection, species conservation,

ecosystem resilience, and public safety.

Coordinate information across all

program areas.

Program Management

At the National Level

• Concentrate projects in the shorter

interval fire-adapted ecosystems (Fire

Regimes I and II), with emphasis in

Condition Classes 2 and 3. (GPRA 1c.)

• Establish the interior West as a

priority for restoration. (GPRA 1c.)

• Direct funds—in an integrated

fashion—to highest values to be

protected, especially for: watersheds

(GPRA 1a), species (GPRA 1b),

ecosystems (GPRA 1c), and human

communities (GPRA 4b).

• Explore innovative use of existing

authorities for grants, agreements, and

contracts for project execution such as

service contracts to hire local people.

• Emphasize long-term training and

community development opportunities

through restoration activities.

• Establish program reviews at

regular intervals to determine if

adjustments are needed. Take into

account: budget, the findings of regional

assessments, finer-scaled risk and

hazard mapping, and other planning

efforts.

At the Regional Level

• Conduct regional assessments,

establishing restoration and

maintenance priorities consistent with

values to be protected (watersheds,

species, human communities) in

collaboration with other federal

agencies, tribes, state and local

government, and constituents.

At the National Forest and Grassland

Level

• In Land and Resource Management

Plan amendments and revisions:

identify land by condition class

categories, discuss the resources to be

protected from catastrophic wildland

fire including human communities,

watersheds, threatened and endangered

species habitats, and establish

landscape goals to achieve sustainable

ecosystems. Goals should be included to

reduce acres at risk.

• Establish monitoring and evaluation

programs and measures in Land and

Resource Management Plan revisions for

restoration activities in fire-adapted

ecosystems.

• Consistent with Land and Resource

Management Plans, develop fire

management plans that provide for

suppressing fires that would threaten

public safety, communities, species

habitat, or degrade ecosystems. Increase

the management of natural ignitions for

resource benefits where values and

resources will be increased or improved.

State and Private Forestry

• Expand efforts such as the Firewise

Communities Program to assist

communities and homeowners in the

urban wildland interface to take

preventative and corrective actions to

protect lives and property from fire.

Provide assistance in conducting risk

and hazard assessments in developing

community disaster plans, and in

educating the public about measures

they can take to protect their property.

Research and Development

• Strengthen Forest Service research

programs to evaluate ecological, social,

and economic tradeoffs and other

issues; develop more effective

prediction systems; and quantify

disturbance effects and ecological

interactions in fire regimes. Continue

funding the Joint Fire Sciences Program.

• Study, document and monitor

examples of various treatments and

their effectiveness in restoring

ecological processes, protecting

communities, and protecting key

ecosystem components.

• Research the long-term results of

rehabilitation techniques and help

determine those most effective at

restoring ecological processes and

habitats.

67490 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

Funding

• Establish an integrated budget

structure that facilitates an

accomplishment of the GPRA Strategic

Plan elements: Watershed Restoration,

Species Conservation, Ecosystem

Processes, and the Protection of Human

Communities.

• Wildland fire preparedness funding

requests should be made at the most

efficient level, as defined by the

National Fire Management Analysis

System.

Actions Requiring External

Collaboration

Long-Term Policy Assessment

Collaborate with the Environmental

Protection Agency, National Marine

Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service in addressing long-term

impacts, tradeoffs, and issues to air

quality, watershed resilience, species

conservation, ecosystem integrity, and

public safety as a result of each agency’s

respective policy in the context of fireadapted 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 fireadapted 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 bioenergy 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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67491

Table 1b—15-Year Schedule To Increase the Annual Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program

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

67492 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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 highrisk 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 coarsescale 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67493

Figure 8

67494 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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 highrisk categories (Condition Classes 2 and 3). It

will restore proportionately more low-risk

areas (Condition Class 1). The strategy

therefore substantially reduces risk over the

current rate of fuel reduction treatment.

Without increased restoration treatments in

these ecosystems, wildland fire suppression

costs, natural resource losses, private

property losses, and environmental damage

are certain to escalate as fuels continue to

accumulate and more acres become high-risk.

Suppression Costs

Suppression strategies (and their

associated costs) are determined using the

Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA), a

required assessment process on federal lands.

Under this system, suppression costs are

calculated from an array of alternatives prior

to selecting a fire suppression strategy. The

analysis weighs values to be protected.

Firefighter and public safety always serves as

the first criteria. As a general rule, depending

on the circumstances surrounding a

particular wildland fire, resource or private

values to be protected are typically two to

five times greater than the expected

suppression costs, as calculated using the

WFSA.

The Line Officer selects the most

appropriate strategy and, in doing so,

approves the expected suppression costs. If

the strategy fails or if costs exceed the

expected level, the Line Officer must

reevaluate alternatives and approve any

changes.

Suppression costs and wildland fire acres

burned (Figure 9) have increased due to overaccumulation of fuels and a corresponding

increase in high-risk acreage and drought

conditions. In recent years, large fires have

become more damaging and more costly.

Unless the rate of restoration is increased,

larger burned acreages and higher wildland

fire suppression costs should be expected.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67495

Figure 9

67496 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

Loss to Private Property and ResourceBased 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 highrisk 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).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67497

Figure 10

67498 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

The National Research Council and the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) recognized wildland fires in

California (1993) and Florida (1998) as

among the defining natural disasters of the

1990s. In terms of damage, the magnitude of

these catastrophic fires were compared with

the Northridge earthquake, Hurricane

Andrew, and flooding of the Mississippi and

Red rivers.

The 1991 Oakland, California fire was

ranked by insurance claims as one of the ten

most costly all-time natural catastrophes.

More wildland fire disasters of this scale can

be expected in the absence of a mitigation

strategy. FEMA is emphasizing mitigation

and prevention to state and local

governments to address the growing losses

from natural disasters such as hurricanes and

flooding. The strategy outlined in this report

complements the efforts to forestall disasterrelated costs and losses.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67499

Figure 11

67500 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

With an increasing number of large,

uncharacteristically damaging wildland

fires in short interval fire systems, we

can eventually expect:

• Loss of critical habitat for fish,

wildlife, and plant species at risk.

• Soil erosion and loss of site stability

and productivity.

• Changes in temperatures and

moisture regimes on certain sites.

• Increased spread of invasive weeds

or non-native plants.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67501

Figure 12

67502 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

On the 1999 Big Bar Complex, adverse

effects were most commonly found

where the fires burned at higher

intensities. Impacts from the fires

included:

• Prolonged exposure of local

communities to unhealthy smoke

concentrations.

• Increased soil erosion and stream

course sedimentation.

• Loss of old-growth trees that

provide significant wildlife habitat.

• Degradation and loss of fish habitat,

especially in the New River’s tributaries.

Public and Firefighter Safety

In fire-adapted forests adjacent to

human communities, concerns for

public health often compete with

concerns for public and firefighter

safety. Treatments that use prescribed

burning raise health issues related to

smoke. Although this strategy would

employ mechanical thinning prior to

prescribed burning in some areas to

reduce particulate emissions, air quality

will remain an important concern.

Current regulatory policies ‘‘count’’

prescribed fire emissions in measuring

air quality, but do not include wildland

fire emissions. Constraining prescribed

fire use in fire-adapted ecosystems to

ensure public health may inadvertently

increase risks to human safety.

Stagnant atmospheric conditions

during the late summer and early fall

often inhibit smoke dispersal from

wildland fires. Although these episodes

are exempt from regulatory control, they

exceed public health standards. In 1977

and 1987, southern Oregon and

northern California experienced longterm, 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 preEuropean settlement conditions—it does

reduce risks by reducing overaccumulated fuels (Figure 13). The

strategy will continue to evolve as the

agency works with states, tribes, local

communities and others.

The strategy also maintains that

constituency support and collaboration

with tribal, other federal, state, local

agencies, and the public is an essential

cornerstone for restoration work. It is

consistent with the guiding principles of

the Federal Wildland Fire Management

Policy (approved by the Secretaries of

Interior and Agriculture in 1995). In

addition, it supports federal and state

initiatives aimed at improving forest

ecosystem health on public lands.

This strategy effectively reduces risk

on a scale that makes a difference, but

is potentially expensive and will take

time and collaborative planning to

implement. The costs, losses, and

damages that will occur without this

strategy are not always quantifiable or

precisely known. When evaluated

against recent trends and projections,

however, wildland fire costs, loses, and

damages, are expected to compound and

exceed treatment costs—unless the rate

of treatment is accelerated.

Large wildland fires will continue to

occur. This cohesive strategy aims to

reduce losses and damages from these

wildland fires by concentrating

treatments where human communities,

watersheds, and species are at risk.

Until restoration efforts are significantly

expanded in fire-adapted ecosystems,

the risks to watersheds, species, and

people will continue to increase.

Note: Figure 13 is not printed in the

Federal Register. It is available as indicated

in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this notice.

Figure 13—The cohesive strategy

outlined in this report aims to reduce

severe insect, disease, and wildland fire

risk.

Next Steps

This report provides a broad iterative

approach to restore fire-adapted

ecosystems and protect human values.

The coarse-scale assessments that

establish the basis for the strategy will

be refined as finer scale data become

available to conduct forest-level

planning. Implementation will occur

consistent with Land and Resource

Management Plan direction and other

ongoing initiatives. More accurate

assessments, integrated planning

processes, public input, and

collaboration with other agencies are all

included in the work ahead.

Strategy actions to be addressed

immediately:

• Refine coarse-scale assessments for

wildland fuel risks.

• Develop regional implementation

plans, integrating the status and risk

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67503

information included in the Western

Watershed Initiative, Human Population

Density Maps, and Species at Risk

Analysis into forest planning efforts at

national, regional, and local levels as

applicable.

• Incorporate recommended

adjustments to the Forest Service

Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan (2000

revision).

• Identify funding for priority

projects.

• Frame a research program to

strengthen monitoring and evaluation

during the strategy’s implementation.

• Coordinate with states, tribes, and

local communities for work in the

urban-wildland interface to help in risk

reduction and hazard mitigation.

• Continue efforts to develop markets

and ideas for small-diameter material

utilization.

VII. Team Members

Team Leaders

Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky

Mountain Region, USDA Forest

Service

Jerry Williams, Director, Fire and

Aviation Management, Northern

Region, USDA Forest Service

Team Facilitator

Joe Michaels, Field Representative

Forester, State and Private Forestry,

Northeast Area, USDA Forest

Service

Core Team

Michael Hilbruner, Applied Fire

Ecologist, Washington Office,

USDA Forest Service

Timothy Sexton, Fire Ecologist, Fire

Program Management Program

Center, USDI National Park Service

Monica Schwalbach, Assistant

Director, Wildlife and Terrestrial

Ecology, Washington Office, USDA

Forest Service

James Morrison, Staff Assistant,

Interregional Ecosystem

Management Coordination Group,

Northern Region, USDA Forest

Service

Andrea Tuttle, Director, California

Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection

David Burich, Assistant Director,

Financial Management, Washington

Office, USDA Forest Service

William Bradshaw, Assistant Director,

Strategic Planning and Assessment,

Washington Office, USDA Forest

Service

David Cleaves, Program Leader, Forest

Fire Systems Research, Washington

Office, USDA Forest Service

Support Team

Mark Beighley, Strategic Fuels

Planner, Washington Office, USDA

Forest Service

Doug MacCleery, Assistant Director,

Forest Ecosystems and Planning,

Washington Office, USDA Forest

Service

Gene Blankenbaker, Staff Specialist,

Legislative Affairs, Washington

Office, USDA Forest Service

Michael da Luz, Branch Chief, Fire

Ecology and Operations, Rocky

Mountain Region, USDA Forest

Service

Marlin Johnson, Assistant Director of

Forestry, Southwestern Region,

USDA Forest Service

Galen Hall, Regional Budget Officer,

Northern Region, USDA Forest

Service

Paul Keller, Writer-Editor, Pacific

Northwest Region, USDA Forest

Service

VIII. Acknowledgements

R. Neil Sampson, President, The

Sampson Group, Inc., Alexandria,

Virginia.

James Hubbard, State Forester, Colorado

State Forest Service.

David Bunnell, National Fire Use

Program Manager, National

Interagency Fire Center, USDA Forest

Service.

Colin Hardy, Research Forester, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Fire

Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest

Service.

Wendell Hann, Fire/Landscape

Ecologist, Washington Office, Fire and

Aviation Management, USDA Forest

Service.

Laurie Perrett (Pacific Northwest

Region); Sue Husari (Pacific

Southwest Region); Bob Meuchel

(Northern Region); Maggie Pittman

(Northern Region); Steve Pedigo

(Rocky Mountain Region) for

organizing and hosting the ‘‘Sounding

Boards.’’

The Cohesive Strategy Team also

wishes to thank all those who

participated and provided feedback at

the Sacramento, Denver and Missoula

‘‘Sounding Boards.’’ The team also

thanks the people who reviewed drafts

and provided comments during

development and revision of this report.

IX. Glossary

Uncharacteristic Wildfire Effects

An increase in wildfire size, severity

and resistance to control, and the

associated impact to people and

property, compared to that which

occurred in the native system.

Ecosystem Process

The actions or events that link

organisms and their environment, such

as predation, mutualism, successional

development, nutrient cycling, carbon

sequestration, primary productivity, and

decay. Natural disturbance processes

often occur with some periodicity (From

Webster’s dictionary, adapted to

ecology.)

Ecosystem

The complex of a community of

organisms and its environment

functioning as an ecological unit in

nature. (Webster’s dictionary.)

Ecosystem Integrity

The completeness of an ecosystem

that, at multiple geographic and

temporal scales, maintains its

characteristic diversity of biological and

physical components, spatial patterns,

structure, and functional processes

within its approximate range of historic

variability. These processes include:

disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling,

hydrologic functions, vegetation

succession, and species adaptation and

evolution. Ecosystems with integrity are

resilient and capable of self-renewal in

the presence of the cumulative effects of

human and natural disturbances.

(Proposed Rule, Section 219.36, 1999.)

Ecosystem Management u

The careful and skillful use of

ecological, economic, social, and

managerial principles in managing

ecosystem integrity and desired

conditions, uses, products, and services

over the long term.

Fire-Adapted Ecosystem

An ecosystem with the ability to

survive and regenerate in a fire-prone

environment.

Fire Regime

A generalized description of the role

fire plays in an ecosystem. It is

characterized by fire frequency,

seasonality, intensity, duration and

scale (patch size), as well as regularity

or variability. (Agee, as modified by

Sexton.)

Fire Frequency (Fire Return Interval)

How often fire burns a given area;

often expressed in terms of fire return

intervals (e.g., fire returns to a site every

5–15 years).

Interagency Wildland Fire Policy

The Federal Wildland Fire

Management Policy and Program

Review was chartered by the secretaries

of the Interior and Agriculture to ensure

that federal policies are uniform and

programs are cooperative and cohesive.

For the first time, one set of federal fire

policies will enhance effective and

67504 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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 futureoriented. (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. Firedependent 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

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

67506 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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

Fire

Regime

Group

Frequency (fire

return interval) Severity

I ............ 0–35 years ....... Low severity.

II ........... 0–35 years ....... Stand replacement severity.

III .......... 35–100+ year ... Mixed severity.

IV ......... 35–100+ year ... Stand replacement severity.

V .......... >200 years ....... Stand replacement severity.

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 firecaused 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 range and the

risk of losing key ecosystem components is low.

Vegetation attributes (species composition and

structure) are intact and functioning within an historical range.

Where appropriate, these areas can be maintained

within the historical fire regime by treatments

such as fire use.

Condition Class 2 ............................. Fire regimes have been moderately altered from

their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals (either

increased or decreased). This results in moderate changes to one or more of the following:

fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape

patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range.

Where appropriate, these areas may need moderate levels of restoration treatments, such as fire

use and hand or mechanical treatments, to be restored to the historical fire regime.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67507

CONDITION CLASS 1 DESCRIPTIONS—Continued

Condition class Fire regime Example management options

Condition Class 3 ............................. Fire regimes have been significantly altered from

their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies

have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals This results in dramatic

changes to one or more of the following: fire size,

intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered

from their historical range.

Where appropriate, these areas may need high levels of restoration treatments, such as hand or

mechanical treatments, before fire can be used

to restore the historical fire regime.

1 Current conditions are a function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components

such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, and canopy closure. One or more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or native), or other past management activities.

Figure 14—Forest Service Lands, Fire Regime Groups I and II

67508 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

Appendix B—Recommended

Adjustments to the Forest Service

GPRA Strategic Plan

Objective 1.c—RESTORE ECOSYSTEM

HEALTH AND RESILIENCE WITHIN THE

CONTEXT OF NATURAL DISTURBANCE

PROCESSES.

Strategies to Achieve the Objective

We will . . .

• Identify priority health restoration needs

through national and regional environmental

monitoring and ecological risk assessments.

Including:

• social and economic factors and

• sensitive species habitats at risk.

• In regional, Land and Resource

Management Plan, and landscape scale

assessments, clearly identify values to be

protected, relative risks, benefits, and costs of

all treatment options for restoring fireadapted ecosystems.

• Research ecosystems (composition,

structure, and process), social and economic

values at risk, and the role of disturbance

process.

• Assess what fel treatment works most

effectively to protect communities and

restore fire-adaped ecosystems.

• Design and implement systematic

methods for broad-scale and landscape scale

assessments of the history, status, and

trajectory of ecosystem conditions; values at

risk; and management opportunities for

maintaining and restoring ecosystem

integrity.

• Apply the latest knowledge to develop

and implement landscape scale protection

and restoration projects that achieve

landscape goals established in Forest Plans.

Measure

Trends in acres at extreme risk from fire,

insects, diseases, and invasive species.

FY 2006 Milestones

• A 5% decrease in acres at extreme risk

from insects and diseases.

• Restore and maintain fire-adapted

ecosystems in fire regimes I and II. Reduce

high risk areas by 25 percent.

• Acres infested with targeted invasive

species remains unchanged or is diminished.

Key External Factors

Baseline data on acres at risk was collected

in an inconsistent manner in the past. Welldefined 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 highrisk urban-interface communities adjacent to

National Forests. Assist states in

implementing the FIREWISE program nationwide.

Measure

Increasing trend in employee and public

awareness of relationships among natural

disturbance processes, ecosystem integrity

and social values.

All communities in high-risk urbaninterface areas understand FIREWISE

principles.

FY 2006 Milestone

• Complete corporate training module for

conservation awareness and require all

employees to participate in this training, by

2002.

• Develop an MOU with the Department of

Interior to strengthen interagency

conservation education to focus on the

importance of watershed protection, species

conservation, and management for ecosystem

integrity and resilience, by 2002.

• Conduct FIREWISE workshops in all

high-risk urban-interface areas adjacent to

National Forest System lands.

Key External Factors

Cooperate with state, tribal, county,

municipal, and local governments.

Appendix C—Reconciling Stewardship

Objectives—Assessing Values at Risk

Considerable progress can be made in

reconciling stewardship objectives by

assessing values at risk at national, regional,

and local scales. Emphasizing the agency’s

strategic objectives, a framework for assessing

values at risk can be developed. Specifically,

agency objectives for ecosystem health and

public safety define national priorities for

values to be protected. These objectives and

their associated values are:

• Public safety (GPRA SP Objective 4b)

• Watershed protection (GPRA SP

Objective 1a)

• Species conservation (GPRA SP

Objective 1b)

• Ecosystem resilience (GPRA SP

Objective 1c)

At a national level, we are working to

integrate information on human

development, watershed condition, species

and ecosystems of concern, noxious weeds,

insects and disease, roadless areas, and plant

community/ecosystem conditions by fire

regimes. This requires compilation of

information on historic disturbance regimes,

watershed condition information, and

development of a watershed-at-risk map, and

completion of the species-at-risk map. An

integrated map of relative risk to these values

will provide broad-scale context of the

challenges for protecting people and

sustaining ecosystems at the national level. A

standard process for integrating and

interpreting this information needs to be

developed. National leadership will use this

information to refine priorities for annual

and long-term performance and

accountability.

In assessing risk at the regional level, we

need to integrate information including, but

not limited to: human development, historic

disturbance regimes, watershed condition,

species and ecosystems of concern, invasive

weeds, insects and disease, roadless areas,

plant community/ecosystem conditions by

fire regimes. This will require compilation of

appropriate information at finer scales of

resolution than that compiled for the national

risk assessments. Based on regional

assessments, priorities for landscape scale

analyses and management action can be

developed. On-the-ground treatment

priorities are then identified by the goals,

objectives, and strategies that are linked up

through the agency to GPRA strategic goal for

restoring and maintaining ecosystem health.

Appendix D—Brief Summary for

Future Projections of Condition Classes

and Risks

Introduction

The methods, results, and confidence in

the future projections of Condition Classes

and associated risks in section VI,

‘‘Consequences of Deferral,’’ are discussed in

detail in a paper by Hann and Hilbruner

(2000) titled ‘‘Protecting People and

Sustaining Resources—Assessment of

Management Options for the Western U.S.’’

This paper can be found on the www web

site ‘‘fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman.’’ Methods for

this analysis were based on adjustment and

re-calibration for Forest Service lands in the

Western U.S. of a vegetation and disturbance

dynamics model developed by Hann and

Bunnell (In Press) for the contiguous Lower

48 States.

This appendix provides a brief overview of

methods and limitations of the modeling

projections.

Methods

A landscape succession and disturbance

network model was developed for the

assessment of the cohesive strategy options

in the Western U.S. (Hann and Hilbruner

2000) using the Vegetation Dynamics

Development Tool (VDDT) (Beukema and

Kurz 2000). The model that was developed

used Condition Classes as states and

incorporated probabilities for succession,

unplanned disturbances (such as fire), and

planned disturbances (such as mechanical

and prescribed fire restoration).

The concepts of this type of model of

multiple succession and disturbance

pathways were first developed by Egler

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

67510 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

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.

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