Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects
Published: 2004-06-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Decades of fire suppression, as well as changing land management practices, have caused vegetation to accumulate and become altered on federal lands. Concerns about the effects of wildland fires have increased efforts to reduce fuels on federal lands. These efforts also have environmental effects. Congressional requesters asked GAO to (1) describe effects from fires on the environment, (2) assess the information gathered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on such effects, and (3) assess the agencies' approaches to environmental risks associated with reducing fuels.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Wildland fires can have dramatic effects on environmental resources and ecosystems, including production of large amounts of smoke, loss of trees, and erosion of soil into streams and lakes. However, fires can also benefit resources by recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth, and adding gravel to streams, which improves spawning habitat for fish. The 20 wildland fires that we surveyed burned over 158,000 acres of federal land and had complex, wide-ranging, and sometimes contradictory, effects on both individual resources, such as trees and streams, and ecosystems. For example, the short-term effects of the Missionary Ridge fire in Colorado that burned almost 50,000 acres of trees and other vegetation included increased debris and sediment that affected water quality in some areas. However, in other areas, officials said even dramatic changes to streams would not be detrimental in the long term. The Forest Service and BLM gather specific information on the environmental effects of individual wildland fires, such as soil erosion. The agencies do not, however, gather comprehensive data on the severity of wildland fire effects on broad landscapes and ecosystems--that is, large areas that may involve one or more fires. The agencies recently developed a monitoring framework to gather severity data for fires, but they have not yet implemented it. These data are needed to monitor the progress of the agencies' actions to restore and maintain resilient fire-adapted ecosystems, a goal of the National Fire Plan. The National Fire Plan directs the Forest Service and BLM to target their fuel reduction activities with the purpose of lowering the risk of environmental effects from wildland fires in areas that face the greatest losses. However, the agencies do not systematically assess the risks across landscapes that fires pose to different environmental resources or ecosystems or the risks of taking no action on fuel reduction projects. At the landscape level, the Forest Service and BLM do not have a formal framework for systematically assessing the risk of fire to resources and ecosystems, although some of the forests and BLM field offices have developed risk assessments on their own or in collaboration with regional, state, or local efforts. At the project level, while the agencies recognize the need to better analyze the risk of acting to reduce fuels versus not doing so, neither fire planning guidance nor National Environmental Policy Act guidance specify how to do this. Opportunities exist to clarify how the agencies should analyze the effects of not taking action to reduce fuels. The agencies can clarify interim guidance to implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and the agencies can, in conjunction with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), further develop the lessons learned from a CEQ demonstration program carried out in 2003. Without a risk-based approach, these agencies cannot target their fuel reduction projects across landscapes or make fully informed decisions about which effects and project alternatives are more desirable.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Decades of fire suppression, in conjunction with land management  activities that have excluded fire from the nation’s forests and rangelands,  such as roads and trails, grazing, and development near public land, have  caused the accumulation of brush, small trees, and other vegetation on  federal and other lands. Recent fire seasons have shown that these land  management practices have had unforeseen consequences. The  accumulation and alteration of vegetation, in combination with an  extended drought that has covered much of the country, has caused  wildland fires to burn more intensely than they would under more natural  or historical vegetation conditions. In response to changing views of  wildland fire, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy developed by  the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior in 1995 recognized the  natural role of wildland fire and the potential for “catastrophic” fires to  occur in areas of accumulated vegetation. In 2000, federal scientists and  land managers estimated that 182 million acres of land in the United States  had accumulations of vegetation that were highly altered from more  historical conditions.
Under historical conditions, many forest and rangeland ecosystems— which are different ecological units distinguished by physical  characteristics such as mountains, plains, and river basins, as well as their  associated plant and animal communities—have adapted to wildland fire,  surviving and regenerating after fires occur. Under these conditions,  wildland fire can often have beneficial effects for resources and  ecosystems, such as recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth,  and sustaining ecological functions. However, federal scientists and land  managers believe that the adverse effects of wildland fires are exacerbated  in ecosystems with uncharacteristic vegetation conditions, that is, in which  vegetation has accumulated or been altered by fire exclusion. Adverse  effects of wildland fire on individual resources include reduced air and  water quality, soil loss, and loss of threatened and endangered species and  their habitat. In addition, wildland fires that cover broad landscapes can  adversely affect all or parts of forest or rangeland ecosystems. In particular,  scientists and land managers are concerned that, after years of fire  exclusion, in dry forest ecosystems the large old trees that used to survive  fires now burn and die, and will not be replaced for over 100 years,  eliminating sources of seeds and turning forests into shrubfields. Scientists  and land managers are also concerned that the natural occurrence of  wildland fire in grassland ecosystems has been altered by invasive species,  such as cheatgrass, that have replaced native vegetation. Furthermore,  communities in the interface of wildland areas that develop into areas  where there are uncharacteristic fuel accumulations may experience  exacerbated effects of wildland fires.
In 2001, in response to one of the worst fire seasons in over 50 years, the  Departments of Agriculture and the Interior reiterated the principles in the  Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and began working with state  and local agencies and tribal governments to develop an interagency  National Fire Plan to coordinate federal, state, local, and tribal efforts.  Together, the policy and plan offer a new approach to wildland fires by  broadening the emphasis to include reducing vegetation, or fuels, and  reintroducing fire, where possible, to restore ecosystems to more resilient  fire-adapted conditions. The reintroduction of fire to certain federal lands  does not mean, however, that all fires will be allowed to burn without  management. Currently, there are two approaches to wildland fire  management. First, all unplanned wildland fires are suppressed or are  managed—given favorable weather conditions—to achieve beneficial  effects to resources. Second, wildland fire management activities also  include the reduction of fuels to protect communities and maintain or  improve ecological conditions of the land. Fuel reduction activities include  mechanical methods such as chainsaws, chippers, mulchers, and  bulldozers, and prescribed burns. Prescribed burns may be set to restore or  maintain desired vegetation conditions.
The degree to which fire can be reintroduced to different forest and  rangeland ecosystems depends on the risk fire poses to environmental  resources and ecosystems. Under the National Fire Plan, land managers are  to identify ways to reduce the risk to communities and ecosystems from  wildland fire. Risk, according to the National Academy of Sciences,  involves hazardous events or conditions and the potential loss of or  damage to something of value because of the hazard. In the case of  wildland fires, the hazard involved is not only the fire, but also the excess  vegetation, or fuel, that has accumulated or been altered on federal lands. A  primary way to lower risks involves reducing the amount, type, or  continuity of vegetation available to burn. The National Fire Plan applies to  several federal agencies that manage public lands and wildland fires,  including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the  Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian  Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the  Interior. These agencies are all members of the Wildland Fire Leadership  Council, formed in 2002 to support and coordinate implementation of the  National Fire Plan and Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Two of  these agencies—the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management  (BLM)—manage approximately 450 million acres or 60 percent of the  nation’s federal land.
In managing the effects of wildland fires, the Forest Service and BLM face a  second type of risk—that the actions they take to reduce fuels and to  restore ecosystems may damage additional resources such as species,  habitat, or water, whereas if they do not take action, the effects of a future  fire may be exacerbated. Consequently, the agencies’ assessment of the  potential effects of their activities involves weighing the risk of action to  reduce fuels against the risk of doing nothing. Under the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, agencies generally evaluate the  likely environmental effects of projects they are proposing using a  relatively brief environmental assessment, or, if the action would be likely  to significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental  impact statement. One purpose of this analysis is to ensure that agencies  have available detailed information concerning potentially significant  environmental impacts to inform their decision making. The Forest Service  and BLM typically conduct such analyses at two levels: the entire national  forest or BLM land unit, which can encompass several broad landscapes,  and the more specific project level, which addresses smaller areas within  the landscape.
Concerns about the severity of recent wildland fires and their  environmental effects have led to increased efforts to reduce fuels on  federal lands, which culminated in the enactment of the Healthy Forests  Restoration Act (HFRA) in December 2003. There has been considerable  disagreement over the extent of environmental effects of wildland fire on  federal lands, and what, if anything, to do about them. The timber industry  and other groups advocated increasing the use of mechanical tree thinning  and timber sales to reduce the vegetation accumulating on the nation’s  forests and rangelands. Critics of this approach, which included  environmental groups, cited its potentially detrimental effects on  environmental resources, particularly large old trees. Both the advocates  and the critics generally agreed on the actions needed to address risk to  communities; however, there is little agreement as to what steps, if any,  should be taken to reduce the risk posed to ecosystems. In this context,  you asked us to (1) describe the effects wildland fires have on  environmental resources and ecosystems, (2) assess the information the  Forest Service and BLM gather on the extent of environmental effects of  wildland fires, and (3) assess the approaches the Forest Service and BLM  take to assess the risk to environmental resources from wildland fires and  the vegetation that has accumulated or been altered on federal lands.
To describe the effects that wildland fires have on environmental resources  and ecosystems and assess the information the Forest Service and BLM  gather on the extent of these effects, we designed a survey of local federal  land managers who maintain this data. Our survey contained questions  about 20 wildland fires that we randomly selected from a universe of 614  wildland fires. Some of the questions required that the land managers  provide their opinions of conditions or make predictions about the future  effects of a wildland fire rather than providing data about effects that had  already occurred, and therefore there is a greater amount of uncertainty  regarding the accuracy of these responses. We identified the 614 fires  through Forest Service and BLM reports completed in fiscal years 2000  through 2002 on the emergency actions needed to stabilize areas burned in  the fires. We used these reports to identify our sample because the reports  are developed for wildland fires that the agencies determined are likely to  have had considerable environmental effects. We conducted a random  sample of these 614 fires to ensure that we had a range of small, medium,  and large wildland fires. To gather information on the approaches the  Forest Service and BLM use to assess the risks to environmental resources  posed by wildland fire, we reviewed federal wildland fire policies, the  National Fire Plan, and agency guidance and planning and project  documents. We also interviewed federal and state agency officials,  scientists from several of the Forest Service’s research stations, and  university experts on fire and fire effects. We attended two national  conferences on fire issues and visited national forests and BLM state  offices in eight western states that had experienced large fires. We  conducted our review from April 2003 through April 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I  provides further details about the scope and methodology of our review.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Wildland fire is an inevitable natural ecological disturbance that has helped  to shape ecosystems over time. Fires are driven by climate and weather  conditions, topography, and fuels—including trees, brush, grasses, dead  leaves and needles, and other material that will burn. Thousands of fires  are started each year by natural causes, such as lightning, or human causes,  such as arson. These fires burn millions of acres of state and federally  owned land (see fig. 1).
Although fire is a natural component of many ecosystems, and although  humans have used fire for land and resource management purposes for  thousands of years—such as creating improved pasture for animals and  improved land for agriculture—fire can be unpredictable and potentially  destructive. The potential destructiveness of fire is a particular concern for  the growing number of communities on the fringe of wildland areas that are  prone to fire. These communities create a wildland-urban interface, where  houses and other infrastructure are in or near wildland fuels. Because fires  can have dramatic social, economic, and environmental effects, land  management agencies and federal land managers have sought to suppress  fires for much of the twentieth century. In particular, large, intense fires in  1910 focused federal policy on suppression to prevent damage to ecological  resources. Suppression, in combination with land management activities  such as building roads and trails, grazing, and increasing development near  public lands, has excluded fire from ecosystems and caused the  uncharacteristic accumulation of vegetation in some forest and grassland  ecosystems. In 2000, the Forest Service and BLM completed a national  study of fuel conditions called the Coarse-Scale Analysis, which estimated  that 182 million acres of the nation’s land have an uncharacteristic buildup  of fuels. The analysis produced categories of vegetation conditions ranked  as low, medium, and high. The categories, called fire regime condition  classes, represent the increasing accumulation and alteration of vegetation  conditions and the potential for uncharacteristic wildland fire and its  effects. (See app. II for a detailed description of the analysis.) In 2002, the  agencies updated the analysis for the western states, estimating that almost  183 million acres in western states alone have highly altered vegetation.  Based on additional analysis, the agencies estimated that the amount of  highly altered vegetation nationwide could vary from 90 to 200 million  acres. In the 2002 analysis, the agencies estimated that 99 million acres of  Forest Service and BLM lands in western states have highly altered  vegetation. Refinement of the analysis for the nation is expected to be  completed in 2005.
The National Fire Plan recognizes the need for restoring historic, or  characteristic, vegetation conditions as an important way to reduce the  risks of wildland fire and its effects. Under historic conditions, each  vegetation type has a characteristic fire “regime,” in which the vegetation  and species have adapted to, and benefit from, the kind of fires that occur  there. Fires that occur in a given fire regime display similar fire behavior,  which refers to how frequently fires burn, how intensely they burn, and  how large they grow. Furthermore, the effects of fires in different fire  regimes can be more or less severe, depending on the types of fires that  typically burn there. For example, ecosystems such as ponderosa pine  forests benefit from and are sustained by the frequent occurrence of less  intense fires to remove brush and small trees, which allows the large trees  to survive and grow. The severity of effects of these fires on resources and  the ecosystem are usually low or moderate. On the other hand, other  ecosystems, such as lodgepole pine forests, rely on less frequent but more  intense fires to remove all the trees and regenerate a new stand from seeds  dropped by fire-adapted cones. These fires are typically intense, but they  are characteristic of the ecosystem and are needed to sustain it.
In 2001 and 2002, as part of the National Fire Plan, the federal agencies,  states, and others involved in wildland fire management developed a 10- year strategy and implementation plan to reduce the risks of wildland fire  to communities and ecosystems. The strategy established four broad goals  for wildland fire management: (1) improving fire prevention and  suppression for those areas that need it; (2) reducing hazardous fuels, using  both natural and managed fire or mechanical means; (3) restoring fire- adapted ecosystems, both by reducing fuels and rehabilitating burned  areas; and (4) promoting community assistance to help conduct all these  fire management activities. The implementation plan established specific  measures for showing progress toward each of the goals.
Reducing hazardous fuels is one of the key tools for reducing the risks of  wildland fires. Evidence from fires, such as that shown in figure 2,  encourages managers and scientists to believe that areas treated to reduce  vegetation can help to slow down the progress of wildland fires that occur;  in addition, the evidence leads managers to believe that treated areas do  not suffer as severe effects from burning as they would without the  treatment. In addition, researchers have conducted modeling that  indicates strategically placed fuel reduction areas can slow the spread of  wildland fire across a landscape. Empirical confirmation is needed,  although some forests, such as the forests in the Sierra Nevada, are  working to apply these ideas in their fuel reduction treatments. Debate  continues not only over the effectiveness of treatments, but over the extent  and duration of treatments needed. These are areas that federal and  university researchers continue to pursue through the Joint Fire Science  Program and other research programs. Despite uncertainties related to the  effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments, federal and other wildland fire  managers believe that they know enough to proceed with treatments in  particular areas while research is completed.
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy requires that federal lands  with burnable vegetation have a fire management plan. Of the 750 million  acres managed by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, the  Forest Service and BLM manage 453 million acres of forest and rangeland.  Although the Forest Service manages most of the federal forested land in  the nation—about 192 million acres—about 55 million acres of BLM’s 261  million acres are forested, while the remainder contain grass and  shrublands. A fire management plan produced by each forest or BLM field  office establishes the objectives, strategies, and resources needed to carry  out the fire program for that office. The plan divides a forest or BLM field  office into smaller fire management units for which fire management  strategies, including suppression, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and  nonfire fuel treatments, are coordinated. The forests and BLM offices—in  conjunction with other federal agencies—have been directed to complete  updated fire plans in 2004.
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy also states that each forest  and BLM field office should base its fire plan on its land management plan.  Both the Forest Service and BLM manage their lands for multiple uses,  including timber production, wildlife, recreation, and wilderness uses.  Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the law that directs  the planning of national forests in the Forest Service, all of the 155 national  forests have land and resource management plans for the lands they  manage. Generally, these plans divide a forest into smaller management  units with specific desired conditions to meet the agency’s objectives for  the different resources in that area. Similarly, BLM field offices, which are  organized under state offices in 12 western states, develop resource  management plans under the Federal Land Management Policy Act for the  lands they manage. Similar to the national forests’ plans, these plans  identify the specific desired conditions that will meet the agency’s  objectives in that area. During the next 8 years, over half of the forests will  be updating their land and resource management plans; BLM offices are  also in the process of updating their resource management plans. Although  many of the existing plans included little or no discussion of wildland fire  and its effects, vegetation and fuel conditions, or the tools for managing  wildland fire, the new plans will discuss these as appropriate. Currently,  each agency’s regulations require an environmental impact statement to  accompany a plan revision.
To implement their land and resource management plans, the agencies  carry out specific projects—addressing, for example, fuel reduction, timber  sales, grazing, habitat improvement, and recreation. Because these projects  may cause environmental effects, the agencies generally carry out either an  environmental assessment, which is a less detailed analysis, or an  environmental impact statement for their proposed projects. These  analyses may consider different approaches for carrying out a project— called action alternatives. The agencies may also consider an alternative  that involves taking no action—called the no-action alternative. In  developing their analyses, the agencies are required to disclose the  potential environmental effects of alternatives.
section_title: Wildland Fires Have Wide-Ranging Effects on Environmental Resources and Ecosystems, Depending on a Range of Factors
paragraphs: While they burn and afterward, wildland fires have dramatic effects on  environmental resources and ecosystems, including the production of large  amounts of smoke, the burning of trees and other vegetation, and the  erosion of soil into streams and lakes. However, fires can also benefit  resources by recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth, and  adding material to streams that improves spawning habitat for fish. The 20  fires included in our survey highlighted the complex, wide-ranging—and  sometimes contradictory—effects of fire on both individual resources,  such as trees and streams, and ecosystems. For the 20 wildland fires in our  survey, the land managers viewed the effects of the wildland fires as  adverse, neutral, or beneficial, depending on a number of factors, including  when the effects were described—in the short term or the long term—and  the type and condition of the vegetation in the area that burned. The  managers also reported that the 20 fires had effects across broad  landscapes and that these effects varied in severity. The wildland fires in  our survey burned over 158,000 acres of federal land in 10 states: Arizona,  California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,  and Wyoming, with as few as 243 acres and as many as almost 50,000 acres  burning in one fire. (See app. III for the definition of severity used in our  survey and app. IV for a detailed description of our survey results.)
subsections: section_title: Fire Effects on Individual Resources Vary in the Short and Long Term
paragraphs: Fire effects can be considered as adverse, neutral, or beneficial depending,  in part, on which resource is evaluated and the time frame over which the  effects are considered. Fire effects are often described at three times: (1)  immediately after the fire; (2) in the short term, which lasts from 1 to less  than 10 years after the fire; and (3) in the long term, which lasts 10 years or  more after a fire. Unlike fire damage to homes, ecological damages from  fire are more difficult to determine immediately after the fire because  burned areas look devastated, even when these conditions are part of the  natural, fire-adapted cycle. For example, although large, intense fires can  kill vegetation in the burned area and generate substantial smoke, some  vegetation, such as aspen and native grasses, regrows quickly from root  systems. Also, although fires can kill individual animals in the short term, in  the long term, many species are attracted to burned areas because of  increases in food sources from new plant growth, increased numbers of  insects and other prey, or because of increased denning or nesting habitat  that dead trees provide. Figure 3 shows, conceptually, the effects and  recovery of vegetation after a high-severity wildland fire over the short and  long term.
When we surveyed Forest Service and BLM officials about the effects of the  20 fires that occurred on federal lands, land managers consistently  responded that fire effects would be less adverse in the long term than in  the short term for each ecological resource, even though their responses  differed across resources. Officials identified whether the fire had an  adverse, neutral, or beneficial effect on each of several resources in both  the short and long term. As shown in table 1, while many land managers in  our survey indicated these fires would have adverse effects on individual  resources in the short term, fewer responded that the effects would be  adverse in the long term. A discussion of the effects on each of the  individual resources follows the table.
Effects on air: Although officials reported that nine fires in our sample had  adverse short-term effects on the air, only two expected long-term adverse  effects on air quality, while many did not indicate what long-term effects  these fires had on the air. For example, although the Pony Express II fire in  Nevada released an estimated 54 tons of particulate matter into the air  when it burned, BLM officials did not expect any long-term effects from  this fire on air quality because the burned area is far from homes or towns  and there are no nearby sources of air pollution that might have a  cumulative effect.
Effects on threatened and endangered species habitat: Agency officials  reported that 10 of the fires in our sample had no identifiable effect on  threatened and endangered species habitat in the short term. Similarly, the  majority of the fires had either no identifiable long-term effect on the  habitat of these species or had a neutral effect. Eight threatened and  endangered species inhabited the areas covered by 5 fires in our sample,  including the Canada lynx and the Northern spotted owl. (See table 10 in  app. IV.) Officials indicated that although none of the fires in our sample  posed a threat to the survival and recovery of a threatened or endangered  species population in the short term, these 5 fires had at least some local  impact on a threatened or endangered species or its habitat. Fires have  complex effects within and among populations of endangered species  because their effects on habitat can both negatively and positively  influence their chances of survival. For example, a nearly 2,500 acre fire in  Louisiana’s Kisatchie National Forest had a negative effect on the red- cockaded woodpecker’s nesting habitat, while improving its foraging  habitat by thinning vegetation—a factor the Forest Service official reported  is likely to aid in its recovery. During site visits, Forest Service officials in  Montana told us that the effect of a wildland fire on endangered fish, such  as the bull trout, depends more on whether the affected streams are  contiguous to other streams than on the fire itself. Locally, some fish may  be killed, but if streams are well connected, other fish can find refuge by  migrating away until the fire is over and then returning to recolonize  burned areas. On the other hand, isolated fish populations living in an  environment without these critical stream linkages are likely to be very  vulnerable to fire. For example, in Arizona after the Aspen fire in 2003, the  Fish and Wildlife Service removed the endangered fish, the Gila chub, from  isolated reaches of Sabino Creek near Tucson to prevent it from being  killed by potential runoff from burned lands.
Effects on other species’ habitats: Agency officials reported that 10 fires  had adverse effects on other species’ habitat in the short term, while 5 fires  had beneficial effects. In some cases, officials indicated that the loss of  vegetation caused a loss of cover and habitat for species such as the sage  grouse, which is a species that concerns land managers. However, officials  stated that fires had beneficial effects on grasses by increasing their  productivity, in turn providing forage for grazing animals. In the long term,  officials reported that 9 fires had a beneficial effect on species’ habitat,  while 6 had neutral effects. For example, officials stated that although  short-term effects may be adverse, the return to a historic fire regime  increased the diversity of vegetation and would ultimately help species like  the snowshoe hare.
Effects on soil: While officials reported that 10 fires had adverse effects on  soil in the short term, they reported that 9 fires had neutral effects in the  long term. For example, officials indicated that the short-term loss of  vegetation cover after the Horse Creek fire would cause soil erosion and  loss. In the long term, officials reported that most effects on soil would  diminish, although an official reported that soil erosion after the Pony  Express II fire would decrease soil productivity in intensely burned areas,  and another official indicated that soil productivity would be increased  because of increased organic matter released in the Sheep Mountain fire.
Effects on vegetation: Officials reported that, in the short term, 10 fires had  beneficial effects on vegetation, while 10 fires had adverse effects. For  example, BLM officials described the mix of burned and unburned areas  within the perimeter of the Sheep Mountain fire in Wyoming as beneficial  because it created a mosaic of vegetation types of different ages, with more  grasses growing in burned areas. After another fire, however, officials  stated that the fire had removed native vegetation and allowed the spread  of cheat grass. In the long term, officials viewed 8 fires as having beneficial  effects, while 6 had adverse effects. For example, officials described the  Missionary Ridge fire as helping to return the long-term balance of different  vegetation. Officials indicated that other fires would increase the chance of  invasive species to spread.
Effects on watersheds: Nine of the fires in our sample had adverse effects  on water and watersheds in the short term, while 11 had beneficial effects.  In the long term, officials reported that 9 fires will have neutral effects and  5 fires will likely cause adverse effects to water and watersheds. Of the 20  fires, 3 severely burned 10 watersheds that supply domestic water to  municipalities or towns, and in two cases, officials said the fires had a  negative effect on water quality that lasted from 3 to 5 years. In areas  burned by 8 fires, floods, debris flows, or landslides occurred within the  fire perimeter, yet the long-term effects of fire on water and watersheds are  expected to be more neutral as these effects subside. For example,  although the Horse Creek fire in Oregon resulted in a short-term increase in  the sediment in stream channels, BLM officials reported that the  sedimentation will decline as vegetation recovers and sediment deposited  into the channels will be moved downstream by natural stream flows in the  long term.
section_title: Effects of Wildland Fire Vary Depending on Topography, Climate and Weather, and Vegetation Conditions
paragraphs: Researchers and land managers describe fire effects using levels of  severity: low severity, moderate severity, and high severity. (See app. III for  the definition of severity used in our survey.) The severity of effects  depends on the intensity of the fire—the amount of heat released in a fire— and its duration in relation to the historic fire regime. The intensity of a fire  depends on its topography, climate and weather, and vegetation or fuels.  First, topography includes locally unique site properties, such as the slope  of the terrain, the direction in which the ground slopes, and the soil  moisture, each of which affect how intensely a fire burns. For example,  fires burn faster and more intensely on steep slopes, which allow a fire to  move uphill driven by winds, and on south-facing slopes, which are drier  than north-facing slopes. Second, climate and seasonal weather conditions  such as drought cycles and high winds also determine how a fire will burn  and how severe the effects of burning will be. Climate and weather also  determine the extent to which storms occur after a fire; stronger and more  frequent storms can result in increased erosion and landslides. Finally, the  type and condition of vegetation in an area determines how much “fuel” is  available to burn and thus how intense a fire will be and how severe its  effects may be. For example, rangelands have less vegetation, and  therefore lower amounts of fuel to burn, than forested areas. Furthermore,  areas with accumulated vegetation have more fuels to burn than they  would under more natural conditions.
Whether or not the environmental effects of a wildland fire are considered  as adverse, neutral, or beneficial depends on the degree to which  vegetation conditions have been changed from the historic fire regime in an  area. For example, a fire that burns in a high- elevation forest filled with  spruce and fir trees—a fire regime that historically has fewer but more  intense fires, with more severe effects—is less likely to have adverse  effects to the environment and that ecosystem than an uncharacteristically  intense wildfire that burns in an ecosystem in which frequent, low-intensity  fires occurred historically, such as ponderosa pine. Forest Service and BLM  scientists and land managers describe areas in which vegetation has  accumulated abnormally or has been altered as having uncharacteristic  vegetation and fuel conditions and areas in which vegetation has  accumulated at normal levels or not been altered as having characteristic  vegetation and fuel conditions. Likewise, they describe fires that are similar  to those that occurred under an area’s historic fire regime as characteristic  and those that are not similar to the historic fire regime as uncharacteristic.  Characteristic fires tend to have effects on the environment and  ecosystems that are appropriately severe for that vegetation type and fire  regime, and which are therefore not considered negative, whereas  uncharacteristic fires usually have unexpectedly severe environmental  effects, which are often considered negative. Of the 20 fires included in our  survey, 10 burned with predominantly characteristic effects, 3 burned with  a mix of characteristic and uncharacteristic effects, and 7 burned with  predominantly uncharacteristic effects. Table 2 shows that of the 10 fires  with predominantly characteristic effects, 6 occurred in areas in which  vegetation conditions experienced low levels of alteration or accumulation,  and the remaining 4 occurred in areas with moderate levels of vegetation  alteration or accumulation. Fires that resulted in both mixed and  uncharacteristic effects occurred only in areas in which vegetation  conditions were moderately or highly altered or accumulated (see table 2).
As table 2 shows, the third largest fire in our sample, the Burgdorf Junction  fire in Idaho, had characteristic effects. For this reason, Forest Service  officials considered the majority of the effects from this fire to be  beneficial, even though the fire burned more than 17,000 acres of federal  land, including areas that provided habitat for several threatened and  endangered species. Overall, the officials considered the fire effects to  support processes for maintaining the ecosystem, which includes  lodgepole pine and Douglas fir forests. For example, officials stated that  the debris flows from the fire introduced gravel into streams, providing  new spawning grounds for fish. In addition, officials stated that burned  areas of the lodgepole forest were turned into more open stands of brush  and grasses, improving gray wolf and lynx habitat.
Of the three fires that officials identified as having a mix of characteristic  and uncharacteristic effects, one—the Missionary Ridge fire in Colorado— was the largest fire included in our sample. Forest Service officials noted  that the adverse effects of the fire in the short term included numerous  floods and debris flows, which affected the water quality of streams  supplying water to surrounding municipalities. They also indicated that in  areas where the fire burned uncharacteristically, long-term adverse effects  on streams included destabilized banks and loss of riparian area. On the  other hand, the officials noted that in areas where the fire burned  characteristically, changes to the streambed and riparian areas would not  be adverse over the long term.
Of the seven fires with uncharacteristic effects, Forest Service officials  identified the smallest fire in our sample—the Horse fire of 243 acres—as  having adverse effects on resources. A Forest Service official reported that  this fire in Idaho’s Salmon-Challis National Forest had immediate adverse  effects on the vegetation because of the size of the severely burned area,  although he believed that in the long term, fire-killed trees might benefit the  Canada lynx by providing denning areas. Similarly, BLM officials viewed  the 2,025-acre Tipton Ranch fire in Nevada as having adverse effects on  vegetation because the fire exacerbated the conversion of native plant  species such as grass and sage brush to invasive grasses such as cheat  grass. Our survey showed that the number of acres vulnerable to  population by noxious and invasive plant species such as cheat grass— which competes with native vegetation and alters the historic fire regime— after the 20 fires increased from about 32,130 acres to about 58,800 acres  (83 percent). Several officials raised concerns about the spread of such  invasive species as cheat grass into sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper  vegetation types because it is highly flammable, and areas dominated by it  may burn frequently. More frequent fires in such ecosystems may eliminate  the native plants such as sage brush, which is important habitat for sage  grouse.
section_title: Fires Have Broad Landscape Effects
paragraphs: In addition to its effects on individual resources such as soil, water, and air,  fire creates landscape patterns to the extent that it burns large areas and  leaves other areas lightly burned or unburned. As shown in figure 4,  landscapes are geographic areas of varying sizes, encompassing tens of  thousands of acres or more, that may contain smaller landscapes and  interacting and interconnected ecosystems that are defined by geological,  soil, climate, and other physical factors. Landscapes are separated by  natural features, including watersheds, such as the example in figure 4  from the Interior Columbia Basin, and encompass different stands of trees  and, in some ecosystems, patches of open areas among the stands of trees.  Landscapes may include a mix of government and private lands and may  cross state boundaries.
section_title: N
paragraphs: A large landscape level  encompassing several watersheds  and subwatersheds, which are  smaller hydrologic and topographic  areas.
Landscape -- subwatershed (C): A smaller landscape level defined  by hydrology and topography and  comprised of patches of varying  forest and rangeland types.
Stand (D):  Typical dense, multilayered forest  stand in a subwatershed in which,  according to agency officials, a fuel  reduction project may be considered.
The landscape effects of fire include the patterns, or patches, of vegetation  that are burned with varying degrees of severity, including some that are  not burned at all. Under natural conditions, when fires burn some areas  severely and other areas lightly or not at all, they create irregularly sized  openings in vegetation layers, changing the size, shape, and age of the  vegetation in those patches. These landscape effects, which reflect the  degree of environmental change from burning and affect other  environmental resources accordingly, can be described as being of low,  moderate, or high severity. Under natural conditions, fires with low- severity effects are those that kill the least amount of vegetation; some  burned areas may appear much like the unburned forest. Fires with  moderate-severity effects are those in which vegetation is killed but some  trees remain standing; the regeneration that occurs after the fire results in  stands of trees of different ages. Fires with high-severity effects are those  in which most of the trees and vegetation are killed over large areas,  leaving open areas in which the tree stands that regenerate will be the same  age. Ecosystems in which vegetation and fire are characteristic, or fire- adapted, are resilient, and the landscape reflects the functioning of  interdependent plant and animal communities. In ecosystems in which  vegetation and fire are uncharacteristic, fire severity can exceed the  capacity of the ecosystem to regenerate, and the landscape reflects  changes to the plant and animal communities that used to exist there.
Figure 5 shows the range of burn severity patterns attributed to our sample  of 20 fires. Of the 7 fires with uncharacteristic effects in our survey, the  most frequent reason officials cited for a fire to be considered  uncharacteristic was not the size of the fire, but the size of the patches the  fire had burned severely. The fires demonstrate a wide variety of burn  severity patterns within two extremes. While Wyoming’s Sheep Mountain  fire severely burned 100 percent of the federal lands within its perimeter,  all of the federal acreage burned by Oregon’s Abert fire burned at low  severity.
section_title: Forest Service and BLM Do Not Gather Comprehensive Information on the Varied Effects of Wildland Fires on Ecosystems and Landscapes
paragraphs: Although the National Fire Plan established a goal of restoring forest and  rangeland ecosystems to conditions that are more fire-adapted, and  therefore more resilient to fire, land managers do not have comprehensive  data on the broad landscape effects of wildland fire to help them monitor  these effects over time. While the Forest Service and BLM gather  information on the severity of environmental effects from individual  wildland fires, they do not gather data that captures the long-term severity  of fires across landscapes. Through emergency stabilization programs, the  forests and BLM field offices gather information on the effects on soils and  watersheds to estimate the likelihood that soil disturbances caused by  individual fires will result in flooding and landslides. However, while the  agencies’ data collection efforts include fire histories—that is, the  occurrence, location, and size of fires—they do not have a monitoring plan  to gather landscape data across fires and they do not yet consistently map  the long-term, landscape-level severity of wildland fires. This data would  help the agencies to assess whether, over time, fires in forest and rangeland  ecosystems are burning with more or less severe effects and whether they  are being restored to more resilient, or fire-adapted, conditions.
subsections: section_title: Forest Service and BLM Collect Data on the Environmental Effects of Individual Fires to Help Them Restore and Rehabilitate Burned Lands
paragraphs: Although the Forest Service and BLM are generally not required to gather  environmental data on the effects of wildland fires, the agencies’ field  offices do collect data that indicate the potential for flooding, erosion, and  landslides to occur in the short term after a fire for the purpose of treating  areas that need emergency stabilization. Both the Forest Service and BLM  use multidisciplinary teams of experts, such as ecologists and soil  scientists, to gather and review data on individual fires that have altered  conditions enough to warrant the emergency stabilization. These teams— called Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) teams by the Forest  Service and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) teams by  BLM—gather data on vegetation, soils, and stream channels and evaluate  burn severity and erosion hazard potential in areas affected by fire. Both  agencies use this evaluation process to assess the potential emergency and  identify appropriate treatments to stabilize areas and to protect homes and  other values at risk, such as roads. The data are reported and maintained in  fire-specific files in the forest and BLM field offices.
Although the BAER and ESR reports do not address the long-term effects  of fires, the Forest Service and BLM generally collect more extensive data  on the effects of large fires affecting areas where they plan to conduct  rehabilitation or restoration work. The Forest Service uses a variety of  funds, including funds raised from salvaging dead and damaged trees, to  pay for rehabilitation work. When the forest staff identify fire-damaged  areas that they wish to rehabilitate, they gather data on environmental  resources for the purpose of developing an environmental assessment or  environmental impact statement for a salvage sale and associated  rehabilitation or restoration projects. For example, the staff at Bitterroot  and Sequoia National Forests determined that they would conduct  rehabilitation projects for very large fires that occurred on their lands in  2000—the Bitterroot fires and the McNally fire. In the case of the Bitterroot  fires, the forest staff collected extensive data, including detailed  information on soil and watershed characteristics, vegetation, wildlife and  wildlife habitat, and noxious weeds. During and after the McNally fire in  central California, the Sequoia National Forest staff gathered similar data  on the fire’s effects and measured the smoke output from the fire and its  effect on air quality. Because the rehabilitation of rangelands that have  burned often involves seeding the burned sites with fast-growing grasses to  retain soils and forage for wildlife, BLM receives funding to pay for such  work. Field office staff collect data on these rehabilitation needs as part of  their rehabilitation efforts; the data collected under this program includes  data on topography, soils, native and non-native plants, wildlife habitat, and  threatened and endangered species that inhabit the project area.
Furthermore, some forest and BLM staff, after years in which numerous  fires have occurred, have developed special reports on the effects of the  different fires across the region. For example, the Intermountain and  Northern Regions of the Forest Service assessed the extent and effects of  the large wildland fires these areas experienced during 2000. They  collected data on the (1) number of air quality advisories to communities  affected by the many fires involved; (2) flooding and sediment in streams  with native fish species, such as cutthroat and bull trout; and (3) adverse  effects to sage grouse habitat. In addition, after a number of fires in 1999  burned about 1.7 million acres in portions of four states that comprise the  Great Basin—Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah—BLM issued a general  report on the fires’ combined effects on this large geographic area. As part  of this effort, BLM assessed the role wildland fire has played over time in  the Great Basin—changing some healthy rangeland ecosystems populated  by native plants into systems dominated by annual weeds, such as  cheatgrass. According to the report, because this annual grass provides  little or no cover or food for wildlife, sage grouse populations had  decreased by more than one-third, a factor in the grouse’s possible  consideration for listing as a threatened and endangered species.
section_title: Agencies’ Data Collection Does Not Address Long- Term Landscape Severity of Wildland Fire Effects
paragraphs: Over the long term, as the National Fire Plan and its activities are  implemented, the Forest Service and BLM will need landscape data on  wildland fire effects, including fire severity, to monitor whether they are  restoring and maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems. Because wildland fires  and the severity of their effects vary across different landscapes and  ecosystems, land managers and scientists need data on the severity of  effects to understand whether the severity of fires is changing, and  therefore whether vegetation conditions need to be managed differently. A  monitoring plan would provide the means for gathering consistent and  comprehensive data over the long term on fire trends and severity. The  agencies have started to develop systems and methods to gather the  needed data including: (1) vegetation data, (2) historical fire and severity  data, and (3) current severity data. However, they do not yet have the full  capability to gather and use these data. When these data are integrated and  assessed, they will provide the Forest Service and BLM with information on  the historical fire regime that occurred in a given area and the expected fire  severity. With such data, the agencies will have a baseline to determine  whether fire severity is changing because of vegetation and fuel conditions.
While the Forest Service and BLM use several different methods to gather  information on vegetation conditions, they are working to develop a system  of protocols and procedures to gather consistent nationwide data. Satellite  images are currently used to provide data for individual forests and BLM  offices to use in assessing their vegetation conditions. However, the Forest  Service and BLM, as part of an interagency effort to gather consistent  national data on vegetation conditions and related fuel conditions, are  developing a database and related modeling tools called LANDFIRE to  gather satellite data, interpret it, and compare and validate the data with  data from actual sites on the ground. Satellite images capture data on  thousands of acres or more, providing a landscape-level view of the  resources for land managers. (See app. V for a discussion of the recording  and use of satellite data.) When it is completed, LANDFIRE is expected to  provide land management agencies with maps of their vegetation that,  when combined with data on the physical conditions of the same areas, will  show the natural vegetation cover type that should exist on the areas. The  Departments of Agriculture and the Interior funded the implementation of  the system in 2004 and expect it to be completed for western states in 2006,  for eastern states in 2008, and for the entire nation in 2009. In the interim,  the agencies will use data that are already available.
In addition to vegetation data, historical fire and severity data are  important for the agencies to understand the landscape severity of current  fires. While the national forest and BLM field office staff collect historical  fire data, including the occurrence, location, and size of wildland fires that  have burned across a landscape, they do not consistently collect this data  or data on the severity of effects for individual fires. Of the 13 forests and  BLM offices we visited during our review, most were collecting severity  data for large fires, but only one office had these data in a geographic  information system database. A national database of fire history and  severity data would help the agencies identify and monitor the actual  effects of fire on vegetation and ecosystem conditions. While the Wildland  Fire Leadership Council adopted a monitoring framework that includes fire  severity in May 2004, it has not yet been implemented. The agencies are  currently developing cost estimates and specific plans for implementing  the framework.
Finally, while the forest and BLM field offices gather some data on severity  of fires that burn on their lands, the agencies do not consistently collect  data on burn severity that reflect the long-term effects of fires. The  agencies use a mix of ground, aerial, and satellite data to measure the burn  severity of different fires; however, the satellite data that they typically  gather are better suited to show the short-term effects of wildland fire. The  Forest Service and BLM generally compile satellite images taken a year  before the fire and immediately after it to help them estimate the  emergency stabilization needs of the area. In contrast, another approach to  measuring severity involves comparing one satellite image taken  immediately before a fire and another about a year after to more accurately  estimate the long-term ecological effects of the fire. This approach,  developed by the National Park Service in an effort to measure the long- term effects of fire, includes factors that affect the recovery of an area over  the long term, such as the number of seeds that remain in the soil, the  proximity of seed sources from unburned areas, slope, soil moisture, and  the amount of erosion that may occur. Although this approach has been  used successfully on Park Service lands and by some forests and BLM  offices, its use in evaluating Forest Service and BLM lands has not been  widely tested. One of the applications that is still being developed and  tested is the ability to update vegetation maps from the severity maps. This  application could be useful in updating vegetation maps, including those  that will be created by the LANDFIRE system once it is completed. If it is  implemented as planned, LANDFIRE’s vegetation maps will be available to  the forests and BLM offices about every 5 years. According to the National  Park Service, this approach has been used to update some of the parks’  vegetation maps, thereby maintaining their usefulness in tracking progress  in managing vegetation conditions and planning management activities.
section_title: The Forest Service and BLM Do Not Systematically Assess the Risks to Environmental Resources and Ecosystems to Target and Conduct Fuel Reduction Activities
paragraphs: Although the National Fire Plan identifies the need to reduce the risk of  environmental and ecosystem effects from wildland fires by targeting fuel  reduction activities to the areas that face the greatest potential losses, the  Forest Service and BLM do not systematically assess the risks to resources  and ecosystems for the purpose of targeting fuel reduction projects.  Because wildland fires affect both large landscapes and individual  resources at specific sites, it is important to assess risk at both the broad  landscape level and the more specific project-planning level. At the  landscape level, the Forest Service and BLM do not have a common  framework that includes the three elements for assessing risks: hazard,  risk, and values. At the project level, although the agencies have recognized  the need to better analyze the relative risks of undertaking fuel reduction  activities versus not doing so, they do not have a systematic approach to  assess these risks. Because they lack a systematic risk-based approach for  targeting their fuel reduction projects across a landscape and within a  project area, the agencies cannot ensure that they are reducing fuels in  areas of highest risk to environmental resources and ecosystems.
subsections: section_title: A Risk Assessment Framework Would Systematically Analyze Hazard, Risk, and Values
paragraphs: In general, risk assessment is a process for evaluating a natural hazard,  such as wildland fire, as well as the probability of the hazardous event  occurring and the consequences or potential losses that would result if the  event did occur. According to the National Academy of Public  Administration, a systematic approach to risk assessment involves three  elements:  Hazard: A hazard is the potential event, such as a wildland fire, hurricane,  or earthquake, and the conditions that cause it. In the case of wildland fire,  both the fuel conditions that exist and the fire itself are the hazard.  According to scientists and land managers, the increased vegetation in  different ecosystems around the country has become more continuous and  dense, resulting in larger fires that burn more intensely. For example, the  Tyee fire burned 140,000 acres in Washington in 1994, in part because  excess vegetation had grown into areas that, under natural conditions,  would have less vegetation to act as fuel for the fire.
Risk: Risk is the probability that an event such as a wildland fire will occur.  By mapping the number and location of fires, scientists have discovered  that some areas are more prone to fires than others. For example, Florida  and the western states are more likely to experience wildland fire than the  states along the East Coast and in the Midwest. Wildland fire ignites either  because of lightning strikes, which occur along storm paths and prominent  landscape features, such as mountain ridges, or because of human  activities, such as camping, logging, agricultural burning, and careless  smoking.
Values: In general, values are the things that might be lost or damaged  because of a hazard. In the case of wildland fire, social values that might be  lost include the lives of both civilians and firefighters, cultural and  historical resources, and artifacts and sacred sites. Economic values that  might be lost include property and other infrastructure, resources such as  timber and water, and recreation and tourism opportunities. In the case of  environmental values, however, wildland fire can both damage and  improve different environmental resources and ecosystems. The values  that might be affected include ecosystems, species and their habitat, air  and water quality, and soil and vegetation.
To prioritize areas needing fuel reduction, all three elements—hazard, risk,  and value—need to be considered and ranked because, for example, an  area with high vegetation hazard may or may not be in an area where fires  are likely to occur, making it a lower priority for treatment. Furthermore, a  high hazard area may not be close to something of value that would be lost  or damaged in a fire, also making it a lower priority for treatment. The  National Fire Plan calls for the Forest Service and BLM to collaborate with  state, local, and tribal entities in making decisions about what specific  areas are in need of fuel reduction treatment. An assessment of hazard,  risk, and values can form the basis for informing this collaborative  approach.
According to the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research  Council, a risk assessment supports decisions that need to be made. For  this reason, a framework for assessing the risks of effects from wildland  fires would also identify the types of decisions that need to be made at  different organizational levels—the national, landscape, and project  levels—and the risk information required to make the decisions. For  example, in the case of fuel reduction activities, the types of decisions that  need to be made at the national level include how many resources to  allocate per year to reduce risk. Landscape-level decisions include  determining which parts of the landscape are at the greatest risk of  wildland fire and its potential effects. Project-level decisions include  making tradeoffs among alternatives and their different effects.
section_title: Forest Service and BLM Lack a Framework for Assessing Risks to Ecosystems Across Landscapes to Target Fuel Reduction Activities
paragraphs: The Forest Service and BLM have not adopted a framework to  systematically assess the risks of environmental effects of fires to support  their fuel reduction efforts. Without addressing the three elements of a risk  assessment—hazard, risk, and value—the agencies do not have a  systematic way to target their fuel reduction activities across a landscape.  The Forest Service and BLM nationwide assessment of vegetation, or fuel,  conditions, conducted in 2000 and updated in 2002, addressed only one  element of a risk assessment—hazard. Because of the need to prioritize  their fuel reduction efforts, some Forest Service and BLM field offices have  conducted assessments that include one or more elements of a risk  assessment. However, these efforts are informal, incomplete or  uncoordinated and therefore do not systematically address the need to  identify and reduce ecosystem risks.
subsections: section_title: Nationwide Assessment of Vegetation Conditions Considered Only Hazard Information, Not Risks and Values
paragraphs: In 2002, the Forest Service and BLM updated the national assessment of  fuel conditions that estimated that about 99 million acres of the agencies’  land in 11 western states were highly altered from historic vegetation  conditions. While the assessment also identified and collected data on fire  occurrence, a factor in determining the probability that a fire will occur, the  researchers did not include these risk data in the assessment because they  were incomplete or inconsistent. In addition, although the assessment  indicated which ecosystems might burn uncharacteristically and  experience uncharacteristically severe effects from fire, it did not consider  other values at risk, such as threatened and endangered species habitat  that might be damaged or lost. A complete risk assessment—one that  includes risk and values—could give national leaders a better idea of (1)  the amount of fuel reduction that needs to be done per year to reduce the  risks of wildland fires at the national level and (2) the amount of funding  that needs to be allocated to reduce risks. For example, in 2002, a group of  researchers involved in developing the national assessment conducted an  independent study of options for reducing risks of effects from wildland  fire through fuel reduction projects across landscapes and nationally. The  study, which included information on the probability of fire occurring and  the values at risk, concluded that reducing risks would require more work  and funding than was allocated in 2002. While the study results have not  been officially confirmed by the multiple agencies and organizations  involved in conducting fuel reduction activities, it is an example of the risk- based approach needed to target fuel reduction activities and funding.
In late 2003, recognizing the need for some direction in how to conduct risk  assessments, the Forest Service and BLM issued guidance in conjunction  with the National Association of State Foresters. The guidance states that  there are a number of valid assessment processes available for the agencies  to use, including one approach that involves mapping data on four factors:  (1) fire occurrence, (2) hazard, (3) values to be protected, and (4)  protection capabilities. This guidance, however, focuses on communities  and does not discuss how the risks to the environmental resources and  ecosystems that the agencies are responsible for managing are to be  assessed. It is important that the risks to environmental resources and  ecosystems be assessed in considering fuel reduction across landscapes  because different approaches are needed to manage environmental  resources and ecosystems in different fire regimes. For example, it can be  more difficult to treat forests and rangelands that burn with low frequency  and high intensity, such as lodgepole pine forests, as opposed to areas that  burn with high frequency and low intensity, such as ponderosa pine forests.
The Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station has developed a  modeling protocol to assess the risks, as well as the benefits, of fire by  considering three factors: (1) the probability of fire occurrence; (2) the  expected severity of a fire; and (3) the ecological, social, and economic  value ascribed to an area. Other agencies have developed risk assessment  frameworks, tailored to their particular needs, that include hazard, risk,  and values and identify the organizational levels that should conduct the  risk assessment. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency  provides funding to state and local governments for hazard mitigation on  the basis of their assessment of (1) the natural hazard and the probability of  future hazardous events, (2) state and local vulnerability to the hazards,  and (3) the potential losses from the hazardous event. In addition, the  Environmental Protection Agency has developed an ecological risk  assessment framework that defines the values at risk on the basis of  desired environmental conditions and can be applied at different  organizational levels depending on the risk problem.
section_title: Some Forest Service and BLM Offices Have Conducted Independent Risk Assessments
paragraphs: To identify the areas with the highest levels of risk at the landscape level,  some forests and BLM field offices, in conjunction with state and local  governments, have applied their own approaches to assessing fuel  conditions and risks. We reviewed fire planning processes and documents  at 13 forest and BLM offices and found that several offices had applied risk  assessment frameworks that they had either developed themselves or  contributed to developing. Table 3 shows the forest and BLM offices that  we visited and describes the type of assessment they conducted, including  the elements of a risk assessment that were addressed.
Although the forests and BLM offices have undertaken independent efforts,  some similarities exist in their approaches. Specifically, several of the units  have attempted to include environment and ecosystem values in their  mapping efforts. For example, Region 1 of the Forest Service assembled  data on species habitat, water quality, soils, erosion potential, airsheds, and  vegetation. The data are mapped, which provides managers with the  location of important resources as they plan their fuel reduction activities.  This team developed a computer program called the Multi-Resource  Information Tool that uses the hazard, risk, and values information to rank  different watersheds by different risk categories. In a similar way, some of  the BLM offices identified the values present in different management  areas, including environmental resource values. Other BLM offices use a  computer program called the Risk Assessment and Mitigation System to  model the protection afforded these values from their chosen fuel  reduction programs.
The purpose of conducting risk assessments at the forest and BLM field  office level is to support decisions about where to target fuel reduction  efforts and where naturally caused fires can be managed and controlled to  achieve resource benefits. The forests and BLM field offices are required to  identify in their fire management plans the areas in which they will  continue suppressing fires, those in which they will conduct fuel reduction  projects, and those in which they can allow wildland fires to burn to reduce  fuels and provide resource benefits. A risk assessment would help the  offices identify these areas. For example, officials at some of the forests we  visited stated that they wanted to increase their use of wildland fires to  achieve resource benefits. Using wildland fire in this way not only provides  resource benefits, but may also help to limit the overall costs of  suppressing fires. For example, if the Forest Service had been able to let  the Burgdorf Junction fire in Idaho burn, the fire would have benefited  most resources and the agency would have spent much less than the $26  million used to suppress the fire. The fire, which occurred in an area  identified as having low accumulations of fuel that could have benefited  from a fire to maintain its conditions, was suppressed to protect a nearby  community—a community that would have been protected by a $1 million  fuel reduction project that was considered lower priority, given funding  and the assessment of vegetation conditions.
Although a framework for conducting risk assessments to support the  agencies’ landscape-level fuel reduction activities would identify the  organizational level at which the assessment should be conducted, agency  guidance issued in 2002 and 2003 does not direct the forests or BLM field  offices to conduct risk assessments to support their landscape-level fuel  reduction plans. Specifically, guidance issued in April 2002 directs the  Forest Service and BLM to collaborate with other agencies, including state,  local, and tribal agencies responsible for managing wildland fire and fuels,  in planning treatments across landscapes. This guidance recommends that  landscape plans be developed; however, it does not require a formal risk  assessment to support a plan. In addition, guidance issued in February and  March 2003 directs the forests and BLM field offices to use the methods  from the national assessment of fuel conditions to classify their local lands  and fuel reduction projects according to their alteration from historic fire  regimes. The purpose for classifying projects, in the short term, is to  determine if the agencies are making progress toward reducing the number  of acres of land they manage that have high accumulations of vegetation. In  the long term, the guidance directs that the methods be used as part of land  management planning.
section_title: Forest Service and BLM Also Lack a Systematic Approach to Assess the Risks of Environmental Effects Associated with Fuel Reduction Projects
paragraphs: The Forest Service and BLM also do not have a systematic approach for  assessing the risks of environmental effects associated with fuel reduction  projects. Because the agencies generally assess the environmental effects  of fuel reduction projects in NEPA documents, we reviewed 10  environmental assessments for such projects. Although the agencies’  assessments were for projects that would mitigate or avoid the effects of  wildland fire, the assessments did not systematically assess the hazard,  risks, or values associated with the projects. This is because the agencies  lack clear guidance on how to assess the risks of environmental effects of  projects and where to document the assessment and effects—in  environmental assessments or in other documents. Interim guidance issued  for the Healthy Forests Restoration Act partially addresses the need for  documentation of the effects of not taking action to reduce fuels, but is not  yet complete or final. CEQ guidance on developing model environmental  assessments for fuel reduction projects, issued in 2002, does not address  the risks of environmental effects from reducing fuels or not because the  purpose of the guidance was to facilitate the development of concise  environmental assessment documentation. Guidance on how to do such  assessments and where to document them is important if the agencies are  to effectively use fuel reduction projects to address the risks of  environmental effects from wildland fires.
subsections: section_title: Some Environmental Assessments Did Not Systematically Assess the Risks of Not Reducing Fuels
paragraphs: Our review of 10 environmental assessments of fuel reduction projects—6  prepared by the Forest Service and 4 by BLM—revealed that some of these  assessments did not systematically assess the risks of the likely  environmental effects from not implementing fuel reduction projects.  Forest Service and BLM officials recognize that taking no action to reduce  fuels while continuing to suppress fires will contribute to continued  accumulation and alteration of vegetation, perpetuating hazardous  conditions that can create severe fire effects. At the same time, fuel  reduction projects themselves can pose risks to environmental resources.  For these reasons, it is important that the agencies, in developing fuel  reduction projects, discuss the hazard, risk, and values at risk associated  with project alternatives. It is also important that the agencies analyze a  project’s environmental effects. We reviewed the environmental  assessments prepared by the Forest Service and BLM to determine the  extent to which they (1) included a discussion of, or referred to, other  documents that discussed hazard, risk, and value in assessing project  alternatives and (2) presented information and data on the environmental  effects of the no-action alternative. We did not determine whether the  assessments complied with NEPA.
Generally, the agencies analyze the environmental effects of a fuel  reduction project in an environmental assessment, which is an analysis  conducted under NEPA regulations and guidance to discusses such effects.  In general, fuel reduction projects can range in size from a few hundred  acres to several thousand acres. In developing a project, forest and BLM  staff determine the purpose and need for the project and design one or  more alternatives. Although NEPA regulations do not require the agencies  to consider a no-action alternative and its effects in an environmental  assessment, the agencies often do develop a no-action alternative and  consider its effects. The agencies can use several different models of fire  effects and fire behavior to show how different vegetation will burn in  different conditions, such as weather. (See app. VI for a discussion of  models.) Through this modeling, agency staff can show that reducing  vegetation can reduce the risk of a fire becoming uncharacteristically large  and intense and the risk of associated adverse effects.
Furthermore, in analyzing the effects of a fuel reduction project, the  agencies are also to consider whether the project meets the requirements  of several environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air  Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In analyzing water quality effects, for  example, forest and BLM staff estimate what effects fuel reduction  activities such as mechanical thinning—which can involve heavy  equipment that compacts soils—will have on soils and sedimentation of  local streams. In analyzing air quality effects, forest and BLM staff estimate  the amount of smoke that a prescribed burn may produce. Finally, in  analyzing the effects of a project on threatened and endangered species— such as the Northern spotted owl or the Canada lynx—the agencies may be  required to develop biological assessments of the effects on species  population and habitat. In consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, the  agencies use these biological assessments to determine what risks the  alternatives pose for species and their continued existence and survival.
Table 4 shows the results of our review of the 10 environmental  assessments.
Of the 10 assessments we reviewed, 4—3 from the Forest Service and 1  from BLM—used the hazard, risk, and value framework for a risk  assessment to discuss the action and no-action alternatives. In one case, for  example, the BLM’s Rogue assessment estimated the number of days per  year that intense fires would reach the crowns of trees—known as crown  fire—and kill whole trees. The assessment also estimated how much of the  project area contained environmental resources at risk. The Forest  Service’s Sheafman project assessment described the risk of fire on the  basis of a recent trend toward large fires in the project area. However, 6 of  the 10 assessments did not use a hazard, risk, and value framework to  discuss the risk of environmental effects. Existing guidance does not  specifically require this or describe how the assessment should be done.
Each of the 10 assessments included some level of discussion of the  environmental effects of the no-action alternative (see table 4). The level of  detail about the effects varied from a minimal description of some effects  to a detailed discussion of effects that was comparable to the discussion  provided in other alternatives. For example, one of the assessments only  described the general effects of no action as “increasing risk of damage to  water resources.” On the other hand, another of the 10 assessments used  extensive tables comparing the specific effects on a wide range of  environmental resources that could result from taking or not taking action  to reduce fuels.
Although each of the 10 assessments we reviewed contained some effects  of not reducing fuels, the effects were not described systematically in all of  the assessments. According to forest and BLM staff, as well as biologists  from the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, predicting the  environmental effects of the no-action alternative is difficult. This difficulty  stems from having to predict the occurrence of wildland fires, which are  random events. The staff noted that such an analysis would need to be  based on the assumption that a particular fire would occur and on  estimates of the environmental effects of that assumed fire—a process they  said might be considered “speculative.” For example, to project the  potential effects of wildland fire in a project area on a threatened or  endangered species—such as the Northern spotted owl or Canada lynx—a  wildlife specialist would take data produced by fire models to determine  what habitat and food sources would be affected under anticipated fire  conditions. While some say that this cannot be done, according to agency  and CEQ officials, NEPA involves making reasonable forecasts of effects,  and models can provide a reasonable basis on which to make such  forecasts.
section_title: Guidance Is Unclear About How to Assess and Document the Risks of Environmental Effects of Fuel Reduction Projects
paragraphs: The varied use of risk assessment at the project level is a result of the fact  that the agencies do not have clear guidance about the systematic  assessment of the risks of environmental effects from wildland fire from  fuel reduction projects. Guidance would describe how relevant hazards,  risks, and values would be assessed for fuel reduction projects and where  such information would be documented. Such guidance could be expected  to appear in the agencies’ fire planning or NEPA guidance. However, Forest  Service and BLM fire planning guidance does not provide clear direction on  how to conduct and document an assessment of risk of environmental  effects at the project level, although the agencies recognize the importance  of reducing fuels to mitigate or avoid the environmental effects of wildland  fires. As described above, the agencies’ fire planning guidance refers to  assessing the risks to communities at the landscape level and to assessing  the condition of vegetation at the project level. Just as the guidance does  not address the assessment of hazard, risk, and values at risk at the  landscape level, it does not discuss the assessment of hazard, risk, and  value at the project level.
Similarly, NEPA guidance does not describe how to conduct or document  an assessment of the risks of environmental effects associated with fuel  reduction project alternatives. In terms of describing how to conduct such  an assessment, although NEPA guidance requires the description of an  alternative’s environmental effects, it does not discuss an explicit risk  assessment approach involving the assessment of hazard, risk, and value.  In terms of documenting the environmental effects of a project, NEPA does  not explicitly require the discussion of the effects of the no-action  alternative in an environmental assessment. Analysis and documentation of  the effects of a no-action alternative in relation to the effects of action  alternatives facilitates the comparison of the relative risks of taking action  or not to reduce fuels at the project level. While NEPA requires  environmental impact statements to discuss a no-action alternative for a  proposed project, it does not require this of environmental assessments. In  2002, CEQ issued NEPA guidance for a demonstration program to develop  examples of model environmental assessments for fuel reduction projects.  The demonstration program sought to make environmental documents  more concise by removing unnecessary information. While the CEQ  guidance stated that the agencies may compare the impact of the proposed  action and alternatives with the current condition and expected future  condition in the absence of the project, it did not address the no-action  alternative or its effects in environmental assessments of fuel reduction  projects.
The agencies have opportunities to clarify the analysis and documentation  of the risks of environmental effects from not taking action to reduce fuels.  In February 2004, the agencies issued interim guidance on the Healthy  Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). This guidance, which does not clearly  state when a no-action alternative should be developed, states that the  effects of not reducing fuels should be documented in a project’s files. It  also identifies some effects that may be analyzed as part of the  documentation. However, the guidance does not include the range of  environmental resources that may be affected by wildland fire nor does it  state clearly what analyses should be done. In addition, the agencies and  CEQ met in March 2004 to evaluate the lessons learned from the  demonstration program, which CEQ used to develop examples. The  agencies are compiling lessons learned from the demonstration program  that they intend to use in future environmental assessments. Through these  evaluations, CEQ and the agencies have another opportunity to clarify how  the agencies will address the risks of environmental effects associated with  fuel reduction projects and whether or not the discussion of the effects of  taking no action should be included in environmental documents for  projects.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Forest Service and BLM, in conjunction with the other federal, state,  local, and tribal land management agencies, face important and complex  challenges in managing wildland fires, and, in particular, minimizing risks  from future fires, including the effects of fires on environmental resources  and ecosystems. The primary challenge that relates to these effects is, over  the long term, balancing the risks of adverse effects caused by wildland  fires with the benefits that such fires offer to restoring resources and  ecosystems. The agencies will not be able to find such a balance without  understanding the range of environmental and ecosystem effects created  by wildland fire, including the adverse, neutral, and beneficial effects, and  without gathering data and information to monitor and support their  decision making about fire management. The range and variety of effects  complicates their data-gathering efforts, which makes it important that the  agencies select the right effects to monitor and that the agencies test and  adopt new tools that can help them capture the range of effects of wildland  fire. Without collecting landscape data on wildland fire effects as the  National Fire Plan and its activities are implemented, the Forest Service  and BLM—as well as the other fire management agencies—will not have  information and data to give them a better understanding of how fires are  affecting environmental resources and ecosystems over the long term. With  such data, the agencies would be in a better position to answer the question  whether fires are burning with more than normal severity because of  vegetation and fuel conditions or as a result of other factors. For these  reasons, it is important that the agencies, and more broadly the Wildland  Fire Leadership Council, follow through on their commitment to  implement the monitoring framework passed in May 2004.
A second challenge is that the agencies will not be able to stop all fires, nor  will they be able to reduce fuels on all lands. Without a risk-based  approach, the agencies cannot adequately determine where they will take  deliberate action to reduce fuels and the risks of potential fire effects and  where they will take the risk of fire occurring. Successful risk management  is grounded in risk identification and assessment. Until the agencies  formalize a framework for assessing the elements of risk at appropriate  organizational levels, they will not have a systematic process for assessing  the risks to environmental resources and ecosystems posed by wildland  fires and will not be able to coordinate their efforts to ensure that they  succeed in reducing these risks. A framework should incorporate and build  on the data that are to be generated by LANDFIRE, as well as fire and other  models. At the landscape level, a framework would clarify what elements  will be included in agency risk assessments, what decisions will be  supported by risk assessments, who will do the assessments, and when  they will be done. This is particularly important as state and local agencies  are moving ahead with risk assessments and the federal agencies will need  to coordinate and collaborate with them.
In carrying out fuel reduction projects, it is important that the agencies  consider the risk of not taking action to reduce fuels and the long-term risk  of wildland fire effects. In fact, HFRA now specifically requires the  agencies to develop a no-action alternative for fuels reduction projects  covered by the act. However, the agencies must also assess the risks of  effects from their actions to reduce fuels to ensure that they will not  exacerbate existing resource problems or create new problems. Such  decisions require information on the potential environmental effects of all  project alternatives and the ability to make clear comparisons among  project alternatives and their potential effects. Without clear guidance on  the complicated analysis and comparisons that seem warranted to  adequately address the effects of taking action or not to reduce fuels, the  agencies lack the ability to make informed decisions to conduct fuel  reduction projects, and as a result, these projects could face challenges and  delay rather than proceeding more quickly in the face of increased risks.  The agencies’ guidance needs to be more specific about (1) how the  assessment of hazard, risk, and values at risk should be done at the project  level and (2) where the assessment of such risks should be documented.  Both the HFRA guidance and the lessons learned from the CEQ  demonstration program provide an opportunity for the agencies and CEQ  to clarify appropriate guidance.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the agencies’ ability to identify and manage the actual and  potential effects of wildland fires on the environment, we recommend that  the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, after consulting with the  Wildland Fire Leadership Council, direct the Forest Service and BLM to   develop a monitoring plan to implement the agencies’ framework  approved in May 2004 and include a pilot program for testing on Forest  Service and BLM lands the applicability of, and resource needs  associated with, the burn severity mapping and data tool developed by  the National Park Service;  develop and issue guidance, in consultation with experts inside and  outside the agencies, that formalizes a framework for systematically  assessing landscape-level risks to ecosystems from wildland fires; and  clarify existing guidance, working with CEQ and taking into account any  lessons learned from the CEQ demonstration program, on the  assessment and documentation of the risks of environmental effects  associated with not conducting fuel reduction projects.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the  Interior and the Chairman of CEQ for review and comment. The  departments provided a consolidated written response to our draft, which  is included in appendix VII of this report. CEQ provided written comments,  which are included in appendix VIII.
The departments stated that the draft was well prepared and provided a  thorough analysis of a complex set of issues. In commenting on our  recommendation to develop a monitoring plan and pilot project to test a  tool for mapping the long-term effects of wildand fires, the departments  said they presently have several methods for assessing such effects.  Specifically, the departments said that the Forest Service and BLM work  with the U.S. Geological Survey to assess the burn severity of large or  severe fires and that, at the field level, the agencies collect site-specific data  on wildland fires to support their land management plans and postfire  rehabilitation plans. Furthermore, the departments mentioned that in May  2004, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council approved a nationwide  monitoring framework for wildland fire data, including fire severity data.  We agree that the agencies have various methods for assessing the effects  of wildland fire, and we identified several of these in the report. We are also  encouraged by the recent development of a nationwide monitoring  framework. However, this framework does not address the part of our  recommendation that calls for a pilot program for testing a different tool  for measuring burn severity. The pilot program would allow the agencies to  determine the extent to which the National Park Service tool is applicable  for assessing the environmental and ecosystem effects from wildland fires  that start on the agencies’ lands. Furthermore, since the framework has just  been approved, no plan for its implementation has been developed.  Accordingly, we are recommending that such a plan be developed. We  modified the report text and recommendation to reflect the recent approval  of a monitoring framework.
In commenting on our second recommendation that the agencies develop  and adopt a framework that supports systematic assessment of the  landscape-level risks to ecosystems from wildland fire and issue guidance  implementing that framework, the departments had several concerns.  First, the departments stated that the Forest Service and BLM are designing  and refining a number of analytical tools to assess project and landscape- level risk. Specifically, the departments noted that the Fireshed Assessment  process is a promising approach for evaluating fuel treatment effectiveness  across landscapes and that LANDFIRE will provide nationally consistent  data to be used in landscape-level risk assessments. Second, the  departments stated that the agencies already include a significant amount  of risk assessment in their fuels programs. The departments said that  national fuel reduction priorities represent a judgment about risk; the  classification of wildland-urban interface areas into high, medium, and low  priorities represents another judgment about risk; and the emphasis on  treating lands in different fire regimes and condition classes represents yet  another judgment about risk. The departments also stated that the relative  value of resources is decided through the collaborative project selection  and prioritization process developed with states for the implementation of  the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, as directed by the Congress, and that  community wildfire protection plans called for in HFRA include an  assessment of risks associated with high-priority areas and values  identified by the communities. Third, while the departments agree that  prioritization of fuel reduction treatments can be improved and in their  technical comments they agree that they do not have a single, consistent  risk-based approach, they do not believe that a model or methodology that  assesses the risks associated with fuel reduction treatments across time  and at the landscape and project scales can be developed. Finally, the  departments said that it is misleading to assert that the Forest Service and  BLM have focused on the wildland-urban interface, preventing them from  developing a systematic approach to ecosystem risk assessment.
Our recommendation is based on our belief that to systematically identify  fuel reduction projects, the agencies should support a single common  approach or framework for assessing risk. We recognize that the agencies  are developing a number of analytical tools useful for assessing landscape- level risk. We note several of these in our report and believe that they can  serve as good examples for the agencies in developing an overall risk  assessment framework. However, a common approach will allow the  agencies to prioritize projects systematically. In addition, we recommended  that the agencies seek the assistance of external and internal experts,  which would allow them to identify the best tools for conducting risk  assessments and would leverage the experience of the field offices in  developing and using different risk tools, such as the Fireshed Assessment  process the departments mention. In addition to Fireshed, several other  worthwhile efforts that are being implemented in the field could serve as  examples.
Regarding the departments’ views that they already carry out a significant  amount of risk assessment, it is our view that the results of these  assessments are too broad to target fuel reduction projects at the  landscape or project levels. Given the level of fuel reduction needs (90-200  million acres) identified in the Coarse-Scale Analysis and the emphasis of  the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan on reducing  risks to the wildland-urban interface and environment, the agencies need a  systematic way to further target their projects to areas of high risk and to  demonstrate to decision makers and to the public how the decisions have  been made and what results have been achieved with the use of public  funds. The departments state that the collaborative process will identify  relative values and priorities and that community wildfire protection plans  will include assessment of the risks to community-defined values.  Recognizing that the 10-Year Comprehensive Implementation Plan does not  change existing agency statutory and regulatory responsibilities, we do not  disagree. However, we believe that a formalized, common risk assessment  framework would better inform the collaborative efforts under way, as well  as future community efforts, by providing the groups involved with  consistent hazard and risk information and allowing them to identify values  at risk. We did not, as the departments’ comments state, suggest they  develop a single, all-encompassing model or methodology to assess risks  associated with fuel reduction treatments across multiple time frames and  geographic scales. Rather, our recommendation is directed at ensuring that  the agencies develop a common approach to assessing landscape-level  risks to environmental resources and ecosystems from wildland fires. We  modified our report text and recommendation language to clarify that we  mean a formalized, common approach to assessing risks.
Furthermore, we did not criticize the agencies’ emphasis on addressing  threats within the wildland-urban interface. We merely observed that the  agencies have not made the same degree of progress in developing an  approach for assessing the risks from wildland fire to ecosystems and  environmental resources as they have for areas within the wildland-urban  interface. We concur with the agencies’ statements in the 10-Year  Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan that threats outside the  wildland-urban interface also need to be addressed, and our  recommendation is directed at that need. We did not mean to imply that  communities should not be a high priority for fuel reduction, and we  modified our report text accordingly.
Lastly, the departments disagree with our recommendation that the  agencies develop and issue guidance to clarify the assessment and  documentation of risks of environmental effects associated with taking or  not taking action to reduce fuels. They said that current NEPA guidance is  sufficient and that additional guidance on conducting risk assessments  would be inconsistent with new CEQ guidance, which calls for short  concise environmental assessments. Furthermore, the departments said  that existing direction is generally adequate for implementing the lessons  learned from the CEQ demonstration program. We did not state that CEQ's  guidance fails to meet the intent of NEPA, nor did we recommend any  amendments to that guidance. The purpose of our recommendation is to  help ensure that the agencies have a sound scientific basis for the  prioritization decisions that they will need to make to implement fuels  reduction projects as effectively as possible, not to enhance agency  compliance with NEPA. In fact, interim guidance issued by the agencies for  HFRA partially addresses the need to document the risks associated with  not taking action to reduce fuels. Specifically, the interim guidance says  that “it is important that the specialists’ report retained in the project files  document the anticipated short- and long-term effects of proposed HFRA  treatments.” We believe, however, that if the agencies agree that the  documentation of risks and effects is important, this guidance should  specifically require the need for such documentation and should clarify  how the environmental assessment should refer to the effects of the no- action alternative documented in the project files. Accordingly, we  continue to believe that clear guidance for helping agency personnel  determine the appropriate form and content of the risk assessment  associated with not taking action would improve the agencies’ fuel  reduction efforts. We modified our report text and our recommendation  language to reflect the fact that the agencies’ interim guidance provides  another opportunity to clarify the analysis of risks of not reducing fuels.
CEQ provided us written comments on the aspects of the report that reflect  CEQ policies. CEQ stated that our draft should not imply that CEQ’s  guidance for its demonstration program could, or was intended to, describe  “how to” assess the risks of environmental effects of taking action to  reduce fuels against those of not taking action. CEQ stated that the purpose  of this guidance was to provide a framework to support the development of  environmental assessments that are “concise” and “public” documents that  better serve their core function: briefly describing sufficient evidence and  analysis to support a decision about whether or not to prepare an  environmental impact statement and to assist agency NEPA compliance.  We did not intend to imply that CEQ’s guidance should discuss risk  assessment methods, and we directed our recommendation to the agencies  to clarify their guidance and methodology. We referred to the CEQ  guidance in our discussion of risk assessments for conducting or not  conducting fuel reduction projects only to demonstrate that such guidance  does not exist.
CEQ also said that our draft incorrectly states that CEQ and the agencies  plan to finalize a report on the “lessons learned” from the demonstration  program. Rather, CEQ said that it has issued examples of completed  environmental assessments on the Internet and that the agencies have  drafted a document on these lessons. We deleted the reference to CEQ  being a participant with the Forest Service and BLM in documenting the  lessons learned from the program.
The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and CEQ made other  technical comments, which we addressed as appropriate in the report.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other  interested congressional committees. We will also send copies of this  report to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the Chief of the  Forest Service, the Director of BLM, and the Chairman, CEQ. We will make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix presents the scope and methodology we used to gather  information on the environmental effects of wildland fire and to  understand the data collected on these effects by the Forest Service and  the Bureau of Land Management. It also addresses how we identified the  approaches that these agencies use to assess the risk posed to  environmental resources by wildland fire and the relative risks of  undertaking and not undertaking fuel reduction activities.
To describe the environmental effects of wildland fire and assess the  information the Forest Service and BLM gather on these effects, we  randomly selected a sample of 20 fires from a universe of 614 wildland fires  to include in a survey. The fires we selected ranged in size from hundreds  to tens of thousands of acres in diverse geographic locations. To identify  the universe of wildland fires, we created a database from two separate  lists of Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) reports  and BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) reports  completed in 2000, 2001, and 2002. We requested these lists of BAER and  ESR reports because the agencies’ official lists of wildland fires did not  contain information on the environmental effects of these fires. Both  Forest Service and BLM officials indicated that BAER and ESR reports  contain data on the environmental effects of fire because they are prepared  for the purpose of requesting emergency stabilization funds to aid in the  recovery of the burned areas. We assessed the lists of these reports for  completeness and accuracy and found them to be reliable for the purpose  of selecting a sample of wildland fires. We also visited the locations of 6  western fires and discussed the data collected on their environmental  effects with local Forest Service and BLM officials. Figure 6 shows the fires  we included in our survey sample, as well as the fire locations we visited in  eight western states.
To develop survey questions for the sample of 20 wildland fires and better  understand the data that the Forest Service and BLM collect on the  environmental effects of these fires, we (1) conducted a literature review  and read reports and scientific studies on this topic; (2) reviewed federal  fire policy documents, handbooks, BAER and ESR reports, and other  reports; and (3) interviewed Forest Service and BLM officials in national,  regional, and state offices, as well as local land units. Information gathered  from the agencies on the environmental effects of wildland fire allowed us  to develop a series of questions for our survey about the size and extent of  a wildland fire and how it affected individual resources, such as soil,  vegetation, air, watersheds, and threatened and endangered species over  the short and long term. Our survey also contained questions on short-term  (defined as less than 10 years), long-term (defined as greater than 10 years),  and cumulative effects of the sample fire on the landscape or ecosystem.  Some of these questions requested that the land managers make  predictions about the future effects of a wildland fire rather than providing  data about effects that had already occurred. Therefore, there is a greater  degree of uncertainty regarding the accuracy of responses to these  questions than to questions about observed effects.
Once we developed the survey questions, we pretested the content and  format of the survey with BAER and ESR team leaders and other agency  staff, as well as with two scientific and technical experts at the University  of Arizona and the University of Washington. We conducted pretests with  agency officials located in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Washington, and  Washington, D.C. During pretesting, we simulated the actual survey  experience by asking the individual to complete the survey, and then we  conducted a semistructured interview to determine whether (1) the  questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, and (3) how long it  took individuals to answer the questions. In mid-November 2003, we  electronically mailed the survey to staff the agencies identified as  knowledgeable about each fire and instructed them to return the survey by  electronic mail. We obtained a 100 percent response rate from staff at all 20  field locations.
To identify the approaches the Forest Service and BLM take to assess the  risk to environmental resources from wildland fire and the risks associated  with undertaking and not undertaking fuel reduction projects, we reviewed  National Fire Plan policies, National Environmental Policy Act regulations, and the December 2001 report prepared by the National Academy of  Public Administration on risk assessment and its application to the  National Fire Plan. We also obtained agency guidance and selected  planning and project documents to see how they addressed the potential  environmental effects of future fires. To obtain specific information on the  agencies’ risk assessment practices, we interviewed Forest Service and  BLM officials representing seven national forests and six BLM field offices  and reviewed their land and resource management plans, in addition to  their fire management plans. We also examined existing and proposed risk  assessment approaches discussed in research papers and governmental  and nongovernmental publications, and we interviewed some of the  authors. During 2003, we attended two national conferences on wildland  fire and risk assessment decisions held in Denver, Colorado, and Portland,  Oregon. We also contacted the National Park Service, professors from five  universities, and scientists from the Forest Service’s research stations in  California, Montana, and Colorado, including those who participated in  developing the national assessment of fuel conditions and LANDFIRE.
To identify how the Forest Service and BLM evaluate the relative risks of  undertaking or not undertaking projects to reduce fuels, we reviewed 10  environmental assessments of fuel reduction projects in eight western  states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and  Washington. We selected 6 environmental assessments prepared by the  Forest Service and 4 prepared by BLM for analysis. Of the assessments we  selected, 5 were part of a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)  demonstration program for developing model environmental assessments  and 5 were not. We also interviewed officials at Forest Service and BLM  headquarters and staff members at CEQ to obtain information on agency  guidance to field offices and CEQ program guidance to agencies. Finally,  we interviewed headquarters and regional staff from NOAA Fisheries and  the Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain information on how agency  biologists could compare the short-term effects of fuel reduction projects  on threatened and endangered species with the long-term effects of a  future wildland fire in their environmental assessments.
We conducted our work from April 2003 through April 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Fire Regime Condition Class Analysis
paragraphs: Wildland fire managers have recognized for several years the need to  reduce excessive vegetation levels that have accumulated and been altered  after decades of excluding fire from different ecosystems. Until 2000,  managers did not have national-level data that could be used to distinguish  and prioritize the different ecosystems that are more affected than others  by fire exclusion. To accomplish such a prioritization, land managers need  data on the current conditions of vegetation and fuels. In 2000, the staff of  the Forest Service’s Fire Sciences Laboratory at the Rocky Mountain  Research Station produced an assessment of spatial data for wildland fire  and fuel management called the Coarse-Scale Analysis. The staff gathered  and analyzed national-level data from several sources to create vegetation  maps and from that assessed the condition of this vegetation to act as fuel  for wildland fire. The assessment resulted in a national map of vegetation  and fuel conditions. The assessment was based on “coarse-scale” or coarse  resolution data that are not, and were never intended to be, applicable for  site-level use.
The assessment identified three categories of fuel conditions, called fire  regime condition classes (FRCC), using estimates of the historical fire  regimes—the frequency and intensity of fires typical for different  vegetation types—and estimates of the alteration in current vegetation.  Figure 7 shows the three categories of hazard and the levels of alteration  from historic conditions (hazard) that they represent.
The original assessment estimated that wildland fire could cause severe  effects on about 182 million acres of land in the United States. Of that land,  an estimated 75 million acres of federal land, including land managed by  the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service within the  Department of Agriculture, could suffer from severe effects as a result of  wildland fire. In 2002, the original assessment was updated to more  thoroughly examine grassland vegetation and to make corrections from  more specific data gathered through samples on the ground. This update  focused on 11 western states, reporting that 183 million acres across the  west were highly altered from historical conditions and would experience  severe effects from wildland fire. Based on additional analysis, the agencies  estimated that the amount of highly altered vegetation nationwide could  vary from 90 to 200 million acres.
Federal land management agencies and the National Fire Plan have  adopted the FRCC categories as an indicator of whether forest and  grassland ecosystems are in good condition. The National Fire Plan, under  its goal for achieving fire-adapted ecosystems, tracks the acres of land that  are in the second and third FRCC categories for which fuels are reduced  and conditions changed to a lower category—either the first or second  category. The agencies’ field offices, which plan and implement all projects  to reduce fuels, are responsible for monitoring their progress through a  new national reporting system, which tracks National Fire Plan goals and  performance measures.
Because the national-scale data is based on coarse resolution data, the data  cannot be used to identify the areas on the ground that need to have fuel  reduction activities—it can only be used at a Forest Service regional level  or summarized to several western states. To help the field offices identify  which acres need fuel reduction treatment projects, the Forest Service and  the Department of the Interior are developing a project-level analysis tool.  This tool, which the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior  began to implement in spring 2004, requires the field office staff to conduct  a field visit to examine vegetation conditions, to consider them in context  of past and current fire regimes, and to estimate the alteration of fire  regimes and fire intensity if a fire were to burn in the current conditions.
The FRCC concept has been incorporated into LANDFIRE, which is a data  system that, when completed, will provide periodic updates of national  vegetation maps at a higher resolution than the original assessment  provided in 2000. LANDFIRE is also expected to provide FRCC maps and  will contain computer models to help fire planners and land managers  estimate how wildland fire might behave in the estimated fuel conditions.  Full implementation of LANDFIRE was approved in 2003 and funded by the  Forest Service and the Department of the Interior in 2004. The system is  expected to be completed for application across the nation in 2009. In the  interim, the agencies will use the FRCC assessment and project tool to  track progress in reducing high levels of fuels across the nation.
section_title: Definition of Fire/Burn Severity
paragraphs: Table 5 presents the definitions of fire/burn severity as it relates to effects  on soils and vegetation. We asked Forest Service and BLM officials to use  this table in responding to questions about the specific fires and their  effects on soil and vegetation for the 20 wildland fires in our sample.
section_title: Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results
paragraphs: This appendix provides selected results from our survey of Forest Service  and BLM officials on the environmental effects of 20 sample wildland fires  (app. I). Tables 6 and 7 present general information about each fire and the  fire location. Tables 8 through 13 provide information on the generally  short-term effects that these fires had on individual environmental  resources such as streams and watersheds, threatened and endangered  species and their habitats, air, soils, and vegetation.
Table 6 lists each wildland fire by size according to the total number of  federal and nonfederal acres of land burned. It also presents information  on federal and nonfederal acreage within the fire perimeter but not burned  by fire.
Table 7 presents information on the major types and uses of federal land  affected by each wildland fire.
Table 8 presents information on the size and extent of each wildland fire’s  effects on streams and watersheds.
Table 9 presents the three wildland fires that severely burned municipal  watersheds and affected water quality.
Table 10 presents the five wildland fires that affected federally listed  threatened or endangered species or their habitats.
Table 11 presents the volume of air pollutants each wildland fire released  and relates the impact of the particulate matter emissions to a national air  quality standard.
Table 12 identifies two significant effects the wildland fires had on soils  located on federal lands. The first three columns identify the acres on  which the fire burned but had beneficial effects, grouped by (1) severely  burned acres, (2) moderately burned acres, and (3) lightly burned acres.  The last column shows the percentage of acres burned by the fire that may  experience the adverse effects of soil erosion.
Table 13 identifies three significant effects the wildland fires had on  vegetation. The first three columns identify the percentage of federal acres  burned and the severity with which the vegetation burned. The fourth and  fifth columns identify the federal acres that experienced stand-replacing  fire and the number of acres in which this fire behavior is characteristic of  the historic fire regime. The last two columns show the number of acres  populated by noxious or invasive weeds prior to the fire, as well as the  number of these acres vulnerable to weeds after the fire.
section_title: Remote Sensing Data and Systems
paragraphs: To gather data on features of the earth, land management agencies use  remote sensing technologies and data. Remote sensing means that different  technologies are used to gather data from some distance away from the  earth—that is, remotely. As shown in figure 8, the technologies used to  collect data can be based on satellites, airplanes, or towers of some kind.  These platforms carry sensors that collect data through spectral images, or  wavelengths that reflect off objects. Different objects on the earth reflect  light differently, and the images can be filtered and analyzed to identify the  objects. For example, the amount of greenness reflecting back from burned  acres varies depending on the amount of vegetation burned, which gives  land managers an idea of how severely different areas have been affected  by fire.
Remote sensing data is analyzed using geographic information system  tools. Through these computer systems, the image data can be integrated  and analyzed with other spatially referenced data, such as topography,  weather, and soils.
Depending on the resolution of the images that are taken, the data gathered  through remote sensing systems are more or less detailed. For example, a  resolution commonly used for gathering information on natural resources  is 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer (250 acres), which refers to the size of the  area of ground that is recorded in 1 pixel—that is, 1 point of remote sensing  data. A more specific resolution is 30 meters by 30 meters, which is  equivalent to about one-quarter acre. Figure 9 compares an actual site, on  the left, with the site represented through two remote-sensing methods.  The center photograph represents the view taken from an airplane (the  square outlines the actual site from the photograph on the left), and the  photograph on the right depicts 30-meter by 30-meter data captured by a  satellite-based sensor (the square outlines the actual site from the  photograph on the left).
section_title: Examples of Models for Assessing Wildland Fires and Fuels
paragraphs: Fire ecologists and researchers have been studying wildland fire for many  years and through this process have developed models, databases, and  other tools that are helpful for land and fire managers in planning and  managing fires and their effects. Not only does the Forest Service maintain  a system of laboratories that conduct research on many aspects of wildland  fire, including wildland fire behavior, fire effects, air quality, and more, but  the Bureau of Land Management maintains an agreement with the Desert  Research Institute to study fire, atmosphere, and ecological effects. In  addition, universities and nonprofit organizations are studying different  aspects of fire and its effects. The Joint Fire Science Program is a key  source of funding for fire researchers, providing almost $16 million in 2002  to study (1) fire effects and fuel treatments; (2) planning and preparedness;  (3) air quality, smoke management, and climate; (4) social and economic  impacts; (5) fire and invasive plant species; (6) remote sensing; (7)  demonstration projects; and (8) local and other projects. Some of the  important tools that have been developed to model fire and its effects are  described below.
BehavePlus: This is a modeling system that uses vegetation information to  predict a number of different factors that describe a wildland fire for the  purposes of planning a prescribed fire or predicting the behavior of a  potential wildland fire. The factors that describe fire behavior include the  rate of spread of fire, length of flames the vegetation would produce, size of  the fire that would burn, distance that embers would fly to unburned areas,  and amount of trees and other vegetation that would die from the fire,  among others.
FARSITE: This is a fire growth simulation model that computes fire  behavior and growth over a long period of time across a geographic area.  Using fire behavior models integrated with spatial vegetation data, terrain  data, and weather data, the model projects where and how fast a fire will  spread across a landscape with variable vegetation, and how hot or intense  the fire will be.
Fire and Fuels Extension-Forest Vegetation Simulator (FFE-FVS): This is  a model originally developed to simulate forest growth and yield, which has  been adapted to provide information for fuels reduction projects. It uses  data on specific stands of trees and “grows” the trees to show stand  development over time. It also simulates accumulation and decay of  surface fuels due to litter, tree mortality, and fuel reduction resulting from  treatments. Expected fire behavior and effects if a wildland fire should  occur are also shown over the simulation period. This information is used  by fuels planners to assess the need for fuel treatment.
Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT): This model uses “state in  transition” models or box and arrow diagrams to show how vegetation is  changing and will change.
NEXUS: This is a model that estimates surface, transition, and crown fire  behavior, which occurs in the forest canopy. The model shows the  conditions that may cause a crown fire in an area with particular  combinations of surface and canopy fuels and fuel moisture conditions.  The wind speed at which crown fire can occur is computed based on the  potential for crown fire in the stand. This information can be used to  evaluate alternatives for treating fuels to reduce the risk of crown fire.
FlamMap: This software creates geographic information system maps  (raster maps) of potential fire behavior characteristics, including rate of  spread, flame length, crown fire, and others, as well as environmental  factors such as fuel moistures and wind speeds. It does not simulate fire  growth but uses spatial information on topography and fuels to calculate  fire behavior factors at a point in time.
Simulating Vegetative Patterns and Processes at Landscape Scales  (SIMPPLLE): This simulation model shows the succession of vegetation  after fire or other disturbance has been introduced. It is spatially explicit,  meaning that the results are mapped in a geographic information system. It  also models the change in vegetation over time. Planners can use it to  explore how fire will affect a landscape and how their fuel reduction  treatments can change the outcome.
Multi-Resource Analysis and Geographic Information System (MAGIS):  MAGIS is an optimization model that schedules fuel reduction treatments  across a landscape. It is a spatial model that considers land management  objectives for deciding which projects are optimal and also functions under  user-imposed resource constraints.
First-Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM): This model estimates the first- order effects of a fire in a particular area based on a set of fuel loadings  provided by the users. First-order effects include those effects that result  directly from the fire: fuel consumption, tree mortality, smoke, and soil  heating. Second-order effects refer to the indirect effects of fire: erosion,  soil loss, and species or habitat loss.
Fire Effects Information System (FEIS): This system provides literature  reviews for about 900 plant species, 100 animal species, and 16 plant  communities (as defined by Kuchler in North America). The reviews, called  “species summaries,” are online at www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. The  objective of each summary is to synthesize information on fire and its  effects on the species, but background information on taxonomy,  distribution, basic biology, and ecology is also provided. Summaries are  documented and each contains a complete bibliography.
LANDFIRE: This system consists of a database and models that will  provide nationwide data on vegetation conditions and departure from fire  regimes. The data and system will be used by forests and BLM field offices  to identify how much vegetation has accumulated beyond historical  conditions for purposes of reducing fuels.
Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS): This is a database of  different fuelbeds that can exist around the country. A fuelbed is a unit of  land on a landscape that contains relatively homogenous fuel conditions in  the form of different vegetation. The fuelbeds are created by classifying the  amount and type of vegetation—which acts as fuel—in six different  strata—canopy, shrub, low vegetation, woody fuel, mosses, and ground  fuels.
Fuel Photo Series: The series contains a collection of photos showing a  range of natural vegetation conditions in the field and their related fuel  conditions. The photos can be compared to actual conditions on the  ground for fire and land managers to use in running fire effects models and  to plan fuel reduction projects.
Bluesky: This smoke-dispersion model simulates the cumulative impacts  from wildland fires, prescribed fires, and agricultural burn activities. The  model can be used by air quality regulators and land managers who are  planning prescribed burns for purposes of minimizing the effects of smoke  on communities and other areas with impaired air quality.
Ventilation Climate Information System (VCIS): This is a national climate  model that predicts localized inversions that can hold in smoke, causing  impaired air quality. Fire and land managers can use the model to plan  prescribed burns to minimize their effect on air quality.
CONSUME: CONSUME is an interactive model of fuel consumption that  estimates the amount of fuels consumed during prescribed and wildland  fires. It predicts the amount of smoke and pollutants emitted from a  particular fire based on weather data, the amount of fuel, fuel moisture,  and other factors. Land managers use the model to plan for prescribed  burns.
Fire Emissions Production Simulator (FEPS): This model estimates the  rate of gas, heat, and particle emissions from a fire. It calculates total fuel  consumption and determines short-term and long-term smoldering and  consumption. Land managers use this to plan a response to smoke  emissions from a wildland fire.
Fire Effects Tradeoff Model (FETM): This model simulates changes in  vegetation composition over time—1 to 300 years—and shows the different  outcomes from alternative land management practices over the selected  time frame. It does not display these spatially but summarizes the  landscape composition in various categories, such as density classes, acres  disturbed, and fire emissions. It can be used by managers when planning a  number of activities over a large area—over 1 million acres.
National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS): The system combines  weather, climate, and fuels information to predict the potential for wildland  fires to occur on a daily basis. Land managers use the system to plan the  timing of prescribed burns and to anticipate when wildland fires might  occur.
section_title: Consolidated Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
section_title: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Nancy Crothers, Sandy Davis, Susan Iott,  Rich Johnson, and Ches Joy made key contributions to this report.  Mark  Braza, Jean McSween, Kim Raheb, Jena Sinkfield, and Joan Vogel made  important methodological and graphic contributions to the report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs