Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information
and a Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of
Environmental Effects (24-JUN-04, GAO-04-705).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-705
ACCNO: A10661
TITLE: Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better
Information and a Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of
Environmental Effects
DATE: 06/24/2004
SUBJECT: Data collection
Environmental monitoring
Forest management
National forests
National policies
Public lands
Range management
Environmental effects
Risk assessments
Wildland fires
National Fire Plan
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-705
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
June 2004
WILDLAND FIRES
Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a Systematic Approach for
Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects
a
GAO-04-705
Highlights of GAO-04-705, a report to congressional requesters
Decades of fire suppression, as well as changing land management
practices, have caused vegetation to accumulate and become altered on
federal lands. Concerns about the effects of wildland fires have increased
efforts to reduce fuels on federal lands. These efforts also have
environmental effects. The requesters asked GAO to (1) describe effects
from fires on the environment, (2) assess the information gathered by the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on such effects, and
(3) assess the agencies' approaches to environmental risks associated with
reducing fuels.
This report recommends that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior (1) develop a plan to implement the agencies' monitoring
framework, (2) develop guidance that formalizes the assessment of
landscape-level risks to ecosystems, and (3) clarify existing guidance,
working with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to assess the
risks of environmental effects from reducing fuels.
Commenting on the draft report, Agriculture and Interior agreed that more
data are needed and prioritization of fuels work can be improved, but had
concerns about developing guidance on a riskbased approach. CEQ commented
that its guidance is not intended to address risk analysis.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-705.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202)
512-9775 or [email protected].
June 2004
WILDLAND FIRES
Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a Systematic Approach for
Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects
Wildland fires can have dramatic effects on environmental resources and
ecosystems, including production of large amounts of smoke, loss of trees,
and erosion of soil into streams and lakes. However, fires can also
benefit resources by recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth,
and adding gravel to streams, which improves spawning habitat for fish.
The 20 wildland fires that we surveyed burned over 158,000 acres of
federal land and had complex, wide-ranging, and sometimes contradictory,
effects on both individual resources, such as trees and streams, and
ecosystems. For example, the short-term effects of the Missionary Ridge
fire in Colorado that burned almost 50,000 acres of trees and other
vegetation included increased debris and sediment that affected water
quality in some areas. However, in other areas, officials said even
dramatic changes to streams would not be detrimental in the long term.
The Forest Service and BLM gather specific information on the
environmental effects of individual wildland fires, such as soil erosion.
The agencies do not, however, gather comprehensive data on the severity of
wildland fire effects on broad landscapes and ecosystems-that is, large
areas that may involve one or more fires. The agencies recently developed
a monitoring framework to gather severity data for fires, but they have
not yet implemented it. These data are needed to monitor the progress of
the agencies' actions to restore and maintain resilient fire-adapted
ecosystems, a goal of the National Fire Plan.
The National Fire Plan directs the Forest Service and BLM to target their
fuel reduction activities with the purpose of lowering the risk of
environmental effects from wildland fires in areas that face the greatest
losses. However, the agencies do not systematically assess the risks
across landscapes that fires pose to different environmental resources or
ecosystems or the risks of taking no action on fuel reduction projects. At
the landscape level, the Forest Service and BLM do not have a formal
framework for systematically assessing the risk of fire to resources and
ecosystems, although some of the forests and BLM field offices have
developed risk assessments on their own or in collaboration with regional,
state, or local efforts. At the project level, while the agencies
recognize the need to better analyze the risk of acting to reduce fuels
versus not doing so, neither fire planning guidance nor National
Environmental Policy Act guidance specify how to do this. Opportunities
exist to clarify how the agencies should analyze the effects of not taking
action to reduce fuels. The agencies can clarify interim guidance to
implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and the agencies can, in
conjunction with CEQ, further develop the lessons learned from a CEQ
demonstration program carried out in 2003. Without a risk-based approach,
these agencies cannot target their fuel reduction projects across
landscapes or make fully informed decisions about which effects and
project alternatives are more desirable.
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Wildland Fires Have Wide-Ranging Effects on Environmental
Resources and Ecosystems, Depending on a Range of Factors
Forest Service and BLM Do Not Gather Comprehensive Information on the
Varied Effects of Wildland Fires on Ecosystems and Landscapes
The Forest Service and BLM Do Not Systematically Assess the Risks to
Environmental Resources and Ecosystems to Target and Conduct Fuel
Reduction Activities
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1 5 8
15
31
35 48 50 50
Appendixes Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V:
Appendix VI:
Appendix VII:
Appendix VIII: Appendix IX: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Fire Regime Condition Class Analysis
Definition of Fire/Burn Severity
Selected Wildland Fire Survey Results
Remote Sensing Data and Systems
Examples of Models for Assessing Wildland Fires and Fuels
Consolidated Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
57 61 64 65 75
78
82
86
88 88 88
Tables Table 1: Assessment of Overall Effects on Individual Resources
in
the Short and Long Term 17
Table 2: Description of Characteristic and Uncharacteristic Fire
Effects and Vegetation Conditions 22
Table 3: Forest Service and BLM Office Assessments and the Risk
Elements Addressed 40
Contents
Table 4: Results of GAO's Review of 10 Fuel Reduction Project
Environmental Assessments 45 Table 5: Classes of Fire Severity for Soils
and Vegetation 64 Table 6: Acres Burned by Fire, Land Ownership, and
Percent of
Forest and BLM Field Office Land Base 65 Table 7: Types and Uses of
Federal Land within Fire Perimeters 67 Table 8: Miles of Perennial Streams
and Number of Floods, Debris
Flows, or Landslides within Fire Perimeters 68 Table 9: Municipal
Watersheds within Severely Burned Areas 69 Table 10: Fires Affecting
Threatened and Endangered Species
Populations and Habitats 70 Table 11: Air Emissions by Fire 71 Table 12:
Fire Effects on Soils by Burn Severity and Erosion
Potential 72 Table 13: Fire Effects on Vegetation 73
Figures Figure 1: Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4: Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9:
Number of Fires and Acres Burned, 1960-2002 9
Effects of Wildland Fire in Treated and Untreated Areas
Burned by Wildland Fire 13
Conceptual Short-and Long-Term Effects on Vegetation
After a High-Severity Wildland Fire 16
Relationship of Ecosystem and Landscape Levels 25
Acres of Vegetation Burned Lightly, Moderately, and
Severely in 20 Sample Fires 27
Location of Forest Service and BLM Wildland Fires
Visited and Surveyed 58
Wildland Fire Hazard 62
Remote Sensing Technologies and the Data Produced 76
Images and Data Collected Using Aerial and Satellite
Technology Compared with an Actual Site 77
Contents
Abbreviations
BAER Burned Area Emergency Response
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation
FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class
HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA National Forest Management Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
June 24, 2004
Congressional Requesters
Decades of fire suppression, in conjunction with land management
activities that have excluded fire from the nation's forests and
rangelands,1 such as roads and trails, grazing, and development near
public land, have caused the accumulation of brush, small trees, and other
vegetation on federal and other lands. Recent fire seasons have shown that
these land management practices have had unforeseen consequences. The
accumulation and alteration of vegetation, in combination with an extended
drought that has covered much of the country, has caused wildland fires to
burn more intensely than they would under more natural or historical
vegetation conditions. In response to changing views of wildland fire, the
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy developed by the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior in 1995 recognized the natural role of
wildland fire and the potential for "catastrophic" fires to occur in areas
of accumulated vegetation. In 2000, federal scientists and land managers
estimated that 182 million acres of land in the United States had
accumulations of vegetation that were highly altered from more historical
conditions.
Under historical conditions, many forest and rangeland ecosystems- which
are different ecological units distinguished by physical characteristics
such as mountains, plains, and river basins, as well as their associated
plant and animal communities-have adapted to wildland fire, surviving and
regenerating after fires occur. Under these conditions, wildland fire can
often have beneficial effects for resources and ecosystems, such as
recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth, and sustaining
ecological functions. However, federal scientists and land managers
believe that the adverse effects of wildland fires are exacerbated in
ecosystems with uncharacteristic vegetation conditions, that is, in which
vegetation has accumulated or been altered by fire exclusion. Adverse
effects of wildland fire on individual resources include reduced air and
water quality, soil loss, and loss of threatened and endangered species
and their habitat. In addition, wildland fires that cover broad landscapes
can adversely affect all or parts of forest or rangeland ecosystems. In
particular, scientists and land managers are concerned that, after years
of fire exclusion, in dry forest ecosystems the large old trees that used
to survive
1We use the term rangelands to refer to grasslands and shrublands.
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.2 One purpose of this analysis is to ensure
that agencies have available detailed information concerning potentially
significant environmental impacts to inform their decision making. The
Forest Service and BLM typically conduct such analyses at two levels: the
entire national forest or BLM land unit, which can encompass several broad
landscapes, and the more specific project level, which addresses smaller
areas within the landscape.
2In determining the significance of a proposed action, agencies must
consider a variety of factors, including the action's geographic scope,
potential for controversy, and the degree to which the proposed action
threatens to violate federal, state, or local law. A significant effect
may exist even if the federal agency believes on balance that the effect
will be beneficial. When it is uncertain whether the proposed action would
have significant environmental effects, agencies use environmental
assessments to determine whether the proposed action would have such
effects and therefore whether an environmental impact statement is
necessary.
Concerns about the severity of recent wildland fires and their
environmental effects have led to increased efforts to reduce fuels on
federal lands, which culminated in the enactment of the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act (HFRA) in December 2003.3 There has been considerable
disagreement over the extent of environmental effects of wildland fire on
federal lands, and what, if anything, to do about them. The timber
industry and other groups advocated increasing the use of mechanical tree
thinning and timber sales to reduce the vegetation accumulating on the
nation's forests and rangelands. Critics of this approach, which included
environmental groups, cited its potentially detrimental effects on
environmental resources, particularly large old trees. Both the advocates
and the critics generally agreed on the actions needed to address risk to
communities; however, there is little agreement as to what steps, if any,
should be taken to reduce the risk posed to ecosystems. In this context,
you asked us to (1) describe the effects wildland fires have on
environmental resources and ecosystems, (2) assess the information the
Forest Service and BLM gather on the extent of environmental effects of
wildland fires, and (3) assess the approaches the Forest Service and BLM
take to assess the risk to environmental resources from wildland fires and
the vegetation that has accumulated or been altered on federal lands.
3Pub. L. No. 108-148 (2003). One of the main purposes of the act is to
reduce wildfire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other
at-risk federal land through a collaborative process of planning,
prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuel reduction projects.
To describe the effects that wildland fires have on environmental
resources and ecosystems and assess the information the Forest Service and
BLM gather on the extent of these effects, we designed a survey of local
federal land managers who maintain this data. Our survey contained
questions about 20 wildland fires that we randomly selected from a
universe of 614 wildland fires. Some of the questions required that the
land managers provide their opinions of conditions or make predictions
about the future effects of a wildland fire rather than providing data
about effects that had already occurred, and therefore there is a greater
amount of uncertainty regarding the accuracy of these responses. We
identified the 614 fires through Forest Service and BLM reports completed
in fiscal years 2000 through 2002 on the emergency actions needed to
stabilize areas burned in the fires. We used these reports to identify our
sample because the reports are developed for wildland fires that the
agencies determined are likely to have had considerable environmental
effects. We conducted a random sample of these 614 fires to ensure that we
had a range of small, medium, and large wildland fires.4 To gather
information on the approaches the Forest Service and BLM use to assess the
risks to environmental resources posed by wildland fire, we reviewed
federal wildland fire policies, the National Fire Plan, and agency
guidance and planning and project documents. We also interviewed federal
and state agency officials, scientists from several of the Forest
Service's research stations, and university experts on fire and fire
effects. We attended two national conferences on fire issues and visited
national forests and BLM state offices in eight western states that had
experienced large fires. We conducted our review from April 2003 through
April 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix I provides further details about the scope and
methodology of our review.
Results in Brief The 20 wildland fires that we surveyed burned over
158,000 acres of federal land and had complex, wide-ranging, and sometimes
contradictory, effects on both individual resources, such as trees and
streams, and ecosystems. For example, the Missionary Ridge fire in
Colorado burned almost 50,000 acres. The loss of trees and vegetation in
some of the burned areas, as well as chemical and physical changes in the
soil, has caused increased flooding and debris flows in local streams,
which has affected water quality in the short term. However, in the long
term, land managers indicated that even
4To ensure that all sizes were represented, we conducted a systematic
random sample. In this method, the fires were ordered by size and then
fires were selected at regular intervals.
dramatic changes to streams in other burned areas would not be
detrimental. Of the 20 wildland fires in our survey, the land managers
viewed the effects of the wildland fires as adverse, neutral, or
beneficial, depending on a number of factors, including the short-and
long-term time frames in which the effects were described, and the type
and condition of the vegetation that had existed in the burned area. The
managers also reported that the 20 fires had effects across broad
landscapes and that these effects varied in severity.
The Forest Service and BLM gather specific information and data on the
effects of some individual wildland fires on environmental resources, such
as soil erosion or acres of trees burned, for the purpose of stabilizing
burned areas. However, they do not gather comprehensive data on the
longterm severity of wildland fire effects on broad landscapes and
ecosystems-that is, on large areas that may involve one or more burns-
because they do not have a monitoring plan to gather landscape data across
fires. Wildland fires can have varying effects over time and space, and,
as a result, it is important that the agencies have comprehensive data to
monitor the progress of the their actions to restore fire-adapted
ecosystems, a goal of the National Fire Plan. The agencies recently
developed a monitoring framework that includes fire severity, but this
plan has not yet been implemented. Data on severity would help the
agencies to assess whether, over time, fires in forest and rangeland
ecosystems are burning with more or less severe effects and whether the
ecosystems are being restored to more fire-adapted, or resilient,
conditions. Without the ability to identify the broad landscape effects of
fire on vegetation conditions as fires occur, the agencies will have
difficulty showing whether they have met their identified desired
conditions and whether different ecosystems are becoming more or less
resilient to fire.
The Forest Service and BLM, when planning fuel reduction activities, do
not have a systematic approach that allows them to assess the risks of
environmental effects from wildland fires at the landscape level or the
specific project level. As a result, the agencies do not systematically
assess the risks that fires pose to different environmental resources or
ecosystems or the risks of taking no action on fuel reduction projects,
although the National Fire Plan directs them to target their fuel
reduction activities in areas that face the greatest losses. At the
landscape level, the Forest Service and BLM do not have a common framework
for assessing the risk of fire to environmental resources and ecosystems
as part of their fuel reduction efforts because they and the Congress have
placed high priority on assessing areas that threaten communities. The
agencies have not
focused exclusively on communities, as several of their field offices have
begun efforts to assess the risks of environmental and ecosystem effects
in planning their fuel reduction activities. Without a systematic approach
to assessing risk to ecosystems at the landscape level, the agencies
cannot effectively target their fuel reduction activities to protect areas
that face the greatest losses, or, conversely, identify areas that can
benefit from the reintroduction of fire. To formalize a common framework
for such risk assessments, the Forest Service and BLM could use the
experience of other agencies that conduct risk assessments, such as the
Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Environmental Protection
Agency, as well as the experience of those field offices that have
independently conducted such assessments. In assessing the risks
associated with individual projects, the Forest Service and BLM have in
some instances assessed, under NEPA, the risk of acting to reduce fuels
versus the risk of not doing so. We reviewed 10 of the agencies'
assessments and determined the agencies did not systematically assess the
risks of taking or not taking action to reduce fuels. Agency guidance is
not specific about how this assessment should be performed and whether
these analyses should be contained in NEPA documentation. The agencies
have opportunities to specify how the risks of not reducing fuels should
be assessed and where this assessment should be documented. The agencies
have developed interim guidance for implementing the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act, but the guidance does not go far enough in describing the
analysis needed for showing the effects of not reducing fuels. Also, the
agencies and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) are developing
model environmental assessments and lessons learned from a demonstration
program developing model environmental assessments for fuel reduction
projects, in which the agencies participated. Without a risk-based
approach at the project level, the agencies cannot make fully informed
decisions about which effects and project alternatives are more desirable.
We are making recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to help ensure that the Forest Service and BLM develop (1) the
information needed to better understand the full extent of environmental
and ecosystem effects from wildland fires, (2) a systematic framework for
the assessment of risks at the landscape level to target where fuel
reduction activities need to occur, and (3) specific guidance on a
risk-based approach to make trade-offs among the environmental effects of
acting to reduce fuels or doing nothing.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Departments of Agriculture
and the Interior stated that the report provided a thorough analysis of a
complex set of issues. They agreed that information on the long-term
effects of fire is needed and noted that on May 18, 2004, they approved a
monitoring framework that includes such information. They also agreed that
prioritization of fuel reduction projects can be improved but expressed a
number of concerns about our recommendation that they develop a systematic
risk-based approach to help prioritize projects. Finally, they did not
agree with our recommendation that they provide specific guidance on the
assessment of the effects of not taking action to reduce fuels. CEQ also
provided comments on this recommendation, stating that we should not imply
that CEQ's guidance to help develop fuel reduction projects was meant to
discuss risk analysis and the risks of not taking action to reduce fuels.
While we made modifications to our report to address these concerns and to
clarify our recommendations, we continue to believe that our
recommendations are warranted.
Background Wildland fire is an inevitable natural ecological disturbance
that has helped to shape ecosystems over time. Fires are driven by climate
and weather conditions, topography, and fuels-including trees, brush,
grasses, dead leaves and needles, and other material that will burn.
Thousands of fires are started each year by natural causes, such as
lightning, or human causes, such as arson. These fires burn millions of
acres of state and federally owned land (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Number of Fires and Acres Burned, 1960-2002 300,000 10,000,000
Number of fires
Number of acres
240,000 8,000,000
180,000 6,000,000
120,000 4,000,000
60,000 2,000,000
0 1960 1964 1968 1972
Calendar year 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Number of fires
Acres of land burned Sources: National Interagency Fire Center (data); GAO
(analysis).
Although fire is a natural component of many ecosystems, and although
humans have used fire for land and resource management purposes for
thousands of years-such as creating improved pasture for animals and
improved land for agriculture-fire can be unpredictable and potentially
destructive. The potential destructiveness of fire is a particular concern
for the growing number of communities on the fringe of wildland areas that
are prone to fire. These communities create a wildland-urban interface,
where houses and other infrastructure are in or near wildland fuels.
Because fires can have dramatic social, economic, and environmental
effects, land management agencies and federal land managers have sought to
suppress fires for much of the twentieth century. In particular, large,
intense fires in 1910 focused federal policy on suppression to prevent
damage to ecological resources. Suppression, in combination with land
management activities such as building roads and trails, grazing, and
increasing development near public lands, has excluded fire from
ecosystems and caused the uncharacteristic accumulation of vegetation in
some forest and grassland ecosystems. In 2000, the Forest Service and BLM
completed a national study of fuel conditions called the Coarse-Scale
Analysis, which estimated that 182 million acres of the nation's land have
an uncharacteristic buildup of fuels.5 The analysis produced categories of
vegetation conditions ranked as low, medium, and high. The categories,
called fire regime condition classes, represent the increasing
accumulation and alteration of vegetation conditions and the potential for
uncharacteristic wildland fire and its effects. (See app. II for a
detailed description of the analysis.) In 2002, the agencies updated the
analysis for the western states, estimating that almost 183 million acres
in western states alone have highly altered vegetation. Based on
additional analysis, the agencies estimated that the amount of highly
altered vegetation nationwide could vary from 90 to 200 million acres. In
the 2002 analysis, the agencies estimated that 99 million acres of Forest
Service and BLM lands in western states have highly altered vegetation.
Refinement of the analysis for the nation is expected to be completed in
2005.
5Kirsten M. Schmidt, James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendel J. Hann, and
David L. Bunnell, Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland
Fire and Fuel Management, GTR RMRS-87 (Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station:
April 2002).
The National Fire Plan6 recognizes the need for restoring historic, or
characteristic, vegetation conditions as an important way to reduce the
risks of wildland fire and its effects. Under historic conditions, each
vegetation type has a characteristic fire "regime," in which the
vegetation and species have adapted to, and benefit from, the kind of
fires that occur there. Fires that occur in a given fire regime display
similar fire behavior, which refers to how frequently fires burn, how
intensely they burn, and how large they grow. Furthermore, the effects of
fires in different fire regimes can be more or less severe, depending on
the types of fires that typically burn there. For example, ecosystems such
as ponderosa pine forests benefit from and are sustained by the frequent
occurrence of less intense fires to remove brush and small trees, which
allows the large trees to survive and grow. The severity of effects of
these fires on resources and the ecosystem are usually low or moderate. On
the other hand, other ecosystems, such as lodgepole pine forests, rely on
less frequent but more intense fires to remove all the trees and
regenerate a new stand from seeds dropped by fire-adapted cones. These
fires are typically intense, but they are characteristic of the ecosystem
and are needed to sustain it.
In 2001 and 2002, as part of the National Fire Plan, the federal agencies,
states, and others involved in wildland fire management developed a 10
year strategy and implementation plan to reduce the risks of wildland fire
to communities and ecosystems. The strategy established four broad goals
for wildland fire management: (1) improving fire prevention and
suppression for those areas that need it; (2) reducing hazardous fuels,
using both natural and managed fire or mechanical means; (3) restoring
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.7
6While the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and the National Fire
Plan are distinct efforts, they are complementary. The policy, updated in
2001, provides broad policy for federal agencies, while the National Fire
Plan focuses on implementing interagency plans.
7To deal with the need for fuel reduction and restoring fire-adapted
ecosystems, the departments have drafted a joint fuel reduction policy
entitled Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuel
Treatment Strategy. The cohesive strategy, although first drafted in 2002,
had not been released as of June 2004. It identifies the federal agencies'
strategy for dealing with fuel reduction and restoring fire-adapted
ecosystems.
Reducing hazardous fuels is one of the key tools for reducing the risks of
wildland fires. Evidence from fires, such as that shown in figure 2,
encourages managers and scientists to believe that areas treated to reduce
vegetation can help to slow down the progress of wildland fires that
occur; in addition, the evidence leads managers to believe that treated
areas do not suffer as severe effects from burning as they would without
the treatment.8 In addition, researchers have conducted modeling that
indicates strategically placed fuel reduction areas can slow the spread of
wildland fire across a landscape. Empirical confirmation is needed,
although some forests, such as the forests in the Sierra Nevada, are
working to apply these ideas in their fuel reduction treatments. Debate
continues not only over the effectiveness of treatments, but over the
extent and duration of treatments needed. These are areas that federal and
university researchers continue to pursue through the Joint Fire Science
Program9 and other research programs. Despite uncertainties related to the
effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments, federal and other wildland
fire managers believe that they know enough to proceed with treatments in
particular areas while research is completed.
8See Graham, Russell, et al., Scientific Basis for Changing Forest
Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity, RMRS-GTR-120 (Ogden,
Utah, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station: April 2004).
9The Congress established the Joint Fire Science Program in 1998 for the
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to conduct and sponsor
research projects aimed at better understanding accumulated fuels and ways
to reduce them.
Figure 2: Effects of Wildland Fire in Treated and Untreated Areas Burned
by Wildland Fire
Photo (A)
Sources: Forest Service (photos); GAO (presentation).
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy requires that federal lands
with burnable vegetation have a fire management plan. Of the 750 million
acres managed by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, the
Forest Service and BLM manage 453 million acres of forest and rangeland.
Although the Forest Service manages most of the federal forested land in
the nation-about 192 million acres-about 55 million acres of BLM's 261
million acres are forested, while the remainder contain grass and
shrublands.10 A fire management plan produced by each forest or BLM field
office establishes the objectives, strategies, and resources needed to
carry
10BLM's lands include about 11 million acres of forested land, which is
determined to have commercially viable species, and almost 44 million
acres of woodlands, which are determined to be covered in tree species
that are not considered commercially viable, such as juniper trees.
out the fire program for that office. The plan divides a forest or BLM
field office into smaller fire management units for which fire management
strategies, including suppression, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and
nonfire fuel treatments, are coordinated. The forests and BLM offices-in
conjunction with other federal agencies-have been directed to complete
updated fire plans in 2004.
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy also states that each forest
and BLM field office should base its fire plan on its land management
plan. Both the Forest Service and BLM manage their lands for multiple
uses, including timber production, wildlife, recreation, and wilderness
uses. Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the law that
directs the planning of national forests in the Forest Service, all of the
155 national forests have land and resource management plans for the lands
they manage.11 Generally, these plans divide a forest into smaller
management units with specific desired conditions to meet the agency's
objectives for the different resources in that area. Similarly, BLM field
offices, which are organized under state offices in 12 western states,
develop resource management plans under the Federal Land Management Policy
Act for the lands they manage. Similar to the national forests' plans,
these plans identify the specific desired conditions that will meet the
agency's objectives in that area. During the next 8 years, over half of
the forests will be updating their land and resource management plans; BLM
offices are also in the process of updating their resource management
plans. Although many of the existing plans included little or no
discussion of wildland fire and its effects, vegetation and fuel
conditions, or the tools for managing wildland fire, the new plans will
discuss these as appropriate. Currently, each agency's regulations require
an environmental impact statement to accompany a plan revision.12
11Because some forests are grouped with others in administrative units,
these forests develop one combined plan. For this reason, 123 forests will
revise their resource management plans.
12In proposed amendments to its NFMA regulations, the Forest Service would
not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement for every
plan revision. The agency asserts that it may comply with NEPA by
preparing an environmental assessment for plan revisions under some
circumstances, or by categorically excluding certain plan revisions from
NEPA analysis because not all plan revisions will have significant
environmental effects. An environmental group has indicated it will
challenge the new planning rule in court. According to the Forest Service,
regardless of whether it prepares an environmental impact statement to
accompany a forest plan revision, it will conduct environmental analyses
for these revisions.
To implement their land and resource management plans, the agencies carry
out specific projects-addressing, for example, fuel reduction, timber
sales, grazing, habitat improvement, and recreation. Because these
projects may cause environmental effects, the agencies generally carry out
either an environmental assessment, which is a less detailed analysis, or
an environmental impact statement for their proposed projects. These
analyses may consider different approaches for carrying out a project-
called action alternatives. The agencies may also consider an alternative
that involves taking no action-called the no-action alternative. In
developing their analyses, the agencies are required to disclose the
potential environmental effects of alternatives.
Wildland Fires Have Wide-Ranging Effects on Environmental Resources and
Ecosystems, Depending on a Range of Factors
While they burn and afterward, wildland fires have dramatic effects on
environmental resources and ecosystems, including the production of large
amounts of smoke, the burning of trees and other vegetation, and the
erosion of soil into streams and lakes. However, fires can also benefit
resources by recycling soil nutrients, renewing vegetation growth, and
adding material to streams that improves spawning habitat for fish. The 20
fires included in our survey highlighted the complex, wide-ranging-and
sometimes contradictory-effects of fire on both individual resources, such
as trees and streams, and ecosystems. For the 20 wildland fires in our
survey, the land managers viewed the effects of the wildland fires as
adverse, neutral, or beneficial, depending on a number of factors,
including when the effects were described-in the short term or the long
term-and the type and condition of the vegetation in the area that burned.
The managers also reported that the 20 fires had effects across broad
landscapes and that these effects varied in severity. The wildland fires
in our survey burned over 158,000 acres of federal land in 10 states:
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, and Wyoming, with as few as 243 acres and as many as almost 50,000
acres burning in one fire. (See app. III for the definition of severity
used in our survey and app. IV for a detailed description of our survey
results.)
Fire Effects on Individual Resources Vary in the Short and Long Term
Fire effects can be considered as adverse, neutral, or beneficial
depending, in part, on which resource is evaluated and the time frame over
which the effects are considered. Fire effects are often described at
three times: (1) immediately after the fire; (2) in the short term, which
lasts from 1 to less than 10 years after the fire; and (3) in the long
term, which lasts 10 years or more after a fire.13 Unlike fire damage to
homes, ecological damages from fire are more difficult to determine
immediately after the fire because burned areas look devastated, even when
these conditions are part of the natural, fire-adapted cycle. For example,
although large, intense fires can kill vegetation in the burned area and
generate substantial smoke, some vegetation, such as aspen and native
grasses, regrows quickly from root systems. Also, although fires can kill
individual animals in the short term, in the long term, many species are
attracted to burned areas because of increases in food sources from new
plant growth, increased numbers of insects and other prey, or because of
increased denning or nesting habitat that dead trees provide. Figure 3
shows, conceptually, the effects and recovery of vegetation after a
high-severity wildland fire over the short and long term.
Figure 3: Conceptual Short-and Long-Term Effects on Vegetation After a
High-Severity Wildland Fire
Ecological response (change in green biomass)
Growth
Burned
Short-term Long-term Recovery period (in years) Sources: Forest Service
(graph); GAO (presentation).
13We used the Forest Service's Fire Effects Information System to define
short-term effects as those lasting less than 10 years and long-term effects as
those lasting 10 or more years.
When we surveyed Forest Service and BLM officials about the effects of the
20 fires that occurred on federal lands, land managers consistently
responded that fire effects would be less adverse in the long term than in
the short term for each ecological resource, even though their responses
differed across resources. Officials identified whether the fire had an
adverse, neutral, or beneficial effect on each of several resources in
both the short and long term. As shown in table 1, while many land
managers in our survey indicated these fires would have adverse effects on
individual resources in the short term, fewer responded that the effects
would be adverse in the long term. A discussion of the effects on each of
the individual resources follows the table.
Table 1: Assessment of Overall Effects on Individual Resources in the
Short and Long Term
Neither No basis to judge, Resource and time beneficial nor not
applicable, or period Beneficial adverse Adverse not answered Air
Short term 1 7 9
Long term 1 1 2
Threatened and endangered species habitat
Short term 4 3 3
Long term 3 8 1
Other species' habitat
Short term 5 5 10
Long term 9 6 4
Soil
Short term 5 5 10
Long term 4 9 7
Vegetation
Short term 10 0 10 0
Long term 8 4 6 2
Water and watersheds
Short term 11 0 9 0
Long term 6 9 5 0 Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM land
managers.
Notes: Because the officials provided answers about the effects of a fire
on each resource, the columns do not add to 20.
The responses are based on the opinions of land managers.
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.
Effects of Wildland Fire Vary Depending on Topography, Climate and Weather,
and Vegetation Conditions
Researchers and land managers describe fire effects using levels of
severity: low severity, moderate severity, and high severity. (See app.
III for the definition of severity used in our survey.)14 The severity of
effects depends on the intensity of the fire-the amount of heat released
in a fire- and its duration in relation to the historic fire regime. The
intensity of a fire depends on its topography, climate and weather, and
vegetation or fuels. First, topography includes locally unique site
properties, such as the slope of the terrain, the direction in which the
ground slopes, and the soil moisture, each of which affect how intensely a
fire burns. For example, fires burn faster and more intensely on steep
slopes, which allow a fire to move uphill driven by winds, and on
south-facing slopes, which are drier than north-facing slopes. Second,
climate and seasonal weather conditions such as drought cycles and high
winds also determine how a fire will burn and how severe the effects of
burning will be. Climate and weather also determine the extent to which
storms occur after a fire; stronger and more frequent storms can result in
increased erosion and landslides. Finally, the type and condition of
vegetation in an area determines how much "fuel" is available to burn and
thus how intense a fire will be and how severe its effects may be. For
example, rangelands have less vegetation, and therefore lower amounts of
fuel to burn, than forested areas. Furthermore, areas with accumulated
vegetation have more fuels to burn than they would under more natural
conditions.
Whether or not the environmental effects of a wildland fire are considered
as adverse, neutral, or beneficial depends on the degree to which
vegetation conditions have been changed from the historic fire regime in
an area. For example, a fire that burns in a high-elevation forest filled
with spruce and fir trees-a fire regime that historically has fewer but
more
14Fire or burn severity is a term that qualitatively describes how fire
affects vegetation and soil. It is a term that refers to how much of the
vegetation or soil is consumed in the fire rather than a term that
describes the beneficial or adverse nature of the effects.
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).
Table 2: Description of Characteristic and Uncharacteristic Fire Effects and
Vegetation Conditions Vegetation conditions, amount of alteration
Characteristic (+)
Federal acres Mixed (+/-)
Fire burned Low Medium High Uncharacteristic (-)
Sheep Mountain
(Wyoming) 21,370 x +
Burgdorf Junction
(Idaho) 17,207 x +
Elko 13/#3
(Nevada) 12,544 x +
Abert
(Oregon) 10,100 x +
Stables
(California) 4,162 x +
Horse Creek
(Oregon) 1,839 x +
Pony Express II
(Nevada) 1,806 x +
Crusoe
(Nevada) 1,386 x +
Elk Mountain
(Montana) 667 x +
Y-Mountain
(Utah) 437 x +
Missionary Ridge
(Colorado) 49,990 x +/-
Rough Diamonds
(Idaho) 7,268 x +/-
Springer
(Arizona) 666 x +/-
Crimson Clover
(Idaho) 14,466 x -
Boulder Hills
(Montana) 5,400 x -
Cow Hollow
(Oregon) 3,022 x -
Longleaf Vista
(Louisiana) 2,497 x -
Tipton Ranch
(Nevada) 2,025 x -
Hyampom
(California) 1,053 x -
(Continued From Previous Page)
Vegetation conditions, amount of alteration
Characteristic (+)
Federal acres Mixed (+/-)
Fire burned Low Medium High Uncharacteristic (-)
Horse
(Idaho) 243 x -
Total acres 158,148
Source: GAO survey of Forest Service and BLM land managers.
Notes: This sample cannot be projected to all wildland fires. The
responses are based on the opinions of land managers.
As table 2 shows, the third largest fire in our sample, the Burgdorf
Junction fire in Idaho, had characteristic effects. For this reason,
Forest Service officials considered the majority of the effects from this
fire to be beneficial, even though the fire burned more than 17,000 acres
of federal land, including areas that provided habitat for several
threatened and endangered species. Overall, the officials considered the
fire effects to support processes for maintaining the ecosystem, which
includes lodgepole pine and Douglas fir forests. For example, officials
stated that the debris flows from the fire introduced gravel into streams,
providing new spawning grounds for fish. In addition, officials stated
that burned areas of the lodgepole forest were turned into more open
stands of brush and grasses, improving gray wolf and lynx habitat.
Of the three fires that officials identified as having a mix of
characteristic and uncharacteristic effects, one-the Missionary Ridge fire
in Colorado- was the largest fire included in our sample. Forest Service
officials noted that the adverse effects of the fire in the short term
included numerous floods and debris flows, which affected the water
quality of streams supplying water to surrounding municipalities. They
also indicated that in areas where the fire burned uncharacteristically,
long-term adverse effects on streams included destabilized banks and loss
of riparian area. On the other hand, the officials noted that in areas
where the fire burned characteristically, changes to the streambed and
riparian areas would not be adverse over the long term.
Of the seven fires with uncharacteristic effects, Forest Service officials
identified the smallest fire in our sample-the Horse fire of 243 acres-as
having adverse effects on resources. A Forest Service official reported
that this fire in Idaho's Salmon-Challis National Forest had immediate
adverse effects on the vegetation because of the size of the severely
burned area, although he believed that in the long term, fire-killed trees
might benefit the
Canada lynx by providing denning areas. Similarly, BLM officials viewed
the 2,025-acre Tipton Ranch fire in Nevada as having adverse effects on
vegetation because the fire exacerbated the conversion of native plant
species such as grass and sage brush to invasive grasses such as cheat
grass. Our survey showed that the number of acres vulnerable to population
by noxious and invasive plant species such as cheat grass- which competes
with native vegetation and alters the historic fire regime- after the 20
fires increased from about 32,130 acres to about 58,800 acres (83
percent). Several officials raised concerns about the spread of such
invasive species as cheat grass into sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper
vegetation types because it is highly flammable, and areas dominated by it
may burn frequently. More frequent fires in such ecosystems may eliminate
the native plants such as sage brush, which is important habitat for sage
grouse.
Fires Have Broad Landscape Effects