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. 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. For example, officials indicated that the short-term loss of  vegetation cover after the Horse Creek fire would cause soil erosion and  loss. Forest Service and BLM Do Not Gather Comprehensive Information on the Varied Effects of Wildland Fires on Ecosystems and Landscapes

Although the National Fire Plan established a goal of restoring forest and  rangeland ecosystems to conditions that are more fire-adapted, and  therefore more resilient to fire, land managers do not have comprehensive  data on the broad landscape effects of wildland fire to help them monitor  these effects over time. 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 Forest Service and BLM Do Not Systematically Assess the Risks to Environmental Resources and Ecosystems to Target and Conduct Fuel Reduction Activities

Although the National Fire Plan identifies the need to reduce the risk of  environmental and ecosystem effects from wildland fires by targeting fuel  reduction activities to the areas that face the greatest potential losses, the  Forest Service and BLM do not systematically assess the risks to resources  and ecosystems for the purpose of targeting fuel reduction projects. 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. Guidance Is Unclear About How to Assess and Document the Risks of Environmental Effects of Fuel Reduction Projects

The varied use of risk assessment at the project level is a result of the fact  that the agencies do not have clear guidance about the systematic  assessment of the risks of environmental effects from wildland fire from  fuel reduction projects. 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). Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the agencies’ ability to identify and manage the actual and  potential effects of wildland fires on the environment, we recommend that  the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, after consulting with the  Wildland Fire Leadership Council, direct the Forest Service and BLM to   develop a monitoring plan to implement the agencies’ framework  approved in May 2004 and include a pilot program for testing on Forest  Service and BLM lands the applicability of, and resource needs  associated with, the burn severity mapping and data tool developed by  the National Park Service;  develop and issue guidance, in consultation with experts inside and  outside the agencies, that formalizes a framework for systematically  assessing landscape-level risks to ecosystems from wildland fires; and  clarify existing guidance, working with CEQ and taking into account any  lessons learned from the CEQ demonstration program, on the  assessment and documentation of the risks of environmental effects  associated with not conducting fuel reduction projects.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.