Order Code RL30755
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection
Updated February 14, 2005
Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection
Summary
Congress continues to face questions about forestry practices, funding levels,
and the federal role in wildland fire protection. The 2000 and 2002 fire seasons were,
by most standards, among the worst in the past half century. National attention began
to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May 2000 escaped control and
burned 239 homes in Los Alamos, NM. President Clinton responded by requesting
a doubling of wildfire management funds, and Congress enacted much of this
proposal in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291). President Bush
responded to the severe 2002 fires by proposing a Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce
fuel loads by expediting review processes.
Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages. Two major factors
are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas
into wildlands — the urban-wildland interface. Over the past century, aggressive
wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many
ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas
now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an
historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders).
Fuel treatments have been proposed to reduce the wildfire threats. Prescribed
burning — setting fires under specified conditions — can reduce the fine fuels that
spread wildfires, but can escape and become catastrophic wildfires, especially if fuel
ladders (small trees and dense undergrowth) and wind spread the fire into the forest
canopy. Commercial timber harvesting is often proposed, and can reduce heavy fuels
and fuel ladders, but exacerbates the threat unless and until the slash (tree tops and
limbs) is properly disposed of. Other mechanical treatments (e.g., precommercial
thinning, pruning) can reduce fuel ladders, but also temporarily increase fuels on the
ground. Treatments can often be more effective if combined (e.g., prescribed burning
after thinning). However, some fuel treatments are very expensive, and the benefit
of treatments for reducing wildfire threats depend on many factors.
It should also be recognized that, as long as there is biomass, drought, and high
winds, catastrophic wildfires will occur. Only about 1% of wildfires become
conflagrations, but which fires will “blow up” into catastrophic wildfires is
unpredictable. It seems likely that management practices and policies, including fuel
treatments, affect the likelihood of such events. However, past experience with
wildfires are of limited value for building predictive models, and research on fire
behavior under various circumstances is difficult, at best. Thus, predictive tools for
fire protection and control are often based on expert opinion and anecdotes, rather
than on research evidence.
Individuals who choose to build homes in the urban-wildland interface face
some risk of loss from wildfires, but can take steps to protect their homes. Federal,
state, and local governments can and do assist by protecting their own lands, by
providing financial and technical assistance, and by providing relief after the fire.
This is a background report and is unlikely to be updated.

Contents
Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Federal Fire Policy Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Efficacy of Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Concerns and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Forest and Rangeland Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Fuel Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Prescribed Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Salvage and Other Timber Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Fuel Management Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fuel Management Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fire Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Wildfire Management Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fire Control Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Wildfire Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Landowner Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
State and Local Government Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . 21
Federal Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Land Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Cooperative Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Disaster Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection
The spread of housing into forests and other wildlands1, combined with various
ecosystem health problems, has substantially increased the risks to life and property
from wildfire. Wildfires seem more common than in the 1960s and 1970s, with
severe fire seasons in 1988, 1990, 1996, 1999, 2000, and 2002.2 National attention
was focused on the problem by an escaped prescribed fire that burned 239 houses in
Los Alamos, NM, in May 2000. Issues for Congress include oversight of the
agencies’ prescribed burning programs, of other fire management activities, and of
other wildland management practices that have altered fuel loads over time;
consideration of programs and processes for reducing fuel loads; and federal roles
and responsibilities for wildfire protection and damages.
Many of the discussions over wildfire protection focus on the several federal
agencies that manage lands and receive funds to prepare for and to control wildfires.
The Forest Service (FS), in the Department of Agriculture, is the “big brother”
among federal wildfire fighting agencies. The Forest Service is the oldest of the
federal land management agencies, having been created in 1905 with fire control as
a principal purpose. The Forest Service administers more forestland in the 48
coterminous states than any other federal agency, receives more than two-thirds of
federal fire funding, and created the symbol of fire prevention, Smokey Bear. The
Department of the Interior (DOI) contains several land managing agencies, including
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with DOI fire protection
programs coordinated and funded through the BLM. Despite the substantial attention
given to the FS and to other federal agencies, the majority of wildlands are privately
owned,3 and the states are responsible for fire protection for these lands, as well as
for their own lands.
1 Wildlands is a term commonly used for undeveloped areas — forests, grasslands, brush
fields, wetlands, deserts, etc. It excludes agricultural lands and pastures, residential areas,
and other, relatively intensively developed areas.
2 These are the five most recent years with more than 5 million acres burned nationally. The
severity of fire seasons is commonly assessed by acreage burned, but larger fires may not
be “worse” if they burn less intensely, because their damages may be lower. However, fire
intensity and damages are not measured for each wildfire, and thus cannot be used to gauge
the severity of fire seasons. It is uncertain whether acreage burned might be a reasonable
approximation of severity.
3 In 1997, there were 809.5 million acres of private forests and rangelands in the
coterminous 48 states. (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
and Iowa State Univ., Statistical Laboratory, Summary Report: 1997 National Resources
Inventory (revised December 2000)
, pp. 18-24.) This is substantially more than the 426.1
million acres of all federal lands in those 48 states. (U.S. General Services Administration,
Office of Governmentwide Policy, Federal Real Property Profile, as of September 30, 2002,
pp. 16-17.)

CRS-2
This report provides historical background on wildfires, and describes concerns
about the wildland-urban interface and about forest and rangeland health. The report
discusses fuel management, fire control, and fire effects. The report then examines
federal, state, and landowner roles and responsibilities in protecting lands and
resources from wildfires, and concludes by discussing current issues for federal
wildfire management. For information on the funding for these wildfire protection
programs, see CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding; information on
wildfire appropriations can be found in CRS Report RL32306, Appropriations for
FY2005: Interior and Related Agencies
.
Historical Background
Wildfire has existed in North America for millennia. Many fires were started
by lightning, although Native Americans also used wildland fire for various purposes.
Wildfires were a problem for early settlers. Major forest fires occurred in New
England and the Lake States in the late 1800s, largely fueled by the tree tops and
limbs (slash) left after extensive logging. One particularly devastating fire, the
Peshtigo, commonly cited as the worst in American history, burned nearly 4 million
acres, obliterated the town of Peshtigo, and killed 1,500 people in Wisconsin in 1871.
Large fires in cut-over areas and the subsequent downstream flooding were principal
reasons for Congress authorizing the President in 1891 to establish forest reserves
(now national forests).
Federal Fire Policy Evolution. The nascent Forest Service focused strongly
on halting wildfires in the national forests following several large fires that burned
nearly 5 million acres in Montana and Idaho in 1910. The desire to control wildfires
was founded on a belief that fast, aggressive control efforts were efficient, because
fires that were stopped while small would not become the large, destructive
conflagrations that are so expensive to control. In 1926, the agency developed its
“10-acre policy” — that all wildfires should be controlled before they reached 10
acres in size. This was clearly aimed at keeping wildfires small. Then in 1935, the
FS added its “10:00 a.m. policy” — that, for fires exceeding 10 acres, efforts should
focus on control before the next burning period began (at 10:00 a.m.). These policies
were seen as the most efficient and effective way to control large wildfires.4
In the 1970s, these aggressive FS fire control policies began to be questioned.
Research had documented that, in some situations, wildfires brought ecological
benefits to the burned areas — aiding regeneration of native flora, improving the
habitat of native fauna, and reducing infestations of pests and of exotic and invasive
species. In recognition of these benefits, the Forest Service and the National Park
Service initiated policies titled “prescribed natural fire,” colloquially known as “let-
burn” policies. Under these policies, fires burning within prescribed areas (such as
in wilderness areas) would be monitored, rather than actively suppressed; if weather
or other conditions changed or the wildfire threatened to escape the specified area,
it would then be suppressed. These policies remained in effect until the 1988
4 See Julie K. Gorte and Ross W. Gorte, Application of Economic Techniques to Fire
Management — A Status Review and Evaluation
, Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-53 (Ogden, UT:
USDA Forest Service, June 1979).

CRS-3
wildfires in Yellowstone National Park. Because at least one of the major fires in
Yellowstone was an escaped prescribed natural fire, the agencies temporarily ended
the use of the policy. Today, unplanned fire ignitions (by lightning or humans) that
occur within site and weather conditions established in fire management plans are
identified as wildland fires for resource benefit, and are part of the agencies’ fire use
programs.5
Aggressive fire control policies were ultimately abandoned for federal wildfire
planning in the late 1970s. The Office of Management and Budget challenged as
excessive proposed budget increases based on these policies and a subsequent study
suggested that the fire control policies would increase expenditures beyond efficient
levels.6
Concerns about unnatural fuel loads were raised in the 1990s. Following the
1988 fires in Yellowstone, Congress established the National Commission on
Wildfire Disasters, whose 1994 report described a situation of dangerously high fuel
accumulations.7 This report was issued shortly after a major conference examining
the health of forest ecosystems in the intermountain west.8 The summer of 1994 was
another severe fire season, leading to more calls for action to prevent future severe
fire seasons. The Clinton Administration developed a Western Forest Health
Initiative,9 and organized a review of federal fire policy, because of concerns that
federal firefighting resources had been diverted to protecting nearby private
residences and communities at a cost to federal lands and resources.10 In December
1995, the agencies released the new Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy &
Program Review: Final Report
, which altered federal fire policy from priority for
private property to equal priority for private property and federal resources, based on
values at risk. (Protecting human life is the first priority in firefighting.)
Concerns about historically unnatural fuel loads and their threat to communities
persist. In 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued two reports
5 U.S. Dept. of the Interior and Dept. of Agriculture, Federal Wildland Fire Management
Policy & Program Review: Final Report
(Washington, DC: Dec. 18, 1995).
6 Stephen J. Pyne, Fire In America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire
(Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1982), pp. 293-294.
7 R. Neil Sampson, chair, Report of the National Commission on Wildfire Disasters
(Washington, DC: 1994).
8 See R. Neil Sampson and David L. Adams, eds., Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the
Inland West: Papers from the American Forests Workshop, November 14th-20th, 1993, Sun
Valley, Idaho
(New York, NY: Food Products Press, 1994). Hereafter referred to as
Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West.
9 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Western Forest
Health Initiative
(Washington, DC: Oct. 31, 1994).
10 Bob Armstrong, Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management, U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, “Statement,” Fire Policy and Related Forest Health Issues, joint oversight
hearing, House Committees on Resources and on Agriculture, Oct. 4, 1994 (Washington,
DC: U.S. GPO, 1995), p. 9. Serials No. 103-119 (Committee on Resources) and 103-82
(Committee on Agriculture).

CRS-4
recommending a cohesive wildfire protection strategy for the FS and a combined
strategy for the FS and BLM to address certain firefighting weaknesses.11 The
Clinton Administration developed a program, called the National Fire Plan, and
supplemental budget request to respond to the severe 2000 fire season. In the
FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291), Congress enacted the additional
funding, and other requirements for the agencies.
During the severe 2002 fire season, the Bush Administration developed a
proposal, called the Healthy Forests Initiative, to expedite fuel reduction projects in
priority areas. The various elements of the proposal were debated, but none were
enacted during the 107th Congress.12 Some elements have been addressed through
proposed regulatory changes, while others were addressed in legislation in the 108th
Congress. (For information on those regulatory and legislative developments on
wildfire protection, see CRS Report RS22024, Wildfire Protection in the 108th
Congress
.)
Efficacy of Fire Protection. FS fire control programs appeared to be quite
successful until the 1980s. For example, fewer than 600,000 acres of FS protected
land13 burned each year from 1935 through 1986, after averaging 1.2 million acres
burned annually during the 1910s. As shown in Table 1, the average annual acreage
of FS protected land burned declined nearly every decade until the 1970s, but has
risen substantially in the past two decades, concurrent with the shift from fire control
to fire management. Furthermore, the acreage of FS protected land burned did not
exceed a million acres annually between 1920 and 1986; since then, more than a
million acres of FS protected land have burned in each of six years — 1987, 1988,
1994, 1996, 2000, and 2002. In contrast, the acreage burned of wildlands protected
by state or other federal agencies has declined substantially since the 1930s, and has
continued at a relatively modest level for the past 40 years, as shown in Table 1.
There are still occasional severe fire seasons, with more than six million acres
burned six times since 1960 — 1963, 1969, 1988, 1996, 2000, and 2002.
Nonetheless, the worst of these fire seasons (2000) is below the average annual total
acres burned in the 1950s. The last period shown appears significantly worse than
the preceding periods; it is unclear whether this is a statistical anomaly or a
significant increase in the worsening trend.
11 U.S. General Accounting Office, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is
Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats
, GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington, DC:
April 1999); and Federal Wildfire Activities: Current Strategy and Issues Needing Attention,
GAO/RCED-99-233 (Washington, DC: Aug. 1999). Hereafter referred to as GAO,
Cohesive Strategy Needed.
12 See CRS Report RL31679, Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107th Congress and
Issues in the 108th Congress
, by Ross W. Gorte.
13 Under several cooperative agreements, developed to improve protection efficiency, the
Forest Service protects some nonfederal lands, while other organizations protect some
national forest lands; the total acres protected by the Forest Service roughly equals the acres
in the National Forest System.

CRS-5
It should also be recognized that only a small fraction of wildfires become
catastrophic. In one case study, for 1986-1995 in Colorado, less than 1% of all
wildfire ignitions grew to more than 1,000 acres, but these larger fires accounted for
nearly 79% of the acreage burned.14 More than 95% of the fires were less than 50
acres, and these 12,608 fires accounted for only 3% of acreage burned. Thus, a small
percentage of the fires account for the vast majority of the acres burned, and probably
an even larger share of the damages and control costs, since the large fires
(conflagrations) burn more intensely than smaller fires and suppression costs (per
acre) are higher for conflagrations because of overhead management costs and the
substantial cost of aircraft used in fighting conflagrations.
Table 1. Average Annual Acreage Burned by Decade Since 1910
(in acres burned annually)
Average Annual Acres
Average Annual Acres
Decade
Burned, Forest Service
Burned, Non-FS Federal
Protected Lands
and Nonfederal Lands
1910-1919
1,243,572 acres
not available
1920-1929
616,834 acres
25,387,733 acres
1930-1939
343,013 acres
38,800,182 acres
1940-1949
269,644 acres
22,650,254 acres
1950-1959
261,264 acres
9,154,532 acres
1960-1969
196,221 acres
4,375,034 acres
1970-1979
242,962 acres
2,951,459 acres
1980-1989
488,023 acres
3,748,206 acres
1990-1999
554,577 acres
3,093,020 acres
2000-2002
1,104,130 acres
4,832,814 acres
Sources:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Service Historical Fire Statistics, unpublished
table (Washington, DC).
U.S. Dept. of the Interior and Dept. of Agriculture, National Interagency Fire Center, Wildland
Fire Statistics, at [http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html] on Sept. 20, 2000 (historical data
are no longer available at that site), with Forest Service acres burned deducted.
Concerns and Problems
Wildfires stir a primeval fear and fascination in most of us. Many have long
been concerned about the loss of valuable timber to fire and about the effects of fire
on soils, watersheds, water quality, and wildlife. In addition, the loss of houses and
14 Neuenschwander, Leon F., James P. Menakis, Melanie Miller, R. Neil Sampson, Colin
Hardy, Bob Averill, and Roy Mask, “Indexing Colorado Watersheds to Risk of Wildfire,”
Mapping Wildfire Hazards and Risks, R. Neil Sampson, R. Dwight Atkinson, and Joe W.
Lewis, eds. (New York, NY: Food Products Press, 2000), pp. 35-55.

CRS-6
other structures adds to wildfire damages. Historically, wildfires were considered a
major threat to people and houses primarily in the brushy hillsides of southern
California. However, people have increasingly been building their houses and
subdivisions in forests and other wildlands, and this expanding wildland-urban
interface
has increased the wildfire threat to people and houses. Also, a century of
using wildlands and suppressing wildfires has significantly increased fuel loads and
led to historically unnatural vegetative species and structures, and exacerbated
wildfire threats.15
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). The wildland-urban interface has been
defined as the area “where combustible homes meet combustible vegetation.”16 This
interface includes a wide variety of situations, ranging from individual houses and
isolated structures to subdivisions and rural communities surrounded by wildlands.
While this situation has always existed to some extent, subdivisions in wildland
settings appear to have grown significantly over the past two decades. Standard
definitions of the interface have been developed by the federal agencies,17 but have
not been used to assess the changing situation.
One particular aspect is that the growth of the interface has also increased the
roads into wildland settings. Increased road access has both benefits and costs for
protecting resources and people from wildfires. Increased human access generally
increases the frequency of wildfire ignitions — 88% of the fires from 1988-1997
were caused by humans, with only 12% caused by lightning. While human-caused
fires can be catastrophic, they are typically in accessible areas, and thus can often be
controlled more quickly; for example, only 48% of the acres burned from 1988-1997
were in human-caused fires. If the roads are mapped and marked (so that fire crews
can find their way) and are sufficiently wide for fire-fighting equipment, increased
access can allow for faster control efforts, and probably reduces the risk of a structure
being burned. However, poorly marked or unmarked, narrow, twisting roads exist
in some wildland subdivisions, in part because homeowners want to minimize non-
local traffic in and through the subdivision. In such situations, the poor access may
exacerbate the wildfire threat to homeowners.
Most observers agree that protecting homes and other structures in the interface
is an appropriate goal for safeguarding the highest values at risk from wildfire.
However, there are differences of opinion about how to best protect the WUI. FS
research has indicated that the characteristics of the structures and their immediate
15 For example, see R. Neil Sampson, David L. Adams, Stanley S. Hamilton, Stephen P.
Mealey, Robert Steele, and Dave Van De Graaff, “Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in
the Inland West: Overview,” Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West, pp. 3-
10.
16 Wildfire Strikes Home! The Report of the National Wildland/Urban Fire Protection
Conference
, sponsored by the USDA, Forest Service; the National Fire Protection
Association; and the FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration (Jan. 1987), p. 2.
17 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service,
“Urban Wildland Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at
High Risk From Wildfire,” Federal Register, v. 66, no. 3 (Jan. 4, 2001): pp. 751-754.

CRS-7
surroundings are the primary determinants of whether a structure burns. In particular,
non-flammable roofs and cleared vegetation for at least 10 meters (33 feet) and up
to 40 meters (130 feet) around the structure is highly likely to protect the structure
from wildfire, even when neighboring structures burn.18
Others, including sponsors of most wildfire protection bills, propose reducing
fuels in a band surrounding communities in the WUI. Three types of communities
in the interface have been identified: interface communities, intermix communities,
and occluded communities.19 Interface communities have a “clear line of
demarcation between ... structures and wildland fuels,” generally with 3 or more
structures per acre and shared municipal services, and typically with a population
density of at least 250 people per square mile. Intermix communities are “where
structures are scattered throughout a wildland area,” with fuels “continuous outside
of and within the developed area,” and a range of densities of structures. Occluded
communities
are situations where structures surround and isolate a pocket (usually
less than 1,000 acres) of wildland, like a large park. Many proposals for fuel
reduction would authorize treatments typically within a half mile (sometimes a
quarter mile) of interface or intermix communities.
Forest and Rangeland Health. The increasing extent of wildfires in the
national forests in the past two decades has been widely attributed to deteriorating
forest and rangeland health, resulting at least in some cases directly from federal
forest and rangeland management practices. Wildland ecological conditions in many
areas, particularly in the intermountain west (the Rocky Mountains through the
Cascades and Sierra Nevadas), have been altered by various activities. Beginning
more than a century ago, livestock grazing affected ecosystems by reducing the
amount of grass and changing the plant species mix in forests and on rangelands.
This reduced the fine fuels that carried surface fires (allowed them to spread),
encouraged trees to invade traditionally open grasslands and meadows, and allowed
non-native species to become established, all of which, experts believe, induce less
frequent but more intense wildfires.20 In addition, first to support mining and railroad
development and later to support the wood products industry, logging of the large
pines that characterized many areas has led to regeneration of smaller, less fire-
resistant trees in some areas.21 Roads that provide access for logging, grazing, and
recreation have also been implicated in spreading non-native species.22
18 Jack D. Cohen, “Preventing Disaster: Home Ignitability in the Wildland-Urban Interface,”
Journal of Forestry, v. 102, no. 3 (March 2000): 15-21.
19 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Dept. of the Interior, “Urban Wildland Interface
Communities Within the vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk From Wildfire,”
66 Federal Register 751-754 (Jan. 4, 2001).
20 W. W. Covington and M. M. Moore, “Postsettlement Changes in Natural Fire Regimes
and Forest Structure: Ecological Restoration of Old-Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests,”
Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West, pp. 153-181.
21 Jay O’Laughlin, “Assessing Forest Health Conditions in Idaho with Forest Inventory
Data,” Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West, pp. 221-247.
22 Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds,
(continued...)

CRS-8
The nature, extent, and severity of these forest and rangeland health problems
vary widely, depending on the ecosystem and the history of the site. In rangelands,
the problem is likely to be invasion by non-native species (e.g., cheat grass or spotted
knapweed) or by shrubs and small trees (e.g., salt cedar or juniper). In some areas
(e.g., western hemlock or inland Douglas-fir stands), the problem may be widespread
dead trees due to drought and/or insect or disease infestations. In others (e.g.,
southern pines and western mixed conifers), the problem may be dense undergrowth
of different plant species (e.g., palmetto in the south and firs in the west). In still
others (e.g., Ponderosa pine stands) the problem is more likely to be stand stagnation
(e.g., too many little green trees, because intra-species competition rarely kills
Ponderosa pines).
One FS research report has categorized these health problems, for wildfire
protection, by classifying ecosystems according to their historical fire regime.23 The
report describes five historical fire regimes:
I.
ecosystems with low-severity, surface fires at least every 35 years
(often called frequent fire ecosystems);
II. ecosystems
with
stand replacement fires (killing much of the standing
vegetation) at least every 35 years;
III. ecosystems with mixed severity fires (both surface and stand
replacement fires) at 35-100+ year intervals;
IV. ecosystems with stand replacement fires at 35-100+ year intervals;
and
V. ecosystems with stand replacement fires at 200+ year intervals.
It is widely recognized that fire suppression has greatly exacerbated these
ecological problems, at least in frequent fire ecosystems (fire regimes I and II) —
most grass and brush ecosystems and many forest ecosystems (e.g., southern yellow
pines and Ponderosa pine) that evolved with frequent surface fires that burned
grasses, pine needles, and other small fuels at least every 35 years, depending on the
site and plant species. Surface fires reduce fuel loads by mineralizing biomass that
may take decades to rot, and thus provide a flush of nutrients to stimulate new plant
growth. Historically, many surface fires were started by lightning, although Native
Americans used fires to clear grasslands of encroaching trees, to stimulate seed
production, and to reduce undergrowth and small trees that often provide habitat for
undesirable insects (e.g., ticks and chiggers) and inhibit mobility and visibility when
hunting.24
22 (...continued)
Invasive Plants: Changing the Landscape of America (Washington, DC: 1998), pp. 23-24.
23 Kirsten 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
, Gen. Tech. Rept. RMRS-87 (Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Apr.
2002). Hereafter referred to as the Coarse-Scale Analysis.
24 James K. Agee, Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests (Washington, DC: Island
Press, 1993), pp. 54-57. Hereafter referred to as Agee, Fire Ecology of PNW Forests.

CRS-9
Eliminating frequent surface fires through fire suppression and other activities
has led to unnaturally high fuel loads, by historic standards, in frequent fire
ecosystems. These historically unnatural fuel loads can lead to stand replacement
fires in ecosystems adapted to frequent surface fires. In particular, small trees and
dense undergrowth can create fuel ladders that sometimes cause surface fires to
spread upward into the forest canopy. In these ecosystems, the frequent surface fires
had historically eliminated much of the understory before it got large enough to
create fuel ladders. Stand replacement fires in frequent-fire ecosystems might
regenerate new versions of the original surface-fire adapted ecosystems, but some
observers are concerned that these ecosystems might be replaced with a different
forest that doesn’t contain the big old Ponderosa pines and other traditional species
of these areas.
Stand replacement fires are not, however, an ecological catastrophe in other
ecosystems. Perennial grasses and some tree and brush species have evolved to
regenerate following intense fires that kill much of the surface vegetation (fire
regimes II, IV, and V). Aspen and some other hardwood tree and brush species, as
well as most grasses, regrow from rootstocks that can survive intense wildfires.
Some trees, such as jack pine in the Lake States and Canada and lodgepole pine in
much of the west, have developed serotinous cones, that open and disperse seeds
only after exposure to intense heat. In such ecosystems, stand replacement fires are
normal and natural, although avoiding the incineration of structures located in those
ecosystems is obviously desirable.
Some uncertainty exists over the extent of forest and rangeland health problems
and how various management practices can exacerbate or alleviate the problems. In
1995, the FS estimated that 39 million acres in the National Forest System (NFS)
were at high risk of catastrophic wildfire, and needed some form of fuel treatment.25
More recently, the Coarse-Scale Analysis reported that 51 million NFS acres were
at high risk of significant ecological damage from wildfire, and another 80 million
acres were at moderate risk. (See Table 2.) The Coarse-Scale Analysis also reported
23 million acres of Department of the Interior lands at high risk and 76 million acres
at moderate risk. All other lands (calculated as the total shown in the Coarse-Scale
Analysis
less the NFS and DOI lands) included 107 million acres at high risk and 314
million acres at moderate risk of ecological damage.
25 Enoch Bell, David Cleaves, Harry Croft, Susan Husari, Ervin Schuster, and Dennis
Truesdale, Fire Economics Assessment Report, unpublished report submitted to Fire and
Aviation Management, USDA Forest Service, on Sept. 1, 1995.

CRS-10
Table 2. Lands At Risk of Ecological Change,
by Historic Fire Regime
(in millions of acres)
Regime
Regime
Regime
Regime
Regime
I
II
V
III
IV
0-35
0-35
200+
35-100+;
35-100+;
Total
years;
years;
yrs;
mixed
crown
surface
crown
crown
fire
fire
fire
fire
fire
National Forest System lands
Class 1: low risk
19.87
4.46
16.05
5.26
19.31
64.95
Class 2: moderate
34.96
8.66
26.71
7.35
2.76
80.45
risk
Class 3: high risk
28.83
0.36
11.17
10.49
0.27
51.12
Total
83.67
13.48
53.93
23.11
22.35
196.52
Department of the Interior lands
Class 1: low risk
18.70
19.47
62.05
23.98
4.23
128.42
Class 2: moderate
23.83
22.87
25.82
2.93
0.38
75.83
risk
Class 3: high risk
6.46
0.37
9.92
6.61
0.12
23.47
Total
49.00
42.70
97.80
33.51
4.72
227.72
Private, state, and other federal lands
Class 1: low risk
136.46
168.62
49.55
23.83
25.02
404.60
Class 2: moderate
117.37
101.66
59.72
25.06
10.57
313.54
risk
Class 3: high risk
42.20
9.62
32.92
17.93
4.51
107.18
Total
296.02
279.89
142.18
66.81
40.10
825.01
Source: Kirsten 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, Gen.
Tech. Rept. RMRS-87 (Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, April 2002), pp. 13-15.
Fuel Management
Fuel management is a collection of activities intended to reduce the threat of
significant damages by wildfires. The FS began its fuel management program in the
1960s. By the late 1970s, earlier agency policies of aggressive suppression of all
wildfires had been modified, in recognition of the enormous cost of organizing to
achieve this goal and of the ecological benefits that can result from some fires. These
understandings have in particular led to an expanded prescribed burning program.
The relatively recent recognition of historically unnatural fuel loads from dead
trees, dense understories of trees and other vegetation, and non-native species has
spurred a renewed interest in fuel management activities. The presumption is that

CRS-11
lower fuel loads and a lack of fuel ladders will reduce the extent of wildfires, the
damages they cause, and the cost of controlling them. Numerous on-the-ground
examples support this belief. However, little empirical research has documented this
logical presumption. As noted in one research study: “scant information exists on
fuel treatment efficacy for reducing wildfire severity.”26 This study also found that
“fuel treatments moderate extreme fire behavior within treated areas, at least in”
frequent fire ecosystems. Others have found different results elsewhere; one study
reported “no evidence that prescribed burning in these [southern California]
brushlands provides any resource benefit ... in this crown-fire ecosystem.”27 A recent
summary of wildfire research reported that prescribed burning generally reduced fire
severity, that mechanical fuel reduction did not consistently reduce fire severity, and
that little research has examined the potential impacts of mechanical fuel reduction
with prescribed burning or of commercial logging.28
Before examining fuel management tools, a brief description of fuels may be
helpful.29 Wildfires are typically spread by fine fuels30 — pine needles, leaves, grass,
etc. — both on the surface and in the tree crowns (in a stand-replacement crown fire);
these are known as 1-hour time lag fuels, because they dry out (lose two-thirds of
their moisture content) in about an hour. Small fuels, known as 10-hour time lag
fuels, are woody twigs and branches, up to 1 inch in diameter; these fuels also help
spread wildfires because they ignite and burn quickly. Larger fuels — particularly
the 1000-hour time lag fuels (more than 3 inches in diameter) — may contribute to
the intensity and thus to the damage fires cause, but contribute little to the rate of
spread, because they are slow to ignite. One researcher noted that only 5% of large
tree stems and 10% of tree branches were consumed in high intensity fires, while
100% of the foliage and 75% of the understory vegetation were consumed.31 Finally,
ladders of fine and small fuels between the surface and the tree crowns can spread
surface fires into the canopy, thus turning a surface fire into a stand-replacement fire.
26 Philip N. Omi and Erik J. Martinson, Effects of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire Severity:
Final Report
, submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board (Ft. Collins,
CO: Colorado State Univ., Western Forest Fire Research Center, Mar. 25, 2002), p. i.
27 Jon E. Keeley, “Fire Management of California Shrubland Landscapes,” Environmental
Management
, v. 29, no. 3 (2002): 395-408.
28 Henry Carey and Martha Schumann, Modifying WildFire Behavior — The Effectiveness
of Fuel Treatments: The Status of Out Knowledge
, Southwest Region Working Paper 2
(Santa Fe, NM: National Community Forestry Center, April 2003).
29 See Arthur A. Brown and Kenneth P. Davis, “Chapter 4: Forest Fuels,” Forest Fire
Control and Use
(New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973), pp. 79-110.
30 Robert E. Martin and Arthur P. Brackebusch, “Fire Hazard and Conflagration Prevention,”
Environmental Effects of Forest Residues Management in the Pacific Northwest: A State-of-
Knowledge Compendium
(Owen P. Cramer, ed.), Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-24 (Portland, OR:
USDA Forest Service, 1974).
31 Agee, Fire Ecology of PNW Forests, p. 42. It is also important to recognize that the
percentage of biomass in 1-hour, 10-hour, 100-hour, and 1000-hour fuels depends largely
on tree diameter, with the percentage in large fuels increasing as diameter increases.

CRS-12
Prescribed Burning. Fire has been used as a tool for a long time.32 Native
Americans lit fires for various purposes, such as to reduce brush and stimulate grass
growth. Settlers used fires to clear woody debris in creating agricultural fields. In
forestry, in large part because of severe wildfires in logging debris in the Northeast
and Lake States more than a century ago, fire has been used to eliminate logging
debris, by burning brush piles and by prescribed burning harvested sites to prepare
them for reforestation.33
Prescribed burning has been used increasingly over the past 40 years to reduce
fuel loads on federal lands. FS prescribed burning has exceeded 1.2 million acres
annually since FY1998, except for FY2000, when the severe fire season limited
prescribed burning to 772,000 acres; as recently as FY1995, the prescribed burning
acreage was less than 500,000 acres annually. (Comparable data on BLM prescribed
burning are not published.) However, more than half of FS prescribed burning is in
the FS Southern Region, and thus prescribed burning in the intermountain west is
still at relatively modest levels.
Typically, areas to be burned are identified in agency plans, and fire lines
(essentially dirt paths) are created around the perimeter. The fires are lit when the
weather conditions permit (i.e., when the burning prescription is fulfilled) — when
the humidity is low enough to get the fuels to burn, but not when the humidity is so
low or wind speed so high that the burning cannot be contained. (This, of course,
presumes accurate knowledge of existing and expected weather and wind conditions,
as well as sufficient fire control crews with adequate training on the site.) When the
fire reaches the perimeter limits, the crews “mop up” the burn area to assure that no
hot embers remain to start a wildfire after everyone is gone.
Prescribed burning is widely used for fuel management because it reduces
biomass (the fuels) to ashes (minerals). It is particularly effective at reducing the
smaller fuels, especially in the arid west where deterioration by decomposers (insects,
fungi, etc.) is often very slow. In fact, it is the only human treatment that directly
reduces the fine and small fuels that are important in spreading wildfires. However,
prescribed fires are not particularly effective at reducing larger-diameter fuels or
thinning stands to desired densities and diameters.34
There are several limitations in using prescribed fire. The most obvious is that
prescribed fires can be risky — fire is not a controlled tool; rather, it is a self-
sustaining chemical reaction that, once ignited, continues until the fuel supply is
32 Historical evidence indicates that current levels of burning through prescribed burns and
wildfires represent levels perhaps 10%-30% of pre-industrial burning levels from natural
and Native-set fires. See Bill Leenhouts, “Assessment of Biomass Burning in the
Conterminous United States,” Conservation Ecology 2(1), 1998, at [http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art1/]. (Hereafter referred to as Leenhouts, “Assessment
of Biomass Burning.”)
33 David M. Smith, The Practice of Silviculture, 7th ed. (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,
1962), pp. 317-321.
34 See Arthur A. Brown and Kenneth P. Davis, Forest Fire Control and Use, 2nd Ed. (New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973), pp. 560-572.

CRS-13
exhausted.35 Fire control (for both wildfires and prescribed fires) thus focuses on
removing the continuous fuel supply by creating a fire line dug down to mineral soil.
The line must be wide enough to prevent the spread of fire by radiation (i.e., the heat
from the flames must decline sufficiently across the space that the biomass outside
the fire line does not reach combustion temperature, about 550o F). Minor variations
in wind and in fuel loads adjacent to the fire line can lead to fires jumping the fire
line, causing the fire to escape from control. Winds can also lift burning embers
across fire lines, causing spot fires outside the fire line which can grow into major
wildfires under certain conditions (such as occurred near Los Alamos, NM, in May
2000). Even when general weather conditions — temperature, humidity, and
especially winds — are within the limits identified for prescribed fires, localized
variations in the site (e.g., slope, aspect,36 and fuel load) and in weather (e.g.,
humidity and wind) can be problematic. Thus, prescribed fires inherently carry some
degree of risk, especially in ecosystems adapted to stand-replacement fires and in
areas where the understory and undergrowth have created fuel ladders.
Another concern is that prescribed fires generate substantial quantities of smoke
— air pollution with high concentrations of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
especially particulates that degrade visibility. Some assert that prescribed fires
merely shift the timing of air pollution from wildfires. Others note that smoke from
pre-industrial wildland fires was at least three times more than from current levels
from prescribed burning and wildfire.37 The Clean Air Act requires regulations to
preserve air quality, and regulations governing particulate emissions and regional
haze have been of concern to land managers who want to expand prescribed burning
programs. Previous proposed legislation (e.g., H.R. 236, 106th Congress) would have
exempted Forest Service prescribed burning from air quality regulations for 10 years,
to demonstrate that an aggressive prescribed burning program will reduce total
particulate emissions from prescribed burning and wildfires. However, owners and
operators of other particulate emitters (e.g., diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power
plants) generally object to such exemptions, arguing that their emissions would likely
be regulated more stringently, even though wildland fires are one of the largest
sources of particulates.38
Salvage and Other Timber Harvesting. Another tool commonly proposed
for fuel treatment is traditional timber harvesting, including salvaging dead and dying
trees before they rot or succumb to disease, commercially thinning dense stands, etc.
35 Fire can also be halted by eliminating the supply of oxygen, as occurs when fire retardant
(“slurry”) is spread on forest fires from airplanes (“slurry bombers”). However, reducing
oxygen supply usually can only occur in a limited area, because of the cost to spread the fire
retardant.
36 Aspect is the term used for the direction which the slope is facing; in the northern
hemisphere, south-facing slopes (south aspects) get more radiant energy from the sun than
north aspects, and thus are inherently warmer and drier, and hence are at greater risk of more
intense wildfires.
37 Leenhouts, “Assessment of Biomass Burning.”
38 See, for example, U.S. House, Committee on Resources, Hearing on the Use of Fire as
a Management Tool and Its Risks and Benefits for Forest Health and Air Quality
, Sept. 30,
1997 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1997), Serial No. 105-45, 141 p.

CRS-14
In areas where the forest health problems include large numbers of dead and dying
trees, a shift toward an inappropriate or undesirable tree species mix, or a dense
understory of commercially usable trees, timber harvesting can be used to improve
forest health and remove woody biomass from the forest. Nonetheless, some interest
groups object to using salvage and other timber harvests to improve forest health.39
Timber generally may only be removed from federal forests under timber sale
contracts. Newly authorized stewardship goods-for-services contracts allow timber
sales and forest management services, such as fuel reduction, to be combined in one
contract, essentially as a trade of goods (timber) for services (fuel reduction); this
form of contracting is discussed below, under “Other Fuel Management Tools.”
Because timber sale contracts have to be bought and goods-for-services contracts
must generate value to provide services, the contracts generally must include the
removal of merchantable trees. Critics argue that the need for merchantable products
could compromise reducing fuel loads or achieving desired forest conditions.
Timber harvests remove heavy fuels that contribute to fire intensity, and can
break fuel ladders, but the remaining limbs and tree tops (“slash”) substantially
increase fuel loads on the ground and get in the way of controlling future fires, at
least in the short term, until the slash is removed or disposed of through burning.
“Slash is a fire hazard mainly because it represents an unusually large volume of fuel
distributed in such a way that it is a dangerous impediment in the construction of fire
lines” (i.e., in suppressing fires).40
If logging slash is treated, as has long been a standard practice following timber
harvesting, the increased fire danger from higher fuel loads that follow timber
harvesting can be ameliorated. Various slash treatments are used to reduce the fire
hazard, including lop-and-scatter, pile-and-burn, and chipping.41 Lop-and-scatter
consists of cutting the tops and limbs so that they lie close to the ground, thereby
hastening decomposition and possibly preparing the material for broadcast burning
(essentially, prescribed burning of the timber harvest site). Pile-and-burn is exactly
that, piling the slash (by hand or more typically by bulldozer) and burning the piles
when conditions are appropriate (dry enough, but not too dry, and with little or no
wind). Chipping is feeding the slash through a chipper, a machine that reduces the
slash to particles about the size of a silver dollar. and scattering the chips to allow
them to decompose. Thorough slash disposal can significantly reduce fuel loads,
particularly on sites with large amounts of noncommercial biomass (e.g.,
39 Timber harvesting has a variety of proponents and opponents for reasons beyond fuel
management. Some interests object to timber harvesting on a variety of grounds, including
the poor financial performance of Forest Service timber sales and the degradation of water
quality and certain wildlife habitats that follows some timber harvesting. Others defend
timber sales for the employment and income provided in isolated, resource-dependent
communities as well as for increasing water yields and available habitat for other wildlife
species. The arguments supporting and opposing timber harvests generally have often been
raised in discussions about fire protection, but are not reproduced in this report. See CRS
Report 95-364 ENR, Salvage Timber Sales and Forest Health.
40 Smith, The Practice of Silviculture, p. 312.
41 Smith, The Practice of Silviculture, pp. 312-317.

CRS-15
undergrowth and unusable tree species) and if combined with some type of
prescribed burning. However, data on the actual extent of various slash disposal
methods and on needed slash disposal appear to be available only for a few areas.
Other Fuel Management Tools. The other principal tool for fuel
management is mechanical treatment of the fuels.42 One common method is
precommercial thinning — cutting down many of the small (less than 41/ -inch
2
diameter) trees that have little or no current market value. Other treatments include
pruning and mechanical release of seedlings (principally by cutting down or mowing
competing vegetation). Mechanical treatments are often effective at eliminating fuel
ladders, but as with timber cutting, do not reduce the fine fuels on the sites without
additional treatment (e.g., without prescribed burning). Mechanical fuel treatments
alone tend to increase fine fuels and sometimes larger fuels on the ground in the short
term, until the slash has been treated.
Some critics have suggested using traditionally unused biomass, such as slash
and thinning debris, in new industrial ways, such as using the wood for paper or
particleboard or burning the biomass to generate electricity.43 Research has indicated
that harvesting small diameter timber may be economically feasible,44 and one study
reported net revenues of $624 per acre for comprehensive fuel reduction treatments
in Montana that included removal and sale of merchantable wood.45 However, thus
far, collecting and hauling chipped slash and other biomass for products or energy
have apparently not been seen as economically viable by timber purchasers, given
that such woody materials are currently left on the harvest sites.46
Another possibility is to significantly change the traditional approach to timber
sales. Stewardship contracting, in various forms, has been tested in various national
forests.47 Sometimes, the stewardship contract (payment and performance) is based
42 Chemical treatments (herbicides) are also used in forestry, mostly on unwanted vegetation,
but they are not included here as a fuel treatment tool, because they are used primarily to kill
live biomass rather than to reduce biomass levels on a site. Biological treatments (e.g.,
using goats to eat the small diameter material) are feasible, but are rarely used.
43 Robert Nelson, Univ. of Maryland, cited in: Rocky Barker, “Wildfires Creating Odd
Bedfellows,” The Idaho Statesman (Aug. 14, 2000): 1A, 7A.
44 Henry Spelter, Ron Wang, and Peter Ince, Economic Feasibility of Products From Inland
West Small Diameter Timber
, FPL-GTR-92 (Madison, WI: USDA Forest Service, May
1996), 17 p.
45 Carl E. Fieldler, Charles E. Keegan, Todd A. Morgan, and Christopher W. Woodall, “Fire
Hazard and Potential Treatment Effectiveness: A Statewide Assessment in Montana,”
Journal of Forestry, v. 101, no. 2 (March 2003), p. 7
46 Research documenting the economics of slash use (in contrast to small diameter trees)
is lacking. However, this seems a reasonable conclusion, given that the slash is left on the
site by the timber purchaser (who could remove and sell the material) and that the agencies
and various interest groups have been trying to develop alternatives to the traditional
contracts (e.g., stewardship contracts) to remove thinning slash and other biomass fuels.
47 See CRS Report RS20985, Stewardship Contracting for Federal Forests, by Ross W.
(continued...)

CRS-16
on the condition of the stand after the treatment, rather than on the volume harvested;
this is also known as end-results contracting. A variation on this theme, which has
been discussed sporadically for more than 30 years, is to separate the forest treatment
from the sale of the wood. The most common form is essentially to use commercial
timber to pay for other treatments; that is, the contractor removes the specified
commercial timber and is required to perform other activities, such as precommercial
thinning of a specified area. Because of the implicit trade of timber for other
activities, this is often called goods-for-services stewardship contracting. FS and
BLM goods-for-services stewardship contracting was authorized through FY2013 in
the FY2003 Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7). Some observers
believe that such alternative approaches could lead to development of an industry
based on small diameter wood, and thus significantly reduce the cost of fuel
management. Others fear that this could create an industry that cannot be sustained
after the current excess biomass has been removed or that would need continuing
subsidies.
Fuel Management Funding. Direct federal funding for prescribed burning
and other fuel treatments (typically called hazardous fuels or fuel management) is
part of FS and BLM appropriations for Wildfire Management. (See CRS Report
RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding.) Appropriations for fuel reduction have risen
from less than $100 million in FY1999 to more than $400 million since FY2003.
Funds appropriated for other purposes can also provide fuel treatment benefits.
As noted above, salvage and other commercial timber sales can be used to reduce
fuels in some circumstances. Various accounts, both annually appropriated and
permanently appropriated mandatory spending, provide funding reforestation, timber
stand improvement, and other activities. Reforestation actually increases fuels, but
timber stand improvement includes precommercial thinning, pruning, and other
mechanical vegetative treatments included in “Other Fuel Management Tools” (see
above), as well as herbicide use and other treatments that do not reduce fuels.
Fire Control
Wildfire Management Funding. The cost of federal fire management is
high and rising. Wildfire appropriations for the FS and DOI totaled less than $1
billion annually prior to FY1997. Since FY2003, funding has been more than $3
billion annually. (See CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding.) One
critic has observed that emergency supplemental appropriations, to replenish funds
borrowed from other accounts to pay for firefighting, are viewed by agency
employees as “free money” and has suggested that this has led to wasting federal
firefighting funds, which he calls “fire boondoggles.”48 Another critic asserts that
47 (...continued)
Gorte.
48 Robert H. Nelson, A Burning Issue: A Case for Abolishing the U.S. Forest Service
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000), pp. 15-43. Hereafter referred
to as Nelson, A Burning Issue.

CRS-17
“poorly designed incentives” are the principal cause of the current problems and that
the current fire management funding system will not resolve those problems.49
Over the past decade, the FS has received about 70% of the funds appropriated
by Congress for wildfire preparedness and operations (including emergency
supplemental funds). The other 30% goes to the BLM, which coordinates wildfire
management funding for the DOI land managing agencies (BLM, the National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs); the BLM has
received about 60% of DOI funding for wildfire activities.
Fire Control Policies and Practices. Federal fire management policy was
revised in 1995, after severe fires in 1994 and the deaths of several firefighters.
Current federal wildfire policy is to protect human life first, and then to protect
property and natural resources from wildfires.50 This policy includes viewing fire as
a natural process in ecosystems where and when fires can be allowed to burn with
reasonable safety. But when wildfires threaten life, property, and resources, the
agencies act to suppress those fires.
Despite control efforts, some wildfires clearly become the kind of conflagration
(stand replacement fire or crown fire) that gets media attention. As noted above,
relatively few wildfires become conflagrations; it is unknown how many wildfires
might become conflagrations in the absence of fire suppression.
A wide array of factors determine whether a wildfire will blow up into a
conflagration. Some factors are inherent in the site: slope (fires burn faster up steep
slopes); aspect (south-facing slopes are warmer and drier than north-facing slopes);
and ecology (some plant species are adapted to periodic stand replacement fires).
Other factors are transient, changing over time (from hours to years): moisture levels
(current and recent humidity; long-term drought); wind (ranging from gentle breezes
to gale force winds in some thunderstorms); and fuel load and spatial distribution
(more biomass and fuel ladders make conflagrations more likely).
Whether a wildfire becomes a conflagration can also be influenced by land
management practices and policies. Historic grazing and logging practices (by
encouraging growth of many small trees), and especially fire suppression over the
past century, appear to have contributed to unprecedented fuel loads in some
ecosystems. Fuel treatments can reduce fuel loads, and thus probably reduce the
likelihood and severity of catastrophic wildfires; however, some policies and
decisions may restrict fuel treatment — for example, air quality protection that limits
prescribed burning or wilderness designation that prevents fuel reduction with
motorized or mechanical equipment. Other practices and policies are more
problematic. For example, timber harvesting can reduce fuel loads, if accompanied
by effective slash disposal, but data on the need for and extent of slash disposal are
49 Randal O’Toole, Reforming the Fire Service: An Analysis of Federal Fire Budgets and
Incentives
(Bandon, OR: Thoreau Institute, July 2002). Hereafter referred to as O’Toole,
Reforming the Fire Service.
50 U.S. Dept. of the Interior and Dept. of Agriculture, Federal Wildland Fire Management
Policy and Program Review: Final Report
(Washington, DC: Dec. 18, 1995), 45 p.

CRS-18
not available. Similarly, road construction into previously unroaded areas can
increase access, and thus facilitate fuel treatment and fire suppression; conversely,
roadless area protection and even road obliteration51 can impede fuel treatment, but
may reduce the likelihood of a wildfire starting, because human-caused wildfires are
more common along roads.
Once a wildfire becomes a conflagration, halting its spread is exceedingly
difficult, if not impossible. Dropping water from helicopters or fire retardant
(“slurry”) from airplanes (“slurry bombers”) can occasionally return a crown fire to
the surface, where firefighters can control it, and can be used to protect individually
valuable sites (e.g., structures). Setting backfires — lighting fires from a fire line to
burn toward the conflagration — can eliminate the fuel ahead of the conflagration,
thus halting its spread, but can be dangerous, because the backfire sometimes
becomes part of the conflagration. Most firefighters recognize the futility of some
firefighting efforts, acknowledging that some conflagrations will burn until they run
out of fuel (move into an ecosystem or an area where the fuel is insufficient to
support the conflagration) or the weather changes (the wind dies or precipitation
begins).
Wildfire Effects
Wildfires cause damages, killing some plants and occasionally animals.52
Firefighters have been injured or killed, and structures can be damaged or destroyed.
The loss of plants can heighten the risk of significant erosion and landslides. Some
observers have reported soil “glassification,” where the silica in the soils has been
melted and fused, forming an impermeable layer in the soil; however, research has
yet to document the extent, frequency, and duration of this condition, and the soil and
burning conditions under which it occurs. Others have noted that “Even the most
intense forest fire will rarely have a direct heating effect on the soil at depths below
7 to 10 cm [centimeters].”53
Damages are almost certainly greater from stand replacement fires than from
surface fires. Stand replacement fires burn more fuel, and thus burn hotter (more
intensely) than surface fires. Stand replacement fires kill many plants in the burned
area, making natural recovery slower and increasing the potential for erosion and
landslides. Also, because they burn hotter, stand replacement fires are generally
more difficult to suppress, raising risks to firefighters and to structures. Finally,
stand replacement fires generate substantial quantities of smoke, which can directly
affect people’s health and well-being.
51 Road obliteration is closing the road and returning the roadbed to near-natural conditions.
52 For a thorough discussion of these effects, see L. Jack Lyon, Mark H. Huff, Robert G.
Hooper, Edmund S. Telfer, David Scott Schreiner, and Jane Kapler Smith, Wildland Fire
in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna
, Gen. Tech. Rept. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1 (Ogden,
UT: USDA Forest Service, Jan. 2000). Hereafter referred to as Lyon, et al., Effects of Fire
on Fauna
.
53 Craig Chandler, Phillip Cheney, Philip Thomas, Louis Traberd, and Dave Williams, Fire
In Forestry. Volume I: Forest Fire Behavior and Effects
(New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, 1983), p. 173.

CRS-19
Wildfires, especially conflagrations, can also have significant local economic
effects, both short-term and long-term, with larger fires generally having greater and
longer-term impacts. Wildfires, and even extreme fire danger, may directly curtail
recreation and tourism in and near the fires. Extensive fire damage to trees can
significantly alter the timber supply, both through a short-term glut from timber
salvage and a longer-term decline while the trees regrow. Water supplies can be
degraded by post-fire erosion and stream sedimentation, but the volume flowing from
the burned area may increase. If an area’s aesthetics are impaired, local property
values can decline. However, federal fire management includes substantial
expenditures, and fire-fighting jobs are considered financially desirable in many
areas.54
Ecological damages from fires are more difficult to determine, and may well be
overstated, for several reasons. First, burned areas look devastated immediately
following the fire, even when recovery is likely; for example, conifers with as much
as 60% of the crown scorched are likely to survive.55 Second, even the most intense
stand replacement fires do not burn 100% of the biomass within the burn’s perimeter
— fires are patchy. For example, in the 1988 fires in Yellowstone, nearly 30% of
the area within the fire perimeters was unburned, and another 15%-20% burned
lightly (a surface fire); 50%-55% of the area burned as a stand replacement fire.56
Finally, traditional damage appraisals apply a standard value-per-acre for all acres
burned to estimate losses, but the values have not been determined by the on-site
resource changes that resulted from the fires.
Emergency rehabilitation is common following large fires. This is typically
justified by the need for controlling erosion and preventing landslides, and may be
particularly important for fire lines (dug to mineral soil) that go up steep slopes and
could become gullies or ravines without treatment. Sometimes, the rehabilitation
includes salvaging dead and damaged trees, because the wood’s quality and value
deteriorate following the fire. Emergency rehabilitation often involves seeding the
sites with fast-growing grasses. While helpful for erosion control, such efforts might
inhibit natural restoration if the grasses are not native species or if they inhibit tree
seed germination or seedling survival.
Finally, as mentioned above, wildfires can also generate benefits. Many plants
regrow quickly following wildfires, because fire converts organic matter to available
mineral nutrients. Some plant species, such as aspen and especially many native
perennial grasses, also regrow from root systems that are rarely damaged by wildfire.
Other plant species, such as lodgepole pine and jack pine, have evolved to depend on
stand replacement fires for their regeneration; fire is required to open their cones and
spread their seeds. One author identified research reporting various significant
ecosystems threatened by fire exclusion — including aspen, whitebark pine, and
Ponderosa pine (western montane ecosystems), longleaf pine, pitch pine, and oak
54 Nelson, A Burning Issue, pp. 37-38.
55 See Ross W. Gorte, Fire Effects Appraisal: The Wisconsin DNR Example, Ph.D.
dissertation (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Univ., June 1981).
56 See Lyon, et al., Effects of Fire on Fauna, p. 44.

CRS-20
savannah (southern and eastern ecosystems), and the tallgrass prairie.57 Other
researchers found that, of the 146 rare, threatened, or endangered plants in the
coterminous 48 states for which there is conclusive information on fire effects, 135
species (92%) benefit from fire or are found in fire-adapted ecosystems.58
Animals, as well as plants, can benefit from fire. Some individual animals may
be killed, especially by catastrophic fires, but populations and communities are rarely
threatened. Many species are attracted to burned areas following fires — some even
during or immediately after the fire. Species can be attracted by the newly available
minerals or the reduced vegetation allowing them to see and catch prey. Others are
attracted in the weeks to months (even a few years) following, to the new plant
growth (including fresh and available seeds and berries), for insects and other prey,
or for habitat (e.g., snags for woodpeckers and other cavity nesters). A few may be
highly dependent on fire; the endangered Kirtland’s warbler, for example, only nests
under young jack pine that was regenerated by fire, because only fire-regenerated
jack pine stands are dense enough to protect the nestlings from predators.
In summary, many of the ecological benefits of wildfire that have become more
widely recognized over the past 30 years are generally associated with light surface
fires in frequent-fire ecosystems. This is clearly one of the justifications given for
fuel treatments. Damage is likely to be greater from stand replacement fires,
especially in frequent-fire ecosystems, but even crown fires produce benefits in some
situations (e.g., for the jack pine regeneration needed for successful Kirtland’s
warbler nesting).
Roles and Responsibilities
Landowner Responsibilities. Individuals who choose to build or live in
homes and other structures in the wildland-urban interface face some risk of loss
from wildfires. As noted above, catastrophic fires occur, despite our best efforts, and
can threaten houses and other buildings. To date, insurance companies (and state
insurance regulators) have done relatively little to ameliorate these risks, in part
because of federal disaster assistance paid whenever numerous homes are burned
(such as in Los Alamos in May 2000). However, landowners can take steps,
individually and collectively, to reduce the threat to their structures.
Research has documented that home ignitability — the likelihood of a house
catching fire and burning down — depends substantially on the characteristics of the
structure and its immediate surroundings.59 Flammable exteriors — wood siding and
57 Leenhouts, “Assessment of Biomass Burning.”
58 Amy Hessl and Susan Spackman, Effects of Fire on Threatened and Endangered Plants:
An Annotated Bibliography
, Information and Technical Report 2 (Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Service, n.d.).
59 See Jack D. Cohen, “Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How
Much? Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom
Lines
(San Diego, CA: April 5-9, 1999), Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-173 (Berkeley, CA:
USDA Forest Service, Dec. 1999), pp. 189-195. (Hereafter referred to as Cohen, “Reducing
(continued...)

CRS-21
especially flammable roofs — increase the chances that a structure will ignite by
radiation (heat from the surrounding burning forest) or from firebrands (burning
materials carried aloft by wind or convection and falling ahead of the fire). Alternate
materials and protective treatments can reduce the risk. In addition, the probability
of a home igniting by radiation depends on its distance from the flames. Researchers
found that 85%-95% of structures with nonflammable roofs survived two major
California fires (in 1961 and 1990) when there were clearances of 10 meters (33 feet)
or more between the homes and surrounding vegetation.60 Thus, using fire resistant
materials and clearing flammable materials — vegetation, firewood piles, etc. —
from around structures reduces their chances of burning.
In addition, landowners can cooperate in protecting their homes in the wildland-
urban interface. Fuel reduction within and around such subdivisions can reduce the
risk, and economies of scale suggest that treatment costs for a subdivision might be
lower than for an individual (especially if volunteer labor is contributed). In addition,
as noted above, narrow and unmarked roads can hinder fire crews from reaching
wildfires. Assuring adequate roads that are clearly marked and mapped can help
firefighters to protect subdivisions. Finally, communal water sources, such as ponds
and cisterns, may improve the protection of structures and subdivisions.
State and Local Government Roles and Responsibilities. In general,
the states are responsible for fire protection on nonfederal lands, although
cooperative agreements with the federal agencies may shift those responsibilities.
Typically, local governments are responsible for putting out structure fires.
Maintaining some separation between suppressing structural fires and wildfires may
be appropriate, because the suppression techniques and firefighter hazards differ
substantially. Nonetheless, cooperation and some overlapping responsibilities are
also warranted, simply because of the locations of federal, state, and local firefighting
forces.
In addition, state and local governments have other responsibilities that affect
wildfire threats to homes. For example, zoning codes — what can be built where —
and building codes — permissible construction standards and materials — are
typically regulated locally. These codes could (and some undoubtedly do) include
restrictions, standards, or guidelines for improving fire protection in the wildland-
urban interface.
The insurance industry, and home fire insurance requirements, are generally
regulated by states. State regulators could work with the industry to assure that
wildfire protection and home defensibility are considered in homeowners’ insurance.
Road construction and road maintenance are often both state and local
responsibilities, depending on the road; these roads are usually designed and
identified in ways that are useful for fire suppression crews. State and local
governments could further assist home protection from wildfires by supporting
59 (...continued)
the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes.”)
60 Reported in Cohen, “Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes.”

CRS-22
programs to inform residents, especially those in the urban-wildland interface, of
ways that they can protect their homes.
Federal Roles and Responsibilities. The federal government has several
roles in protecting lands and resources from wildfire, including protecting federal
lands, assisting protection by states and local governments, and assisting public and
private landowners in the aftermath of a disaster. These programs and their funding
levels are described in CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding.
Federal Land Protection. The federal government clearly is responsible for
fire protection on federal lands. Federal responsibility to protect neighboring non-
federal lands, resources, and structures, however, is less clear. This issue was raised
following several 1994 fires, where the federal officials observed that firefighting
resources were diverted to protecting nearby private residences and communities at
a cost to federal lands and resources.61 In December 1995, the agencies released the
new Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy & Program Review: Final Report,
which altered federal fire policy from priority for private property to equal priority
for private property and federal resources, based on values at risk. (Protecting human
life is the first priority in firefighting.) Funding for fire protection of federal lands
accounts for more than 90% of all federal wildfire management appropriations. As
noted above, fire appropriations have risen dramatically over the past decade,
especially for federal land protection.
Cooperative Assistance. The federal government also provides assistance
for fire protection. Most federal wildfire protection assistance has been through the
Forest Service, but the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also has
a program to assist in protecting communities from disasters (including wildfire).
FS efforts are operated through a cooperative fire protection program within the
State and Private Forestry (S&PF) branch. The coop fire program includes financial
and technical assistance to states and to volunteer fire departments. The funding
provides a nationwide fire prevention program and equipment acquisition and
transfer (the Federal Excess Personal Property program) as well as training and other
help for state and local fire organizations. The 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171) created
a new community fire protection program under which the FS can assist communities
in fuel reduction and other activities on private lands in the wildland-urban interface.
One particular program, FIREWISE, is supported through an agreement with and
grant to the National Fire Protection Association, in conjunction with the National
Association of State Foresters, to help private landowners learn how to protect their
property from catastrophic wildfire.
61 Bob Armstrong, Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management, U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, “Statement,” Fire Policy and Related Forest Health Issues, joint oversight
hearing, House Committees on Resources and on Agriculture, Oct. 4, 1994 (Washington,
DC: GPO, 1995), p. 9. Serials No. 103-119 (Committee on Resources) and 103-82
(Committee on Agriculture).

CRS-23
Funding for cooperative fire assistance rose substantially in FY2001, from less
than $30 million to nearly $150 million. Funding has declined since, but remains
substantially higher than the $15-$20 million annually in the 1990s.
FEMA has programs to assist fire protection efforts.62 One FEMA program is
fire suppression grants under the Stafford Act (the Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288; 42 U.S.C. 5187). These are grants to states to assist in
suppressing wildfires that threaten to become major disasters. Also, the U.S. Fire
Administration is a FEMA entity charged with reducing deaths, injuries, and property
losses from fires. Agency programs include data collection, public education,
training, and technology development.63
The federal government has one other program that supports federal and state
wildfire protection efforts — the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). The
center was established by the BLM and the FS in Boise, ID, in 1965 to coordinate fire
protection efforts (especially aviation support) in the intermountain west. The early
successes led to the inclusion of the National Weather Service (in the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce) and
of the other DOI agencies with fire suppression responsibilities (the National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Aircraft
Services). (FEMA is not included in the NIFC.) NIFC also coordinates with the
National Association of State Foresters, to assist in the efficient use of federal, state,
and local firefighting resources in areas where wildfires are burning.
Disaster Relief. The federal government also provides relief following many
disasters, to assist recovery by state and local governments and especially the private
sector (including the insurance industry). The federal land management agencies
generally do not provide disaster relief, although there has been some economic
assistance for communities affected by wildfires, as described above. Wildfire
operations funding includes money for emergency rehabilitation, to reduce the
possibility of significant erosion, stream sedimentation, and mass soil movement
(landslides) from burned areas of federal lands. While not direct relief for affected
communities, such efforts may prevent flooding and debris flows that can exacerbate
local economic and social problems caused by catastrophic fires.
FEMA is the principal federal agency that provides relief following declared
disasters, although local, state, and other federal agencies (e.g., the Farm Service
Agency and the Small Business Administration) also have emergency assistance
programs.64 The Stafford Act established a process for Governors to request the
62 The annual funding for these three programs is not distinguished in the agency’s annual
budget justification, and thus is not included in this report. See CRS Report RL32242,
Emergency Management Funding for the Department of Homeland Security: Information
and Issues for FY2005
, coordinated by Keith Bea.
63 See CRS Report RS20071, United States Fire Administration: An Overview, by Lennard
G. Kruger.
64 See CRS Report RL31734, Federal Disaster Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries, by
Ben Canada.

CRS-24
President to declare a disaster, and public and individual assistance programs for
disaster victims.
If the risk of catastrophic fires destroying homes and communities continues to
escalate, as some have suggested, requests for wildfire disaster relief would also
likely rise. This might lead some to argue that a federal insurance mechanism might
be a more efficient and equitable system for sharing the risk. Federal crop insurance
and national flood insurance have existed for many years, while federal insurance for
other catastrophic risks (e.g., hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, volcanoes) has also
been debated.65 An analysis of these alternative systems is beyond the scope of this
report, but these might provide alternative approaches that could be adapted for
federal wildfire insurance, if such insurance were seen as appropriate. Some
observers, however, object to compensating landowners for building in what critics
identify as unsafe areas.66
Current Issues
The severe fire seasons in recent years have raised many wildfire issues for
Congress and the public. There have been spirited discussions about the effects of
land management practices, especially timber sales, on fuel loads. A significant
range of opinion exists on this issue, but most observers generally accept that current
fuel loads reflect the aggressive fire suppression of the past century as well as historic
logging and grazing practices. Some argue that catastrophic wildfires are nature’s
way of rejuvenating forests that have been mismanaged in extracting timber, and that
the fires should be allowed to burn to restore the natural conditions.67 Others argue
that the catastrophic fires are due to increased fuel loads that have resulted from
reduced logging in the national forests over the past decade, and that more logging
could contribute significantly to reducing fuel loads and thus to protecting homes and
communities.68 However, the extent to which timber harvests affect the extent and
severity of current and future wildfires cannot be determined from available data.69
Some critics suggest that historic mismanagement — excessive fire suppression and
past logging and grazing practices — by the FS warrants wholesale decentralization
or revision of the management authority governing the National Forest System.70
65 See CRS Report RL30739, Federal Crop Insurance and the Agriculture Risk Protection
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-224)
, by Ralph M. Chite.
66 Personal communication with Tim Hermach, Founder and President, Native Forest
Council, Eugene, OR, on October 18, 2000.
67 Personal communication with Tim Hermach, Founder and President, Native Forest
Council, Eugene, OR, on Sept. 26, 2000.
68 William N. Dennison, Plumas County Supervisor, District 3, “Statement,” Hearing on the
Use of Fire as a Management Tool and Its Risks and Benefits for Forest Health and Air
Quality
, House Committee on Resources, Sept. 30, 1997 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1997), pp.
107-116. Serial No. 105-45.
69 See CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Forest Fires and Forest Management,
by Ross W. Gorte, Sept. 20, 2000.
70 Nelson, A Burning Issue; O’Toole, Reforming the Fire Service.

CRS-25
Research information on causative factors and on the complex circumstances
surrounding wildfire is limited. The value of wildfires as case studies for building
predictive models is restricted, because the a priori situation (e.g., fuel loads and
distribution) and burning conditions (e.g., wind and moisture levels, patterns, and
variations) are generally not well studied. Experimental fires in the wild would be
more useful, but are dangerous and generally unacceptable to the public. Prescribed
fires could be used for research, but the burning conditions are necessarily restricted.
Fires in the laboratory are feasible, but often cannot duplicate the complexity and
variability of field conditions. Thus, research on fire protection and control is
challenging, and predictive tools for fire protection and control are often based
substantially on expert opinion and anecdotes, rather than on documented research
evidence.71
Concerns over forest and rangeland health, particularly related to fuel loads,
have been discussed for a decade; a major conference on forest ecosystem health was
held in Idaho in 1993.72 Significant funding to address these concerns, however, was
not proposed until September 2000. While higher funding for wildfire protection,
including fuel reduction, has persisted, some question whether this additional funding
is sufficient to adequately reduce fuel loads. In 1999, GAO estimated that it would
cost $725 million annually — nearly $12 billion through 2015 — to reduce fuels
using traditional treatment methods on the 39 million FS acres that were estimated
to be at high risk of catastrophic wildfire.73 This is more than three times higher than
the significantly increased appropriations for FS fuel reduction since FY2001.
The cost of a comprehensive fuel reduction program, as many advocate, would
likely exceed the GAO estimate of $12 billion, because the scope of potential costs
and proposed programs has increased. The FS estimate of FS acres at high risk of
ecological loss due to catastrophic fire increased from 39 million acres in 1999 to 51
million acres in 2003. In addition, the GAO cost figure (received from the FS) of
$300 per acre on average for fuel reduction might be low. One might anticipate more
careful federal prescribed burning after the May, 2000 escaped prescribed fire burned
239 homes in Los Alamos, NM; more cautious prescribed burning is likely to have
higher unit costs than the GAO figure. Also, many advocate emphasizing fuel
reduction in the wildland-urban interface, and treatment costs in the interface are
higher, because of the risk to homes and other structures.
GAO also addressed a subset of the widely-advocated comprehensive fuel
reduction program, by estimating the cost for the initial treatment of FS high-risk
acres. The FS estimates that there are 23 million high-risk acres of DOI land and 107
million high-risk acres of other land. In addition, many advocate reducing fuels on
71 Fire experts typically believe (and must believe, to do their jobs effectively) that
catastrophic wildfires can and should be controlled; thus, their opinions may be biased,
overstating the effectiveness and efficiency of control efforts.
72 Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West: November 14th-20th, 1993. See
infra note 7.
73 U.S. General Accounting Office, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is
Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats
, GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington, DC:
April 1999).

CRS-26
lands at moderate risk — 80 million FS acres, 76 million DOI acres, and 313 million
other acres. Finally, in frequent-fire ecosystems, retreatment would be needed on the
5-35 year fire cycle (depending on the ecosystem), suggesting that fuel management
costs would need to be continued beyond the 16-year program examined by GAO.
If a comprehensive program were undertaken to reduce fuels on all high-risk and
moderate-risk federal lands, using GAO’s treatment cost rate of $300 per acre, the
total cost would come to $69 billion — $39 billion for FS lands and $30 billion for
DOI lands — for initial treatment. This would come to $4.3 billion annually over 16
years, whereas the Administration’s requested budget for fuel treatment in FY2004
was $417.6 million ($231.4 million for the FS and $186.2 million for the BLM),
about 10% of what some implicitly propose. This raises questions about whether a
comprehensive fuel reduction program is feasible and how to prioritize treatment
efforts.
Finally, there is the significant question: would it work? The answer depends,
in part, on how one defines successful fire protection. Fuel reduction might help
restore more “natural” conditions to forests and rangelands, as many advocate, and
would likely yield some social benefits (e.g., improved water quality, more habitat
for fire-dependent animal species). Others, however, advocate fuel reduction to
allow greater use of forests and rangelands, for timber production, recreation, water
yield, etc. Fuel reduction will certainly not reduce the conflict over the goals and
purposes of having and managing federal lands. Reducing fuel loads might reduce
acreage burned and the severity and damages of the wildfires that occur. Research
is needed in various ecosystems to document and quantify the relationships among
fuel loads and damages and the probability of catastrophic wildfires, to examine
whether the cost of fuel reduction is justified by the lower fire risk and damage.
However, it should also be recognized that, regardless of the extent of fuel reduction
and other fire protection efforts, as long as there is biomass for burning, especially
under severe weather conditions (drought and high wind), catastrophic wildfires will
occasionally occur, with the attendant damages to resources, destruction of nearby
homes, other economic and social impacts, and potential loss of life.
References
Agee, James K. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington, DC: Island
Press, 1993. 493 p.
Brown, Arthur A. and Kenneth P. Davis. Forest Fire Control and Use. 2nd ed. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book company, 1973. 686 p.
Carle, David. Burning Questions: America’s Fight With Nature’s Fire. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers, 2002. 298 p.
Chandler, Craig, Phillip Cheney, Philip Thomas, Louis Trabaud, and Dave Williams.
Fire In Forestry. Volume I: Forest Fire Behavior and Effects. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, 1983. 450 p.

CRS-27
Chandler, Craig, Phillip Cheney, Philip Thomas, Louis Trabaud, and Dave Williams.
Fire In Forestry. Volume II: Forest Fire Management and Organization. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1983. 298 p.
Gonzalez-Caban, Armando and Philip N. Omi, technical coordinators. Proceedings
of the Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom Lines.
General Technical Report PSW-GTR-173. Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Dec. 1999. 332 p.
Kozlowski, T.T. and C.E. Ahlgren, eds. Fire and Ecosystems. New York, NY:
Academic Press, 1974. 542 p.
National Academy of Public Administration. Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for
Containing Costs. Washington, DC: Sept. 2002. 2 volumes.
Nelson, Robert H. A Burning Issue: A Case for Abolishing the U.S. Forest Service.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000. 191 p.
O’Toole, Randal. Reforming the Fire Service: An Analysis of Federal Fire Budgets
and Incentives. Bandon, OR: Thoreau Institute, July 2002. 53 p.
Pyne, Stephen J. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982. 654 p.
Pyne, Stephen J., Patricia L. Andrews, and Richard D. Laven. Introduction to
Wildland Fire, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996. 769 p.
Sampson, R. Neil and David L. Adams, eds. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in
the Inland West: Papers from the American Forests Workshop, November 14th-
20th, 1993, Sun Valley, Idaho
. New York, NY: Food Products Press, 1994. 461
p.
Sampson, R. Neil, R. Dwight Atkinson, and Joe Lewis, eds. Mapping Wildfire
Hazards and Risks. New York, NY: Food Products Press, 2000. 343 p.
Wright, Henry A. and Arthur W. Bailey. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern
Canada. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1982. 501 p.