Technical Repor t

An Ecological Assessment of Fireand Biodiversity ConservationAcross the Lower 48 States of theU.S.

GLOBAL FIRE INITIATIVE

GFI technical report 2007-1

February 2007

Citation: Blankenship, K., A. Shlisky, W. Fulks, E. Contreras, D. Johnson, J. Patton, J.Smith and R. Swaty. 2007. An Ecological Assessment of Fire and BiodiversityConservation Across the Lower 48 States of the U.S. Global Fire Initiative TechnicalReport 2007-1. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

For more information:

Jim SmithProject Manager, LANDFIRE Global Fire InitiativeThe Nature Conservancy1822 Swiss Oaks St.Jacksonville, FL 32259 USA904-327-0055jim_smith@tnc.orghttp://landfire.gov

Cover Photo: A Nature Conservancy-led prescribed burn in Arizona. ©Ronald L. Myers

Acknowledgements

This work was funded through USFS/DOI/TNC LANDFIRE: A ScientificPartnership. Cooperative Agreement, NO. 04-CA-11132543-189. The authors thank JimMenakis, Kelly Pohl, Jeff Natharius, Julia Lippert, Chris Winne and the hundreds of sci-entists and managers who participated in LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment modeling andmapping workshops.

2

SSeeccttiioonn PPaaggee

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1. Fire & Biodiversity Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. Fire & Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

3. The Global Fire Initiative & This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

4. Data & Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.1 Data Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

5. Results: Distribution of Fire Regime Types & FRCC Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95.1 Lower 48 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95.2 Nature Conservancy Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105.3 Major Habitat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

6. Sources of Altered Fire Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

7. State & Regional Fire Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187.1 The Nature Conservancy’s Fire Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187.2 Prescribed Burning on Conservancy & Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

8. Taking Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218.1 National Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218.2 Regional Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

9. Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259.1 LANDFIRE National Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259.2 Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

iii

contentscontents

AAppppeennddiixx PPaaggee

Appendix A: LFRA Reference Conditions Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1

Appendix B: LFRA Potential Natural Vegetation Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1

Appendix C: LFRA Fire Regime Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1

Appendix D: LFRA Fire Regime Condition Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1

Appendix E: Nature Conservancy Administrative Regions in the Lower48 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-1

Appendix F: Major Habitat Types in the Lower 48 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-1

Appendix G: Nature Conservancy Conservation Areas in the Lower 48 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G-1

Appendix H: Federally-Administered Lands in the Lower 48 States . . . . . . . . . .H-1

Appendix I: Spatial Data & Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-1

Appendix J: ECOMAP Subsections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J-1

Appendix K: Percentage of Area for Every Mapped Value on the FRCC Map .K-1

iv

cont

ents

LLiisstt ooff TTaabblleess

TTaabbllee PPaaggee

1. Comparison of LANDFIRE project milestones: LANDFIRE RapidAssessment and LANDFIRE National . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2. Total Nature Conservancy acres prescribed burned by region, July 2005 –June 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

3. Acres prescribed burned and burned under wildland fire use as reportedby National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) in calendar years2005 and 2006 (http://www.nifc.gov/nicc). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

4. Global Fire Initiative staff contact information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

v

contents

LLiisstt ooff FFiigguurreess

FFiigguurree PPaaggee

1. Fire regime groups in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2. Fire regime condition class in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

3. Fire regime condition class in fire regime groups in the lower 48 states . . . . . .10

4. Fire regime condition class inside and outside of the Conservancy’s conservation areas in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

5. Fire regime condition class inside and outside of federally-administeredlands in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

6. Fire regime groups in Nature Conservancy administrative regions in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

7. Fire regime condition class in Nature Conservancy administrative regionsin the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

8. Fire regime condition class inside and outside Nature Conservancy conservation areas, by administrative region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

9. Fire regime groups in major habitat types in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

10. Fire regime condition class in major habitat types in the lower 48 states . . . . .14

11. Fire regime condition class inside versus outside The Nature Conservancy’sconservation areas within major habitat types in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . .14

12.Distribution and number of qualified burn bosses within Nature Conservancy state programs in the lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

13.Percentage of acres burned by prescribed fire and wildland fire use in calendar year 2006 by U.S. federal and state land management agenciesas reported by the National Interagency Coordination Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

vi

cont

ents

This report presents the findings of anassessment of the ecological role andintegrity of fire regimes across the lower 48states of the U.S. Frequent fire return inter-vals dominate fire regimes across the assess-ment area. Approximately 80% ofecosystems, major habitat types, NatureConservancy regions and the Conservancy’sportfolio of conservation areas of biodiver-sity significance (conservation areas) aremoderately to highly departed from theirecological reference conditions. Fire regimeconditions do not differ substantially withinversus outside the Conservancy’s conserva-tion areas, nor within versus outside federally-administered lands. Technical firecapacity and conservation actions targeted atabating fire-related threats across theConservancy and partner organizations varyconsiderably and do not necessarily parallelthe degree and extent of altered fire regimeconditions across the U.S. nor within theConservancy’s priority conservation areas.To maintain and restore fire’s ecologicalroles in ecosystems and, therefore, effec-tively conserve biodiversity, the Conservancyand partners must:

1. Restore the ecologically-appropriate rolesof fire in forests, woodlands and shrub-lands where alteration has or will resultin uncharacteristically severe fires andnegative contributions to climate change.

2. Influence protected area and land man-agement strategies, wildland fire use andfire exclusion policies to allow fire to

more effectively play its ecological roles inmore places.

3. Proactively reform fire, land use and airquality policies and timber harvest anddomestic animal grazing plans and activi-ties that alter fire regimes and fuel char-acteristics.

4. Educate policy-makers, decision-makersand the public in anticipation ofinevitable conflicts between maintainingfire’s ecological roles and the increasingexpansion of human development intothe wildland-urban interface.

5. Eliminate, influence or mitigate theimpacts of housing and infrastructuredevelopment on ecologically-appropriatefire regimes and intact, large, roadlesslandscapes.

6. Leverage conservation actions throughfire science, building effective capacityand fostering partnerships with govern-mental and non-governmental organiza-tions that share goals for fire regimerestoration.

Fire’s ecological roles and sources of itsalteration must be considered in conserva-tion planning, prioritization, partnerships,taking action and measuring results.Maintaining and restoring fire’s ecologicalroles in areas of high biodiversity value istantamount to effective conservation wher-ever the Conservancy works.

1

executive summ

aryexecutive summary

“To study fire is to inquire into one of the informing processes of the earth; to manage fire is to perform one of the defining acts of human beings. That, distilled,is the sufficient and necessary reason to understand fire.” (Pyne et al. 1996)

Fire is a key process in many ecosystemsaround the world (Agee 1993; Hardesty etal. 2005; Myers 2006; Pyne et al. 1996).Fire can also be ecologically destructive; forexample, where fire exclusion has caused abuild-up of fuel and altered fire behavior,or where fire frequency has increased inecosystems with species that have notevolved in the presence of fire. Too much,too little or the wrong kind of fire canthreaten biodiversity health, often withnegative consequences for ecosystem sus-tainability and human health and liveli-hoods (Brown & Smith 2000; Smith2000; Hardesty et al. 2005; UN FAO2006). In the U.S., the majority of ecosys-tems are fire-dependent (Shlisky et al. Inprep.). Fire influences processes such asnutrient cycling, vegetation dynamics andspecies composition (Brown & Smith2000; Smith 2000). Altered fire regimes

can eliminate native species, accelerate soilerosion, degrade water quality and fishhabitat, catalyze desertification, and alterecosystem structure and wildlife habitat(Hassan et al. 2005). Changes in land usepatterns and policies, such as rural devel-opment into wildlands, fire exclusion, treeplantations and agricultural conversionhave contributed to changes in fire regimesin many areas of the U.S. (Weaver 1943;Cooper 1960; Covington & Moore 1994;Keane et al. 2002; Dellasala et al. 2004;Stephens & Ruth 2005). Changes in firedynamics can also interact with otherthreats, such as climate change, invasivespecies, grazing, land clearing, inappropri-ate logging and landscape fragmentation(Keane et al. 1999; Dale et al. 2001;Brooks et al. 2004; Hardesty et al. 2005;Myers 2006), confounding efforts towardeffective biodiversity conservation.

2

fire

& b

iodi

vers

ity c

onse

rvat

ion 1fire & biodiversity conservation

Frequent fire is a natural process in this longleaf pine community in Georgia. Photo by Mark Godfrey.

3

fire & clim

ate change

The potential impacts of climate change,and how these changes will interact withfire’s roles in ecosystem function across theU.S., are outside the scope of this assess-ment. Specific analyses of the impact ofreturning fire regimes to ecologicallyacceptable fire frequencies on climate havenot been done. However, changes in fireregimes as a result of climate change areanticipated to have substantial implicationsfrom an ecological perspective (Hassan etal. 2005; Turner et al. 1997). Climatechange is increasing fire frequency andextent by altering the key factors that con-trol fire: temperature, precipitation,humidity, wind, ignition, biomass, deadorganic matter, vegetation species compo-sition and structure, and soil moisture(IPCC 2001). Warmer temperatures,decreased precipitation over land,increased convective activity, increasedstanding biomass due to CO2 fertilization,increased fuel accumulation from dyingvegetation, and large-scale vegetation shiftscomprise the most significant mechanismsthrough which global warming increases ordecreases the incidence and dynamics of

fire (Hassan et al. 2005, IPCC 2001). Inmid-altitude conifer forests of the WesternU.S. with no significant human activity orfire exclusion, an increase in spring andsummer temperatures of 1ºC since 1970,earlier snowmelt and longer summers haveincreased fire frequency 400% and burnedarea 650% in the period 1970–2003(Westerling et al. 2006).

Analyses of potential future conditionsproject that climate change will increasefire in all biogeographic realms (Nepstadet al. 1999; Williams et al. 2001; Mouillotet al. 2002; Hoffman et al. 2003;Flannigan et al. 2005). It is likely that overa long period of time, the integrated reduc-tion in greenhouse gas emissions throughavoided deforestation, restoration ofecosystems that are now burning at higherseverities and extents due to fire exclusion,and reduction in inappropriate burning offire-sensitive systems would eventuallyoutweigh any short-term release of carbonresulting from actions taken to restore fireregimes in fire-dependent systems.

Biodiversity conservation goals cannot beachieved without considering the ecologi-cal roles of fire and the sources of alteredfire regimes, as well as the need to main-tain the roles of fire in ecosystem resiliencein the face of climate change.

2fire & climate change

The Nature Conservancy is studying the interactions ofclimate change and altered fire regimes in this alpinemeadow in Yunnan Province, China. Photo by BarryBaker.

4

the

glob

al fi

re in

itiat

ive

& th

is re

port

The Nature Conservancy’s Global FireInitiative works with others to restore andmaintain ecologically appropriate fireregimes by:

Increasing our scientific understandingof the ecological roles of fire;

Enabling public policies and imple-menting effective strategies to conservethe ecological roles of fire;

Facilitating collaboration and network-ing among public and private partnerswith mutual conservation goals; and

Building internal and external capacityto address fire-related threats to biodi-versity.

Integrated Fire Management1 is theInitiative’s framework for reconciling thefire-related needs of both people andecosystems (Myers 2006).

This report aims to improve our scientificunderstanding of the ecological roles of firesuch that effective conservation strategiescan be developed at appropriate ecologicalscales to maintain intact, or restore degrad-

ed fire regimes and abate the sources ofaltered fire regimes. We present the resultsof an assessment of the ecological roles offire and the integrity of fire regimes acrossthe lower 48 states of the U.S. These analy-ses use recently released data from theLANDFIRE Rapid Assessment (LFRA)project (see sidebar), and results are dis-played at five levels:

Lower 48 states of the U.S.;

Major habitat types within the lower 48states (Dinerstein et al. 1995);

Nature Conservancy administrativeregions;

Inside and outside the Conservancy’sportfolio of conservation areas of biodi-versity significance (conservation areas);and

Inside and outside federally-administered lands.

We also present national and regional rec-ommendations for taking conservationaction based on these findings.

3the global fire initiative & this report

1 Integrated Fire Management is defined as an approach to addressing the problems and issues posed by bothdamaging and beneficial fires within the context of the natural environments and socio-economic systems in whichthey occur, by evaluating and balancing the relative risks posed by fire with the beneficial or necessary ecologicaland economic roles that it may play in a given conservation area, landscape or region (Myers 2006). For more infor-mation: http://www.nature.org/initiatives/fire/strategies/art18357.html.

5

data & m

ethods

Three metrics — reference conditions, fireregime groups and fire regime conditionclass — can be used to describe the ecolog-ical roles of fire and determine its currentecological status across landscapes, regionsand major habitat types.

Reference conditions are estimates of therange of variability in ecological structureand process against which current condi-tions can be compared, and from whichecological departure can be calculated. Forthe LFRA, reference conditions werebased on vegetation conditions prior toEuropean settlement and include the influ-ence of aboriginal burning. Reference con-

ditions (Appendix A) for potential naturalvegetation groups (Appendix B) weredescribed and quantitatively modeled byover 250 regional fire and vegetationexperts. These models quantified the fre-quency and severity of fire and other dis-turbances and the rates of vegetationgrowth. LFRA reference condition modelswere used to determine fire regime groupsand to calculate fire regime condition class.

Fire regime groups (FRG) are a classifica-tion of recurring fire characteristics —including average fire frequency and sever-ity — for a given ecosystem and can beused to describe the historical or ecological

LLAANNDDFFIIRREE RRaappiidd AAsssseessssmmeenntt

In 2006, the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment (LFRA) produced maps and modelsof potential natural vegetation groups, reference fire regimes, succession classes,fire regime departure from reference conditions, and fire regime condition classesfor the conterminous U.S. LFRA models and mapping rules were developedthrough 12 expert workshops held across the U.S. Products were rapidly deliv-ered, and are moderately accurate; they were designed to meet short-termnational and regional fire management planning needs and provide a foundationfor the implementation of the similar but more accurate LANDFIRE National proj-ect (covering all 50 states).

The LANDFIRE project, including the LFRA, is chartered under the Wildland FireLeadership Council and is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) Forest Service Office of Fire and Aviation Management, the U.S.Department of the Interior Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, and The NatureConservancy. Principle LANDFIRE cooperators include the USDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research Station Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, the U.S.Geological Survey Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science, andglobal and state programs of The Nature Conservancy.

Visit www.landfire.gov for more information.

4data & methods

6

data

& m

etho

ds role of fire (Agee 1993; Brown 1995; Myers2006). For LFRA, FRGs were defined asfollows:

Fire Regime I: 0–35 year frequency; lowand mixed severity;

Fire Regime II: 0–35 year frequency;replacement severity;

Fire Regime III: 35–200 year frequen-cy; low and mixed severity;

Fire Regime IV: 35–200 year frequency;replacement severity; and

Fire Regime V: 200+ year frequency;replacement severity.

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) is arelative measure of the departure of cur-rent vegetation and (where data are avail-able) fire regime conditions, fromecological reference conditions (Hann etal. 2004). While FRCC may indicate theecological status of fire regimes, since itincludes vegetation conditions, it can beused more broadly as a measure of ecologi-cal departure. It is a valuable measure forconservation planning. For the LFRA, thecurrent condition was mapped fromLandsat imagery circa 1998 to 2001 andfrom the 1992 National Land CoverDatabase data, while reference conditionswere defined by the LFRA reference con-dition models. FRCC classes are defined asfollows:

FRCC 1: 0–33% departed or within thenatural range of variability;

FRCC 2: 33–66% departed or moderatedeparture from the natural range ofvariability; and

FRCC 3: 66–100% departed or highdeparture from the natural range ofvariability.

For this report, we performed a spatialanalysis to summarize LFRA FRG(Appendix C) and FRCC (Appendix D)across the lower 48 states of the U.S.,Nature Conservancy administrative regions(Appendix E) and major habitat types(Appendix F). Within these summary lev-els we also calculated the proportions ofthe three FRCC categories inside and out-side of the Conservancy’s conservationareas (Appendix G). At the level of thelower 48 states we calculated the propor-tions of the three FRCC categories insideand outside of federally-administered lands

(Appendix H). For more information ondata and methods see Appendix I.

4.1 Data ConsiderationsThe LFRA data provide a moderate-resolution, rapid, nation-wide assessment.Through the engagement of hundreds ofscientists and land managers and the test-ing of basic concepts across vegetationtypes, the LFRA is also enabling a moreaccurate and finer-resolution assessment

FRCC is a relative measure of the

departure of current vegetation... from

ecological reference conditions

7

data & m

ethodsthrough the LANDFIRE National prod-ucts (Table 1). Interpretation of the LFRAdata should be based on the understandingthat the data were designed for national-to regional-scale strategic planning, broadecological assessments and resource alloca-tion. Therefore, we have restricted ourpresentation of the data to national andregional levels and focused on percentagesand relative comparisons among regionsrather than on interpreting absolute values.

Because consistent spatial data on currentfire regime characteristics (e.g., fire frequency and severity) are not availablefor the entire U.S., LFRA FRCC resultsonly measure the departure of current veg-etation structure and composition fromthe reference condition. This measure canbe more broadly interpreted as an indicatorof ecological departure or as an imperfect,but best available proxy for the departureof fire regimes across broad geographicalextents. While altered fire regimes cer-tainly influence vegetation compositionand structure, other factors can cause simi-lar changes in vegetation. For instance, cer-tain forest management and domesticanimal grazing practices, climate changeand invasive species can alter vegetationcharacteristics and influence the LFRA

FRCC calculation. Given that current fireregime information (including the distri-bution, frequency and severity of fires) isnot available nationally, vegetation depar-ture is the best approximation of fireregime conditions that currently exists.

FRCC in the LFRA was only calculatedfor areas that have natural or semi-naturalvegetation. It was not calculated for areasclassified as agriculture, urban, water, snow,ice, barren, transportation, mines or quar-ries. It was also not calculated for wetlandsor alpine areas due to their small extent. Inthis assessment, we discuss results for onlythose areas that are classified as FRCC 1, 2or 3. To help interpret the results in thecontext of the entire landscape matrix, weinclude a table showing the percent of allmapped values on the FRCC map for thethree major summary levels (lower 48states, Conservancy administrative regionsand major habitat types) in Appendix K.

In some cases the reference condition isbased on historical information that maynot reflect current climatic or biophysicalconditions, and may not be synonymouswith the desired future condition for a par-ticular area due to social constraints. Inthese cases, FRCC may need to be

Table 1. Comparison of LLANDDFFIIRREE project milestones: LLANDDFFIIRREE RRapid Assessment and LLANDDFFIIRREENational.

Attribute LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment LANDFIRE National

ProductionSchedule

1 year2004–2005

5 years2004–2009

Extent Lower 48 states Entire U.S.

AppropriateApplication Scale National to regional levels National to landscape levels

Examples ofPotentialApplications

National and regional strategic planning

Regional/state prioritization

National and regional strategic planningRegional/state prioritizationFire management planningConservation and ecosystem management

plans

8

data

& m

etho

ds supplemented to be useful for developingconservation goals or measuring conserva-tion status or results.

Two major habitat types that intersect theconterminous U.S. were excluded from thisassessment: (1) flooded grasslands andsavannas; and (2) tropical and subtropicalgrasslands, savannas and shrublands. Thesetypes were not assessed because their maindistribution is outside of the lower 48states and they do not represent sufficientarea to provide meaningful results giventhe resolution of the LFRA data.

Regional variation in the creation of theconservation area data within theConservancy makes it difficult to compile acomplete and consistent national dataset ofthese areas. The layer used in this analysisdid not include conservation areas for threeecoregions (Aspen Parkland, Dakota Mixed-Grass Prairie and Fescue-Mixed GrassPrairie) that had incomplete ecoregionalassessments.

9

results

5.1 Lower 48 StatesAnalyses of the ecology and status of fireregime conditions across the lower 48 statesreveal five primary characteristics importantto biodiversity conservation:

1. Frequent fire regimes dominate approxi-mately 65% of the lower 48 states (Figure1; Appendix C), although regional varia-tions exist (discussed below).

2. Approximately 80% of the lower 48 statesis moderately to highly departed fromreference conditions, leaving only 20%within the range of variability describedby the reference condition (Figure 2;Appendix D).

3. There are differences in the integrity offire regimes depending on the ecologicalroles of fire in the ecosystem (Figure 3),including:

Over 80% of high frequency/low andmixed severity (FRG 1), and low fre-

quency/replacement severity fireregimes (FRG 5) are departed.

FRG 5 is the most highly departed(FRCC 3) of all FRGs. FRG 5 prima-rily includes forests and deserts thatburn with low frequency, such asthose found in the Pacific Northwest,Southwest or Northeastern U.S.

High frequency/high severity fireregimes (FRG 2) have the highestproportion of land in agriculture(Appendix K).

4. There is no difference in the distributionof FRCC inside versus outside of theConservancy’s conservation areas (Figure4). Within conservation areas whereactions have been effectively targeted atrestoring and maintaining fire regimes,we expect that landscape conditions arebetter on the ground2 than the resolu-tion of the LFRA allows us to assess.

5 results: distribution of fire regime types& FRCC groups

33%

32%

11%

9%

15%

FRG 1 FRG 2 FRG 3 FRG 4 FRG 5

Figure 1. Fire regime groups in the lower 48 states.

20%

50%

30%

FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3

Figure 2. Fire regime condition class in the lower 48states.

2 FRCC can be calculated at any scale using the methodology documented in the FRCC Guidebook (Hann et al.2004).

10

resu

lts

5. There is no difference in the FRCC dis-tribution inside versus outside of federally-administered lands (Figure 5).However, because the LFRA FRCC datawere calculated for large geographicareas, they may mask local variation.Within federal lands where actions have

been taken to restore and maintain fireregimes, we expect that conditions arebetter than indicated by LFRA data.

5.2 Nature Conservancy RegionsAnalyses of the ecology and status of fireregime conditions across Nature

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5

Fire Regime Group

FRC

C (

%)

FRCC 3FRCC 2FRCC 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Inside Outside

Conservancy Portfolio Status

FRC

C (

%)

FRCC 3FRCC 2FRCC 1

Figure 4. Fire regime condition class inside and outside of the Conservancy’s conservation areas in the lower 48 states.

Figure 3. Fire regime condition class in fire regime groups in the lower 48 states.

11

results

Conservancy administrative regions of thelower 48 states reveal six primary charac-teristics important to biodiversity conservation:

1. Frequent fire regimes (FRG 1 and 2)cover more than 80% of the area in theSouthern U.S. and Central U.S. regions(Figure 6).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Inside Outside

Federal Ownership Status

FRC

C (

%)

FRCC 3FRCC 2FRCC 1

Figure 5. Fire regime condition class inside and outside of federally-administered lands in the lower 48 states.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Central U.S. Eastern U.S. Pacific NorthAmerica

RockyMountain

SouthernU.S.

Nature Conservancy Region

Fire

Reg

ime

Gro

up (

%)

FRG 5FRG 4FRG 3FRG 2FRG 1

Figure 6. Fire regime groups in Nature Conservancy administrative regions in the lower 48 states.

12

resu

lts 2. Low frequency/replacement severity fireregimes (FRG 5) are more prevalent inthe Eastern U.S. than in any otherregion (Figure 6).

3. Low frequency/replacement severity fireregimes (FRG 4) are concentrated inthe Pacific North America and RockyMountain regions (Figure 6). These fireregimes can be complex to understandand manage due to the diversity oflandscape structure, composition andfire behavior.

4. Fire regimes are moderately to highlydeparted across all Conservancy regionsassessed (Figure 7).

5. Nearly half of the land in the CentralU.S. region has been converted to agri-culture (Appendix K). This will come asno surprise to Conservancy staff work-ing in this area, where it is generallyrecognized that the relatively highdegree of conversion poses challenges torestoring and maintaining fire regimesin adjacent conservation areas. In

Central U.S. grasslands for example, thereference fire regime is predominantlycharacterized by frequent, replacementseverity fires that burned extensively.Agricultural and urban conversion oflands surrounding conservation areasoften constrains the ecologically appro-priate use of fire where it is perceivedto pose a risk to agriculture, ranching orhousing, or where it simply limits firesize.

6. On average, there is little differencebetween conditions inside versus out-side conservation areas in NatureConservancy regions (Figure 8). Withinconservation areas where actions havebeen taken to restore and maintain fireregimes, we expect that conditions canbe better than indicated by LFRA data.

5.3 Major Habitat TypesAnalyses of the ecology and status of fireregime conditions across major habitattypes of the lower 48 states reveal eightprimary characteristics important to biodi-versity conservation:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Central U.S. Eastern U.S. PacificNorth

America

RockyMountain

SouthernU.S.

Nature Conservancy Region

FRC

C (

%)

FRCC 3FRCC 2FRCC 1

Figure 7. Fire regime condition class in Nature Conservancy administrative regions in the lower 48 states.

13

results

1. Deserts and xeric shrublands have adiversity of fire frequencies and inten-sities (Figure 9).

2. Mediterranean forests, woodlands andscrub are dominated by both frequent

and infrequent fire regimes (FRG 1 and4; Figure 9).

3. Temperate broadleaf and mixed forestsare dominated by both high and low

0

20

40

60

80

100

Centra

l U.S

.

Easte

rn U

.S.

Pacifi

c N. A

mer

ica

Rocky M

ount

ain

Souther

n U.S

.

Nature Conservancy Region

FRC

C (

%)

FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3

Figure 8. Fire regime condition class inside and outside Nature Conservancy conservation areas, by administrativeregion. For each pair, bars on the left represent FRCC distribution inside conservation areas; bars on the right representFRCC distribution outside these areas.

Figure 9. Fire regime groups in major habitat types in the lower 48 states.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Deserts & XericShrublands

MediterraneanForests,

Woodlands &Scrub

TemperateBroadleaf &

Mixed Forests

TemperateConifer Forests

TemperateGrasslands,Savannas &Shrublands

Major Habitat Type

Fire

Reg

ime

Grou

p (%

)

FRG 1 FRG 2 FRG 3 FRG 4 FRG 5

14

resu

lts

Figure 11. Fire regime condition class inside versus outside the Nature Conservancy’s conservation areas within majorhabitat types in the lower 48 states. For each pair, bars on the left represent FRCC distribution inside conservationareas; bars on the right represent FRCC distribution outside these areas.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Deserts &Xeric

Shrublands

MediterraneanForests,

Woodlands &Scrub

TemperateBroadleaf &

Mixed Forests

TemperateConiferForests

TemperateGrasslands,Savannas &Shrublands

Major Habitat Type

FRC

C (

%)

FRCC 3FRCC 2FRCC 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Deserts & XericShrublands

MediterraneanForests, Woodlands

& Scrub

TemperateBroadleaf & Mixed

Forests

Temperate ConiferForests

TemperateGrasslands,Savannas &Shrublands

Major Habitat Type

FRC

C (

%)

FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3

Figure 10. Fire regime condition class in major habitat types in the lower 48 states.

15

resultsfrequency fire regimes (FRG 1 and 5;Figure 9).

4. Nearly 50% of temperate coniferousforests are classified as having high fre-quency/low and mixed severity fires(FRG 1; Figure 9).

5. Nearly 80% of temperate grasslands,savannas and shrublands are classified ashaving a high frequency/replacementseverity fire regime (FRG 2; Figure 9).

6. FRCC departure is moderate to highacross all major habitat types (Figure10).

7. Mediterranean forests, woodlands andscrub have more area in FRCC 1 thanany other major habitat type3 (Figure10).

8. There is very little difference betweenconditions inside versus outside conser-vation areas within major habitat types(Figure 11).

3 This result appears contrary to the Conservancy’s 2015 Habitat Assessment (The Nature Conservancy 2006),which indicates that globally the Mediterranean major habitat type is poorly conserved. It is possible that alter-ations to Mediterranean type fire regimes do not alter vegetation composition and structure enough to bedetectable by LFRA methods. However, there is disagreement among experts about whether the current fire fre-quency and severity in some Mediterranean types, such as chaparral, has been altered from the reference condition.In any case, 26% of the Mediterranean type has been converted to agriculture according to the LFRA (Appendix K),and the remaining examples of this type in the lower 48 states of the U.S. may have very high conservation valueglobally.

Non-native invasive species such as cheat grass (Bromustectorum) can drastically alter the way fire behaves inecosystems, in addition to changing species composition.At a stand scale, this shrubland would be classified asFRCC 3. Photo by John Randall.

16

sour

ces

of a

ltere

d fir

e re

gim

es

The primary sources of altered fire regimesacross the lower 48 states include:

Fire exclusion and suppression, and airquality policies that constrain the amountof prescribed burning that can occur inparticular geographic areas. — Since the development of the fire sup-

pression-focused Smokey Bear cam-paign in 1944, uniform firesuppression has been the main goal offire managers in the U.S. Increasedscientific understanding of fire ecol-ogy has demonstrated that this hasbeen detrimental to forest health inmany situations. Fire exclusion andsuppression often cause increases inforest density, encroachment of woodyspecies into grasslands, savannas andshrublands (that are naturally keptopen by frequent fire), and habitatfragmentation (Weaver 1943; Cooper1960; Miller & Rose 1999; Dellasalaet al. 2004).

Lack of public support for maintainingand restoring fire’s ecological roles.

Timber harvest, agriculture and domesticanimal grazing activities that alter fueltype, amount and continuity.— Ecosystems with low frequency/high

severity fire regimes (FRG 5) may bedisproportionately affected by activi-ties that alter ecosystem structure andspecies composition. For example, inwestern Washington and Oregon, thelong-interval fire frequencies of theDouglas-fir-hemlock-wet mesicforests (LFRA 2005a) may have not

been substantially altered in fire fre-quency or severity, but logging haslikely altered the structure, fuel char-acteristics and fire behavior of thesesystems. In the northeastern U.S.,some northern hardwood-hemlockforests (LFRA 2005b) have beensimplified through single tree selec-tion harvest practices. Under the ref-erence condition these forests wouldhave included shade-tolerant speciessuch as sugar maple and hemlock aswell as moderately shade-tolerantspecies such as yellow birch, blackcherry, white pine and balsam fir(LFRA 2005b). In many areas, selec-tive removal of the moderately shade-tolerant species in favor of maple hasresulted in forest stands withdeparted structure and composition.

Invasive species that change fuel types,amounts and distribution, and alter vege-tation flammability. — Many ecosystems with long fire

return intervals, particularly desert

6sources of altered fire regimes

Housing developments such as this one in Iowa’sLoess Hills can hinder managers’ ability to use fireto restore ecosystems. Photo by Matt Graeve.

17

sources of altered fire regimes

systems, have been extensively invadedby non-native species, and this mayhave been a driver of FRCC depar-ture in some systems in the LFRA.For example, in the desert Southwest,many of the creosotebush shrublandswith grasses (LFRA 2005c) are con-sidered highly departed (FRCC 3).The LFRA reference model descrip-tion for this type indicates that cur-rently “alien annual grasses cancomprise 66-97% of the total annualbiomass in this system” (LFRA2005c). Non-native annual grassinvasion can increase fine fuel loadsand the possibility that fire will spreadonce ignited, pushing fire regime con-ditions outside the natural range ofvariability.

Climate change, which causes shifts invegetation, as well as changes in temper-ature and moisture conditions that drivefire frequency and severity.

Housing and infrastructure developmentand the fragmentation, fire exclusionpolicies or human-caused ignitions thatfollow result in altered fuel continuityand uncharacteristic fire frequencies. Inareas with a relatively high human hous-ing and development density (e.g., east-ern U.S.), this can be at odds withconservation where there is public resist-ance to restoring the ecological roles offire.

Prescribed burning is an important management tool across the U.S. in many places of high biodiversitysignificance. Photo by Kelly Pohl.

18

stat

e &

regi

onal

fire

cap

acity

7.1 The Nature Conservancy’s FireCapacityThe Conservancy is the only global conser-vation organization with an in-house cadreof hundreds of practitioners trained in firemanagement and the application of pre-scribed fire for the benefit of biodiversity.The Conservancy plays a unique role amongconservation organizations in this respectdue to its capacity to demonstrate ecologically-appropriate prescribed burning,and its technical expertise, which is respect-ed by our partners.

Despite the ubiquitous threat of altered fireregimes across the U.S., fire-related capacityvaries substantially across the Conservancy’sU.S. programs. Internal operational fire-related capacity includes the presence ofstaff qualified as burn bosses4 (Figure 12),and/or fire-trained personnel building theirskills to put fire on the ground within thenext year. In-house capacity also allows theConservancy to instruct in wildland firetraining courses, building both internal andpartner capacity. Important non-operationalfire capacities include participation in theU.S. Fire Learning Network5 and partner-

7state & regional fire capacity

Number of TNC Burn Bossess (Jan. 2007)

0

1

2

34

5

6

10

Figure 12. Distribution and number of qualified burn bosses within Nature Conservancy state programs in the lower 48states as of January 2007.

4 Burn bosses implement fire management strategies on the ground, often through prescribed fire.

5 The U.S. Fire Learning Network seeks to overcome barriers to implementing ecologically-appropriate fuels reduc-tion and restoration projects. Operating at local, regional and national levels, the Network is engaged in over 70multi-agency, community-based projects in a process that accelerates the restoration of landscapes that depend onfire to sustain native plants and animals.

19

state & regional fire capacity

ships with public and private land managersto influence landscape and/or public landmanagement and abate fire-related threats.Nature Conservancy state programs withoutoperational fire capacity, but that are work-ing in other ways (e.g., landscape or regionalfire planning, influencing public lands man-agement), include Alaska, Idaho, Nevada,New Mexico, Tennessee and Wyoming.States currently without operational or non-

operational fire-related capacity includeConnecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, RhodeIsland, Utah (except small research burns),Vermont and West Virginia.

7.2 Prescribed Burning onConservancy & Federal LandsThe Conservancy burns approximately100,000 acres per year for biodiversity ben-efit on our own lands (Table 2), depending

Table 2. Total Nature Conservancyy acres prescribed burned byy reggion, JJulyy 2005 – JJune 2006.

Nature Conservancy Conservation Region Total Acres Prescribed Burned

Pacific North America 2,446

Central U.S. 62,643

Southern U.S. 31,796

Eastern U.S. 944

Rocky Mountain 275

TOTAL 90,104

Table 3. Acres prescribed burned and burned under wildland fire use as reported byy NationalIInteraggencyy Coordination Center ((NIICC) in calendar yyears 2005 and 2006((http://www.nifc.ggov/nicc).

PrescribedBurns WFU TOTALS Prescribed

Burns WFU TOTALS

NICC Region 2005 2006

Alaska 626 168,595 169,221 12,039 317 12,356

Northwest 106,652 36,752 143,404 136,397 12,288 148,685

Northern CA 72,417 792 73,209 55,420 1,522 56,942

Southern CA 18,739 11,777 30,516 9,533 22,157 31,690

N. Rockies 77,025 56,391 133,416 91,469 34,641 126,110

E. Great Basin 59,632 85,510 145,142 67,110 38,702 105,812

W. Great Basin 13,155 141 13,296 4,471 3,349 7,820

Southwest 196,195 118,362 314,557 117,552 36,242 153,794

Rocky Mountain 116,333 7,175 123,508 86,452 10,230 96,682

Eastern 210,531 11 210,542 199,129 1,697 200,826

Southern 1,373,000 3,641 1,376,641 1,860,049 3,836 1,863,885

TOTALS 2,244,305 489,147 2,733,452 2,639,621 164,981 2,804,602

20

stat

e &

regi

onal

fire

cap

acity on annual weather conditions and availabil-

ity of implementation funding. This scale ofprescribed burning is comparable to thatdone by the National Park Service (NPS)nationally each year, although NPS burns anadditional ~100,000 acres per year usingwildland fire use6 (http://www.nifc.gov/stats/index.html). The vast majority of pre-scribed burning on Nature Conservancylands occurs in the Central and SouthernU.S. regions (Table 2). Federal and stateland management agencies7 burn approxi-mately 2.8 million acres per year throughprescribed fire or wildland fire use (Table3). The vast majority of prescribed burningoccurs in the southern U.S. (Figure 13, asreported for the Southern NationalInteragency Coordination Center [NICC]region, and Table 3), and wildland fire use isprimarily used in the western U.S. wherelarge, contiguous federal land areas enablethe policy to be implemented without put-ting human communities or economic

resources at risk (Table 3). Like for theConservancy, the total number of acresburned by federal and state partners per yeardepends on annual weather conditions andavailability of implementation funding.

While the geographic boundaries of NatureConservancy and NICC regions(http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/) differ slightly, itis clear that the Conservancy fills a uniqueniche in its use of prescribed fire in theCentral U.S. (where there is a relativelysmall amount of federal land), on privatelands, and in our influence of ecologically-based prescribed burning techniques. Basedon the degree of altered fire regimes, andthe relatively small extent of total prescribedburning in the western U.S., both theConservancy and our federal agency part-ners have a long way to go to effectivelyreintroduce fire into western U.S. ecosys-tems at ecologically-relevant scales.

0% 6%

4%

0%

5%

3%

8%

67%

1%2%

4%

AlaskaNorthwestNorthern CASouthern CANorthern RockiesEastern Great BasinWestern Great BasinSouthwestRocky MountainEasternSouthern

Figure 13. Percentage of acres burned by prescribed fire and wildland fire use in calendar year 2006 by U.S. federaland state land management agencies as reported by the National Interagency Coordination Center.

6 Wildland fire use for resource benefit (WFU) is a practice that allows natural ignitions to burn under pre-determined conditions, both facilitating a means for fire to play its ecological roles, while providing a lower-costalternative to other types of restoration and maintenance actions.

7 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management,Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Some, but not all area prescribed burnedby state agencies is included in this number.

21

taking action: recomm

endations

8.1 National RecommendationsThis assessment documents that fire regimeconditions across the U.S. are extensivelyaltered, although there are areas that arecurrently intact and require action to main-tain healthy ecological conditions. Effectivebiodiversity conservation requires that wetake immediate action and inspire otherstoward similar actions. We must work atnational, regional and landscape levels toaddress the sources of fire-related threats,and restore and conserve a representativenetwork of functional ecosystems where fireis allowed to play its ecological roles. Basedon the results of this assessment, followingare six primary recommendations for takingconservation action that apply across all U.S.Nature Conservancy regions and majorhabitat types. More specific recommenda-tions by Nature Conservancy region followthese general recommendations:

1. Restore the ecologically-aappropriateroles of fire in forests, woodlands andshrublands where alteration has or willresult in uncharacteristically severe firesand negative contributions to climatechange. Restoration will increase ecosys-tem resiliency and reduce ecosystem vul-nerability to climate change, while alsoreducing uncharacteristic contributionsto global carbon emissions. We must alsoensure that carbon sequestration actionsdo not inhibit our ability to maintainfire’s roles. Take conservation action nowto reintroduce fire into degraded fireregimes, particularly those with high fre-quency fire regimes, before inaction leadsto irretrievable loss of biodiversity health.

2. Influence protected area and land man-agement strategies, wildland fire use andfire exclusion policies to allow fire tomore effectively play its ecological rolesin more places. In particular, assesswhere wildland fire use is feasible, andwhere proactive collaboration with publicland managers is necessary to increase itsuse. Fire regimes are not necessarilyintact, and biodiversity is not necessarilyeffectively conserved, where there issome degree of land protection, such ason public lands.

3. Proactively reform fire, land use and airquality policies and timber harvest anddomestic animal grazing plans and activi-ties that alter fire regimes and fuel char-acteristics. Increase public funding toimplement restoration actions for fire-dependent ecosystems. Assess the viabil-ity of creating markets for the woodybiomass products of fire regime restora-tion for energy production and cottageindustries. Biomass utilization is a mar-ket-based conservation strategy that canpay for removal of wood and biomass,reduce fuel levels to more ecologicallysustainable levels and enable the reintro-duction of fire into fire-dependentecosystems. Model landscape applicationsof ecologically-appropriate fire where it iscompatible with human resource use, andpromote certification, incentive systems,and regulatory approaches that allow fireto play its ecological roles.

4. Educate policy-mmakers, decision-mmakersand the public in anticipation ofinevitable conflicts between maintaining

8taking action: recommendations consistent with 2015 goal strategies

22

taki

ng a

ctio

n: re

com

men

datio

ns fire’s ecological roles and the increasingexpansion of human development intothe wildland-uurban interface. Increasepublic understanding of the contributionof healthy fire regimes to human well-being, and build constituencies that sup-port restoring fire’s roles. Developmethodologies for valuing the servicesthat healthy fire regimes provide, such aswatershed protection and wildlife habitat,and innovate cost-effective solutions forfunding and sustaining these services.

5. Eliminate, influence or mitigate theimpacts of housing and infrastructuredevelopment on ecologically-aappropriatefire regimes and intact, large, roadlesslandscapes. Developments that providehousing, energy, water or transportationto human populations often create barri-ers to restoring fire regime dynamics, orfacilitate human-caused ignitions beyondecologically-sustainable fire frequencies.Channel compensation payments frominfrastructure development to therestoration of fire regimes in priorityareas.

6. Leverage conservation actions throughfire science, building effective capacityand fostering partnerships with govern-mental and non-ggovernmental organiza-tions that share goals for fire regimerestoration. Engage in Fire LearningNetworks to build constituencies andimplement actions for fire regimerestoration at ecologically-relevantextents. Enhance Nature Conservancyand partner capacity for fire managementthrough increased staffing, training,mentoring and fire staff exchanges, andestablishment of new partnerships.Ensure conservation plans use the bestavailable information on reference fireregimes, current fire regime status andfire-related threats. Use and refineLANDFIRE data as a baseline measureof fire regime conditions, and as a con-tinuing measure of the on-the-groundresults of conservation actions.

8.2 Regional RecommendationsThe following are specific key recommenda-tions by Nature Conservancy region foraddressing fire and biodiversity conservationin the lower 48 states:

Region Summary of Results Recommendations

CentralU.S.

Frequent fire regimes comprise over80% of ecosystems.

Fire regimes are moderately to highlydeparted (FRCC 2 & 3) in over 70% of theregion.

Non-federal temperate grasslands,savannas and shrublands dominate thisregion.

This region has the greatest proportionof lands converted to agriculture and othernon-natural cover types.

Relatively high levels of prescribed burn-ing implemented on Conservancy lands.

Little prescribed burning accomplishedby federal agency partners.

Maintain and/or increase internal andexternal technical fire capacity to restore andmaintain the ecological roles of fire to fillgeographic gaps in state and national agencyfire capacity.

Leverage demonstrations of ecologically-based Integrated Fire Management to edu-cate policy- and decision-makers, landmanagers and the public about the roles offire and needs for conserving its ecologicalrole.

Influence policies such as the Farm Bill,and agencies that work on private lands,such as the Natural Resources ConservationService to include incentives for privatelandowners to integrate ecologically-basedfire management into land managementactivities.

23

taking action: recomm

endationsRegion Summary of Results Recommendations

EasternU.S.

51% of region dominated byhigh frequency/low and mixedseverity fire regimes (FRG 1) and42% dominated by infrequent,high severity fire regimes (FRG 5).

Fire regimes moderately tohighly departed (FRCC 2 & 3) inover 80% of region.

Non-federally-administeredtemperate broadleaf and mixedforests dominate the region.

Relatively high density of urbanand exurban development.

Expand landscape demonstrations of ecologically-based Integrated Fire Management to educate policy-makers and decision-makers, land managersand the public about the roles of fire and needs forconserving its ecological role in highly fragmentedlandscapes.

Influence air quality policies that constrain ecologi-cally-appropriate levels of prescribed burning to allowfor the restoration of the roles of fire.

Partner with state and private land managers toinclude landscape objectives to restore the roles offire in ecosystems.

PacificNorthAmer.

High diversity of fire regimesand major habitat types.

Fire regimes are moderately tohighly departed (FRCC 2 & 3) inover 80% of this region.

Includes the only Mediterraneanhabitat type in the U.S.

Relatively high proportion offederal lands.

Low Nature Conservancy techni-cal fire capacity.

Relatively low levels of pre-scribed burning accomplished byConservancy and federal agencypartners.

Relatively high rate of popula-tion growth.

Influence fire and land development policies andtechnical fire capacity internally and externally toenable the implementation of wildland fire use forresource benefit.

Partner with federal land management agencies todevelop forest and resource plans that are based onthe best available scientific information and serve tomaintain or restore the ecological roles of fire.

Increase the amount of prescribed burning on pub-lic and private lands.

Pay special attention to maintaining and restoringfire in biologically diverse and fire-dependentMediterranean ecosystems.

Investigate the use of economic incentives toremove excess biomass, such as stewardship con-tracting and development of infrastructure and mar-kets for small diameter biomass utilization.

Continue to promote and prioritize the maintenanceof intact (FRCC 1) forests and grasslands.

RockyMtn.

High diversity of fire regimesand major habitat types, includingmost of the deserts and xericshrublands in the U.S.

Fire regimes moderately tohighly departed (FRCC 2 & 3) inover 80% of this region.

Relatively high proportion offederal lands.

Low Nature Conservancy tech-nical fire capacity.

Relatively low levels of pre-scribed burning by Conservancyand federal agency partners.

The Colorado Front Range israpidly growing in population.

Expand landscape demonstrations of ecologically-based Integrated Fire Management to educate policy-makers and decision-makers, and the public about theroles of fire and needs for maintaining and restoringits ecological role.

Influence air quality policies that constrain prescribedburning to allow for the restoration of the roles of fire.

Partner with federal, state and private land man-agers to include landscape objectives to restore theroles of fire in ecosystems in forest and resourceplans.

Influence fire and land development policies andexpand technical fire capacity internally and externallyto enable the implementation of wildland fire use forresource benefit.

Investigate the use of economic incentives toremove excess biomass, such as stewardship con-tracting and development of infrastructure and mar-kets for small diameter biomass utilization.

24

taki

ng a

ctio

n: re

com

men

datio

ns Region Summary of Results Recommendations

SouthernU.S.

Over 80% of the region isdominated by high frequency/low and mixed severity fireregimes (FRG 1)

Fire regimes are moderatelyto highly departed (FRCC 2 & 3)in over 80% of this region.

Non-federally-administeredtemperate conifer forest andtemperate broadleaf and mixedforests dominate the region.

Relatively more NatureConservancy technical firecapacity resides in this regionthan elsewhere in the lower 48states.

Maintain and leverage demonstration landscapesand internal fire expertise to ensure effective conser-vation and restoration of frequent fire regimes at eco-logically relevant extents across multiple ownerships.

Influence prescribed burning techniques used byfederal, state and private partners to ensure they areecologically appropriate.

Use demonstrations and other means to educate thepublic, and policy-makers and decision-makers aboutthe ecological roles of fire and reduce resistance toecologically appropriate prescribed burning.

Encourage or influence economic incentives such ascertification, stewardship contracting, and markets forsmall diameter biomass utilization to ensure fire isallowed to play its ecological roles.

9.1 LANDFIRE National ProductsThe LFRA was designed to be an interimproduct and to fill data needs until the fullimplementation of the LANDFIRE project(LANDFIRE National) is complete.LANDFIRE National products will be use-ful for analyzing smaller areas, perhaps at thesub-regional and ecoregional levels. LAND-FIRE spatial data can be used to targetplaces where finer resolution, on-the-ground landscape assessments are needed toidentify where fire regimes may be degraded,and where they might be feasibly restored.User-friendly, quantitative reference modelscan also be used to test on-the-ground out-comes of alternative conservation actions, orof alternative climate change or land useassumptions (sensu Merzenich et al. 2003;Forbis et al. 2006). Due to differences inmethodology it is likely that the LAND-FIRE National results will differ from theLFRA results in some cases. LANDFIRENational data are currently complete for thewestern U.S., and will be complete for theentire U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii, by2009.

To download data and see the schedule forcompletion of LANDFIRE National prod-ucts, go to: http://www.landfire.gov.

9.2 ContactsFor more information on the Conservancy’sGlobal Fire Initiative, visit our web site attncfire.org or contact initiative staff (Table 4).

25

resources9resources

Experts review models during a 2005 LANDFIRERapid Assessment modeling workshop in Arkansas.Photo by Jeannie Patton.

26

reso

urce

sTable 4. Global FFire IInitiative staff contact information.

Name Title E-mmail Phone Location Project

Marie Aguirre BilingualCoordinator maguirre@tnc.org 850-668-0827 Tallahassee,

FL LACFLN

Ed Brunson Fire EducationProgram Dir. ebrunson@tnc.org 208-350-2211 Boise, ID FLaP

KoriBlankenship Fire Ecologist kblankenship@tnc.org 206-343-4345 Seattle, WA LANDFIRE

LauraButterfield

Fire TrainingSpecialist lbutterfield@tnc.org 229-226-3973 Thomasville,

GA FLaP

ElenaContreras Ecologist econtreras@tnc.org 406-544-2593 Missoula, MT LANDFIRE

Lynn Decker USFLN Director ldecker@tnc.org 801-320-0524 Salt Lake, UT FLaP

Tom Dooley Appl. Fire Ecol. tdooley@tnc.org 865-850-9542 Knoxville, TN FLaP

Wendy Fulks CommunicationsManager wfulks@tnc.org 303-541-0355 Boulder, CO GFI

Robin Hanford Fire EducationSpecialist rhanford@tnc.org 208-350-2210 Boise, ID FLaP

DarrenJohnson Fire Ecologist darren_johnson@tnc.

org 207-725-6126 Brunswick,ME LANDFIRE

SteveLindeman

Fire TrainingSpecialist slindeman@tnc.org 850-523-8634 Tallahassee,

FL GFI

LauraMcCarthy

W. U.S. Forest &Fire Prog. Dir. lmccarthy@tnc.org 505-988-1542 Santa Fe, NM GFI

HeatherMontanye

OperationsManager hmontanye@tnc.org 850-893-5467 Tallahassee,

FL GFI

Ronald L.Myers

Senior FireEcologist rmyers@tnc.org 850-893-5467 Tallahassee,

FL LACFLN

VictoriaPantoja

Applied FireEcologist vpantoja@tnc.org Mexico LACFLN

Jeannie Patton Program Coord. jpatton@tnc.org 303-541-0378 Boulder, CO LANDFIRE

Paula Seamon Director, FireMgt. & Training pseamon@tnc.org 850-668-0926 Tallahassee,

FL GFI

Ayn Shlisky Director ashlisky@tnc.org 720-974-7063 Boulder, CO GFI

Jim Smith Project Manager jim_smith@tnc.org 904-327-0055 Jacksonville,FL LANDFIRE

Randy Swaty Fire Ecologist rswaty@tnc.org 906-225-0399 Marquette, MI LANDFIRE

LACFLN = Latin American & Caribbean Fire Learning Network

FLaP = Fire, Landscapes & People, a partnership among the Conservancy, US Dept. of Agriculture andUS Dept. of the Interior.

GFI = Global Fire Initiative

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of PacificNorthwest Forests. Island Press,Washington D.C., USA.

Beukema, S. J., W.A. Kurz, C.B. Pinkham,K. Milosheva & L. Frid. 2003.Vegetation Dynamics DevelopmentTool User’s Guide, Version 4.4c.Prepared by ESSA Technologies, Ldt.,Vancouver, BC. 239 pp. Available at:www.essa.com.

Brooks, M.L., C. M. D’Antonio, D. M.Richardson, J. B. Grace, J. E. Keeley, J.M. DITomaso, R. J. Hobbs, M. Pellant& D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasivealien plants on fire regimes. BioScience54(7): 677-688.

Brown, J. K. 1995. Fire regimes and theirrelevance to ecosystem management. Pp.171-178 in Proceedings of Society ofAmerican Foresters NationalConvention; 1994 Sept. 18-22;Anchorage, Alaska. Society of AmericanForesters, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Brown, J.K. & J. Smith (eds.). 2000.Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects ofFire on Flora. General USDA ForestService Technical Report RMRS-GTR-24, Ogden, Utah, USA.

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation,structure, and growth of southwesternpine forests since white settlement.Ecological Monographs 30:129-164.

Covington, W.W. & M.M. Moore. 1994.Postsettlement changes in natural fireregimes and forest structure: ecologicalrestoration of old-growth ponderosapine forests. Journal of SustainableForestry 2:153-181.

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P.Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, PJ. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J.Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson,B.J. Stocks & B.M. Wotton. 2001.

Climate change and forest disturbances.BioScience 51(9): 723-734.

Dellasala, D.A., J.E. Williams, C.D.Williams & J.F. Franklin. 2004. Beyondsmoke and mirrors: a synthesis of firepolicy and science. ConservationBiology 18(4):976-986.

Dinerstein, E., D.M. Olson, D.H. Graham,A.L. Webster, S.A. Primm, M.P.Bookbinder & G. Ledec. 1995. A conser-vation assessment of the terrestrialecoregions of Latin America and theCaribbean. World Wildlife Fund andthe World Bank, Washington D. C.

Flannigan, M.D., K.A. Logan, B.D. Amiro,W.R. Skinner & B.J. Stocks. 2005.Future area burned in Canada. ClimaticChange 72: 1-16.

Forbis, T.A., L. Provencher, L. Frid & G.Medlyn. 2006. Great Basin land man-agement planning using ecological mod-eling. Environmental Management38(1):62-83.

Hann, W., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon,S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J.Menakis, D. Hamilton, J. Jones & M.Levesque. 2004. Interagency FireRegime Condition Class Guidebook.Interagency and The NatureConservancy fire regime condition classweb site. USDA Forest Service, USDepartment of the Interior, The NatureConservancy, and Systems forEnvironmental Management.www.frcc.gov.

Hardesty, J., R.L. Myers & W. Fulks. 2005.Fire, ecosystems, and people: a prelimi-nary assessment of fire as a global con-servation issue. The George WrightForum 22:78-87.

Hassan, R., R. Scholes & N. Ash (eds).2005. Findings of the Condition andTrends Working Group of the

27

references

10references

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Current State and Trends, Volume 1.University of Pretoria Council forScience and Industrial Research UNEPWorld Conservation South Africa,South Africa Monitoring Centre,United Kingdom. Island PressWashington, D.C.

Hoffmann, W.A., W. Schroeder & R.B.Jackson. 2003. Regional feedbacksamong fire, climate, and tropical defor-estation. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 108: 4721.doi:10.1029/2003JD003494.

Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change2001: Impacts, Adaptation, andVulnerability. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Keane, R.E., K.C. Ryan & M.A. Finney.1999. Simulating the consequences offire and climate regimes on a complexlandscape in Glacier National Park,Montana. Fire in EcosystemManagement: Shifting the Paradigmfrom Suppression to Prescription. 20thTall Timbers Fire Ecology ConferenceProceedings, No. 20.

Keane, R.E, K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, C.D.Allen, J. Logan & B. Hawkes. 2002.Cascading Effects of Fire Exclusion inRocky Mountain Ecosystems: ALiterature Review. General TechnicalReport RMRS-GTR-91.

LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment (LFRA).2005a. Potential Natural VegetationGroup R#DFHEwt--Douglas-firHemlock-Wet Mesic: Description,[Online]. In: Rapid assessment refer-ence condition models. In: LANDFIRE.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station, FireSciences Lab; U.S Geological Survey;The Nature Conservancy (Producers).Available: http://www.landfire.gov/ModelsPage2.html. [2007, January 9].

LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment (LFRA).2005b. Potential Natural VegetationGroup R6NHHEgl--NorthernHardwood-Hemlock Forest (GreatLakes): Description, [Online]. In: Rapidassessment reference condition models.In: LANDFIRE. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation, Fire Sciences Lab; U.SGeological Survey; The NatureConservancy (Producers). Available:http://www.landfire.gov/ModelsPage2.html. [2007, January 9].

LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment (LFRA).2005c. Potential Natural VegetationGroup R2CRBU-- CreosotebushShrublands with Grasses: Description,[Online]. In: Rapid assessment refer-ence condition models. In: LANDFIRE.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station, FireSciences Lab; U.S Geological Survey;The Nature Conservancy (Producers).Available: http://www.landfire.gov/ModelsPage2.html. [2007, January 9].

LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment (LFRA).2005d. Potential Natural VegetationGroup R4PRMG-- Northern MixedGrass Prairie: Description, [Online]. In:Rapid assessment reference conditionmodels. In: LANDFIRE. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Rocky MountainResearch Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.SGeological Survey; The NatureConservancy (Producers). Available:http://www.landfire.gov/ModelsPage2.html. [2007, January 9].

Merzenich, J., W.A. Kurz, S. Beukema, M.Arbaugh & S. Schilling. 2003.Determining forest fuel treatments forthe Bitterroot front using VDDT. In:G.J. Arthaud & T.M. Barrett (eds.).Systems Analysis in Forest Resources.Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 47-59.

Miller, R. and J. Rose. 1999. Fire historyand western juniper encroachment in

28

refe

renc

es

sage-brush steppe. Journal. of RangeManagement. 52:550-559.

Mouillot, F., S. Rambal & R. Joffre. 2002.Simulating climate change impacts onfire frequency and vegetation dynamicsin a Mediterranean-type ecosystem.Global Change Biology 8: 423-437.

Myers, R.L. 2006. Living with Fire:Sustaining Ecosystems and Livelihoodsthrough Integrated Fire Management.The Nature Conservancy. Tallahassee,FL.

Nepstad, D.C., A. Verssimo, A. Alencar, C.Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. Schlesinger,C. Potter, P. Moutinho, E. Mendoza, M.Cochrane & V. Brooks. 1999. Large-scaleimpoverishment of Amazonian forests bylogging and fire. Nature 398: 505-508.

Pyne, S. J., P.L. Andrews & R.D. Laven. 1996.Introduction to Wildland Fire. 2nd ed.John Wiley and Sons, New York, NewYork, USA.

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J.Hann & D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Developmentof Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for WildlandFire and Fuel Management. GeneralUSDA Forest Service Technical ReportRMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Shlisky, A., J. Waugh, P. Gonzalez, M.Gonzalez, M. Manta, H. Santoso, A.Nuruddin, D. Rodríguez Trejo, E. Alvarado,D. Schmidt, M. Kaufmann, R. Myers, A.Alencar, F. Kearns, D. Johnson, J. Smith &D. Zollner. In prep.. Fire, Ecosystems andPeople: Threats and Strategies for GlobalBiodiversity Conservation. The NatureConservancy. Tallahassee, FL.

Smith, J.K. 2000. Wildland Fire inEcosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna.General USDA Forest Service TechnicalReport RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1, Ogden,Utah, USA.

Stephens, S.L. & L.W. Ruth. 2005. Federal for-est-fire policy in the United States.Ecological Applications 15: 532-542.

The Nature Conservancy, USDA ForestService and Department of the Interior.January 2005. LANDFIRE Rapid

Assessment Modeling Manual, Version 2.1.Boulder, CO. 72 pp.

The Nature Conservancy. 2006. InterimReport on the Global Habitat Assessments.Arlington, VA.

Turner, M.G., V.H. Dale & E.H. Everham III.1997. Fires, hurricanes, and volcanoes:Comparing large disturbances. Bioscience47(11):758-768.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization(UNFAO). 2006. Global Forest ResourceAssessment: Progress Toward SustainableForest Management. FAO Forestry Paper147, Rome Italy. ISBN 92-5-105481-9.

Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and sil-vicultural factor in the ponderosa pineregion of the Pacific slope. Journal ofForestry 41:7-14.

Westerling, A., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan &T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlierSpring increase western U.S. forest wildfireactivity. Science 313: 940-943.

Williams, A.A.J., D.J. Karoly & N. Tapper.2001. The sensitivity of Australian fire dan-ger to climate change. Climatic Change 49:171-191.

29

references

a-1

appendix aDescriptionLFRA Reference Condition Models helpto synthesize the best available knowledgeon vegetation dynamics and quantify thenatural range of variability in vegetationcomposition and structure. Models consistof two components: (1) a comprehensivedescription and (2) a quantitative, state-and-transition (box) model, created in thepublic domain software VDDT(Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool;Beukema et al. 2003).

LFRA vegetation models were based on asimple, standardized five-box model thatcombines three generic succession stageswith two canopy cover classes. Each class isspecifically defined for individual models.Variations on this standardized modelwere also developed. Models were devel-oped in 2004-2005 during workshopsacross the conterminous U.S. whereregional vegetation and fire ecology expertssynthesized the best available data on vege-tation dynamics and disturbances for vege-tation communities in their region. A peerreview process following workshops gar-nered additional expert input and offeredan opportunity to refine models.

Quantitative models are based on inputssuch as fire frequency and severity, theprobability of other disturbances, and therate of vegetation growth. Inputs arederived from literature review and expertinput during and after modeling work-shops. Models simulate several centuries ofvegetation dynamics and produce outputssuch as the percent of the landscape ineach class and the frequency of distur-bances. Outputs are checked against avail-

able data whenever possible, and are peer-reviewed during and after expert work-shops.

Model descriptions and quantitative out-puts were used in the LFRA to help defineand map potential natural vegetationgroups (Appendix II), or the vegetationcommunities that are likely to exist underthe natural range of variability in biophysi-cal environments and ecological processes,including fire and other disturbances.Models are used as reference conditions tocalculate FRCC. A complete description ofthe methodology used to develop LFRAvegetation models can be found in the“LANDFIRE Rapid AssessmentModeling Manual” (The NatureConservancy et al. 2005).

On the pages that follow are (1) one exam-ple of a reference model description, and(2) a graphic of the quantitative model forthe northern mixed grass prairie potentialnatural vegetation group.

appendix a: lfra potential natural vegetation groups

a-2

appe

ndix

a

a-3

appendix a

a-4

appe

ndix

a

a-5

appendix a

a-6

appe

ndix

a

a-7

appendix a

Nor

ther

n M

ixed

Gra

ss P

rair

ie (

R4P

RM

Gn)

Des

crip

tion

Doc

umen

t (L

FRA

200

5d)

Potential Natural Vegetation Groups(PNVG) define vegetation communitiesthat are likely to exist under the naturalrange of variability in biophysical environ-ments and ecological processes, includingfire and other disturbances. During a seriesof 12 week-long workshops held through-out the conterminous U.S. over 250 localexperts collaborated to refine the LFRAPNVG classification, write LFRA PNVGdescriptions, quantitatively model eachLFRA PNVG, and assign mapping rulesfor each LFRA PNVG. Mapping rules foreach LFRA PNVG were defined using anycombination of the following data sets:Coarse-Scale FRCC Assessment PNVGs(Schmidt et al. 2002), ecological regions,precipitation, growing degree days, eleva-tion, aspect, slope, topography, soil texture(percent sand, silt, clay, and coarse), soildepth, and existing vegetation.

b-1

appe

ndix

b appendix b: lfra potential natural vegetation groups

b-2

appendix b

Pote

ntia

l Nat

ural

Veg

etat

ion

Gro

ups

b-3

appe

ndix

b LFRA PNVG Model Code* Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

R#ABAMlw Forested Pacific Silver Fir--Low Elevation

R#ABAMup Forested Pacific Silver Fir--High Elevation

R#ABLA Forested Subalpine Fir

R#AGSP Grassland Bluebunch Wheatgrass

R#ALME Grassland Alpine & Subalpine Meadows & Grasslands

R#DFHEdy Forested Douglas-fir Hemlock-Dry Mesic

R#DFHEwt Forested Douglas-fir Hemlock-Wet Mesic

R#DFWV Forested Douglas-fir Willamatte Valley Foothills

R#JUPIse Woodland Western Juniper Pumice

R#MCONdy Forested Mixed Conifer - Eastside Dry

R#MCONms Forested Mixed Conifer - Eastside Mesic

R#MCONsw Forested Mixed Conifer - Southwest Oregon

R#MEVG Forested California Mixed Evergreen North

R#MGRA Grassland Idaho Fescue Grasslands

R#MTHE Forested Mountain Hemlock

R#OAPI Woodland Oregon White Oak/Ponderosa Pine

R#OWOA Woodland Oregon White Oak

R#PICOpu Forested Lodgepole Pine - Pumice Soils

R#PIJEsp Woodland Pine Savannah - Ultramafic

R#PIPOm Forested Dry Ponderosa Pine - Mesic

R#PIPOxe Forested Ponderosa Pine - Xeric

R#REFI Forested Red Fir

R#SAWD Woodland Subalpine Woodland

R#SBDWlw Shrubland Low Sagebrush

R#SBMT Shrubland Mountain Big Sagebrush (Cool Sagebrush)

R#SPFI Forested Spruce - Fir

R#SSHE Forested Sitka Spruce - Hemlock

R#TAOAco Forested Oregon Coastal Tanoak

R#WGRA Grassland Marsh

R0GFDF Forested Grand fir/Douglas-fir/Larch Mix

R0GFLP Forested Grand fir/Lodgepole/Larch/Douglas-fir mix

R0JUNIan Woodland Ancient Juniper

R0LPDFnr Forested Lower Subalpine Lodgepole Pine

R0LPSFcr Forested Lower Subalpine--Wyoming & Central Rockies

R0MCCH Forested Mixed Conifer-Upland Cedar/Hemlock

b-4

appendix bLFRA PNVG Model Code* Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

R0MGRA Grassland Mountain Grassland

R0MTSB Shrubland Mountain Shrub--non Sagebrushes

R0PGRn Grassland Northern Prairie Grassland

R0PICO Forested Persistent Lodgepole Pine

R0PIPObh Forested Ponderosa Pine-Black Hills-High Elevation

R0PIPObl Forested Ponderosa Pine-Black Hills-Low Elevation

R0PIPOnp Forested Ponderosa Pine-Northern Great Plains

R0PIPOnr Forested Ponderosa Pine Northern & Central Rockies

R0PPDF Forested Ponderosa Pine - Douglas-fir

R0PSMEco Forested Cold Douglas-fir

R0PSMEdy Forested Xeric Interior Douglas-fir

R0PSMEms Forested Warm Mesic Interior Douglas-fir

R0RIPA Shrubland Riparian--Wyoming

R0SBBB Shrubland Basin Big Sagebrush

R0SBDW Shrubland Low Sagebrush Shrubland

R0SBMT Shrubland Mountain Big Sagebrush Steppe & Shrubland

R0SBWYwy Shrubland Wyoming Big Sagebrush

R0SPFI Forested Upper Subalpine Spruce-Fir - Central Rockies

R0WBLP Forested Whitebark Pine & Lodgepole Pine-UpperSubalpine Northern & Central Rockies

R0WERC Forested Western Red Cedar

R0WLLPDF Forested Western Larch-Lodgepole Pine-& Douglas-firMix

R1ABCO Forested Interior White Fir--northeastern California

R1ALME Grassland Alpine Meadows Barrens

R1ASPN Forested Aspen with Conifer

R1CAGR Grassland California Grassland

R1CHAP Shrubland Chaparral

R1CHAPmn Shrubland Montane Chaparral

R1MCONns Forested Mixed Conifer - North Slopes

R1MCONss Forested Mixed Conifer - South Slopes

R1MEVGn Forested California Mixed Evergreen

R1MTME Grassland Wet Mountain Meadow/Lodgepole Pine-Subalpine

R1OAWD Woodland California Oak Woodlands

R1PICOcw Forested Sierra Nevada Lodgepole Pine - Cold Wet UpperMontane

R1PICOdy Forested Sierra Nevada Lodgepole Pine - Dry Subalpine

b-5

appe

ndix

b LFRA PNVG Model Code* Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

R1PIJE Forested Jeffrey Pine

R1PIPO Woodland Ponderosa Pine

R1PSMA Forested South Coastal Mixed Evergreen/Big Cone Douglas-fir

R1RFWF Forested Red Fir / White Fir

R1RFWP Forested Red Fir / Western White Pine

R1SABU Shrubland Saltbush

R1SAGEco Shrubland Coastal Sage Scrub

R1SCRBnc Shrubland Coastal Scrub/Coastal Prairie

R1SESE Forested Coast Redwood

R1WEHB Grassland Herbaceous Wetland

R2ASMClw Forested Aspen with Conifer--Low to Mid-Elevations

R2ASMCup Forested Aspen with Conifer--High Elevations

R2ASPN Forested Stable Aspen / Cottonwood - No Conifers

R2BLBR Shrubland Blackbrush

R2CHAPmn Shrubland Montane Chaparral

R2CRBU Shrubland Creosotebush Shrublands With Grasses

R2MGCOws Grassland Mountain Meadow---Mesic to Dry

R2MGWAws Grassland Great Basin Grassland

R2MSHBwt Shrubland Mountain Shrubland with Trees

R2MTMA Shrubland Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany

R2PIJU Woodland Juniper & Pinyon Juniper Steppe Woodland

R2PIPO Forested Interior Ponderosa Pine

R2PSMEdy Forested Great Basin Douglas-fir - Dry

R2SBBB Shrubland Basin Big Sagebrush

R2SBDW Shrubland Black & Low Sagebrushes

R2SBDWwt Shrubland Black & Low Sagebrushes with Trees

R2SBMT Shrubland Mountain Big Sagebrush

R2SBMTwc Shrubland Mountain Big Sagebrush with Conifers

R2SBWY Shrubland Wyoming Big Sagebrush Semi-Desert

R2SBWYse Shrubland Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe

R2SBWYwt Shrubland Wyoming Big Sagebrush Semi Desert with Trees

R2SDSH Shrubland Salt Desert Shrub

R2SFPI Forested Spruce-Fir / Pine Subalpine

R3ASMC Forested Aspen with Spruce-Fir

R3ASPN Forested Stable Aspen without Conifers

b-6

appendix bLFRA PNVG Model Code* Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

R3BCLPsw Woodland Bristlecone/Limber Pines Southwest

R3CHAPsw Shrubland Interior Arizona Chaparral

R3DESH Shrubland Desert Shrubland without Grass

R3DGRA Grassland Desert Grassland

R3DGRAst Grassland Desert Grassland with Shrub & Tree

R3MASB Shrubland Mountain Sagebrush (Cool Sage)

R3MCONcm Forested Southwest Mixed Conifer--Cool\Moist with Aspen

R3MCONwd Forested Southwest Mixed Conifer--Warm\Dry with Aspen

R3MEBO Woodland Mesquite Bosques

R3MGRA Grassland Montane & Subalpine Grasslands

R3MGRAws Grassland Montane & Subalpine Grasslands with Shrubs or Trees

R3MSHB Shrubland Mountain Mahogany Shrubland

R3OCWO Woodland Madrean Oak Conifer Woodland

R3PGm Grassland Plains Mesa Grassland

R3PGmst Grassland Plains Mesa Grassland with Shrubs or Trees

R3PGRs Grassland Shortgrass Prairie

R3PGRsws Grassland Shortgrass Prairie with Shrubs

R3PGRswt Grassland Shorgrass Prairie with Trees

R3PICOif Forested Central Rocky Mountains Lodgepole Pine - InfrequentFire

R3PIJUff Woodland Pinyon Juniper - Mixed Fire Regime

R3PIJUrf Woodland Pinyon Juniper - Rare Replacement Fire Regime

R3PPDF Forested Ponderosa Pine Douglas-fir - Southern Rockies

R3PPGO Forested Ponderosa Pine Gambel Oak - Southern Rockies &Southwest

R3PPGRsw Woodland Ponderosa Pine Grassland Southwest

R3QUGA Shrubland Gambel Oak

R3RIPAfo Forested Riparian Forest with Conifers

R3RIPAgr Forested Riparian Deciduous Woodland

R3SDSH Shrubland Salt Desert Scrubland

R3SHST Shrubland Southwest Shrub Steppe

R3SHSTwt Shrubland Southwest Shrub Steppe with Trees

R3SPFI Forested Spruce - Fir

R4NESP Grassland Nebraska Sandhills Prairie

R4NOFP Woodland Great Plains Floodplain

R4OASA Grassland Oak Savanna

R4OKHK Woodland Oak Woodland

b-7

appe

ndix

b LFRA PNVG Model Code* Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

R4PRMGn Grassland Northern Mixed Grass Prairie

R4PRMGs Grassland Southern Mixed Grass Prairie

R4PRTGc Grassland Tallgrass Prairie - Central

R4PRTGn Grassland Northern Tallgrass Prairie

R4PRTGse Grassland Southern Tallgrass Prairie East

R4WODR Woodland Northern Great Plains Wooded Draws & Ravines

R5BSOW Woodland Interior Highlands Dry Oak/BluestemWoodland/Glade

R5BSSA Grassland Bluestem - Saccahuista

R5DGRA Grassland Desert Grassland

R5FOWOdm Forested Interior Highlands Dry-Mesic Forest & Woodland

R5GCPF Forested Gulf Coastal Plain Pine Flatwoods

R5GCPP Forested West Gulf Coastal Plain Pine -- Uplands +Flatwoods

R5GCPU Forested West Gulf Coastal Plain Pine-HardwoodWoodland/Forest Upland

R5LOSApa Woodland Oak Woodland / Shrubland / Grassland Mosaic

R5MQSA Woodland Mesquite Savanna

R5OAHIdy Woodland Interior Highlands Oak-Hickory (Pine)

R5OASA Grassland Oak Savanna

R5OHSA Woodland Oak-Hickory Savanna

R5PIBS Woodland Pine Bluestem

R5PRBL Grassland Blackland Prairie

R5PRSG Grassland Southern Short/Mixed Grass Prairie

R5PRTG Grassland Southern Tallgrass Prairie

R5SHNS Shrubland Shinnery Oak - Mixed Grass

R5SHNT Shrubland Shinnery Tallgrass

R5SHST Shrubland Southwestern Shrub Steppe

R5SOFPif Forested Southern Floodplain

R5SOFPrf Forested Southern Floodplain - Rare Fire

R5XTMB Forested Cross Timbers

R6BSOH Grassland Mosaic of Bluestem Prairie & Oak-Hickory

R6COLLff Forested Conifer Lowland Embedded in Fire Prone System

R6COLLif Forested Conifer Lowland Embedded in Fire ResistantEcosystem

R6FPFOgl Forested Great Lakes Floodplain Forest

R6GLSF Forested Great Lakes Spruce Fir

R6GLSFif Forested Minnesota Spruce Fir Adjacent to Lake Superior &Drift & Lake Plain

b-8

appendix bLFRA PNVG Model Code* Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

R6JAPI Forested Great Lakes Pine Forest: Jack Pine

R6JAPIop Woodland Great Lakes Pine Barrens

R6JPOPMN Woodland Jack Pine / Open Lands with Frequent (high) FireReturn Interval

R6MABA Forested Maple Basswood

R6MBMHW Forested Great Lakes Maple-Basswood Mesic HardwoodForest

R6MBOA Forested Maple Basswood Oak Aspen

R6NHHEgl Forested Northern Hardwood-Hemlock Forest (Great Lakes)

R6NHMB Forested Northern Hardwood Maple Beech Hemlock

R6NOKS Woodland Northern Oak Savanna

R6OAHI Forested Oak Hickory

R6PIOK Forested Pine Oak

R6RPWPff Forested Red Pine-White Pine with Frequent Fire

R6RPWPif Forested Red Pine-White Pine with Less Frequent Fire

R6WPHEff Forested Great Lakes Pine Forests: White Pine HemlockFrequent Fire

R6WPHEif Forested White Pine Hemlock

R7APOK Forested Appalachian Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

R7BEMA Forested Beech-Maple

R7EPWM Woodland Eastern Woodland Mosaic

R7NEFP Forested Northeast Floodplain

R7NESF Forested Northeast Spruce-Fir Forest

R7NHHE Forested Northern Hardwood Hemlock

R7NHMC Forested Eastern White Pine Northern Hardwood

R7NHNE Forested Northern Hardwoods Northeast

R7NHSP Forested Northern Hardwoods-Spruce

R7NMAR Grassland Northern Coastal Marsh

R7OAPIdx Woodland Eastern Dry-Xeric Oak Pine

R7PIBA Woodland Pine Barrens

R7ROPI Woodland Rocky Outcrop Pine - Northeast

R7SESF Forested Southeastern Red Spruce - Fraser Fir

R8BSOB Grassland Bluestem Oak Barrens

R8FPFOpi Forested Bottomland Hardwood Forest

R8HEWP Forested Hemlock - White Pine - Hardwood

R8MMHW Forested Mixed Mesophytic Hardwood

R8OACOm Forested Appalachian Dry Mesic Oak Forest

R8OAKxe Forested Eastern Dry-Xeric Oak

b-9

appe

ndix

b Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

R8OHPI Forested Appalachian Oak Hickory Pine

R8OKAW Woodland Oak - Ash - Woodland

R8PIECap Woodland Appalachian Shortleaf Pine

R8PIVIap Forested Appalachian Virginia Pine

R8PRWMe Grassland Eastern Prairie Woodland Mosaic

R8SAHE Forested Southern Appalachian High-Elevation Forest

R8TMPP Woodland Table Mountain/Pitch Pine

R9AWCF Forested Atlantic White Cedar Forest

R9BKBE Grassland Southeast Gulf Coastal Plain Blackland Prairie & Woodland

R9EGSG Grassland Everglades Sawgrass

R9FPMA Grassland Floodplain Marsh

R9LLBS Woodland Longleaf Pine/Bluestem

R9LLMU Woodland Longleaf Pine Mesic Uplands

R9LLSH Woodland Longleaf Pine - Sandhills

R9MAPR Grassland Everglades Marl Prairie

R9MARF Forested Maritime Forest

R9MEFL Forested Mesic-Dry Flatwoods

R9OADM Forested Loess Bluff & Plain Forest

R9OHPI Forested Coastal Plain Pine Oak Hickory

R9PAPR Grassland Palmetto Prairie

R9PCSA Grassland Pond Cypress Savanna

R9PCSN Shrubland Pocosin

R9PIRO Woodland Pine Rocklands

R9POPI Woodland Pond Pine

R9SFPM Forested South Florida Coastal Prairie Mangrove Swamp

R9SFSP Woodland South Florida Slash Pine Flatwoods

R9SMAR Grassland Southern Tidal Brackish to Freshwater Marsh

R9SOFP Forested Southern Floodplain

R9SPSC Forested Sand Pine Scrub

R9WPSAat Woodland Atlantic Wet Pine Savanna

R9WPSAgu Grassland Gulf Coast Wet Pine Savanna

RAAlpine Alpine Generic Alpine/Tundra/Barren

RABarren NonVeg Barren

RASnwIce NonVeg Perennial Snow/Ice

RAWater NonVeg Water

b-10

appendix bLFRA PNVG Model Code* Vegetation Type LFRA PNVG Name

RAWetHb Wetland Generic Herbaceous Wetland

RAWetWd Wetland Generic Woody Wetland

RAUnclss Unclassified Unclassified

*The first two digits of the code represent the LFRA modeling zone: R# = Northwest; R0 = NorthernRockies; R1 = California; R2 = Great Basin; R3 = Southewest; R4 = Northern Plains; R5 = SouthCentral; R6 = Great Lakes; R7 = Northeast; R8 = Southern Appalachians; R9 = Southeast.

c-1

appe

ndix

c appendix c: lfra fire regime groups

LEG

EN

D

Fire

Reg

ime

Gro

up I

Fire

Reg

ime

Gro

up II

Fire

Reg

ime

Gro

up II

I

Fire

Reg

ime

Gro

up IV

Fire

Reg

ime

Gro

up V

Wat

er

Snow

/Ice

Barr

en

Wet

land

s

Alp

ine/

Tund

ra/B

arre

n

Unc

lass

ified

d-1

appendix dappendix d: lfra fire regime conditionclass

LEG

END

FRCC

1

FRCC

2

FRCC

3

Wat

er

Snow

/Ice

Barr

en

Dev

elop

ed

Agr

icul

ture

Non

-Cla

ssifi

ed

Unc

lass

ified

e-1

appe

ndix

e appendix e: nature conservancy administrative regions in the lower 48states

TNC

Reg

ion

Cent

ral U

.S.

East

ern

U.S

.

Paci

fic N

orth

Am

eric

aRo

cky

Mou

ntai

n

Sout

hern

U.S

.

f-1

appendix fappendix f: major habitat types in thelower 48 states

Maj

or H

abita

t Typ

eD

eser

ts a

nd X

eric

Shr

ubla

nds

Floo

ded

Gra

ssla

nds a

nd S

avan

nas

Med

iterra

nean

For

ests

, Woo

dlan

ds a

nd S

crub

Tem

pera

te B

road

leaf

and

Mix

ed F

ores

ts

Tem

pera

te C

onife

r For

ests

Tem

pera

te G

rass

land

s, Sa

vann

as a

nd S

hrub

land

s

Trop

ical

and

Sub

tropi

cal G

rass

land

s, Sa

vann

as a

nd S

hrub

land

s

g-1

appe

ndix

g appendix g: nature conservancy conservation areas in the lower 48 states

Nat

ure

Con

serv

ancy

Con

serv

atio

n A

reas

Ecor

egio

ns w

ith In

com

plet

e Po

rtfo

lio

h-1

appendix happendix h: federally administered landsin the lower 48 states

Fede

ral L

and

i-1

appe

ndix

i appendix i: spatial data & analysis methods

The spatial data layers used in this report.are described below and on the followingpages.

Data Layer Description Source

LFRA FireRegime Group

Conceptual groupings that describe the frequency and severity offire that would occur across landscapes under the natural rangeof variability, including the influence of aboriginal burning.

LFRA Grid

LFRA FRGs include:Fire Regime I: 0 to 35 year frequency; low and mixed severityFire Regime II: 0 to 35 year frequency; replacement severityFire Regime III: 35 to 200 year frequency; low and mixed severityFire Regime IV: 35 to 200 year frequency; replacement severityFire Regime V: 200+ year frequency; replacement severity

Fire regime groups were assigned for each LFRA PNVG based onthe LFRA PNVG reference condition model.

LFRA FireRegimeConditionClass

LANDFIRE Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is an indicator oflandscape departure of current vegetation structure and compo-sition from the natural range of variability, as estimated by Pre-European settlement conditions. In LANDFIRE, FRCC is summa-rized by vegetation type over large scale ecological regions(Appendix J). Vegetation structure and composition are surro-gates for fuel composition, fire frequency/severity/pattern, andother associated disturbances, such as insect and disease mor-tality, grazing, severe winds, and drought.

LFRA Grid

FRCC 3 is defined as greater than 66% departed from the refer-ence condition and implies that a system is highly departed fromthe natural range of variability of vegetation characteristics.FRCC 2 is defined as 33 to 66% departed from the referencecondition and implies that a system is moderately departed fromthe natural range of variability of vegetation characteristics.Biodiversity in areas classified as FRCC 3 or 2 is likely departedfrom pre-European conditions, and actions may be needed torestore biodiversity, such as integrated fire management, removalof invasive species, or other management activities.

FRCC 1, defined as less than 33% departure, implies that a sys-tem is likely within the natural range of variability of vegetationcharacteristics. Actions may be needed to keep these areaswithin the natural range of variability and conserve biodiversity,such as integrated fire management, prevention of invasivespecies, or other management activities

ConservancyRegions

Boundary of The Nature Conservancy's administrative units in thelower 48 states of the U.S. Regions include: Central U.S., EasternU.S., Pacific North America, Rocky Mountain, and Southern U.S.

ESRI StatesCoverage

i-2

appendix i

Several preprocessing steps were needed tomodify existing data sets for this analysis.

1. Created boundary grids for NatureConservancy administrative regionsfrom the ESRI states_2m coverage.

2. Converted the major habitat typeshapefile to a grid.

3. Converted the federal lands coverage toa grid.

4. Updated the Conservancy’s conserva-tion area shapefile. At the time webegan our analysis the most current spa-tial dataset for the Conservancy’s con-servation areas was a July 2005shapefile. This layer did not have infor-mation for seven ecoregions that hadnot completed their ecoregional plans atthe time the dataset was created. Weobtained an August 2006, Northwestconservation areas shapefile with morecurrent information for four of themissing ecoregions and eight other adja-cent ecoregions covering parts of thePacific North America and RockyMountain regions. We used the August

2006 dataset to update the July 2005dataset creating the December 2006conservation areas dataset used in thisanalysis, which covered all but threeecoregions in the Lower 48 states of theU.S. Ecoregions that were missing orupdated from the conservation areasdatasets are shown on the next page.

5. Projected all data to the LFRA projec-tion (Albers Conical Equal Area).

6. Created grids of FRG and FRCC foreach Conservancy region by mergingLFRA mapzone (see map on followingpage) grids together using the regionalboundary grids created in step 1 as theanalysis mask.

After preprocessing was complete, wecombined the regional FRG and FRCCgrids (step 6) with other datasets (see GIScalculations table on following page) andused the attribute tables to calculate FRGand FRCC for each level of interest: lower48 states of the U.S., Conservancy regionsand major habitat types.

Major HabitatTypes

A "relatively large unit of land or water containing a char-acteristic set of natural communities that share a largemajority of their species, dynamics, and environmentalconditions (Dinerstein et al. 1995)." These units representbroad patterns of biological organization and diversity onearth.

TNC, 2006TerrestrialEcoregions shape-file

NatureConservancyConservationAreas

The portfolio is one version of a solution set to representcomprehensively, the biodiversity of an ecoregion in an effi-cient and effective manner. Portfolios are designed to bestachieve the conservation goals set for targets in the leastnumber of places and areas of lands and waters. Currentconservation and resource management practices, landownership, levels of threats, and costs of implementingconservation actions are all considered when selectinggeographic priorities for a portfolio.

TNC, 2005 USPortfolios shape-file, updated for 12ecoregions

FederallyAdministeredLands

Lands in federal ownership including Department ofDefense, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fishand Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of LandManagement and Bureau of Reclamation.

Source unknown,coverage

i-3

appe

ndix

iEcoregions missing from July2005 portfolio shapefile

Ecoregions updated usingAugust 2006 NW portfolioshapefile

Ecoregions missing fromDecember 2006 portfolioshapefile

• Aspen Parkland• Dakota Mixed-Grass Prairie• East Cascades - ModocPlateau• Fescue-Mixed Grass Prairie• North Cascades• Okanagan• West Cascades

• Canadian Rocky Mountains• Columbia Plateau• East Cascades - ModocPlateau• Great Basin• Klamath Mountains• Middle Rockies - BlueMountains• North Cascades• Okanagan• Pacific Northwest Coast• West Cascades• Willamette Valley - PugetTrough - Georgia Basin:Temperate Broadleaf and MixedForests• Willamette Valley - PugetTrough - Georgia Basin:Temperate Conifer Forests

Aspen ParklandDakota Mixed-Grass PrairieFescue-Mixed Grass Prairie

GIS Calculation Method

FRCC in Major Habitat Types combined FRCC grid for each region with the major habitat typegrid

FRG in Major Habitat Types combined FRG grid for each region with the major habitat type grid

FRCC in Nature ConservancyConservation Areas

masked the FRCC grid for each region with the portfolio shapefileand combined with the major habitat type grid

FRCC in Federally-AdministeredLands

combined FRCC grid for each region with the federal lands grid

LANDFIRE Map Zones

j-1

appendix jappendix j: ECOMAP subsections

LFRA FRCC was calculated for eachLFRA PNVG within an ECOMAP sub-section (see map on following page). Moreinformation on ECOMAP can be found atwww. http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/.

j-2

appe

ndix

j

ECO

MA

P Su

bsec

tion

appendix k: percentage of area forevery mapped value on the FRCC map

k-1

appendix kFR

CC

1FR

CC

2FR

CC

3W

ater

Sno

w/I

ceB

arre

nU

rban

/Tr

ansp

orta

tion

/M

ines

/Qua

rrie

s

Agr

icul

ture

Wet

land

s/A

lpin

e/O

ther

sU

ncla

ssifi

ed/

Unk

now

n

Low

er 4

8 S

tate

s

123

019

5<

11

226

4<

1

Fire

Reg

ime

Gro

up

FRG

18

39

21<

1<

1<

13

263

<1

FRG

215

2018

<1

<1

<1

143

3<

1

FRG

315

38

14<

1<

1<

11

1913

<1

FRG

423

5312

<1

<1

11

81

<1

FRG

512

30

31<

1<

14

217

3<

1

Wat

er<

1<

1<

19

9<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1

Sno

w/I

ce<

1<

1<

1<

19

9<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1

Bar

ren

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

99

<1

<1

<1

<1

Wet

land

s<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1<

11

791

2

Alp

ine/

Tund

ra/B

arre

n<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1<

19

81

Unc

lass

ified

/Unk

now

n<

1<

1<

1<

1<

1<

17

434

9<

1

Nat

ure

Con

serv

ancy

Reg

ion

Cen

tral

U.S

.11

2112

2<

1<

12

475

<1

East

ern

U.S

.12

44

63

<1

<1

526

4<

1

Pac

ific

Nor

th A

mer

ica

134

027

1<

14

212

1<

1

Roc

ky M

ount

ain

164

031

1<

13

18

1<

1

Sou

ther

n U

.S.

1026

173

<1

<1

327

14<

1

FRC

C1

FRC

C2

FRC

C3

Wat

erS

now

/Ice

Bar

ren

Urb

an/

Tran

spor

tati

on/

Min

es/Q

uarr

ies

Agr

icul

ture

Wet

land

s/A

lpin

e/O

ther

sU

ncla

ssifi

ed/

Unk

now

n

Maj

or H

abit

at T

ype

Des

erts

& X

eric

Shr

ubla

nds

164

029

1<

15

17

<1

<1

Med

iter

rane

an F

ores

ts,

Woo

dlan

ds &

Scr

ub23

34

71

<1

26

261

<1

Tem

pera

te B

road

leaf

&M

ixed

For

ests

103

012

3<

1<

14

357

<1

Tem

pera

te C

onife

r Fo

rest

s12

39

262

<1

12

107

<1

Tem

pera

te G

rass

land

s,S

avan

nas

& S

hrub

land

s12

2216

1<

1<

11

452

<1

k-2

appe

ndix

k