|Table of Contents
Back | Next | Cover Page
Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act
Interim Field Guide
Section 102(a)(5) of the HFRA authorizes projects that will enhance protection from catastrophic wildland fire for threatened and endangered species or their habitats and that maintain and restore such habitats. Projects are authorized on NFS and BLM lands containing threatened and endangered species habitat where:
Many threatened and endangered species require fire to maintain their habitat. Disturbances, such as fire, provide the ecological basis for conservation management in many forest ecosystems. The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (figure 11) and Kirtland’s warbler are two examples. Projects that return fire to the ecosystem in a manner that improves or maintains habitat effectiveness should be considered important for such species. If such projects also provide enhanced protection from catastrophic wildland fire for threatened and endangered species or their habitat, they may be authorized under the HFRA.
Some threatened and endangered species can be adversely affected by wildland fire. Whether a potential wildland fire may pose a risk to a species, and the degree of risk, depend on many factors, including the likelihood that a fire may occur; the fire’s size, intensity, and severity; fire frequency; the time of year of the fire; the availability of needed replacement habitat; and the species’ habitat requirements. These factors should be considered when determining the threat of wildland fire to species and habitats (figure 12). Fire regime condition class assessments also should be considered when determining whether a treatment or series of treatments would reduce the likelihood of an uncharacteristically severe wildland fire and benefit the species overall.
Threatened and endangered species recovery plans, final listing rules, the Fire Effects Information System, the NatureServe Explorer, USDA Forest Service and DOI BLM resource management plans, and the scientific literature are important sources of information when determining whether hazardous-fuel treatment will benefit threatened and endangered species or their habitat (see References). The expected effects of wildland fire on species limiting factors and the threats to a species are key considerations.
Many threatened and endangered species have approved recovery plans that identify specific tasks needed to recover species and ecosystems and the significance of fire (natural and prescribed) to the species. All final rules to list species under the ESA identify the factors that contributed to a need to list the species. These rules may include information on fire’s ecological importance for the species.
The potential beneficial and adverse effects to the species, over the short and long term, need to be identified when determining whether a project will produce a net positive benefit. Resource managers should refer to the 2002 HFI Net Benefits Guidance (see References) issued by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries for a more thorough discussion.
Coordination among fuel and fire specialists, ecologists, biologists, and researchers—internal and external—is especially important. The design and evaluation of fuel treatments at project and landscape scales should be appropriate for the geographic ranges of any relevant threatened and endangered species.
Projects based on Section 102(a)(5) of the HFRA must comply with guidelines in approved threatened and endangered species recovery plans or final listing rules and with the management requirements they include. If such rules or plans do not identify the need to reduce the risk of wildland fire, resource managers should weigh the positive and adverse effects that fuel-reduction activities would have on the species, using the best available information (see References).
The analysis and documentation for projects under Section 102(a)(4) of the HFRA are intended to be integrated with the analysis and documentation done under current NEPA guidance and other relevant guidance. This documentation should be included in the NEPA documents normally prepared during project planning, the Decision Records or Records of Decision prepared before project implementation, or in the project file itself.
All projects implemented under this section of the HFRA should include documentation in the administrative record on the factors that were analyzed and the assumptions that were made when determining the net benefit to threatened and endangered species as provided for in the Judicial Review section.
|Print this pub|