Federal Land Assistance, Managment and Enhancement Act
Position:
Wildland fire management is the most daunting challenge facing the Forest Service today. Because suppression costs associated with catastrophic wildland fires are trending steeply upward, suppression comes at the expense of other resource and program areas. These unplanned cuts are seriously undermining the ability of the Forest Service to fulfill other mission obligations. NFFE supports the FLAME Act (S 561, HR 1404), which would establish an independent emergency funding source for catastrophic wildland fire suppression activities on federal lands. It would also mandate development of a cohesive wildland fire management strategy and provide incentives for local communities to improve their fire readiness.
The Situation
The 1988
Yellowstone fires can be seen as a turning
point in the ability of land management
agencies to manage wildland fires with historic
budgets, resources and strategies. The size,
severity and costs associated with wildland
fires have continued to escalate, increasing by
70 percent since the 1990s. Historic fire
suppression strategies have replaced fire
adapted ecosystems with denser stands and
increased fuel loads. Drought and other
stressors of climate change have affected
forest health, making them more prone to burn.
Residential and commercial development in the
wildland urban interface has mushroomed. As a
result, today’s wildland firefighters are faced
with hotter and more frequent fires that
threaten more life and property.
Currently,
suppression funding is allocated out of the
Forest Service budget based on the 10-year
average of actual suppression costs. These
have increased precipitously and are trending
steeply upward. Appropriations have not kept
pace.
As a result, the percentage of the
Forest Service budget allocated to fire
management activities has risen from 13 percent
in 1991 to 45 percent for 2009. Unfortunately,
even these rapidly increasing allocations have
been insufficient: the actual costs of
suppression often exceed allocated amounts.
Because these are emergency events, the agency
cannot wait for supplemental funding and is
forced to transfer the needed funds from other
programs to keep firefighting resources in the
field. Even if these funds are eventually
restored, which is not always the case, this
seriously disrupts other time-sensitive program
work.
This “fire borrowing” from the already
depleted resources supposedly dedicated for
other mission work is particularly
harmful.
It has led to additional costs, reduced
revenues, deterioration of infrastructure,
damaged Forest Service credibility, and
threatened relationships with
partners.
The
Solution
Funding the suppression costs of catastrophic wildfires out of the Forest Service’s appropriated budget is simply not sustainable. The FLAME Act would remedy this by creating a supplemental funding source for catastrophic emergency wildland fire events on federal lands. Routine fire management costs would still come out of the agency budget; however, the resources necessary to respond to these unpredictable catastrophic events would no longer come at the expense of other critical mission work.
Key Points
-
Appropriations to the FLAME Fund are authorized based on the average amount expended for emergency wildfire suppression over the five preceding years.
-
FLAME funds may only be used by the Forest Service or Department of the Interior agencies for large, severe, and high-threat wildfires or when cumulative costs of routine suppression exceed amounts appropriated.
-
To defray future costs, any funds appropriated for routine or emergency suppression but not used in a given year are transferred to the next year’s account.
-
To minimize disruptions caused by “fire borrowing,” transfer of funds from non-fire accounts may occur only when all amounts appropriated for the FLAME fund and for routine suppression have been obligated.
-
The Act requires the wildland firefighting agencies to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy. It also provides incentives for local communities to reduce their exposure to wildfire risk.
-
FLAME is supported by a diverse group of industry, labor, environmental, and governmental organizations and entities, including five former chiefs of the Forest Service.
NFFE
Position
NFFE supports the FLAME Act (S 561, HR 1404) and urges its enactment. However, we do have concerns with some of the amendments incorporated into the House version of the bill, HR 1404. In particular, we are concerned about the following sections of HR 1404:
-
Sec. 2(b)(3) was amended to make FLAME funds available for containment activities in response to insect infestations. We are concerned that this could be interpreted to authorize funding of non-suppression activities with FLAME funds and open the door for the fund to be raided for any number of non-suppression activities. Clarification of the intent of this amendment, which we understand was to ensure that insect damage is considered as a risk factor in determining whether a wildfire is high-risk and therefore a candidate to be funded by FLAME funds, is needed.
-
We are concerned that the prescriptive notification requirements added to Sec. 3(d) may discourage prescribed burns that would reduce the risk of wildfires. The planning and implementation of prescribed burns depends on environmental conditions that do not conform to agency schedules. Notification requirements need to give agency managers adequate flexibility to deal with on-the-ground realities so that opportunities to mitigate wildfire risks will not be missed.
-
Sec. 5(a) provides incentives in the form of potential grants to local communities that show a commitment to reducing their wildfire risk by taking specified steps to become more “fire ready.” We believe this is an important local responsibility. This section was amended to lower the “fire ready” bar. We would like to discuss how to keep this bar appropriately high without putting an undue burden on local communities.
Click Here for a Printable Position Paper