President Obama has released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. At this point it is merely a suggestion until Congress passes appropriation or spending cap bills.
The budget fully funds the 10-year average cost of wildland fire suppression operations, but there is a reduction in the funding of the treatment of hazardous fuels — by 24% in the Department of Agriculture and by 21% in the Department of Interior.
The numbers in the table below are in millions, and represent the proposed wildfire budgets for the U.S. Forest Service and the four land management agencies within the Department of Interior.
| 2012 | 2013 | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS Preparedness | 1,004 | 1,001 | -3 |
| USFS Suppression | 853 | 931 | +78 |
| USFS Hazardous Fuels | 317 | 242 | -75 |
| USDA State & Volunteer Fire Assistance Grants | 99 | 84 | -15 |
| DOI Preparedness | 277 | 280 | +3 |
| DOI Suppression | 81 | 277 | +196 |
| DOI Hazardous Fuels | 183 | 145 | -38 |
| DOI Rural Fire Assistance (was $7 million in 2011) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
In the Department of Interior’s justification for the 21% reduction in the hazardous fuels budget, they invoked the name of a U.S. Forest Service researcher, Jack Cohen, who has studied the wildland urban interface:
The Wildland Fire Management account in DOI supports wildland fire preparedness, suppression, rehabilitation, and hazardous fuels reduction activities. When targeted properly, hazardous fuels reduction activities (e.g., removing brush and small trees in strategic locations) can reduce impacts from wildfires, including threats to public safety, suppression costs, and damage to natural and cultural resources.DOI and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service have agreed on several actions to reduce impacts from wildfires, such as: 1) prioritizing fuels treatments that have been identified as key components of Community Wildfire Protection Plans and are cost effective; and 2) expanding wildland fire use as a means of treating fuels.Although funding for hazardous fuels treatments has quadrupled since 2000, the previous policy of treatingthe greatest number of acres possible has led to a patchwork of hazardous fuels treatment that has not been as focused as it could have been on reducing risks in the WUI. As suggested by Forest Service scientists, extensive wildland vegetation management does not effectively change whether or not homes in the WUI catch on fire. However, when there is a clear priority of treating acres within the WUI, hazardous fuels treatments can be more effective in reducing risk.1,2 In 2013, the Forest Service and DOI will target fuels management activities to mitigate hazards and enhance the ability to control fires in WUI. The agencies will focus funding for hazardous fuels treatments in communities that are on track to meet Firewise standards and have identified acres to be treated in Community Wildfire Protection Plans (or the equivalent) and have made an investment in implementing local solutions to protect against wildland fire.Citations1 Cohen, Jack D., Wildland-Urban Fire – A different approach, USDA Forest Service, unpublished research synthesis, Rocky Mountain Research Station, http://www.firewise.org/resources/files/WUI_HIR/Wildlandurbanfire-approach.pdf.2 Cohen, Jack D., Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How Much?, USDA Forest Service Gen.Tech.Rep. PSW-GTR-173 (1999), http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_1999_cohen_j001.pdf.
The Department of Agriculture explained their reduction in the U.S. Forest Service’s hazardous fuels budget, saying that “though the majority of the inexpensive locations have now been treated to reduce hazardous fuels, FS is also furthering its efforts to focus its hazardous fuels treatments in the Wildland-Urban Interface in areas that are identified in Community Wildfire Protection Plans and are highest priority.”
Update: http://johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=abc050a1-818f-4303-a6f9-c7a55c9dc9e7
We don’t protect what we don’t value. For generations people have tended to place relatively little emphasis on protecting the natural systems that surround them, in great part because they have neither understood nor appreciated their value. Presently, it would seem, many persons in this society equate “home” to a structure of concrete, wires, sheetrock, shingles and paint. It is argued that structures should be the first priority in terms of spending fuel treatment dollars. I say again, we don’t protect what we don’t value, thus, I am left to believe that those that advocate this position seem to place little value whatsoever on watersheds or habitats. I find this disconcerting. While losing one’s house (I did not say home) to fire is tragic (especially for the insurance company) houses can be rebuilt in a season, while an ecosystem will take centuries to recover (perhaps not in its previous state), and watersheds will require millennia.
Thanks for correcting that.
Its my understanding (and I might be wrong) that when someone says for example “We spend 30 million a year on the smokejumper project” (I am using 30m as an example). that includes EVERYTHING–utilities, lease on photocopiers, toilet paper, pencils, travel, etc. A lot of indirect costs that dont have anything to do with boots on the ground. In the private sector I guess it would be called overhead. Not to be confused with ICS “Overhead”.
With a 78% increase in supression, does that mean the rumors of closing the West Yellowstone and North Cascades Smokejumper Bases are off the table?
It’s not 78%, just $78 million (about 9% higher): lots of folks will be fighting for it!
Chris: Emmett is correct. And additionally, it is my understanding, and someone with more experience with the federal fire budgets correct me if I’m wrong, but the Suppression funds are supposed to be used primarily for suppression operations on going fires. The Preparedness funds are used for daily recurring expenses such as salaries and equipment. So, a change in the amount of suppression funding should not affect firefighter staffing. In the past the amount programmed for suppression was an arbitrary number and was frequently very different from the amount that was actually needed. Now that amount is based on the 10-year average cost of wildland fire suppression operations.
Jack Cohen's work is excellent; unfortuately, if you read his papers, their conclusions don't support putting all fuels funds into WUI. Homes burn because of their materials, and what homeowners do to remove vegetation near their homes is what matters. What will happen, though, is untreated fuels will accumulate in non-wui areas, likely leading to higher suppression and postfire rehabilitation costs.
What a crazy concept: homeowners should actually bear some level of responsibility for the protection of their own homes! It will never fly – sounds like creeping socialism or some UN Resolution that is trying to take away our freedom to build a wood-sided home with a shake roof in the WUI.
I knew Jack many years ago when we were both working at the Riverside Fire Lab, and greatly respect both the man and his research. "The house that does not ignite is the house that does not burn" could be the over-simplified logical basis for his recommendations. Read more at the Firewise Communities website – http://www.firewise.org/Information/Research-and-Guidance/WUI-Home-Ignition-Research/The-Jack-Cohen-Files.aspx.
Hope this high-profile mention brings him well-deserved recognition and not disrespect.
Robert, I also hope it brings Jack respect and recognition. And I hope the administration did not associate his name with something that is counter to the results of his work.