National Fire Plan

National Fire Plan
Name	National Fire Plan
Formed	2000
Jurisdiction	United States
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Parent agency	Department of Agriculture; Department of the Interior

Contents

National Fire Plan The National Fire Plan was a 2000 United States federal initiative created in response to the 1999 wildfire season, intended to coordinate wildfire suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, community protection, restoration, and rehabilitation. It involved agencies such as the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and intersected with legislation including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 and the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009. The plan influenced programs at state and tribal levels, involving partners like the National Association of State Foresters, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, and numerous nongovernmental organizations such as the The Nature Conservancy.

Background and Objectives

The plan followed catastrophic wildfire events like the 1999 fires in Los Alamos, New Mexico, the Cerro Grande Fire, and extensive burns across California, Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon, prompting collaboration among the United States Congress, the White House, and cabinet agencies including the Department of Agriculture (United States) and the United States Department of the Interior. Primary objectives included improving firefighting capacity referenced to entities such as the National Interagency Fire Center, enhancing community protection coordinated with Federal Emergency Management Agency, emphasizing hazardous fuels reduction on lands managed by the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems like Sierra Nevada (United States), Klamath Mountains, and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and supporting research from institutions including the United States Geological Survey and universities such as University of California, Berkeley, University of Montana, and Oregon State University.

Implementation relied on interagency mechanisms like the National Incident Management System and the interagency Incident Command System used during incidents such as the Rodeo–Chediski Fire and the Hayman Fire. Programs included hazardous fuels projects coordinated through local entities like the Colorado State Forest Service and tribal authorities such as the Navajo Nation. The plan supported community wildfire protection planning referenced in partnerships with organizations like the National Association of Counties, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of American Foresters. Research and monitoring efforts connected to the plan engaged the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, and academic centers including University of Washington, Stanford University, and University of California, Davis. Cross-jurisdictional efforts often involved states such as Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington.

Funding mechanisms drew on appropriations from the United States Congress and budget actions managed by the Office of Management and Budget (United States), directing resources to agencies including the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The FLAME Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 later affected budgeting and emergency response frameworks, while oversight came from committees such as the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the United States House Committee on Natural Resources. Grants and cooperative agreements flowed to state agencies like the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and tribal programs administered with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and philanthropic support arrived from institutions such as the Ford Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Society for restoration projects.

Ecological outcomes involved interactions with fire-adapted ecosystems including the Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and Chaparral (shrubland), and affected landscapes such as the Sierra Nevada (United States), Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and Mojave Desert. Restoration and suppression activities intersected with species conservation issues involving the California spotted owl, Northern spotted owl, grizzly bear, and native flora managed under programs related to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Fuel reduction and prescribed burning programs were informed by research from the Joint Fire Science Program and monitoring by the United States Geological Survey. Treatments raised questions in regions like the Klamath Basin and around watersheds such as the Upper Colorado River Basin about impacts on sedimentation, hydrology, and habitat connectivity affecting initiatives by organizations like the Nature Conservancy and university centers including Colorado State University.

Assessments by entities such as the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service examined metrics like acres treated, firefighter capacity, and community preparedness in counties such as Los Angeles County, California, Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and Coconino County, Arizona. Evaluations referenced case studies including the Cerro Grande Fire recovery, the Hayman Fire rehabilitation, and cross-boundary collaborations in the Blue Mountains (Oregon). Research articles in journals connected to Society for Range Management and reports from the Forest Service Research and Development provided evidence on effectiveness, while natural experiment analyses involved partners like University of Montana and Utah State University.

Criticism emerged from conservation groups such as Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and Defenders of Wildlife, and from some scientists at institutions like Smithsonian Institution and University of California, Berkeley, who argued that emphasis on mechanical thinning and suppression could harm old-growth stands in areas like the Sequoia National Forest and Mendocino National Forest. Legal challenges involved litigation in federal courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over projects affecting species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and issues raised under the National Environmental Policy Act. Debates engaged policymakers in the United States Congress and stakeholders including timber industry groups such as the American Forest & Paper Association and community organizations like the International Association of Fire Chiefs, weighing trade-offs between suppression, prescribed fire, and landscape resilience strategies promoted by researchers at the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory and international comparisons involving agencies like the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in discussions about best practices.