[Senate Hearing 111-128]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-128
PREPAREDNESS FOR THE 2009 WILDFIRE SEASON
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE PREPAREDNESS OF FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR THE
2009 WILDFIRE SEASON AND TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 561 AND H.R. 1404,
THE FEDERAL LAND ASSISTANCE, MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT
__________
JULY 21, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-001 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Dalton, Patricia, Managing Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office.................. 12
Jensen, Jay, Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 10
MacSwords, Leah, President, National Association of State
Foresters, State Forester of Kentucky, Representing the Partner
Caucus on Fire Suppression Funding Solutions................... 35
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Peterson, R. Max, Retired Chief, Forest Service (1979-1987)...... 40
Suh, Rhea, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget,
Department of the Interior..................................... 4
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Wyoming....................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 47
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 57
PREPAREDNESS FOR THE 2009 WILDFIRE SEASON
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The committee will come to order. Today the
chairman of our full committee, Chairman Bingaman is unable to
be here at this time. So he asked me to open this morning's
hearing.
Today the committee looks at the preparedness of the
Federal land management agencies for the current wildfire
season. The heart of the problem it seems to me is pretty
straightforward. We are having more large wildfires.
They are more frequent. They are more extreme. Putting them
out means spending more money on what is known as wildfire
suppression.
So what has happened is almost every year the Forest
Service has to go out and spend more money on wildfire
suppression than it has budgeted. Then it goes out and borrows
billions of dollars. That's been the case over a number of
years from the programs that are set up to prevent the
wildfires. These are programs like thinning and hazardous fuels
reduction.
Now the reality is that these quick cash schemes never
solve the budget problem. They all but guarantee that future
wildfires are going to be even more costly and more dangerous.
In fact the Forest Service's borrowing results in higher costs,
not only to taxpayers, but also to the private businesses and
organizations that work with the Forest Service. It has
adversely affected virtually everything the Forest Service does
and poses a significant threat to the Agency's capacity to
carry out its mission.
It is very clear there needs to be a new approach to be
able to get ahead of the problem of wildfire and keep the
buildup of hazardous fuels in check. At past hearings before
this committee the Forest Service Inspector General testified
that hazardous fuels are estimated to be accumulating on forest
lands three times as fast as they can be treated. With the
current approach it is not a question of if, but when the next
disaster will strike.
Today the committee is going to consider several important
pieces of legislation to deal with this. The committee intends
to consider S. 561, H.R. 1404, the FLAME Act. They have been
sponsored by our chair, by my friend the ranking member,
Senator Murkowski. I'm very pleased to be joining Chairman
Bingaman and Senator Murkowski in co-sponsoring this important
legislation.
In addition I am also working on legislation to greatly
step up the pace of desperately needed work to reduce the
buildup of hazardous fuels and the risk of catastrophic fire. I
want the Forest Service to have new tools to get out in front
of the problem and prevent our forest lands and the taxpayers
from getting burned. It is my hope to have that legislation
ready for introduction shortly.
Finally from the outset of his administration, the
President, President Obama has called for a full and honest
accounting of the money we plan to spend. Referring to the past
practices of failing to adequately budget for fires is one
example. Accordingly his fiscal year 2010 proposes for the
first time a separate account to be held in reserve to fund
wildfire suppression costs that exceed the standard budget
during the next fiscal year. The FLAME Act complements the
President's proposal by providing the authorization and
administrative direction along with future appropriations that
are necessary for a long term solution.
Today the committee will hear from several panels of
witnesses.
The first panel will be Jay Jensen, Deputy Undersecretary
for Natural Resources in the Department of Agriculture.
The Honorable Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy
Management and Budget for the Department of the Interior.
Patricia Dalton, Managing Director for Natural Resources
and Environment at the Government Accountability Office.
We will be going to your testimony for the three of you
momentarily. But first I'd like to turn to the committee's
ranking member, Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to be with you this morning. As I mentioned
Alaska is on fire, we're having actually a really nice summer
up North. But with the good, dry weather brings the fires that
we so often see.
I understand Alaska is about 1.1 million acres that have
been burned. This is out of the 2.8 million acres that have
swept across the country. So once again, Alaska is in the news
when it comes to our wildfires.
Mr. Chairman, you've indicated some of the issues that
arise when we look at the budget within the Forest Service. The
fire programs now cost the Forest Service more than 50 percent
of its overall budget. The combination of drought, suburban
growth and the wild land interface and extremely poor forest
health conditions all point to higher fire suppression costs.
The result of these challenges, as you mentioned, is the
FLAME Act that we have co-sponsored. The House of
Representatives has made some changes to the FLAME Act that I
think are unacceptable. The questions that I will pose this
morning will help provide some clarity to that. I'm also
concerned with the manner in which the administration proposed
funding fire suppression in the FY2010 budget. When the FLAME
Act is signed into law it will not bear fruit unless the
administration and the Appropriations Committees harmonize
their fire budget request to the FLAME Act.
I have looked at the 2009 quadrennial fire review report.
It was put together by the fire staffs at the respective land
management agencies, State foresters and others. For the past
100 years the Forest Service and BLM focused on land
management. Fire fighting was only a small additional program
that they carried out to help protect the investments that were
made in land management.
Today I think we have seen fire preparedness and
suppression become the tail that literally wags the dog. Land
management seems to be an afterthought. I sometimes fear that
those within the Forest Service want to become the masters of
disaster response. I'm not sure that this should be the task of
our land management agencies.
I see no reason that the Forest Service or BLM should be
dealing with pandemics or other civil defense crisis as a core
mission. But this appears to be becoming their role. I think
that this can be taken too far.
In some portions of California they've taken on the
responsibility of being first responders for traffic accidents.
In the report they envision being called on to deal with
disease outbreaks and other disasters that have absolutely
nothing to do with the lands that they have been entrusted to
manage. This has implications to other non-fire resource
management. This committee and this Congress needs to stop the
mission creep or we'll need to double the size in the budgets
for these two agencies.
Finally there is another issue looming that we need to
focus on. In 2004 the Forest Service grounded 33 large fire
fighting aircraft due to their age and their metal fatigue
issues. We went from 44 such aircraft to a fleet of less than
15. The Forest Service shifted to using only former Navy
antisubmarine war aircraft flown by contract companies. This
past year the Navy was forced to ground 39 of its P-3 Orion
aircraft due to metal fatigue issued in the wings.
Since the majority of the Forest Service contract fire
bombers are P-3s, we need to become better prepared to deal
with this issue. It is approaching and I think we all recognize
that it is going to be pretty expensive.
All of the alternative fixes are costly. If we don't put
time into thinking about the issue and preparing for the day
that the wings literally start falling off. We will find
ourselves at the mercy of the Department of Agriculture as they
attempt to provide a solution. Hastily thought out emergency
responses are always more costly, certainly more disruptive. I
think we need to be proactive in anticipating.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the comments from the
witnesses and working with you on the FLAME Act and other good
legislation.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. You're absolutely
right in terms of your diagnosis and the opportunity to move
ahead. So I look forward to working closely with you.
Let's go next to Ms. Suh. Welcome, and I appreciate your
participation. I know you've been cooperating with the staff.
We'll make your prepared remarks a part of the record in their
entirety.
For all our witnesses I know that there is almost a
physical compulsion to just put one's head down and start
reading. But if there is any way we can persuade you to
summarize your views, we'll make your prepared remarks a part
of history for the ages. Ok?
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. Ms. Suh, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RHEA SUH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Suh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Senator
Murkowski. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today
on Federal wildland fire management and options for funding
this activity. The Department of Agriculture and the Department
of the Interior continue to work closely in wildfire
management.
My colleague, Deputy Under Secretary Jensen and I have
coordinated our statement to provide a comprehensive
presentation of the management challenges we share as well as
our ongoing efforts to meet these challenges more effectively.
We have submitted our joint, full written statement for the
record. In order to be mindful of your time, I've condensed my
oral comments to basically provide a brief context for the
challenges associated with wildfire management today and a
brief update on the 2009 fire season and our State of
readiness.
Wildland fire and wildland firefighting are influenced by a
complex set of environmental and social factors. As you are
aware fires in recent years have become larger and fire seasons
have grown longer due to climate change, persistent drought and
hazardous fuels accumulations. In addition development within
the wildland urban interface has increased the complexity of
fighting wildfires. We believe these factors are the primary
drivers behind rising costs and are the leading variables
driving the rapid increase in fire suppression expenditures.
Both the Department of the Interior and Agriculture
recognize this serious responsibility we bear in protecting
people, property and natural resources from wildfire. While our
initial attack success continues to be very good, roughly 97
percent in the last several years, our highest priority is the
safety of our firefighters and our citizens. Reduced exposure
to unnecessary risk during fire incidences will continue to
guide fire management decisions and will anchor our actions.
Additionally we will continue to actively work with
communities to expand their capacity to mitigate risks from
damaging fire. We will continue to make fuel treatment and
wildland urban interface areas a priority, assist localities in
building the response capability in wildfire prone areas, work
collaboratively with local communities to understand the role
of fire in these landscapes, and help foster individual
responsibilities for private property protection.
The 2009 wildfire season has been moderate to date. June
was a relatively wet and cool month throughout most of the
West. As the season progresses below normal significant fire
potential is expected across portions of the Great Basin, the
Southwest and the Southeast.
However there are areas of the country that we need to pay
careful attention to: portions of Washington, California and
the Appalachian Mountains have been drier than normal and
significant fire potential is forecast to increase or persist
across these areas.
So far, as of July 15, over 51,000 fires have burned to an
excess of 2.5 million acres. Over 85 percent of these incidents
to date have been on State or other non-Federal lands with more
than two-thirds of the acres burned.
To prepare for the conditions anticipated in the 2009 fire
season, the Departments are working together to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of our firefighting resources.
In terms of our firefighting forces in 2009, we have over
18,000 firefighters available, including permanent and
seasonal, Federal and State employees, crews from tribal and
local governments, contract crews and emergency and temporary
hires. This number is comparable to those from last year.
In terms of our aviation, the wildland fire agencies
continue to employ a mix of fixed and rotor wing aircraft.
Interior, the lead contractor for Single Engine Air Tankers,
will maintain a mix of aviation resources to include 21 Single
Engine Air Tankers, 44 helicopters and 13 aerial supervision
aircraft in 2009, which is again, similar to that of 2008. This
resource readiness is comparable to the last several years and
we believe an effective approach. We do acknowledge however,
that we need to look at our long-term aviation needs and the
Departments are doing that now.
Before my colleague, Mr. Jensen completes our joint
testimony. I want to express my appreciation to the members of
this committee and to the full House for their efforts to
address the current problems related to the way fire
suppression costs are managed. The administration supports the
FLAME Act if amended to provide for a contingency reserve as
outlined by the President's budget. We believe that the
administration's budget proposal can address the problem.
The administration looks forward to working with Congress
on safe, cost effective and accountable results in managing
wildfire. This concludes my oral statement. I'm happy to answer
any questions you may have later. Thank you.
[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Suh and Mr. Jensen
follows:]
Joint Statement of Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management
and Budget, Department of the Interior, and Jay Jensen, Deputy Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of
Agriculture
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Murkowski, and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on Federal wildland fire
management and options for funding this activity. The Department of
Agriculture and the Department of the Interior continue to work closely
together in wildfire management We have coordinated our statement to
provide a well-rounded presentation of the management challenges we
share, as well as our recent efforts to meet these challenges more
effectively.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
The Departments take seriously the protection of people, property
and valuable natural resources from wildfire. We are prepared for the
2009 wildland fire season and are staffed to provide safe, effective
fire management. We have available fire fighting forces--firefighters,
equipment, and aircraft--comparable to 2008 with more than 18,000
firefighters, and we will have equal or greater numbers of aviation,
engines and other equipment assets on the ground. Further, the
Departments have expanded strategic centralized management and pre-
positioned aviation assets in order to constantly improve management
effectiveness and increase cost efficiency which will lead to even
greater safety and community and resource protection.
We will continue our commitment to successful initial attack of
wildland fire. For the last several years, the wildland fire agencies
faced 18,000 or more wildfires a year with an average of 97% success on
initial attack. This will be carried out, however, with full attention
to firefighter safety as the foremost principle. Reduced exposure to
unnecessary risk during fire incidents continues to guide fire
management decisions and anchors our actions. Additionally, we continue
to actively work with communities to expand their capacity to be safe
from damaging fire. We continue to make fuels treatment in wildland
urban interface areas a priority, assist localities to build their
response capability, work collaboratively with local communities in
wildfire prone areas to understand the role of fire in these landscapes
and help find ways to take actions to mitigate risk, and help spread
the knowledge of tools to foster individual responsibility to property
protection.
Wildland fire and wildland fire fighting are influenced by a
complex set of environmental and social factors. Though there have been
a decreasing number of wildfires on National Forest System lands over
the past ten years, fires across jurisdictions in recent years have
become larger, consuming more acres, and fire seasons have grown longer
due to climate change\1\, persistent drought and hazardous fuels
accumulations\2\ that reflect in part the results of previous fire
management. In addition, the expansion of development has increased the
complexity of fighting wildland fire. These trends are not expected to
change. In fact, it is expected that climate change will continue to
result in environmental responses that bring greater probability of
longer fire seasons and bigger fire events in most regions of the
country. Weather shifts and cumulative drought effects will further
stress fuels accumulations and are predicted to result in more total
fire on the landscape and potentially more large fires. Additionally,
although current economic conditions have slowed, growth in wildland
areas, regional shifts in population and demographic trends point to
more seasonal recreational homes and full time residency in areas
adjacent to forested public lands. We believe these factors, as well as
the management framework and decisions during some fire incidents, are
the primary drivers behind rising costs and are the leading variables
driving annual fire suppression expenditures to have frequently
exceeded the ten-year average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joyce, L.A. et al (2008) Chapter 3 National Forests in US
Climate Change Science Program: Preliminary review of adaptive options
for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.s.
Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change
Research. [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, L.A. Joyce, P.
Kareiva, b.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott
(Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC USA,
873 pp.
\2\ Westerling. A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, T.W. Swetnam. 2006.
Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire
Activity. Science. 313 (5789): 940-943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 WILDLAND FIRE SEASON OUTLOOK
The 2009 wildland fire season has been light to date in which we
have seen the longest period at Preparedness Level 1 since 1990. June
was a very wet and relatively cool month over much of the West.
However, portions of Washington, northern Idaho and Montana were drier
than normal and the Northwest and Southeast were persistently hot and
dry. Although welcome short-term relief was provided in many locations,
drought conditions in areas of the Northwest, California, Nevada, and
Texas are expected to persist or worsen.
As the season progresses, below normal significant fire potential
is expected across portions of the Great Basin, the Southwest, and
Southeast. Conversely, significant fire potential is forecast to
increase or persist across portions of Washington, California and the
Appalachian Mountains during the leaf drop period in October.
As of July 15, 2009 over 51,000 fires have burned an excess of 2.5
million acres. Over 85 percent of the incidents to date have occurred
on state and other non-federal lands and more than two thirds of the
acres burned were non-federal lands.
WILDLAND FIRE PREPAREDNESS
To prepare for conditions anticipated in the 2009 fire season, the
Departments are working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
our fire fighting resources. Fire managers assign local, regional, and
national fire fighting personnel and equipment based on anticipated
fire starts, actual fire occurrence, fire spread, and severity with the
help of information from the National Interagency Fire Center
Predictive Services group.
Firefighting Forces
For the 2009 fire season, we have available firefighting forces--
firefighters, equipment, and aircraft--comparable to those available in
2008. More than 18,000 firefighters are available, including permanent
and seasonal Federal and State employees, crews from Tribal and local
governments, contract crews, and emergency/temporary hires. This figure
includes levels consistent with 2008 of highly-trained firefighting
crews, smokejumpers, Type 1 national interagency incident management
teams (the most experienced and skilled teams) available for complex
fires or incidents, and Type 2 incident management teams available for
geographical or national incidents. The Departments frequently work in
unified command with State and local departments. They serve a critical
role in our initial attack success and we could not be as effective as
we have been without them.
The Forest Service hosts four interagency National Incident
Management Organization (NIMO) teams staffed for 2009. These are four
seven-member full-time Type I Incident Management Teams ready to
respond to wildland fire incidents. In addition, the NIMO teams have
worked with selected National Forests that are historically at higher
risk of large fire prior to the season to work collaboratively to build
capacity through strategic pre-season planning and training in risk
management protocol for decision making and critical incident
operations.
The National Interagency Coordination Center, located at the
National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, coordinates fire fighting
needs throughout the nation. In the event of multiple, simultaneous
fires, resources are prioritized, allocated, and, if necessary, re-
allocated by the National Multi-Agency Coordinating group, composed of
representatives of major fire organizations headquartered at NIFC.
Prioritization ensures firefighting forces are positioned where they
are needed most. Fire managers dispatch and track personnel, equipment,
aircraft, vehicles, and supplies and are all managed through an
integrated national system. If conditions become extreme, assistance
from the Department of Defense is available under standing agreements,
as well as fire fighting forces from Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New
Zealand, using established agreements and protocols.
Aviation
The wildland firefighting agencies continue to employ a mix of
fixed and rotor wing aircraft. Key components of the Forest Service
2009 aviation assets include up to 20 civilian large air tankers on
Federal contracts, along with up to 33 Type 1 heavy helicopters and 36
Type 2 medium helicopters on national exclusive-use contracts; 53 Type
3 helicopters on local or regional exclusive-use contracts, and 8
Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System units that will be available for
deployment. Additionally, there are nearly 300 call-when-needed Type 1,
2 and 3 helicopters available for fire management support as conditions
and activity dictate. Likewise, Interior, the lead contractor for
Single Engine Air Tankers, will maintain a mix of aviation resources to
include 21 SEATS, 44 Helicopters, and 13 Aerial Supervision Aircraft in
2009 similar to that used in 2008. This resource readiness is
comparable to the past several years and we believe an effective
approach. We do acknowledge, however, that we need to look at our long-
term aviation needs, and the Departments are doing that now.
IMPACTS OF A CHANGING AND EXPANDING FIRE ENVIRONMENT
Currently, ecosystems across the country are out-of-balance with
fire. The trends are for fire to expand across the landscape. A
combination of mechanical treatment and managed fire can help return
some fire adapted ecosystems to health and prevent heavy accumulations
of highly flammable fuels. But, current conditions can mean more
extreme fire that puts people and natural resources at risk. We must be
prepared to cope with the potential for increasing acres burned over
the next five years, more extreme fire behavior, and irregular fire
patterns on the landscape. These factors could affect cost. For
example, last year, although the wildland fire agencies successfully
suppressed 97% of all wildfires on initial attack, forty wildfires grew
to become ``megafires'' (.25 of 1%) representing more than half of the
Forest Service expenditures on wildland fire. The agencies are working
together and providing resources to address these problem areas.
This Administration makes the protection of communities, the
environment, and firefighter safety a priority. The factors described
above increase fire fighting complexity and have contributed to
increased expenditures by the agency. The inflation-adjusted ten-year
average for wildland fire suppression for two Departments, $1.5
billion, is more than twice the FY 2001 level. These increases in turn
elevate the 10-year average for wildland fire suppression used in the
Budget formulation. Therefore, the Wildland Fire Management budget has
grown significantly and now makes up over 48% of the Forest Service
discretionary budget and Interior's suppression budget is now 41
percent of the fire program. Because the budget reflects the
Administration's priorities within a constrained budget environment,
escalating suppression and fuels treatment obligations-like all other
resource management program obligations-have been absorbed within the
wildland fire agencies' discretionary totals. In recent years lower
amounts have been available for other mission critical programs across
the agencies. The President's Fiscal year 2010 budget addresses this as
discussed below.
We have spent over $1.5 billion annually fighting wildfires in 5
out of the past 7 years. In addition to the increasing size of the
Wildland Fire portion of the overall Forest Service budget,
approximately $1.9 billion has been transferred from non-fire agency
programs to help cover fire suppression operations costs since FY 2002.
Fire transfers have also impacted Interior as well, but to a relatively
lesser degree. It should be noted that most, but not all, of these
funds have been restored to the agencies through emergency supplemental
appropriations. Interior has executed over $800 million in transfers.
Responding to these emergencies with transfers that typically occur in
the final months of the fiscal year, coupled with the shifting of
personnel resources from program work to work associated with wildfire
suppression response have resulted in considerable work disruption,
delay, postponement, and even cancellation of projects. This transfer
authority is an important tool to ensure that there will not be a lapse
in emergency fire fighting activities due to a lack of funding.
Responding to these emergencies have affected the wildland fire
agencies' ability to deliver their programs of work, and has reduced
accomplishments and impaired partnerships, even when the transferred
funds were repaid through supplemental appropriations.
The Departments have adopted substantive management reforms to
mitigate this cost trend. Along with us, our State and local partners
have spent significant effort and resources over the past several years
to coordinate capability, improve inter-governmental communication, and
employ management controls to ensure effective response,. raise
efficiency, and to manage operations within the amounts appropriated to
manage wildland fire. We are expanding these efforts for the current
fire season and beyond. For example, a number of Wildland Fire Decision
Support Systems (such as FSPro, which models fire behavior, and RAVAR,
which models values at risk from fire) provide real-time support to
fire managers implementing Risk-Informed Management. These efforts are
coupled with other program efforts such as strategic and operational
protocols, improved oversight, and use of a risk management framework
that ensure fire management resources are appropriately focused.
However, we recognize that despite our best efforts, circumstances
may occur that lead obligations to exceed these appropriated amounts.
We are pleased that the Administration has included a proposal in the
Fiscal Year 2010 Budget that provides for a $357 million Wildland Fire
Management Contingency Reserve with the Departments' budgets. This
proposal reflects the President's commitment to wildfire management and
community protection by establishing a new contingent reserve funds
dedicated to addressing catastrophic wildfires in addition to fully
funding the ten year average of suppression costs adjusted for
inflation at $1.5 billion. This nearly $1.9 billion in funding is
coupled with program reforms that ensure fire management resources are
focused where they will do the most good. Funds from the contingent
reserve will be used only if needed and available upon issuance of a
Presidential finding. By establishing a dedicated fund for catastrophic
wildfires, fully funding the inflation-adjusted ten year average of
suppression costs, and providing program reforms, the Budget reduces
the need for agencies to transfer funds from non-fire programs to pay
for fire fighting when agency appropriated suppression funds are
exhausted.
We must recognize that funding is only one part of the wildland
fire management solution and we must re-double our efforts to manage
the span of the wildfire problem by investing in not just suppression,
but hazardous fuels reduction, restoration action, and community
assistance. The President's Budget also reflects the commitment of this
Administration to implement program reforms to allow wildfire to
reassume its ecological function on the landscape and ensure fire
management resources are focused where they will do the most good.
The President's Budget for FY 2010 provides funding at levels that
equips the agencies to help restore and manage the Nation's forests and
rangelands. It also recognizes problems with how fire suppression has
been funded and addresses the fire transfer problem by adding a
contingent reserve of $282 million for the Forest Service and $75
million for Interior, and provides funding increases commensurate with
the increase in the ten-year average suppression costs. The
Administration appreciates the strong support of the House in providing
requested funding amounts for wildfire suppression operations and the
new Wildland Fire Suppression Contingency Reserve of the Forest Service
and Department of the Interior, and encourages the Senate to do the
same. We are also aware of S.561, the FLAME Act, introduced by this
Committee, and H.R. 1404, introduced in the House, that aims to
accomplish the separation between routine wildland fire management and
large, catastrophic fire events. We appreciate the efforts of the
sponsors of the FLAME Act to address the current problems related to
the way firefighting costs are funded. The Administration supports the
FLAME Act if amended to provide for a contingency reserve, as outlined
in the President's budget. We believe that the Administration's budget
proposal can address the problem. The Administration looks forward to
working with the Congress on safe, cost-effective, and accountable
results in managing wildfire. We imagine a day when we have the
opportunity to effectively address catastrophic wildfires, restore fire
adapted landscapes, and have adequate resources for hazardous fuels,
fire science, assistance to others, and preparedness. This will assist
in the creation of new wood-based industries to create jobs, such as
through the expansion of wood-to-energy and alternative fuels goals
through wood, ethanol, and other bio-fuels to support our nation's
independence from foreign oil.
FIRE MANAGEMENT IS EVOLVING TO A NEW ERA
The wildland fire program in the two Departments is strong and
moving in a positive direction. We are committed to continued
improvement to increase our effectiveness and maximize our efficiency.
The Departments continue to face challenges that make management of
wildland fire complex, demanding and expensive. However, we have taken
steps to manage costs and are adopting techniques to apply before and
during fire incidents that work assertively to advance risk-informed
fire management, operational efficiencies, utilization of research and
technology, and targeted program implementation to reduce fire-related
impacts. Specifically, these actions include:
We will continue to reduce hazardous fuels on priority
lands. From 2001 through 2008, together we have treated about
23 million acres on federal lands through hazardous fuels
reduction and over 7 million acres through other land
restoration activities;
We will continue our focus on hazardous fuels treatments in
wildland-urban interface areas and in fire-adapted ecosystems
that present the greatest opportunity for forest and rangeland
restoration and to reduce the risk of severe fires in the
future;
Continued implementation of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act which provides $500 million for the Forest
Service and $15 million for the Interior Department to reduce
hazardous fuels and restore forest health on federal and other
lands, through partnership, including up to $50 million to
promote woody biomass as renewable energy. These funds will
greatly expand the effort to reduce dangerous accumulations of
fuels, create private sector jobs in hazardous fuels reduction
and alternative energy, and help support local economies. Many
projects have begun and most will be completed within 1-3
years;
We will continue to constantly improve decision-making on
wildland fires starting this year. The wildland fire agencies
have employed new decision support tools, through the Wildland
Fire Decision Support System, to give managers better
information to estimate risk and better ways to predict what
may happen during a fire. The decision support process is
intended to guide and document wildfire management decisions.
The process provides situational assessment, analysis of
hazards and risk, defining implementation actions, and
documentation of decisions and rationale for those decisions.
For fires that escape initial attack, we will incorporate these
science-based computer models and couple them with improved
risk management approaches as part of the agency continuing
effort to safeguard lives, protect communities and important
natural resource values and restore ecosystem health. These
fire management reforms are aimed at improving fire management
decisions, increasing firefighter and public safety, and are
anticipated to provide cost-effective and accountable outcomes
from investments made in managing fire on the landscape.
We will continue to work on enhanced response and efficiency
that comes from national shared resources, aviation resources
management, pre-positioning of firefighting resources, and
improvements in aviation risk management for safe engagement;
We are developing an Interagency Aviation Strategy that
looks to address a current aviation fleet that is aging and
costs of maintenance increasing;
We will continue after action review of fire incidents to
apply lessons learned and best practices to policy and
operations; and
Since the advent of the National Fire Plan in 2000, federal,
state and non-governmental entities have collaborated
operationally and strategically in an attempt to improve fire
prevention and suppression, reduce hazardous fuels, restore
fire-adapted ecosystems, and promote community assistance.
Ongoing planning with performance measures and implementation
tasks will guide the agencies to build on previous successes
with our partners.
The Forest Service and Department of the Interior partner agencies
have the best wildland firefighting organization in the world and
together with our state, local, and tribal government partners work to
maintain our operational excellence and continually improve the safety
and effectiveness of the fire management program.
CONCLUSION
This concludes our statement. We would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to go right to Mr. Jensen. But how
much land do you think we're talking about being susceptible to
fire? You mentioned California. I think Appalachias,
Washington? Any sense just of a ballpark how much land is
susceptible to fire?
Ms. Suh. The acres----
Senator Wyden. Yes.
Ms. Suh [continuing]. Within those 3 particular regions?
Senator Wyden. Yes.
Ms. Suh. I'm not sure.
Senator Wyden. Can you get back to us?
Ms. Suh. I will.
Senator Wyden. Because we're clearly talking about millions
of acres.
Ms. Suh. Indeed.
Senator Wyden. Ok. Mr. Jensen.
STATEMENT OF JAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jensen. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member
Murkowski. Let me express my gratitude for holding this hearing
today. This issue has been needing some daylight for quite some
time and really welcome this chance to provide some honest
dialog on where we're going to be headed.
I've been fortunate enough to experience wildfire from a
number of different perspectives. I hope that it will enable me
to shed some new light on this issue. Having once been a wild
land firefighter and having worked for years on fire management
issues in the Western states, I've had a chance to see the
issues from the State, private landowner and now the Federal
perspective. I've heard from partners and from the field about
the effects of increasing fire seasons and the budgeting
challenges they create. It is clear we need to fix our wildfire
problems.
As Assistant Secretary Suh has shared, this fire season has
been light to date. We have been fortunate. Yet we are now
entering a critical period of the fire season. Currently we
have 18 uncontained large fires across the country and we
expect that to grow.
This administration makes a protection of communities, the
environment and firefighter safety a priority. The factors of
climate change, increased fuel loadings on our forests and the
expansion and development in the wild land urban interface
increase fire fighting complexity and contribute to the
increased expenditures by the agency. The trends are for more
and larger fires to expand on landscape.
These factors will drive cost and initial attack will be a
key strategy to keep fires small and costs down. Last year it
was just 40 wildfires that escaped initial attack and grew to
become the mega fires we know. That's just 0.25 of 1 percent of
the fires. Important to know this 0.25 represented
approximately 60 percent of Forest Service expenditures on wild
land fire.
Further the inflation adjusted 10 year average for wild
land fire suppression for our two departments has reached 1.5
billion, more than twice the fiscal year 2001 level. We have a
few charts that I'll ask my colleagues to put up that show some
of these numbers here. But as I continue these increases in
turn are felt dramatically in the formulation of the budget.
The result is the wild land fire management budget under a
constrained or capped budget now makes up over 48 percent of
the Forest Service discretionary budget and it has cost over
1.5 billion annually fighting wildfires in five out of the last
7 years which is more than the appropriated amount.
This has forced the agency to transfer dollars as you have
both noted from other important programs and from the field to
stay within our budget limits. It should be noted that most,
but not all of these funds have been restored to the agency
through emergency supplemental appropriations. Yet these fire
transfers have resulted in considerable work disruption, delay,
postponement and even cancelation of critical projects. We need
to fix this situation.
This fix must be paired with strong cost containment
directives. Each year for the past 3 years the Forest Service
has contracted for a study in evaluation of cost controls on
wildfires costing over $10 million. The latest, soon to be
released, an independent report found no fiscal malfeasance
within the agencies actions.
We must conduct our operations within the dollar amounts
appropriated. These cost management efforts are working. Yet we
still have a budgeting dilemma. To address this challenge the
fiscal year 2010 budget establishes a $357 million contingent
reserve fund dedicated to addressing wildfire suppression
funding shortfalls. In addition to fully funding the 10 year
wildfire suppression average, this reserve mechanism helps us
to move away from the need to transfer dollars from other
agency accounts.
This committee has responded with the introduction of the
FLAME Act. The FLAME Act accomplishes an important budgetary
separation of routine wildfire suppression from large
catastrophic fire events. We need to treat budget and our large
catastrophic fires separately from normal fires.
The administration supports the FLAME Act if amended to
provide for a contingency reserve as outlined in the
President's budget. We believe that the administration's
approach through a contingent reserve is the best budget
mechanism to provide the needed funds. The administration is
grateful for the introduction of the FLAME and looks forward to
working with you all to iron out the differences.
It is important to note here that often we only focus on
one part of the wild land fire management solution,
suppression. Rather we believe we must focus our efforts to
manage the span of the wildfire problem by investing in not
just suppression, but strategic hazardous fuels reduction, pre-
fire restoration, post-fire rehabilitation and community
assistance to build capacity. Our fire problem will only be
solved when we enable communities and individual citizens to
take responsibility for their own protection.
In closing the wild land fire program in the two
departments is strong and moving in a positive direction. We
are committed to continued improvement to increase our
effectiveness and maximize our efficiency. Reducing fuels will
continue to be a priority in the wild land urban interface.
Perhaps, we can get to a place 1 day where we could actually be
doing what I like to call hazardous fuels recovery where we can
actually use those fuels to create green jobs in the forestry
and energy sectors.
We'll also continue our commitment to implement their
Recovery Act which provided 500 million for the Forest Service
to reduce fuels. We're redoubling our efforts around fire
fighter safety and public safety on our most fire prone
forests. This year we'll be prepositioning strike teams on
those 0.25 mentioned earlier.
We're developing an interagency aviation strategy. Last, as
Federal agencies we recognize we cannot fight fire alone.
Without the states and our local fire departments, we cannot
safely and effectively manage wildfire. We will foster
cooperation and collaboration between Federal, State and local
governments.
Senator Wyden. Let's do this, Mr. Jensen. If you have any
final points, we'll take them and we'll put the rest of your
statement in the record.
Mr. Jensen. Already did. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Ms. Dalton.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski. I'm
pleased to be here today to discuss wild land fire management
by Federal agencies. The Nation's wild land fire problems have
worsened dramatically over the past decade threatening
communities as well as important natural and cultural
resources. In recent years both average acres burned and
Federal appropriations for wild land fire management activities
have more than doubled with appropriations reaching over $3
billion.
My testimony today will focus on first, the progress the
Forest Service and Interior agencies have made in managing wild
land fire.
Second, key actions we've previously recommended and
believe are still necessary to improve the agencies' management
of wild land fire.
The agencies' efforts have better positioned themselves to
respond to fire effectively. Federal agencies have improved
their understanding of wild land fires role on the landscape
and have taken important steps toward improving their ability
to cost effectively protect communities and resources.
Under current policy the agencies have abandoned their
attempt to put out every wildfire, seeking instead to make
communities and resources less susceptible to being damaged by
wild land fire respond to fire so as to protect communities and
important resources at risk while considering both cost and the
long term effects of response. By emphasizing fire fighting
strategies that focus on land management objectives rather than
seeking to suppress all fires, the agencies are increasingly
using less aggressive firefighting strategies, strategies that
cannot only reduce costs, but also be safer for firefighters by
reducing their exposure to unnecessary risk.
In recent years the agencies have taken a number of steps
and developed tools to better address the wild land fire
threat. In allocating fuel reduction funds they are developing
a process that considers risk, effectiveness of treatments and
other factors. They are nearing completion of landfire, a
geospatial data and modeling system that provides critical
information to assess fire threats. A new analytical tool known
as the wildland fire decision support system helps the line
officers and fire managers analyze various factors such as the
fire's current location, adjacent fuel conditions, weather
forecasts and nearby structures and other valued resources in
determining the best strategy and tactics to adopt in fighting
a fire.
Despite the important steps that the agencies have taken
much work remains. We have previously recommended four key
actions that if completed would improve the agencies'
management of wild land fire.
Specifically the agencies need to first, develop a
comprehensive strategy. Essentially this is an investment
strategy that lays out various approaches for reducing fuels
and responding to wild land fires, the estimated costs
associated with each approach and the tradeoffs involved. Such
a cohesive strategy is essential for Congress and the agencies
to make informed decisions about effective and affordable long
term approaches for addressing the wild land fire problems.
Agency officials have told us that they have begun planning on
how to develop such a strategy. The FLAME Act would require the
agencies to produce within 1 year of enactment, a cohesive
strategy consistent with our recommendations.
Second, the agencies need to establish a comprehensive cost
containment strategy. The agencies have taken several steps
intended to help contain wild land fire costs including
establishing over arching goals and objectives. However the
strategy needs further development and lacks clarity and
specificity needed by land management and fire fighting
officials in the field to better manage and contain wildfire
land costs.
Third, clearly defined financial responsibilities for fires
across jurisdictions. Protecting the Nation's communities is
both one of the key goals of wild land fire management and one
of the leading factors contributing to rising fire costs.
Without clarifying responsibilities the concerns that the
existing framework insulates non-Federal entities from the cost
of protecting the wild land urban interface and that the
Federal Government therefore would continue to bear more of its
share of that cost are unlikely to be addressed.
Then finally mitigating effects of rising fire costs on
other agency programs. The sharply rising costs of managing
wild land fires have led agencies to transfer funds from other
programs to pay for fire suppression. These transfers disrupt
or delay activities in these other programs.
Better methods of estimating the suppression funds the
agencies request would reduce the likelihood that the agencies
will need to transfer funds. Also Congress could consider, as
we noted in our 2004 report, establishing a reserve account to
fund emergency wild land firefighting. The FLAME Act would
provide for such a fund.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I'd be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patricia Dalton, Managing Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE TAKEN IMPORTANT STEPS FORWARD, BUT ADDITIONAL
ACTION IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS REMAINING CHALLENGES
Why GAO Did This Study
The nation's wildland fire problems have worsened dramatically over
the past decade, with more than a doubling of both the average annual
acreage burned and federal appropriations for wildland fire management.
The deteriorating fire situation has led the agencies responsible for
managing wildland fires on federal lands-the Forest Service in the
Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service
in the Department of the Interior-to reassess how they respond to
wildland fire and to take steps to improve their fire management
programs. This testimony discusses (1) progress the agencies have made
in managing wildland fire and (2) key actions GAO believes are still
necessary to improve their wildland fire management. This testimony is
based on issued GAO reports and reviews of agency documents and
interviews with agency officials on actions the agencies have taken in
response to previous GAO findings and recommendations.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making no new recommendations at this time. The agencies
have generally agreed with GAO's previous recommendations, but have yet
to implement several key recommendations GAO believes could
substantially assist them in capitalizing on the important progress
they have made to date.
What GAO Found
The Forest Service and Interior agencies have improved their
understanding of wildland fire's ecological role on the landscape and
have taken important steps toward enhancing their ability to cost-
effectively protect communities and resources by seeking to (1) make
communities and resources less susceptible to being damaged by wildland
fire and (2) respond to fire so as to protect communities and important
resources at risk while also considering both the cost and long-term
effects of that response. To help them do so, the agencies have reduced
potentially flammable vegetation in an effort to keep wildland fires
from spreading into the wildland-urban interface and to help protect
important resources by lessening a fire's intensity; sponsored efforts
to educate homeowners about steps they can take to protect their homes
from wildland fire; and provided grants to help homeowners carry out
these steps. The agencies have also made improvements that lay
important groundwork for enhancing their response to wildland fire,
including adopting new guidance on how managers in the field are to
select firefighting strategies, improving the analytical tools that
assist managers in selecting a strategy, and improving how the agencies
acquire and use expensive firefighting assets.
Despite the agencies' efforts, much work remains. GAO has
previously recommended several key actions that, if completed, would
substantially improve the agencies' management of wildland fire.
Specifically, the agencies should:
Develop a cohesive strategy laying out various potential
approaches for addressing the growing wildland fire threat,
including estimating costs associated with each approach and
the trade-offs involved. Such information would help the
agencies and Congress make fundamental decisions about an
effective and affordable approach to responding to fires.
Establish a cost-containment strategy that clarifies the
importance of containing costs relative to other, often-
competing objectives. Without such clarification, GAO believes
managers in the field lack a clear understanding of the
relative importance that the agencies' leadership places on
containing costs and are therefore likely to continue to select
fire fighting strategies without duly considering the costs of
suppression.
Clarify financial responsibilities for fires that cross
federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Unless the financial
responsibilities for multijurisdictional fires are clarified,
concerns that the existing framework insulates nonfederal
entities from the cost of protecting the wildland-urban
interface from fire-and that the federal government would thus
continue to bear more than its share of the cost-are unlikely
to be addressed.
Take action to mitigate the effects of rising fire costs on
other agency programs. The sharply rising costs of managing
wildland fires have led the agencies to transfer funds from
other programs to help pay for fire suppression, disrupting or
delaying activities in these other programs. Better methods of
predicting needed suppression funding could reduce the need to
transfer funds from other programs.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
today to discuss wildland fire management by the federal wildland fire
agencies-the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and
four agencies within the Department of the Interior-including key
actions that we believe the agencies should take to improve their
management of wildland fires and help contain the rising costs of
preparing for and responding to fires. The nation's wildland fire
problems have worsened dramatically over the past decade, threatening
communities as well as important natural and cultural resources. Both
the average acreage burned annually and federal appropriations for
wildland fire management activities have more than doubled, with
appropriations reaching more than $2.9 billion annually, on average,
during fiscal years 2001 through 2007. A number of factors have
contributed to these increases. Uncharacteristic accumulations of
vegetation that can fuel wildland fires, due in part to past fire
suppression policies and land management practices, and severe regional
weather and drought have led to higher-intensity fires and longer fire
seasons. At the same time, continued development in and near wildlands,
an area often called the wildland-urban interface, has placed more
homes at risk. A series of damaging wildland fires in the 1990s led the
Forest Service and the Interior agencies to reassess their approach to
managing fire. It also prompted a sustained effort, known as the
National Fire Plan,\1\ on the part of federal agencies and Congress to
improve fire suppression capabilities, reduce fuels, restore fire-
adapted ecosystems, and help communities better withstand wildland
fire. Growing recognition of the long-term fiscal challenges facing the
nation has also led Congress, the agencies, and others to focus on
ensuring that federal wildland fire activities are appropriate and
carried out in a cost-effective manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Fire Plan is a joint interagency effort to respond
to wildland fires. Its core comprises several strategic documents,
including (1) a September 2000 report from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to the President in response to the
wildland fires of 2000; (2) congressional direction accompanying
substantial new appropriations for fire management for fiscal year
2001; and (3) several strategies and plans to implement all or parts of
the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today summarizes our previous findings and
recommendations related to wildland fire, and also includes preliminary
information from our ongoing work examining the extent to which the
agencies have improved their wildland fire programs in response to our
previous work.\2\ Specifically, I will focus on (1) the progress the
Forest Service and the Interior agencies have made in managing wildland
fire and (2) key actions we previously recommended and believe are
still necessary to improve the agencies' management of wildland fire.
To address these objectives, we reviewed previous GAO reports and
agency documents and interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C.;
at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho; and elsewhere.
We expect to issue a report later this year that will address these
objectives in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Our previous reports and ongoing work are performance audits
being conducted in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Wildland fires triggered by lightning are both natural and
inevitable and play an important ecological role on the nation's
landscapes. These fires shape the composition of forests and
grasslands, periodically reduce vegetation densities, and stimulate
seedling regeneration and growth in some species. Over the past
century, however, various land use and management practices-including
fire suppression, grazing, and timber harvesting-have reduced the
normal frequency of fires in many forest and rangeland ecosystems and
contributed to abnormally dense, continuous accumulations of
vegetation. Such accumulations not only can fuel uncharacteristically
large or severe wildland fires, but also-with more homes and
communities built in or near areas at risk from wildland fires-threaten
human lives, health, property, and infrastructure.
The Forest Service and four Interior agencies-the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Park Service-are responsible for wildland fire management.
These five agencies manage about 700 million acres of land in the
United States, including national forests, national grasslands, Indian
reservations, national parks, and national wildlife refuges.
The federal wildland fire management program has three major
components: preparedness, suppression, and fuel reduction.\3\ To
prepare for a wildland fire season, the agencies acquire firefighting
assets-including firefighters, engines, aircraft, and other equipment-
and station them either at individual federal land management units
(such as national forests or national parks) or at centralized dispatch
locations. The primary purpose of these assets is to respond to fires
before they become large-a response referred to as initial attack-thus
forestalling threats to communities and natural and cultural resources.
The agencies fund the assets used for initial attack primarily from
their wildland fire preparedness accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Other fire program components include prevention; science,
research, and development; and assistance to nonfederal entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a fire starts, current federal policy directs the agencies to
consider land management objectives-identified by land and fire
management plans developed by each local unit, such as a national
forest or a Bureau of Land Management district-and the structures and
resources at risk when determining whether or how to suppress it. A
wide spectrum of fire response strategies is available to choose from,
and the manager at the affected local unit-known as a line officer-is
responsible for determining which strategy to use. In the relatively
rare instances when fires escape initial attack and grow large, the
agencies respond using an interagency system that mobilizes additional
firefighting assets from federal, state, and local agencies, as well as
private contractors, regardless of which agency or agencies have
jurisdiction over the burning lands. Federal agencies typically fund
the costs of these activities from their wildland fire suppression
accounts.
In addition to preparing for and suppressing fires, the agencies
attempt to reduce the potential for severe wildland fires, lessen the
damage caused by fires, limit the spread of flammable invasive species,
and restore and maintain healthy ecosystems by reducing potentially
hazardous vegetation that can fuel fires. The agencies generally remove
or modify hazardous vegetation using prescribed fire (that is, fire
deliberately set in order to restore or maintain desired vegetation
conditions), mechanical thinning, herbicides, certain grazing methods,
or combinations of these and other approaches. The agencies fund these
activities from their fuel reduction accounts.
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, federal agency
officials, and others have expressed concern about mounting federal
wildland fire expenditures. Federal appropriations to the Forest
Service and the Interior agencies to prepare for and respond to
wildland fires, including appropriations for reducing fuels, have more
than doubled, from an average of $1.2 billion from fiscal years 1996
through 2000 to an average of $2.9 billion from fiscal years 2001
through 2007 (see table 1). Adjusting for inflation, the average annual
appropriations to the agencies for these Page 3 GAO-09-906T periods
increased from $1.5 billion to $3.1 billion (in 2007 dollars). The
Forest Service received about 70 percent and Interior about 30 percent
of the appropriated funds.
agencies' efforts to implement a new approach to managing wildland fire
have better positioned them to respond to fire effectively
The Forest Service and the Interior agencies have improved their
understanding of wildland fire's role on the landscape and have taken
important steps toward improving their ability to cost-effectively
protect communities and resources. Although the agencies have long
recognized that fire could provide ecological benefits in some
ecosystems, such as certain grassland and forest types, a number of
damaging fires in the 1990s led them to develop the Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy.\4\ The policy formally recognizes not only that
wildland fire can be beneficial in some areas, but also that fire is an
inevitable part of the landscape and, moreover, that past attempts to
suppress all fires have been in part responsible for making recent
fires more severe. Under this policy, the agencies abandoned their
attempt to put out every wildland fire, seeking instead to (1) make
communities and resources less susceptible to being damaged by wildland
fire and (2) respond to fires so as to protect communities and
important resources at risk but also to consider both the cost and
long-term effects of that response. By emphasizing firefighting
strategies that focus on land management objectives, rather than
seeking to suppress all fires, the agencies are increasingly using less
aggressive fire fighting strategies-strategies that can not only reduce
costs but also be safer for firefighters by reducing their exposure to
unnecessary risks, according to agency fire officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the
Interior, Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review
(Washington, D.C., December 1995). This policy was subsequently
reaffirmed and updated in 2001. Department of the Interior, Department
of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department
of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and National Association of State Foresters, Review
and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
(Washington, D.C., January 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help them better achieve the federal wildland fire management
policy's vision, the Forest Service and the Interior agencies in recent
years have taken several steps to make communities and resources less
susceptible to damage from wildland fire. These steps include reducing
hazardous fuels, in an effort to keep wildland fires from spreading
into the wildland-urban interface and to help protect important
resources by lessening a fire's intensity. As part of this effort, the
agencies reported they have reduced fuels on more than 29 million acres
from 2001 through 2008. The agencies have also nearly completed their
geospatial data and modeling system, LANDFIRE, as we recommended in
2003.\5\ LANDFIRE is intended to produce consistent and comprehensive
maps and data describing vegetation, wildland fuels, and fire regimes
across the United States.\6\ Such data are critical to helping the
agencies (1) identify the extent, severity, and location of wildland
fire threats to the nation's communities and resources; (2) predict
fire intensity and rate of spread under particular weather conditions;
and (3) evaluate the effect that reducing fuels may have on future fire
behavior. LANDFIRE data are already complete for the contiguous United
States, although some agency officials have questioned the accuracy of
the data, and the agencies expect to complete the data for Alaska and
Hawaii in 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to
Better Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction, GAO-03-805
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2003).
\6\ A fire regime generally classifies the role that wildland fire
plays in a particular ecosystem on the basis of certain
characteristics, such as the average number of years between fires and
the typical severity of fire under historic conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies have also begun to improve their processes for
allocating fuel reduction funds to different areas of the country and
for selecting fuel reduction projects, as we recommended in 2007.\7\
The agencies have started moving away from ``allocation by tradition''
toward a more consistent, systematic allocation process. That is,
rather than relying on historical funding patterns and professional
judgment, the agencies are developing a process that also considers
risk, effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments, and other factors.
Despite these improvements, further action is needed to ensure that the
agencies' efforts to reduce hazardous fuels are directed to areas at
highest risk. The agencies, for example, still lack a measure of the
effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments and therefore lack
information needed to ensure that fuel reduction funds are directed to
the areas where they can best minimize risk to communities and
resources. Forest Service and Interior officials told us that they
recognize this shortcoming and that efforts are under way to address
it; these efforts are likely to be long term involving considerable
research investment, but they have the potential to improve the
agencies' ability to assess and compare the cost-effectiveness of
potential treatments in deciding how to optimally allocate scarce
funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a
Systematic Process Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating Fuel
Reduction Funds and Selecting Projects, GAO-07-1168 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 28, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies have also taken steps to foster fire-resistant
communities. Increasing the use of protective measures to mitigate the
risk to structures from wildland fire is a key goal of the National
Fire Plan. The plan encourages, but does not mandate, state or local
governments to adopt laws requiring homeowners and homebuilders to take
measures-such as reducing vegetation and flammable objects within an
area of 30 to 100 feet around a structure, often called creating
defensible space, and using fire-resistant roofing materials and
covering attic vents with mesh screens-to help protect structures from
wildland fires. Because these measures rely on the actions of
individual homeowners or homebuilders, or on laws and land-use planning
affecting private lands, achieving this goal is primarily a state and
local government responsibility. Nonetheless, the Forest Service and
the Interior agencies have helped sponsor the Firewise Communities
program, which works with community leaders and homeowners to increase
the use of fire-resistant landscaping and building materials in areas
of high risk.\8\ Federal and state agencies also provide grants to help
pay for creating defensible space around private homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Firewise Communities program is the primary national effort
to educate homeowners about wildland fire risks. The program is jointly
sponsored by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, National
Emergency Management Association, National Association of State Fire
Marshals, National Association of State Foresters, National Fire
Protection Association, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire
Administration, Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service. Numerous state and local fire and forestry officials also
participate in the program. See http://www.firewise.org/ for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the agencies have made improvements laying important
groundwork for enhancing their response to wildland fire, including:
Implementing the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.--
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy directs each agency
to develop a fire management plan for all areas they manage
with burnable vegetation. Without such plans, agency policy
does not allow the use of the entire range of wildland fire
response strategies, including less aggressive strategies, and
therefore the agencies must attempt to suppress a fire
regardless of any benefits that might come from allowing it to
burn. We reported in 2006 that about 95 percent of the
agencies' 1,460 individual land management units had completed
the required plans. The policy also states that the agencies'
responses to a wildland fire are to be based on the
circumstances of a given fire and the likely consequences to
human safety and natural and cultural resources. Interagency
guidance on implementing the policy, adopted in 2009, clarifies
that the full range of fire management strategies and tactics
are to be considered when responding to every wildland fire,
and that a single fire may be simultaneously managed for
different objectives. Both we and the Department of
Agriculture's Inspector General had criticized the previous
guidance,\9\ which required each fire to be managed either for
suppression objectives-that is, to put out the fire as quickly
as possible-or to achieve resource benefits-that is, to allow
the fire to burn to gain certain benefits such as reducing
fuels or seed regeneration. By providing this flexibility, the
new guidance should help the agencies better achieve management
objectives and help contain the long-term costs of fire
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a
Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of
Fighting Fires, GAO-07-655 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving fire management decisions.--The agencies have
recently undertaken several efforts to improve decisions about
fire fighting strategies. In one such effort, the agencies in
2009 began to use a new analytical tool, known as the wildland
fire decision support system. This new tool helps line officers
and fire managers analyze various factors-such as the fire's
current location, adjacent fuel conditions, nearby structures
and other highly valued resources, and weather forecasts-in
determining the strategies and tactics to adopt. For example,
the tool generates a map illustrating the probability that a
particular wildland fire, barring any suppression actions, will
burn a certain area within a specified time, and the structures
or other resources that may therefore be threatened. Having
such information can help line officers and fire managers
understand the resources at risk and identify the most
appropriate response-for example, whether to devote substantial
resources in attempting full and immediate suppression or to
instead take a less intensive approach, which may reduce risks
to firefighters and cost less. Other efforts include (1)
establishing experience and training requirements for line
officers to be certified to manage fires of different levels of
complexity, and (2) forming four teams staffed with some of the
most experienced fire managers to assist in managing wildland
fires. The Forest Service has also experimented in recent years
with several approaches for identifying ongoing fires where
suppression actions are unlikely to be effective and for
influencing strategic decisions made during those fires, in
order to help contain costs and reduce risk to firefighters.
Although these efforts are new, and we have not fully evaluated
them, we believe they have the potential to help the agencies
strengthen how they select fire fighting strategies. By
themselves, however, these efforts do not address certain
critical shortcomings. We reported in 2007, for example, that
officials in the field have few incentives to consider cost
containment in making critical decisions affecting suppression
costs, and that previous studies had found that the lack of a
clear measure to evaluate the benefits and costs of alternative
fire fighting strategies fundamentally hindered the agencies'
ability to provide effective oversight.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ GAO-07-655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquiring and using fire fighting assets effectively.--The
agencies have continued to make improvements-including better
systems for contracting with private vendors to provide fire
fighting assets and for dispatching assets to individual fires-
in how they determine the fire fighting assets they need and in
how they acquire and use those assets, although further action
is needed. For example, although the agencies in 2009 began
deploying an interagency budget-planning system known as fire
program analysis (FPA) to address congressional direction that
they improve how they determine needed fire fighting assets,
our 2008 report on FPA's development identified several
shortcomings that limit FPA's ability to meet certain key
objectives.\11\ FPA was intended to help the agencies develop
their wildland fire budget requests and allocate funds by,
among other objectives, (1) providing a common budget framework
to analyze firefighting assets without regard for agency
jurisdictions; (2) examining the full scope of fire management
activities; (3) modeling the effects over time of differing
strategies for responding to wildland fires and treating lands
to reduce hazardous fuels; and (4) using this information to
identify the most cost-effective mix and location of federal
wildland fire management assets. We reported in 2008 that FPA
shows promise in achieving some of the key objectives
originally established for it but that the approach the
agencies have taken hampers FPA from meeting other key
objectives, including the ability to project the effects of
different levels of fuel reduction and fire fighting strategies
over time. We therefore concluded that agency officials lack
information that would help them analyze the extent to which
increasing or decreasing funding for fuel reduction and
responding more or less aggressively to fires in the short term
could affect the expected cost of responding to wildland fires
over the long term. Senior agency officials told us in 2008
that they were considering making changes to FPA that may
improve its ability to examine the effects over time of
different funding strategies. The exact nature of these
changes, or how to fund them, has yet to be determined.
Officials also told us the agencies are currently working to
evaluate the model's performance, identify and implement needed
corrections, and improve data quality and consistency. The
agencies intend to consider the early results of FPA in
developing their budget requests for fiscal year 2011, although
officials told us they will not rely substantially on FPA's
results until needed improvements are made. As we noted in
2008, the approach the agencies took in developing FPA provides
considerable discretion to agency decision makers and, although
providing the flexibility to consider various options is
important, doing so makes it essential that the agencies ensure
their processes are fully transparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs
Further Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives, GAO-09-68
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 24, 2008).
In addition, previous studies have found that agencies sometimes
use more, or more-costly, fire fighting assets than necessary,
often in response to political or social pressure to
demonstrate they are taking all possible action to protect
communities and resources. Consistent with these findings, fire
officials told us they were pressured in 2008 to assign more
fire fighting assets than could be effectively used to fight
fires in California. More generally, previous studies have
found that air tankers may be used to drop flame retardants
when on-the-ground conditions may not warrant such drops.
Aviation activities are expensive, accounting for about one-
third of all fire fighting costs on a large fire. We believe
that providing clarity about when different types of fire
fighting assets can be used effectively could help the agencies
resist political and social pressure to use more assets than
they need.
AGENCIES HAVE YET TO TAKE CERTAIN KEY ACTIONS THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPROVE THEIR MANAGEMENT OF WILDLAND FIRE
Despite the important steps the agencies have taken, much work
remains. We have previously recommended several key actions that, if
completed, would improve the agencies' management of wildland fire.
Specifically, the agencies need to:
Develop a cohesive strategy.--Completing an investment
strategy that lays out various approaches for reducing fuels
and responding to wildland fires and the estimated costs
associated with each approach and the trade-offs involved-what
we have termed a cohesive strategy-is essential for Congress
and the agencies to make informed decisions about effective and
affordable long-term approaches for addressing the nation's
wildland fire problems. The agencies have concurred with our
recommendations to develop a cohesive strategy but have yet to
develop a strategy that clearly formulates different approaches
and associated costs,\12\ despite our 12Although the agencies
issued a document titled Protecting People and Natural
Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy in 2006, this
document did not identify long-term options or associated
funding for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fires,
elements we believe are critical to a cohesive strategy. Page
10 GAO-09-906T repeated calls to do so.\13\ In May 2009, agency
officials told us they had begun planning how to develop a
cohesive strategy but were not far enough along in developing
it to provide further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Although they have yet to complete a cohesive strategy, the
agencies have nearly completed two projects-LANDFIRE and FPA-they have
identified as being necessary to development of a cohesive strategy.
However, the shortcomings we identified in FPA may limit its ability to
contribute to the agencies' development of a cohesive strategy.
\13\ GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Lack Key Long-
and Short-Term Management Strategies for Using Program Funds
Effectively, GAO-08-433T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2008); Wildland
Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a Cohesive
Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats, GAO-06-671R (Washington,
D.C.: May 1, 2006); Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has
Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy,
GAO-05-147 (Washington, D.C: Jan. 14, 2005); Western National Forests:
A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats,
GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington, D.C: Apr. 2, 1999).
Because of the critical importance of a cohesive strategy to
improve the agencies' overall management of wildland fire, we
encourage the agencies to complete one and begin implementing
it as quickly as possible. The Federal Land Assistance,
Management, and Enhancement Act, introduced in March 2009 and
sponsored by the chairman of this committee, would require the
agencies to produce, within 1 year of the act's enactment, a
cohesive strategy consistent with our previous
recommendations.\14\ Although they have yet to complete a
cohesive strategy, the agencies have nearly completed two
projects--LANDFIRE and FPA--they have identified as being
necessary to development of a cohesive strategy. However, the
shortcomings we identified in FPA may limit its ability to
contribute to the agencies' development of a cohesive strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ S. 561, 111th Cong. (1st sess., 2009) H.R. 1404, 111th Cong.
(1st sess., 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establish a cost-containment strategy.--We reported in 2007
that although the Forest Service and the Interior agencies had
taken several steps intended to help contain wildland fire
costs, they had not clearly defined their cost-containment
goals or developed a strategy for achieving those goals-steps
that are fundamental to sound program management.\15\ The
agencies disagreed, citing several agency documents that they
argued clearly define their goals and objectives and make up
their strategy to contain costs.\16\ Although these documents
do provide overarching goals and objectives, they lack the
clarity and specificity needed by land management and fire
fighting officials in the field to help manage and contain
wildland fire costs. Interagency policy, for example,
established an overarching goal of suppressing wildland fires
at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety and
importance of resources being protected, but the agencies have
established neither clear criteria for weighing the relative
importance of the often-competing elements of this broad goal,
nor measurable objectives for determining if the agencies are
meeting the goal. As a result, despite the improvements the
agencies are making to policy, decision support tools, and
oversight, we believe that managers in the field lack a clear
understanding of the relative importance that the agencies'
leadership places on containing costs and-as we concluded in
our 2007 report-are therefore likely to continue to select fire
fighting strategies without duly considering the costs of
suppression. Forest Service officials told us in July 2009 that
although they are concerned about fire management costs, they
are emphasizing the need to select firefighting strategies that
will achieve land management objectives and reduce unnecessary
risks to firefighters, an emphasis they believe may, in the
long run, also help them contain costs. Nonetheless, we
continue to believe that our recommendations, if effectively
implemented, would help the agencies better manage their cost-
containment efforts and improve their ability to contain
wildland fire costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-07-655.
\16\ Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce,
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
and National Association of State Foresters, Review and Update of the
1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Washington, D.C.: January
2001). Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and
Western Governors' Association, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing
Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, 10-Year
Strategy Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: December 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly define financial responsibilities for fires that
cross jurisdictions.--Protecting the nation's communities is
both one of the key goals of wildland fire management and one
of the leading factors contributing to rising fire costs. A
number of relatively simple steps-such as using fire-resistant
landscaping and building materials-can dramatically reduce the
likelihood of damage to a structure from wildland fire.
Although nonfederal entities-including state forestry entities
and tribal, county, city, and rural fire departments-play an
important role in protecting communities and resources and
responding to fires, we reported in 2006 that federal officials
were concerned that the existing framework for sharing
suppression costs among federal and nonfederal entities
insulated state and local governments from the cost of
providing wildland fire protection in the wildland-urban
interface.\17\ As a result, there was less incentive for state
and local governments to adopt laws-such as building codes
requiring fire-resistant building materials in areas at high
risk of wildland fires-that, in the long run, could help reduce
the cost of suppressing wildland fires. We therefore
recommended that the federal agencies work with relevant state
entities to clarify the financial responsibility for fires that
burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions and
develop more specific guidance as to when particular cost-
sharing methods should be used. The agencies have updated
guidance on when particular cost-sharing methods should be
used, although we have not evaluated the effect of the updated
guidance; the agencies, however, have yet to clarify the
financial responsibility for fires that threaten multiple
jurisdictions. Without such clarification, the concerns that
the existing framework insulates nonfederal entities from the
cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface from fire-and
that the federal government, therefore, would continue to bear
more than its share of that cost-are unlikely to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises
Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities,
GAO-06-570 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigate effects of rising fire costs on other agency
programs.--The sharply rising costs of managing wildland fires
have led the Forest Service and the Interior agencies to
transfer funds from other programs to help pay for fire
suppression, disrupting or delaying activities in these other
programs. Better methods of estimating the suppression funds
the agencies request, as we recommended in 2004,\18\ could
reduce the likelihood that the agencies would need to transfer
funds from other accounts, yet the agencies continue to use an
estimation method with known problems. A Forest Service
official told us the agency had analyzed alternative methods
for estimating needed suppression funds but determined that no
better method was available. Because the agencies have had to
transfer funds in each of the last 3 years, however, a more
accurate method for estimating suppression costs may still be
needed. To further reduce the likelihood of transferring funds
from the agencies' other programs to cover suppression costs,
our 2004 report also noted, Congress could consider
establishing a reserve account to fund emergency wildland fire
fighting. Congress, for example, could provide either a
specified amount (known as a definite appropriation) or as much
funding as the agencies need to fund emergency suppression
(known as an indefinite appropriation). Establishing a reserve
account with a definite appropriation would provide the
agencies with incentives to contain suppression costs within
the amount in the reserve account, but depending on the size of
the appropriation and the severity of a fire season,
suppression costs could still exceed the funds reserved, and
the agencies might still need to transfer funds from other
programs. An account with an indefinite appropriation, in
contrast, would eliminate the need for transferring funds from
other programs but would offer no inherent incentives for the
agencies to contain suppression costs. Furthermore, both
definite and indefinite appropriations could raise the overall
federal budget deficit, depending on whether funding levels for
other agency or government programs are reduced. The Federal
Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act proposes
establishing a wildland fire suppression reserve account; the
administration's budget overview for fiscal year 2010 also
proposes a $282 million reserve account for the Forest Service
and a $75 million reserve account for the Interior to provide
funding for fire fighting when the appropriated suppression
funds are exhausted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GAO, Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project
Cancellations and Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management
Disruptions, GAO-04-612 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004).
We are making no new recommendations at this time. Rather, we
believe that our previous recommendations-which the agencies
have generally agreed with-could, if implemented, substantially
assist the agencies in capitalizing on the important progress
they have made to date in responding to the nation's growing
wildland fire problem. We discussed the factual information in
this statement with agency officials and incorporated their
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments where appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Dalton, thank you and thank you for
being so brief as well. I'm going to have a couple questions
now. Then I'm going to turn it over to the Ranking Member,
Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall will chair. My apologies to
the witnesses, this is also, health care week, and so there is
a lot on the docket.
First question for you, Mr. Jensen, if I might. The
evidence indicates that something like 2 percent of the fires
result in 85 percent of the suppression costs. Can you just
outline for the committee what these fires are like, the 2
percent? Particularly why they are so expensive for the agency?
Mr. Jensen. Absolutely. Thank you for that question.
Those fires are essentially the large fires we see out
there in the landscape. They tend to be very intense. They are
generally referred to and known as these catastrophic wildfires
that we're seeing.
They get that large because these are the ones that are
escaping initial attack. It is key that we maintain the initial
attack capability to keep these fires small. That's a key cost
containment strategy for the agencies going forward from here.
Senator Wyden. So Ms. Dalton, we have gone round and round
over the years on this question of what the agencies are doing
to reduce fuels. This incredibly powerful force on the forest
floor that I think is largely responsible for these virtual
infernos that we're seeing around the country. We have gone
round and round with the agencies over the last few years.
This committee has had a lot of witnesses, including the
General Accounting Office, timber companies, environmentalists,
the Forest Service, land managers. It all suggests from the
experts that the number of acres that are being treated to
actually reduce this problem of tremendous fuels buildup is
unreliable. It's misleading. It's counterproductive.
In effect what we are told is that the current system
creates this kind of bizarre incentive for the land managers to
go out and treat the easiest and cheapest, you know, acres
instead of focusing on treating the most important, you know,
acres in the most cost effective way. There have been blue
ribbon committees on this. This seems to have generated, you
know, more paper than practically any issue imaginable.
Now your testimony indicates that you all are making new
efforts to address this. Now we have heard this as well before.
What I'd like to have you set out on the record is what are you
going to do differently on this question of acres being treated
and why do you think that approach will allow some real
progress to be made?
Ms. Dalton. Senator, what we've recommended is that the
agencies develop a comprehensive strategy that would look more
at the long term--what are the long term threats of fire and as
decisions are being made about fuel reduction, not to look at
the number, trying to get the maximum number of acres treated.
But identify those acres that pose the greatest threat of fire,
not just now, but in the longer term.
That's why we feel it's critical that the agencies take
that longer term--develop that longer term cohesive strategy
that will look at what's going to be the cost to manage wild
land fires, not just today, but next year and the following
year.
Senator Wyden. I've heard that referred to often in the
past. Again, specifically what's going to be done differently?
What is going to, are you going to identify acres that need it
most differently? What can you tell us about the differences in
the approach that you're going to take?
We couldn't make a lot of headway in the last
administration. So I'm really going to push hard to try to find
out specifically what's going to be done now. So you've said
you're going to look at the long term. Can you amplify with at
least some specifics as to what that's going to consist of?
Ms. Dalton. Senator, what we've done is made the
recommendations to the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior. They have indicated that they are in fact, developing
such a cohesive strategy, but it's in the very early stages. We
haven't seen that strategy yet.
Senator Wyden. I'm sorry. I needed to ask you and Jay. I
wanted to know from you what you were advocating specifically
in terms of long term changes. Then I need to know what Mr.
Jensen is going to do.
So again, if you will tell us what you're advocating
specifically in terms of long term changes. Then Mr. Jensen, if
you could tell me what you specifically are going to change.
Ms. Dalton. Yes, what we would be advocating is, as I said,
a cohesive strategy that looks at all of the options that are
available to the fire fighting agencies.
What the costs are and what are the tradeoffs?
Trying to weigh those and have those as a total picture of
what the fire problem is.
What are the resources that we have available?
What's the best use of those resources?
How do you effectively respond to the threats, both today
and tomorrow in the most cost effective way?
That when we talk fuel reduction it means you may not want
to clear the easiest acres, but those that present the greatest
fire threat. They may be those acres that are closest to, for
example, an urban wild land interface where you've got
communities that could potentially be threatened by a wildfire.
Or, it's a difficult task to clear that forest because of dense
growth, as opposed to something that would use a more less
expensive approach, where there isn't as great a threat on
these lands.
Senator Wyden. The more specifics you can give us, the
better. Now let's go to you, Mr. Jensen, for your crack at the
specifics of what might be done differently on the acres
treated question now.
Mr. Jensen. I'm glad you're asking that. We've been batting
this one around for quite some time. The Agency over the past
year has instituted a new hazardous fuels prioritization
allocation mechanism which basically takes into account
wildfire potential, the values at risk, past performance of the
units conducting those activities and any ongoing restoration
efforts in the area.
It's an interesting notion that we need to be, and one that
I would agree with that we need to be focusing on quality
acres, not just quantity acres here. One good way to do that is
to focus in on those community wildfire protection plans where
communities have made statements of where those values are most
at risk and where they'd like to see those treatments.
Senator Wyden. But that's what the agency has done over the
last few years. That's what we continue to get testimony isn't
getting the job done. What I'm trying to figure out is what's
going to change?
Mr. Jensen. We'd like to think this administration is going
to be looking at it in a different light.
Senator Wyden. What would that light be?
Mr. Jensen. I think taking this more seriously in terms of
looking at wildfire potential, those values at risk and turning
to those community wildfire protection plans for helping make
those decisions and priorities.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to hold the record open to see if
you all amplify on that answer. Because what my understanding--
your first response to my question is that the agency has been
looking at these various approaches for the last, you know, few
years. Then you said we intend to take them more seriously.
I'm looking for some specifics because what we have heard
in the past is largely just a recycling of the various
approaches that we then hear from the industry, from
environmental folks and others are unreliable. So the more
specifics we can get. When could you get us, for the record,
more specifics about what the administration is going to do
differently?
Could we have that within 30 days?
Mr. Jensen. Absolutely.
Senator Wyden. Ok. Then for you, Ms. Dalton, if you have at
the GAO some additional suggestions for how we can go about
this task to get some more specifics that would be very helpful
as well.
You can probably see the reason I'm drilling in on this
questions is we have just gone round and round on this for more
hearings and more hours than I can begin to imagine. Then we
have the industry, environmental people, scientists and others
still say that we have this perverse incentive out there.
So we've got to get it right. That's why we need more
specific suggestions from folks at GAO. Why Mr. Jensen, I want
to know what the administration is going to do differently.
Senator Murkowski, your questions and Senator Udall we'll
hear shortly of the Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Wyden. The chairman
has mentioned this ratio if you will of the percent of the
fires that consume the vast amount of the suppression funding.
I think he said that 2 percent of the fires consume 85 percent
of the suppression funding. My notes say 3 percent of the fires
consume 85 percent of the suppression funding.
But whether it's 2 percent or whether it's 3 percent, I
think we understand what we're dealing with. In looking at the
President's proposed budget for FY10. That doesn't line up with
how we are--with the reality that you've got between two and 3
percent of the fires that consume 85 percent of the suppression
funding.
There's over a billion dollars that is proposed for the
fire preparedness and the suppression accounts. Yet a
relatively small amount than what is proposed for the reserve
account. Ms. Suh and Mr. Jensen, you have both indicated the
administration's support of the FLAME Act based on this
contingency reserve here.
But let me ask you Ms. Suh, if 85 percent of the
suppression funding is consumed responding to 3 percent of the
fires how do we reconcile what I perceive to be a mismatch
between what the administration has recommended for fire
suppression funding and the reality of where we know those
dollars are spent? How do we resolve this?
Ms. Suh. That's an excellent question. I would say first
off with respect to budgeting fires, I think the trick
historically has always been that even though we have these
catastrophic fires that account again for 85 percent of the
total costs, predicting where those fires will happen and when
those fires will happen is kind of a guessing game every year.
That's why we collectively use these 10 year averages to
determine how much should be, essentially, budgeted for these
potential contingencies.
I think with the President's budget in 2010 we believe that
it is an excellent first start at establishing a baseline where
we could potentially be looking at our segregation of funds
differently. Now the FLAME Act proposes a slightly different
approach in that with a slightly different baseline. I think
ultimately the opportunity here is for us to collectively work
together to determine what appropriate baselines make the most
sense.
But again, the intent I think of both the FLAME Act and the
contingency fund are really to take the emergency funds, these
kinds of catastrophic emergency funds that eat up a lot of our
regular budgets aside and start thinking of them differently.
But in terms of figuring out what the total amount that should
go in those funds should be, that's an ongoing conversation,
very much look forward to having with you all.
Senator Murkowski. I understand the fact that we don't
really know. It is difficult to guess. That's why it makes
sense to have this reserve fund that we build upon.
Some years we're going to get lucky and we're not going to
have the level of fires that we might see. We're not going to
have the high catastrophes. But you can't count on that. That's
why this reserve fund is important.
Mr. Jensen, I wanted to ask you about the chart that you
have, which displays the last 10 years in fire suppression.
What is the line that is going up? I can anticipate what the
bars are, but what is the line?
Mr. Jensen. That's the 10-year average for which the
suppression line is proposed every year in the budget.
Senator Murkowski. Ok, so it is based off that line that
you get the administration's budget. Then, for instance, these
past 3 years, you've had the huge spikes that if we were to
have had a reserve fund in place we would be able to pull from
that pool as opposed to cannibalizing from other parts of the
budget?
Mr. Jensen. That's correct. If I might add just a tad.
Trying to figure out what the right number is is really this
mix of art and science. Because we never quite know what the
fire season is going to be like.
So we continue to improve our decision support tools to get
a better handle on it. Things like the fire program analysis
and budgeting measures that we have are giving us a better
handle and allowing us to get closer to it. But the 10-year
average is one that we've worked from in the past.
Senator Murkowski. In looking at that visual there in at
least, 6, or 7 of the past 10 years, we have not guessed right.
Given what we're seeing with the wildfires in this country and
the push with the urban interface and the reality that we've
got some issues that are driving up the cost. Don't we just see
us missing, missing. quite dramatically on this rolling
average?
Mr. Jensen. I think your point is well taken. We can do
better in this. That's what I think this dialog here today is
starting to get down. Talking about the contingent reserve
account in the President's budget and what the FLAME has to
offer and how they complement each other in trying to figure
out the best path forward is how we're going to get through
this.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to
all of our panelists for being here today. I'm from New
Hampshire, one of the states that suffers less from large
forest fires, but is affected by the budget constraints that
happened when we have large fires in the West that we haven't
budgeted for. I wonder if any of you could talk to some of the
challenges that the current system presents for states like New
Hampshire where we have a lot of forests that don't have fires,
but are very much affected by what's happening because of our
current budget situation?
I don't know who wants to respond to that.
Mr. Jensen. I'll be happy to jump in. Huge impacts. The
ability of the agency to deliver upon the rest of its programs
is severely impacted. When we get to those points in the fire
season which typically tends to be anywhere from now through
the end of the year, the rest of the Agency's program of work
has to be turned toward and looked to to try and fill those
holes.
When it comes to states in the Northeast, other programs
like forest health, maybe urban forest tree, forest legacy
programs, often if they still have money in their accounts,
we're forced to turn to those other programs to try to make up
for the shortfalls on the fire side.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I think it's important to point
out. Most people think of our big forests all being out West,
but actually the three most heavily forested states in the
country are in the East.
They're Maine, No. 1. New Hampshire, No. 2 and West
Virginia, No. 3. So we are very much affected even though we
may not be affected by the wildfires.
One of the things that I've been reading about the cause of
so many of these dramatic fires that we've seen in recent years
is that climate change has had an impact on what's going on in
rainfall and particularly in some of the states in the West.
One of the concerns that has been expressed about legislation
that we might be considering this year is the cost of
addressing climate change in legislation. But as we're talking
about the tremendous costs for fighting fires it seems to me
that there are tradeoffs as we're talking about what the costs
are.
So as you all have looked at what's happening with
wildfires. To what extent do you attribute the causes to what
is happening with climate change?
Ms. Suh. It certainly depends on the area, Senator.
Although it's clear that the impact of climate change in many
parts of the country, particularly in the interior west are
profound. Just one example from Senator Udall's State: the
beetle kill in the pine die off is significant. The fuel source
that now is representative of all those dead and dying trees is
a significant concern for the catastrophic wildfires we've just
been talking about. That can be directly attributed to the fact
that those beetles live longer because the winters are less
cold. So there's this explosion in the insect population. So
how we begin to address those things, I think both by a much
more robust strategy with respect to prioritizing hazardous
fuels reduction as well as through an adaptation approach where
the land management agencies are taking a much more aggressive,
I think, and much more comprehensive view of what adaptation
means and the fact that adaptation in many ways means the
restoration, the long term restoration of many of these
changing ecological systems.
So it's an excellent point. I think, again, the agencies,
at least within the Department of the Interior are looking at
it as a kind of multipronged type of potential solution.
Senator Shaheen. Does anyone want to add to that? Anyone
else on the panel?
Mr. Jensen. Wholeheartedly agree.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. As a former Governor normally I
don't like dedicated funds. But this is a case where I think it
makes sense to have a fund that we can use because obviously
this problem is not going to go away. We've got to do a better
job of addressing it.
So thank you all.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you
clearly know in the West we are facing an unprecedented
challenge to forest health, especially Wyoming and in Colorado
due to bark beetle infestation. It's spreading further and
faster than ever before.
In the Medicine Bow National Forest alone we have nearly
500,000 acres of standing dead timber due to bark beetles.
Beetle infested acres doubled between 2007, 2008 and every
forest in Wyoming is affected. Without swift action by land
managers those infested trees certainly will become fuel for
wildfires.
Yet the Forest Service did not spend a single dime of
stimulus money to combat this problem in Wyoming. The Agency
dedicated resources to States without any Forest Service land.
The Agency dealt with forest health in every neighboring State
surrounding Wyoming. I know the Forest Service has heard from
our delegation as well as from our Governor.
So, no money went to the severe forest health threats in
Wyoming. This, to me, is not just a missed opportunity, but
really a disrespect to the folks of Wyoming who live and work
in these forests. You know, I've been critical of the stimulus
package.
Yesterday in the Washington Post, economist Robert
Samuelson wrote a column called the Squandered Stimulus. He
said, ``The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic
Congress wasn't engineered to maximize its economic impact.''
It was mostly, he said, ``a political exercise designed to
claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favorite
constituency and signal support for fashionable causes.''
I would like to have some real answers from the Department
of Agriculture. I want to know exactly how the Agency is going
to combat the effects of bark beetle infestation and how
resources are going to be made available to do so. Mr. Jensen?
Mr. Jensen. Senator, thank you. Before I get into that, if
I might, wish you a happy birthday today.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. You sent him a card. So that's good. That's
impressive.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jensen. We hope the opportunity of stimulus is not over
yet. The Forest Service is not finished its disbursement of
Recovery Act funds. We are keenly aware of the challenges that
are occurring out there along the Rocky Mountain front
extending up into Wyoming. The challenges around bark beetle in
particular are immense. We do need to be redoubling our efforts
which is going to include looking at new tools, other funds and
opportunities to bring in the private sector to help solve some
of these challenges.
The Recovery Act itself, we believe that it is being and
will continue to be and become more so a significant factor in
helping rural communities, forested communities in particular
get back onto their feet in large regard. We'll be happy to
follow up with you to discuss any of the details and specifics
about how that's unfolding.
Senator Barrasso. I'd like to do that. I visited with our
Governor Friday night in Cheyenne Frontier Days. You know, we
need to ask about how this is unfolding. Also we need to talk
about new resources to reducing our risk for catastrophic
fires.
Another way of looking at it is the need for good neighbor
authority, to all of the states. You know, in terms of putting
boots on the ground. Right now we have heavily affected areas,
and I was driving through those last weekend in a couple of
counties, Wyoming. In terms of being able to thin or remove
dead trees. There's no permission for the states to do it.
No permission for private folks to do it. Only the Federal
Government can do it and right now you're not doing it. So are
there thoughts of extending good neighbor authority to allow
states and others to participate in this?
Mr. Jensen. I think it is clear that we need to be looking
at all the existing tools we have and perhaps any, some new
tools that are out there. Things like stewardship contracting
could be a very useful mechanism. With the recent new moneys
that have come through with emergency supplemental
appropriations and looking at the Recovery Act, we're hoping
that we can put that to good use there.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate that. We have a State
forester who wants to get out and get some things done. Doesn't
have permission, even though he does have some resources, but
much of the need is on Federal land. So, he is not able to do
the work.
So we look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Mr. Jensen. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I would note
for the record that this is also the birthday of Congressman
John Salazar. He would characterize himself as the wiser and of
course, older member of the Salazar family.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. But we want to wish both Senator Barrasso
and Congressman Salazar the best.
Let me turn back to Senator Murkowski. I know she has some
additional questions for the panel.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jensen, I
wanted to ask you a couple questions about the modifications
that the House of Representatives have made to the proposed
FLAME Act. One of them is an addition that would allow for a
plan, developed in coordination with the National Guard Bureau
to maximize the use of National Guard resources to fight the
wildfires.
What is the administration's position on this particular
addition to the FLAME Act?
Mr. Jensen. The air resources that the National Guard and
the ground resources that National Guard can bring to bear are
a part of the solution that need to be. But we need to be able
to look strategically at where the best investment, kind of
going back to this notion of investing in the most high
priority areas and all.
Senator Murkowski. Do you get concerned at all with the
fact that, you can't always rely on the National Guard when you
need them? They might be off doing something else, responding
to some other emergency which may be a higher priority. Yet you
have counted them as among your assets to respond.
Mr. Jensen. Indeed that's why it's important to make sure
that we have the resources within the Agency itself and its
cooperators to get after these problems. The National Guard and
other resources will be part of the solution, but it's not one
that we can rely on alone, nor should we focus too much of our
efforts on.
Senator Murkowski. In the 2005 Interior appropriations
report the Forest Service was directed to provide a strategic
plan. The plan was due by March 1, 2005, for procuring and
managing critical assets, the aircraft and directing that the
plan be developed with alternatives that include input provided
by private industry. It's my understanding that this report has
not been submitted. Do you have any status on such a report?
Mr. Jensen. As we've arrived into Washington, DC, we've
taken a look at that, what's been developed to date. We're
currently reviewing that right now for such a release. We'll be
running through processes to get some more visibility on that
issue. Getting the right mix of aviation resources and assets
is going to be key.
Senator Murkowski. When do you figure you might be able to
have that report?
Mr. Jensen. We're in the process right now of looking at
that report. I'm hoping and optimistic that by the end of the
year we can get something out there.
Senator Murkowski. It would be helpful if it could be
before the end of the year recognizing that once you get the
report then you want to be prepared for the next budget. If
you're waiting until the end of the year, it would be my
suggestion that you try to expedite that, if it could be done
by September 30. It seems to me 2005 was a long time ago and I
do appreciate the fact that you all have just come in, but it
does seem to be a key priority to make sure that we have these
assets that are out there. So if I could urge any expediency I
would certainly do that.
Then one final question. This is again a change that the
House is proposing to the FLAME Act, regarding prescribed fires
and notice of the fires.
It requires that as part of the strategy before any
prescribed fire is used on national Forest Service land, the
owners of adjacent private land are notified in writing of the
date and the scope. Do you have any idea how long this might
take? What the cost might be for the Forest Service to figure
out who the specific land owners are on these adjacent lands?
Mr. Jensen. We haven't scoped out the details specific to
that. But it's clear that it would be a significant investment
and might even say a burden. The agency takes very seriously to
the need to be a good neighbor.
In that regard we currently have processes in effect that
enable us to provide notice, contacts and we think that it
seems to be working in certain ways. It seems to be working
well. A strict requirement could potentially be overly
restricting on the ability of the Agency to achieve the broader
fire effort.
Senator Murkowski. It's also tough. I know that when we
have had prescribed burns up North you're really subject to a
window of weather conditions, what is going on with the winds.
If you had to provide for notification, to several of the folks
that I represent, you know, they're literally scattered to the
winds in terms of providing adequate notification in a very
timely manner. It could be very difficult.
Mr. Jensen. Alaska presents a very unique situation, but
it's not just unique to Alaska there.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Mr. Jensen. I think the rest of the country sees some
similar challenges.
Senator Murkowski. I would agree. So it sounds like you are
withholding judgment or perhaps not certain, actually how this
provision coming over from the House might be implemented in
the FLAME Act.
Mr. Jensen. We think that the existing Agency forms and
structures are more than adequate to be that good neighbor.
Senator Murkowski. Alright. Good. I appreciate that. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I just have one final question
that I hope you could respond to. The Energy Committee examined
the role of biomass when we did, particularly biomass on public
lands when we considered the Energy Bill. I think it's clear
that wise forest management practices are important not just to
the health of the forest, but also can be very helpful as we're
looking at our future energy needs.
So I wonder if you could talk about the role of biomass in
managing forests to mitigate wildfires.
Mr. Jensen. Biomass is going to be an absolutely end
utilization of that biomass is going to need to be a key part
of where we approach the wildfire problem. Reduction of those
fuels, recovery of those fuels and perhaps putting use into
some sort of bio energy utilization, the creation of green jobs
through those efforts. Done appropriately and sustainably--
appropriately scaled and done in a sustainable fashion will be
key to that.
We have a lot of experience out there with the communities
knowing how to do that the right way. Working with existing
industry as well to make sure that it's done in a way that is
not a hindrance to those that are already out there. But if
we're going to get ahead of--we're going to have difficulty
addressing all of our wildfire problems if we don't find a way
to involve the private sector in some of these solutions and
utilization of that biomass is going to be key.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. No further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I'm going to
wrap up this panel unless as I direct a few comments for the
record and direct some questions to the panel that the other
two senators have additional questions. But I want to thank the
chairman for holding the hearing. I want to thank him for a
chance to sit in on his stead.
Senator Murkowski assures me that the Finance Committee and
the HELP Committees are going to have a health care reform
package shortly. That's where Senator Bingaman is today, I
believe.
I'm a co-sponsor of this bill. I also co-sponsored the
original House bill with Chairman Rahall and during the last
Congress when I had the opportunity to serve in the House. I'm
pleased the administration has taken this important step.
It is no doubt easier to pretend each year that we're not
going to have to spend this money than to budget for it up
front. It's also important to emphasize that there's a great
need to reduce the severity of wildfires proactively in order
to reduce the costs of suppressing and fighting those fires
once they start raging. I remember being on the side of a fire,
I'm sure Senator Murkowski has had this experience, perhaps
Senator Shaheen as well.
With Rick Cables, Director of the region, Mr. Jensen, you
know, that Colorado is a member of and he used an analogy that
this is like going to war when you fight a fire, although
you're warring with Mother Nature. When you hear the sound of
the aircraft, you hear the sound of the vehicles, you watch the
firefighters on the ground, you're hearing the sound of money
being spent. So this is obviously the 2, suppression and then
proactively reducing fuel treatments interact.
By putting this fund in place we go a long way to make sure
those preventative fuels treatment projects are undertaken and
completed. So we need to make sure that this fund is used for
fire suppression costs so that there's little to no future need
to supplement the fire suppression funds by drawing down funds
for other critical agency work such as fuels treatment. It's
not only about being honest about the cost of fighting
wildfires, but about the impacts of failing to budget honestly,
have had on other programs.
Small businesses have had their contracts canceled. The
important work on the ground gets canceled indefinitely each
year when the money runs out. So again, I'm pleased that we're
moving.
In that spirit let me direct a couple of questions to the
panel. I'd like to direct these comments to Mr. Jensen,
Secretary Suh. Your testimony refers to the proposal for
contingent reserve account on the administration's budget for
fiscal year 2010.
In a recent letter to the Director of OMB, Secretary
Vilsack pointed out that the contingent reserve proposal, let
me quote here, ``Does not resolve the core issue confronting
the Agency with respect to funding large, catastrophic
wildfires differently. It also provides a 1-year solution for
what may likely be a constant pressure added to the Agency's
budget for the foreseeable future. We believe that both the
administration's proposal and the FLAME Act are meritorious.''
Mr. Jensen, does the Secretary stand by that assessment?
Mr. Jensen. The Secretary does stand by that assessment and
clarifies and expands upon that in our testimony today. The
simple fact I put forward is that the FLAME Act and the
President's budget complement one another. There's going to be
a need to find a way to make the two of them work to get ahead
of this problem.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to Secretary Suh. Does Secretary
Salazar share that view?
Ms. Suh. He does. Secretary Salazar certainly supports the
administration's budget. I think we recognize that the FLAME
Act, in particular, would provide a permanency in the statute
that the budget does not. We fully agree with my colleagues at
the Department of Agriculture that the two are very
complementary.
The contingency fund & FLAME Act Complement each other. we
look forward to working with you all to determine how we get to
some of the details with respect to the baselines. I think
that's just the type of approach that Secretary Salazar would
be in support of.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification. I don't
think I have to urge the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture to work together as we face this
important challenge. I would note that Senator Shaheen and I,
in the early stages of the hearing were in the back room
talking about the history of the Department of Agriculture, the
history of the Department of the Interior, why the land
agencies are assumed the portfolios that they now have.
We were ably assisted by Stan Sloss who is sitting here
behind me who many of you know from his long service in the
House. He's now over here on the Senate side. In sum, the point
I'm trying to make is that this is too big a challenge to
revert to sometimes the turf battles that have characterized
the relationship between Ag and Interior.
So I want to thank you in advance for stepping up to a
higher standard here when it comes to working together.
Sometimes we have major work. At seasons it could be, but I
know they're cool, calm and mature heads in both agencies.
I also wanted to thank Senator Murkowski for mentioning the
study on the aviation support that's been so important in
fighting fires. We had a tragic accident in Colorado. I
remember working on an ongoing basis with Under Secretary Rey
to see that the report, Mr. Jensen, was completed.
I know Senator Murkowski and I would do anything possible
to get that aviation strategy completed so that we know what
future costs are going to be and the assets that we'll have to
fight fires in the future will be as well. So anything we can
do to help move that along we'd like to do so.
Let me turn finally to Colorado. Senator Murkowski and I
were talking about her experience at skiing in Colorado. I
think now I have to go ski in Alaska next year as a way to
support the Alaska ski industry.
But she was astounded by the beetle kill in Colorado,
particularly in the North central mountains. It's just
stunning, deeply dismaying. We do, with luck, look like we may
because of the weather patterns we've had this spring and
summer save us from a truly catastrophic fire this year.
We need still, though, more resources to reduce hazardous
fuels and suppress wildfires that do occur. Ms. Dalton
mentioned that the Agencies are working to prove their
allocations of hazardous fuels funding and fire fighting assets
through land, fire, FPA and other methods. Can you tell me
whether those models and methods take the bark beetle situation
in Colorado into account?
I'm looking at Ms. Dalton, but also Mr. Jensen.
Ms. Dalton. Those methods do, it is my understanding,
provide data on a nationwide basis that's very consistent. So
to that extent I would expect that they would. But I think Mr.
Jensen probably can answer in more detail.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Jensen. Absolutely. We expanded a little bit earlier
here on how some of the decisions are made within the Agency
around fuel reduction. A notion here, particularly in the case
for Colorado is looking at the values at risk and trying to
figure out where the investment of the limited moneys we do
have are going to make the most affect. That is very much
around the infrastructure of communities and protection of
watersheds and the drinking water that flows from that.
So we're going to need to be making the most of what
limited resources we do have to hopefully head off the
potential problem that we are looking at there in Colorado.
Senator Udall. Secretary Suh, any comment in that regard?
Ms. Suh. It's interesting that you raise Colorado in
particular. We were just having conversations at Interior about
doing an exercise so that a lot of the new folks to Interior
could learn about the Office of WildLand Fire Coordination.
Using catastrophic fire in Colorado is a potential opportunity
for both of us to learn about the way our agencies and bureaus
work together. As well as our state of preparedness with
respect to some of the more pronounced problems, we have on the
horizon.
So we'll be actually going through this exercise in a
couple of weeks. If you're interested in coming, we'd be happy
to have you or any of your staff join us.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that. Yes, I think about for
example, the Eastern boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park
which is one of the areas where you see almost every tree,
every lodge pole, pine that's been killed. You then have Forest
Service lands adjacent and then a checkerboard land ownership
pattern of private ownership as well. There may even be some
State forest lands and so that coordination looms all the more
important in a setting like that.
Then you put in the mix, of course, the statutes
surrounding the parks and the way we're working to manage the
National Parks. I would note that with the latest public lands
package we passed early in this Congress that we did reach a
life, well almost a lifetime goal for many of us which was to
set aside Rocky as wilderness based on the Nixon administration
recommendations. That new law though, does give us the
flexibility to handle this situation in particular as
appropriate.
Mr. Jensen, you also view the Department of Agriculture and
the ski industry concerns have been working I know with the ski
industry to provide some additional flexibility particularly so
the ski industry can protect within their boundaries trees that
are particularly important, stands of trees that are
particularly important in protecting the snow resources. Is
that not correct?
Mr. Jensen. Absolutely correct. Yes.
Senator Udall. I want to commend you for that. We need to
continue to work with the ski industry. Senator Murkowski was
pointing out to me that in some cases the ski industry is
actually working hard to save individual tress because they are
so key holding snow pack, particularly at the timber line
interface where the winds rule.
If that snow gets blown away it not only sublimates back as
a water vapor, but you don't have ski runs that are usable.
Mr. Jensen. If I might add a little bit. The ski industry
is a critical partner with/for the Forest Service and the
Agency. Not only do they help us deliver our mission and
provide those recreational opportunities out there for the
public. But they also provide a great opportunity to help
spread the message of what forests and forest management bring
to the country.
Wwe're, with the numbers of people that come to the ski
resorts, we hope that we can continue that partnership.
Senator Udall. I want to thank the panel. Senator Shaheen
or Senator Murkowski, do you?
Any panel member have a final comment or should we excuse
you?
Thank you for taking the time to come up to Capitol Hill.
We'll now prepare for the second panel as the first panel
departs. Thanks again.
Our second panel, like the first panel will be testifying
on the FLAME Act. I want to welcome first Leah MacSwords, who
is the President of the National Association of State
Foresters.
Second welcome, Max Peterson, Former Chief of the Forest
Service. It's not often we have icons that come to Capitol
Hill, but Max Peterson is an icon. It's wonderful to see you
here, Mr. Peterson.
Ms. MacSwords, would you like to share your testimony with
us?
STATEMENT OF LEAH MACSWORDS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE FORESTERS, STATE FORESTER OF KENTUCKY, REPRESENTING THE
PARTNER CAUCUS ON FIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING SOLUTIONS
Ms. MacSwords. I can.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Ms. MacSwords. I want to thank the committee. I'm appearing
today on behalf of the Partner Caucus on fire suppression
funding solutions. This was assembled earlier this year by the
National Association of State Foresters, the Wilderness Society
and American Forests.
The Partner Caucus is made up of more than 100
organizations. We advocate for a new mechanism for funding
emergency fire suppression activities for the United States
Forest Service and Department of the Interior. The ongoing lack
of a sustainable fire funding is a problem on the Agency's
balance sheets and puts the Nation's forests at great risk. The
Partner Caucus is committed to helping Congress find a solution
and ensuring that the Forest Service and Interior can
accomplish their critical land management goals.
I will address our recommendations related to S. 561, the
FLAME Act. My testimony reflects the support of more than 70
members of the Partner Caucus. A full list of supporting
organizations will be submitted to the committee along with my
official statement and a document that captures our shared
principles on this issue.
The cost of suppressing wildfires has grown enormously in
recent years. Projections indicate that this trend will only
increase. The Forest Service in particular has spent over $1
billion per year in 5 of the last 7 years fighting fires.
The approach today used to fund the enormous wildfire
suppression cost is referred to as the 10-year rolling average.
Each year an average of the amount of fire suppression over the
last decade is the figure that determines the suppression
budget for the coming year. The overall Agency budget does not
expand to accommodate this ballooning figure however. Instead
fire suppression becomes a proportionally larger percentage of
the overall Agency budget.
In FY 1991 the suppression was 13 percent of the Forest
Service budget. This year it was nearly half. With budgets that
remain essentially flat or decline from year to year, the
Forest Service and Interior have two options to find
suppression costs that are over and above the appropriated
level.
One is to request supplemental funding from Congress.
The other is to transfer limited dollars from other
essential Agency programs.
Such transfers disrupt or cancel projects that could
actually serve to drive down the cost of fire suppression over
time. We must not continue to jeopardize the on the ground work
that is improving the health of our forests and helping to
protect people and property from devastating fires. Within the
fire suppression portion of the budget catastrophic emergency
wildfires consume 85 percent of all suppression costs and
account for over 95 percent of all acres burned.
Catastrophic wildfires refer to those fires that unduly
threaten people or property or are uncharacteristic in nature.
These are not average fires and should be treated the same way
as other natural disaster. Costs associated with these
extraordinary fires diminish the ability of the Forest Service
and Interior to meet their other land management
responsibilities.
Remarkably there is no Federal law that mandates the use of
the 10-year average to calculate yearly suppression costs.
Instead it's become an Agency tradition and one that is out of
date and no longer the best way to predict future emergency
suppression costs. The members of the Partner Caucus recommend
creating a partitioned wildfire suppression account to fund
emergency fires.
To this end we support the FLAME Act under consideration in
the Senate which establishes the FLAME fund specifically for
suppression of catastrophic emergency wild land fires. The
FLAME fund will eliminate the depletion of other agency
programs to pay for suppression by providing a sustainable
funding source that is separate from the Agency's program
funding. The appropriation for this special account would be
calculated using an average of past emergency suppression
activities rather than an average of all fire suppression
costs.
Each year in the height of fire season, Congress
appropriates emergency funds to meet the skyrocketing cost of
fire suppression. The FLAME Act would give Congress the means
to fund emergency suppression before agencies have to take the
drastic measure of transferring funds from other programs. We
also recommend replacing the 10-year average with the
discretionary budgeting process that is more predictive and
statistically modeling approach.
By using current models for weather, drought and fuel
loads, as well as fire history and other data, we can better
predict how much funding the agencies will need for non-
emergency fires. Separating the costs incurred by true
emergencies from more predictable day to day agency fire
responsibilities will ease a tremendous burden on the Forest
Service and Interior. The FLAME Act will provide clear
guidelines for funding emergency suppression by establishing
specific accounting requirements on how the money can be spent
and giving direction to the agencies for the budgeting of
wildfire needs in the future.
The contingency reserve fund proposed in the FY 2010
President's budget and included in the House Interior
Appropriations Package provides the money that is necessary for
this new approach to funding emergency fire suppression
activities. The FLAME Act can provide the framework on how the
contingency reserve fund is spent. The FLAME Act as passed in
the House last March was amended on the floor and several of
the amendments significantly change the original intent of the
bill which was to create a partitioned account to pay for only
emergency fire costs.
The Partner Caucus supports the FLAME Act as introduced in
the Senate and advocates that the bill maintain its focus on
creation of a partitioned account. The recommendations
developed by the Partner Caucus on fire suppression funding are
essential to solving this problem in a holistic manner. We
believe the investment of funds into the range of agency
programs that will have been impacted by increasing suppression
costs is critical as well.
In closing all members of the Partner Caucus have been
impacted by the issue. Have a stake in assuring that the Forest
Service and Interior can accomplish their critical land
management goals. The agencies depend on a huge number of
environmental organizations, State forestry agencies, the
outdoor recreation industry, land owners, fire service, hunters
and anglers, the timber industry, local governments and many
others.
We look forward to working with this committee to insure
the passage of the FLAME Act in this Congress. I'd be happy to
answer any questions or provide any further information as you
see fit.
[The prepared statement of Ms. MacSwords follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leah MacSwords, President, National Association
of State Foresters, State Forester of Kentucky, Representing the
Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Funding Solutions
On behalf of the Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Funding
Solutions, I thank Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski and
the rest of the Committee members for the opportunity to appear before
you today. My testimony is focused solely on the section of the FLAME
Act that establishes the FLAME fund for emergency fire suppression.
I am president of the National Association of State Foresters,
representing the directors of state forestry agencies in all 50 states,
eight U.S. territories and associated states, and the District of
Columbia. I am proud to be representing the Partner Caucus--a unique
and diverse group of organizations dedicated to finding a new mechanism
for funding emergency fire suppression activities for the U.S. Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior land management agencies.
Assembled by NASF, The Wilderness Society and American Forests in early
2009, the Partner Caucus includes leading industry, environmental,
outdoor recreation, and forestry organizations that all recognize the
urgency of this problem. Attached to this testimony is the Partner
Caucus' principles and recommendations document that includes a
complete list of supportive organizations.* The Partner Caucus was
created to bring attention to the imperative need to release the
stranglehold that emergency suppression costs are having on the
agencies' budget and programs, and the resulting negative economic and
environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Document has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the challenge
All of the nation's forests face numerous threats, including
insects and disease, development pressures, changing climate, and
catastrophic wildfire--meaning those wildfires that unduly jeopardize
people and property or are uncharacteristic in nature. An ongoing lack
of sustainable funding is yet another pressure on America's forests
prohibiting agencies from accomplishing their management goals. On
behalf of the Partner Caucus, I will address the combined effect of
these last two threats: the financial impact of catastrophic fire on
the Forest Service and Interior and the need for a comprehensive
solution to this escalating problem.
A DIVERSE COALITION OF PARTNERS
One of the major factors behind the diverse nature of the Partner
Caucus is how broadly the challenges of fire suppression funding
impacts the agencies' critical partners, including national and local
environmental organizations, state forestry agencies, outdoor and
recreation industry, land owners, hunters/anglers, timber industry,
local governments, fire services and other groups interested in land
management.
We stand ready to assist Congress in identifying a new mechanism
for funding emergency fire suppression activities.
THE IMPACT OF WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS
The cost of suppressing fires has grown enormously in recent years
and projections indicate that this trend will only increase as a result
of hazardous fuels build-up, a changing climate (and thus, ecology),
and increasingly populated wildland-urban interface areas. For example,
the Forest Service has spent over $1 billion per year in five of the
last seven years to extinguish fires. Fire suppression, the largest
component of agency wildland fire management activities, rose from 13%
of the agency's budget in fiscal year 1991 to close to 50% in 2009.
Extraordinary emergency wildland fire suppression activities account
for over 95% of all burned acres and consume 85% of all suppression
costs. These are not average wildfires; they should be treated the same
way as other natural disasters to avoid severe depletion of the
agency's constrained budget.
As the primary agencies responsible for wildland fire protection,
these escalating fire suppression costs have had a detrimental effect
on program implementation within the Forest Service and Department of
the Interior. Due to their budgets remaining essentially flat or
declining from year-to-year, core program budgets have been drained in
order to sufficiently fund fires suppression at the required 10-year
rolling average level. Although no federal law requires that the
agencies budget for the 10-year average of fire suppression costs
within their budget, it has become an unchallenged method of
calculating yearly suppression costs. This is not a mandated practice;
instead it is just a tradition, and one that is out of date and no
longer the best way to predict future suppression costs. Most other
agency programs are not accounted for in this way. Even with the
diversion of funds, agencies are regularly compelled to request
supplemental funding from Congress and are forced to transfer already
limited dollars from other essential agency programs. Such transfers
further reduce program budgets, leading to program disruptions, project
cancellations and strained relationships with partners.
All Forest Service programs are subject to transfers including
funds from State and Private Forestry, Capital Improvement and
Maintenance, National Forest System, and Wildland Fire Management. In
fact, the very programs that could reduce the risk of uncharacteristic
fires, ease the impact of fire suppression costs and more effectively
protect people and property are also the ones that suffer two-fold;
they are both reduced on the front end of the budgeting process as
money is diverted to fund the 10-year average for suppression, and are
subject to transfers of funds later in the fire season as fire
suppression costs increase.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS
The Partner Caucus has developed two recommendations towards a
solution. The first recommendation is to create a partitioned wildfire
suppression account to fund emergency fires. This is for those truly
emergency fires that consume most suppression appropriations-fires that
have significantly increased the cost of suppression over the last 10
years, led to decreases in appropriations for other agency programs,
and on a yearly basis require Congress to supplement appropriations for
increased suppression.
Our second recommendation is to replace the 10-year rolling average
with a more predictive and statistical modeling approach. One that
utilizes current weather conditions, drought and fuel loads as well as
fire history and other data in order to accurately estimate non-
emergency fire suppression costs. This will project the extent of
wildland fire on the landscape and use economic modeling to predict
funding needs. The Senate FLAME Act (S. 561) addresses both of these
recommendations and many of the Partner Caucus organizations support
the FLAME Act (S. 561) as introduced.
The Act will establish a new federal fund specifically for
suppression of catastrophic emergency wildland fires, which will move
the nation towards a more sustainable suppression funding mechanism.
This FLAME Fund will reduce depletion of the other agency programs to
pay for suppression and provide a more established funding source than
the current emergency supplemental funding. The Act will institute
clear guidelines for funding emergency fire suppression by establishing
specific accounting requirements on how that money can be spent and for
agencies to budget for emergency and nonemergency fire in future years.
These two recommendations are essential to solving this problem in
a holistic manner. The Partner Caucus also advocates for investment of
funds into the range of agency programs that have been impacted by
increasing suppression costs. This must occur in order for agencies to
accomplish their overall missions. Second, we advocate for the
continued development and implementation of a rigorous set of measures
to achieve cost containment; thus linking fire management activities to
resulting fire costs. We contend that these recommendations and
principles will move us towards a more common-sense budgeting approach
for both the Forest Service and Department of the Interior.
The Partner Caucus is supportive of the establishment of the FLAME
Fund as described in the FLAME Act as introduced in the Senate (S.
561).
MAINTAINING THE FOCUS OF THE FLAME ACT
The FLAME Act as passed in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1404)
was significantly amended on the floor. Eleven amendments were adopted
into the Act and several of them change the intent of the bill. One
amendment allows accessing the FLAME Fund for containment activities in
response to crisis insect infestations to reduce the likelihood of
wildfires. This means that the emergency partitioned account could be
used for projects on insect-affected areas before the fire season even
begins. The approved amendment also expands the definition of
suppression to include activities such as hazardous fuel reduction,
mechanical thinning, controlled burn, and a suite of non-suppression
activities. While fire-risk reduction is critical, it is not the
purpose of the FLAME Fund. This, and other amendments, will have
significant ramifications not just on the FLAME Fund but also on other
wildland fire management activities. The Partner Caucus supports the as
introduced (S. 561) and advocates that the Senate bill move forward in
a more streamlined fashion focusing on the need for the partitioned
account.
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
In order to ensure a good government approach to funding emergency
fire suppression activities we need rely on dedicated funding sources
that will not limit or impact the funding or resources of other
important agency programs. In the President's FY10 Budget Proposal, a
Contingency Reserve Fund for fire suppression activities is outlined
that commits funding over and above the suppression funding included in
the Forest Service and Department of the Interior budgets. The
Contingency Reserve Fund is available for agency use once their
suppression budgets have been spent and after notifying Congress of
their need to use the fund.
The President's budget also includes annual suppression funding at
the 10-year level for the Forest Service and Interior, noting that the
annual funding and contingency fund should not impact other important
agency programs. In order to fund suppression (which currently consists
of initial attack and emergency suppression activities) at the 10-year
average, the agencies must pull funds from other programs to meet the
ever-increasing average. Requiring an agency to budget for emergency
events within the discretionary appropriations process is a recipe for
failure. No other federal agencies have to pull funding from their core
programs in order to fund emergency events like floods and tornadoes. A
more predictive modeling approach that balances actual conditions with
average costs would better serve how much funding the agencies will
need for nonemergency fires.
The FLAME Fund would still use an average that calculates the
amount of money needed for emergency fire suppression activities in any
given year, but when dealing with true emergencies an average is
probably the best approach. This is not new money. Every year, Congress
appropriates emergency funds to address the sky-rocketing costs of fire
suppression. FLAME would provide Congress the means to fund emergency
suppression before agencies have to take the drastic measure of
transferring funds from other programs.
COMPLIMENTARY APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION
The Partner Caucus believes that the FLAME Fund and the Contingency
Reserve Fund are complementary ideas. The FLAME Fund will provide the
requirements for how the Contingency Reserve Fund monies are spent,
allowing the public to see how much of the Forest Service and Interior
budgets are actually being spent on emergency events. Congress can take
action by providing funds via the annual appropriations process, the
emergency supplemental process or use other funding sources to provide
funding for the FLAME Fund. Both the administration and Congress have
demonstrated their willingness to provide funds necessary for both
initial attack and emergency fire suppression events. This is an
efficient and fiscally responsible mechanism to the budgeting and
authorization process.
CLOSING REMARKS
I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about this
important issue. Representing this group of unique organizations that
have banded together in a groundbreaking way has been an honor. The
National Association of State Foresters and all of the organizations
represented by the Partner Caucus on Fire Spending Solutions look
forward to working with this committee to ensure the passage of S. 561
in this Congress. Your attention and action toward creating a change in
the way we pay for catastrophic wildland fires and recognizing the
effect this has on the agencies' abilities to protect our natural
resources and serve our public is greatly appreciated. I am happy to
answer any questions and/or provide any further information you may
request.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. MacSwords.
Chief Peterson.
STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, RETIRED CHIEF,
FOREST SERVICE (1979-1987)
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. I know you don't really need a mic.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. But it will be helpful for those taking the
transcript.
Mr. Peterson. I believe it was suggested I don't always
need a mic. I better check, particularly with my kids. Anyway,
good morning, Senator Udall and Senator Murkowski and Senator
Shaheen. I was sitting there I reflected back to another
Senator Udall that I knew quite well that you're related to and
to a Senator Murkowski that I know Lisa is related to. Senator
Shaheen when she was still a Governor. So it's nice to be here
with you.
If you'll accept my testimony for the record, I'll brief it
to you. I have great confidence in your ability to read. So I
don't feel I need to read it to you. So I'll just brief it
quickly.
First, I appreciate your holding the hearing. I appreciate
the fact that you're co-sponsor of the FLAME Act. I think it's
a good solution to a problem that's been around for a long
time.
I asked Jensen to leave this chart up here. If you look at
the average there, you find that the average never really
happens. There's not a single year up there that's average. If
you notice I think there's 7 years on that chart that are above
average.
So an average really is not a good way to handle fires. It
gives you a sense that you must be doing something right
because you're using the average. I doubt that we'd use the
average on a lot of other things. We'd probably not have lunch
the day on the average that people would eat or we would not
like to have to be restricted to the average height of people
or the average weight of people. So averages for fire is kind
of ridiculous.
A few months ago the fire retired chiefs sent a letter in
response to the introduction of the FLAME Act. I'm happy today
to add that that could be a--we have 6 chiefs now. The recently
retired chief said she'd like to be on record as favoring the
FLAME Act, Gail Kimbell, had just retired. I told her though
when she told me that, I said you must recognize that I do have
a particular distinction. She said, what's that? I said, I'm
the oldest retired chief, so I'm the senior chief. So you've
got to respect your seniors.
It was 60 years ago next month that I went to work for the
Forest Service in a little part of the Plumas National Forest
in Reno, Nevada and spent 37 and a half years there. But let me
just simply reiterate support for the FLAME Act. I think it's a
very good act.
I have real problems with, that I've outlined in my
testimony, with several of the Senate provisions. I'll just
pick out one for example. The provision says you should notify
absentee landowners. Usually that's Forest Service policy right
now.
But if you go to any place in the country and you say, who
are the absentee landowners. You find out absentee landowners
change weekly. So you really would have to figure out a way to
figure out a weekly list of people to notify.
We usually used radio and TV and other kinds of publicity
to let people know that there's going to be a prescribed burn.
We do notify absentee land owners based on the list that we
have. But that list may have changed 2 weeks ago.
Providing that individual letters be sent to each one of
those absentee landowners would be, I think, unnecessary and
would slow down--many times when you do a prescribed burn you
have an idea of when you plan to do it. But it may change from
week to week because the weather may change, the predicted
weather may change. You don't do a prescribed burn if you've
got a prediction of a major front coming through, for example.
You may have a time that you plan to do something and it simply
doesn't work out.
I've outlined in my testimony some other problems with the
House passed version. But again we do support the Senate
version of the FLAME Act. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, RETIRED CHIEF, FOREST
SERVICE (1979-1987)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate the efforts that
you have made to resolve the issue of funding for emergency fire
suppression. Resolution is vital to protecting the well-being of our
Nation's forest resources.
The current system of funding fire suppression on the National
Forests and other public lands clearly does not work. It does not
provide enough money to cover the costs, necessitating disruptive
borrowing from on-going programs. And funding the growing costs of
emergency fire suppression within constrained budgets has seriously
compromised the ability of the Forest Service to carryout its statutory
responsibilities. I know that you and the members of this committee
recognize the problem. It is time to fix it.
A few months ago the five retired Chiefs of the Forest Service sent
you a letter urging passage of S. 561. The National Association of
Forest Service Retirees signed on to a similar letter. I am here today
to once again reiterate our support for S. 561, as introduced.
Throughout my career with the Forest Service and until the late
1980's, we had a simple procedure for funding fire suppression. Money
needed for emergency fire suppression was borrowed from available trust
funds. These trust funds contained money deposited by timber purchasers
to cover the cost of reforestation, timber stand improvement, and slash
disposal on cutover areas. At the end of the fire season the money
borrowed was repaid through supplemental appropriations. It was a
simple, straight forward approach. It worked well.
When timber harvest levels fell in the late 1980's, the money
available in the trust funds was no longer adequate to allow borrowing
for the full cost of fire suppression. A decision was made to include
funding for emergency fire suppression within the agency's annual
appropriation. The amount to be appropriated was the 10-year average
cost of suppression. This decision created the problem we are facing
today. By definition an average year seldom happens. Years tend to be
either above or below average. When costs are above average it causes
problems. With a rising cost trend, above average years tend to be the
rule.
We should strive to provide a simple, straight-forward resolution
to the funding issue. This means that (1) funding for emergency fire
suppression must not compete with funding for the regular agency
programs in the annual appropriation process. (2) Funding provided must
be adequate to avoid disruption of on-going agency programs.
S. 561, as introduced, meets these two criteria. It provides for
the creation of a fund (the FLAME Fund) separate from the regular
agency budget and expresses the sense of the Congress that this fund
will be considered emergency spending and would not count for the
purposes of Title III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Frankly, I would have preferred the creation of a government-wide
emergency fund rather than an agency specific fund, but if the
partitioning provided in the Act is achieved, it will work. The
provision for periodic estimates of anticipated suppression costs will
allow the Congress to make timely additions to the FLAME Fund to reduce
the need for transfers from on-going agency programs.
I have serious concerns about the amendments in the House version
of the FLAME Act, HR. 1404, which was identical to S. 561 when
introduced. The principal concern relates to the amendment that removes
the sense of Congress language that appropriations to the FLAME Fund
are considered emergency appropriations that would not count for the
purposes of Title III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
This change defeats the objective of the legislation. It will mean that
funding for emergency fire suppression will continue to compete with
the regular programs of the Forest Service and the agency's capacity to
carryout its statutory responsibilities will continue to erode. This
amendment is unacceptable.
Another amendment to the House Bill would expand authorized uses of
the FLAME Fund to include hazardous fuel treatments and other
activities. This legislation is intended to provide a means of funding
emergency fire suppression while protecting other agency programs.
Expanding the authorized uses of the Fund to cover other desirable, but
not emergency, activities will take away from the rationale for
designating appropriations to the fund as emergency spending.
A House amendment would require advance notice to adjacent
landowners prior to a controlled burn. This has long been agency
policy. Both public notice and individual letters are used. It needs to
be recognized that there are many absentee land owners in and around
our National Forests. Ownership changes frequently. Contacting every
one in a timely manner may be impossible. I do not see the need for
this redundant requirement in the funding legislation.
The House amendments add many additional reporting requirements--
revision of comprehensive wildland fire strategies, review of certain
wildfires to identify what can be done to prevent or reduce severity, a
review to assess the quantity of greenhouse gasses produced, to assess
the impacts on climate change, to include the presence of insect-
infested trees in determining whether a fire is eligible for funding
under the Flame Act, to examine the effects of invasive species, to
maximize use of National Guard resources, and to amend the definition
of ``fire ready communities''. These are all interesting questions and
ideas. It is not clear that the requirements for reporting or other
changes represent the best way to address these issues. I suspect that
many of the questions would be better addressed through well-designed
research studies.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the reason we are concerned about
the issue of funding fire suppression is that we want to ensure on the
ground stewardship of our nation's forest resources. It is easy to add
requirements for additional reporting and studies. It does not come
free. It takes away from the resources available for getting needed
work done on the ground. I would urge the committee to be very cautious
about adding additional requirements to this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, we support enactment of S. 561 as introduced. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chief. I wanted to also clarify
for the record that all the other chiefs are icons as well, all
six of you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. But you're the senior icon.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. That's kind.
Senator Udall. On that note, let me turn to Senator
Murkowski for questions or comments.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony
from both of you this morning. Chief, you spoke to your tenure,
your history. You certainly remember a time when the timber
program funded the trust funds. You could use those funds to
pay for fire suppression then you were reimbursed by Congress.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, that worked quite well for a number of
years.
Senator Murkowski. That was a process that we had before
and it worked. Now I want to ask about using the funds in the
FLAME Act as we're proposing, allowing hazardous fuels work to
be done. Ms. MacSwords, you have argued against allowing the
hazards fuels work to be funded through the FLAME fund.
But I'm looking at this and recognizing that our costs are
enormous when we're dealing with these catastrophic fires. If
the mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels is less expensive
ultimately both monetarily and really environmentally, then
paying for the suppression of these large catastrophic fires,
why would we not want to use a portion of the FLAME fund to
accomplish the work?
Ms. MacSwords. The Partner Caucus is focused on keeping the
FLAME fund for emergency fire suppression costs. That's the
position of the Caucus. In my role as State forester with the
National Association of State Foresters, we do believe in the
treatment of hazardous fuels. But for the purpose of the FLAME
Act we'd like to see it remain cleanly focused on suppression
funding and that there might be other means to deal with
funding for the treatment of hazardous fuels.
Senator Murkowski. Would you agree that we might ultimately
need less in that FLAME fund or perhaps use less if in fact we
were to do the prevention work? In other words make sure that
we had the dollars in place to work to reduce the hazardous
fuels again, this mechanical intervention.
Ms. MacSwords. You are correct. If fuels treatment are
performed it does reduce the cost of fire suppression which is
the point of establishing the FLAME fund. So that the agencies
are not borrowing from their other Forest Service and Interior
programs that provide the funding for them to do the
mechanicals and other fuels treatment.
So again, the Caucus wants to keep the FLAME fund focused
on the suppression cost so that there is no borrowing of other
agency programs that would do the treatments.
Senator Murkowski. From your perspective, it is not an
objection to provide for thinning of the forest. It's not an
objection to going in and actually doing the work. What you're
trying to fence off are the funds that are in the FLAME Act to
be used for suppression?
Ms. MacSwords. Exactly.
Senator Murkowski. So how then do we make sure that we have
done all that we should be doing again, to reduce the hazardous
fuels if we're not insuring that the dollars are available to
do just that. Then if we don't do that we invariably have to
take more from the FLAME fund to pay for the catastrophic
fires.
Ms. MacSwords. I think that's a question that the previous
witnesses have testified that the Forest Service and Interior
are looking into and providing you specific examples of what
those two agencies do intend to do to address the fuels
treatment on the Federal land. From a State forester
perspective we work with those vast majority of private and
local and State landowners to deal with the fuels treatment on
our own lands to prevent fires from crossing over on to
National Forest lands.
Senator Murkowski. Chief Peterson, can I ask you your
opinion on this?
Mr. Peterson. Yes. I'm very sympathetic to the whole idea
of thinning and so on. I have told people that it's like having
your house full of newspapers. I mean, you put all your used
newspapers in the garage and pretty soon your garage is full of
newspapers, but you've got a rule that you can't use any of
your money to get rid of them.
Having all this fuel build up in the forest is a critical
problem. Maybe some kind of partitioning with the FLAME Act or
something would handle that. But I think until we reach the
point that we're really going to do something about thinning
the forest we're going to be back again and again and again
dealing with this catastrophic situation because there's no
solution of it short of dealing with the beetle problem in
Colorado and some of the other major fuels build up that are
there.
All you've got to do fly over this country and look at it
and know it's there. So to say it's not there and have
bureaucratic rules or bureaucratic objections to not doing
anything to me, that makes sense. I'm from Missouri and you've
got to show it to me. I've seen it and I'm ready to do
something about it.
Senator Murkowski. We appreciate that. I think we recognize
that when you have strong timber harvest programs that reduce
the fuels, decrease the intensity of the fire and ultimately
decrease the costs----
Mr. Peterson. Right.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. For suppression, that it is
a good thing. Again, not only good for the bottom line
financially, but good environmentally.
Mr. Peterson. I think the biomass program would have some
major potential benefits particularly if in removing biomass
you could use some of the material for higher use, not just for
biomass, but for actually some products. You might be able to
make such thing as particle board or other things out of some
other materials. So you could get more value out of removing
the thinning.
But I think we need a really robust thinning program if
we're ever going to get on top of the problem.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
To begin, Chief, I want to acknowledge, I think it's
extraordinary that as you arrived here I understood all five
living retired chiefs supported this effort, now it's all six
retired living chiefs. Similarly Ms. MacSwords, your
organization helped to bring together a hundred, I believe, or
more diverse organizations.
Can you just describe for the committee the key reasons
that these important groups have come together to talk about,
discuss and come up with a position on fire budgeting and the
FLAME Act.
Ms. MacSwords. All of the groups that came together to work
on this issue have a stake in what happens in our forests
across the Nation, not only what happens on federally owned
forest, but on privately owned forest or State and locally
owned forest. We recognize the benefits of those forest lands
whether it be for a forest product, for recreation, for the
esthetic beauty of those forest, for the environmental benefits
that those forests provide. To see those forests damaged by
catastrophic wildfire to the extent that the other programs of
the Forest Service and Interior that deal with the non-fire
issues related to our forests.
But to see those programs reduced because of the funding
mechanism for fire was unacceptable to the organizations that
came together. Frankly we thought if we could bring 114
organizations together to focus on one issue, the FLAME Act,
and the funding of wild land fire suppression, that that would
hold a significant amount of weight to Members of Congress
because a lot of these groups have some diverging viewpoints on
other issues, but we came together on this one. Hopefully that
would make an impression on you as to our willingness to work
together because our forests are so important.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that explanation. It's very,
very helpful. It's inspiring that you set aside those
differences just like Alaska and Colorado set aside the few
differences we have to work together when it's appropriate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Chief Peterson, do you have thoughts on
the--the gang of 6, maybe we should call?
Mr. Peterson. No, I didn't intend to mention--I'm greatly
impressed by the ability of all these partners to come
together. I think that represents really the best in our
country that these groups that frequently are at odds with each
other, with the help of the State forester, did come together,
put this statement together. So I think that's a great help in
this whole thing, I hope.
Senator Udall. My final question before I give you a chance
to make any final comments or Senator Murkowski has another
question would be to once again return, I think to comments
that you both made about the best way forward. Ms. MacSwords,
you talked about the House and the amendments. Chief Peterson,
I think you alluded to the bill that was in the House and
verses the Senate proposal.
Would you prefer that the committee move forward with the
Senate version of the bill or perhaps even something more
streamlined than the Senate bill? Maybe I'll start with you
Chief, if you had thoughts.
Mr. Peterson. I would fully support the Senate version. I
do not think the House version with all those amendments is the
way to go. I think a streamline version, as the Senate bill is
basically, is the way to go.
Senator Udall. Ms. MacSwords.
Ms. MacSwords. The Partner Caucus would agree. We would
like to see a bill that focuses on creating the FLAME Act and
keeping it as clean and uncluttered as possible.
Senator Udall. I think with that I've exhausted all my
questions, at least for today. Do either of you have another
comment or any other thoughts you'd like to share with us
before we conclude the hearing?
Mr. Peterson. Thank you for the hearing. Thank you for co-
sponsoring legislation. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you. I think the fact that your
comments are streamlined and to the point will be very helpful
as the committee moves forward. The Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Patricia Dalton to Question From Senator Wyden
Question 1. GAO repeatedly has identified and discussed the
shortcomings of the agencies using ``acres treated'' as a performance
measure or target. In 2003, GAO reported that the agencies were
developing results-oriented performance measures, but from what I hear,
they still use acres-treated as a key measure of the performance of
their land managers. Would you please provide the Committee with your
Office's latest assessment of the agencies' use of this performance
measure and your current recommendation for addressing remaining
concerns?
Answer. Acres treated remains one of the agencies' primary
performance measures for fuel reduction projects and, as we reported in
2007, this measure has led the agencies to sometimes implement lower-
priority projects with low per-acre costs in order to help meet acreage
targets.\1\ Better performance measures would assist the agencies in
allocating fuel reduction funds and selecting projects in ways that
reduce fire risk most efficiently and effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a
Systematic Process Could Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating
Fuel Reduction Funds and Selecting Projects, GAO-07-1168 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 28, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we reported in 2007, the agencies' methods for allocating fuel
reduction funds and selecting fuel reduction projects suffer from
several shortcomings. First, the agencies do not consistently use
national, regional, and local-level risk assessments that
systematically assess the likelihood of a fire occurring and the
communities and resources at risk of damage. Second, the agencies lack
a method for measuring the effectiveness of different fuel reduction
treatments. And third, the agencies do not consider cost-effectiveness
when allocating funds, primarily because they do not have data on the
effectiveness of different types of treatments. Without developing and
using such information, the agencies are unable to ensure that scarce
funds are directed to areas where they can best minimize the risk to
communities and important natural and cultural resources. As we stated
in our testimony, the agencies recognize these shortcomings and have
efforts under way intended to help them address them; these efforts,
however, are likely to be long-term undertakings and therefore are
unlikely to help the agencies improve their processes for allocating
fuel reduction funds anytime soon.
______
Response of Leah MacSwords to Question From Senator Wyden
Question 1. You discussed some of your concerns regarding a
provision that was added to H.R. 1404 that would authorize the Flame
Fund to be used for activities such as hazardous fuels reduction. Can
you explain in more detail why your coalition is concerned with that
provision?
Answer. The amendment adopted on the House floor expands the
definition of suppression to include fire risk reduction activities,
which can include hazardous fuels reduction. Fire risk reduction
activities are performed when there are no fires on the ground. If
these activities are allowed by the FLAME Act, the FLAME Fund would be
at risk of being spent before the fire season ever begins. The Partner
Caucus fears the bill would therefore be diverted from its original
goal and would not solve the suppression funding crisis. Additionally,
this amendment muddies the lines across several agency programs and
could create reporting challenges for the agencies.
The Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Spending Solutions,
comprised of more than 110 groups, rallied around easing the impacts of
increasing fire suppression costs on all other aspects of the USDA
Forest Service and DOI programs. Over the years, all Forest Service
programs have been subject to transfers including funds from State and
Private Forestry, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, National Forest
System, and Wildland Fire Management. This includes the hazardous fuels
reduction program and other fire risk reduction and non-fire programs,
which are depleted on the front end of the budgeting process as money
is diverted to fund the 10-year average for suppression and are subject
to transfers of funds later in the fire season as fire suppression
costs increase.
The Partner Caucus is focused on addressing the immediate crisis
that the ongoing lack of sustainable funding for increasing suppression
costs have created for the agencies' and their budgets. Solving this
challenge will allow them to meet their land management goals,
including hazardous fuels reduction.
Once again, The Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Funding
Solutions would like to thank the Committee for providing us the
opportunity to testify in support of S. 561, the Flame Bill.
______
Response of Jay Jensen to Question From Senator Wyden
Question 1. We discussed at the hearing the ongoing concern that I
and many others have had with the Forest Service's use of ``acres
treated'' as a key measure of the performance of its land managers. At
its heart, this may be a personnel management issue, but it has far-
reaching consequences for taxpayers, businesses, National Forest users,
and the health of our forests. I have provided below a small sample of
statements on this issue that provides some indication not only of what
a significant issue this is, but also of how long it has been an issue
and how little progress has been made by the Forest Service's
leadership to address it. Will you specifically describe how you plan
to address this problem and whether you will follow the recommendation
that the agency stop using ``acres-treated'' targets and evaluations?
``Indeed, as the General Accounting Office determined, most
of the agency's so-called measures confuse quantity with
quality. For example, the performance measure for the hazardous
fuels program is the number of acres treated. This measure
encourages the agency's field offices to focus on the easiest
and least costly areas to maximize the number of acres treated
and, thus, show high performance. However, many of the top
priority areas for fuels reduction are in the urban/wildland
interface where the cost of treatment is the greatest. This
example of a poorly developed performance measure is
particularly troubling given the recent fires that have
occurred in New Mexico and other parts of the Interior West.
Funds for hazardous fuels reduction need to be focused on the
highest priority areas where critical issues of human safety
and property loss are the most serious. The agency must develop
performance measures which show not only what the agency is
doing but also whether it is doing it well. The Committee
expects to be fully consulted during the development of
performance measures that will be part of the agency's budget
for the coming year.'' Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill, 2001, S. Rept. 106-312 at 62-63 (June 22, 2000).
``To measure progress under the fuels reduction program, the
Forest Service and Interior are currently tracking and
reporting the total number of acres treated nationwide. This
practice, however, measures only the number of acres that
receive fuels reduction treatments not necessarily whether
progress is being made in reducing the overall risk of
wildfire. Recognizing this shortcoming, the Forest Service and
Interior are currently developing results-oriented performance
measures that assess the effect of these treatments in reducing
the risk of wildfires.'' Wildland Fire Management: Additional
Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands
Needing Fuels Reduction at 5 (Aug. 2003; GAO-03-0805).
``The Panel also notes that a paradigm shift in thinking
about hazardous fuels reduction effectiveness is required and
can be started by ceasing to use acres treated as a results
measurement for program accomplishments.'' Large Fire
Suppression Costs: Strategies for Cost Management, A Report to
the Wildland Fire Leadership Council from the Strategic Issues
Panel on Fire Suppression Costs at 26 (August 26, 2004).
``Probably the most glaring disconnect within HFRA is the
acres target issue. It's the hard acres versus easy acres
calculations, double counting of acres and not accounting for
real value.'' Implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act, S. Hrg. 109-506 at 45 (July 19, 2006).
``The SAF encourages the adoption of performance measures
that go beyond ``acres treated'' towards more outcome-based
measures that focus on the reduced extent or severity of large,
stand-replacing wildfires, protection of high-value resources,
successful protection of communities at-risk, and appropriate
management responses to specific incidents. . . . Measuring
performance by acres of fuel reduction treatments has created
inappropriate incentives for prioritizing activities to help
reduce the occurrence of large stand-replacing wildfires. The
SAF is concerned that pressures for managers to meet targets
for fuels reduction treatments are likely to be directed to
``easy'' acres (i.e., lowest costs and most accessible areas)
to meet ``acres treated'' targets and reduce unit costs, rather
than ensuring that funding is focused and prioritized on the
most at-risk acres, resources, and communities.'' Wildland Fire
Management: A Position of the Society of American Foresters at
2, 6 (June 7, 2008).
Answer. We agree that a performance metric which tracks acres
treated may not be the best way to measure outcomes and we welcome
working with Congress to better define outcome-based measures of
progress. The Forest Service is currently working to address these
concerns through a number of tools and initiatives.
The LANDFIRE project, which produces consistent and comprehensive
maps and data on landscape conditions affecting wildland fires, will
provide a baseline set of data to assess progress towards meeting
wildland fire management goals. The completion of the LANDFIRE data set
for the conterminous United States, Alaska, and Hawaii is expected this
year. An ongoing effort scheduled to be completed in 2010 will update
the LANDFIRE data set to circa 2008 and provide data to allow
assessment of landscape changes since 2000.
The availability of improved analytical tools and updated social
and biophysical information (e.g. LANDFIRE) is allowing the agency to
develop a comprehensive strategy to address the wildland fire
situation. The comprehensive strategy will provide a broader, more
integrated analysis of the factors influencing the wildland fire
situation than the existing Cohesive Strategy authored in 2006 by the
US Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. The strategy will
provide critical information to the agency as it develops and
implements the wildland fire management program and develops measures
to assess program effectiveness.
The agency is increasing its capability within the Forest Service
Activity Tracking System (FACTS) to track the locations and extent of
fuels treatments using Geographic Information Systems. This spatial
capability will help the Forest Service characterize the arrangement of
fuels treatments and provide an opportunity to assess potential
effectiveness on a landscape basis. This is another critical step to
understand potential effects of treatment activities.
We have developed and are refining a fuels treatments effectiveness
reporting program that assesses each interaction of a wildfire with a
completed hazardous fuels treatment project. This program evaluates how
fuels treatments affect a wildfire that starts in or burns into a fuels
treatment. Information gained from this endeavor give us better
information to assess the effectiveness of fuel hazard reduction
techniques and allows us to modify future projects.
Agency efforts, such as the Joint Fire Science Research Program,
are helping us with the challenge of establishing quantitative hazard
and risk metrics for planning and evaluating the potential
effectiveness of hazardous fuels reduction treatments. These efforts
will build the knowledge base for existing programs and tools as well
as assist in development of an outcome-based management system.
Responses of Jay Jensen to Questions From Senator Murkowski
In your testimony both you and Ms. Suh suggested that S. 561 and
the Administration's budget request for an emergency reserve fund are
complementary. We are having some difficulty understanding that
statement and would like you to answer the following questions and to
provide the data we are requesting.
Question 1. It is our understanding that large and expensive
``catastrophic'' fires can occur at any time of year; is that your
experience?
Answer. While fires can be large and expensive any time of the
year, the chart below indicates the overwhelming majority of fires and
suppression costs are incurred in the final four months of each fiscal
year, in June through September. It indicates that 88% of spending and
77% of fires occurred during this timeframe. It is also important to
note that regularly appropriated suppression funds have never been
exhausted prior to this timeframe. Using a threshold of fires greater
than 300 acres, in the period 2004 thru 2008, Forests have reported on
their Individual Fire Reports fires exceeding that threshold through
out the year. The following Table summarizes this data by month of the
reported fire ignition date.
Question 2a. For each of the last 5 years, please provide a list of
the fires that transitioned from small (less than 300 acres) to large
catastrophic fires. Include in that data the name of the fire, the
agency or state that managed the land that burned, the agency that lead
the fire fighting effort, and cost of the fire.
Answer. Refer to the enclosed spreadsheet and please note:
the agency or state that managed the land that burned is
represented by column labeled ``Ownership at Origin'';
the agency that led the fire fighting effort is represented
by column labeled ``Protection Agency '';
Suppression cost is the estimated Fire Suppression Funds in
whole dollars expended by the Forest Service. All dollars are
nominal, i.e. they have not been adjusted for inflation.
The fires listed come from the Forest Service Individual
Fire Report, FIRESTAT reporting system.
Question 2b. If a reserve account is appropriated that requires
either an emergency declaration or one that cannot be expended until
all other suppression funds have been consumed, please help us
understand how a ``catastrophic'' fire that occurs for example during
May would be paid for?
Answer. According to the FLAME Act, if this fire meets the criteria
outlined in the Act, and was declared to be an emergency fire by the
Secretary; it would be eligible to be funded through the FLAME fund.
The agency would need to ensure FLAME fund monies are segregated from
other suppression funds. At the time of the Secretary's determination,
all funds that had previously been obligated on that fire would need to
be identified and deobligated in the agencies financial management
system and then be made again available for future obligation. The
agency would also have to administratively recode each prior obligation
that had been incurred through regular suppression funds to a FLAME
fund code. At the field level, each resource deployed on the fire would
need to receive a new code that ties to the FLAME fund. If, however,
the fire does not meet the criteria outlined in the bill, it would be
paid for out of the Fire Operations - Suppression appropriation unless
the cumulative suppression costs at that time are projected to exceed
the amount appropriated in the non reserve fund. As the table above
indicates, there is a five percent likelihood that a large fire will
occur in May, and the likelihood of a ``catastrophic'' fire occurring
in May is much rarer than this already low probability. Reflecting the
seasonality of fire and the need for accounting during incident
response, the President's Contingency Reserve is available when it is
most needed and requires no special parallel accounting process and
structure.
Question 3. Do you agree that under the concept of the FLAME Act
that a fire that burns in May before all other appropriated suppression
funds have been exhausted could not be paid for from the FLAME reserve
account?
Answer. According to the FLAME Act, the fire under the
circumstances described could be funded from the FLAME fund, if the
fire meets the criteria outlined and receives a declaration by the
Secretary. Note that the administrative requirements listed in the
previous response would necessarily apply.
Question 4. If not, please explain how under the President's
proposal such early catastrophic fires could be paid for out of the
President's proposed emergency reserve fire suppression account?
Answer. As indicated in the response to the previous question and
as the table above indicates, there is a five percent likelihood that a
large fire will occur in May, and the likelihood of a ``catastrophic''
fire occurring in May is much lower than this low level. Access to the
Contingency Reserve Fund in the President's budget occurs only after
normal suppression appropriations are exhausted and other conditions
are met. Thus the few large fires occurring early in the year would be
paid for out of the regular suppression account. As the season
progressed and if the suppression appropriations were exhausted the
Contingency Reserve Fund could be accessed to fund emergency fire
suppression operations.
Question 5. If 85% of suppression costs can be attributed to 2 or 3
percent of the fires; please explain why the Administration has
requested a reserve account equal to only 23% of the suppression
expenditure for the resource agencies, while requesting over $1.2
billion in normal suppression appropriations?
Answer. The Forest Service has used the 10-year average of all
suppression expenditures as the basis for predicting the need for the
next appropriation cycle for Fire Operations - Suppression funding. The
10-year average for the appropriations of FY 2010 = $1,128,505. The
Wildland Fire Suppression Contingency Reserve for FY 2010 was
calculated at 25% of the 10-year average equal to $282,000.
The written testimony submitted by both departments stated: ``We
are also aware of S. 561, the FLAME Act, introduced by this Committee,
and H.R. 1404, introduced in the House, that aims to accomplish the
separation between routine wildland fire management and large, intense
fire events. We appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of the FLAME Act
to address the current problems related to the way firefighting costs
are funded. The Administration supports the FLAME Act if amended to
provide for a contingency reserve, as outlined in the President's
budget. We believe that the Administration's budget proposal can
address the problem.''
Question 6. Are you saying that you will not support the FLAME Act
as introduced in the Senate unless the appropriators adopt the
President's budget proposal for a small reserve account and a large
appropriated suppression account?
Answer. We are saying the FLAME Act should be amended to reflect a
contingency reserve for the reasons outlined in the response to
Questions 1 and 2. For 2010, $1,128,505 in suppression funding is
requested in the President's budget to fund the predicted wildland fire
suppression activities or the 10 year average. It is unclear whether or
not the FLAME Act will be authorized in its current form; however the
Contingency Reserve fund identified in the President's budget helps
address the challenges of budgeting for fire suppression.
Question 7. In answering questions at the hearing you indicated
that the report on a strategy for dealing with fixed wing fire
retardant planes had been completed some time ago and that the
Administration would like to review it and release it by the end of the
year. Were you referring to the calendar year or the fiscal year?
Answer. The calendar year. For details, see answer to Question 8.
Question 8. Given that OMB and the Department have had the draft
plan for at least four years can you tell us why it would take until
December to make any modifications that you believe need to be made and
then transmit the report to the relevant committees?
Answer. The Forest Service, in cooperation with our interagency
partners, has completed an extensive Interagency Aviation Strategy to
help define the need for replacement of these critical firefighting
assets. The Department is currently using that document to frame a
strategic discussion about the future of aviation resources. This issue
is complex in scope and will require a substantial investment of
federal resources. Careful coordination and planning with our partners
in the interagency wildfire community will enhance the safety,
efficiency and effectiveness of our future aviation fleet. The Forest
Service and the Department anticipate working towards completing that
discussion and review by the end of June 2010, which will be in
accordance with our commitments made in response to the recent OIG
audit ``Forest Service's Replacement Plan for Firefighting Aerial
Resources.''
Question 9. Both you and Ms. Suh indicated that cost containment of
fire fighting is critical to an overall strategy of dealing with the
escalating costs of fire.
Please provide the Committee with a specific list of cost
containment provisions that could be added to the FLAME Act (S. 561)
that the Administration can support?
Answer. The Forest Service has been implementing risk management
protocols to help us address incident management strategies. We would
be happy to discuss these efforts and the establishment of a
Contingency Reserve as requested by the President with the Committee.
Question 10. Over the years, most of the fire borrowing that has
occurred has been undertaken by the Forest Service. Fire borrowing is
rarely needed at the Department of Interior because the BLM and other
agencies are allowed to tap into other department funds when needed. In
the case of the Forest Service fire borrowing was not a problem until
the late 1990's when the K-V and BD trust funds were no longer
sufficient to cover the needed borrowing.
Given the differing rules at the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture please tell us why transferring the Forest
Service to the Department of the Interior wouldn't solve the fire
borrowing problem faced by the Forest Service?
Answer. Moving the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior
raises cost and workload management opportunities and issues. The
General Accountability office (GAO) reported in February of this year,
if the Forest Service were moved into Interior, USDA and Interior would
need to consider a number of cultural, organizational, and legal
factors and related transition costs. The GAO report also indicated
that a move would provide little efficiency in the short term and
require resolution of complex legal issues, although long-term
efficiencies may be gained.
Combining the fire-related functions of the Forest Service and
Interior agencies would not have a material effect on either the
effectiveness or the cost of firefighting because the agencies already
operate in a unified manner. Fire management operations and
firefighting resources and crews are integrated. There are strengths in
our current approach; on the fire line DOI and USDA employees work
interchangeably. Another example is the National Interagency Fire
Center in Boise, there representatives of the five Federal agencies
collaborate with State and local representatives on key strategies and
decisions.
Question 11. You indicated that the Forest Service is going to take
a much more aggressive stance on the treatment of hazardous fuels.
Could you provide the committee with the specific steps you will be
directing to accomplish what you have committed to?
Answer. We have incorporated updated information in the Hazardous
Fuels Prioritization and Allocation System. This system allows us to
prioritize and allocate funding to implement treatments in the wildland
urban interface and in areas with high wildland fire potential. We have
adjusted our national performance expectations to give our regions the
ability to implement the complex and expensive projects that are
required to mitigate fuel hazards in the wildland urban interface. We
continue to develop methodologies to enable field units to locate and
implement hazardous fuel mitigation projects that effectively change
potential fire behavior within priority landscapes. We are increasing
national monitoring efforts of field programs to ensure project level
treatments are conducted in high priority landscapes.
The availability of improved analytical tools and updated social
and biophysical information (e.g. LANDFIRE) is allowing the agency to
develop a comprehensive strategy to address the wildland fire
situation. The comprehensive strategy will provide a broader, more
integrated analysis of the factors influencing the wildland fire
situation than the existing Cohesive Strategy authored in 2006 by the
US Forest Service and the Department of Interior. The strategy will
provide critical information to the agency as it develops and
implements the wildland fire management program.
Question 12. Senator Wyden suggested that there has been double
counting in the reporting of forest health treatments and he further
suggested that low priority acres that don't need treatment get treated
again and again. You did not reject the Senator's accusation or rebut
them.
Do you admit to double or triple counting of prescribed burns?
Answer. Acres that are treated by prescribed burning are counted
only once for hazardous fuels reduction. In some cases, fuels
treatments accomplish multiple objectives (such as wildlife habitat
improvement and reduction of hazardous fuels). However, even in those
cases, the fuels reduction from those treatments is counted only once.
In some cases, more than one type of treatment must be implemented
before wildfire potential is reduced to an acceptable level. For
example a mechanical fuel treatment (e.g. thinning) might be conducted
to create conditions which allow a prescribed burn to be implemented
safely and effectively. We record accomplishments for each project
activity that brings us closer to the final objective of mitigating
wildfire hazard. It is important to track all of the treatments that we
complete so that we have an objective account of how resources were
used.
Question 13. Do you agree that low priority acres are treated while
higher priority acres do not get treated?
Answer. No. The agency strives to treat the highest priority acres
that benefit not only the hazardous fuels program, but other agency
programs, as well. Our best opportunity to protect communities and
valuable resources from the damaging effects of fire is to foster
restoration of fire-adapted landscapes, reduce hazardous fuels through
active management, aligning agency programs, including wildlife and
watershed protection, and leveraging resources to use the fullest
capability of the agency and its partners. By aligning all objectives
of the agency and its partners, we can achieve multiple benefits such
as hazardous fuels reduction, landscape restoration, and community
protection objectives, as well.
The Hazardous Fuels Prioritization Allocation System (HFPAS) helps
us allocate regional funding to implement programs that treat high
priority acres benefiting the hazardous fuels program and also
accomplish integrated resource objectives. HFPAS places priority on the
wildland urban interface, wildfire potential, protection of various
resources (such as commercial timber and municipal water sources),
potential use of residual biomass, and opportunities to coordinate
treatments with our land management partners. Selection of fuel hazard
mitigation projects at the field level is affected by resource and
collaboration efforts at the local level but is expected to remain
consistent with national priorities.
Question 14. What steps will you undertake end the double and
triple counting and to ensure that the highest priority acres are
treated first?
Answer. The agency tracks multiple entries for hazardous fuels
treatments and reports on the acreage accomplishments each time an area
is treated because each of those multiple entries move landscapes
toward a desired condition. Regional allocations and targets are based
on the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation System (HFPAS).
This system allows us to prioritize and allocate funding to implement
treatments in the wildland urban interface and in areas with high
wildland fire potential. We have adjusted our national performance
expectations to give our regions the ability to implement the complex
and expensive projects that are required to mitigate fuel hazards in
the wildland urban interface. We continue to develop methodologies to
enable field units to locate and implement hazardous fuel mitigation
projects that effectively change potential fire behavior within
priority landscapes. We are increasing national monitoring efforts of
field programs to ensure project level treatments are conducted in high
priority landscapes.
Responses of Jay Jensen to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. During the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee hearing on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, you and I discussed the
U.S. Forest Service allocation of funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. I asked how the agency intends to make up for
refusing to fund a single project through the U.S. Forest Service in
Wyoming. You indicated that the agency would make an effort to address
forest health problems in Wyoming. Yet, you failed to mention that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture was preparing to release additional ARRA
funds that very day, none of which will be allocated to Wyoming.
a. Were you unaware that the Department was preparing the release
of ARRA funds at the very moment that you and I were discussing the
issue? Please explain how this breach of the duties of your office came
to pass.
Answer. ARRA projects have been grouped based on the kind of work
being accomplished and funding is being released for each category of
work. In addition to the announcement on July 22, 2009, that $180,000
in funds was sent to Wyoming for restoration of an historic facility in
Cody; we provided an additional $6.375 million to the State.
Specifically, $950,000 in capital improvement and maintenance funds
have been approved for facilities projects. In addition, $5.425 million
in wildland fire management funds have been approved for hazardous
fuels reduction projects - $3.525 million for work on Federal land, and
$1.9 million for work on State and private lands.
Question 2. After conclusion of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee hearing on fire preparedness, and following the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's release of $274 million in ARRA funds,
none of which will be spent in Wyoming, the Department also released
information increasing the index of fire danger on national forests in
Wyoming.
a. Were you unaware that national forests you hold oversight duty
for and upon which you were commenting on that very day were suffering
increased fire danger?
Answer. ARRA funding, as delivered by Congress, has a primary focus
on areas of economic distress, as measured by unemployment indicators.
Taking into account Wyoming's long-term unemployment, wildfire, and
Forest health risks resulted in $5.425 million being allocated to the
State to address hazardous fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration.
In addition to ARRA funds, annual program funds are allocated to
address high priority wildland fire situations. These funds allow us,
in coordination with our partners, to prepare for wildfire incidents
and to reduce hazardous fuels on federal, state and private lands. For
fiscal year (FY) 2009, the Rocky Mountain Region, including Wyoming,
received $28 million for fire preparedness and $21 million for
hazardous fuels reduction on federal lands. Nearly $5 million was also
provided to the region for fire assistance grants on state and private
lands. An additional $18 million of FY 2008 supplemental funding was
provided to the region in 2009 for fuels reduction activities ($5
million on federal lands and $13 million on state and private lands).
Question 3. Is the U.S. Department of Agriculture aware of the
unprecedented forest health event occurring in Wyoming due to bark
beetle infestation?
Answer. Yes. The bark beetle outbreak that is occurring throughout
the western states affected nearly 8 million acres in 2008. In Wyoming,
more than 1.1 million acres of pine forests were impacted by the
mountain pine beetle. Older, dense and homogeneous stands, combined
with recent droughts and warmer temperatures, have favored bark beetle
population increases. The extent of infestations precludes widespread
treatments. The Forest Service and state partners are focusing on
treatments in high priority areas such as recreational areas, water
sources and ecologically significant areas. Forest Service has funded
management actions to reduce forest susceptibility to beetle outbreaks
(such as reducing stand density and managing for greater diversity of
age-class, size and species), protect high value trees (by application
of registered pesticides, attractants or anti-attractants), and promote
safety along roads and power line rights-of-way. The Bark Beetle
Incident Management Team, established in the Forest Service's Rocky
Mountain Region, coordinates activities to reduce hazardous fuels,
capture the commercial value of trees to the maximum extent possible
(i.e., timber sales and stewardship contracts), spraying trees in
campgrounds, and removal of hazardous trees in developed recreation
areas, along roads and trails.
Question 4. Is the U.S. Department of Agriculture aware of the
increased danger of catastrophic fire, erosion and other ecological
threats due unchecked to bark beetle infestation?
Answer. Yes, see response to question 3.
Question 5. Given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has not
dedicated any ARRA funds, is it the position of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture that the fire threat in federal forests in Wyoming is not a
priority for the Administration?
Answer. See answer to question 2a.
Question 6. Please provide details of where and when the people of
Wyoming will see on-the-ground results of additional resources
dedicated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to combat forest health
threats?
a. What additional resources will be provided?
Answer. ARRA funding is being allocated to Forest Service field
offices and partners, including State Foresters, within days of being
released. Field office personnel and partners then prepare the
necessary contracts, grants and agreements to get the work started.
Based on the funding allocations discussed in questions 1 and 2a,
Wyoming residents should see related work starting within the next few
months and continuing for one to two years into the future. ARRA funds
represent only a portion of the Forest Service budget. Through the
Forest Service's other programs, much more work is being conducted to
combat forest health threats and wildfire. Our Rocky Mountain Region is
working closely with Wyoming State Forester Bill Crapser to address
forest health issues in the State. We will continue to work in
partnership to aggressively manage these concerns.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Rhea Suh From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. At the hearing you invited the Senators and their staff
to attend a session to examine the development of budgets to address
the forest health crisis in Colorado.
Would you please provide me logistical details on the time and
place for that exercise so I can ensure my staff has the opportunity to
observe those meetings? And thank you for your kind offer.
Question 2. In your testimony both you and Mr. Jensen suggested
that S. 561 and the Administration's budget request for an emergency
reserve fund are complimentary. We are having some difficulty
understanding that statement and would like you to answer the following
questions and to provide the data we are requesting.
It is our understanding that large and expensive ``catastrophic''
fires can occur at any time of year; is that your experience?
Question 3. For each of the last 5 years, please provide a list of
the fires that transitioned from small (less than 300 acres) to large
catastrophic fires. Include in that data the name of the fire, the
agency or state that managed the land that burned, the agency that lead
the fire fighting effort, and cost of the fire.
If a reserve account is appropriated that requires either an
emergency declaration or one that cannot be expended until all other
suppression funds have been consumed, please help us understand how a
``catastrophic'' fire that occurs for example during May would be paid
for?
Question 4. Do you agree that under the concept of the FLAME Act
that a fire that burns in May before all other appropriated suppression
funds have been exhausted could not be paid for from the FLAME reserve
account?
Question 5. If not, please explain how under the President's
proposal such early catastrophic fires could be paid for out of the
President's proposed emergency reserve fire suppression account?
Question 6. If 85% of suppression costs can be attributed to 2 or 3
percent of the fires; please explain why the Administration has
requested a reserve account equal to only 23% of the suppression
expenditure for the resource agencies, while requesting over $1.2
billion in normal suppression appropriations?
Question 7. The written testimony submitted by both departments
stated: ``We are also aware of S.561, the FLAME Act, introduced by this
Committee, and H.R. 1404, introduced in the House, that aims to
accomplish the separation between routine wildland fire management and
large, catastrophic fire events. We appreciate the efforts of the
sponsors of the FLAME Act to address the current problems related to
the way firefighting costs are funded. The Administration supports the
FLAME Act if amended to provide for a contingency reserve, as outlined
in the President's budget. We believe that the Administration's budget
proposal can address the problem.''
Are you saying that you will not support the FLAME Act as
introduced in the Senate unless the appropriators adopt the President's
budget proposal for a small reserve account and a large appropriated
suppression account?
Question 8. Both you and Mr. Jensen indicated that cost containment
of fire fighting is critical to an overall strategy of dealing with the
escalating costs of fire.
Please provide the Committee with a specific list of cost
containment provisions that could be added to the FLAME Act (S. 561)
that the Administration can support?
Question 9. Over the years, most of the fire borrowing that has
occurred has been undertaken by the Forest Service. Fire borrowing is
rarely needed at the Department of Interior because the BLM and other
agencies are allowed to tap into other department funds when needed. In
the case of the Forest Service fire borrowing was not a problem until
the late 1990's when the K-V and BD trust funds were no longer
sufficient to cover the needed borrowing.
Given the differing rules at the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture please tell us why transferring the Forest
Service to the Department of the Interior wouldn't solve the fire
borrowing problem faced by the Forest Service?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter expresses our support for S. 561--
the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME
Act).
The existing system for financing wildland fire suppression on the
public lands simply does not work. It has resulted in intolerable
reductions in the capacity of the U.S. Forest Service to carryout its
important missions in the management of the National Forest System,
Research, and State and Private Forestry. It is essential that funding
for the rising cost of wildland fire suppression be separated from the
regular budget of the agency.
Fortunately, you and the other sponsors of the FLAME Act have
recognized the problem. We believe this legislation, coupled with the
funding outlined in the President's 2010 budget will stop the decline.
This will permit the process of rebuilding the capacity of the Forest
Service to provide proper stewardship for our Nation's forests and
grasslands to begin.
A key element in the implementation of the FLAME Act is the
declaration that a wildland fire is eligible for funding from the FLAME
Fund. It is essential that responsibility for this determination be
delegated to line officers on-the-ground. Only they are in a position
to observe fire behavior (intensity, rate of spread, predictability),
evaluate fuels (type, loading, and moisture content) and predict likely
outcomes. They are also in the best position to recognize and evaluate
the threat to lives, property, and natural resource values.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the effort that you and the other
sponsors of this legislation have devoted to this issue. It is
important that this funding issue be resolved this year. We urge
enactment of the FLAME Act.
Sincerely,
R. Max Peterson,
Chief, Forest Service, 1979-1987.
F. Dale Robertson,
Chief, Forest Service, 1987-1993.
Jack Ward Thomas,
Chief, Forest Service, 1993-1996.
Michael P. Dombeck,
Chief, Forest Service, 1997-2001.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief, Forest Service, 2001-2007.
______
International Code Council,
Government Relations,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Bingaman and Murkowski: Thank you for convening the
hearing today on wildland fire issues, to call attention to this
critically important issue.
While the issue of wildland fire should never be set aside, the
timing is near perfect to again remind and ignite public and political
interest in the matter. Billions of dollars are being spent annually to
protect the lives and infrastructure of the more than 100 million
people, in 65,000 communities, living in wildfire prone areas (the
wildland/urban interface, or WUI).
The International Code Council (Code Council) is the proactive
leader in promoting WUI fire community planning as well as wildfire/
urban interface code adoption. The Code Council has a solid working
relationship with over 50 national organizations that support working
together ont his important issue. We publish the only code that deals
directly with this issue, the 2009 International Wildland-Urban
Interface Code (IWUIC).
In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of current WUI efforts,
the Code Council took the lead in establishing the National Blue Ribbon
Panel on Wildland/Urban Interface to evaluate current fire prevention
programs and education. The Panel found that very few homeowners and
communities are equipped with appropriate knowledge or plans to handle
a wildland fire crisis. Current efforts by government agencies, states
and local jurisdictions, while beneficial, have not shown substantial
reductions int he numbers of fires, homes destroyed or costs incurred.
The Code Council promotes the adoption and enforcement of building
and fire safety codes that will better equip WUI homeowners during a
fire event. Currently, less than 10% of WUI communities have any kind
of fire code. The Code Council wishes to promote code adoption,
enforcement and better inter-agency relations between the private
sector, local, state and federal agencies.
The Code Council is available to the Committee and its staff at any
time to provide information and resources to help deal with this issue.
If the Committee staff would like complimentary copies of the 2009
International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, please contact me.
Best Regards,
Sara C. Yerkes,
Senior Vice President.
______
Statement of Casey Judd, Business Manager, on behalf of the Nationwide
Membership of the Federal Wildland Fire Service Association, Inkom, ID
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Murkowski, members of the Committee and
interested parties, we are proud and honored to offer this written
testimony on behalf of our Nation's federal wildland firefighters
employed by all five federal land management agencies. Further, we look
forward to a renewed interest in wildland firefighter issues with the
change in Administration, the selections of Secretary Vilsack and
Secretary Salazar along with Deputy Undersecretary for Natural
Resources and Environment, USDA, Mr. Jay Jensen.
Since 2006, the FWFSA has been afforded the honor and opportunity
to provide both written and oral testimony before this committee and
others from the perspective of the true experts in wildland
firefighting.the firefighters. Our organization boasts a diverse
membership inclusive of those occupying all fire positions in all five
land management agencies from entry-level firefighter to Fire
Management Officer (FMO) and all others in between. This diversity has
afforded us the opportunity to educate Congress on the realities ``in
the field'' of the land management agency fire programs. Not only have
we previously identified issues facing our firefighters, we have also
offered workable solutions to effect positive change and make the fire
programs not only stronger but more efficient and cost effective for
the American taxpayer.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Noting the new Administration and leadership at the Department of
Interior and Department of Agriculture, the testimony provided jointly
by DOI & the USDA reads eerily similar to testimony provided by
previous Administration officials over many years.
A reference to similar levels of resources as in 2008 should be
cause for concern. Although 2009 has in fact been relatively mild so
far, 2008 saw a staggering 1000+ fire starts over just a few days in
Northern California alone. Despite ``strategic centralized management''
and the use of a variety of scientific models, many orders for federal
wildland firefighting resources went unfilled. We have previously
testified to the lack of resources in preparation of the fire season
and have provided members of this committee with previous years'
(inclusive of 2008) ``unable to fill lists'' (UTFs) from Geographic
Coordination Centers (GACC). During the initial years of the National
Fire Plan and the ``build up'' to the Most Efficient Level (MEL) of
resources, even heavy fire years saw UTF lists only a few lines long.
In recent years, inclusive of 2008, the lists were pages and pages long
indicating a clear lack of resources needed to meet the wildfire
challenge.
This has not changed for 2009. In fact federal wildland
firefighters continue to leave the federal system for other fire
agencies for greater pay & benefits. The loss of these firefighters and
the Agency(s) failure to address them were brought to the attention of
Senator Feinstein and others in early 2006 and again in person in
December of 2007 by the FWFSA, referring to the Forest Service fire
program in California as ``imploding.'' As a result of the data and
information provided to Congress by the FWFSA, Senator Feinstein and
others not only demanded that the Forest Service address the
firefighter retention issue, Congress also appropriated $25 million for
retention programs.
CLIMATE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE
Historically, Congress has relied on ``experts'' to explain the
skyrocketing costs of wildfire suppression. Oddly enough, more often
than not, these experts have not included those that actually perform
the job of wildland firefighting. Experts providing insight have
included many with PHDs, members of ``Think Tanks'' etc., who, by and
large, suggest that climate and WUI are the main causes of wildfire
suppression cost increases.
With all due respect to these experts, firefighters disagree on the
catalysts for increased suppression costs. While we agree that climate
and WUI are factors, we believe that it is fire program policy and
management that is the primary cause of needless suppression costs and
the oft sought after Emergency Supplemental Appropriation. These fire
program policies and the management thereof have caused suppression
costs to spiral out of control to the point that the 10-year average
for wildfire suppression used in the budget formulation has been
artificially inflated and rendered useless as a tool for proper
budgeting. We are unclear as to whether the reference to ``management
framework'' in the testimony of the DOI and USDA as it relates to
factors leading to rising costs is similar to what we are referencing.
PROGRAM POLICY & MANAGEMENT
The Forest Service is the largest employer of federal wildland
firefighters. As such we will utilize its fire program policies and
management as a basis for our explanation for rising costs.
The Forest Service is in the midst of an identity crisis. The
agency has now had 3 different Chiefs in the last three years. As a
land management agency, the leadership instinctually holds close to its
land management agency role. As a result, despite being well into the
21st century and employing the largest fire department in the world,
the Agency leadership has held fast to archaic pay and personnel
policies with respect to its firefighters and continues to try and
manage the fire program as it did 30-40 years ago despite the
increasing complexities.
It is clear that the Western United States is home to the longest
wildfire seasons (yearlong), the most ferocious, dangerous and deadly
wildfires in history. As a result, Forest Service firefighters in these
western states, especially California, have, with little help
historically from the Agency leadership in Washington, done what was
necessary of any fire organization, progress. This progress has been
absolutely critical for dealing with today's wildfires and multi-agency
cooperation yet has been repeatedly criticized by Agency leadership.
Rather than recognizing it for what it is, progress, Forest Service
leadership has considered such actions an effort by FIRE to break away
from the land management agency. As a result, most Forest Service
firefighters see policy changes in the fire program as a way for the
leadership to ``rein in'' firefighters.
CONSEQUENCES
The management of the Forest Service fire program has created a
vicious cycle resulting in the wasting of hundreds of millions of tax
dollars on suppression costs, namely expensive, un-necessary non-
federal resources.
First and foremost, fire program policies and the management
thereof, inclusive of the control of the fire preparedness, suppression
and hazardous fuels budgets, is the domain of Agency ``Line Officers''
most of whom have little to no wildfire experience or expertise. In
today's day and age with the complexities of wildfires, it is
unconscionable for those with such limited experience or expertise to
be managing such a significant program and making policies for
firefighters.
Such a situation would be tantamount to any major metropolitan city
in the nation having its City fire department managed by the City's
Parks & Recreation Department. It simply makes no sense.
The consequences of these Line Officers having control over fire
budgets is that many of the dollars appropriated by Congress for fire
preparedness, fire suppression and hazardous fuels reduction do not end
up being utilized for the purposes intended by Congress.
The irony is that the same voices who complain about budget
transfers to pay for FIRE, are the same voices who skim significant
dollars off the top of these budgets to pay for many non-fire projects.
THE EFFECTS ON THE FIRE SEASON & COSTS
Several significant issues have come to a confluence since 2006.
Many firefighters have left the agency for better pay and benefits or
retired early, exit interviews indicating they are fed up with the
management of the fire program by those with little fire experience.
In turn, the Agency has done nothing to address the archaic pay &
personnel policies that have encumbered these firefighters for over two
decades. More importantly, even after the FWFSA and the National
federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) have brought these issues to the
forefront, the Agency has done little to stem the tide of losses of
firefighters. Thus for the past few years, at the beginning of the
season there are fewer federal fire fighting resources available with
no effort on the part of the Agency to rectify the situation.
Add to that the use of FIRE funds for non-fire projects by Line
Officers. The use of fire preparedness funds obviously reduces the
federal wildland fire fighting resources in the field as envisioned by
the National Fire Plan. The use of hazardous fuels dollars means less
acres treated . . . a well documented issue with this and other
committees.
Consequently as the fire season progresses, the federal resources
that should be available are not. The only alternative is the costly
alternative . . . over-reliance on significantly more expensive non-
federal resources. As a result of these more expensive resources being
used, the fire suppression budget is exhausted by the end of summer
with typically October & even November being heavy fire months in
California.
As a result, the Agency annually comes to Congress with its hand
out for a supplemental emergency appropriation in the neighborhood of
half a billion dollars, suggesting to Congress that it's been a tough
year. Although the costs and consequences of non-federal fire resources
has been addressed by the FWFSA for several years, our position has
recently been validated in the FISCAL YEAR 2008 LARGE-COST FIRE
INDEPENDENT REVIEW chartered by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and
issued this month (July 2009).
Losses of federal wildland firefighters on their own volition and
diversion of fire funding by non-fire Line Officers has led to this
over-reliance on non-federal resources. The FWFSA has been asked by
several in Congress why the Agency(s) would do business this way. Our
response is simple; little to no congressional oversight. With no
oversight, there is little incentive for either the federal agencies or
non-federal fire agencies to be cost-effective. In fact, not only does
the federal government pick up the vast majority of costs associated
with these wildfires, the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program
(FMAGs) administered through FEMA provides non-federal fire agencies
with a disincentive to be cost effective. The lack of incentives to be
cost effective is also outlined in the aforementioned Large-Cost fire
report.
It has only been recently, within the past 3 years, that some in
Congress have started to ask tougher questions about the fiscal
management of the fire programs. Despite these tougher questions,
firefighters see little change in Business as Usual. When agencies come
before Congress in the Fall for an Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation, few questions are asked.
For several years the FWFSA has sought to engage the leadership of
the Forest Service in an effort to work with the agency to make its
fire program stronger yet more efficient and cost-effective. We have
not only identified the issues, we have also offered simply solutions
to many complex problems.
We are hopeful that with Secretary Vilsack's selection of Tom
Tidwell to replace Chief Kimbell, the FWFSA and its firefighters will
no longer be summarily ignored by the agency leadership.
SOLUTIONS
The Agency must acknowledge it has the biggest and best fire
organization in the world and recognize that it needs to be progressive
and prepared for the wildfires of the future. In order to do this they
must address long-standing fundamental issues of pay, benefits and
working conditions for its firefighters in order to retain those
firefighters that the American taxpayer has a substantial investment
in.
Further, FIRE funding should be used specifically for its intended
purpose. The 10-year average should be abolished for budgetary
purposes. Instead, changes to the organizational structure of the FIRE
program must be made. The Agency Fire & Aviation Management Director
(FAM) along with his/her Regional FAM and Forest FIRE Planners and FMOs
should be tasked with not only making FIRE policy but allocating the
FIRE budgets. We are convinced that unless FIRE personnel are in charge
of developing and implementing FIRE policy and administering FIRE
funding, we all will continue to see skyrocketing suppression costs.
Non-federal fire suppression costs should be cut over a 3 year
pilot period: 10% the first year; 25% the second year and 35% the third
year.
The idea is that as we retain federal wildland firefighters through
the reform of pay & personnel policies, we make the federal response to
wildfires stronger. Further, having well qualified FIRE personnel
making FIRE policy and administering the FIRE budgets will no doubt
lead to better fiscal management. Additionally, ensuring fire
preparedness funding is used specifically for that purpose, the proper
number of federal resources (proper spending and firefighter retention)
as envisioned by the National Fire Plan will be in place to keep fires
small. Having the proper number of less-expensive federal resources in
place will allow the agencies to reduce their over reliance (we are not
advocating the wholesale elimination of non-federal resources from the
wildfire landscape) on higher-priced resources thus saving the American
taxpayer significant sums in suppression spending. That in turn will
reduce the need for an annual Emergency Supplemental Appropriation and
save even more money.
Such changes and reforms will no doubt be met with resistance by
some in the Agency. However we remain convinced that Congress has an
obligation to the American taxpayer to ensure its federal agencies and
the management of huge sums of money are done in the most effective and
efficient manner. The status quo will only continue to allow for higher
suppression costs, more excuses and more promises that the Agency is
adopting cost-cutting measures which never fully materialize.
We remain hopeful that Congress and the new leadership at DOI, USDA
and the Forest Service will provide the honor and opportunity for their
Nation's federal wildland firefighters to be an integral part of
progressive change not only for firefighters but for those they risk
their lives for so often.
Submitted in Memory of Thomas Marovich-Wildland Firefighter lost on
July 21, 2009.