[Senate Hearing 111-777]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-777
EXAMINATION OF FIREFIGHTING POLICY WITH U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
MAY 26, 2010--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-720 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JACK REED, Rhode Island
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
JON TESTER, Montana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Peter Kiefhaber
Ginny James
Rachel Taylor
Scott Dalzell
Chris Watkins
Leif Fonnesbeck (Minority)
Rebecca Benn (Minority)
Brent Wiles (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
Katie Batte (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein.................... 1
Statement of Hon. Adam Schiff, U.S. Representative From
California..................................................... 2
Prepared Statement of........................................ 5
Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, United States Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 7
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell and Mike Pool.................. 9
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 13
Station Fire Review.............................................. 14
Station Fire Aircraft Response................................... 15
Cooperative Firefighting Agreements.............................. 16
Brush Clearance Requirements..................................... 16
Hazardous Fuels Treatments...................................... 18, 19
Cohesive Wildlife Management Strategy............................ 19
2010 Fire Season................................................. 20
Station Fire And Night Flying.................................... 21
Station Fire Review.............................................. 22
Night Flying Wildland Fire Operations............................ 23
Airtanker Assets................................................. 24
Airtanker Funding................................................ 25
2010 Airtanker Assets............................................ 26
Questions Submitted to Tom Tidwell............................... 27
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein.................. 27
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd.................... 34
Question Submitted to Mr. Mike Pool.............................. 36
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein................... 36
EXAMINATION OF FIREFIGHTING POLICY WITH U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein and Tester.
Also present: Representative Adam Schiff.
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd
like to welcome you to the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee on--well, Interior Subcommittee of
Appropriations. This will be a hearing on Federal wildland fire
policy.
I think everybody knows that there are few issues that are
as critical to public safety and environmental protection in my
State, California, as wildland fire policy. Policy and
appropriations are very much intertwined. And over the past 5
years, the Federal Government has spent $3.1 billion to treat
hazardous fuels and we're likely to spend more.
And California is a very fire-prone State. It is hot. It is
dry. The winds blow. I never thought I would see a time when
you had 1,000 lightning strikes at one time in Northern
California that started all kinds of terrible, catastrophic
fires.
I happened to fly out with President Bush to take a look
and we flew over Shasta Dam and it looked like a moonscape.
Everything was burned around it. The silt in the water. It's a
beautiful area.
And the point is that the fire can start instantly and you
can't just let it burn. You've got to put it out, because it's
catastrophic if it continues on. We have so much fuel load in
the State.
So our forests are tender dry. We're facing risk from
extended draught, insect and disease infestation, and global
warming. That translates into more wildfires, hotter, greater
intensity.
The Station Fire is only one example of how devastating
these fires can be. In this case, 160,000 acres burned, two
firefighters were killed, and nearly 100 homes were destroyed.
So I know that Representative Schiff, who I know well, who
cares about his district, has been very concerned.
And I was very happy to hold this hearing to give an
opportunity for an airing of what I think is a very
consequential issue: In this new day and age, what, in fact,
should wildland forestry firefighting be in areas that are huge
and where the wildland urban interface (WUI)--in other words
homes--have come so close to wildland that when you have one of
these fires it's amazing what it can do.
I went to another fire--I think it was San Bernardo--Rancho
Bernardo where there were new homes in San Diego County, but
the embers of the fire were so big and they caught under the
roofs, and so you'd have this stucco and terracotta-tile
subdivision and when it would hit a house, it would just burn
the house to the ground. And they did not have adequate fire
protection and so there was considerable devastation and loss
of property.
We will have two panels of witnesses this morning. Adam
Schiff on the first panel. And he represents the 29th
Congressional District, which includes several communities in
the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles
County. Again, his district was heavily impacted.
The fire started in the Angeles National Forest on August
26th of last year and burned for 7 weeks. It became the largest
fire ever recorded in Los Angeles County. Representative
Schiff, as I said, has raised a number of questions and
concerns regarding this response.
And, on the second panel, we'll hear testimony from United
States Forest Service (USFS) Chief Tom Tidwell and Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Deputy Director Mike Pool.
So without further ado, Representative Schiff, why don't I
welcome you to the Senate side, and we'd be very happy to hear
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SCHIFF, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to
thank you for your leadership on these issues----
Senator Feinstein. Can you punch the----
Mr. Schiff. Yes, thank you. Thank you again, Madam Chair,
for allowing me this opportunity to testify and for your
leadership on these issues affecting our wildland firefighters.
These brave men and women perform vital, difficult work for
long hours in dangerous conditions. We depend on them to
protect our families, our homes and our forests, and they
dedicate their time, and sometimes their lives, to that
calling.
Many of our firefighters have served for decades developing
the expertise needed to fight an unpredictable and resilient
foe. And I honor their service, and I hope this hearing can
help provide them with the resources and support they need to
do their jobs in the safest and most effective way possible.
As the Chairman pointed out, last summer the Station Fire
ravaged the Angeles Forest, burning 160,000 acres over 50 days
and threatening thousands of homes in my district and several
adjacent districts.
Almost all the fire was contained in the national forest,
but, as usual, local, State, and Federal fire agencies across
the region provided equipment and hundreds of firefighters to
the effort.
Two members of the LA County Fire Department, Captain Ted
Hall and Firefighter Specialist Arnie Quinones, tragically lost
their lives fighting that fire.
In addition, the Station Fire effort cost almost $100
million, a significant fraction of the USFS firefighting budget
for the year. And because of its proximity to a major
metropolitan area and its incredible expense, the fire
illustrated many of the problems our firefighters face in the
field and why wildland firefighting has become increasingly
expensive.
There were a couple of hundred fires in the Angeles Forest
last year. Almost all of them were attacked and contained
within 24 hours.
Unfortunately, two fires escaped initial attack and spread
across thousands of acres. Those two fires alone ate up much of
the Angeles firefighting budget and caused almost all of the
fire damage last year.
Fire officials agree that the most important part of
fighting fires is often the initial attack, which, if
successful, keeps the fire smaller, cheaper and much safer for
residents and firefighters.
In this respect, fighting fires is like health care, where
early detection and aggressive action can prevent the need for
long, painful and expensive care later.
The cost- and safety-conscious approach to fighting
wildfire is to contain the fire early by making the initial
attack as aggressively as possible, using as many firefighters
and aircraft as possible, so that the hugely greater resources
that are required to fight a massive fire are rarely needed.
The Station Fire was attacked promptly and aggressively by
USFS and LA County Fire Department firefighters on the
afternoon of Wednesday, August 26, 2009. Hand crews, engines,
and aircraft fought the fire until evening, when some resources
were released.
One night-flying helicopter owned by the LA County Fire
Department was dispatched to the fire, but was quickly diverted
to perform its other responsibility--medical evacuation.
During the night, several hotspots developed in areas
inaccessible to ground crews, due to steep terrain and thick
vegetation. The incident commander ordered aircraft for the
next morning, to arrive at 7 a.m.
Unfortunately, possibly due to limited resources and safety
requirements for rest hours, the air tankers did not arrive
until around 9 a.m. In the early hours, right after sunrise,
the inaccessible hotspots flared up and threatened the road
that firefighters were using to reach the fire, forcing a
retreat, and the failure of the initial attack.
As a postreaction report from the LA County Fire Department
stated: ``. . . [n]o one, no fire chief, no firefighter,
resident, or reporter can provide definitive evidence that
anything would have made a difference in the outcome. Still we
must look hard at every action. We must question and we must
make changes where we can.''
One possible change is to equip the USFS with the
capability to fly helicopters at night. There are night-flying
helicopters in the Los Angeles area, but very few. And, in the
case of the Station Fire, they were unavailable for at least
some portion of the crucial first night. If the USFS had a
dedicated night-flying capability, it would dramatically
increase night-flying firefighting capacity in the region.
Using night-vision goggles, the USFS operated night-flying
firefighting helicopters on the Angeles Forest during the
1970s. An accident in the late 1970s caused many to question
whether the risks of night flights were worth the rewards, and
by the early 1980s, the program had ended. USFS and its
contractors no longer have the training or equipment to fly at
night.
However, the technology to enable night flying has
developed dramatically in the three decades since. The LA
County and LA City Fire Departments now fly helicopters at
night using technology several generations better than that of
the 1980s.
Military contractors have built ultra-modern night-flying
systems for use by our forces overseas, and many of those
technologies are now being developed for civilian use.
In addition, many have concluded that much of the risk
could be removed by operational changes that minimize the
possibility of collisions in the two areas of greatest traffic
and greatest risk--over the fire and during landing and
takeoff.
In addition, a rapidly expanding urban-forest interface,
modern, more effective firefighting techniques, and a better
understanding of the importance of early attack all mean that
the need for night flights has dramatically increased since the
1970s.
USFS must study this issue again, taking into account the
increased need for aggressive firefighting techniques, as well
as improved technology, which minimizes the risk to firefighter
safety. I believe that if they do so, they will conclude that
this is a capability they should once again acquire and deploy.
Night-time flights are not a silver bullet, but they can
significantly improve our ability to effectively fight fires
near urban areas. And by helping reduce the number of
catastrophic fires, they may save lives and also pay for
themselves.
The Angeles National Forest, like other forests across the
country, has a rapidly growing urban area at its doorstep.
Fires that start in the forest and burn through remote,
inaccessible areas can now threaten tens of thousands of
people.
USFS employees and firefighters work hard to protect those
people, but they are fighting an ever-more-difficult battle. We
must be sure that we are providing them everything they need to
fight fires in the safest, most cost-effective, and most
efficient way possible.
prepared statement
Chairman Feinstein, members of the subcommittee, I want to
thank you again for the opportunity to testify. And, Madam
Chair, I appreciate all the leadership you've brought to this
issue for many years now.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adam Schiff, U.S. Representative From California
Chairman Feinstein, members of the subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to speak to you today about the challenges
facing our wildland firefighters. These brave men and women
perform vital, difficult work for long hours in dangerous
conditions. We depend on them to protect our families, our
homes and our forests, and they dedicate their time and
sometimes their lives to that calling. Many of our firefighters
have served for decades, developing the expertise needed to
fight an unpredictable and resilient foe. I honor their
service, and I hope that this hearing can help us provide them
with the resources and support that they need to do their jobs
in the safest and most effective way possible.
As the chairman knows well, last summer the Station Fire
ravaged the Angeles National Forest, burning 160,000 acres over
50 days and threatening thousands of homes in my district and
several adjacent districts. Almost all of the fire was
contained to the National Forest, but, as usual, local, State,
and Federal fire agencies across the region provided equipment
and hundreds of firefighters to the effort. Two members of the
LA County Fire Department, Captain Ted Hall and Firefighter
Specialist Arnie Quinones, tragically lost their lives fighting
the fire. In addition, the Station Fire effort cost almost $100
million, a significant fraction of the Forest Service (USFS)
firefighting budget for the year. And because of its proximity
to a major metropolitan area and its incredible expense, the
fire illustrated many of the problems our firefighters face in
the field, and why wildland firefighting has become
increasingly expensive.
There were a couple of hundred fires in the Angeles Forest
last year. Almost all of them were attacked and contained
within 24 hours. Unfortunately, two fires escaped initial
attack and spread across thousands of acres. Those two fires
alone ate up much of the Angeles firefighting budget and caused
almost all of the fire damage last year. Fire officials agree
that the most important part of fighting fires is often the
initial attack, which, if successful, keeps fires smaller,
cheaper and much safer for residents and firefighters.
In this respect, fighting fires is like healthcare, where
early detection and aggressive action can prevent the need for
long, painful, and expensive care later. The cost and safety-
conscious approach to fighting wildfire is to contain the fire
early by making the initial attack as aggressively as possible,
using as many firefighters and aircraft as possible, so that
the hugely greater resources that are required to fight a
massive fire are rarely needed.
The Station Fire was attacked promptly and aggressively by
the USFS and LA County Fire Department firefighters on the
afternoon of Wednesday, August 26, 2009. Handcrews, engines,
and aircraft fought the fire until evening, when some resources
were released. One night-flying helicopter, owned by LA County
Fire Department was dispatched to the fire but was quickly
diverted to perform its other responsibility--medical
evacuation.
During the night, several hotspots developed in areas
inaccessible to ground crews due to steep terrain and thick
vegetation. The incident commander ordered aircraft for the
next morning, to arrive at 7 a.m. Unfortunately, possibly due
to limited resources and safety requirements for rest hours,
the airtankers did not arrive until around 9 a.m. In the early
hours, right after sunrise, the inaccessible hotspots flared up
and threatened the road that firefighters were using to reach
the fire, forcing a retreat, and the failure of the initial
attack. As a postaction report from the LA County Fire
Department stated: ``. . . [n]o one, no fire chief, no
firefighter, resident or reporter can provide definitive
evidence that anything would have made a difference in the
outcome. Still we must look hard at every action. We must
question and we must make changes where we can.''
One possible change is to equip the USFS with the
capability to fly helicopters at night. There are night-flying
helicopters in the Los Angeles area, but very few, and in the
case of the Station Fire, they were unavailable for at least
some portion of the crucial first night. If the USFS had a
dedicated night-flying capability, it would dramatically
increase night-flying firefighting capacity in the region.
Using night-vision goggles, the USFS operated night-flying
firefighting helicopters on the Angeles National Forest during
the 1970s. An accident in the late 1970s caused many to
question whether the risks of night flights were worth the
rewards, and by the early 80s, the program had ended. The USFS
and its contractors no longer have the training or equipment to
fly at night.
However, the technology to enable night flying has
developed dramatically in the three decades since. Military
contractors have built modern night-flying systems for use by
our forces overseas, and many of those technologies are now
being developed for civilian use. In addition, many have
concluded that much of the risk could be removed by operational
changes that minimize the possibility of collisions in the two
areas of greatest traffic and greatest risk--over the fire and
during landing and take-off.
In addition, a rapidly expanding urban-forest interface,
modern, more-effective firefighting techniques, and a better
understanding of the importance of early attack all mean that
the need for night flights has dramatically increased since the
1970s.
The USFS must study this issue again, taking into account
the increased need for aggressive firefighting techniques, as
well as improved technology, which minimizes the risk to
firefighter safety. I believe that if they do so, they will
conclude that this is a capability they should once again
acquire and deploy. Night-time flights are not a silver bullet,
but they can significantly improve our ability to effectively
fight fires near urban areas, and by helping reduce the number
of catastrophic fires, they may save lives and pay for
themselves.
The Angeles National Forest, like other forests across the
country, has a rapidly growing urban area on its doorstep.
Fires that start in the Forest and burn through remote,
inaccessible areas can now threaten tens of thousands of
people. The USFS employees and firefighters work hard to
protect those people, but they are fighting an ever-more-
difficult battle. We must be sure that we are providing them
everything they need to fight fires in the safest, most cost-
effective and most efficient way possible.
Chairman Feinstein, members of the subcommittee, thank you
again for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much,
Representative Schiff, and I appreciate your concern about your
constituents. And I think this is a very appropriate
conversation to have now.
My own thinking is that fires are not going to get better.
They're going to get worse. Global warming will set in on our
State. We already know the temperature is going up. We've had 4
years of drought. This is the first year of any kind of relief,
and the State, most of the time, is very dry. And I worry a lot
about it.
We have tried to put more money--as you know--and have put
substantial new sums, and the Department of the Interior (DOI),
which we'll go into a little later, is proposing, I think,
three different funds here, and we want to talk a little bit
about that as well.
So I want you to feel welcome to remain here. If you'd like
to come up and sit on the platform, we will temporarily allow
you access to the Senate.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Push you out at the end, but feel
welcome in the interim. And so why don't you come on up and sit
here with us and let's move on to the second panel.
And that would be Tom Tidwell, the Chief of the USFS,
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and also Mike
Pool, whom I've worked with for a long time and like very much,
the Deputy Director of the BLM of the DOI.
So, Mr. Tidwell, why don't I ask that you begin? You've
heard Representative Schiff, and I think you've heard my
comments. We've had a little bit of an opportunity to discuss
this next budget coming up and the Federal Land Assistance,
Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act and the President's
special fund or I guess it's your initiative.
And we really need to see, I think--I'm a big one for
initial attack. I happen to share that view with Representative
Schiff. So, please, proceed.
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and also thank you,
Congressman Schiff. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
here today on the Federal fire policy. I also appreciate the
opportunity to be here with Deputy Director Pool.
Using a collaborative approach to our fire policy and our
wildland fire response is an essential part of our success, and
we have a long history of working together between the Federal
agencies and with the State and local governments.
We've started to work on our new cohesive wildfire-
management strategy, and this strategy will provide us an
opportunity to have further engagement with the State, tribal
and local governments, and even our non-Government partners to
work cooperatively to address the Nation's wildfire issues.
The approach on this strategy is going to be to use the
best available science and focus on three key areas: taking a
landscape-scale approach to restoration, developing fire-
adapted human communities, and, of course, our wildfire
response. We'll use this strategy to develop a preferred
approach that meets the needs of the national, regional, and
local levels.
Of course, a key part of this approach is to be able to
continue and expand on our actions to restore these fire-
adapted ecosystems and reduce the hazardous fuels, especially
into the WUI.
As both of you have already mentioned, with the continued
expansion of this WUI and the increase in the bark-beetle
activity that we're seeing throughout the West--and, today, we
have more than 17\1/2\ million acres of dead and dying trees--
it's just essential that we continue our focus on the highest-
priority areas.
The Federal agencies are committed to working cooperatively
and collaboratively with partners in our communities to restore
the resiliency of our fire-adapted ecosystems, reducing the
threats to communities and maintaining healthy watersheds.
Madam Chairman, I want to thank you again, and members of
this subcommittee, for the passage of the FLAME Act. Knowing
that we go into this season knowing that we will not have to
shut down other critical programs in the middle of summer to
fund fire suppression, you will see an improvement----
Senator Feinstein. Let me interrupt you just for a minute
to say how big a change that is, and it's really quite
wonderful, because all our staffs, I think, remember the years
where you run out of money and you've got to take the money
from somewhere else. And so, really, for--I think it's the
first time now----
Mr. Tidwell. It is.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Where we've got an adequate
budget, and I really want to keep it that way. So thank you for
mentioning it.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you once again for your efforts on
this, and it will make a difference in our overall performance.
You'll see fewer impacts in our communities and fewer impacts
on jobs that rely on being able to do this work in our critical
programs throughout the summer.
I also look forward to continuing our discussion on the
2011 President's budget request when it comes to wildfire
suppression funding.
That budget request provides for full funding for wildland-
fire suppression. It includes a level of preparedness that will
enable us to continue our success to suppress more than 98
percent of our fires during the initial attack.
It provides for the realignment of preparedness and
suppression funds that more accurately displays the true costs
of suppression, and, of course, it provides for the FLAME Fund
to increase our accountability and transparency.
It also provides for the contingency reserve fund that will
significantly reduce the need for us to have to transfer funds
from other critical programs, even in the biggest fire years
that we may face.
The other key point of our budget request is it increases
the focus on doing hazardous fuel reduction work within the WUI
where we can make a change with fire behavior and significantly
reduce the threat to our homes and our communities.
The outlook for this current fire season indicates that
there is a potential for a very active fire season, especially
depending how the weather develops through the rest of the
season. I want to reassure you that we're ready, that we have
the resources in place, we have the crews on and we're ready to
deal with this coming fire season.
I also want to thank Congressman Schiff for his recognition
of the challenging job our firefighters face and the challenge
that comes with those jobs.
I also want to thank you for your interest and support in
helping us make sure that we learn everything we can from the
Station Fire, so that we can apply those lessons and we can do
it in a way so that the next time we have a large fire we have
a different set of outcomes.
I want to tell you that I agree with your request for us to
look at our policy when it comes to night flying, and we have
already started to do that analysis with the expectation that
we'll have that completed this fall on the use of rotary-wing.
We're also going to be doing an analysis on the use of fixed-
wing for night flying.
So I appreciate your support on this and we're looking
forward to having that analysis completed, and when we do,
we'll present that to the subcommittee.
Madam Chairman, as you've already mentioned, the fires that
we're facing are becoming larger and more difficult to suppress
and it's due to the changing climate, the hazardous fuels and
also the magnitude and complexity of the WUI.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We fully expect to continue our initial-attack success, but
when we do have a fire that does escape initial attack, we will
use the best experience, the best science, and the best fire-
suppression assets to manage those fires, ensuring firefighter
and public safety while protecting our communities and
effectively using our fire-suppression assets.
This concludes my opening remarks, and I look forward to
your questions. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell and Mike Pool
introduction
Madam Chair, Mr. Alexander, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on Federal fire policy. Since
the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) work closely together in wildland fire management, the two
Departments are providing a joint statement.
federal wildland fire policy
DOI and USDA take seriously their responsibilities for the
protection of people and property, and the Nation's valuable natural
resources from unwanted wildfire. Our wildland fire management programs
recognize fire as a critical natural process and the importance of
integrating fire management consideration into land and resource
management plans and activities. Federal managers and firefighters
perform professionally under the most challenging of circumstances,
managing wildfire across multiple landownership boundaries, and
applying the best-available science.
The Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) was established in
April 2002 by the Secretaries to provide an intergovernmental committee
to support the implementation and coordination of all aspects of
Federal fire management policy. DOI and USDA, in collaboration with
State, tribal and local partners, have been implementing guidance that
increases wildland fire managers' flexibility in managing wildfire to
achieve both protection and resource objectives. Our implementation
guidance recognizes two kinds of wildland fire: planned ignitions
(prescribed fire), and unplanned ignitions (wildfire), and allows fire
managers to manage a fire for multiple objectives and increase
managers' flexibility to respond to changing incident conditions and
firefighting capability while strengthening strategic and tactical
decision implementation supporting public safety and resource
management objectives. Initial action on human-caused wildfire will
continue to suppress the fire at the lowest cost with the fewest
negative consequences with respect to firefighter and public safety.
A new wildfire analysis and decision process, the Wildland Fire
Decision Support System (WFDSS), is being developed to improve decision
documentation, risk assessment/decision support, and operational
implementation. This system will replace the Wildland Fire Situation
Analysis, Wildland Fire Implementation Plan, Long-Term Implementation
Plan, and Strategic Implementation Plan and enhance managers' ability
to analyze fire conditions and develop risk informed strategies and
tactics.
The key principles we will be following this year include:
--Safety always comes first in fire management.
--No structure, or natural or cultural resource, is worth a human
life.
--When firefighters plan a tactic, the first question is always,
``Can we do this safely?'' If the answer is ``No,'' they
will take another direction.
--Fire management decisions will be based on many factors.
--Not all fires are managed the same way.
--Responding to a fire may include using multiple strategies. The
response could range from monitoring a fire that is
beneficial to the landscape to aggressively putting out a
fire that threatens people or important natural or cultural
resources.
--Decisions are based on safety for the public and firefighters,
what is threatened by the fire, forecasted weather, fire
behavior, and what the fire and land-use plans or
objectives are for the area.
--In fire, we all work together.
--Local, State, tribal, and Federal firefighters all work together
to keep the public safe and natural resources protected.
Pooling our strengths, resources, and experience improves
our effectiveness and increases efficiencies.
--Firefighters count on private landowners to take personal
responsibility for their homes.
--Homeowners in a fire-prone area should take a few simple steps to
make their property more defensible. It will increase
homeowner safety and that of firefighters. It will also
increase the chance that a home will survive a fire.
--Wildland firefighters are not responsible for making private
homes defensible. Private landowners are, and the
``Firewise'' steps they take before the fire season begins
may be the most important difference in whether their home
survives or not.
Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy)
The WFLC is in the process of developing a Cohesive Strategy. The
Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of
2009 (title v, section 503 of the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010) requires
the Secretaries, acting jointly, to submit to Congress a report that
contains a cohesive strategy consistent with the recommendations
described in recent reports of the Government Accountability Office
regarding management strategies by fall 2010. The Secretaries view this
as an outstanding opportunity to engage our State, tribal, local
governments, and non-Government partners as we work collaboratively to
discuss the recommendations in the Quadrennial Fire Review and other
reports, and consider the development of a national Cohesive Strategy.
addressing wildland fire risk to communities and the environment
Dangerous fire and fuels conditions exist in many areas in the
United States, and the DOI and USDA are acting to reduce hazardous
fuels on high-priority lands, focusing especially on the wildland-urban
interface (WUI). While increasingly complex landscapes complicate our
wildfire suppression task, the DOI and USDA can and are aggressively
treating hazardous fuels to help reduce the risk of catastrophic fire,
especially to our communities. The DOI and USDA are continuing to
refine their Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Assessment Systems to
ensure funds are directed to highest-priority projects in the highest-
priority areas, and complement the activities of neighboring States,
tribes, and local partners.
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget, which proposes
approximately $2.6 billion for the Forest Service (USFS) and $934
million for the DOI for wildland fire management, represents an
important development in the management and oversight of wildland fire
management programs.
The 2011 budget proposes a new three-tier system of (1) a regular
suppression account, (2) the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund
account, and (3) a Presidential Wildfire Contingency Reserve account.
The rolling 10-year average is fully funded, with funding split between
the regular suppression account and the FLAME Fund. Each account
requires a different level of responsibility for authorizing the
expenditure of funds and includes the Secretaries and the President in
the chain of command for wildfire suppression. For example, regular
suppression funds would support initial attack and predictable
firefighting costs, while FLAME funds would be used for the most
severe, complex and threatening fires, and serve as a contingency
reserve if the agencies exhaust their regular suppression resources due
to an active fire season. The Presidential Wildfire Contingency Reserve
account provides for responsible budgeting for wildfires in cases when
funding requirements exceed projections and would be available to the
respective Secretary subject to the issuance of a Presidential finding
when the suppression appropriation, fully funded at the 10-year
average, is exhausted. The USDA USFS and the DOI are committed to
restoring the resilience and diversity of fire-adapted ecosystems on
the landscape, consistent with public safety needs. The agencies and
bureaus will identify, establish, and maintain necessary governance and
risk management protocols to reduce any unnecessary risks to
firefighters and our citizens in the short-term and reduce the risks to
fire-adapted ecosystems in the long-term.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request promotes the use of hazardous
fuels funding in a cost-effective manner in high-priority areas,
focusing on the WUI. This focuses treatments to more effectively reduce
the risk of wildlfire to communities.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation provides $546 million in funding
for hazardous fuels reduction. The President requests $512 million in
fiscal year 2011. In addition to improving treatments, we collaborate
with our local, State, and tribal partners more than ever before.
In 2011, a total of 2.3 million acres are planned, with the
majority of treatments occurring in the WUI.
wildland fire preparedness
The early outlook for the 2010 fire season indicates the following:
--Drought conditions continue to persist over northeast California
and northwest Nevada, western Wyoming, western Montana, and
much of Idaho.
Snowpack in the Southwest has been well above average, while in
western Wyoming through the northern Rockies the snowpack has been well
below average.
--Abundant fine fuels across southern Arizona are expected to lead to
a 4-6 week active grassland fire season. Fine fuels are not
expected to be of concern in the Great Basin. There is an
increased large fire risk over the California desert areas in
June due to fine fuels decreasing to normal by July.
--In areas with above average snowpack, fire season onset will be
delayed due to a later snowpack melt.
--Early indications suggest monsoon onset will occur around the
typical start date or late with associated precipitation
amounts normal for the season.
To prepare for conditions anticipated in the 2010 fire season, the
USDA and DOI are continually working to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of our firefighting resources. Fire managers have
assigned local, regional, and national firefighting 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. We will
continue to improve our communication, coordination, assessing and
managing risk, and decisionmaking skills.
The DOI and USDA will continue to deploy analytic support tools to
improve fire incident and program decisionmaking, and agency
accountability. A number of WFDSS (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 program reforms such as
strategic and operational protocols, improved oversight, and use of a
risk management framework that ensure fire management resources are
appropriately focused. The USFS, in collaboration with the DOI, is
updating the fire planning and budget analysis process through the fire
program analysis system. In summary, the budget promotes safe, cost-
effective, and accountable outcomes from investments made in managing
fire on landscapes.
Firefighting Forces/Retention
For the 2010 fire season, we are securing firefighting forces--
firefighters, equipment, and aircraft--comparable to those available in
2009. More than 18,000 firefighters will be 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 2009 for 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 (which
are available for geographical or national incidents). The USFS will
have four National Incident Management Organizations comprised of
professionals permanently assigned to teams available.
Aviation
Aviation resources are one of a number of tools available to
accomplish fire related land management objectives. We note that during
any year, thousands of wildland fires are suppressed without the
benefit of air support. Aviation resources are most useful for initial
attack and in supporting management objectives on large-scale fire
operations. A diverse fleet composed of a mix of types of aircraft with
specific mission strengths provide a toolbox for fire managers to use
with specific fire situations. The wildland firefighting agencies
continue to employ a mix of fixed and rotor wing aircraft. Key
components of USFS 2010 aviation assets include up to 19 civilian large
air tankers on Federal contracts, along with up to 26 Type 1 heavy
helicopters and 41 Type 2 medium helicopters on national exclusive-use
contracts; 52 Type 3 helicopters on local or regional exclusive-use
contracts, and 8 Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System units that will
be available for deployment subject to available military aircraft.
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 will maintain a mix of aviation
resources in 2010 similar to that used in 2009, relying on single
engine air tankers and helicopters.
Earlier this month, USFS submitted the Interagency Aviation
Strategy to Congress as required by the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Act. The report was
prepared by the National Interagency Aviation Council with input from
representatives from various State and Federal agencies.
joint fire science program (jfsp)
The JFSP Governing Board invests in science and science delivery
projects from an interagency perspective, and believes great value is
added to all participating agencies from this approach. The Program
emphasizes science delivery, program evaluation, and long-term science,
all in response to specific recommendations of its governing board, and
is currently engaged in three lines of work:
Software System Integration.--JFSP is funding development of an
Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFT-DSS). This
data and software integration framework is scheduled for completion and
potential transition to an operational system in fiscal year 2012.
Smoke and Emissions.--JFSP recently invested in smoke model
validation work and science addressing regional haze and low-level
smoke dispersion. Science planning is underway to identify investments
needed to integrate results from this work into operational smoke
management tools.
Fuel Treatments.--JFSP has invested heavily in research evaluating
fuel treatment effectiveness and effects, and is currently investing in
fuel treatment guides for managers, lifecycle fuel treatment regimes,
insect and wind effects on fuel profiles, and climate change effects on
fuel treatment effectiveness.
fire suppression
A variety of factors, stemming from climate change, persistent
drought, and hazardous fuels conditions and the increased magnitude and
complexity of the WUI affect wildfires.
DOI and USDA are committed to carrying through with reforms to
contain fire costs and improve management, while simultaneously
maintaining firefighter and public safety. In particular, we recognize
the financial impact of WUI suppression activities on costs and will
continue to aggressively pursue cost-mitigation measures in addition to
focusing the majority of hazardous fuels funding for treatments in the
WUI including utilizing risk-informed performance based suppression
strategies; clarifying roles and responsibilities in the WUI; utilizing
appropriate cost-share agreements; and deploying decision support
tools. The strategy of focusing on high-priority fuels within the WUI
will help deter the risks to communities posed by wildfires. In
addition, hazardous fuels treatments reduce safety risks to
firefighters and can reduce wildfire suppression costs.
In fiscal year 2010, the DOI and USDA are continuing to deploy
analytic support tools to improve fire incident and program
decisionmaking, and agency accountability.
The 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill established FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund accounts in
the DOI and USDA. These funds become available to the Secretary to be
transferred into the regular suppression account when funds provided
for wildfire suppression and Federal emergency response in the wildland
fire management appropriation accounts are nearly exhausted, and/or
when certain objective criteria are met. Funds may be transferred from
the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund upon a declaration by the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. Declarations
must be based on specific protocols and criteria. As fires escape
initial response, and as Type 1 or Type 2 Incident Management teams are
assigned to those escaped incidents, a risk assessment and a formal
risk decision will be made, which will be part of the declaration for a
request to the Secretary to move funds from the FLAME Act account into
the suppression account.
A number of analytical tools (WFDSS, FSPro, which models fire
behavior, and RAVAR, which models values at risk from fire) will be
used to provide real-time support to fire managers implementing risk-
informed management. The Secretary may make a declaration in the event
the suppression account is nearly exhausted.
firefighter and public safety
We would like to emphasize that a core goal underlying our
activities remains providing for firefighter and public safety. For
example, on the first night on the Station Fire, engine crews spotted a
spot fire below the Angeles Crest Highway and debated different
possibilities of dealing with the spot fire. It was very dark, limiting
sight. The canyon slope was steep and the terrain was unfamiliar. At
the time, there was no direct immediate threat to public safety. The
crew assessed the situation and determined that they could not safely
go down that slope and suppress the spot fire. The risk to the crew,
given the circumstances, was too high.
conclusion
This concludes our statement, we would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Chief. Appreciate
it very much, and appreciate your willingness to look at night-
time firefighting, because I--I mean, what do you do?
For me, the lightning strikes that summer--I guess a year
ago--I've never seen anything like it in Northern California,
1,000 fires started from lightning strikes at one time, one
day. So it's a big problem.
Mike Pool, is there anything you'd like to say?
STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Pool. Yes, Madam Chairman, I do have an opening
statement. Good morning, first of all.
Senator Feinstein. Good morning.
Mr. Pool. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
the Federal fire policy.
I'm glad to be here representing the DOI. Interior works
closely with USDA in the development and coordination of all
aspects of the Federal fire-management policy. We welcome the
opportunity to discuss these policies with you today.
As always, our highest priority is safety. Federal fire
managers are given the flexibility to respond instantly to
changing conditions for two kinds of wildfire: Planned
ignitions associated with prescribed fire and unplanned
ignitions that result in wildfire. Firefighter safety is the
first element in the fire-management decisions.
In a key shift in the 2011 request, we are directing more
of our resources to reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires
to communities. We propose to increase the use of hazardous-
fuel reduction in the WUI areas.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation for both the USFS and
DOI provides $546 million in funding for hazardous-fuels
reduction, and the fiscal year 2011 request is $512 million.
Just to quickly explain that difference, the Interior--our
appropriation resulted in that $44 million reduction in the
non-WUI areas, but we also----
Senator Feinstein. In the non-what areas?
Mr. Pool. Non-WUI. You have WUI areas in close proximity to
communities. We also have what we call non-WUI areas and more
remote areas associated with actions to improve forest health.
So our commitment in 2011 is mainly dedicated to the fuel
reductions associated with communities at risk.
By emphasizing fuels reductions in the WUI, our resources
will be used most effectively to protect people living in these
areas.
Also, attention to the WUI enables us to work cooperatively
and efficiently with local, State, tribal and Federal
firefighters, because pooling our resources improves fire-
management effectiveness and helps to keep our costs down.
The President's 2011 wildland fire management budget
proposes approximately $2.6 billion for USFS and $934 million
for the DOI. It sets out a new three-tier funding system:
Number one, the use of our regular suppression account. Two,
the FLAME wildland-suppression reserve fund account, and,
three, a Presidential wildfire contingency reserve account.
The rolling 10-year average is fully funded with funding
split between the regular suppression account and the FLAME
fund. The funds requested in the Presidential wildland fire
contingency reserve account will assure that sufficient funds
are available to fight fires without diverting funds from other
nonfire programs and activities.
In addition, the American Recovery Reinvestment Act made
$15 million available to the DOI Wildland Fire Management
Program. We're using these funds for 55 high-priority
hazardous-fuel reduction projects on Federal lands. More than
15,000 acres have been treated thus far, producing almost
70,000 tons of biomass that have been conveyed to users for
biomass energy or for special wood-product manufacturing.
For the longer term, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council
is developing a cohesive wildfire-management strategy as
required by the FLAME Act. This is an outstanding opportunity
to engage our partners and work collaboratively to consider
development of a national strategy.
We are now holding listening sessions in many areas of the
country. For example, we are conducting a listening session in
Sacramento the later part of this week.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mike.
Chief Tidwell and Mr. Pool are accompanied by Tom Harbour,
the Director of Fire and Aviation Management for USFS, and also
Kirk Rowdabaugh, the Director of the Office of Wildland Fire
Coordination at the DOI.
And so, Mr. Tidwell, we'll ask some questions, and, Chief,
you handle who you want to answer it, if that's okay. Perhaps
we should go right to questions.
STATION FIRE REVIEW
I'd like to go to Representative Schiff's testimony about
the Station Fire, and let me begin by asking do you believe,
Chief, that USFS's response to this fire in the first 24 hours
was adequate and appropriate in terms of firefighters on the
ground, planes, and helicopters in the sky and overall
aggressiveness, given the explosive fire potential in the area?
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, I do believe that our folks
took the appropriate response to that fire, and I believe it
was a very aggressive response to the fire.
As you know, I did call for a review, an interagency
review, of the initial attack on that fire, due to the tragedy
that occurred and also just the overall expanse of the fire,
and there were some questions that were raised.
So, we had an interagency review take a look at if our
folks out there on the ground, the ones that are out there at
night that have to make the tough decisions about how to deal
with these fires, did they follow our protocols, did they
follow our procedures, did they make use of the available
resources? And the conclusion of that review is yes, they did.
Since then, we have continued to look at the Station Fire,
just like we do all fires, to determine what we can learn from
it. We've also looked at the recommendations from LA County,
because they, too, did a review and came up with a list of
recommendations about how we can improve our response in the
future.
One of those was the question on our policy about night-
time flying with helicopters, and that's one of the things that
we are going to move forward and do analysis on it. The other
thing that we found is that we need to clarify our current
policy of using our cooperators' capacity to fly at night. And
so both the Angeles----
Senator Feinstein. Cooperators being----
Mr. Tidwell [continuing]. LA County, LA City, San Diego
City, Santa Barbara, and I also think Kern County has the
capability, too.
So in southern California, our cooperators do have this
capability, but we felt that we needed to clarify that they can
use this capability. So that's another one of the lessons that
we've learned following this fire.
STATION FIRE AIRCRAFT RESPONSE
Senator Feinstein. According to the documentation you
provided my staff in preparation for this hearing, no aircraft
actually flew over the fire on the night of August 26. Yet, the
Station Fire review states that the county helicopters could
have dropped water, as needed, throughout the night. That's LA
County Fire Department.
Why were there no aircraft flying over the fire on the
night of August 26?
Mr. Tidwell. On the evening of August 26, our incident
commander did request a helicopter from LA County that has the
capability to fly at night. LA County provided that ship,
Helicopter 14. It did work on the fire for a short period of
time. I think it made three drops, three water drops, and then
it had to be diverted to its primary mission, which is
emergency medical assistance.
There weren't any more helicopters that were used that
night. There was ongoing discussion between our fire personnel
and LA County personnel about availability of other ships, but
there were no other ships that were used that night.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. According to the documentation,
again provided to the subcommittee, personnel at the fire
requested three air tankers and a helicopter to be flying over
the fire by 7 in the morning of August 27.
According to the records, the first of those planes wasn't
ready to take off from its tanker base until 8:40 a.m., which
meant the aircraft arrived at the fire at least two hours later
than requested, and the helicopter didn't take off for the fire
until 7:35 a.m.
Now, here's the question: Why did it take so long for
aircraft to arrive at the fire the next day? And what specific
steps is USFS taking to avoid delays like this in the future?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for the
question. The incident commander requested those air tankers
at--I think it was 12:50 in the morning of August 27th and
submitted that request to our dispatch center. Our dispatch
center then goes out to find the nearest available resources to
be able to fill that order.
The nearest available air tankers, at that time, were their
tankers that were used on the Morris Fire the previous day, and
they were not available due to required pilot shifts. They were
not available to come on shift until 7 o'clock in the morning.
It takes a certain amount of time for those pilots to be
briefed. They had a new mission to fly the Station Fire instead
of the Morris Fire, and there's a required briefing they go
through and also time needed to refuel those tankers, and so
there is a certain amount of time that's necessary. So, that is
why those planes were not available before they arrived on the
Station Fire.
We also did have a helitanker, our large helicopter, that
was working that fire. I think it was over the fire around 7:45
a.m. that morning and continued to make drops throughout the
day.
I would like to mention that on that second day of that
fire, we dropped more than 400,000 gallons of water from the
helicopters, in addition to the retardant drops of about 80,000
gallons that were made throughout that day.
I look at that level of response and that we were not able
to successfully suppress that fire, it just gives you an
indication of the fuel conditions that we face on these
landscapes and the environmental conditions, the hot, dry
weather that we had. You look at the amount of resources that
were applied on that fire--and the fire was relatively small
early in that day--and we still were not able to successfully
suppress that fire.
COOPERATIVE FIREFIGHTING AGREEMENTS
Senator Feinstein. The Los Angeles County Fire Department,
in the review that you mentioned in your opening remarks, made
other recommendations. I'd like to just get your response on a
couple of them.
One is to expand the operating agreements with State and
local cooperators to allow better coordination and more
aggressive use of aviation resources, including night flying.
Has that been done?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, those agreements are best worked out
between our local line officers and our regional forester, and
it's essential for us to have those agreements in place. I know
that both the forest and the region are looking at those
agreements to ensure that we're able to make use of all the
resources that we need when we need those to suppress these
fires.
Senator Feinstein. So, Chief, is the answer yes or no?
Mr. Tidwell. The answer is yes, that the forest supervisor
and the region are looking at all of our cooperative agreements
to see if there's any barriers in there that prevent us from
being able to use the resources that we need to suppress these
fires.
Senator Feinstein. We'd appreciate it if you'd let the
subcommittee know what the result of that is.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
BRUSH CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Apparently, the other one is extending brush-clearance
requirements for structures on the forest from 30 feet to 200
feet. What is USFS's response to this recommendation?
Mr. Tidwell. Our regional forester has sent out direction
to all the forests in California to adopt the California State
standard of a minimum of 100 feet of clearance, with an
understanding that we need to look at the situation, and that
there are some cases when we need to expand that level of
clearing.
We now will have alignment with the State standards, which
I think will be a lot easier for the private landowners to
understand what they need to do and not have two different
standards.
Senator Feinstein. I think that's excellent.
Before I go into night flying, I'd like to welcome Senator
Tester. He comes from a State that is also prone to fire, has
been very interested. We've worked together in creating a
situation where hazardous fuels can be removed. So, Senator,
whatever you'd like to say or question.
Senator Tester. Yes, well, first of all, thank you,
Chairman Feinstein, for the kind words. I look forward to
continuing that work as both of our States see a situation
that--well, it needs to be fixed. And we look forward to
working with USFS and the BLM in making sure that we're all
heading in the right direction, pulling together on the same
rope.
And I appreciate the folks being here on the panel today,
because we have some interesting conditions that are developing
in Montana with the lack of snowpack. And, interesting enough,
I don't know what's happened in the mountains right now, but
we're getting a lot of rain, which is a good thing, as long as
it keeps up.
So, Chief Tidwell, I want to start with you. It's my
understanding that USFS supports the procurement of new, large
aircraft to improve firefighting capabilities. I understand
that we can expect very soon they'll have a joint Department of
Defense (DOD)-USFS report on placing these aircraft at the Air
National Guards. However, I think that we have a private sector
that can still play a critical role in aerial attack.
Can you tell me a little bit about how you view the private
sector's role in providing contract support to USFS, assuming
that the Air National Guard should become the primary aerial
firefighter or do you even see it that way?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, thank you for the question.
We have submitted our interagency review of our aviation
strategy for firefighting. In addition, we are continuing to do
ongoing studies to determine the capacity that we need in our
large air tankers, along with the capacity in large helicopters
and smaller air tankers.
We have some options that we need to consider, looking at
using military Air National Guard aircraft or continuing with
our contractors.
Our contractors have done a great job over the years to be
able to maintain an aging fleet of planes to provide this
capacity for large air tankers, and they've demonstrated that
they have the ability to look at new technology and continue to
explore different approaches. So, in my view, I think our
private contractors definitely have a role in the future when
it comes to large air tankers.
I understand that even this coming year, two of our
contractors are moving forward with development using a newer
aircraft that's only about 25 to 30 years old. We're optimistic
that we'll be able to have one or two of these planes available
later this summer to be able to judge their effectiveness.
Hopefully, this will be an opportunity for us to be able to
move forward with a newer version of a plane than what we've
been relying on with the current P-2 and P-3s.
HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENTS
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you. I could go into what
percentages you anticipate being done privately and what being
done by the--but we will wait until we get the report before we
follow up on that line.
Each year, fires get more expensive. They get harder to
control, more dangerous to our communities and our citizenry.
There's compounding factors in this--climate change, more
people living in the WUI, high fuel loads.
To address these factors, we need to take proactive steps.
For example, I happen to have a bill you're familiar with--
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act--which directs USFS to
mechanically treat 10,000 acres a year for a decade in the WUI
as a priority in Montana, to protect our communities.
In your testimony, you talk about beginning to prepare for
the 2010 fire season--hiring 18,000 firefighters, purchasing
supplies. I think those are critical steps for a season, once
it starts.
But what have you done to lessen the potential of property
damage or likelihood of catastrophic wildfire before the first
fire is spotted? And what more should we be doing? It kind of
dovetails onto some of the questions that Chairman Feinstein
talked about.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, it goes back to one of my
comments that I made in my opening remarks about the importance
of us doing treatment on hazardous fuels and also restoring
these ecosystems, especially these fire-adapted ecosystems.
It's essential that we continue to do that work, so that we
can reduce the threat to our communities and so that when we
get a fire started in these areas, our fire-suppression actions
will be much more effective.
This year we are watching the weather very closely, and as
things develop throughout this summer we'll be moving our
resources around throughout the country, based on the severity
of fire conditions, so that we will be prepared to respond when
we get these fires.
As you've indicated in your State, in Montana, based on our
snowpack and the number of dead and dying trees there, we do
expect to have a very active fire season, especially later in
the summer.
Senator Tester. Okay. Madam Chair, I've got a couple more
questions. I can continue or we can come back, however you want
to do it.
Senator Feinstein. Why don't you ask your questions? I have
a couple more questions on night flying, and then I want to go
into the air tankers. So whatever you----
Senator Tester. Okay. You bet. This is kind of a follow up
on the previous question anyway, Tom, and that is can you tell
me how many acres in the WUI been done so far to reduce fire-
prone communities' potential of fire?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, over the last 9 years we've treated
more than 16 million acres in the WUI between DOI and USFS.
This year, we'll probably treat about another 1.5 million
acres in the WUI.
Senator Tester. Can you give me an idea how much of that is
in Montana?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I'll have to get back to you on that
specific number.
[The information follows:]
The Forest Service target for treatment of high priority hazardous
fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) for fiscal year 2010 is
1,470,000 acres. However, we do not allocate this target by Forest
Service (FS) region nor by State. In fiscal year 2009, the FS
accomplished approximately 40,000 acres of WUI hazardous fuels work on
National Forests which have land in Montana.
HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENT
Senator Feinstein. As long as it's not as much as in
California.
Senator Tester. Perfect. How about the sufficiency overall?
Is there a level of adequacy that you're comfortable with or do
you feel like you're ahead of the curve, behind the curve as
far as treatment in the WUI?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, it's a job we have to continue to
focus on, and that's why you'll see in our 2011 budget request
that we're increasing the emphasis on the WUI. At least 75
percent of our hazardous-fuel funding for 2011 will be spent to
do work in the WUI.
Senator Tester. Does BLM do any work in interface?
Mr. Pool. Senator, we do. We've had a very active program
for a number of years.
More recently, I served as State director in California,
and I think the effectiveness of that program was the formation
of the California Fire Alliance. That is all the Federal,
State, and county agencies contributing their resources, and
also the establishment of fire safe councils throughout the
State of California.
We have hundreds of communities at risk in California, for
example, with high fuel loads. And the beauty of some of these
initiatives is that the community started stepping up. It was
no longer just a Federal or a State action. The community saw
the value of contributing their resources, with some limited
grant funding, to develop community protection plans and carry
out fire-education programs on the prevention side of things.
So, as Madam Chairman knows, California has had its history
of catastrophic fires. So people really stepped up in terms of
leveraging resources----
Senator Tester. Good.
Mr. Pool [continuing]. And being very assertive with fuel
reductions.
Senator Tester. Well, I think that, as both of you know, an
ounce of prevention is going to save us a lot of money--to
change the quote a bit.
COHESIVE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Last question and it goes back to you, Tom. In September
2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that
USFS and the DOI had taken important steps in wildland fire
management, but still have a way to go. Their recommendation
was for agencies to develop an overarching management strategy,
specifically with a cohesive plan to lay out different
approaches, their costs and their tradeoffs.
Actually, it could go to both. What have your agencies done
to respond to the GAO recommendation?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we have started our development of
this cohesive strategy. The first step that we have taken is to
hold a series of forums around the country, so we can sit down
with our cooperators and partners to listen to them as to what
they see we need to have in this overall cohesive strategy.
We believe that it needs to be focused on three key
principles; taking a landscape-scale approach to restoration,
developing fire-adapted human communities, and, of course,
continuing our wildfire response.
Mr. Pool. BLM is working closely with the USFS in the
collaboration sessions and jointly working with them in the
cohesive-management strategy.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you.
2010 FIRE SEASON
We may dodge a bullet this year in Montana, but we may not,
too, and I think the chances of not dodging that bullet are
greater than dodging it.
Tom, do you have the folks lined up right now to address a
potential fire season that could be very challenging?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I believe we do. We have the same
level of preparedness, the same level of assets that we had
last year, and so I'm confident that we do have the assets and
the crews available to deal with that.
Senator Tester. Okay. And just to follow up on that, how
quickly can those assets get to a fire in Montana? Are they
out-of-State assets, in-State assets? Could you break it down
for me a little bit?
And could you break it down on how quickly they can get--
because I think that once this thing--once it gets going, just
stand back and let it go, because you ain't going to be able to
stop it. So the question is ``Do you have the assets that can
get there quickly?''
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, we have the assets in Montana
for initial attack, and as a fire escapes initial attack, we
quickly bring in additional resources. As I mentioned earlier,
based on the fire condition and in anticipation of, say, a
lightning storm, we'll actually move resources into the area
ahead of time to be prepositioned to be able to deal with that.
That includes not only the aircraft, but also additional crews.
Senator Tester. I want to thank all of you for your
service, appreciate it very, very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your flexibility.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Representative Schiff, do you have some questions you might
like to ask?
Mr. Schiff. Senator, thank you very much. Appreciate the
opportunity.
Senator Feinstein. It's the largesse of the Senate.
Mr. Schiff. It is. It is, and I promise you I won't get too
used to it while I'm sitting here.
STATION FIRE AND NIGHT FLYING
Chief Tidwell, thank you for your testimony. I just wanted
to follow up with a couple of questions.
You mentioned earlier that there had been a request for an
LA County Fire Department night-flying helicopter that had come
early in the evening, but had then been diverted for medical
evacuations.
Can you tell us a little bit more? I think you referenced
some additional conversations about whether there were other
night-flying vehicles available. Can you tell us a little bit
more about that?
And then I'd also like to ask you--I understand you're
relooking at the policy against having the capacity within USFS
to do night-time flights. Had you had the capacity during those
early hours of the Station Fire, had USFS had night-time-
capable helicopters, would you have utilized them?
So if you could tell us both about the conversations that
were had about additional resources that may or may not have
been available, as well as if USFS possessed the capability,
would they have utilized it?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, thank you for the question.
Following the time when Helicopter 14 needed to return to
the emergency medical mission, it was my understanding that
there was dialogue between our incident commander and fire
personnel there from LA County about the availability of other
helicopters that have the night-flying capability.
It wasn't documented. There weren't any additional orders.
It's one of the things that, from my own personal experience,
go on during fires when you're sitting there talking about the
situation you have.
One of the lessons that we learned, and one of the changes
that our forest supervisor on the Angeles National Forest has
made, is to ensure that we use clear text when we're making our
orders, that we do not do any informal ordering, that we follow
our formal process, and that when we need resources we order
them through our dispatch center. This way, in the future, when
these questions arise, there isn't any misunderstanding of what
did or what did not occur, because we will have that record.
It's one of the lessons that we learned, that we need to
just do a better job to follow our processes and make sure all
of our ordering is done through our formal process. This is and
so that we have a track record there and that there's a
response back if resources aren't available. The incident
commander is told that from dispatch, instead of the informal
discussions that occur on a fire.
Mr. Schiff. Chief, if I could just interject, there's a
perception--and I want to ask you about the informal
discussions a little further--but there's a perception that LA
County asked for the authorization to do night flights. USFS
doesn't have the capacity. LA County had the capacity. LA City
had the capacity.
There's a perception that LA County asked for permission to
do night flights and they were turned down by USFS. Is that an
accurate perception or is that a misunderstanding of what took
place?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, based on the fact on that
our incident commander requested a helicopter from LA County to
do night-flight operations, it's my understanding that if a
helicopter was available we would have received it because we
asked for it.
If there were ships available, ships that had pilots that
hadn't timed out and were available, we would have received
them because we wanted to use helicopters that night on that
fire, based on what our incident commander ordered.
Mr. Schiff. So, to your knowledge, there was never a time
where USFS, in effect, vetoed a request by the county to employ
more night-time flying capability.
Mr. Tidwell. Not to my knowledge or anything that I've
heard, and I have had many hours of discussion with many of our
fire personnel on this situation, so that we can make sure we
learn as much as we possibly can and apply that learning. If
that occurred, I'm not aware of it.
Mr. Schiff. Now, I take it--from your comment, that you
requested the night-time helicopter and it was diverted--that
the answer to my second question--if you had the capacity
yourself in USFS, would you have utilized it?--I assume the
answer is yes.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. Based on our incident commander
requesting that resource for night operations, if we would have
had the capability on that night and we had a helicopter
available that, yes, we would have been using it that evening.
Mr. Schiff. Madam Chair, you've been very indulgent. Do you
mind if I ask one last question?
STATION FIRE REVIEW
Senator Feinstein. Go ahead.
Mr. Schiff. The conclusion in the review that was
undertaken, that essentially you can't conclude it would have
made a difference if you had used night-time craft, is that at
odds with the statement you've made that if you had the
resources you would have used them? Can you explain a little
bit of whether there's a contradiction there or whether you're
saying had you had the resources you would have used them, but
it's impossible to say what the ultimate impact would have
been?
Mr. Tidwell. If we would have had the helicopters available
that night, we would have used helicopters to drop water on
that evening.
The conclusion of the review team, when they looked at the
assets that were used during that fire and at the amount of
fire that occurred below the road from the spotting, was that,
without access by firefighters on the ground, the use of aerial
resources alone would not have allowed us to prevent all the
spotting that occurred.
That was the conclusion of the review team when they looked
at the amount of fire that occurred below that road and the
amount of spotting that occurred. They came to the conclusion
that the aircraft alone would not have been enough.
For us to suppress fires, it's essential that we are able
to have access with our ground firefighters in conjunction with
our aerial resources. By working together, we can successfully
suppress these fires.
The problem with the Station Fire was because of this spot
fire above the road they wanted to use the helicopter on. They
had to make the difficult call that night that they could not
safely put firefighters in the fire.
They did try to do a burnout operation to see if they could
get some fire started to create a larger safety area to be able
to get in and work on that fire. They were unable to do that.
That was the spot, then, that created the spot fires down below
the road. That was what the review team concluded, based on the
amount of fire that occurred below the road, based on what they
know, what they could see, and the information they had
available, that even with those resources we would not have
been able to suppress that fire.
It's not 100 percent. This business isn't 100 percent, and
that's why we try to use all the resources that are available
and that our folks, I think, do a tremendous job to do
everything that they can to suppress these fires. That's why
they wanted to use the helicopter that night, to continue to
try to work on that fire.
At that time of the evening, they anticipated some spot
fires to occur, but as you look at the logs, it was right after
midnight when the spotting started to occur, and that's when
they put in the additional orders. The amount of spotting, I
think, even exceeded what they had originally thought they'd be
dealing with the evening before.
Mr. Schiff. Chief, I know some of the retired USFS
personnel have taken a different view of the subject. We'll
have a chance to explore that further in Los Angeles in the
near future.
But, Madam Chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity.
I know it's a rare opportunity to ask questions here.
NIGHT FLYING WILDLAND FIRE OPERATIONS
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, congressman.
Let me ask one other question on night flying and then move
on to the tanker situation, if I might.
You say you're doing a review, and I assume that review is
going to result in a change of policy. So the question is, if
it does, how quickly would you be able to move, and what
additional resources are necessary?
It is our understanding that the military and local
jurisdictions suggest that cost estimates for outfitting night-
flying missions are $12,000 per night-vision goggles, $25,000
per cockpit renovation to become night-vision compatible,
$6,000 for additional training costs per pilot and at least
$10,000 in additional initial training costs per pilot, which
makes it quite expensive, and I gather your equipment is old.
The question I have is LA County, I believe, has 15
helicopters, the city 4, and San Diego how many? Also about
four. Do private entities have planes available that you could
contract with to fly at night in addition to these?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, depending on what our analysis
shows as to what the need is, we have several options. I want
to stress depending on what the analysis shows, because this is
a complex issue, and that's why it's taken the amount of time
it'll take for us to review this.
Some of the options that we have are, one, to require our
helicopters--at least some of our helicopters that we currently
contract for--to have the capability, the technology, the pilot
skill, and the pilot experience to be able to operate at night.
Another option for us to look at is to see if we want to
work with our cooperators to expand their capability, where
they already have the helicopters and the dual mission with
emergency medical assistance. That may be a better way, to work
with them through an agreement to be able to expand their
capability, so that there would be more capability.
So we have several options that we want to look at, but the
first thing we need to look at is just to determine is this
something that we need to move forward with, and then, if it
is, what is the best way. We do have several options that we
can pursue.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Let me ask you this--similar to
what Senator Tester asked--if there is another beginning like a
Station Fire start, can you get a tanker or a helicopter at
night, the first night to knock out the fire in California,
this year?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, in southern California, it would be
dependent on the availability of our cooperators' helicopters.
That's one of the reasons we wanted to clarify our policy, to
make sure all of our incident commanders understand that they
can request, and should request, if they need night-flying
missions, night-flying aircraft from the cooperators.
We also want to make sure that all of our incident
commanders have the training, so that they can understand what
situations we can use these ships in, and what situations we
can't. Of course, they'll work very closely with our
cooperators on that.
That's one of the clarifications that we're putting out now
to make sure that if there's a fire tomorrow that we could use
a night-flying capability on, that our incident commanders know
that they can request that from the cooperators. If it's
available, I'd hope we'd be able to use it.
Senator Feinstein. I trust that will be the case when the
Santa Anas are blowing this year.
For those people that don't know, the Santa Ana winds are
not westerly. They come east to west. So they're very hot
winds, and they're extraordinarily dangerous if there's a fire
going. So I would assume that you would get that covered for
that period of time.
AIRTANKER ASSETS
Let me go on to the tanker. Your aviation report initially
recommends that any new aircraft be USFS-owned and contractor
operated. However, you also include an addendum to the report
with three other options, including a model where the military
would own and operate the aircraft. I understand that a work
group has been convened with the DOD to provide recommendations
on such a model, but has not yet done so.
If you are still analyzing these options, when should the
subcommittee expect to receive a final recommendation from the
administration regarding who should own and operate the next
generation of Federal air tankers?
Mr. Tidwell. As you've referenced, this additional review
is going on that we're doing together with the DOD along with
our interagency review that we've already submitted to the
subcommittee.
We want to look at both of these reviews along with some
additional analysis that we're doing in the USFS and also with
another contract, to be able to pull all the information
together and look at all the options that we have, and then
come to the subcommittee and work with you as to what is the
best way to go forward with this.
I'm optimistic with the development of these newer aircraft
that our contractors are working hard to get ready to go for
this coming season, that 's going to provide us some additional
time with this issue.
But it's essential, I think, that, in the near future,
we're able to sit down and work with the subcommittee and come
to agreement about what is the best approach to go forward with
this to ensure that we will have the capability of large air
tankers that are so essential to our firefighting success.
Senator Feinstein. Let me read you a staff note in this:
``We expect the administration to be cagey about providing a
final recommendation, due to the costs of buying the aircraft.
We recommend you press them on a specific date.'' I am
pressing. That's a question.
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, thank you for the question.
I'll respond to that. As soon as this information is available,
we want to share it with your staff, and that----
Senator Feinstein. Is this a year? Is it 6 months? Two
months?
Mr. Tidwell. I'm thinking by the end of this year we should
have all the information, and that we'll be able to sit down
and work with the subcommittee on what the recommendation will
be.
I think by the end of the year we will have had some
experience with the new aircraft that our contractors are
working on. I think that it is very important for us to be able
to see what they can do with those aircraft and be able to
factor that into the long-term solution.
Senator Feinstein. You're looking at the National Guard
units as well. Is that correct? Because that's been a
successful model, I think, in the past.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, that's the other thing that we are
looking at. In the past, and even today, we have the eight
MAFFS units that are ready and available, primarily to use for
our surge capacity after all of our existing resources are
committed.
That's another area that we want to continue to explore;
the availability and the use of those aircraft with the MAFFS
units.
AIRTANKER FUNDING
Senator Feinstein. Now, do you anticipate, at the end of
this--this is for planning purposes--that you essentially have
to buy a new air-tanker fleet? And it's my understanding that
if that's the case, the costs range from $1.5 billion to $2.5
billion. That's a 2009 USDA Inspector General's report.
So the question comes, how much would you anticipate the
cost would be, for planning purposes, if you have to replace
the fleet?
Mr. Tidwell. If the recommendation was to replace the fleet
with the C-130Js, which I think that report is referring to----
Senator Feinstein. That's correct.
Mr. Tidwell. We would then request funding over a period of
years to be able to acquire those. I think that's just one of
the options that we need to consider. If we did pursue that, we
would spread that over many years to be able to acquire those
over the long term.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me say--and you know this. You
don't need to hear this from me, but this is a big issue in the
West. I mean, there is nothing like having your house burn
down, nothing, other than, I think, dying, that really strikes
people.
You know, if we're supposed to protect people, this is one
of the things we have to protect against. And so that immediate
response, the ability to knock out that wildland fire within
the first 24 hours, even within the first half hour, if it's
possible, becomes paramount, I think, as you analyze cost and
effect.
So the air assets are critical, and they have to be in
place. They have to be accessible, and they have to be man-able
during fire season. And I think that ought to be our goal.
So let me ask you: Does the administration plan to support
funding to replace tankers as part of future Presidential
budget requests?
Mr. Tidwell. If our recommendation is to acquire new
aircraft, we will be submitting the budget request for that in
future years.
Senator Feinstein. If?
Mr. Tidwell. If.
Senator Feinstein. You're really cagey.
Mr. Tidwell. You know, last year, we were not aware of this
potential new capability with the aircraft that our private
contractors are developing for use this year, so that gives us
a different option that we need to consider.
2010 AIRTANKER ASSETS
Senator Feinstein. So that was my earlier question. How
many private contractors can you contract with this year?
Mr. Tidwell. This year we have three contractors that are
in place that provide the 19 large air tankers.
Senator Feinstein. And where are they?
Mr. Tidwell. There's one in Missoula, Montana. One's in
Minden, Nevada, and then Aero Union in California.
Senator Feinstein. Where is that in California?
Mr. Tidwell. It's outside of Chico.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, up north. Well, that'll take care of
the North. I mean----
Mr. Tidwell. We position these planes throughout the
country, depending on the fire conditions that we have, and so
very seldom are they at their home bases. They're moving
throughout the country almost every day, moving to wherever we
need them.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, I think that completes my
questions. We may have a couple of questions for you in
writing. I have a lot of questions here.
But I think the point I want to make is that this is a real
priority, and we're going to continue to do our level best
within our allocation--and I think Senator Alexander, who's a
wonderful Ranking Member, will agree with this--to give you
what you need to fight fires. So I would not be shy about it.
Mike Pool, that goes for you, too.
Mr. Pool. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Tom Tidwell
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Chief Tidwell, your agency had access to as many as 44
air tankers in 2002. However, since then, safety concerns and accidents
have grounded all but 19 of these planes--and those that remain are
aging out of service starting as soon as fiscal year 2012. This
subcommittee has been asking about your replacement strategy since at
least fiscal year 2005, including a request in the fiscal year 2010
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill that you provide a
copy of your plan by last November. Yet we didn't receive your report
until May 5. Why did it take so long for the administration to publicly
acknowledge this problem and begin to offer recommendations?
Answer. The Forest Service (USFS) identified the airtanker shortage
as an emerging problem as early as 2002 after two planes crashed.
Following the two crashes, the USFS and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) jointly established an independent blue ribbon panel
``to investigate issues associated with aerial wildland firefighting in
the United States.'' In March, 2003, the panel released its report,
which included eight key findings. As a result of the panel's
recommendations, the USFS and BLM declined to renew the leases on nine
C-130A and PB4Y-2 airtankers, and ordered the 33 remaining large
airtankers to undergo an improved inspection program before they
returned to active service.
The long-term solution to this problem is complex and national in
scope. The 2008 Interagency Aviation Strategy was the result of a
coordinated effort among the wildland fire agencies to arrive at a
consensus to satisfy the fire fighting aircraft needs of the Nation.
Representatives from all five Federal wildfire agencies within the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, as well
as representatives from the National Association of State Foresters,
participated. Experienced senior fire and aviation managers
collectively developed this plan for meeting the Nation's future
aviation needs. In part, the plan includes a recommendation for the
Federal Government--to acquire over a 10-year period--25 new and
efficient aircraft to replace the existing large airtanker fleet. The
plan recommends that aircraft be operated and maintained by private
industry with the Federal Government retaining ownership. The current
administration has yet to establish a position on the types and
ownership of a replacement airtanker fleet.
Question. Please provide the subcommittee with detail regarding the
remaining operational service life of each of the large air tankers
currently remaining in the fleet.
Answer. Please refer to the attached figure displaying the
estimated numbers of the current P3 and P2V airtanker aircraft
available each year, projected out to the year 2030.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question. What steps is USFS taking in the immediate future to make
additional resources available and to pursue short-term options to
replace or augment the current air tanker fleet?
Answer. USFS is pursuing several options to maintain or improve our
current retardant delivery capacity. Short-term solutions include
increased reliance on helicopters, the possible introduction of
substitute aircraft similar in size to our current tankers, such as the
BAe 146, and efficiently using ``niche'' aircraft such as single engine
airtankers, very large airtankers, and scooper aircraft.
Question. The report you provided, the National Interagency
Aviation Council (NIAC) report, recommends that USFS procure a fleet of
25 C-130J aircraft to replace your current air tankers. Chief Tidwell,
how do you know that C-130J aircraft are the right aircraft for the
job?
Answer. USFS continues to evaluate multiple aircraft for cost and
suitability. However, we have not made an aircraft selection nor have
we committed to any one model. While we remain open to all reasonable
options, some analysis has shown this to be an efficient model capable
of meeting our needs for initial attack.
USFS has first-hand experience with many different types of
aircraft, including the C-130 series. This aircraft fully meets the
immediate and future operational requirements of USFS. However, there
is a benefit to a diverse fleet to meet a variety of needs. We have
currently identified our needs to be a cruising speed of 350 mph and
ability to drop 3-5,000 gallons.
Question. What kind of formal analysis has USFS done to determine
how many aircraft you really need? How do you know that 25 aircraft is
the ``right'' number, especially given the fact that you have
historically had access to more than 25 aircraft?
Answer. The 2008 Interagency Aviation Strategy, which was the
result of a coordinated effort among the wildland fire agencies to
arrive at a consensus to satisfy the fire fighting aircraft needs of
the Nation, calls for the Federal Government to acquire--over a 10-year
period--25 new and efficient aircraft to replace the existing large
fixed wing airtanker fleet. This was based solely on the 2005 Wildland
Fire Management Aerial Application Study. Having newer, more efficient
aircraft will allow USFS to maintain or improve its initial attack
success rate with fewer total fixed-wing aircraft. Moreover, the NIAC
report concluded that the acquisition of these airtankers would also
result in the reduction in the number of large helicopters contracted
by USFS (from 39 to 7).
In order to do a more thorough analysis, USFS has commissioned the
Rand Corporation to review and analyze our future needs to determine
the right number of aircraft. This will provide us with the most
current projections on the most appropriate number of aircraft,
updating the recommendation from the 2008 Interagency Aviation
Strategy. Once this study is completed, we will be better informed to
answer this question.
Question. What other aircraft models did you consider before
reaching the conclusion that the C-130J aircraft was the appropriate
choice? What are the alternatives available to purchasing C-130Js?
Please provide the subcommittee with specific documentation relating to
the selection of this type of aircraft, including cost and performance
comparisons with other options.
Answer. USFS continues to evaluate multiple aircraft for cost and
suitability. However, we have not made an aircraft selection nor have
we committed to any one model. We remain open to all reasonable
options. We have currently identified our needs to be a cruising speed
of 350 mph and ability to drop 3-5,000 gallons. At this time, USFS is
unable to release cost and performance data for the aircraft currently
under analysis.
Question. Have you quantified what benefit the C-130Js might
provide in terms of better firefighting effectiveness or lower
suppression costs? Specifically, have you quantified what effect these
aircraft might have on your initial attack success rate and calculated
what impact that improved initial attack performance might yield in
terms of lower suppression costs? Please provide specific data.
Answer. USFS has contracted with the Rand Corporation to develop
performance measures for large airtankers. While we anticipate improved
performance, at this time, USFS is unable to release cost and
performance data for the aircraft currently under analysis. Once the
Rand Corporation study is completed we will be better able to answer
this question. Some analysis of the cost savings that might be provided
by the use of C-130Js can be found in ``Appendix 12: Wildland Fire
Large Airtanker Strategy,'' pages 72-76 of the ``2008 Interagency
Aviation Strategy.''
Question. What are the legislative or policy hurdles that would
have to be addressed to allow a military-owned, military-operated air
tanker fleet? Are there any legislative or policy barriers that would
prevent military-owned and -operated aircraft from performing initial
attack or other essential aviation functions?
Answer. This question is being addressed by the Secretary of the
Air Force, the Chief of the Air Force Reserve, and the Director of the
National Guard Bureau in response to a request in the House
Appropriations Committee Report (House Report 111-230) accompanying
Public Law 110-118, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of
fiscal year 2010. While we are not aware of any legislative or policy
barriers that would prevent military-owned and military-operated
aircraft from performing initial attack or other essential aviation
functions, we defer to the Air Force and the National Guard Bureau to
definitively answer this question.
A May 17, 2004 report to Congress by the Office of Management and
Budget entitled, ``A Review of Existing Authorities and Procedures for
Using Military Assets in Fighting Wildfires'' concludes that ``The
Economy Act permits an agency to place an order with another agency
after deciding, in particular, that the requirement cannot be provided
by contract as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise''.
USFS has successfully used a military-owned, military-operated fleet of
airtankers in the Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems (MAFFS) program
for the past 25 years under current legislation and policy. Prior to
1994, USFS was not requested to reimburse costs for the MAFFS units.
Beginning in 1994, due to the long duration and intensity of operations
that season, USFS was billed for flying hour costs plus overtime pay
for personnel. In 2004, the Secretary of Defense directed that full
cost of all MAFFS-related expenses would be fully reimbursed.
Question. In April 2010, the USDA Inspector General released a
report that identified critical gaps in USFS firefighting workforce
over the next 5-10 years because a growing percentage of firefighters
are eligible to retire at the same time that large, complex wildfires
are increasing the need for qualified firefighters. The IG offered 20
specific recommendations for USFS to follow, including developing a
workforce plan to ensure the right number of qualified firefighters
will be available in the future, improving training, and eliminating
unnecessary education requirements for firefighters. Chief Tidwell,
what are you going to do to address this problem? Does USFS plan to
implement all of the Inspector General's recommendations? If not, why
not?
Answer. USFS is currently engaged in the development of a strategic
plan addressing all the Inspector General's recommendations contained
in the Audit Report 08601-54-SF, USFS's Firefighting Succession
Planning Process. Progress to-date includes reaching management
decisions on 19 of the 20 recommendations, and completion of the
actions required to close the first two recommendations. These actions
are: (1) assigning responsibility for firefighter qualification
workforce planning to the Director of Fire and Aviation as the top
level official at USFS national headquarters; and (2) chartering the
Workforce Succession Planning Team which has begun its work. The
Workforce Succession Planning Team includes members of Fire and
Aviation Management senior management, Line Officers and
representatives from Business Operations-Human Resources Management
including Diversity and Civil Rights representatives. This work is
being coordinated with the Regional Foresters to assure consistency and
adequacy of the Workforce and Succession Strategic Plan. The Strategic
Plan will be completed no later than March 31, 2011.
Question. This year your budget failed to provide specific regional
budget allocations for USFS programs, including important Wildland Fire
Management programs such as hazardous fuels reduction and fire
preparedness. Please submit for the record a table that shows fiscal
year 2010 enacted and fiscal year 2011 planned regional budget
allocations for all Wildland Fire Management programs.
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 information was not included in the
fiscal year 2011 annual budget justification because this display of
estimates, created by simply prorating from the last available
allocation, has been interpreted as a commitment by USFS to those
levels. There are a number of reasons why USFS cannot provide the exact
level of funds indicated. Many times the actual appropriation received
may be different than the baseline used. The agency is also faced with
changing conditions for land management including climate change,
epidemic insect infestations, and other local demands which will
influence the funds distributed.
A table, displaying fiscal year 2010 information, is on the
following page.
FISCAL YEAR 2010
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Stations/ Centralized Washington National/ Service
area/ITF Business \1\ office \2\ unallocated total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildland Fire Management:
Fire Preparedness--WFPR.... 57,166 29,842 60,823 55,328 205,755 78,827 34,573 22,967 2,949 2,190 29,106 78,767 16,706 675,000
Fire Operations: ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 117,120 184,182 696,203 997,505
Suppression--WFSU.........
Hazardous Fuels--WFHF...... 24,896 30,236 42,144 23,249 58,074 35,538 41,374 11,130 1,017 7,535 41,492 14,672 18,929 350,286
Rehabilitation and 1,443 409 1,143 2,444 2,548 1,251 347 573 6 2 619 96 720 11,600
Restoration (NFP)--WFW3...
Fire Research and ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 21,140 2,104 255 419 23,917
Development-- FRF2........
Joint Fire Sciences........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ .......... 5,000 5,000
Forest Health Management: 3,060 3,500 446 2,897 2,897 3,589 1,000 ......... 161 809 1,221 219 954 20,752
Federal Lands (NFP)--SPS4.
Forest Health Management: 971 897 1,348 827 955 2,054 818 ......... 1,161 18 389 65 1,925 11,428
Cooperative Lands (NFP)--
SPS5......................
State Fire Assistance 1,738 2,512 1,358 1,612 11,899 2,299 13,464 ......... 416 9,255 15 133 26,548 71,250
(NFP)--SPS2...............
Volunteer Fire Assistance 707 840 576 310 973 707 2,250 ......... 309 2,328 ............ .......... ........... 9,000
(NFP)-- SPS3..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Wildland Fire 89,981 68,236 107,837 86,667 283,101 124,265 93,826 34,670 6,020 43,278 192,066 278,389 767,403 2,175,738
Management............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Regional and Other unit allocations include each units share of cost pool funding from each budget line item. Estimated allocations for fiscal year 2011 are prorated from the fiscal year
2010 final levels.
\2\ The large shift in the preparedness and suppression funding levels for these units between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 reflects a rebaselining of the WFM account, realigning cost
pool amounts that had been shifted over the past years.
Question. As you know, I provided USFS with $28 million in prior-
year appropriations bills to address firefighter retention issues in
high-risk areas like California. USFS currently has a 4 percent vacancy
rate for its 4,489 firefighting positions in California. That's an
improvement over the 9 percent vacancy rates you posted in May 2008.
However, while the agency has made progress in filling its overall
number of vacancies, I remain concerned that USFS is still missing:
--20 percent of the GS-10s;
--12 percent of the GS-11s; and
--17 percent of the GS-12s that you identify as needed in your
targeted staffing levels.
These senior-level firefighters make important fire policy and
management decisions and it is critical that these spots are filled
before fire season begins in earnest. It's my understanding that these
positions may not have been affected by the retention incentives that
you currently have in place. What steps are you taking to address the
high vacancy rates for these senior positions?
Answer. On March 31, 2010, the USDA Office of Inspector General
(OIG) provided USFS with the final audit report on Forest Service
firefighter succession planning. OIG accepted USFS's management
decision for 19 of the 20 of the report recommendations. Implementation
of these recommendations will help improve our ability to keep and fill
these positions when vacant at a higher rate in the future. In the
interim, we are using 120-day temporary promotions for positions that
have known mandatory retirement dates in an effort to keep our
commitment to fire readiness.
Additionally, the GS-10 positions, which are exclusively WG-10
Dozer Operators and Assistant Dozer Operators, have an updated vacancy
rate entering into this fire season (as of 6-1-2010) of only 4 percent,
with only 1 vacancy in 28 planned positions.
Question. I understand that the administration has weighed a number
of more permanent proposals to help retain California firefighters--
updating and expanding a special pay rate to address salary disparities
with cooperators, implementing a 24-hour ``portal-to-portal''
firefighting salary for incidents and creating Wildland Firefighter
series for Federal employees. Yet none of these things have been
implemented. Can you please provide me with an update on where each of
those proposals stands?
Answer. USFS will not be pursuing the use of ordered standby or
portal-to-portal pay as supplemental pay options. USFS is continuing a
dialogue with the Office of Personnel Management about firefighter
position classification options.
Question. I understand that in the 1970s, firefighting, or
assistance to a firefighting mission was in the project description of
almost all USFS employees. Why did that change? If this policy was
reinstated, would your fire suppression costs be reduced by relying
more in-house firefighting support rather than more expensive
cooperators?
Answer. There is still an expectation that employees support
emergency operations. During high fire seasons the Chief has issued
letters stating that, ``employees must participate in fire activities
commensurate with their respective training, qualifications, and
physical ability. Those not incident qualified or who cannot accept
assignment away from home are expected to support the fire efforts and
provide backup for those on assignment.''
Firefighting and assistance to the firefighting mission was not
necessarily in all job descriptions of USFS employees during the 1970s.
Support of the firefighting mission, however, was an organizational
expectation at the time. As society and the economy changed and more
families became two-income households, there was less financial
incentive to participate in the firefighting mission. Our employees
have become much more functionally specialized and are also not often
capable to work away from their duty station for extended periods of
time on a recurring basis, as is needed to support the firefighting
mission.
Question. I am concerned that the administration doesn't have a
comprehensive wildland fire policy to address the broader questions of
how we're going to manage wildfire challenges. It seems as though the
Federal Government continues to address wildfire issues--which include
everything from how to address rising fire suppression costs to how to
ensure communities to have the right zoning and defensible space to
reduce fire risk--on an ad hoc basis. Mr. Pool, Chief Tidwell, what is
this administration doing to better address wildfire policy?
Answer. The Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture--USFS are in the midst of preparing a Cohesive Wildfire
Strategy as required by Congress to address the issue of wildfire
policy.
The Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy Process Framework is on
track to be delivered to Congress by November 1, 2010.
As noted in the USDA OIG report, ``Large Fire Suppression Costs''
dated November 2006, escalating cost to fight fires is largely due to
efforts to protect private property in the wildland urban interface
(WUI) bordering USFS lands. Homeowner reliance on the Federal
Government to provide wildfire suppression services places an enormous
financial burden on the USFS, as the lead Federal agency providing such
services. It also removes incentives for landowners moving into the WUI
to take responsibility for their own protection and ensure their homes
are constructed and landscaped in ways that reduce wildfire risks.
Assigning more responsibility to State and local government for WUI
wildfire protection is critical because Federal agencies do not have
the power to regulate WUI development. Zoning and planning authority
rests entirely with State and local governments.
Question. How many acres of national forests nationwide do you
estimate require hazardous fuels treatments? What percentage of needed
fuels treatments is USFS accomplishing in a given year, based on
current budget requests?
Answer. Nationally there are about 115 million acres of National
Forest System lands which are in need of hazardous fuels treatments, as
identified by the number of acres in a high wildland fire potential
category. Over the last 3 years, USFS has treated about 3 million acres
per year. Additional acres have been treated on Department of the
Interior lands and on State and private lands. A majority, but not all,
of the recently treated acres were on the highest-priority lands based
on the working definition of high-priority acres with a high or very
high relative ranking for wildland fire potential. Follow-up treatments
are conducted in some areas and are needed to maintain the lowered fuel
class conditions. Wildland fire potential is based on the probability
of fire occurrence and potential fire behavior based on historic
patterns and fuel conditions. Wildland fire potential is then
classified into a relative ranking of fire potential from very low to
very high. As a caveat, wildfire potential was designed as a comparison
of conditions across the Nation and should not be used as a benchmark
to measure progress in hazardous fuels treatment. Also, weather
conditions and direction can influence future accomplishment in
hazardous fuels treatment. USFS anticipates the availability of updated
data on wildland fire potential later this year, or early in 2011.
Question. I'm very concerned about the vegetative conditions that
allowed the Station Fire to rage out of control in the first place.
Since 2005, this subcommittee has invested $160 million for hazardous
fuels reduction treatments on the four national forests in southern
California, with 11 percent of those funds, or $17.3 million, used for
projects specifically on the Angeles National Forest. What kind of
progress has your agency made to reduce fuels on these forests with
this investment? What is the agency's estimate regarding how many
additional acres require treatment?
Answer. Since 2005, approximately 170,000 acres of hazardous fuel
treatments have been accomplished within the four national forests of
southern California. About 20,000 acres of those treatments were on the
Angeles National Forest. Significant accomplishment momentum was
created by the supplemental appropriations in fiscal year 2008 and
fiscal year 2009 that provided for large increases in integrated
restoration and hazardous fuel treatment accomplishments.
Question. Why does USFS budget request cut State and volunteer fire
assistance grants from $80 million to $57 million, and why does the
Interior fire budget propose to completely eliminate rural fire
assistance grants?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal for USFS
for the National Fire Plan State Fire Assistance (SFA) and Volunteer
Fire Assistance (VFA) accounts, while down from the fiscal year 2010
enacted level, is consistent with prior years' funding levels and the
fiscal year 2010 President's budget for these accounts. The budget
reflects the President's priorities and Secretary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack's vision for restoring and enhancing the resilience and
productivity of America's forests. The funds identified under the
Wildland Fire appropriation complement the SFA and VFA programs that
are funded through the State and Private Forestry appropriation.
Question. In my experience with wildfires in California, rural fire
departments play a crucial role in preventing and fighting wildfires,
especially in remote areas. I would like to hear from USFS and the
Interior Department how you view the role of volunteer and rural fire
departments.
It has been my understanding that grants to volunteer and rural
fire departments provide them with the firefighting tools, equipment,
and training they may not be able to acquire otherwise. Is the money
spent on fire department grants cost effective?
Answer. Rural fire departments represent the first line of defense
in coping with fires and other emergencies in rural areas and rural
communities. These departments provide nearly 80 percent of initial
attack on wildland fires in the United States and are responsible for
the protection of lives, homes, and business investments in rural
America. Their presence enhances rural development opportunities and
economic vitality, thereby improving standards of living in rural
areas. Rural fire departments also provide major assistance to State
forestry agencies in the suppression of wildland fires and, in some
States, suppress all such fires.
Rural fire departments also play a major role in suppressing
wildfires on Federal lands. USFS and various Department of the Interior
land management agencies have entered into cooperative agreements with
many rural fire departments. These agreements enhance the protection of
both communities and natural resources. Through these partnerships, a
level of fire protection is attained which would be impossible without
such cooperation. The Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) Program assists
volunteer rural fire departments by providing cost-share grants for
training, equipment, and organization to enhance the capability of
rural fire departments to conduct initial attack on wildland fires.
Rural fire departments receiving Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA)
grants are required to provide a 50 percent match to the Federal VFA
funding. The cost share amount provided by the departments can either
be in the form of cash or an ``in kind'' contribution. By requiring the
cost share, recipient departments are invested in the grant process,
thus ensuring that the funding provided to these rural fire departments
is used in the most cost effective manner.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Question. Because the forest industry is a significant part of West
Virginia's economy, I have always paid keen attention to the U.S.
Forest Service's (USFS) annual budget proposals. For the better part of
7 years, I have watched as the inability to control fires in
California's wildland urban interface (WUI) areas has led to
significant reallocations of USFS resources for fire suppression
activities. These reallocations, while absolutely necessary, were
accomplished at the expense of important forestry programs across the
United States, including West Virginia.
In an effort to prevent the seemingly annual reallocations from
emasculating the budget for forestry programs in West Virginia, in 2009
Congress enacted the FLAME Act, which the President signed into law.
The purpose of the FLAME Act is to establish an emergency fund for fire
suppression activities in the years when such activities result in
expenditure in excess of those assumed in the President's budget.
Though I share the hope of my colleagues that the FLAME Act will
restore order to USFS programs, I have yet to see any information from
the USFS that it has a program in place to prevent small-scale fires in
California's WUI from growing into conflagrations. In many other
countries with geographic and climactic conditions similar to
California, their top priority is to extinguish the fire in the initial
attack. In fact, their entire fire suppression program is oriented
toward the immediate dispatch of aircraft specifically designed to
extinguish fires with constant drops of water and foaming agents
directly on the head of the fire. We seem to operate a bit differently
in the United States, with aircraft not dispatched until a ground crew
is on site to direct the drop of fire retardants ahead of the fire via
large tanker aircraft modified for this purpose.
After watching these WUI fires break containment year after year, I
would like to know if there is anything to learn from the approaches
used in other countries. As such, I would appreciate prompt responses
to the questions I am submitting for the record.
Please provide exact dollar figures for budgeted and nonbudgeted
fire suppression activities in California for each of the past 7 years.
Please include in this information expenditures from all Federal
agencies, including agencies of the Department of Agriculture,
Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, and Department of
Homeland Security.
Answer. USFS is unable to provide this data for other agencies. The
figures in the table below do include the costs of reimbursable
agreements, which include many different cooperators, other than the
Department of the Interior. The agreement between the Department of
Agriculture and Department of the Interior is to support the
firefighting mission on Federal lands; we do not cross-bill each other
for this support.
FOREST SERVICE EXPENDITURES IN CALIFORNIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppression Preparedness
Fiscal year expenditures expenditures Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003............................................................ $162,806,435 $164,397,410 $327,203,845
2004............................................................ 205,167,116 170,459,681 375,626,797
2005............................................................ 127,144,048 150,127,698 277,271,746
2006............................................................ 370,248,971 159,193,754 529,442,725
2007............................................................ 345,823,689 181,308,281 527,131,970
2008............................................................ 749,719,334 177,162,801 926,882,135
2009............................................................ 316,570,000 198,942,152 515,512,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a summary of the USFS/Bureau of Land
Management operating policies with respect to the initiation and
deployment of fixed-wing air tanker aircraft for fires occurring on
U.S. property in California's WUI.
Answer. When a local dispatch places an order for aircraft the
Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC) utilizes a proximity tool to
locate the closest available resource. The proximity tool uses the
latitude and longitude to determine the radial distance from each
prospective base. The GACC then dispatches the closest available
aircraft to the incident. Our priority is initial attack. If all air
tankers are already assigned, the closest air tankers are diverted to
any new start. These dispatch transactions are documented using the
Resource Order and Status System.
When there are many fires requesting air support a priority list is
sent to the requesting agencies by 20:30 on each day, creating an air
tanker assignment list. When activated, the Multi-Agency Coordinating
Group does not decide which tankers go to the fires, only the number of
tankers and the type. The aircraft dispatchers, Federal and State
together, dispatch the closest air tankers to the highest-priority
fire, and so on. If there is an initial attack fire, the aircraft
dispatcher diverts the closest aircraft from any ongoing fire.
During periods of high fire activity air tankers are routinely
reassigned to new starts instead of the fire they had been working the
previous day. Each night a tentative lineup is faxed and/or emailed to
all affected air bases and incident command posts for the next day's
assignments. It is understood that this line up is tentative and is
pending for the following reasons:
--Air tankers can be sent to initial attack fires (new Starts).
--Priorities may change for the next day's fires. Each day the active
fires are prioritized to facilitate air tanker coverage for
initial attack and support of large fires.
--Many times air tankers do not fly early morning missions due to
unplanned weather events, such as smoke inversions and/or fog.
Due to the fog or inversion, the air tankers may be assigned to
lesser priority fires with the understanding that they will be
reassigned to the higher-priority fire once the inversion
clears or lifts.
--Aircraft may be out-of-service due to mechanical or pilot issues
(limits on flight time) in the morning, requiring the GACC to
change the line-up based on how many and which types of
aircraft were originally requested.
Question. With respect to the five most expensive California WUI
fires in the past 7 years, please provide a summary for each fire,
detailing the time when the fire was first reported, the time which
elapsed before fixed-wing aircraft were dispatched by the USFS, and the
effectiveness of the dispatched aircraft.
Answer. See the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Forest
Administrative unit Discovery date/ Service first Elapsed time
Fire name \1\ name time fixed-wing (minutes) \2\
aircraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATION............................ Angeles National 8/26/09 15:19 8/26/09 15:23 4
Forest.
ZACA............................... Los Padres National 7/4/07 10:54 7/4/07 14:07 193
Forest.
BASIN COMPLEX...................... Los Padres National 6/21/08 13:29 6/21/08 13:29 .............
Forest.
CEDAR.............................. Cleveland National 10/25/03 17:45 10/25/03 17:50 5
Forest.
DAY................................ Los Padres National 9/4/06 14:15 9/4/06 14:41 26
Forest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All of these fires occurred in critical fire weather conditions. All escaped Initial Attack efforts of both
air and ground resources.
\2\ As shown on the 5100-29, Individual Fire Report.
Question. Please provide specific data on cost per gallon of fluid
dropped on the fire for each aircraft engaged by the USFS for fire
suppression efforts on California's WUI fires.
Answer. Total cost column includes both aircraft time and retardant
cost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallons Price per
Fire name Type of aircraft dropped Total cost gallon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATION............................... Helicopters............. 4,423,440 $4,296,813 $0.97
Air Tankers............. 1,218,454 $2,608,603 $2.14
ZACA.................................. Helicopters............. 4,409,027 $4,195,020 $0.95
Air Tankers............. 1,362,486 $2,027,020 $1.49
BASIN COMPLEX \1\..................... Helicopters............. 22,800 $4,735 $0.21
Air Tankers............. .............. .............. ..............
CEDAR \2\............................. Helicopters............. .............. .............. ..............
Air Tankers............. .............. .............. ..............
DAY \2\............................... Helicopters............. .............. .............. ..............
Air Tankers............. .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ System upgrade in ABS (Aviation Business Management System)
affected data available for the fixed-wing aircraft on this fire.
\2\ Fires occurred prior to implementation of ABS. Unable to locate
data from pre-ABS system.
Question. Please provide a ranking of all aircraft, based on the
cost per gallon of fluid dropped (using a hypothetical California WUI
fire such as the Station Fire), assuming that the aircraft must drop
30,000 gallons of fluid. The cost estimate should factor in known daily
lease rates, hourly expenses (all operating, maintenance, and air/land
crew costs), including the time it takes to load the tanker with fluid
for the initial drop and for refilling the aircraft after the initial
drop.
Answer. This is the type of evaluation the USFS will be working
with the Rand Corporation to document which aircraft best meet the
agency needs.
Question. It is my understanding that the USFS has commissioned the
Rand Corporation to study potential replacements for the USFS fixed-
wing aircraft fleet. It is also my understanding that Rand was
instructed to exclude from its study the only aircraft in the world
purpose-built to fight fires. With WUI operating costs significantly
(75 to 80 percent) lower than converted tankers, why would the USFS
exclude this aircraft from the Rand Study?
Answer. USFS has contracted with the Rand Corporation to develop
performance measures for large airtankers and to provide an analysis of
the best mix of helicopters and fixed-wing air tankers. The Rand
Corporation is looking at all options. The results of this study will
help us determine our large airtanker needs.
Question. Based on your evaluation of firefighting operating
practices in regions of the world with geographic and climatic
conditions similar to those which exist in Southern California, how
many of those nations rely on aging military/commercial passenger
aircraft modified for use as tankers? How many of those nations use
purpose built aircraft?
Answer. Mediterranean nations (France, Italy, Greece, and Spain),
which do have geographic and climatic conditions that are somewhat
similar to those in southern California, predominantly use water
scooper fixed-wing aircraft like the Bombardier and Canadier. These
aircraft are built specifically for wildland firefighting. They scoop
water only, they do not drop retardant. There are a few Hercules C-
130s, aircraft originally built for military purposes and converted for
use as air tankers, being used in this region of Europe as well.
Other countries that might also be considered somewhat comparable
are Australia and South Africa. They use mainly smaller aircraft that
are crop dusters converted into air tankers, similar to our Single
Engine Airtankers. Australia is also testing the DC-10, a converted
passenger/commercial aircraft. Russia, which has a variety of different
geographic and climatic conditions, utilizes converted military
aircraft, but has recently built the BE200--a water scooper aircraft
built specifically for wildland firefighting. This aircraft is not yet
deployed widely, but is likely to be used more heavily in the future in
Russia. The BE200 is not approved by the FAA for use in the United
States of America.
______
Question Submitted to Mike Pool
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Mr. Pool, the Interior Department's budget cuts $44
million from your hazardous fuels reduction budget--a 21 percent cut--
for a total of $162 million. I understand that your budget assumes that
you will discontinue most fuels treatments outside the wildland-urban
interface (WUI). This is a different approach than USFS took in its
budget request, which includes flat funding of $349 million for fuels
projects and reallocates funding within the budget for more treatments
in the WUI. What is the Department's rationale for drastically reducing
funds for fuels treatments? Why does it make sense for your agencies to
take such different approaches to the fuels budgets?
Answer. Although funding for hazardous fuels treatments has
quadrupled since 2000, the previous policy of treating the greatest
number of acres possible has led to a patchwork of activities that have
not been efficient in reducing risks to communities.
The proposed funding reduction for the Hazardous Fuels Reduction
program reflects a shift in focus toward conducting hazardous fuels
projects in WUI areas to reduce the risk of wildfire to communities.
These are the areas where suppression costs are the highest and where
hazardous fuels activities are most effective in reducing the risk of
catastrophic fires threatening communities and in reducing firefighting
costs. When there is a clear priority of treating acres within the WUI,
hazardous fuels treatments can be more effective in reducing risk.
The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture do
not take different approaches. Both agencies make informed decisions
that include using systematic modeling approaches to identify high-
priority projects, in high-priority areas. A consistent modeling
approach is applied in the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and
Allocation System (HFPAS). The HFPAS has four components that are taken
into consideration, current funding, the ecosystem management decision
support model that provides the priority areas, the project
prioritization system that identifies the priority projects, and
additional information that cannot be modeled, professional judgment/
management considerations, i.e. adjustments for unforeseen
circumstances.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Feinstein. We have to do better.
So I want to thank Representative Schiff. I want to thank
you all, and I think I will recess the hearing. Thank you very,
very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Wednesday, May 26, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]