[Senate Hearing 109-475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-475
REVIEW OF THE 2005 WILDFIRE SEASON & PREVIEW OF THE 2006 WILDFIRE
SEASON
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE 2005 WILDFIRE SEASON & FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES'
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 2006 WILDFIRE SEASON
__________
APRIL 5, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-622 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 2
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Hatfield, Nina Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy,
Management and Budget, Department of the Interior.............. 4
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 3
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 6
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 17
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 3
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 29
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 33
REVIEW OF THE 2005 WILDFIRE SEASON & PREVIEW OF THE 2006 WILDFIRE
SEASON
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for
attending this oversight hearing on Federal fire preparedness.
I'd like to welcome everyone to the hearing this afternoon and
to develop an overview of this year's fire season.
Today, testimony will be provided by the Department of
Agriculture's Under Secretary of Natural Resources and
Environment, Mark Rey. Mark, welcome before the committee. And
the Department of the Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Policy, Management, and Budget, that's Miss Nina Rose Hatfield.
Nina, welcome again. Both are accompanied by their respective
fire experts who will be happy to answer the questions we might
have. Welcome to all of you.
As you all know, we are heading into this year's fire
season and in some regions of the country it has already been
an extraordinary fire season. One only has to look at what
happened in Texas and Oklahoma with hundreds of thousands of
acres burned in January and February to worry about what kind
of fire season we will have in the Southwest and in southern
California. For many other parts of the country where winter
moisture is near normal, we will have to see how much and at
what frequency we get summer rains that could control our fire
seasons. Sadly, the conditions of our Federal lands when it
comes to hazardous fuels is not changing quickly enough to make
anyone believe that one wet winter is going to put an end to
the string of bad and worsening fire years.
There are a number of changes in fiscal policy and shifts
in budget priorities that concern many senators, including
myself, but I'm going to leave them to the questions and
answers period of today's session. I do want to bring up an
issue that I believe underlies the entire question of why fire
suppression is so expensive, as well as a concern I have with
the recent shift in funding within the fiscal year 2006
hazardous fuels account. On March 30, the chief signed a memo
to all regional foresters, station directors, and area
directors pulling about $10 million in hazardous fuels funding
to spend that money in southern California. This redirection of
funding means that regions one and four, where my State is
located, will see approximately 2,000 acres less hazardous fuel
work done in this fiscal year than was originally planned, and
unless I miss my guess, the $414,561 being withdrawn from
regions one and four would accomplish many more acres in the
inner mountain country than they will in southern California.
So, Under Secretary Rey, would you please be so kind as to
explain why, after Congress focused so much emergency
supplemental hazardous fuels funds on southern California
forests over the last 3 or 4 years, the Forest Service thinks
that hazardous fuel suppression funding in southern California
is so much more important than similar work in my State of
Idaho. I will close by telling you that I will have a number of
other questions on this and will likely also submit additional
questions on this subject for your staff to answer.
Also for those of you interested in the implementation of
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, I anticipate holding an
oversight hearing on the implementation of that act in June and
July. So now let me turn first to the ranking member of the
full committee, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico.
Jeff.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate you and Senator Wyden having this hearing and
letting me participate. Let me just indicate the great concern
that I have--and I think all of New Mexico's elected officials
probably have--about the potential extreme fire risk that we
see in our State over the next few months. We have an extreme
drought that we have been experiencing in our State. The
Governor has declared a statewide fire emergency. This is the
first time in our State's history that that has happened. At
the same time, the State and Federal wildfire management
agencies currently are struggling to overcome a 20 percent cut
in the Forest Service wildfire preparedness budget, and that's
on top of a $2 million dollar cut from last year, fiscal year
2005. The State fire assistance budget for the Southwest has
been cut by 77 percent since 2003, and BLM is proposing to
eliminate altogether its $10 million State and local fire
assistance program. So these are important programs, and have
been important programs for our State.
I also am concerned about the issue that Senator Craig
raised about this recent directive from Washington to
reallocate hazardous fuels reduction funds from my State of New
Mexico to California. The directive cuts more from the
Southwest than from any other region, even though, as I can see
it--I may be missing something in the weather reports--but as I
see it, there's no place in the country that is more likely to
need that funding in the next few months than New Mexico. So I
think the cutting of those funds is not justified based on all
that I know and I hope to ask some questions about that. Thank
you.
Senator Craig. Jeff, thank you very much.
Let me turn to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests, serving with me on this subcommittee,
Senator Ron Wyden. Ron.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you and
Senator Bingaman have said it very well and I would only add
the following briefly. It was a bad fire year last year and
certainly for many communities around the country it looks like
we're going to get hit with infernos once more. But it seems to
me the administration is still ignoring the basic problems that
feed these horrible fires and literally my constituents call
them infernos.
The problems essentially fall into three areas: inadequate
funding for hazardous fuels, reductions, and thinning. I was
very pleased, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned we're going to do an
oversight hearing in this area. I think that's very
constructive, and as always, I want to work with you in a
bipartisan way on that. I hear constantly from local
communities that they are not getting the money for the
thinning that's needed. So inadequate funding for hazardous
fuels reductions, inadequate flexibility so that communities
that need less, depending on the year, for fire suppression,
and we could use more of the dollars for fire prevention. I
think that we all understand it is an important preventive kind
of medicine. It, too, is being shorted.
Also, I think you and Senator Bingaman have touched on the
funding cuts, reallocating money to southern California seems
to me to be a dubious proposition at best, but in addition, we
are seeing inadequate support for the handful of programs that
make a difference in rural communities and particularly help to
leverage funds at the local level. For example, the Forest
Service has a program called the Economic Action Program that
for every dollar the Federal Government has made available,
something like $5 has been generated at the local level from
nonprofit programs and a variety of local kinds of sources, and
these programs are being cut as well.
So those are three, I think, unfortunate trend lines with
respect to how the Government deals with this fire issue. I
look forward to working with you and Senator Bingaman and
Senator Murkowski and our committee of westerners that have
taken a special interest in this for a reason, and that is that
we have had an awful lot of these tragedies over the last few
years in our part of the world.
Senator Craig. Ron, thank you very much. Now let us turn to
our panel. Oh, I'm sorry, Lisa, you moved in and I was less
than observant. Let me recognize the Senator from Alaska, Lisa
Murkowski, for any opening comments she would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really
have any formal opening comments. I'm here again to check on
what the prognosis is for my State. Looking at the map, it
looks like about half of the State is expected to be up in
flames this year. We hope that's not the case. As I look at it,
the areas where we're not predicted to have fire, it's partly
because that's a tropical rainforest. The northern part has no
trees and the Aleutian chain is in a different kind of
geography of its own. So we're very concerned up north.
I appreciate the focus of today's hearing being on the
impacts of last year's fire season, and what's happened thus
far this year. The good news for us up north is that we still
have good snow cover and our season hasn't started, but last
year we started in early April and we're concerned once again.
And so I appreciate the focus, Mr. Chairman, and look forward
to the testimony from the witnesses.
Senator Craig. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much.
Now let me turn to Mark Rey, the Department of
Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment. Once again, Mark, welcome before the committee. We
get you here, if not on a monthly basis, a biweekly basis and
we appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Rey. It seems just like yesterday. On this particular
one, we thought that Secretary Hatfield would go first, if
that's all right with you.
Senator Craig. All right. Nina, thank you very much.
Secretary Hatfield, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF NINA ROSE HATFIELD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Ms. Hatfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the subcommittee. We appreciate this opportunity to review the
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior's
preparedness for the 2006 fire season. Accompanying us are Jim
Douglas, who's the Deputy Director of the Office of Wildland
Fire Coordination in the Department of the Interior and Tom
Harbour, who's the Director of Fire and Aviation Management
with the Forest Service.
There are three themes that characterize our efforts in
wildland fire management and hazardous fuel reduction: the
availability of forces that are necessary to achieve a high
rate of success, good management of our firefighting forces,
and collaboration with our partners. Our preparedness ensures
initial attack capability, with public and firefighter safety
continuing to be the highest priority in our operations.
As we look back on the 2005 fire season, it was a year of
fire, wind, and rain. Approximately 66,000 fires burned 8.7
million acres of Federal, State, and private lands. Fifty
percent of that acreage was in Alaska. The western and eastern
Great Basin and southwest also experience significantly greater
than normal fire activity. Importantly, wildland fire use
accounted for an additional 489,000 acres. In 2005, Federal
fire suppression cost totaled $984 million.
Now, in addition to those fire activities, we also were
tasked by FEMA for emergency response under the National
Response Plan following Hurricane Katrina and Rita. The
interagency response peaked on October 1 with 28 incident
management teams on assignment. We had approximately 5,500
people, including 139 crews and 2,780 management and support
personnel assigned. While most of the response operations wound
down in November, interagency teams continue to work with the
States to plan for long-range fuel mitigation, fire readiness
and prevention, and the fire suppression effort. The remaining
personnel and equipment still providing State forestry
assistance for hurricane response efforts will be demobilized
on April 8.
As we look forward to the 2006 seasonal wildland fire
outlook, the 2006 fire season, as you've noted, started early
this year and fire activity has been well above normal in the
southern and eastern areas of the United States. As this map
demonstrates, the National Interagency Fire Center Predictive
Services Office expects fire potential to be significantly
higher than normal in the Southwest, southern California,
portions of the Rocky Mountain area, Texas, Oklahoma, and
central Alaska. Due to the lack of snow and rain, very dry
conditions also extend from Florida to Virginia where an active
fire season is likely this spring. Warmer than normal
conditions are expected over much of the south and west with
drier than normal conditions predicted primarily from the
southern Rockies to the southeast coast. By midsummer, other
portions of the rest, such as the Great Basin or northern
California, are expected to see above-normal fire potential.
Overall, we anticipate a very active fire season for the
remainder of 2006.
In anticipation of that, we have secured and are securing
firefighting forces, firefighters, equipment, and aircraft
comparable to those that were available in 2005. The location
of fire risk shifts with the progression of spring and summer,
as the need arises, we will increase our firefighting ability
by locating our firefighters and equipment in the areas of
severe risk. The predictive services staff continually analyzes
weather, climate, and fuel conditions. The frequency of their
assessments continue to increase as the fire season progresses.
Fire managers can use these analyses to assign local,
geographic, and national firefighting personnel and equipment
based upon anticipated fire starts, fire spread, and severity.
Our 2006 firefighting forces include full-time professional
fire program leaders, firefighters hired based on geographic
area fire seasons, Federal agency personnel who are qualified
and mobilized as needed to perform incident management duties,
State and local personnel, contract equipment, aircraft and
crews, firefighting personnel from other countries, and
Department of Defense aircraft and personnel. Overall, we
anticipate that more than 18,000 firefighters will be
available, including the permanent and seasonal Federal and
State employees, crews from tribal and local governments,
contract crews, and emergency temporary hires. We intend to
have 17 Type-1 national interagency incident management teams
and 38 Type-2 incident management teams available for
geographic or national incidents.
As in the past, initial attack of a fire is handled by the
closest available local resource regardless of our agency
jurisdictions. When local areas experience severe fire risk we
will continue to move firefighters, equipment, and teams to
those areas to increase our firefighting ability. So with that
I'd like to turn to Mr. Rey to talk about the rest of our
statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you very much. As you can see, we have
submitted a single statement for the record and my statement
picks up in the discussion of our aviation program. That was,
indeed, the subject of a previous hearing on February 15, so I
will not repeat that testimony except to say that our 2006
aviation plan includes 16 large air tankers, 258 large and
medium helicopters, 2 CL-215 airtankers, 107 single-engine
tankers, and a total of 8, over the course of the year,
military C-130 aircraft equipped with modular airborne
firefighting system units. Some of those C-130's have already
been used in the south-central States in the fire season so
far.
For fiscal year 2006, the total fire preparedness budget
for the fire program for both Departments is $934.9 million.
The Forest Service receives $666 million and allocates $478
million of this to its regions for fire preparedness. The
remaining $188 million supports a variety of services, such as
the National Interagency Fire Center, the National Advanced
Fire and Resource Institute in Tucson, the Washington Fire and
Aviation program and projects, the Missoula and San Dimas
Technical Development Centers, and the Albuquerque Service
Center for processing personnel and business transactions. The
Department of the Interior receives $268.8 million for fire
preparedness that is allocated to the four participating U.S.
Department of the Interior Bureaus.
Over the last several weeks, as the 2007 budget has been
proposed, we've seen a number of statements to one degree or
another taking issue with individual line items in the National
Fire Plan account implying that funding for the National Fire
Plan overall is being reduced. That is emphatically not the
case. Funding for the National Fire Plan has increased each
year since 2001. Indeed it's worth noting that in 2000 we were
spending, together with the Department of the Interior, $936
million to implement the National Fire Plan. We are requesting
for fiscal year 2007 $2.57 billion, an all-time record for an
administration request in this area.
Now, obviously, within that overall budget we make
adjustments in individual line items. Some are up, most are up,
some are down and there are good reasons for those which are up
and those which aren't and we can talk about those
individually. But I want to belay the impression that because a
single line item is down--particularly a relatively small line
item, since those are the ones we hear the most about--anyone
should come away with the impression that overall funding is
down, because that's not the case. It is, in fact, up. It is,
in fact, up substantially from where it was 6 years ago.
In addition to overall budgets, we have been engaged, as
our testimony indicates, in an effort over the last 2\1/2\
years for cost containment on large incident fires, those fires
which account for about 85 percent of the suppression costs.
Several improvements have been made and that effort will
continue this year along the lines indicated in our testimony.
With regard to hazardous fuels reduction, we have, as you
all know, a tremendously complex, dangerous fire and fuel
situation in the United States. Many of the issues that we're
addressing in the fuels area are particularly challenging due
to extended drought, but we're pleased to report both a
substantial increase in collaborative community-based planning
to help restore forested landscapes, as well as absolute
accomplishments over the last 5 years in what we've been able
to treat. Today, on the average, we are treating four times
more acres per year of Federal lands that are at risk to
catastrophic fire than we were in any of the years of the
1990's. By the end of fiscal year 2007, the budget year which
we're currently considering, assuming that Congress funds our
request for fuels treatment in 2007 and that we meet our
targets, we will have treated somewhat in excess of 26 million
acres, 26.2 million acres to be precise. That's somewhat larger
than the land mass of the State of Ohio, which is the State
from which I originate, therefore it has some resonance to me.
For the people in the field who were pushing hard to do this
treatment work, I can assure you they're glad I wasn't born in
Texas.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rey. The stewardship contract authority that you
granted us beginning in 2003 has also been significant and
beneficial. We have created 207 stewardship contracts since
that time. We have 60 more scheduled for creation this year and
80 more for 2007. And the receipts that have been returned to
us from those contracts have generated $8.5 million, which has
been reprogrammed into fuels treatment work. So by any measure,
the success has been substantial. The budgets have been
substantial, indeed, as is the case with fire suppression. The
budget request for fuels treatment is an all-time record. Now,
we can debate whether, notwithstanding the fact that it's an
all-time record for an administration request, it's high
enough, but I would say with all due respect that Congress has
failed to fund the administration's fuels treatment request in
2006 and 2005. So I don't think that the primary issue is with
the request, it's with the allocations that we make during the
appropriations process.
With that, we will be happy to respond to any of your
questions. I'll start by responding to the first one posed by
Senator Craig and echoed by Senator Bingaman and that's the
most recent reallocation proposal to put more money into
southern California. We do think, given the resource values
that are at stake in southern California, that that's a wise
investment. We have reconsidered taking any money out of other
regions, and about $2.5 million that we were reprogramming from
other regions we're not going to do. We'll find the $2.5
million by reprogramming from other accounts and other
priorities either within the California region or in the
headquarters office. So I think we can assure you that, as was
the case in the original program allocation among the regions,
every region will see at least a slight increase in fuels
treatment dollars in 2006 over what they saw in 2005. With
that, both Secretary Hatfield and I would be happy to respond
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hatfield and Mr. Rey
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nina Rose Hatfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Policy, Management and Budget, Department of the Interior, and Mark
Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department
of Agriculture
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to review with you the Forest Service's and the Department
of the Interior's preparedness for the 2006 fire season. Since the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture work
closely together in fire management, the two Departments are providing
a joint statement.
Three themes characterize our efforts in wildland fire management
and hazardous fuels reduction--availability of forces necessary to
achieve a high rate of success, good management of firefighting forces,
and collaboration with partners. Our preparedness ensures initial
attack capability, with public and firefighter safety continuing to be
a core value in our operations. Reducing fuels to lessen the risk and
severity of fires--preventative treatment--is a critical part of our
fire management efforts.
2005 FIRE SEASON
2005 was a year of fire, wind, and rain. Approximately 66,000 fires
burned 8.7 million acres of Federal, State, and private lands; 50
percent of the acreage was in Alaska. Other areas of the country
experiencing significantly greater than normal fire activity were the
western and eastern Great Basin and the Southwest. Twenty five fires
exceeded 40,000 acres each. wildland fire use--by which fire was used
to achieve resource management objectives in predefined geographic
areas--accounted for an additional 489,000 acres. FY2005 Federal fire
suppression costs totaled $984 million including costs for hurricane
response.
HURRICANE EFFECTS AND AFTERMATH
The Forest Service and Department of the Interior were tasked by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for emergency response
under the National Response Plan following Hurricane Katrina which made
landfall on August 29, 2005, on the Gulf Coast, and Hurricane Rita
which made landfall on September 24, 2005, at Louisiana and Texas.
The ability of the Forest Service, the Department of the Interior,
and their partners to contribute to hurricane emergency response is
based upon years of experience in wildfire suppression and the use of
the Incident Command System, the Incident Qualifications and
Certification System (IQCS) and the Resource Ordering and Status System
(ROSS). Interagency response peaked on October 1 with 28 Incident
Management Teams on assignment. Approximately 5,500 people, including
139 crews and 2,780 management and support personnel, all qualified in
the IQCS system, were assigned. In addition, 1734 pieces of equipment
and 16 helicopters and fixed winged aircraft were mobilized and tracked
through ROSS. Incident management teams managed all agency
communications, coordinated the receipt and distribution of supplies,
provided evacuees with food, shelter, and clothing, and supported
emergency medical operations at the New Orleans base camp. Incident
management teams also ran evacuation centers in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Houston and San Antonio, Texas. Teams provided base camp operations and
support to emergency responders and mortuary operations in 17 locations
in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The agencies and their partners
were able to adjust to the changing situation and provided coverage for
fire suppression as well as rescue services.
While most of the response operations wound down in November,
interagency teams continue to work with the States to plan for long
range fuel mitigation, fire readiness and prevention, and fire
suppression. The remaining personnel and equipment still providing
state forestry assistance for hurricane response efforts will
demobilize by April 8. We have conducted over 320,000 acres of
hazardous fuels reduction on National Forests in the Gulf states. In
addition over 60,000 acres of mechanical fuels treatment contracts have
been awarded in Mississippi National Forests. The Forest Service has
waived the normal 50/50 matching requirements for State Fire Assistance
grants to facilitate the States' procurement of equipment and services
for preparedness, mitigation of the severe fuel loading, and fire
suppression. Due to drought, the enormous damage to forests by the
hurricanes and resulting debris, firefighting crews and equipment have
been moved to the Gulf Coast in anticipation of increased fire risk.
2006 SEASONAL WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK
The 2006 fire season started early this year, and fire activity has
been well above normal in the Southern and Eastern areas of the United
States. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Predictive Service
Office expects fire potential to be significantly higher than normal
across most of the Southwest, southern California, portions of the
Rocky Mountain area, Texas, Oklahoma, and central Alaska. Recent
precipitation in the Southwest and southern Plains will provide only
temporary relief. Continued drought and carryover fine herbaceous fuels
from 2005 will present an elevated risk of large fires over much of the
West. Due to the lack of snow and rain, very dry conditions also extend
from Florida to Virginia, where an active fire season is likely this
spring. Assuming the weak La Nina pattern continues, warmer than normal
conditions are expected over much of the South and West into the summer
with drier than normal conditions predicted primarily from the southern
Rockies to the southeast coast. By mid-summer other portions of the
West, such as the Great Basin and northern California, are expected to
see above normal fire potential. Overall, we anticipate a very active
fire season for the remainder of 2006.
In this challenging fire season, citizens who live or vacation in
fire-prone areas can gain valuable information about how to increase
their safety and protect their homes and property through the FIREWISE
program. Homeowners can learn how to protect their homes with a
survivable, cleared space and how to build their houses and landscape
their yard with fire resistant materials. Information about the
FIREWISE program can be found at www.firewise.org, sponsored by a
consortium of wildland fire agencies that includes the Forest Service,
the Department of the Interior, the National Fire Protection
Association, and the National Association of State Foresters.
PREPAREDNESS
For the 2006 fire season, we have secured firefighting forces--
firefighters, equipment, and aircraft--comparable to those available in
2005 and achieve similar success at initial attack. As has already been
demonstrated during the fires in the Southeast and Southwest, we
increase firefighting ability by locating our firefighters and
equipment in areas of severe fire risk. The location of fire risk
shifts with the progression of spring and summer. The Predictive
Services staff continually analyzes weather, climate, and fuel
conditions; the frequency of their assessments increases as the fire
season progresses. Fire managers use the analyses to assign local,
geographic and, national firefighting personnel and equipment based on
anticipated fire starts, fire spread, and severity.
In 2006, firefighting forces include:
Full-time professional fire program leaders;
Firefighters hired based on geographic area fire seasons;
Federal agency personnel qualified and mobilized to perform
incident management duties in addition to their normal
responsibilities, often called the ``militia'';
State and local personnel (including volunteer fire
departments) through cooperative and mutual aid agreements;
Agency-owned equipment;
Contract equipment, aircraft, and crews; and
Firefighting personnel from other countries
Department of Defense aircraft and personnel.
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.
There are 17 Type 1 national interagency incident management teams (the
most experienced and skilled teams) available for complex fires or
incidents. Thirty-eight Type 2 incident management teams are available
for geographical or national incidents.
Initial attack of a fire is handled by the closest available local
resource regardless of agency jurisdiction. Generally this means that
the agency with management jurisdiction and protection responsibility
for the location of the fire, such as a national forest, Bureau of Land
Management unit, wildlife refuge, or national park, handles initial
attack. The local fire manager requests additional forces if the fire
continues to grow.
The National Interagency Coordination Center, located in Boise,
Idaho at NIFC, coordinates critical firefighting needs throughout the
nation. In the event of multiple, simultaneous fires, firefighting
forces are prioritized and allocated by the National Multi-Agency
Coordinating group, a multiagency group of national fire directors also
located at NIFC. Prioritizing ensures firefighting forces are
positioned where they are needed most. Fire managers dispatch and track
personnel, equipment, aircraft, vehicles, and supplies through an
integrated national system. In 2006, if conditions become extreme, we
will work with the Department of Defense under our standing agreements
to provide assistance; in addition, firefighting forces are also
available from Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand using
established agreements and protocols.
When local areas experience severe fire risk, we will continue to
move firefighters, equipment, and teams to those areas to increase our
firefighting ability.
The ability of the Forest Service, Department of the Interior
agencies, and their partners to respond to fires is the result of years
of experience in the use of the Incident Command System, the Incident
Qualifications Certification System, the Resource Ordering and Status
System, and communications. While wildfire is the main mission, in the
event of another hurricane or other national emergency, the Forest
Service and Department of the Interior will assist partners as needed
as part of the National Response Plan.
FIRE AVIATION
The fire aviation program has undergone significant changes since
the spring of 2004 when contracts for large airtankers were terminated
in the wake of the National Transportation Safety Board report
addressing airworthiness issues. Large airtankers are one of the many
tools that we use to suppress wildland fires. We have increased our
fleet of other firefighting aircraft to assist ground forces,
particularly during extended attack. We also note that during any year,
thousands of wildland fires are suppressed without the benefit of air
support. We testified before this Subcommittee on February 15, 2006,
about the status of our fire aviation programs and our interagency long
term aviation plan, so we will not go into detail here.
Our 2006 aviation plan includes 16 large airtankers and 258 large
and medium helicopters. Through cooperative agreements with states and
interagency partners, we have 2 CL-215 airtankers, and 107 single
engine airtankers (SEATS) ready for service. Four military C-130
aircraft equipped with the Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS)
are currently available. Four additional MAFFS aircraft are being
overhauled and will be ready by early summer.
MANAGEMENT
Fire Safety
The tremendous complexity of the wildland fire management
environment places many expectations upon our wildland firefighters.
Above all else, human safety is our first priority. The Forest Service
has adopted a foundational doctrine--principles guiding operations of
fire suppression activities and actions. Currently, the Forest Service
is reviewing guidance for dealing with the parts of fire suppression
that rely on interpretation, judgment, and agility. Review of current
practices and policies is being done by people with expertise in risk
management, human performance, fire safety, and the fire operations
safety council.
Department of the Interior agencies and the Forest Service continue
to require annual fireline safety refresher courses for all
firefighting personnel. Additionally, the ``6 Minutes for Safety'', an
interagency safety initiative, is issued daily during fire season and
alerts firefighters to high-risk situations. It is distributed
throughout the fire community.
Contracted firefighting forces are additional assets for the
agencies. A recent audit by the USDA Office of Inspector General looked
at the effectiveness of administration of contract crews. The Forest
Service agreed with the results of the audit and has implemented most
of the recommendations; the remainder will be implemented by the end of
this summer's fire season. This Forest Service is working with the
National Wildfire Coordinating Group to improve interagency oversight
for ensuring safe, reliable performance of contract crews.
Budget
For FY2006, the total fire preparedness budget for the fire program
for both Departments is $934.9 million. The Forest Service receives
$666 million and allocates $478 million of this to its regions for fire
preparedness; the remaining $188 million supports a variety of
services, such as the National Interagency Fire Center, the National
Advanced Fire and Resource Institute in Tucson, Arizona, Washington
Fire and Aviation program leadership, projects at the Missoula and San
Dimas Technology and Development Centers, the Albuquerque Service
Center to process personnel and business transactions, and Information
Technology programs. The Department of the Interior receives $268.8
million for fire preparedness that is allocated to the four
participating bureaus--the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
In the Appropriations language for the Forest Service for FY2006,
Congress directed that fire suppression pay a proportionate share of
cost pools (indirect costs) on the same basis as other funds. We want
to assure you that no crews have been reduced as a result of this
requirement because crews are funded through fire preparedness
allocations. However, this direction has reduced available suppression
funding by $209 million, which may significantly increase the need for
borrowing from other accounts in the event of a severe fire season. We
again urge the Congress to recede from this direction.
As a matter of policy, the Department of the Interior does not
assess indirect charges to the Fire Suppression program. However,
appropriate direct program costs for the Department's Aircraft
Management Directorate are charged to suppression. This policy ensures
that the majority of appropriated dollars reach the ground for
suppression operations. Furthermore, Department of the Interior policy
limits the amount of indirect charges to non-suppression programs to 10
percent.
Cost Containment
In 2004, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council convened a strategic
cost panel comprised of senior State, local, Tribal and Federal
representatives and incident management team members. The panel
examined cost containment, including methods to better integrate
suppression activities and vegetation management in a broader landscape
context. Teams are currently working on recommendations and have made
considerable progress in implementation. For example, we are working
with the U.S. Fire Administration to refine interoperability standards
between structural and wildland firefighters to expand the use of local
volunteer and rural fire departments in extended attack.
At Interior, we have aligned our 2006 Rural Fire Assistance program
with the new Ready Reserve program to focus on providing training and
safety gear to these volunteers to further expand wildland fire
response capability and minimize mobilization efforts. Geographic
coordination will be enhanced this year to more effectively manage
national resources for large fire suppression.
For incidents that meet certain size, cost, and duration criteria,
we will continue interagency large fire cost containment oversight. The
Forest Service asked the USDA Office of the Inspector General to
conduct a large fire cost review in 2005 and results should be out
later this year. We will continue our review of large fires in 2006.
HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION
We have a tremendously complex and dangerous fire and fuels
situation in the United States. Many of the issues we are addressing
are particularly challenging due to extended drought, climate change,
human demographics, and societal expectations of forests and
rangelands. We are pleased to report collaborative community-based
stewardship is helping to restore forested landscapes to a healthy
condition. We now treat more fuels than ever before.
Here are some other accomplishments in reducing hazardous fuels:
At the request of the Western Governors' Association (WGA),
the Wildland Fire Leadership Council is presently reviewing the
``Implementation Plan'' of the ``10 Year Comprehensive
Strategy'' signed by WGA and the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture in August 2001. The review is expected to be
completed in early summer.
Earlier this year, the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture completed a report entitled: ``Protecting People
and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy.''
The report presents policy and management objectives and
methods that will help reduce fire risk.
The Forest Service and Department of the Interior last year
treated hazardous fuels on more than 2.9 million acres of land,
and reduced hazardous fuels on an additional 1.4 million acres
through other land management actions. Over 2 million of these
acres were in the wildland urban interface. The agencies
achieved resource management objectives on 489,000 acres of
lands in predefined geographic areas through Wildland Fire Use.
The Department of the Interior, in collaboration with our
non-federal partners, has shifted the hazardous fuels program
to incorporate greater community protection. In 2001, Interior
agencies treated some 165,000 acres in the wildland urban
interface. Those acres accounted for 23 percent of our total
program. In 2005, over 540,000 acres in the wildland urban
interface were treated, a 230 percent increase and 43 percent
of all treated acres.
In 2005, State Foresters and local communities treated
77,000 non-Federal acres of hazardous fuels in the wildland
urban interface using funds from the State Fire Assistance,
administered by the Forest Service. For FY2006, funding will be
used by States, local and Tribal governments and non-
governmental organizations to build fire fighting capacity,
develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs), and
complete hazardous fuel projects.
State and Federal land management agencies and local
communities can use CWPPs to determine hazardous fuels
treatments in the wildland urban interface. As of March 1,
2006, 650 CWPPs covering 2,700 communities at risk have been
completed and 600 are in preparation.
In 2005, we increased firefighting capacity by providing
technical assistance, training and supplies to nearly 11,000
small rural communities through the Volunteer Fire Assistance
(Forest Service) and Rural Fire Assistance (Department of the
Interior). In 2006, additional funding will continue this work.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we are
prepared for the 2006 fire season. Where local areas experience severe
fire risk, firefighters, equipment and teams will be assigned. We have
a long term and complex fuels and fire situation that will continue to
need to be addressed by communities, Tribes, States, and federal
agencies. We appreciate your continued support and work as we move
forward on these challenges. We are happy to answer any questions you
might have.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you, Secretary Rey.
The chairman has had to excuse himself for a few minutes and
he's asked me to just kind of manage the order here.
Senator Bingaman, if you would care to pose any questions.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much. First, let me just
be clear, this report, Mr. Rey, that you're referring to here,
you say earlier this year the Department of the Interior and
the Department of Agriculture completed a report entitled
``Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels
Treatment Strategy.'' We're informed that that's not been
printed or is not available. We haven't been able to get a copy
of that.
Mr. Rey. It's actually at the printer now and will be
available very shortly. We'll provide copies for the record of
this hearing.
Senator Bingaman. Okay. That'll be good because I had
several questions about how that was coming. Let me also ask, I
noticed one statement in the combined statement that you've
submitted that this direction--you're referring back here to
the direction by Congress, and you say this direction has
reduced available suppression funding by $209 million, which
may significantly increase the need for borrowing from other
accounts in the event of a severe fire season.
My recollection is that we have had a pattern of borrowing
from other accounts, going back many years, whenever we wind up
with a more severe fire season than was anticipated, which
seems to be every year. And I guess the other concern or the
recollection I've got is that most of the so-called borrowing
is never paid back, so that it's really a misnomer to an
extent. I mean, it's taking funds from another account, using
them for fire suppression, and then never having those funds
that were intended for that other purpose available for that
other purpose. It's not as though you come back the next year
and put in those funds plus more. It's usually you just start
again and try to fund it. Is my impression correct there? Am I
wrong about this so-called borrowing?
Mr. Rey. Partially correct and partially not quite. In the
early part of this decade, as we were experiencing severe fire
seasons, we did utilize the authority provided by Congress to
borrow from any program account available to the Secretary to
fund fire suppression when we exhausted funds that were
appropriated for that purpose. Two years ago--well, before I
get to that, in subsequent supplemental appropriations bills,
portions of that borrowed amount were reinstated, but not all
of them. Usually that reinstatement was a negotiation between
the administration and the appropriations committees.
Typically, we were not repaid for the cost of staff time
that was diverted from whatever functions that they would have
otherwise been doing to doing fire control work or fire
suppression work. And there were some other accounts that were
not fully repaid, but they were not completely ignored, they
just weren't fully repaid. Two years ago, the appropriations
committees, and then subsequently the entire Congress, tiring
of that situation, created a contingency account which we have
not fully used and which we are carrying as part of the carry-
forward dollars that we'll use in 2006. I think we're sitting
on about $500 million in that account at present. So we have
not borrowed in the last two budget cycles and perhaps might
not need to in this cycle, depending in part on how bad the
fire season is, depending in part on how quickly FEMA closes
out its account assignments--assignment accounts, and
reimburses us for the money we spent in hurricane relief.
Senator Bingaman. So do I take it that you are
anticipating--if we have a severe fire season, you're
anticipating having to borrow from these other accounts again,
even though this contingency fund was established and still has
$500 million in it?
Mr. Rey. It's unclear whether we will borrow because it's
unclear how fast the season will get bad. If we're looking at a
late summer supplemental, as has been the case in previous
years, we could address it there, but I would say at this point
we've probably got a pretty good chance of not having to borrow
this year. The point of the statement in our testimony was that
in last year's appropriations bill the Appropriations Committee
gave us specific direction that the wildfire suppression
account shall be assessed for indirect costs on the same basis
as such assessments are calculated against other agency
programs. Previously, prior to this direction, we had not made
full assessments into the fire suppression account for indirect
costs in order to husband that money to avoid borrowing in the
future. If in the course of carrying forward our
responsibilities under the statute this year, we do make fuller
assessments to the suppression account for those overhead
expenses--their fair share, in other words, of some of the
overhead--then that account will be diminished more quickly and
that will increase the probability or at least the possibility
that we will be borrowing at some point later in the fiscal
year. I think the key variable, given what we have by way of
resources available to us now, that will dictate whether we
have to borrow or not are, first, the severity of the season
overall and, second, when we get into the most severe part of
the season, and then third, when either a supplemental or the
fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is enacted.
Senator Bingaman. Can I just ask one follow-up, Madam
Chairman? Do you have a projection--I mean, I made a statement
in my opening statement that this promises to be one of the
worst fire seasons in our State's history because of the
drought. Would you agree with that or do you not make
predictions on that?
Mr. Rey. I would say for your State that's true, but for a
good part of the rest of the West, it's not. And what will
drive our overall cost will be not only what happens obviously
in the Southwest, but as the fire season progresses, whether we
see the kinds of conditions that we think are going to exist in
the northern Rockies continue or whether that starts to
deteriorate as the summer progresses. So, unfortunately, the
bad news for New Mexico is, yes, this is probably going to look
a lot like 2002 and that means that the part of our fire season
that we enjoy in the Southwest, which is usually early May
through mid-July, will probably be a bad one. Now what happens
after is that is less certain.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you.
Senator Craig [presiding]. To the committee, some of us
have been asked to be on the floor at 3:15 for a speech by
Leader Frist and so I'm now going to turn to Senator Wyden for
questions and then to Senator Salazar and we will leave this--
Jeff, if you're leaving, we'll leave this in the hands of Ron.
I think Senator Murkowski will need to be going then, too. I
know I will submit my questions to you for the record and I do
appreciate your attention to them. With that, let me turn to
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess
from Mr. Rey we have heard things are going to go well in the
State of Ohio this year, which he has touched on, but I fear
that much of the rest of the----
Senator Craig. In leaving this is your good hands, Senator
Wyden, I do expect you to behave yourself.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. I am always going to be on best behavior. I
think what is troubling to me about all of this--and by the
way, this has gone on for years, there was a whole history of
this that goes back for some time--is that fighting fires has
been to some extent a financial shell game. Essentially what
happens is you wait for an emergency and then you go out to try
and borrow from whatever account isn't tied down and try to
stay in front of the marshals.
Now, as I understood it, Mr. Rey, you said this time there
may be some new money that has come for the contingency fund,
so that strikes me as something that should be useful in the
short term. But in this kind of difficult budget climate, won't
you run through the contingency fund very quickly and then
you're right back into the same old ritual that I call the
financial shell game of trying to borrow from anything else you
can get your hands on? What is your sense of how this
contingency fund would work? This is a one time only sort of
thing, is it not?
Mr. Rey. It was a one time investment that's carried us
through two fire seasons, so the question then would be what to
do next if we find ourselves short. What we do as a normal
course of budgeting is to budget the 10-year average for
suppression costs as part of our budget request, so our
suppression request has been going up each year as the fire
seasons have been difficult and costs have been increasing.
Next year will be the first time that the 10-year average will
actually dip, because last year was a year where we only spent
on firefighting itself, as opposed to the additional money
invested in hurricane relief, about $618 million. But I think
if we look at what we've budgeted for this year and the
contingency account and the reimbursement from FEMA, we're
going to end up pretty close.
As I told Senator Bingaman, there is a pretty good chance
that we won't be borrowing from existing operating accounts,
but the last variables that will determine that are how severe
the back half of the fire season is. We can project, based on
what we know now, that we're in a pretty difficult season in
the Southwest. What we can project with less certainty now is
what your State will end up looking like when the fire season
fully develops in Oregon or what the northern Rockies will look
like. If they dry up significantly over the course of the
latter half of May and June and the first half of July, then
we're going to be looking at a much worse fire season than the
case that existed the last couple of years, where they stayed
reasonably wet and the fire seasons were benign. So one
variable is what the back end of the fire season is going to
look like.
I guess the second variable is when the 2007 bill passes.
If the 2007 bill passes as it did last year, thanks to the
Congress we'll be already replenished without having to borrow
any other 2006 program accounts. If, on the other hand, we get
snarled up, as sometimes occurs, and the 2007 bill turns into
an omnibus bill that passes at a later date, then we'll be
fighting fires further into the latter part of fiscal 2006 and
the first part of fiscal 2007, if it's a bad year, using the
money that we have in hand, which in the case of a severe fire
season might require some borrowing. But right now, given the
resources that we have available and given the way the northern
part of the Rockies and the Northwest look, I think we have a
pretty good chance of not having to borrow this year. But it's
still a pretty close call and we're going to know more as we go
along.
Senator Wyden. Lots of ifs. Put me down as skeptical. I
mean, the whole history of this has been budget sleight of
hand, trying to get money from this source to patch up this
kind of hole. And you say if you're short you're going to be
able to look once again to the Appropriations Committee. All I
hear from the Appropriations Committee is ``no mas,'' that this
is the year that they're not going to be able to get this
additional funding.
One other question, I know my time is close to being up. In
addition to this process I call the financial shell game for
fighting fires, I'm not convinced that you all spend the
dollars you get in the right way and on the right programs. And
in particular I'm very troubled that the programs that seem to
be cut are the ones at the local level that do the best of
leveraging the most local dollars to supplement the Federal
effort. For example, you all propose to get rid of the Forest
Service Economic Action Program. Now in our part of the
country, for every dollar these programs get from the Forest
Service, they've got a history of being able to leverage $5 or
so from local sources, from nonprofits, from community actions
programs of charitable nature and the like. Yet the one that
you all choose to cut is the one that seems to be most
consistent with administration philosophy in terms of getting
more done at home. What is the logic of cutting something like
the Forest Service Economic Action Program? Not just cutting
it, getting rid of it all together.
Mr. Rey. A couple of observations here: First, the Economic
Action Program is not in and of itself a fire program. There
are some projects that have been funded with that money that
have a relevance to fire or fuels reduction work, but it is
what it is.
Senator Wyden. Just a second. Your point is a fair one.
What I'm talking about is the economic action programs at the
local level that are used for hazardous fuels reduction.
Mr. Rey. And there is a portion of those programs that are
used for it, but I think one of the things we're trying to do
is align these accounts to produce more efficient program
delivery by focusing on those agencies and departments who have
a larger and more established role and a record of greater
excellence in that--our Economic Action Program has existed
somewhere between $15 and $25 million a year and while it's
certainly useful and has done some useful things, our world
development programs, funded under the farm bill at several
orders of magnitude greater financing, do some of the same
things.
So what we've been trying to do is consolidate like
programs to eliminate the amount of overhead necessary to
deliver them, and to work with the people who were the
constituents of our Economic Action Program and move them
toward our world development program so that they can compete
and receive--as many of them are now doing--world development
grants or loan guarantees for some of the work that was
originally funded. When we can do that, we can then take the
Forest Service resources that were devoted to administering
this program and reprogram that into something that is our
center of excellence.
In regard to the various fire programs, the State fire
assistance grants and the volunteer fire assistance grants are
an example of a similar phenomenon. The Department of Homeland
Security and Fire Emergency Management administration manages a
State grant program that is several orders of magnitude larger
than ours, and the point we've been trying to establish is that
the preponderance of those grants had been going to larger
urban firefighting establishments, and with some assistance
from the Department of Homeland Security we've been able to
open those grants to some of the rural firefighting entities
that are funded through the State grant program. Now, some of
the most rural and smaller fire departments, particularly the
volunteer fire departments, don't have access to the Department
of Homeland Security grant program. That's why, in the broad
scheme of things, we decided to increase our volunteer
assistance program as we were decreasing the State grant
assistance program. It's our objective to try to make sure that
we can help the State firefighting agencies get money through
the Department of Homeland Security in a larger and more robust
program and then focus on those entities that can't access
those programs with the money that we retain to do that through
our National Fire Plan dollars.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Salazar,
but I'd only say two things. First, if you're talking
administrative costs and you're talking about administrative
overhead, these programs--come visit them in Oregon--these
economic action programs have probably the lowest overhead of
any programs on the planet. I mean, they are a textbook case
for how to hold down administrative and overhead costs. And I
will tell you that your argument that these programs that have
leveraged so many private sector dollars are duplicative, when
we ask you all to give us examples of what these economic
action programs are duplicating elsewhere, like in rural
development, we don't get any examples. We will continue the
dialogue with you on this.
Senator Salazar has been waiting patiently. Senator
Salazar, given the fact that both Senator Craig and I had to
go, can we entice you and Senator Cantwell to stay with us
until conclusion?
Senator Salazar [presiding]. Absolutely, Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Good to see you running the meeting. Thank
you. It is a very important issue for all of us and I want to
thank Mr. Harbour, Under Secretary Rey, Assistant Secretary
Hatfield and Mr. Douglas for coming here today to address this
very important issue that we're all facing.
I have an opening statement that I will submit for the
record, but what I would like to do today though is to focus
really on the bark beetle problem that we see in Colorado. The
essence of my comments and questions is: Are we doing enough
and what more can we do to try to address this infestation that
is causing problems and fire issues within the Western States?
For us in Colorado, as all of you I'm sure recall, we are
not unfamiliar with huge fires. The Hayman Fire in 2002
involved over four counties, and 138,000 acres were burned. I
was Attorney General at the time involved in the prosecution of
the person who started that fire. In that same year, the
Missionary Ridge Fire down in the southern part of the State
burned about 70,000 acres.
My great concern today is that we're in a position where we
are looking at a repeat of 2002 because of two conditions: One,
the drought is very much affecting the State of Colorado,
especially in the southern parts of our State, and second of
all, the major issue that we're facing with the infestation of
bark beetle.
I want to just show a couple of charts that demonstrate the
problem in a very visible form. The first one is taken in
Colorado and essentially shows the green part of this--shows
the major problem we're facing with bark beetle. You see that
entire side of the mountain where it's been turned brown,
infected by bark beetle, both on the upper end and the lower
end, and it's only the green part that still appears to be
healthy though probably already infected by this time by the
bark beetle itself. So it just shows the extent of the problem,
which when you look at the overall numbers for us in Colorado,
as of 2004 we had 1.5 million acres of national forests which
had been infected by the bark beetle. And I understand that in
2005 we had another 425,000 acres that were also infected. This
last chart just shows the severity of the problem in terms of
the fire fuel that is provided by all of these dead trees that
have been infected by the bark beetle.
So as I understand where we are in terms of funding to try
to deal with this issue, there has been enough money that's set
aside at the 2006 budget level to address fuel treatment for
about 35,000 acres. My understanding, from Colorado, is that
about four times as much money could actually be used with
respect to treatment, fuel treatment of these areas. So I'd
like you to respond, if you would, Under Secretary Rey, to just
that specific question in terms of the need on the one hand to
address the bark beetle problem and what appears to be about 25
percent of the resources available to address it. And then
second, if you also would just generally talk to us about how
it is that we can get our hands around this huge issue, because
it seems to me that it's going to continue to only grow
exponentially in terms of the problem and threat that it causes
to our national forests.
Mr. Rey. I'd be happy to talk about both. The two pictures
you have are very helpful, because they illustrate two points
that I want to make. First of all, there's no question that
we're facing a significant problem in the front range from one
of our episodic bark beetle explosions that occur periodically
throughout the West over time. When we can, one of the things
we try to do is to take out spot infestations as quickly as we
can before they spread. Once they've gotten beyond a spot
infestation and actually start to get rolling, then your
ability to stop them is diminished substantially because there
are no pesticides that are useful because they're under the
bark and for the most part pesticides, except on an individual
tree basis, are ineffective. This looks to me like what
probably was the beginning of a spot infestation. One of the
ways we try to deal with an infestation like this is to go in
and take out all the trees that are infected, using the
categorical exclusion from more detailed documentation under
the National Environmental Policy Act. We can get in cheaply
and quickly, and quickly is as important as cheaply, because we
have to get in before that spreads.
Now, that authority has been overturned by a Federal court
decision and we're not doing these projects under categorical
exclusions anymore. We are, at least until we can appeal that
decision to the Ninth Circuit or something else intervenes,
forced to do a full environmental assessment, which takes not
only more money, which reduces the amount of work that can be
done overall, but more time, mitigating the prospect of doing a
spot--attacking a spot like that quickly, before it spreads.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask a question on the spot
infestation. You say, ``when we can.'' I understand the legal
challenge you have now with the recent court decision. Give me
a quantification, if you can, Under Secretary Rey, about how we
would use the authority, if we did have the categorical
exclusion, in terms of going after these areas that have been
infested. For example, if you were to take my State of
Colorado, how many of these spots do you think we could go
after and cut down to avoid the bark beetle from spreading to
other areas?
Mr. Rey. We probably would try to get almost all of them
that are of this size. Once they get much beyond this, then
that tool doesn't work anymore.
Senator Salazar. When we talk about spot infestation--and I
understand trying to get to the problem early, trying to get
rid of those trees before the pollen spreads. What kind of
criteria do we use to come up with the definition of what is a
spot?
Mr. Rey. Usually, size. If we're still under a couple of
acres in size. That's something we would try to do with a CE,
if we had that authority.
Senator Salazar. So there's an acreage size; you would say
under two acres?
Mr. Rey. Probably more like under 5 to 10 acres in each
case. Beyond that, if it's much larger than 10 acres, there's a
pretty good probability it's already spread, that you didn't
get it fast enough.
Senator Salazar. I know I'm out of time and I want to
respect Senator Cantwell's time as well, but could you, in just
60 seconds or so, describe to me the general issue where you're
doing a bark beetle containment beyond dealing with the spot
infestation?
Mr. Rey. That's where your second picture comes in handy--
if we could put that back up--because the middle stripe in that
is a fuel break. Once we get to what are almost pandemic
situations, and we're approaching that point in the Rocky
Mountain front, then the ability to treat the whole infestation
is severely reduced. At that point, you're looking to treat
around communities and protect structures and the wildland
interfacing. You're trying to build strategic fuel breaks,
assuming that you're probably not going to be able to treat
these areas. But if it does burn, you can keep the fire within
a perimeter that is acceptable. That's a less than ideal
situation, obviously, but when you get an epidemic to this
degree, sometimes that's what you have to do. If on the next
round you want to talk a little bit about some of the things we
are doing in trying to encourage on the Rocky Mountain front,
I'd be happy to talk about those as well.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask you if you would do this, Under
Secretary Rey, I would request formally--and I'll send you a
letter on this--to give me a summary in writing of what it is
that you're doing within my State. You may want to expand it
beyond Colorado, in terms of just the National Forest System,
with respect to bark beetle.
Mr. Rey. I'd be happy to do that, because we've been
meeting with a lot of your constituents, local and State
government people, and we have a couple of things that we think
will help, that we pioneered in northern Arizona, which a
couple of years back had a similar infestation.
Senator Salazar. I thank you very much. It is going to be a
huge, continuing and very, very important issue for all of us.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wyden. I appreciate this
opportunity to examine our wildfire preparedness for the coming fire
season. Thank you, Secretary Rey and Secretary Hatfield, for being here
today.
I will cut right to it: we are facing an extremely dangerous
wildfire situation in Colorado, maybe worse than we have ever faced.
Below-average snowfalls, protracted drought, and a massive bark beetle
infestation have created fuel loads that threaten forest health,
property, and human life. I fear that we are facing a perfect storm of
conditions for devastating fires this summer in Colorado.
The southern half of Colorado, and much of the Southwest, has been
hit by yet another year of below-average precipitation. With the
exception of a few areas in Colorado's northern mountains,
precipitation levels this winter were 25-50% of average. Colorado is
now in its seventh consecutive year of drought.
Usually our big fires will come in late spring or summer, but we
had our first big one just 10 days into January this year. We evacuated
40 people from Aguilar, Colorado and three homes were destroyed . . .
on January 10th. That doesn't bode well for July and August when the
temperatures are in the 90s and 100s.
In addition to the dangers caused by drought, a bark beetle
infestation of unprecedented magnitude is killing trees over hundreds
of thousands of acres, leaving huge, dry fuel loads in its wake. Across
Colorado, but particularly in the Arapaho National Forest, bark beetles
have turned entire swaths of forest into brown, dead stands. In 2004,
bark beetles killed an estimated 7 million trees over 1.5 million acres
in Colorado.
When you see pictures that show the stands that have been hit by
the bark beetle, you can see why people are so concerned. You can
easily imagine what a fire would look like if it got into one of these
stands--it would jump from crown to crown, racing up these ridges and
through the forest faster than we could respond.
Beetle-kill stands are everywhere in Grand County and Larimer
County, and are increasingly visible in pockets along the Front Range,
among houses and communities in the wildland-urban interface.
The areas with smaller outbreaks, like those in the Pike National
Forest and the Gunnison National Forest are just as worrisome as the
massive outbreaks in northern Colorado. When we see beetle-kill trees
like these, it usually means that the bark beetles are already
attacking the surrounding trees.
The beetles usually attack by chewing their way through the bark of
the trees. At maturity, the beetles have pouches, which carry spores of
a blue-staining fungus. In the tree, the spores dislodge from the
beetle and the fungus begins to germinate. In a few weeks, the fungus
blocks the conductive vessels in the bark, preventing nutrients from
reaching the foliage. Within a year the tree's foliage turns brown and
the tree dies. These beetle outbreaks are usually part of the natural
process. Normally they attack a few trees that are the least healthy.
The current drought, though, has stressed even the healthiest trees,
making entire forests vulnerable to this infestation.
Private land owners and local governments are doing their best to
reduce the danger to property and lives--and I appreciate all efforts
the Forest Service can make to partner with these local initiatives--
but there simply are not enough resources available right now to curb
the advance of this infestation.
At the FY06 budget levels, Colorado will receive only 35,000 acres
of fuels treatment--but they could do three or four times as many acres
if funding were available. An additional 12,500 acres are ready for
timber sales and forest health treatments, but these projects, cleared
through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, have been
shelved for lack of funding. People don't understand why Congress and
the Administration aren't moving faster to curb this onslaught--to
clear out the dead trees, to create buffers to prevent the beetle from
spreading, from providing more resources and expertise to help local
communities protect themselves.
Coloradans are anxious because we remember the fire storms of 2002,
when the Hayman Fire burned 138,000 acres on the Front Range, the
Missionary Ridge Fire burned 70,000 acres near Durango, and scores of
other fires across the state chewed up resources and claimed property
and lives.
This year could be as bad, or worse, if we don't get more resources
to the front lines right now. We must find a way to reprogram funds,
or, if that is not possible, provide emergency funding. Whatever we do,
we must act quickly. The fire season is already upon us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Salazar. Senator Cantwell, I turn the baton over to
you.
Senator Cantwell. I didn't know I was going to get to call
you ``Mr. Chairman'' so soon, but thank you for chairing this
committee. And Secretary Rey and other panelists, thank you for
being here.
I wanted to talk about the Department of Agriculture's
recent inspector general report that was issued a few weeks ago
that found that roughly one-third of the contract wildland
firefighters did not meet----
Senator Salazar. Senator Cantwell, since you give me the
accolade of being the chair, the gavel----
Senator Cantwell. For not even 30 seconds.
Senator Salazar. Congratulations to you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Salazar. The report
basically said that the firefighters were not meeting the
standards set out by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group,
or that they lacked the documentation necessary. In a lot of
ways, the IG report was very damning in the sense of procedures
to conduct a review of their qualifications, records,
monitoring--all of those were not being met. So, Mr. Rey, first
I want to know, do you concur with the findings that are in
this IG report?
Mr. Rey. We concur with their recommendations for action
so----
Senator Cantwell. You don't concur on their findings? You
don't think it's----
Mr. Rey. We might differ or quibble with the way some of
the individual findings are stated, but I don't think that
that's relevant because the recommendations are sound and we're
going to implement them and are implementing them. And there
were five specific recommendations and we have programs
underway to deal with each of them.
Senator Cantwell. And since this I think is the third time
for you and me going round and round about fire safety and the
training of individuals, particularly the contract workers, and
whether they were being trained properly, asking for separation
of actual budget expense spent on training and never getting
that information. So now it's a little hard to say, ``Okay,
we're going to meet and accept these recommendations and
implement them.'' The thing that was so shocking about the 30-
Mile Fire, in which we in the Northwest lost four young
individuals that were part of a contract group, is the fact
that when you look back at what were some of the challenges and
difficulties that they faced on that day, they were very
similar to the same problems that had been faced in other
wildland fires. In fact, it was almost haunting when you look
at the recommendations that came out of the Storm King Fire and
the recommendations that were then being made about what were
the mistakes made in 30-Mile Fire. It was like looking at the
same recommendations X number of years later and then
repeating, ``Oh, we still haven't corrected that.'' So you can
imagine that to just say we're going to implement those--what
specifically is going to be done differently with these
recommendations that's going to give those entities that are
out there putting workers on the line and fighting fires the
confidence that these individuals really are going to meet the
training or requirements?
Mr. Rey. Let me break it down recommendation by
recommendation. Their first recommendation is that we should
develop a program to review and verify the national contract
firefighter qualification records. We are in the process of
doing that and will complete that before we issue the national
contract awards.
Senator Cantwell. For this season?
Mr. Rey. They will be in the 2006 crew contracts before
those contracts are finally executed.
The second recommendation is that we should verify that the
training sessions conducted by the association of contractors,
because they have banded together for training purposes and
other purposes into an association, but that we sufficiently
monitor their training protocols and sessions so that we can
assure that they're in accordance with the National Wildfire
Coordinating Group training protocols that we use for our own
employees. And we are doing that this year as their training
systems--their training sessions get underway this spring. So
we will have our staff in attendance monitoring the training
work that they're doing.
The third recommendation is that we should ensure that the
associations--again, the associations that represent the
contractors--and restrict privileges to create and modify their
electronic training records to individuals who don't have an
employment or financial interest in any contractor's business.
What essentially the IG said is that the electronic records of
the training that is conducted should have a firewall so that
it can't be accessed by individuals who have a financial
interest in the business operations of a contractor. There
should be a wall between the training entity of their
association and their individual business; the individual
contractor should not have access to those data bases, because
there's no way to assure then the integrity of the data bases
and the training that has occurred and been documented; and we
will modify the contracts and evaluate the computer systems
that the associations are using to compile the information that
they use to report to us about the training that occurs so that
it can't be accessed by the individual contractors as it's
compiled.
The fourth recommendation was to adopt the Oregon
Department of Forestry's standardized field language assessment
for national contract crews and to complete the pre-season
language assessment and certification procedure. One of the
things the IG did was to not only look at our contract
operations but look at the Oregon Department of Forestry's
contract operations. They actually have more contract teams
than we do because the contract work force is a larger
percentage of their overall work force. The IG's conclusion is
that their language certification and assessment protocols were
superior to ours. As we've reviewed them, we agree and we're
substituting theirs for ours in the 2006 contracts.
And then their last recommendation is to coordinate with
those Federal agencies that have regulatory or enforcement
authority in order to identify counterfeit documents used to
obtain employment on contract crews. Those were the counterfeit
documents associated with the immigration status of the
individuals who are hired by the contractors. That was a
problem years ago. We've dealt with it for a while. It's a
chronic issue that requires a chronic--or consistent, I should
say--level of attention. And I'd say it's probably fair that we
haven't paid as much attention to that as we did in years past
when it was a larger problem. The IG's recommendation is well-
considered and we'll go back to the level of monitoring and
assessment and cooperation with the INS and Customs Service
that we were doing several years ago when we were having a much
more chronic difficulty with the contractors that are providing
us this service.
Senator Cantwell. What is the point on that last issue in
your mind?
Mr. Rey. The point on the last one is to make sure that
they're here legally.
Senator Cantwell. Because if someone's violating these--
they're violating dropping the ball on this end of the issue
they're likely to be dropping the ball in other areas?
Mr. Rey. Exactly.
Senator Cantwell. Because one of the things the IG report
was clear on is that communication on the line is critically
important. And when you have a workforce that you can't
communicate with--so they might in some cases even be--act
appropriately, documented to be working, but what's the process
for overseeing and requiring that there is good communication
and sufficient understanding of command on the fire line?
Mr. Rey. That's the point of adopting the Oregon Department
of Forestry language assessment protocols, to do a better job
of testing and assessing the English language capabilities of
the contract crew members. That was a recommendation for----
Senator Cantwell. If they don't meet that, they won't be
hired?
Mr. Rey. Correct.
Senator Cantwell. Now, what'll the penalties be for--how
will you assess whether the performance of individual
associations who've done the association training sessions, how
will you verify their success and what will you do when you
find problems? Because obviously monitoring on the front end is
one thing----
Mr. Rey. Right. Being able to evaluate their success is
part of the reason to make sure that the data bases that they
turn over to us are secure and can't be modified, so we're
going to install these new requirements into the contracts,
we're going to monitor on a firsthand basis the implementation
of these new requirements as training is conducted by the
contractor's associations in the field, we're going to evaluate
in addition to monitoring the data about training and
capability that's provided to us from the association, and then
if we're not getting the performance against these new contract
provisions that we want, that'll be grounds for contract
termination. If, on the other hand, what we're finding is----
Senator Cantwell. What would contract termination mean?
Mr. Rey. That means----
Senator Cantwell. Would you seek more people from the same
training group in the future?
Mr. Rey. No, we would----
Senator Cantwell. It would be disqualified, you're saying?
Mr. Rey. We would terminate the contract of that
contractor, and then, under our contracting rules, we'd have to
evaluate the grievousness of the failure to perform on the
contract to decide whether this is simply a case of terminating
this contract or beginning a process of debarring the
contractor from ever being able to bid on any further
contracts. The contract laws do protect contractors from
automatic debarment unless certain circumstances are met, so
it's a fairly severe remedy to go to debarment, although it is
done.
Senator Cantwell. Is that part of Department regulation or
you're just saying that's part of negotiation in contracts?
Mr. Rey. The terms for termination are part of the
departmental regulation. The terms for debarment are
Government-wide standards for the most part. So debarment is a
very severe remedy that can't be done in all instances.
Termination, on the other hand, is something that we have a
greater degree of flexibility on and then stop-work orders we
have even greater flexibility on. So to go to your specific
question, what are the remedies, the least severe remedy is a
stop-work order, stop working on the contract until you correct
the flaws that we've discovered. The second most severe remedy
is to terminate the contract, you're so far away from
performance that we don't see any point in continuing, or to
terminate and look for another contractor to do this job. And
then the third most severe remedy is debarment. In that case,
you as a contractor have exhibited repeated violations and a
failure to correct them and we have now moved into an area
where we have grounds for debarring you, which means not only
is this contract terminated but you can't bid on any contracts
in the future, in some cases for a period of time and in other
cases forever, depending on the grounds for debarment.
Senator Cantwell. And you're saying all this will be in
place for the 2006 fire season?
Mr. Rey. Much of what I've described is in place as a
matter of course. What will be in place for the 2006 fire
season are new contract provisions that meet the five
requirements of the IG, the five recommendations that flow from
the IG's findings. And those new contract requirements will
then be the ones we enforce against in deciding whether, if
they're not met, we go to stop-work, termination, and
ultimately, at some point, debarment.
Senator Cantwell. And what did you mean, Mr. Secretary,
that these mostly are in place?
Mr. Rey. The procedures for stop-work, termination, and
debarment.
Senator Cantwell. Oh, okay.
Mr. Rey. Those are not new. Those are----
Senator Cantwell. So you think the change from this--
because this IG report is reflecting what they think has been
practiced in the last 12 months and many more before that.
Mr. Rey. Correct.
Senator Cantwell. So you're saying you take this and the
implementation of this--you think the changes--by putting
language into contracts, it gives you the ability to terminate
associations that aren't meeting a standard?
Mr. Rey. Individual contractors actually. The associations
do some of this work. It's the contractors who we have
individual contractual relationships with.
Senator Cantwell. Right. But the training then leads them
into the contract.
Mr. Rey. Right. But the remedy we would seek is against the
contractor. They, in turn, would probably stop funding their
association if the training protocols weren't meeting our
needs. Their remedy would be against their association. The way
it--hopefully, this is straightforward, but the way it works is
that they band together to create the associations to do the
training, because it's something that can, on the face of it,
be done more effectively by somebody who specializes on it. We
deal with the contractors directly though, so to the extent
that we're dissatisfied with the training, we will obviously
apprise the associations we're monitoring it and say, ``You're
not serving your member companies very well, because the
training modules and protocols that you're developing are not
getting us to what we want.'' But our remedy is against the
contractors ultimately. We'll just say, ``These people aren't
trained to our new contract specifications so we're either
going to stop-work, you can't continue until you train them, or
we're going to terminate the contract, or ultimately debar, if
it's a repeated violation.''
Senator Cantwell. I am sure I'm well beyond whatever round
we were giving to individual members, but since I'm the only
one here, I don't hear an objection, so I'll ask you a few more
questions, if I could.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. And just because it's such an important
issue as it affects the lives of individuals who are--I think
the people from Washington State and families who are involved
in the 30-Mile Fire have tried to put a face on this challenge
and focus and I applaud them for that. One of the things that
was also talked about in the IG's report was just the
importance of greater reliance on enhanced situational
awareness and decisionmaking. And I saw this is the 30-Mile
Fire, the same issues from Storm King to 30-Mile. We have these
watch-out rules and these are the things that people should be
looking out for, but if the individuals really don't--in a very
short--in some instances, I think it's a 6-week training
session and then all of a sudden they're facing a big
catastrophic situation. I'm wondering what this means for those
10 standing firefighting orders and 18, I think, watch-out
situations. If they're saying, ``Listen, you need to enhance
situational awareness and decisionmaking,'' how does that fit
with what has been this norm by saying we have these 10 orders
and watch-out situations?
Mr. Rey. I think that the lesson learned from these
fatality incidents is that the standing orders and the watch-
out criteria are good as far as they go, but what we need is a
lot more training that provides real world circumstances that
people can react to in a training situation so that the watch-
out and standing orders are more meaningful to them when they
face a real life situation on the ground. So one of the things
we've tried to do since 30-Mile is to build into our training
modules some exercises where we put them in a situation, a
computer-based simulator, where they face and have to use the
standing orders and the watch-out situations as they would, or
at least as close as we can make it to as they would, in a real
life situation. That training is being given now more
increasingly to our type 2 and type 3 incident commanders.
Historically, we looked at our type 1 incident commanders,
because of the nature of their responsibilities, as the people
who needed the most training, because we were tasking them with
dealing with the most difficult incidents. One of the things
that 30-Mile taught us and that we've learned in non-fatality
incidents where we were dissatisfied with what happened even
though fortunately there were not fatalities is that
transitional situations are at least as dangerous in some
instances as what you face when you're already dealing with a
large incident fire. Indeed, because in a transitional
situation you're more likely working with a type 2 or a type 3
team, you're working with a team that hasn't been trained up to
the level of a team that we would trust with the most
complicated and dangerous situation. So one of the things we've
done since 30-Mile is increase the training module for our type
2 and type 3 commanders using simulator exercises to put them
in situations where their failure to abide by the watch-out and
standing orders will, in a computerized scenario, put them in a
situation that they don't want to be in, and hopefully by doing
that, give them a better grounding in the dangers inherent in
what a reasonably benign incident can turn into under adverse
circumstances in a relatively short order, which is pretty much
what happened at 30-Mile. So we hope that by that extra
training we will have remedied that gap in the training system.
But I think up until what we learned from 30-Mile and during
that time period by studying some other transitional fires, we
concluded that that was an area where we should be focusing a
lot more training and how----
Senator Cantwell. In this situational training, are you
saying every firefighter's going to go through this or----
Mr. Rey. Every incident commander and then down the line to
crew and team leaders.
Senator Cantwell. I'm sorry. Team leaders, you're saying?
Mr. Rey. Right.
Senator Cantwell. So that's a--so a team leader is maybe
running a nucleus of about six to 10 individuals, is that
right?
Mr. Rey. Right.
Senator Cantwell. So all of those--all of that hierarchy of
communication chain you're saying would go through these and
that's going to be required under these contracts?
Mr. Rey. That's going to be a requirement of the
certifications for team leaders and incident commanders for
type 2 and type 3 incident teams to a substantially greater
degree than it was previously.
Senator Cantwell. And then just my last question on this
and we can continue. I'm sure if I have other questions, we can
follow up, but how would that have helped in the 30-Mile Fire
situation in the sense of--because you're talking about this
issue of transition and all of a sudden a fire goes from being
a certain level to another level. In fact, I think that was
exactly what happened on that particular day.
Mr. Rey. And what we're trying to do through this training
is to inculcate in the team leaders and the incident commanders
a couple of things: One, simply because it seems like a benign
incident, that doesn't mean you should ignore the standing
orders and the watch-out orders. They are empirical and rather
emphatic requirements no matter the severity of the incident
and you can't ignore them because you think you've got the
incident pretty much under control. The second thing we'd hope
to inculcate in them is the proposition that an incident can
take a turn quickly and materialize into something that you
aren't expecting and that your plans for attacking the incident
ought to assume that going in and not try to adapt to it after
the fact when you're already at some risk and some significant
disadvantage. So you shouldn't go into an incident without
having already followed those standing and watch-out orders.
You shouldn't go into an incident, no matter how benign,
without an agreed upon escape plan. You shouldn't cut any
corners on the assumption that what you're doing is just a mop-
up operation to an incident that's already largely under
control because that isn't an assumption that will necessarily
hold throughout the entirety of your deployment, and therefore
you should start from the assumption that it won't hold, and
act accordingly.
Senator Cantwell. I thank you, Secretary Rey, for those
comments. Can we at the end of this fire season get a report on
the implementation of this?
Mr. Rey. Sure.
Senator Cantwell. I thank the panelists for being here and
the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Gale Norton to Questions From Senator Craig
Question 1. Thus far this year the Forest Service and the BLM have
sent a significant number of people to help with hurricane relief, and
expended a large amount offending to do so. As I understand it, the
sending agency is expected to cover the cost of the base eight hour day
while their employees are on these assignments and that FEMA, or in the
case of the space shuttle crash, NASA, do not repay the lending agency
for these costs.
Can you tell me how much of the Department of the Interior funding
has been expended on hurricane relief and, conversely, on the fires in
Texas and Oklahoma and other states, thus far this year?
Answer. The Department estimates the DOI bureaus have spent over
$38 million under ESF#4 (firefighting) on FEMA mission assignments to
support hurricane relief Approximately $16 million will be eligible for
reimbursement by FEMA. From October 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006, DOI
has obligated $63.9 million on all fires. The fires in Texas and
Oklahoma have largely occurred on non-federal land--any expenditure for
specific firefighting resources requested by State or local
jurisdictions outside existing mutual aid agreements will be reimbursed
to DOI. The Department also benefits from these aid agreements as non-
Federal resources support our firefighting efforts, particularly
initial attack.
In accordance with FEMA policy, the base eight salaries for
firefighting personnel that responded to the hurricane under the
National Response Plan will not be reimbursed. This is standard
practice as the Department would have incurred these costs regardless
of whether or not firefighters had been deployed to assist FEMA with
its hurricane response. Base eight salaries for temporary employees
that were extended beyond their original firefighting employment season
are eligible for reimbursement.
Question 2. I also understand that FEMA and others do not repay the
lending agencies until a disaster is closed. Approximately how much
money is currently owed to the Department of the Interior for hurricane
recovery work this fiscal year?
Answer. Reimbursement requests can be forwarded to FEMA monthly,
regardless of the bill amount. Agencies should submit final bills upon
completion or termination of mission assignments in a timely manner as
agreed to by FEMA. The bureaus are working to compile the supporting
documentation as required for reimbursement by FEMA. As noted in the
response to question 1, the Department estimates that DOI bureaus have
spent over $38 million under ESF#4 (firefighting) on FEMA mission
assignments to support hurricane relief Approximately $16 million will
be eligible for reimbursement by FEMA.
Question 3. Much of the land affected by the recent fires in Texas
and Oklahoma is in the vicinity of Department of the Interior lands or
tribal allotments.
Does the DOI rely on state and local resources for initial attack
and large fire support?
Answer. Yes. DOI relies on existing mutual aid agreements with
State and local jurisdictions to support firefighting efforts. This is
particularly true in remote areas where DOI firefighting resources may
be several hours away from the land they protect. Of the recent fires
in Texas and Oklahoma, only the East Amarillo Complex fires were near
DOI lands (Lake Meredith NRA).
Question 4. What effect will the proposal to eliminate funds for
Rural Fire Assistance--the program that supports these local resources
near DOI lands--have on the Department's ability to cooperatively
address the suppression needs in Texas, Oklahoma, and throughout the
West?
Answer. The Department of the Interior has invested heavily each
year since the creation of the National Fire Plan to help small
community and rural fire departments with equipment, training, and
public education. For the future, we are moving more toward assisting
these departments with specific wildland fire training to further
enhance their response capabilities. Beginning in FY 2006, Preparedness
funds have been set aside to implement the Ready Reserve program as a
pilot project. In 2006, this program is closely aligned with the Rural
Fire Assistance program, and is designed to expand wildland fire
response capability by providing wildland fire training and technical
assistance to local and rural fire department personnel. The 2007 DOI
request for Preparedness continues the $1.9 million set aside for
advancing the Ready Reserve concept. The 2007 Interior budget does
propose to terminate the Rural Fire Assistance program; however, the
Department will continue ongoing efforts to work with the Department of
Homeland Security to meet the needs of rural fire departments for basic
training and equipment through the much larger DHS Assistance to
Firefighters Grant program. The Department recently updated the
existing agreement with DHS that will ensure a greater role for the
wildland fire agencies in reviewing grants to departments through
programs they administer. As part of this enhanced collaboration, the
two Departments now link websites to better direct those seeking grants
to rural fire departments to available funding.
In FY 2005, the DOI and USDA Forest Service provided technical
assistance, training, supplies, and equipment to nearly 11,000 small
rural communities through Rural Fire Assistance (DOI) and Volunteer
Fire Assistance (USDA Forest Service) and entered into cooperative
agreements with many rural volunteer fire departments for the purpose
of protection of both communities and natural resources. For 2007, the
Administration's budget proposal reflects a continued commitment to
Volunteer Fire Assistance, which supports communities of less than
10,000 inhabitants.
Question 5. I've heard that the Forest Service is working on a plan
to establish two 7 or 8 person Incident Command Teams called National
Incident Management Organization or NIMO teams with at least one of
them being stationed at the NIFC facility in Boise.
What can you tell me about these NIMO teams? For example, how will
they work? Who is going to pay for them and from what funding sources,
and what work will they accomplish?
Answer. The Forest Service is the lead for this proposal.
Accordingly, the Department of the Interior defers to the Forest
Service in responding to this question as this proposal involves Forest
Service personnel and obligations. DOI has not proposed funding for
these teams in FY 2007.
Question 6. And can you tell me why we find these things out from
people outside the agency when, if my information is correct, these
teams could cost up to $30 million per year?
Answer. The Department defers to the Forest Service for a response
to this question, as this proposal involves Forest Service obligations.
Responses of Gale Norton to Questions From Senator Dorgan
Question 1. While the budget for firefighting increases in your
request, you propose cuts in critical fire preparedness and prevention
programs that keep fires from starting, provide resources to state and
local governments, and maintain firefighting readiness. The
administration's Forest Service 2007 budget request proposes decreases
for fire preparedness, state fire assistance, fire research, and fire
rehabilitation. The request for Interior proposes cuts for hazardous
fuels reduction and completely eliminates the rural fire assistance
grants program.
How do you reconcile these budget cuts with your claims about the
sufficiency of the fire budget?
Answer. DOI currently plans and budgets all predictable
firefighting expenses within the Preparedness account, including all
firefighters and aviation resources. The $6 million increase requested
for Preparedness would fund fixed costs for this firefighting force.
The Department and the Forest Service are currently engaged in the
development of Fire Program Analysis, an innovative system to conduct
fire management planning and budgeting across ownership and
jurisdictional boundaries. Beginning with the 2008 budget request, this
effort is designed to provide efficiencies through common and unified
planning and budgeting.
We believe that the hazardous fuels reduction funding request will
continue to sustain significant progress toward performance goals. By
using new authorities (such as stewardship contracting) to leverage
additional resources while also more efficiently using existing funds,
and by better use of partnerships and collaboration, the bureaus have
been able to exceed performance targets the past two years.
Although the 2007 budget proposes to eliminate the pilot RFA grant
program, the request continues to fund the Ready Reserve program. This
DOI pilot program began in FY 2006 with $1.9 million in Preparedness
funding. The purpose of this program is to strengthen initial attack
and extended capabilities of rural fire departments (RFDs) that provide
firefighting assistance on DOI lands. In 2006, firefighter training
will be repackaged for delivery at local fire facilities around the
country. Additional training will be developed that bridges existing
training in both the structural and wildland fire sectors, and training
delivery will begin. With these funds, a supplementary workforce of
1,000-2,000 RFD personnel would be trained each year. This enhancement
of local capacity will reduce the Department's reliance on the more
expensive alternative of transporting Federal and contract firefighters
from other regions of the country.
Question 2. How can you make these cuts without shortchanging your
level of readiness?
Answer. The Department's 2007 budget proposal includes a modest
reduction to the hazardous fuels budget. Despite this reduction,
funding for the hazardous fuels program in 2007 would still be more
than 4 times the level provided by Congress in FY 2000.
Since we plan and budget all predictable firefighting expenses
within the Preparedness account, including all firefighters and
aviation resources, the Department does not expect readiness levels
will be adversely affected by the proposals. The budget includes an
increase of $6 million to fund fixed costs for both firefighters and
aviation resources.
Question 3. Funding for wildland fire grants to rural fire
departments is zeroed out in the Interior budget request. The budget
request states that Interior has aligned its fire assistance program to
expand local fire response capability and minimize federal mobilization
efforts. This looks like you are trying to shift fire suppression costs
to local fire departments, while cutting off their financial support.
Your budget also claims that the $10 million rural fire assistance
grant program can be eliminated because of cooperation with the Forest
Service volunteer fire assistance and the Department of Homeland
Security Assistance to Firefighters grant programs. The budget for
Forest Service volunteer fire assistance grants is only going up by
$38, 000. The DHS program is being slashed from $648 million to $293
million. It is obvious that the administration has no intention of
providing necessary support to the local fire departments that put out
thousands of fires on BLM lands, national parks, and wildlife refuges.
How do you justify cutting eliminating the rural fire assistance
grant program when the administration is drying up other sources of
financial assistance?
Answer. As explained above, the Department continues to fund the
Ready Reserve program at $1.9 million. In 2007, this program will train
and provide safety gear for about 1,000-2,000 local firefighters.
The Ready Reserve program was appropriated $1.9 million in FY 2006;
awards are not yet complete. Those funds will be spent for the
following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Repackaging...................................... $250,000
Training Development...................................... $250,000
Personal Protective Equipment............................. $585,000
Training Delivery......................................... $789,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY 2007, the program will direct all funds to training.
Question 4. What incentive will there be for rural fire departments
to respond to fires on federal land?
Answer. Local firefighters will likely continue to respond to fires
that threaten their communities. Where they respond to fires on DOI
lands in remote areas that have no locally available Federal
firefighters, the Department will continue to emphasize that training
and safety gear may be available through the Ready Reserve program. We
also continue to expand our working relationship with the Forest
Service and DHS, to ensure that limited funds are efficiently allocated
to eliminate duplication and target those rural departments most in
need of critical training and safety gear.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Mescalero Apache Tribe,
Mescalero, NM, April 4, 2006.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: For FY2006, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) has enacted substantial budget cuts in the Mescalero Agency's
Fire Preparedness Program. The fact of the matter is--this level of
budget reduction will dramatically increase the potential for
catastrophic escape wildfire on lands of the Mescalero Apache Tribe.
The budget cuts combined with what is predicted to be the region's
worst drought since the 1950's will place life, property and untold
natural resources at risk.
The Mescalero Apache Tribe is completely dependent on their land
and natural resources for spiritual, cultural and economic sustenance.
The levels of budget cuts that have been enacted leave the Mescalero
lands susceptible to the worst ravages of wildfire, and could
financially devastate Tribal enterprises such as Mescalero Forest
Products and the Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort and Casino.
Furthermore, I must stress that the level of budget cuts will be a
serious breach in the Bureau's federal trust responsibility to the
Mescalero Apache Tribe. The cuts will severely limit the capability to
pre-position fire apparatus and crews in anticipation of a rapidly
approaching ``Extreme Fire Danger'' manning classification. Ignitions
that occur acid escape during times of limited coverage will likely
become major conflagrations costing untold dollars to suppress and
rehabilitate. The potential damage from unmitigated wildfire creates
unfathomable levels of liability for the Bureau and federal government.
In more concrete terms, the budget cuts will cause a major
Reduction in Force (RIF) within the Fire Management Section of the
Mescalero Agency Branch of Forestry. The RIF will impact approximately
10 permanent employees, all Tribal members. In addition, funding will
only allow hiring of seasonal ``preparedness'' staff for 5 of the 13
pay periods during the normal tire season of rid-March through
September. Safety will also become a concern, as funding will be
minimal for fire fighter training and replacement of fie equipment and
supplies.
The entire Department of Interior has been very active in educating
all publics, including tribal publics, of wildfire dangers in recent
years. The Mescalero Apache Tribe has done its part to actively promote
and implement hazardous fuels reductions projects on the reservation
and create defensible space. Now to decapitate the effectiveness of
ground-pounding fire fighting resources is near incomprehensible.
Some BIA staff has suggested that other federal agencies could
provide fire suppression coverage of tribal trust lands through
cooperative agreements. In theory this may be true, but in reality it
is not. The Mescalero Apache Tribe expects the Bureau to be the primary
contact in government to government relations with the United States
concerning trust issues. It is also a fact that other federal agencies,
such as the US Forest Service, do not have adequate staffing and are
undergoing similar budget cuts making this suggestion unrealistic.
Therefore, I am requesting your assistance to help restore Federal
funding that will allow the Mescalero Agency to adequately prepare for
a potentially dangerous fire season. If you have any questions
concerning this request, please feel free to contact me so we may
discuss the situation further. Your assistance in this very grave
matter is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Chino,
President.