U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–622 PDF 2006

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

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 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

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 

(III)

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

(1)

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 

2

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. 

3

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 

4

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 

5

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 longrange 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. 

6

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 21⁄2 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 

7

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:]

8

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. 

9

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 

10

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 alloVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:29 Jul 14, 2006 Jkt 109475 PO 28622 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28622.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
11

cated 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 communitybased 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. 

12

• 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 

13

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 

14

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 

15

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 

16

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 proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:29 Jul 14, 2006 Jkt 109475 PO 28622 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\28622.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
17

grams 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. 

18

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. 

19

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. 

20

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——

21

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. 

22

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 wellconsidered 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. 

23

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? 

24

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 

25

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 

26

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 

27

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 mopup 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.] 

(29)

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 

30

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 

31

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.

(33)

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.

34

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.

Æ