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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–919 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–128 

WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OF THE FEDERAL 

LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES 

JUNE 14, 2011 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 5 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona ........................................................... 8 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 6 

Thorsen, Kim, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement, Security, 

and Emergency Management, Department of the Interior .............................. 17 

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................ 12 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 43 

(1) 

WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT 

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, 

chairman of the committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Why do we not get started? The purpose of 

our hearing this morning is to consider the Federal land management agencies’ wildfire management programs. I am going to give 

a short statement. Then Senator Murkowski will, and then we will 

hear from our colleague, Senator Kyl, before we hear from our two 

witnesses. 

It has been a dynamic year of severe weather—intense tornadoes, flooding throughout much of the United States, extreme 

drought, and wildfire activity in the southwest and much of the 

south. The overall trend of increasing drought and wildfire in the 

west and southwest have been attributed by numerous scientific reports to climate change, including the recent report of our National 

Academy of Sciences entitled, ‘‘America’s Climate Choices.’’ 

Since climate change will continue into the future, we can expect 

the incidence of severe weather and further drying out of the already arid regions of the west to continue as well. We had a hearing in Santa Fe about 6 weeks ago with some experts, and the 

point was made repeatedly that droughts will be more frequent in 

the southwest, and they will last longer than they have in the past. 

In the news this last week, we have seen the kinds of challenges 

that we face. Federal land management agencies are currently battling severe wildfires in Arizona, which are now coming into New 

Mexico, Colorado, Alaska, and elsewhere. Obviously we express our 

concern for the families who have lost their homes, and for those 

whose property remains at risk. We also want to express our gratitude to the thousands of fire fighters and wildfire managers who 

are working tirelessly to protect lives, property, and natural resources. 

The challenges posed by the larger and more intense drought and 

wildfires have called for a variety of policy changes to adapt to 

these new realities. As a result of some of the policies that we have 

urged here in this committee, for the first time in years, I believe 
2 

the agencies are making progress on a range of critical wildfire 

management issues. Let me mention five of those. 

The FLAME Act established a framework for rational budgeting 

of emergency wildfire suppression expenses that can help to avoid 

the enormous disruptions and inefficiencies that frequently have 

occurred when regular appropriations are insufficient to cover unanticipated emergency costs. 

Second, in addition through the FLAME Act, the agencies finally 

have developed a strong framework for a cohesive wildfire management strategy, and they deserve credit for that. 

The agencies are successfully employing collaborative landscape 

scale projects that reduce fuels and wildfire costs and that improve 

forest and watershed health. 

With the support of the economic stimulus package of a few 

years ago, the Forest Service reduced wildfire risk by conducting 

fuel and restoration treatments across a record number of acres 

during the last 2 years. 

Finally, the agencies are fighting fires in a more cost effective 

manner since adopting a more flexible management response protocol and utilizing state-of-the-art predictive technologies. 

Certainly there are significant challenges that remain. Forest 

health and wildfire management are related areas where I think 

we need to be careful in our important effort to reduce spending. 

I fear that we may be headed toward an approach that turns out 

to be penny wise and pound foolish. For example, the agencies do 

not have adequate resources to reduce hazardous fuels and restore 

forest and rangeland health, particularly against a background of 

growing climate-related vulnerability. Recent cuts to the Forest 

Service work force are accelerating the problem of a rapidly diminishing force of available critical firefighters. The result is likely to 

be significantly higher costs to taxpayers and the economy as a result of severe wildfires. 

Another challenge that looms large given our fiscal situation is 

the fact that the Nation’s remaining fleet of aging air tankers 

needs to be replaced or restored in the near future. The cost for 

doing that will be quite substantial, and it cannot be covered from 

within the agencies’ existing budgets. 

I hope our witnesses can help us understand how we can continue to make progress in wildfire management. Let me defer to 

Senator Murkowski for her comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

hearing this morning. Welcome to our colleague, Senator Kyl. I 

think oftentimes we are brought together by things that are happening in our States. I know that you have been very anxious 

about the fires in Arizona that are now coming into New Mexico. 

In Alaska we have got some significant fires burning as well. I am 

watching the East Volkmar fire very carefully because we have got 

a family cabin that has been sitting out there. You worry about 

these things. You worry about what is happening within any given 

fire season, but to those who have lost property, those who have 
3 

been threatened, we are very concerned. I know, Senator Kyl, you 

are quite anxious about what is going on in your State. 

But we have to wonder how many times do we have to have a 

fire season like we are having now before we are really going to 

collectively work to protect our forests? It was about a decade ago 

that the Rodeo-Chediski fire consumed 468,000 acres on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. A couple of days later, we had 

the Biscuit fire that burned nearly 500,000 acres in the Siskiyou 

National Forest in southern Oregon and northern California. In 

2002 three heavy fire fighting aircraft suffered structural failures, 

which led to the grounding of more than half of the available aircraft that had been used to drop slurry on these fires. The grounding of the aircraft reduced the number of companies that supplied 

these aircraft, and subsequently the number of aircraft we had 

available for the slurry dropping duty was down by over 60 percent 

in 2004. 

So, we fast forward to today. Thus far this fire season, we have 

burned over 4.1 million acres. Today, the Wallow fire in Arizona is 

burning just 40 miles to the east of where the Rodeo-Chediski fire 

burned back in 2002. As of yesterday, 430,000 acres had been 

burned. 

Back in 2003, we authorized and funded a prodigious amount of 

pre-suppression and hazardous fuels work through the Healthy 

Forest and Forest Restoration programs, but we are just not seeing 

much as a consequence of that. We have got little to show for it. 

Our forests are no more able to withstand the ravages of fire 

and/or insects than they were 10 years ago. Even after every forest 

service supervisor signed a pledge to fully implement up to 20 million acres in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, today less than 

one-third of the authorized projects have been accomplished. I have 

to believe that this failure rests with the land management agencies. 

In 2003, we asked the Forest Service to answer the question, 

‘‘what do you need?’’ What do you need to replace the heavy fire 

fighting aircraft that were grounded in 2002? It took 10 years to 

develop the answer, and when it came it was with a $2 billion price 

tag during a time when Congress is cutting the Federal budget by 

15 to 20 percent. It included no recommendations to how we were 

going to pay for it. 

Even more frustrating is that the agency seems to be fixated on 

one aircraft type and refuses to consider any other alternatives. 

Last month, Chief Tidwell told me that the Forest Service would 

work to acquire a variety of aircraft types, but his staff continues 

to tell people that the agency will only accept an aircraft that can 

carry 3,000 gallons of slurry. I just do not understand why the Forest Service continues to tell the aircraft manufacturers and others 

here in Congress that whatever new aircraft it acquires is going to 

need to carry 3,000 gallons of slurry. 

So, my message to the land management agencies is this: develop 

a procurement plan to replace the aging aircraft that looks at a variety of types of size aircraft; develop the plan so you have got the 

flexibility to drop slurry, foam gel, or water; develop it to take advantage of the lakes and rivers that hold millions upon millions of 

gallons of water that could and should be dropped by water scoop-
4 

ing aircraft; do not ignore the opportunity to keep the existing fleet 

operational longer; and finally, aggressively begin to use all of the 

authorities that this Congress has given you. 

I want to see more healthy forest restoration projects. I want to 

see more large-scale restoration projects and within this decade, 

not 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now, because as I look back on all the lost opportunities of the last 10 

years, none pains me more than the failure of our land management agencies to use those authorities that Congress has provided. 

Mr. Chairman, I do hope that today we will get some updates, 

but also perhaps a better understanding as to how the land management agencies can use those authorities that we have given 

them more effectively. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before we hear from our two scheduled witnesses, Senator Kyl wished to address the committee and give us 

an update on the circumstances that his State has faced, which of 

course has been catastrophic with this current fire that continues. 

So, we welcome you, Senator Kyl. Thank you for coming, and 

please tell us whatever you think the committee needs to know. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I very 

much appreciate both your opening statement and Ranking Member Murkowski’s statement. Right on the target. I do want to say 

that when this hearing is traditionally held about this time of the 

year about going into the fire season, in your State and mine, of 

course, fire season starts in May. In our case, it is already well 

under way. 

I would like to ask each of the members of the committee who 

are here and the staff to please read the statement. It will take 

about two and a half minutes. 

I would rather just talk about what I know from firsthand observations. I want to begin by thanking all of the personnel who have 

been fighting the fires in Arizona. We now have almost 800,000 

acres burning or burned in just four fires so far during this fire 

season in Arizona. You mentioned the Wallow fire, which is by far 

the largest; it is in the Arizona White Mountains. The ApacheSitgreaves Forest just east, as Senator Murkowski said, of the 

Rodeo-Chediski fire of 9 years ago. Those fires destroy at least— 

well, in the case of just those two alone, you are going to be at 

about a million acres of Ponderosa pine, dug for Blue Spruce, and 

a lot of meadowlands, but an incredibly pretty part of our State of 

Arizona. There is a booklet that has just a few pictures that you 

can see. 

From the map here of the Wallow fire, you can see with each of 

the colors how rapidly the fire moved, starting in the extreme 

southwest part and then moving on up through the others. If I 

could just go to the map and point out a couple of things, I think 

it might help. 

About 10,000 people had to be evacuated from the town of Eager 

and Springerville here. The town Nutrioso right here was almost 

surrounded by the fire. The town of Alpine here literally is sur-
5 

rounded by the fire. The little community of Greer here—Greer got 

hit the worst, and I will describe that in just a moment. The fire 

started here and rapidly moved in this direction. 

The problem with this fire was the wind. Yes, it is very, very dry. 

It is warm. But the winds were 40 miles an hour gusting up 60, 

and you cannot fight fires in those conditions. The big tankers were 

not usable because they simply couldn’t drop the retardant or 

water on the targets with any degree of precision. So, helicopters 

were the only option in many situations. 

We have a cabin in the community of Greer, and last Friday— 

a week ago Friday we were having dinner with four—three of our 

neighbors, and that cabin where we were sitting out on the deck 

and looking at the beautiful landscape, is now gone, totally destroyed. It is just a half a mile from where our place is. About 22 

homes along a half mile stretch of road were lost in that community of Greer. The fire came down over a ridge, and the firefighters 

had to evacuate very quickly because of the speed with which the 

fire progressed. They could not stop it. 

We have evidence already that the areas that were thinned performed much better than the areas that were not. I believe, and 

will leave it to Chief Tidwell and the others who will give us the 

after action report, but I believe they will conclude that the communities of Alpine, Nutrioso, Springerville, and Eager were saved 

because of thinning in the vicinity of those communities. Of course, 

the fire burned more slowly in some other areas. 

The problem is, as Senator Murkowski pointed out, we are just 

treating a drop in the bucket when it comes to the amount of acreage that we have to treat. The area of the Apache-Sitgreaves had 

the biggest contract for Forest Service stewardship to treat 150,000 

acres over 10 years. Over the last 7 years, we have treated almost 

49,000 acres. That is at a cost of about $2.5 million a year, which 

includes all of the planning and preparation costs. Clearly, we have 

a long way to go. The fires are rapidly outstripping our ability to 

do this on a larger scale. 

As a couple of you have alluded to, you do not want to be penny 

wise and pound foolish, as the chairman said. The costs of fighting 

the fires and reconstructing afterward far exceed the prevention 

costs. It is like any other medical situation. Prevention will save 

you a lot of money in the long run, but it does require an upfront 

commitment. 

But it is not just preventing fires. The management of forests 

make them more healthy. You have better flora and fauna. The 

ecology is superior, less prone to disease. Water runoff is better. In 

all respects, if you can do the treatment early, you are going to 

save money in the long run. 

This one fire—Wallow fire—alone has already cost $65 million. 

Think about how much land we could have treated if we had put 

that money up front. 

There are photographs in a book that is being passed around to 

show you just some of what the area looks like. One interesting 

photograph shows near Alpine, one of the villages saved here, untreated area versus treated area. You all know exactly what happens. In the treated area, the fire lays down and they are better 

able to control it. 
6 

What we have tried to create in Arizona is a new program for 

larger area treatment. The area that we would be talking about is 

on a scale of 500,000 to a million or more acres. The proposal on 

the table is called the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, or Four 

FRI. It is a collaboration between all of the stakeholders, including 

the environmental community and all others. It is—the whole concept is we have got to treat large areas or there is not going to be 

anything left to treat by the time we get around to it. 

So, what I am hoping is that the committee can focus on why we 

are not doing what we need to do. I have some recommendations 

in my statement. One of them has to do with the costs for the Forest Service associated with the potential cancellation of contracts 

and the need for front end bonding, which just adds to the cost. 

That is one thing I think we need to deal with. We also need to 

obviously commit more resources to do the thinning in advance of 

the fires rather than trying to pull the money together to fight the 

fires. 

There is so much more I would like to say about this, but if I 

could just urge my colleagues to read the statement. We are now 

beginning to look at the costs of reconstruction here, the bare expenses, the other indirect costs of the cleanup and treatment to try 

to begin to restore. 

It is impossible the ecosystem losses. I mean, the Western Forest 

Leadership Coalition, which is a partnership between State and 

Federal Government entities, estimate the costs are two to 30 

times the reported suppression costs. The Rodeo-Chediski fire that 

the Senator from Alaska mentioned, the true total cost was estimated to be closer to $308 million; in other words, about 15 times 

the cost to suppress it. So, you look at what happens after the fire, 

and the costs in every respect are just devastating. 

So, I urge the committee to work up recommendations for what 

we can do to prevent this kind of destruction. I will certainly 

pledge my best efforts, not only to support that, but to come up 

with the resources necessary to accomplish it so that we do not continue to suffer the kind of devastation that is afflicting my State 

right now. 

I thank all of you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Kyl follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Thank you for holding this hearing on wildfire management and for agreeing to 

give me a few minutes to come talk to you today. 

I want to start by first thanking all of the firefighters and other personnel for 

their service in combatting the wildfires in my state and across the nation. It is not 

easy. I want them to know I appreciate their tireless efforts. 

Arizona is ground zero so far this fire season for mega-fires—those fires that burn 

tens of thousands of acres—sometimes in just hours. 

The Wallow Fire on the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest in the White Mountains of 

Eastern Arizona has grown to nearly a half a million acres in just 2 weeks charring 

in its wake some of the most beautiful Ponderosa Pine country in the state. 

(PHOTOS and MAP) Almost 10,000 people were forced to evacuate. Based on a 

structural assessment conducted over the weekend, Greer, has been the hardest hit. 

When the fire rolled in to the community on Wednesday last week it destroyed 22 

homes and 24 other buildings out of a total of 50 structures destroyed in the fire 

to date. The fire is just 18 percent contained as of this morning and has crossed 

the border into the neighboring state of New Mexico. 

This fire, however, is not the only one burning in Arizona, the Horseshoe Fire, 

the Murphy Complex and the newest, the Monument Fire, have already blackened 
7 

1Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, April 2009, updated April 2010. The True Cost of 

Wildfire in the Western U.S. at p. 14. 2 Id. at p. 5. 

3McKinnon, Shaun. Wallow Fire may be preview of things to come, experts say. The Arizona 

Republic (June 12, 2011). 4Statements from Chris Knopp, Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor. 

5Davis, Tony. Thinning likely reduced fire’s destructive power. June 12, 2011. 

6Future Forests LLC. See www.futureforest.info. 

7Letter to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from Thomas Vilsack, USDA Secretary dated August 31, 2010. 

another 200,000 acres. These are some of the most beautiful grasslands and rugged 

mountain ranges in southern Arizona (Chiricahua mountains). Given the conditions 

and the continued fire risk, on June 9, the Coronado National Forest issued an 

order temporarily closing large parts of the forest to visitors. In Arizona alone, the fire suppression bill is over $65 million and growing. 

It all seems horribly reminiscent of the disastrous fire season of 2002, when 6.9 

million acres burned across the West. That year the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, the largest fire in Arizona’s history, hit the same forest as the Wallow, in an area just 40 

miles northwest, burning over 468,000 acres, including a large portion of the Fort 

Apache Reservation. Over 490 structures were destroyed, and more than 30,000 

residents of nearby communities were evacuated. The Forest Service spent over $47 

million to extinguish the blaze. Unfortunately, the Wallow Fire will likely over take 

the Rodeo-Chediski fire in size and cost before it is extinguished. 

The millions of dollars spent year after year on fire suppression do not reflect the 

true costs of unnaturally severe wildfire. Fire suppression costs are only the immediate costs that are the most easily quantifiable and reported to the public. The affected communities and the ecosystem itself will experience longer-term impacts; the 

costs of which dwarf the costs of the wildfire but are often difficult to capture. Specifically, these costs include: (1) direct rehabilitation costs/ BEAR expenses (post-fire 

flooding and soil erosion, property loss recovery), (2) indirect costs (healthcare and 

mental health treatment costs, loss of life, reduced property values, and lost revenues to residents and businesses) and (3) ecosystem costs (reduced watershed function, air and water quality impairment, loss of wildlife habitat, water infrastructure 

damage and accelerated carbon release for long-periods post-fire). The Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, a state and federal government partnership, estimates 

these costs are 2 to 30 times the reported suppression costs.1 For example, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire’s true total cost was closer to $308 million, 15 times the cost 

to suppress it.2

Although the need to suppress fires is not going to go away, it is widely recognized that active forest restoration management can reduce the risk of catastrophic 

fire, increase firefighting safety and effectiveness, improve recovery time and contribute to ecosystem function, before, during and after a fire. In Arizona we have 

seen first hand that treatments work. Early reports from the Wallow Fire suggest 

that, in areas that have been thinned under the White Mountain Stewardship 

Project, flames dropped to the ground and burned more slowly. For example, in Alpine, one of the communities hit, firefighters told reporters that they were better 

able to protect it because of the thinning that had been done around the community.3 Reports indicate the same positive fire behavior was displayed in treated 

areas near Eager and Nutrioso.4 Even in Greer, there is a big difference between 

the areas treated versus areas not treated.5

The White Mountain Project is the first large scale Forest Service stewardship 

contract in the nation. Awarded in 2004, to Future Forest LLC, a local business, 

the contract had as its goal treating 150,000 acres of the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest 

over 10 years. Over the last seven years nearly 49,000 acres6 have been treated at 

a cost of approximately $2.5 million a year including all planning and prep costs. 

It has also successfully developed new markets for woody biomass, creating a demand for 15,000 acres per year during one of the most severe economic downturns 

the wood products industry has seen. Although costs are still relatively high, when 

compared to the costs of suppression and the indirect costs of catastrophic wildfire, 

it is a small price to pay. Besides, management of national forest system lands is 

a federal responsibility. Prevention is always cheaper than fighting the disease. 

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the stewardship contracting tool this 

project utilizes will expire in 2013 if Congress does not act to reauthorize it. Obligating cancellation ceiling reserves for these contracts is also problematic and will 

likely require a legislative fix.7

The current federal system continues to give funding priority to suppression. If 

we are going to save what is left of our forests we must change our priorities and 

aggressively treat our forests at the pace and scale these fires are occurring. 
8 

8McKinnon, Taylor. Cooperation Crucial to Forest Restoration, Arizona Republic (June 13, 

2011). 

That means thinking big and acting now. Treatments focused solely on hazardous 

fuel reduction around communities may be appropriate in some cases, but they do 

not achieve the enduring fire protection and ecosystem restoration that are urgently 

required. A greater investment in landscape-scale forest restoration treatments will 

reverse the degradation of our forests while simultaneously reducing the risk of catastrophic crown fires. 

I am talking about thinking on a scale of 500,000 to a million or more acres at 

a time and doing programmatic environmental reviews at that scale too. That’s 

never been done before but Arizona’s ready. We have a proposal on the table. It’s 

called the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI). The 4FRI is an outgrowth of 

nearly a decade of collaborative efforts and analyses focused on accelerating forest 

restoration in northern Arizona. The 4FRI is rooted in the need to accelerate forest 

restoration and to shift restoration and management efforts from a short term, 

project-by-project basis to an integrated, landscape-scale program. The goal is to 

strategically treat about a million acres across four national forests in Northern Arizona over the next 20 years. Bear in mind, that’s how many acres burned in just 

the Wallow fire this year and the Rodeo-Chediski fire 9 years ago. 

In order for this effort to be successful it is going to require a significant federal 

investment including funding and other resources. In addition, industry will need 

to come to the table to help offset treatment costs. But just as important, it is going 

to require cooperation from the environmental activist community. Taylor McKinnon 

from the Center for Biological Diversity stated in a recent opinion piece about such 

cooperation that, ‘‘Our Ponderosa-Pine Forests deserve as much.’’8 I agree. 

There are things Congress can do to help: 

• Reauthorize and make permanent the stewardship contracting tool. Long-term 

wood supply guarantees are necessary in order to attract private investment to 

our forests to accomplish the restoration work that needs to be done. 

• The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, includes a 36 billion-gallon 

renewable fuels standard (RFS), a portion of which will be made from biomass. 

A last-minute change in the legislation’s definition of renewable biomass, however, prevents almost all federal land biomass such as trees, wood, brush, 

thinnings, chips and slash from counting toward the mandate if it is used to 

manufacture biofuels. That makes no sense and we need to change it. 

• Support full funding for the implementation of the Southwest Forest Health 

and Wildfire Prevention Act and the Forest Landscape Restoration Act so that 

we can get effective science-based restoration on the ground at landscape scales 

now when it can still make a difference. 

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kyl, and we obviously appreciate the great damage that is being done to your State and sympathize with you and all the people of Arizona in that connection. 

Why do we not go ahead and dismiss you and invite our two witnesses? Mr. Tom Tidwell, who is chief of the Forest Service, and 

Ms. Kim Thorsen, who is deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement, Security, Emergency Management and Wildland Fire in 

the Department of Interior. 

We appreciate both of you being here. Chief Tidwell, did you 

want to start, and then we will hear from Ms. Thorsen after you 

are finished. Take whatever time you need to make your main 

points. Obviously both of your statements will be included in our 

record. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. 
9 

The Forest Service, the Federal agencies, our State, the tribal 

governments, and our local fire departments, together have the 

premier wildland firefighting organization in the world. I believe it 

is an example of government at its best. Together, we continue to 

be prepared for the 2011 wildland fire season. We have the same 

level of preparedness that was available last year, including more 

than 16,000 Federal firefighters with about 70 percent of those 

from the Forest Service. 

So, far the 2011 fire season has been relatively severe. As of 

today, more than four million acres have burned across the country, which is more than twice the year to date 10-year average. 

Parts of the south and southwest are in a prolonged drought, and 

more large fires have burned in the south—most of the large fires 

have burned in the southeast, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and New 

Mexico. We also have some large fires in Alaska that the Senator 

referred to. However, in the Sierras, the Cascades, and the central 

and northern Rockies, we’re having record snow packs. So, it remains to be seen just how severe this fire season is going to be 

overall. 

But based on the level of fire activity and projections for the rest 

of the year, suppression funding for this year should be sufficient. 

Appropriations are similar to last year, and we funding from prior 

years in case of a worse than expected fire season. Together with 

the FLAME Fund, that should be enough to prevent any transfer 

of funds from non-fire accounts. Once again, I want to thank you 

for securing the FLAME account for us. 

The FLAME Act also requires that Federal fire managers develop a more cohesive wildland fire management strategy. We 

wanted to do this in a more collaborative effort than we have done 

in the past. So, we brought together not only the Federal partners, 

but our States, the tribes, local and municipal governments to develop a shared national framework. 

Now, this cohesive strategy has three main goals. The first is to 

restore and maintain healthy, resilient landscapes. By vegetation 

to restore the natural processes and functions, we can minimize the 

adverse impacts of wildland fire. The second goal is to create fire 

adapted human communities by reducing fuels in the wildland 

urban interface, and by helping communities adapt their planning 

and building practices that make homes and communities safer 

from wildfire. 

We are making progress. Last year, our fuels and forest restoration treatments reduced hazardous fuels on almost three million 

acres. That is more than twice the area we treated just 10 years 

ago. With those treatments, we are having success, as these photos 

show today, the photos that Senator Kyl was referring to. The 

photo on the left shows severe fire effects in an untreated area on 

the wall of fire just outside of that community of Alpine. The photo 

on the right shows an area that was treated under the 10-year 

White Mountain Stewardship contract. 

When the fire hit this treated area, it was a running crown fire 

up in the top of the trees. It hit the area that was treated. It lost 

that continuous fuel in the crowns. It dropped down onto the 

ground, which allowed our firefighters then to be able to get in 

there and to control it before it burned into the adjacent homes. 
10 

Now, the third goal of our fire management strategy is to make 

safe, effective, risk-based wildfire management decisions. Now, we 

are going to continue to suppress 98 percent of the fires that we 

take initial attack on. But to assist with that 2 percent of the fires 

that become large, we have developed our wildland fire decision 

support system to help our fire managers make strategic and tactical decisions on these large fires. Public safety, firefighter safety 

will always be our core agency value. 

In closing, I want to touch on the issue with large air tankers. 

Large air tankers are an effective part of wildland fire suppression. 

But our current fleet averages more than 50 years old. In the next 

10 years, more than half of our large air tankers will need to be 

replaced, and are studying the options and will be making a recommendation to you by the end of the summer. 

I want to thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the status of the U.S. Forest Service’s wildfire response capabilities. 

The Federal Government Agencies responsible for wildland fire fighting are perhaps the premier wildland firefighting organization in the world. Together, we 

(along with our State, local, and tribal government partners) work to maintain our 

operational excellence and to continually improve the safety and effectiveness of the 

fire management program. We take seriously our role in protecting people, property 

and valuable natural resources from wildfire. We are prepared for the 2011 wildland 

fire season and are staffed to provide appropriate, risk informed, and effective fire 

management. We will continue our commitment to aggressive initial attack of 

wildfires, where appropriate, with full attention to firefighter and public safety. Further, Federal engagement with State and local fire agencies is central to our collective success. Wildfires know no boundaries and we must work within an all-lands 

context to manage for and respond to wildfires. Our commitment to risk-informed, 

performance-based strategies will reduce exposure of firefighters and the public at 

large to unnecessary risk during fire incidents. Additionally, we will continue to provide assistance to communities that have been or may be threatened by wildfire to 

enable these communities to become more fire resilient and to reduce risks of fire. 

NATIONAL COHESIVE WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Our commitments—wildfire response, risk-informed performance, support to 

states and local agencies, and assistance to fire-adapted communities—are consistent with the recently completed National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy has been embraced by the 

wildland fire community with statutory authority over wildland fire: federal, tribal, 

states, counties, municipalities, and local fire departments. The wildland fire community, through the auspices of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (lead by Secretaries from the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and Homeland Security), 

developed the Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service and DOI were a catalyst for 

the nation-wide collaborative effort among wildland fire organizations, land managers, and policy making officials representing federal, state and local governments, 

tribal interests, and non-governmental organizations. This blueprint provides a common underpinning for all entities with statutory responsibilities for wildfire. Federal, non-federal, and tribal wildland fire management partners are now engaged 

in ensuing phases where, development of regional assessments and strategies will 

support completion of a national risk trade-off analysis, due next year. 

The three main components of the Cohesive Strategy provides a framework for 

the wildland fire program as a whole. These components are: 

• Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes 
11 

• Creating Fire-Adapted Communities 

• Wildfire Response 

Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes 

The first component of the Cohesive Strategy involves the restoration of landscapes to help promote ecosystem health and resiliency. Wildland fire has a valuable 

natural role in many ecosystems, helping to regulate forest and rangeland composition. We continually strive to safely allow fire to play its natural role in creating 

resilient landscapes. However, many ecosystems across the country are out of balance and are in need of restoration. This ecological imbalance is manifested by an 

increased fuel accumulation and infestation by invasive pests and results in ecosystems that are more threatened by wildfire. A high-risk fire environment may result in adverse effects on natural resources and poses great risks for local communities. Added to the effects of climate change, these imbalanced ecosystems often 

lead to higher fire risk potential, which contribute to extreme fire behavior and severe fire effects, such as significant impacts to municipal water supplies. 

By managing vegetation and restoring natural function and the resiliency of the 

land, we can positively influence fire behavior and minimize the negative impacts 

of fire. Through a combination of mechanical treatment and managed fire, we can 

improve the health of some fire-adapted ecosystems and prevent heavy accumulations of highly flammable fuels. In FY 2010, the Forest Service treated over 2 million acres for hazardous fuels reduction, with the majority in the Wildland Urban 

Interface. This fiscal year, we have already treated over 900,000 acres. 

The Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) line item proposed in the President’s 

FY 2012 budget, applied in conjunction with our hazardous fuels program, will help 

the agency more efficiently restore ecosystems balance. Combining the existing programs will improve land management professionals ability and flexibility to meet 

a wider range of ecological, economic and social values than possible under the current structure. This will enable more work to get accomplished on the ground. IRR 

will allow larger projects to be undertaken through the emphasis on collaboration 

with stakeholders, internal multi-disciplinary planning, and a well-crafted accountability system. 

In addition, the Forest Service will continue to expand community engagement in 

restoration efforts on National Forest System land through the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program. In FY 2010, 10 CFLR projects in Idaho, 

California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and 

Florida were funded by the CFLR Fund. CFLR projects are proposed through multistakeholder collaborative planning at a local level, nominated by the Regional Foresters to the Secretary, who takes into consideration recommendations made by an 

advisory committee. 

Creating Fire-Adapted Communities 

The second component of the Cohesive Strategy involves working collaboratively 

with non-governmental organizations as well as federal, state, local and tribal governments to strengthen fire-adapted human communities. An all-lands approach, 

along with emphasizing individual responsibility, is critical to minimizing risk to 

communities. 

This second component of the Cohesive Strategy relies on coordination and work 

already taking place among the federal agencies, states, and communities. Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) play an important role at the local level in 

providing specific risk-assessments to a county or community. CWPPs are a comprehensive wildfire planning tool for a community that is supported by the the Federal Government in partnership with State forestry agencies. By providing Federal 

support to state and local wildland fire agencies, we enhance our capability to work 

together to create these important plans and bring awareness of shared wildfire risk 

to communities. 

Additional activities include: 

• The International Association of Fire Chiefs, with help from the Federal Government, sponsored a forum to identify, share opportunities, and prioritize mitigation needs for a wide range of private sector partners. 

• The Fire-Adapted Communities Project gathers all wildland urban interface 

mitigation tools into one toolbox to assist in the implementation of Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans by providing communities, organizations, fire departments, and the public with the information they need to reduce their risk of 

wildfire. 

• The Ready, Set, Go! and Firewise projects are part of our Fire-adapted Communities program. With our State, local and NGO partners, we are reaching out 
12 

to increase the 600 Firewise communities we have today to over 1,000 communities by 2013. By combining Firewise with the Ready, Set, Go! principles, we 

are working together to make communities in fire-prone areas more resilient to 

catastrophic loss. 

Wildfire Response 

In preparing for the 2011 fire season, the Federal Government worked along with 

the tribes and the states to ensure we had adequate firefighting resources prepared 

and positioned. Fire managers will assign local, regional, and federal firefighting 

personnel and equipment based on anticipated fire starts, actual fire occurrence, fire 

spread, and severity. All federal, state, and tribal wildland fire agencies are represented in the National Wildfire Coordination Group. This group provides oversight 

to the National Interagency Coordination Center, located at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, and oversees coordinated wildland firefighting 

responses throughout the nation. When fire resources in one geographic area are in 

short supply, the NWCG helps to prioritize, allocate, and, if necessary, re-allocate 

the resources. Prioritization ensures firefighting forces are positioned where they 

are needed most. Fire resources such as personnel, equipment, aircraft, vehicles, 

and supplies are dispatched and tracked through an integrated national system developed by the Forest Service. 

In specified instances, the Department of Defense resources may be available to 

assist. Assistance also may be available under standing international agreements 

with Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand if the Secretary determines that 

no firefighting resources within the United States are reasonably available. 

WILDLAND FIRE PREPAREDNESS

Firefighting Forces 

Wildfire responses in the United States involve not only the resources of the Federal Government, but also employees from States, tribal governments, and local governments, contract crews, and emergency/temporary hires. For the 2011 fire season, 

the available firefighting forces—firefighters, equipment, and aircraft—are comparable to those available in 2010, more than 16,000 firefighters available from the 

Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior with 

approximately70% coming from the Forest Service. The levels of highly-trained firefighting crews, smokejumpers, Type 1 national interagency incident management 

teams (the most experienced and skilled teams) available for complex fires or incidents, and Type 2 incident management teams available for geographical or national incidents, also are comparable to those available in 2010. Additionally, the 

federal wildland fire fighting community work with State and local fire departments, which serve a critical role in our initial attack, and in many cases, extended 

attack success. The Forest Service uses its authority to provide State Fire Assistance funds to State partners to support State fire management capacity. We could 

not achieve the successes we have without these key partners. 

Aviation 

Nationally, the wildland firefighting agencies continue to employ a mix of fixed 

and rotor wing aircraft. The number of these aircraft may fluctuate depending on 

contractual and other agreements. Key components of the Forest Service 2011 aviation resources include: 

• Up to 19 contracted large air tankers (comprising 90% of all large air tankers); 

• 77% of the federal wildland fire response helicopters, including: 

—26 Type 1 heavy helicopters; 

—41 Type 2 medium helicopters on national contracts; and 

—52 Type 3 light helicopters on local or regional contracts; 

• 15 Leased Aerial Supervision fixed-wing aircraft; 

• Up to 12 Smokejumper aircraft; 

• 2 heat detecting infrared aircraft; 

• 2 single engine air tanker aircraft (SEATs); and 

• 300 call-when-needed helicopters. 

The Forest Service maintains a contract for a 100-passenger transport jet to facilitate rapid movement of firefighters during the peak of the fire season. The Forest 

Service also coordinates closely with the Department of Defense in maintaining 

eight Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) that can be deployed by Air 

National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 aircraft. The MAFFS program provides surge capability for air tanker support on large fires. 
13 

1 National Interagency Fire Center, National Year-to-Date Report on Fires and Acres Burned 

by State and Agency, March 21, 2011 

Fire Safety 

The Forest Service initiated, and continues to use cutting-edge risk management 

analyses in our strategic and tactical fire management decisions. We have implemented a Risk Management program that focuses on improving wildfire decisions. 

This program is enhancing the skill of decision makers by allowing managers to 

evaluate risk and benefit relative to the overall objective of any given wildfire and 

reducing the level of uncertainty when determining how to respond to a fire. A critical component of the program is furthering the development of tools to help managers and firefighters make better informed decisions about wildfire response. The 

Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) is an example of a tool that assists fire managers and analysts in making strategic and tactical decisions for fire 

incidents. WFDSS uses fire behavior modeling, economic principles, and information 

technology combined with land management plans and spatial analysis of a fire to 

establish a solid foundation for our professional wildland firefighters to make mindful, risk-informed decisions on wildland response. It continues to be a valuable analysis tool in wildland fire management. Our emphasis on safety is a core value to 

the agency. 

Suppression Funding 

Finally, the amount of suppression funding appropriated to the Forest Service 

Wildland Fire Management Account for FY 2011 is similar to the amount appropriated for FY 2010. In addition, the Forest Service has funding from prior fiscal 

years to allow us to respond to a worse-than-average fire season. These funds together with the FLAME Fund, established by the FLAME Act of 2009, will minimize the need to transfer funds from non-fire accounts to the Wildland Fire Management Appropriation for fire suppression. 

Current Wildland Fire Activity 

To date, approximately four million acres across the country have burned this calendar year, predominately in the southeast, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona1. Early 

spring months were drier than typical across sections of the south and southwest 

states. The total number of individual fires across the country is less than the tenyear average, but nearly three times more acres have burned than the ten-year average for this time of year. The State of Texas experienced a higher than normal 

number of fires and acres burned due to a combination of prolonged drought with 

dry, windy conditions. Drought is forecast to persist or worsen across the south and 

southwest parts of the nation. The Interagency Fire Predictive Services group is 

calling for above normal fire potential through June across this area, including Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, and Florida. Above normal 

significant fire potential is also expected in portions of Alaska and Hawaii. 

Arizona Fires Update as of Testimony Submission—June 10, 2011 

In response to the large fires burning in Arizona, we have deployed more than 

2,500 interagency firefighters to protect lives and property through a joint incident 

command system, and we are coordinating the resources available at local, state and 

federal levels. While we have prevented the loss of many homes, and have had no 

loss of life, we anticipate that the current dry and windy conditions will lead to several difficult days of firefighting ahead of us to prevent additional acreage within 

the state impacted. We are working with local partners to strategically deploy staff 

and equipment to minimize the impact on homes and communities within the region. The three large fires in Arizona (e.g., the Wallow fire, Horseshoe 2 fire, Murphy fire) are human caused and are still under investigation. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Thorsen, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF KIM THORSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. THORSEN. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, members of the committee. I appreciate the oppor-
14 

tunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of the 

Interior’s readiness for the 2011 wildland fire season. 

I am Kim Thorsen. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law 

Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management at Interior. In 

this capacity, I provide leadership and oversight to the Department’s wildland fire program. 

If I may, I would like to submit my full statement for the record 

and summarize the testimony. 

The 2011 fire season began in earnest in late April, early May 

with the ignition of three wildfires that continue to burn in Georgia 

and North Carolina. Fire season then moved to the southern area 

of the United States, strongly impacting the drought stricken 

States of Oklahoma and Texas, and is now in full swing in the 

southwestern States. 

The drought is forecasted to persist or worsen across much of the 

southern half of the Nation. 

More than 20 percent of the United States is managed by the Department, and together with the Forest Service and our other partners at the State, tribal, and local level, we respond to thousands 

of wildfires across the country every year. Historically and collectively, we have achieved a high success rate in suppressing fires 

during the initial attack stage. 

So far this calendar, more than 31,000 fires have burned over 

four million acres. 

In Alaska, where the Department has significant land management responsibilities, above normal significant fire potential is 

forecast for portions of the Yukon and Kenai Peninsula where dead 

and downed insect killed trees and heavy grass understory exist. 

The Department, together with the Forest Service, is working to 

prevent and reduce the effects of large unwanted fires to preparedness activities like risk assessment, prevention and mitigation efforts, mutual aid agreements, firefighter training, acquisition of 

equipment and aircraft, and community assistance, and hazardous 

fuels reduction. 

For the 2011 fire season, the Department has been and continues 

to be prepared. The variable firefighting forces are comparable to 

those available for the last several years. We will deploy approximately 3,500 firefighters, 135 smoke jumpers, 17 type one crews, 

750 engines, more than 200 other pieces of heavy equipment, and 

over 1,300 support personnel to support those fires. 

Where possible, the Department will emphasize the hiring of returning veterans to fill the ranks of its firefighting forces. 

Aviation assets for fiscal year 2011 are comparable to prior years 

as well, with exclusive use contracts in place for two water scooping aircraft, 37 helicopters, and 22 other aircraft, such as smoke 

jumper and air attack platforms. Nearly 60 single engine air tankers are expected to be available through call when needed contracts. 

The Department’s commitments are in line with the recently 

completed phase one of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Under the direction of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, the wildland fire community developed a blueprint 

to collaborate on achieving a shared vision to ‘‘safely and effectively 
15 

extinguish fire when needed, use fire where allowable, manage our 

natural resources, and, as a Nation, live with wildland fire.’’ 

The phase one blueprint called for restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, creating fire adapted communities, and wildfire 

response. During phase two, we will continue to work with our 

Federal, tribal, State, and local partners to assess wildfire risk, develop regional goals, and create a portfolio of strategic actions and 

activities. 

In phase three, we will bring forth the regional strategies into a 

national strategy where we will create a national risk tradeoff 

analysis. This national collaborative effort represents a new strategy, a new path forward, and perhaps a new way of thinking about 

wildland fire, and may pave the way for national, not just Federal, 

wildland fire management policy, which is not just comprehensive 

in its scope, but also consistent, coordinated, and complementary 

across all jurisdictions. 

The Department has made significant improvements in is hazardous fuels prioritization and allocation system to ensure funds 

are directed to the highest priority projects in the highest priority 

areas. We developed and issued policy that outlines the hazardous 

fuels prioritization allocation process, and enhanced our computer 

systems that identify high priority areas for treatment and high 

priority projects across the Nation. 

The Department will continue to pursue efficiencies and reforms 

that reduce project costs, increase performance, and ensure the 

greatest value from invested resources, all while strengthening the 

accountability and transparency of the way in which taxpayer dollars are being spent. 

In summary, the Department of the Interior is prepared to meet 

the wildland firefighting challenges of today, tomorrow, and beyond. We will strive to maintain customary operational capabilities 

and continue to improve our integrated approach to wildland fire 

within the Department. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorsen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIM THORSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAW

ENFORCEMENT, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Department of the Interior’s readiness for the 2011 wildland fire season. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), along with the Forest Service within U.S. Department of Agriculture 

have been and continue to be prepared for the 2011 wildland fire season. 

The 2011 fire season began in earnest in late April / early May, with the ignition 

of three large wildfires that continue to burn in Georgia and North Carolina. More 

than twenty percent of the United States (490 million acres) is managed by the bureaus within DOI, with fire management responsibilities that stretch from Florida 

to Alaska, from Maine to California. Historically and collectively, DOI has achieved 

a high success rate in suppressing fires during the initial attack stage. 

Wildland fire behavior and our response are influenced by complex environmental 

and social factors as discussed in the 2009 Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR). Such 

factors include the effects of climate change, cumulative drought effects, continued 

risk in the Wildland Urban Interface, and escalating emergency response. 

Nationally, already this fiscal year, approximately more than 46,000 fires have 

burned more than 4.5 million acres (this calendar year, approximately more than 

31,000 fires have burned over 4 million acres), predominately in the southeast 
16 

(Texas and Oklahoma) and now the southwest (Arizona and New Mexico) on federal 

and non-federal lands. Drought is forecast to persist or worsen across much of the 

southern half of the nation. And in Alaska, where the Department has significant 

land management responsibilities, above normal significant fire potential is forecast 

for portions of the Upper Yukon and Kenai Peninsula where dead and down insectkilled trees and heavy grass understory exist. 

For the 2011 fire season, available firefighting forces within the Department of 

the Interior—firefighters, equipment, and aircraft—are comparable to those available for the last several years. Among its bureaus, the Department will deploy approximately 3,500 firefighters, 135 smokejumpers, 17 Type-1 crews, 750 engines 

more than 200 other pieces of heavy equipment (dozers, tenders, etc.) and about 

1,300 support personnel (dispatchers, fire cache, etc) ; for a total of nearly 5,000 personnel. Where possible, the Department will emphasize the hiring of returning veterans to fill the ranks of its firefighting forces. 

Aviation assets for FY 2011 are comparable to prior years as well, with exclusive 

use contracts in place for 2 water scooping aircraft, 37 helicopters, and 22 other aircraft (smokejumper, air attack, etc.) Nearly 60 single-engine air tankers (SEATs) 

are expected to be available through call-when-needed contracts. 

The federal government wildland fire agencies are working with tribal, state, and 

local government partners to prevent and reduce the effects of large, unwanted fires 

through preparedness activities like risk assessment, prevention and mitigation efforts, mutual aid agreements, firefighter training, acquisition of equipment and aircraft, and dispatching; community assistance and hazardous fuels reduction. 

All these commitments are in line with the recently completed Phase I of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. The wildland fire community, 

under the direction of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (lead by Secretaries 

from the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Homeland Security), has developed a blueprint for all entities with statutory responsibilities for wildfire to collaborate on achieving a shared vision to ‘‘safely and effectively extinguish fire, when 

needed; use fire where allowable, manage our natural resources, and as a nation, 

live with wildland fire’’. The blueprint called for: restoring and maintaining resilient 

landscapes, creating fire adapted communities, and wildfire response. In addition, 

the federal government is continuing to work with our non-federal partners to complete Phase II of the Cohesive Strategy this fiscal year, which will develop regional 

goals and portfolios of actions and activities. Phase III would be a national risk 

trade-off analysis. This national collaborative effort represents a new strategy, a 

new path forward and perhaps, a new way of thinking about wildland fire and may 

pave the way for national, not just federal, wildland fire management policy which 

is not just comprehensive in its scope, but also consistent, coordinated and complementary across all jurisdictions. 

Until then, DOI continues to take full advantage of the current Implementation 

Guidelines for the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Our unwavering commitment to firefighter and public safety in managing wildfire is the foundation of 

the fire management program within each DOI bureau. We will continue to respond 

quickly and effectively to control unwanted wildland fires. Initial action on humancaused wildfire will continue to suppress the fire at the lowest risk to firefighter and 

public safety. When appropriate, we will also allow fire managers to manage a fire 

for multiple objectives and increase managers’ flexibility to respond to changing incident conditions and firefighting capability, while strengthening strategic and tactical decision implementation supporting public safety and resource management objectives. Our actions will be supported by the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) and our enhanced ability to analyze fire conditions and develop risk 

informed strategies and tactics, resulting in reduced exposure to unnecessary risk 

during fire incidents. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget reflects the commitment of the Administration to implement program reforms to ensure fire management resources are focused where they will do the most good. The 2012 budget proposes a total of $821.5 

million to support the fire preparedness, suppression, fuels reduction, and burned 

area rehabilitation needs of DOI. The 2012 budget request fully funds the inflationadjusted 10-year average of suppression expenditures of $362.6 million, with the 

funding split between $270.6 million in the regular suppression account and $92.0 

million in the FLAME Fund. Consistent with the FLAME Act, the regular suppression account will fund the initial attack and predictable firefighting costs, while the 

FLAME Fund will fund the costs of the largest, most complex fires and also serve 

as a reserve when funds available in the regular suppression account are exhausted. 

The President’s FY 2012 Budget provides DOI sufficient funding to fully cover anticipated preparedness and suppression needs. The Budget also recognizes the need 

to invest not just in firefighting related activities, but in hazardous fuels reduction 
17 

and community assistance, and rehabilitation of burned areas as well. The budget 

for the Hazardous Fuels Reduction program focuses the program on projects in or 

adjacent to the wildland-urban interface and the Department has made significant 

improvements to its Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation System to ensure 

funds are directed to the highest priority projects in the highest priority areas. DOI 

developed and issued policy that outlines the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation Process and has enhanced the commuter systems that identify high priority 

areas for treatment and high priority projects across the nation. We have also 

worked collaboratively to improve the decision and documentation process. In fiscal 

year 2011, the bureaus within the Department have funded high priority projects 

in high priority areas which will result in the mitigation of risks to communities 

and their values. The Department will continue to pursue efficiencies and reforms 

that reduce project cost, increase performance, ensure the greatest value from invested resources, all while strengthening the accountability and transparency of the 

way in which taxpayer dollars are being spent. 

In summary, the Department of the Interior is prepared to meet the wildland firefighting challenges of today and tomorrow. DOI will maintain customary operational 

capabilities and continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the fire management programs. These efforts are coupled with other strategic efforts and operational protocols to improved oversight and use of the latest research and technology 

to ensure fire management resources are appropriately focused. Specifically, these 

actions include: 

• Continued reduction of hazardous fuels on priority lands in wildland-urban 

interface areas with its hazardous fuels reduction funds that present the greatest opportunity to reduce the risk of severe damaging fires in the future; 

• Continued improvement of decision-making on wildland fires by leveraging the 

Wildland Fire Decision Support System capabilities to predict what may happen 

during a fire to safeguard lives, protect communities and enhance natural resources ecosystem health; 

• Continued enhancement to wildfire response and efficiency that comes from use 

of national shared resources, pre-positioning of firefighting resources, and improvements in aviation management; 

• Continued review of fire incidents to apply lessons learned and best practices 

to policy and operations; and 

• Continued strategic planning in collaboration with the Forest Service and our 

state, tribal, and local government to develop meaningful performance measures 

and implementation plans to address the challenges posed by wildfires in the 

nation. 

Although the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) are offering separate written statements today, please be assured that the 

Departments work collaboratively in all aspects of wildland fire, along with our 

other federal, tribal, state and local partners. Our statements have been coordinated 

to ensure a well rounded presentation of our collective fire management program, 

the common challenges that we face, and our recent efforts to effectively meet these 

challenges. The two Departments collaborate in the Federal Fire Policy Council, and 

met just last week to explore some of the issues that are faced by senior executives 

during periods of significant wildfire activity and to reaffirm their mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities and develop appropriate response scenarios 

prior to any national emergencies. 

Together, we are staffed to provide safe and effective fire management with available firefighting forces—firefighters, equipment, and aircraft. And at the same time, 

we continue to improve effectiveness, cost efficiency, safety, and community and resource protection in concert with each other. 

This concludes my statement. Thank you for your interest in the Wildland Fire 

Program and the opportunity to testify before this Committee. I welcome any questions you may have and appreciate your continued support. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both very much. 

Chief Tidwell, let me ask you first. I think you somewhat answered this in your opening statement, but as we look at the situation in my State and around the country, we have got more and 

more fires starting up. We have a fire reported today that started 

yesterday at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. We have a fire up 

around Raton, which has caused the closing of I–25 going between 

Albuquerque and Denver. In addition, of course, Senator Kyl re-
18 

ferred to the fact that the Wallow fire out of Arizona is now coming 

over and threatening the town of Luna, New Mexico. 

What I understood you to say was that you believe the Forest 

Service has the resources necessary to respond to these fires and 

the others going on around the country. Is that an accurate understanding of your view? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. With the resources that all of the partners 

bring to the wildland firefighting mission, we believe that we have 

adequate resources to deal with the fires that we have on the landscape today, with an anticipation of new starts every day. 

I want to stress that we always hold resources in reserve to deal 

with initial attacks so that we always have resources to be able to 

put on those to stop these new fires from becoming large. But with 

everything that we have on—that is burning today, plus what we 

anticipate over at least in the south for another 60 to 45 days, we 

believe we have adequate resources. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Last year, the Inspector General 

issued a report that said that regarding the firefighting work force, 

it concluded that the Forest Service’s firefighter work force is 

shrinking at the same time as its need for qualified firefighters and 

emergency response managers is increasing. The Inspector General 

said that insufficient planning could both increase the Forest Service’s already significant fire suppression expenditures through the 

higher costs of using non-Forest Service employees and jeopardize 

the response capabilities of both the Forest Service and the assisting agencies. Could you give us a little explanation as to how you 

are responding to that report from the Inspector General? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We share the concerns from the Inspector General 

that we need to ensure that we have a firefighter force in the future. That includes not only the firefighters, but also the overhead 

positions, the incident commanders that we need to be able to carry 

out, you know, this mission in the future. 

So, I have tasked my team to be looking at some of the things 

that we can do differently to ensure that we are able to recruit future firefighters and, at the same time, to look at ways that we can 

accelerate some of the training. Many of our incident commanders, 

they take over 20 years to be able to acquire the level of experience 

and training that they need to be an incident commander. So, one 

of the things that we wanted to look are training requirements and 

see how we can accelerate that maybe with additional training assignments, and at the same time, to ensure they have the expertise. But that we want to make sure that we have that command 

system in place, the personnel for the command system, into the 

future. 

The CHAIRMAN. The large fires that we are seeing, this Wallow 

fire being one example, remind us of why a landscape scale approach to fuel reduction and forest restoration is important. Could 

you tell us how you think this new collaborative forest landscape 

restoration program is going, and whether you think that is going 

to be an effective approach in reducing the risk and the costs of 

these severe wildfires? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership to provide us with that authority. That is, I believe, the 

model for the future, where we can bring people together from all 
19 

interests to look at these much larger areas than we ever have before. In the case with the these projects, there are over 50,000 

acres. Then to also provide a commitment for long-term funding, 

not just a 1-year commitment of funds. This will allow us to be able 

to look at these much larger landscapes, ideally do environmental 

analysis for much larger areas, thus reducing our planting costs, 

and be able to actually treat enough acres on the landscape where 

it makes a difference. 

Senator Kyl mentioned that in Arizona, where the White Mountain stewardship project, we have been able to treat over 40,000 

acres out of the 150,000 that we had hoped to treat during the 10- 

years. Those projects, as I pointed out in the picture, made the difference in those communities. It is a difference from just losing a 

few homes to losing all of those homes. 

That is the type of work that we need to do, but we need to do 

it on a much larger scale. I think the Collaborative Force Landscape Restoration projects are definitely the model as we move forward, and it is something we want to continue to expand on. 

We did ask for full funding both in fiscal year 2011 and also in 

fiscal year 2012. We appreciate the support from Congress for the 

funding we received in 2011. I would really encourage full funding 

for those projects next year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, Senator Kyl, in speaking of the Arizona fires, talked about 

the costs that are associated with it. I think we all recognize that 

just the dollars that are out there are really quite considerable. 

It is my understanding that the East Volkmar fire, which we 

have been following, has surpassed that $5 million range. It is estimated at about $8 million. By the time everything is contained, I 

think Senator Kyl mentioned, it will be over $40 million for the 

Wallow Creek and the others there. 

Back in 2009, during the 2009 edition of Wildland Fire, a team 

of scientists said that the total short-term and long-term costs plus 

loss attributed to wildfire typically attains amounts that are 10 to 

50 times or more reported suppression expenses. Do you agree with 

that? I mean, when we are talking about the costs of these fires, 

are we being comprehensive and inclusive in understanding it? 

Have we really been able to identify what the costs associated with 

these wildland fires are? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. You know, we have not reviewed 

those exact figures, but without any question, the true costs, the 

total costs, of these large wildland fires goes way beyond the suppression costs. Just with the fires we are seeing in Arizona, the 

emergency rehabilitation that we will need to do, it could easily 

match the total suppression costs by itself. When you factor in the 

loss of the resources, the impact to the livestock operators, even 

though it may only be for a year or so, plus the other damages to 

fences, there is just no question that those total costs go way beyond the suppression costs. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Does your agency do that calculation, above 

and beyond the suppression costs? Because we can identify those. 
20 

But do you in fact complete a total cost study of a whole season’s 

worth of fires? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We have not done that in the past. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Can you do that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It is something I would like to visit with you to 

see—if some of the information that we already have in our modeling that we use in our decision support system, that may provide 

you the answer that you are looking for. So, I would like to visit 

with you on that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would like to do that, and I look forward 

to that. 

Let me ask you about the Alaska fire crew recruitment and the 

issues that are associated with that. We have had this conversation 

before where we have teams of Alaskans—native fire crews that 

are standing by the ready to go out and work on the fires. It is always a debate as to who we bring in. We are told that part of the 

reason that we do not use the local teams is they lack the qualifications needed to serve on the Federal fires. This is something that 

my constituents are bringing up with me repeatedly. They are saying, ‘‘OK, if we do not have the training, why not provide that 

training so that you do not have that expense of bringing folks up 

from the lower 48? 

On my trip back home this weekend and the weekend before, I 

sat next to a firefighter from Oregon, and then a firefighter from 

California who were on their way up. I welcome them. We need the 

help. But I also want to know what is it that we can do to ensure 

that the Alaskan native crews actually get out on a job. This is 

their part of the country. They know and understand it well. What 

do we need to be doing better? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, the Alaskan native crews are handled 

through the Department of Interior, but I will say that ideally we 

would like to have those crews that are trained locally. It is more 

cost effective to be able to have those folks there, and at the same 

time then after the Alaska fire season is over, we often then bring 

those crews down into the lower 48, where they will often spend 

another month or two before they get to go back home. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. All right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. So, it takes a combination of both. It is why we are 

so successful in the way that we all work together, and that these 

firefighting resources are mobile. And there may be times that we 

do need to bring personnel up to Alaska, but we always try to 

reach out and train local crews so they are there. They are available, and so we do not have to wait for them to be transported. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We are looking also to the cost of it. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It takes a lot to move these men and 

women back and forth. If we have got the locally trained crews and 

they are good, which they are; we have got some great hot shot 

crews up there—that is one way that we can be looking at the cost 

side of this. 

I hope we are going to have an opportunity for a second round, 

Mr. Chairman, because I have got a lot more questions here. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
21 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, all the senators are saying—those from the west—that our 

forests are just taking a beating because of insufficient thinning. It 

is obvious that these overstocked stands are just magnets for, you 

know, disease and insects, and when they are dry, they just go up 

in smoke. Every time you all come on up here, you talk to us, particularly when we highlight some of the innovative approaches that 

we are seeing around the country. Like on the east side of Oregon, 

you all said we have got to have more money. We have got to have 

more money. 

We went and looked at your fiscal year 2012 budget justification. You proposed rescinding close to $200 million from the fiscal year 

2011 budget, and on page 11–14 of the budget justification, you 

proposed more reductions in the hazardous fuels budget. 

So, I am trying to reconcile these two statements, the one that 

you need more money and, second, actually what is in the budget. 

So, why do you not tell me how those two are consistent to start 

with? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, with our fiscal year 2011 funding, especially for hazardous fuels, it is basically the same as we had in fiscal year 2010. In fiscal year 2012, there is a slight reduction. But 

the big change in our proposal for fiscal year 2012 is this concept 

of having an integrated resource restoration budget line item. We 

want to focus our hazardous fuel funding on the wildland urban 

interface, and then we want to take some of that fuels funding and 

put it into the integrated resource restoration so that in the landscapes—the forests that are outside the wildland urban interface, 

we can take this much more integrated approach to be able to not 

only address the need to reduce that hazardous fuel through 

thinning, but also accomplish the watershed improvement work, 

the wildlife habitat improvement work. By putting those funds together, we feel that we will increase our effectiveness, and at the 

same, not ask for more funding. 

Senator WYDEN. I just have to tell you, I think this is still, as 

it relates to the budget, kind of funny money. I mean, you all talk 

to us about the integrated resources program, like that. You talk 

to us about the collaborative forestry program like that. We have 

essentially got one out of our nine, you know, forests. Every year, 

the problem just grows and grows. My own sense is I think if you 

do not deal with these reductions—you have said they are small; 

we do not see them as small—in the hazardous fuels program, this 

problem is just going to continue, you know, to grow. We are going 

to continue to bring it up. When it is dry, we are going to see these 

infernos. That is what these fires are in dry areas. They are not 

natural fires; they are infernos. 

So, let me ask you about one other point, and that is the 

Wildland Fire Aviation Program. This, as you know, has been 

under the microscope for what seems like, you know, eons. It is a 

fleet that is aging rapidly. Somehow, getting an adequate plan for 

the future just is not coming together. I mean, this has been almost 

the longest-running battle since the Trojan War to get you all to 

update this fleet. It was reported again in the papers. Why is it 

taking so long to get an adequate replacement fleet, and particu-
22 

larly, a plan so that we will know for certain when this is going 

to happen? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, as I mentioned earlier, we will be bringing our plan up here, you know, by the end of this summer. Some 

of the things that is taking the time is that we wanted to make 

sure that we had the information that we needed. We worked—in 

fact, the Department of Defense just completed a study that you requested for us to take a look at being able to use military aircraft 

on a full time purpose for wildland firefighting. They have completed their report. We are also still waiting for the report that the 

RAND Corporation has promised us in July that would look at 

what is the right mix between large air tankers, small air tankers, 

scoopers, et cetera? 

So, we have been gathering information, but at the same time, 

continuing to work with our contractors that have done a very good 

job to be able to maintain the existing fleet so that we can still respond where we need large air tankers. 

Senator WYDEN. Can you give me your sense of a target date 

when the agency would have an adequate replacement fleet? I 

mean, just give us a ballpark when we could expect that fleet to 

be available to deal with the kind of emergencies that you know 

creates such a demand? 

Mr. TIDWELL. What I envision is that we are going to be looking 

at every option that is available today and to be able to lay out a 

strategy that will continue to maintain an adequate fleet. We have 

an adequate fleet today. We want to make sure that we have that 

10 years from now, 20 years from now. So, our recommendation 

will include a strategy that will allow us to work forward, and at 

the same time to work with our contractors to find ways to ensure 

that we will have that adequate fleet into the future. 

Senator WYDEN. My time is up. I can just tell you, everybody remembers those two air tanker crashes that took the lives of pilots 

and maintenance personnel in 2002. I do not share your view that 

things, with respect to today’s situation, are adequate. I think the 

government has got to do a lot better, and I hope we will accelerate 

the efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tidwell, I understand that new fire management policies are 

in place, and that sometimes when implementing these policies, it 

results in longer-burning fires at times that can adversely affect 

neighboring jurisdictions. What are you doing to work with local officials to resolve any conflicts that might develop as this happens? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, when a fire starts, and especially fires in 

the back country, we look at the opportunities to be able to manage 

those firs for some resource benefits if we have the right conditions 

and we have done the pre-planning. 

The first part of that, though, is to be able to sit down with the 

local jurisdictions, the local communities, and be able to talk 

through the strategies so that they have an understanding of what 

we are proposing. We want to be able to work together to be able 

to take those—use those opportunities, to actually use fire to help 

reduce some of fuel loading, and actually restore these systems. 
23 

It is essential we do that together, and that is one of the first 

things that is done. Even at the start of the season, we want to sit 

down with our local communities to be able to explain what we 

would like to do if we get a start under these conditions and be 

able to talk about it with them and answer their concerns. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. On the issue of thinning and making 

our forests less vulnerable to fires, is there anything that can be 

done by way of allowing more selective harvesting of lumber in 

some of those areas to thin that out, and thereby reduce the risk 

of loss to fire? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is the key to our restoration work. It is the 

key to our wildland urban interface work is to be able to, as you 

saw in this one photo. We have numerous pictures around the 

country of this. Arizona is not the first place that we have seen 

this. By getting in there and thinning out these stands, it changes 

the fire behavior dramatically to the point where the fire will get 

out of the tops of the trees, get down onto the ground where our 

suppression efforts are then effective. 

The level of thinning is dependent on the conditions we have, the 

slope, how close the homes are, and also the vegetation types. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. Ms. Thorsen, cheatgrass is a problem 

throughout a lot of the west, including my State of Utah. How 

much of a problem do you think cheatgrass plays in paring your 

efforts toward fire prevention and in making fires worse when they 

break out? 

Ms. THORSEN. Senator, it is definitely part of the issue that we 

are facing when it comes to fire activity in the west. One of the 

things that we have got to help us in that arena is our hazardous 

fuels prioritization and allocation system, which will help us identify hazardous fuels dollars in areas that are high priority areas 

and high priority targets. 

Now, many of those are in the Woowie area, but we also funds 

throughout our bureaus that allow us to address a little bit of what 

the chief said. Habitat restoration so far is outside the Woowie or 

immediately adjacent to the Woowie. So, we have got some things 

that we are working on within the Department to address the very 

issue you are talking about. 

Senator LEE. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Tidwell, 

good to see you again. 

The chairman mentioned earlier that climate change is one factor 

contributing to the fires that we are seeing. Can you comment on 

that, and on the impacts you think climate change will have on forest fires in the future? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. You know, what we are seeing today 

in Arizona and other parts of the south is an example of what our 

scientists say are the effects of climate change. Throughout the 

country, we are seeing longer fire seasons, and we are seeing snow 

packs on an average actually disappear a little earlier every spring. 

So, we have a longer fire season. Like the chairman pointed out, 

that with this change in climate, we are seeing a much increased 

frequency of disturbance events, such as drought. Not only are the 

droughts more frequent, they are also longer in length. 
24 

So, in many parts of the west especially, we have seen our fire 

seasons increase more than 30 days from what we saw in the past. 

Our scientists believe this is contributed to the change in the climate. 

These large fires that we are seeing today, and we have had 

large fires in the past, but I will tell you, when I was out in Arizona last weekend, and I flew over the Wallow fire, and then 

stopped to talk to our crews, I have seen a lot of large fires in my 

career. But I tell you, when I flew up along the west side of that 

fire and saw about a 30-mile front of active fire on just one side 

of that, it definitely topped anything that I have seen before. 

This is a product of just the prolonged drought, very high, hot, 

dry conditions, and, of course the winds that Senator Kyl referred 

to. 

We need to do treatments on the land to be able to ensure our 

communities are safe. We need to do treatments to restore the resiliency, to be able to—so our forests can recover from these fires. 

But we are going to continue to have large fires, and the changing 

climate is one of the factors that will contribute to that. 

Senator FRANKEN. I would just like to underscore that for members of our body who when we have discussions about the impact 

of climate, and we are talking about the cost of this. That is a lot 

of what we are talking about here today is the cost of this. 

Sometimes when we talk about energy and we talk about the 

amount of carbon dioxide that goes into our atmosphere, and we 

talk about cost, I think that it would be really good for members 

to take into account this kind of cost. This is a real cost. We are 

talking about real dollars here. A lot of the focus of this hearing 

today has been the costs of this. I think that it would be all well 

and good for members to understand this is related to climate 

change and how important it is for us to address this and for our— 

take national action to reduce our carbon emissions. 

Now, to that end, we are talking a lot about treating forests. I 

would like to ask about the opportunity that is sustainable, the 

harvest of forest biomass offers in enhancing both forest health and 

in providing a renewable resource for heating and cooling or power 

production, all three. How are you incorporating the sustainable 

harvesting of woody biomass in the Forest Service fire prevention 

plans, and using it to do the kind of—we do in Minnesota, which 

is use biomass to do, you know, district energy and do heating and 

cooling and using that to produce energy? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, one of the things that we need to continue 

to do in this country is to maintain our integrated wood products 

industry, so that the biomass that needs to be removed from these 

landscapes, that we can put it to beneficial use. Whether it is the 

sawlogs that need—sawlog diameter trees that need to be removed 

or the smaller diameter material that could be used for other products, or for biomass production—utilization to produce energy, we 

need to make sure that we are in—finding ways to build that infrastructure, and especially with the smaller diameter material. 

We have the option to either pile it up—pay somebody to pile it 

up and burn it out there in the woods or we can we can find a way 

that we can transport it to a facility and be able to convert it into 

energy. I think that is a much better solution. So, we are going to 
25 

continue to ask for funding in our biomass grant so that we can 

encourage this type of infrastructure development around the country, all over the country. It is not the solution, but it is just part 

of the solution. To me, it just makes better sense than piling this 

stuff up and burning it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. It seems like a win-win to me. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Heller. 

Senator HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding this hearing. I apologize for my tardiness, but this is an important issue to most of us, especially western States, as we deal with 

these wildfires. I have got a son who attends the University of 

Southern California, and he is an engineering student. In the summer, Dad makes him fight fires. So, he is currently in Arizona 

fighting these fires, and he has been there for almost 2 weeks now. 

I think after 2 weeks, they pull them out, but he has been there 

at least—more than 10 days. Mom makes him call home every 

night to make sure that the 21-year-old son is safe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Tell him to keep that fire out of New Mexico, 

would you please? 

Senator HELLER. Actually, I told Senator Kyl he was assigned to 

his house, and that is why it burned the house around him, not his 

particular residence. 

Needless to say, I have seen fuel treatments in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin and seen this picture. It is exactly the occurrence when correct fuel treatments have been applied. The problem is it is very 

expensive, and we spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars 

with these fuel treatments, just in one basin. So, I cannot imagine 

how expensive that has to be try to do that on a much larger scale. 

But clearly, the actions and the efforts do work. 

One of the problems, of course, we have in Nevada is that 85 percent of the State is owned by the Federal Government, and so what 

I concern myself is readiness of the Federal Government for some 

of these wildfires. I have had an opportunity to look at some of the 

Interior reports, and the outlook on the fire season, and the funding. I guess my concern, since I do have a son that is out there 

fighting these fires on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management 

and the efforts, of course, for the residents in Arizona, is if you 

have sufficient funding. I apologize again for my tardiness, but 

maybe you have already covered this question, but your physical 

readiness. If the funding is there, is the physical—and I am talking 

individuals, enough firefighters, enough equipment, the trucks, the 

planes, and everything. Do you feel prepared for this wildfire season? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, yes. We continue to be prepared this year. 

We have the adequate resources. I want to just assure you that I 

will speak for all of the agencies, that we would not allow your son 

or any other firefighter to go out unless they had the equipment 

and they had the training and they had passed our physical requirements to ensure that not only can they accomplish their mission to help suppress that fire, but they come home safely. 

Senator HELLER. I believe that. I am sure that is that case. I 

have no reason to believe otherwise. 
26 

I want to touch on one other topic quickly that I think is of concern, at least in the State of Nevada and the west as a whole, and 

that is the threat of these Endangered Species Act listing the sage 

grouse. When you have a wildfire like this, the impact that that 

has on the ecosystem, and the competition that you have between 

wildlife, such as sage grouse, elk, deer, and, for that matter, nonenative species, like wild horses. 

If the bird gets listed and you have these fires, I think it will 

have a devastating impact when you try to balance between the act 

itself, the wildfires, and the competition that you have between 

these animals. 

Does the BLM have any plans to invest more heavily into pretreatment in these areas when you have this kind of competition 

going on between the Act itself, between the fires, and between the 

animals competing for those specific grounds? Is there anything 

in—that you are doing that would give any priority to treatment 

in those threatened areas? 

Ms. THORSEN. Yes, Senator. The BLM is working very hard in 

trying to keep it off the endangered species list through hazardous 

fields treatments and their programs within the Bureau. So, it is 

a high priority for them. They have other things that they certainly 

need to balance, but it is absolutely on the list of their high priority 

items to ensure that that does not happen, for the very reasons 

that you talk about. 

Senator HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom, good to see you. 

Thank you for what you do, and we in Idaho are certainly happy 

you are where you are, and you have been very helpful to us when 

we have had issues with the Forest Service. 

I guess I come at this a little bit different than a lot of the people 

here. I think as I look around the room, probably you and I are the 

only ones with degrees in forest management. Maybe there is a 

handful of others in here, and probably not many of us, included, 

I am sure, Senator Franklin—or Senator Franken—have operated 

a Pulaski on a fighter line before. But when you do that, you get 

a different perspective, I think, than kind of theoretical approach 

to fire management and what have you. 

By the way, as far as climate change, we had a change in Idaho 

this year. We got record snow pack. We are probably not going to 

have much of a fire season, thank goodness. I have got watersheds 

that 1,000 times—that have 1,000 percent—excuse me—1,000 percent of the average, and it is just stunning the amount of snow that 

we have this year. So, our concern is probably going to be fire rather—or flood rather than fire. 

I appreciate the fine line you guys walk. It just amazes me when 

I hear people talk about climate change, with all due respect to 

Senator Franken. Generally, the people who talk about climate 

change and wring their hands about the fires are the exact same 

people who when you in the Forest Service tried to remove fuel 

from a particular watershed are the first ones that file suit to stop 

from removing that fuel. As all know, over the years—and when I 

am talking years, I am talking centuries—the original policy of the 

U.S. Government to do fire control after the big burn in 2009 and 
27 

2010 is what we are paying the price for now because the objective 

was to fight fires, all fires, and suppress them at all times and all 

places. 

So, that went along for a lot of years. We did a good job of suppressing fires. We never had a big burn again. Then over the years, 

the Federal Government has also had a policy, not through the government, but through the courts, to stop taking the fiber out of the 

forest. The result of that is we got today, which are catastrophic 

fires. As you know in Idaho, we have really suffered from that over 

the last decade. 

So, I appreciate the fine line that you walk and the difficulties 

that you have. We had, as I think you know, when I started in the 

State legislature in 1975, we had 42 operating mills in southern 

Idaho. Today we have two. One of them was built was built with 

stimulus money, so it’s a Federal Government financed mill and 

not there because of the free market forces that should be operating. So, since we are down to these two mills, it is very difficult 

to remove fiber from the forest. 

So, again, I appreciate what you do. I appreciate the fine line you 

have to talk. I hope you will continue to educate people about how 

important it is to remove fuel. Removing fuel is so important when 

it comes to fire control, particularly in forests that are thriving and 

the ones that do produce the board feet that we could use. 

It is a difficult task. I know most people do not have the technical understanding of how acres vary from acre to acre of the difference and the amount of fuels on the ground. It is a great picture 

that you have provided here. I think you and I have probably 

seen—have seen examples of this all over. As you know, when you 

are out on a fire, you get the old maps out, you know, hope it hits 

one that is burned within the last 5 or 10 years because that, of 

course, changes the dynamics of the fire entirely. 

The unfortunate thing about just plain fuel treatment is how economically inefficient that it is. Again, if it was turned over to the 

private sector to be able to remove it, to be able to use it, to saw 

it, to use it for bio fuels or whatever, it would certainly help us at 

the Federal level as far as the dollars and cents we spend doing 

this. 

So, thank you for what you do. We have, as you know, NIFC, national Fire Center, in Boise. The guys are probably going to be 

doing most of the work outside of Idaho this year, which is a good 

thing. It is our turn to not have the fires. 

Thank you for what you do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me ask another question. 

The FLAME Act, which you have referred to and which I have 

referred to, passed in the last Congress and it requires the agencies 

to periodically submit predictive estimates for wildfire suppression 

costs so that Congress is adequately informed of the fiscal situation 

as it is working on appropriations bills. To date, neither of the departments, Agriculture or Interior, have submitted those reports 

within the timeframes required by the Act. Obviously it is sort of 

a waste of the effort and resources to develop the reports if they 

are going to be obsolete by the time we get to see them. So, getting 

these reports cleared and submitted in a timely manner will be 
28 

critical if we are going to be able to help avoid the fire borrowing 

situation we used to find ourselves in. 

So I would urge both of you to just take a message back to your 

respective departments that we need to come up with some way to 

get that information to the Congress in a timely way so we can act 

upon it. I do not know if either of you have any comments on that. 

I am not really asking you to respond. I think, as I understand it, 

the problem is not getting the reports done, but getting them 

cleared. Is that an accurate understanding? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, first of all, you know, I agree with you, 

and I apologize that we have not sent those reports out. It is information that we use. It is essential that we share that so that you 

can factor that into your decisionmaking. You have my assurance 

that in the future we will make sure that we have those up here. 

If it takes a little more time to get them through our clearance 

process, we are going to do that to make sure you have that. I am 

hoping that we will have them up here this week. 

The CHAIRMAN. That will be very helpful. 

Ms. Thorsen, did you have any comments? 

Ms. THORSEN. Senator, yes. The Department of the Interior did 

submit a report dated April 27 to the Hill. So, we will get you a 

copy of that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Ms. THORSEN [continuing]. So you have that. Then our May report is in process, so we are starting the process, and we will be 

sure to get it here on time. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you very much. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, I am sure that you read the article that was in the Washington Post on, I guess, it was Sunday. I was traveling, so I read 

all of my newspapers last night. But this was the one that is entitled, ‘‘The Firefighting Planes Have Been Perhaps on the Job Too 

Long.’’ You have said a couple times here this morning that you believe that the resources are adequate, that what we have, whether 

it is equipment, or Senator Heller’s son and others that are out 

fighting, or the air assets, that they are adequate. 

The article makes a couple of statements here that I just want 

to ask you about. Large tanker planes leased by the agency that 

have been flying on average about 50 years are rapidly becoming 

unsafe to deploy. Then a statement about the 2009 report, and the 

Forest Service’s replacement plan for aerial firefighter resources. 

According to the report, the remaining leased air tankers should fly 

for only one more year. After 2012, they will be too expensive to 

maintain or no longer air worthy, the Forest Service concluded. 

So, the first question is whether or not you agree with that statement. Second question is, next year is next year, and we are working on the budget now, and we all know how long it takes to get 

anything around here. Are we going to be in a situation where next 

year we will not have air assets that you would consider adequate 

and/or safe? If that is the case, I would hope that we would not put 

the lives and the safety of those who are fighting our fires at risk. 

What is our plan? I know you said you are going to be getting this 

plan to us by the end of this summer, but are we not cutting this 

kind of close in terms of our preparedness? 
29 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we have been continuing to work with our 

contractors to actually look at newer aircraft. They have been pursuing that to be able to bring on some newer aircraft. At the same 

time, we do hold them to very strict safety standards on the maintenance of these planes to ensure that they are not being flown unless they are safe, and that if—when I say we have adequate resources, if for some reason some planes needed to be grounded for 

maintenance or whatever, we have the ability to either bring on additional type one helicopters to replace those assets, or we can also 

make a request to our mass units from the National Guard to be 

able to offset that for a period of time. 

We know that we need to lay out the strategy that will ensure 

that we have large air tankers as part of our resources into the future. That is what our strategy is going to be. It will have an interim approach so that we continue to work with, you know, our 

existing contractors or other contractors to be able to bring on aircraft that will continue to provide a period of time so that we do 

not have to, you know, wait 5 or 6 or 10 years to actually what we 

want in place for the foreseeable future. 

So, it will be a combination of an interim strategy with a longterm strategy, and I remain confident that today that we have the 

adequate resources. But it is time for us to move forward, and that 

is why we will bringing that report recommendation to Congress, 

you know, later this summer so that we can begin the discussion 

about what is the best way to move forward with our recommendation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. When we had the discussion several 

months ago at Interior Approps, you assured me at that time that 

there was going to be a variety of aircraft types and sizes within 

the firefighting force. I take that to mean that it will be different 

brands. It will be including the size of heavy retardant aircraft, 

that this will be part of that mix. Is that a correct assumption? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we need to look at every option that we 

have available. That is to look at a full range of the aircraft that 

are currently available and also some that are being currently developed. So, our strategy is going to look at using every option that 

is available for us to be able to continue to always have the resource that the large air tankers provide. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. It is good to hear that because since 

that hearing, there has been some feedback from some within the 

aircraft manufacturing companies and the companies that contract 

with the Forest Service. They have suggested that perhaps the 

heavy retardant aircraft would not be employed. But what I am 

hearing you say is that you are going to be looking to all options, 

including the heavy aircraft, the heavy retardant aircraft, and that 

will be included as part of the consideration, part of the mix. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. Let me ask then one final question. 

For a good part of the last decade, the Forest Service has refused 

to allow either the DC–10 or the Evergreen 747 to fly on the fires 

on national forest lands, but I see that this week, the Forest Service used the DC–10 in the Wallow fire. Has something changed? 

Are we going to be seeing more of these? Will we see them up in 

Alaska? What is the situation with the DC–10? 
30 

Mr. TIDWELL. We have had both the DC–10 and, in the past, the 

747 under a call when needed contract. We have used them in the 

past. We did use the DC–10 on the Wallow fire. One of the things 

that we have asked the team to do as far as their after action review is to look at the effectiveness of very large aircraft, large air 

tanker, to help us learn, you know, especially in these type of fuel 

types, you know, the effectiveness of the drops that it made. 

So, it is part of the mix of tools. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. We are going to continue to have it 

available. When our incident commanders need that tool, they are 

going to order it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. As you look to rolling out this report here 

at the end of this season, will discussion about how the DC–10 performed be included as part of that review? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We will be looking at what we call these very large 

air tankers, the DC–10 and the 747 to look at their effectiveness 

and, not only in the drops that they made, but also what type of 

terrain that they can be effective in. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

First of all, let me just say that I bring a great deal of humility 

to this subject. I am new to this committee this Congress, and, you 

know, on forest management, I certainly would yield to my friend 

who has a degree in forest management. I certainly do not. 

But let me ask you about the scientists that you cited referring 

to the effect of climate change in the Forest Service. They have degrees, right? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. Those degrees are like in what? The ones 

that you rely on for this information about the effect of climate 

change on forest fires? What would their degrees be in? 

Mr. TIDWELL. They are in a variety of disciplines, primarily a 

focus on vegetation and understanding the effects of climate change 

on vegetation. We have the largest research and development operation—organization in the world when it comes to understanding 

natural resources. Where our focus is on understanding the effects 

of climate change, we rely on other entities to study the weather. 

So, our scientists are mostly focused on understanding these effects. That is what we have actually been doing research for now 

close to 30 years about the effects. 

What our scientists have seen, how the vegetation have changed, 

you know, across the country and that we see where tree lines are, 

you know, moving higher up on to the slopes from what they were 

20, 30, 40 years ago. The change in the vegetation, the change in 

the frequency of the disturbances, that is what we are focused on. 

That is what we are focused on, understanding those changes so 

that we can adapt our management to deal with these changes. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. So, in adapting the management, it is 

probably to say that Senator Risch might be right that we have 

made some mistakes in the past in terms of how we approach sustainable forests. Is that fair to say? 
31 

Mr. TIDWELL. I agree with Senator Risch that we need to be, you 

know, doing more work than we have done in the past. His point 

that he made about in the past there has been times that we have 

not been able to implement our projects because of lawsuits, that 

is true. 

But what has changed today is that there is more and more 

agreement across the country, especially in our collaborative efforts 

where people have come together and understand the type of work 

that needs to be done. So, we are in a much better position today 

than we have been, I think, for a couple of decades to actually be 

able to move forward and to be able to implement the work on the 

ground that will make a difference. 

Senator FRANKEN. In northeast Minnesota, we have a big forestry industry. I have seen exactly what you are saying at work. 

I have seen private and, you know, we have a paper company 

there, Blandin, which I have gone to, and they do sustainable forestry with the forests that they own. Part of that is actually harvesting certain fuel that does become fuel, and it becomes—in addition to becoming paper, it becomes fuel for, again, the kind of, you 

know, used as biomass. 

Just following up on the question I asked before, do you think 

that across Federal, State, and private forests, we are adequately 

gathering and making use of this debris from the forest floor and 

other—not just debris on the forest floor, but of thinning of trees 

that—to use for this purpose? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we are starting to be able to make use of 

this material, to put it to some beneficial use. But this is an area 

where we need considerable, I think, investment and additional facilities so that we can make more use of this material. 

In the future, there is going to be a need to, you know, treat 

more acres. There is going to be a need to remove more of this material. So, the more than we can, you know, work with communities, work with private industry to be able to find ways that they 

can make the investment in these facilities, it will not only reduce 

the cost of removing the material from the national forests, but it 

will also put it to beneficial use and be able to create renewable 

energy. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall just arrived and has not had a 

chance to ask any questions. Senator Risch, is it OK if we go ahead 

and have Senator Udall ask his questions and then call on you? Is 

that acceptable? 

Senator RISCH. I would be happy to yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall, go right ahead. 

Senator UDALL. Is the Senator from Idaho certain of that? We 

have a working relationship, and I do not want to do anything to 

change that. 

Thank you—— 

Senator RISCH. You missed our discussion with Senator Franken 

about climate change, and it would have dovetailed nicely with our 

legislation on bark beetle infestations that we have in our two 

states. 
32 

Senator UDALL. I look forward to a complete report on the interchange between you and Senator Franken. 

Senator RISCH. I do not think the problem—I do not think he— 

there was a disagreement in the problem. It was the cause of the 

problem that caused us to have a—— 

Senator UDALL. Senator Franken and I will continue to endeavor 

to convince you of our point of view, Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Please do. Please. 

Senator UDALL. Chief, Secretary, thank you for being here. I was 

in a markup with an Armed Services subcommittee. This is the 

week in which we mark up the entire Armed Services authorization 

bill, so there is a lot going on. Thank you for your patience. 

I know you visited with Senator Murkowski and Senator Wyden 

about aviation services. I think you know that I have been discussing this and drawing attention to it for a number of years, almost for a decade. I hope there is a solution in front of us. 

But let me turn to a specific Colorado event that relates to aviation and aviation services. The Fourmile Canyon fire last year in 

Colorado was the most devastating in our history. A vast majority 

of that fire was not on Federal land, but Federal resources were 

brought in to fight it. There were, however, reports that it took 

more than 24 hours for the first aircraft to respond to the fire, and 

it came from across the State, while local resources were passed 

over. 

I have asked you in the State to look into the issue and a variety 

of other concerns about the fire. We are doing a postmortem report, 

which I think will be very valuable as the ones in the past have 

been. But I think the question again rises, whether the Federal 

Government is using its aging resources in the most efficient way. 

Would you be willing to comment on this, and then Ms. Thorsen 

as well in turn, I would ask you to comment. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, with that fire, you know, it is my understanding, which is the case usually when we lose a fire during an 

initial attack, we had strong winds. I know it is difficult, especially 

for our communities in the public to understand that in high 

winds, the air tankers do not fly. They are not effective, and it is 

not safe. So, it is has been my experience that, and I think in this 

case the fire was a State fire working with the county there. They 

ordered the resources that they need, and it has my experience 

that our instant commanders, whether it is from the State or from 

Forest Service or any other agency, if they need a large air tanker, 

they are going to put an order in if they feel it is going to be effective. So, if the air tankers did not get there until the next day, you 

know, unless I have other information, I am going to assume that 

it was because of the weather they would not have been effective, 

or because of the terrain. 

But we welcome the review. It is one of the things that we want 

to do, an after action review on all of our large fires so that we can 

continue to learn what we need to do. If there is a question about 

the resources that were not available, that is something we definitely need to look into. 

But it has been my experience that our instant commanders 

order the resources that they need when they can be effective. But 

when we get the winds that we have normally around fires like you 
33 

had experience there is that we are not able to fly. They are not 

effective. They are not safe. Large helicopters can fly in a little 

higher winds, but they, too—you know, over like 35, 40 miles an 

hour at the very most. We cannot fly aircraft. 

Senator UDALL. I would just note that the issue—maybe I was 

not as clear as I might have been—was also in regards to helicopters and helicopter availability. 

Ms. Thorsen, if you could respond briefly, if I could ask you so 

I could get a second question in during my 5 minutes, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. THORSEN. Sure. I will keep it very short, Senator. I would 

agree with the chief, look forward to the review. I do not have any 

specifics on what happened on that fire, but we will certainly take 

what will come out of the review and ensure that we have got the 

processes in places. The ordering is very consistent and our folks 

do it all the time, so, as the chief said, I am sure it was the 

idiosyncracies of the fire that kept them from doing that. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Ms. THORSEN. We will follow up. 

Senator UDALL. I very much look forward to that. 

Let me turn to mitigation. Of course, this has been a part of the 

conversation today. I know Senator Risch, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, myself, and everybody else who is here this morning have had the same look on our face that Senator Kyl had, 

which is a combination of horror and regret and commitment to 

doing more. 

What are you doing about mitigation? What more can we do? I 

just met with a little company in Silver Plum, New Earth Pellets. 

They have developed a technique where they do not bring the trees 

to them, they take the drying machine to the tree and they turn 

the biomass into wood pellets. It is the most efficient way, I think, 

to turn that material into something useful. But if you would, in 

my remaining time, talk about mitigation and your plans. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, what you just mentioned is one of the examples that we need to work with private industry to, you know, 

find ways to increase our integrated wood products industry to 

make use of all of this material, whether it is the saw logs or the 

smaller diameter, you know, material. 

The other key part of that is to be able to treat large enough 

acres where it really makes a difference. Then that has been our 

focus by using the Collaborative Landscape Forest Restoration Act 

projects that allow us to look at much larger landscapes, 50,000 

acres. The work we are doing in Arizona with one of the projects 

there, we are pursuing to do one environmental impact statement 

to address 750,000 acres. This is what we need to do to be able to 

move forward, to be able to treat much larger areas. 

It will also allow investment to occur. We want to continue to use 

our long-term stewardship contracts so that someone can realize 

that there is going to be a certain amount of work that is going to 

be done every year for like the next 10 years so that they can go 

ahead and make the investment in the equipment, like you just 

mentioned. That is a key tool that we need to continue to, you 

know, pursue. 
34 

We are working with CEQ to be able to pursue some pilot approaches to taking on this large-scale environmental analysis so 

that we have their support and their assistance. 

These are some of the things that we are currently working on 

that I think will make a difference. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Chairman, I think two ideas that I have certainly heard 

would be to make the stewardship contract timeframe longer, 

something on the order of perhaps 15 or 20 years even. Now we 

have got to keep faith with the environmental laws. 

Second, there is a very interesting idea circulating, and this is 

tied to the way OMB and CBO work, is that you would actually 

value the trees at zero dollars, and you would have more potential 

of getting the private sector involved. To me, it is counterintuitive, 

but I am really intrigued with that idea, and I would like to work 

with the committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. First of all, I agree with you, Senator Udall. 

Those are things that we really ought to have a look at. 

The idea of a zero value tree I do not think is totally off the wall. 

Tom, correct me if I am wrong, but the Forest Service has done 

that. When we were in the road building business, frequently the 

cost of the roads exceeded the value of the timber or at least were 

a push. Am I right on that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. Senator, we have currently readjusted our 

prices so that the average price of the material being removed is 

about where it was back in the early 1970s. So, it is something we 

are constantly focused on. 

Our focus is to get the work accomplished. We do need to, when 

there is a value of the materials being removed, we need to ensure 

that the public is receiving the compensation for that. But that is 

another one of the key benefits of the stewardship contracting approach. Not only does it ensure that we take a collaborative approach to bring people together so that there is agreement on the 

type of work that needs to be done, but if there are any revenues 

that are produced from the trees, the biomasses removed, that can 

actually be put back into that project to be able to do more work, 

to be able to do more thinning, more watershed improvement, more 

fisheries work, whatever the project is designed to do. 

Senator RISCH. I appreciate that. Tom, were you—you know, I 

appreciate your review of the fire in Arizona right now. Were you 

on the Biscuit fire over in Oregon, or did you happen to see the Biscuit fire over in Oregon? When was that, four years ago, five? 

Mr. TIDWELL. No, it was longer than that, and I was not on that 

fire. 

Senator RISCH. That was another one that was a real catastrophe. It got a lot of old growth timber. It got spotted owls. It got 

everything. I had really hoped that—and there was a lot of talk 

about it at the time that, oh, gosh, we learned a lot of lessons, and 

we are going to do this different, we are going to do that different. 

It does not seem—and that thing was such a catastrophe that I 

really thought that it would promote some changes, particularly in 
35 

fuel loading and doing the kind of management that you do to put 

strips in or what have you in order to stop the future fires. 

But it does not seem like it resulted in anything. It came off of 

the front page, went to the second page, and then dropped out of 

the paper. We never heard about it again. 

Any thoughts on that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I do think, you know, these large fires 

have helped to inform and encourage, you know, our communities, 

you know, people throughout this country to learn about the importance of forestry and the importance of restoring the resiliency of 

these systems. 

I think the support that we have through our collaborative efforts today, I think they are a product of some of these that have 

happened in the past. I think, you know, the leadership that you 

provided there in Idaho to bring that group of folks together to be 

able to deal with the Idaho roadless rule. I think that has all 

helped. 

So, I am going to stay optimistic that these things that have occurred in the past, we have learned from those. It has allowed us 

to be able to today to be able to have more agreement and be able 

to implement more work on the ground today than we have in the 

past. I think that three million acres that we treated last year, I 

think that is the byproduct from some of these events, some of 

these things that we have learned over time. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. That is an interesting perspective, 

and I guess I have to agree with you to a degree. That Biscuit fire 

destroyed, I think it was like 500,000 acres or something like that. 

It actually did not get controlled until the end of the December because of the snow, you know, obviously. It was kind of like the big 

burn really. 

I tend to agree with you. I think that over time people are becoming more sensitive, as you know, in the roadless rule that you 

and I worked on together, and are still defending hopefully through 

just one more step. 

I did see people more willing to talk about the urban interface 

area whereas before it was, you know, not one tree. In some of 

these areas that we would have had real trouble with, they agreed 

to removal of material in the urban interface area, which in Idaho 

is absolutely critical as you know because of a lot of small towns 

we have out there. 

So, I appreciate your thoughts on that. That is an interesting 

point of view. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski, did you have additional questions? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall, did you have additional questions? 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Chairman, if I could, and you cut me off if 

necessary. 

We have been talking about saw mills in Colorado. I do not know 

the situation in Idaho or New Mexico, but our saw mills, the few 

that we have are in real trouble. The significant reason behind that 

is that legacy timber sales are no longer financially viable and be-
36 

come a liability. I know Under secretary Sherman has been working on this. But what can we do to really resolve this issue? There 

has been a lot of talk, a lot of concern expressed. But, boy, the clock 

is running. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, with the mill you are referring to, I think 

it is the case in many parts of the country is that to be able to 

maintain this integrated wood products industry, there needs to be, 

you know, some certainty that the wood is going to be available. 

We definitely have the need on the landscape. 

I want to go back to your earlier comment about, you know, 

stewardship contracting. Those long-term contracts have proven to 

be successful. The approach and the process that we use seems to 

be, one, it helps people to come together and reach agreement on 

the type of work. So, we are seeing fewer appeals, fewer lawsuits 

with those type of projects. 

It is essential that, I think, we have that authority reauthorized. 

It is due to expire here in another 2 years, and it is just essential 

that as we move forward, that we continue to have that authority. 

I think that is going to continue to be one of the tools that we need 

to use and to be able to have that. 

Senator UDALL. I want to follow up further with you on that, if 

I can. But not now, but, I think this is really an opportunity we 

could miss. I think it will be very hard to rebuild the saw mill sector. 

Power lines. A big deal in Colorado. I do not know, again, about 

other western States, but we have one of the most populous western States, and we have a lot of electricity corridors running 

through our mountains. 

Utilities have a point of view. You have a point of view. The projections are, and this is hard to believe, but more and more it has 

been confirmed, 100,000 trees a day coming down. That is mind 

boggling. 

But we have got to get these negotiations concluded so that we 

can do the work to ensure these power line corridors are not going 

to either be subject to a fire because a tree falls on the line or because you have a problem with a line that then triggers the fire, 

and then those power lines are brought out of service. I know that 

is a big concern in Arizona. 

So, I would just urge you to do everything possible to work out 

an agreement on the ground. A lot of this is tied to liability concerns, and I know the lawyers are important. I know Senator Risch 

is a lawyer. 

Senator RISCH. Hear, hear. 

Senator UDALL. I know Senator is a lawyer. I know Senator 

Bingaman is a lawyer. I do not want to be a lawyer. 

But let us see if we can also bring some common sense to bear 

here and get a deal so we can move forward—and a lot of these 

power lines in Colorado are in the mountains. You cannot go in in 

the winter time and do that work. That is a plea to you, and any 

comment you would like to share with us, I would like to hear it. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for the letter you sent us. We 

are working on options, and we will have a response to you. I do 

think we have a couple of different options to be able to move for-
37 

ward to address that concern, and also at the same time, you know, 

satisfy the liability issue, too. 

Senator UDALL. I have given the same speech to the utilities, by 

the way, so I am not just picking on you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. They want to work with us, and I think it is just 

another opportunity that, by working together, not only can we ensure that, you know, their lines are protected that we all rely on, 

but at the same time, to be able to also get some additional restoration work done in areas that are adjacent to these lines. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Risch, did you have additional questions? 

Senator RISCH. No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you both very much. You have been 

very generous with your time. It has been useful testimony. Thank 

you, and we wish you good luck the remainder of this fire season. 

Thank you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(39) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSE OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. A reference was made at the hearing to a pledge that every Forest 

Supervisor signed, reportedly to fully implement to 20 million acres the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act. Can you describe for the Committee the pledge, its contents 

and the circumstances under which it was signed? 

Answer. At a regular meeting with Forest Supervisors in early 2004, then-Chief 

Dale Bosworth was reviewing expectations for the coming year’s hazardous fuels reduction efforts. As an impromptu show of support for the Chief and commitment to 

the agency’s priorities, the meeting participants (the Supervisors from every National Forest) volunteered to a handwritten pledge to do all they can, within their 

authority, to meet the National Fuels target. 

The ‘pledge’ made no reference to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. As for 

acreages, no explicit acreage was mentioned, although one might infer from the 

President’s FY2004 budget that the National Fuels target mentioned equates to 

600,000 acres of hazardous fuels reduction treatments outside the wildland-urban 

interface, and 1,000,000 acres of hazardous fuels reduction treatments within the 

wildland-urban interface. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATED ACRES

Question 1. The Forest Service stated in the FY2012 budget justification that 

‘‘naturally ignited fires that benefit the ecosystem will continue to be an important 

part of the total Hazardous Fuels program.’’ Last year the Forest Service counted 

150,000 acres of naturally ignited fires as hazardous fuels treated acres. This means 

that 57 percent of the acres that the USFS considered as treated for hazardous fuels 

were naturally ignited fires and were not typically thinned beforehand. Thinning 

forests and reintroducing fire is an important part of creating resilient forests. In 

2010, the Pacific Northwest Research Station published a study of the 2006 Tripod 

Complex fires, demonstrating that an effective strategy to reduce future fire severity 

is to apply fuel treatments consisting of thinning forests followed by prescribed fire. 

The study demonstrated that in low elevation dry conifer forests, like the forests 

found in Oregon, 57 percent of trees that were previously thinned and burned with 

prescribed fire survived after a large wildfire. Whereas only 19 percent of trees that 

were in thin-only units survived the wildfire. I believe that it is important for the 

agency to mechanically reduce hazardous fuels, conduct prescribed fire treatments, 

and utilize forest byproducts to create jobs and support local mills. Chief Tidwell, 

please provide me details on how the agency will still make it a priority to apply 

fuel treatments to our forests that mechanically reduce fuels followed by prescribed 

fire treatments as opposed to simply relying on naturally ignited fires for the majority of acres considered treated. 

Answer. About 160,000 acres of hazardous fuels were treated by wildfire in FY2010. This represents less than 6 percent of the total National Forest System Lands 

treated for hazardous fuels that year. In contrast, about 1,170,000 acres of hazardous fuels were treated with mechanical means. About 75 percent of those acres 

included removal and utilization of the treatment by-products. Many of those acres 

will also be treated by prescribed fire in FY-2011. 

Application of fuel treatments by mechanical means followed by prescribed fire 

treatments is an effective procedure and it is one of the most common methods that 

the Forest Service uses to reduce hazardous fuels. However, it is only one of the 

tools in our tool box. Other tools include prescribed fire as a single treatment and 

various mechanical manipulations as single treatments. 
40 

Using naturally ignited wildfires to accomplish fuel treatment objectives is an opportunistic scenario. We cannot chose the time or place of a naturally ignited wildfire. But occasionally lighting strikes in the right place, at the right time, and under 

the right conditions and we are able to accomplish resource objectives. Wildfire 

management decisions are made by on-the-ground fire managers in real-time, following carefully pre-designated guidelines and land and resource management 

plans. It is important that we provide fire managers the best resources and a wide 

range of options so that they may safely and effectively manage the wildfire. 

APPRAISAL POINTS FOR TIMBER SALE SET ASIDES

Question 2. When the Forest Service sets the starting price for a timber sale minimum bid it ‘‘appraises’’ the sale price based on the transportation cost to haul logs 

to the nearest mill. When a timber sale is set aside for small business, the Forest 

Service still applies this same rule. Yet whenever a sale is set aside for small business, at least 70 percent of the logs by volume must be delivered to a small business 

mill, wherever one is. These logs are not allowed to be delivered to a large business 

mill, even if a large business mill is closer to the sale location. The 70 percent rule 

is a requirement of the Small Business Administration regulations in 13 CFR 

121.507(a)(3). The 70 percent requirement, combined with the Forest Service ‘‘nearest mill’’ appraisal policy, puts small business timber purchasers in a bind. The 

small business timber purchasers do not get a break on the sale appraisal for having these extra transportation costs. I would like to know if the Forest Service can 

give small business purchasers relief from high transportation costs on sales set 

aside for small business, by adopting the nearest small business mill as the ‘‘appraisal point.’’ Can the Forest Service do this within its administrative authority? 

Or does this need legislation to fix the problem? 

Answer. As noted the 30/70 rule is a SBA regulation that applies to small businesses. It is designed to help small business sawmills and is specifically for saw 

logs. It also applies to small business non-manufacturers (generally independent 

loggers) who purchase timber sales and then dispose of the logs. Appraisal points 

are selected to provide an estimate of fair market value for all of industry. Any 

changes in timber sales policies that affect small businesses are to be published in 

the Federal Register for public comments in accordance with Congressional direction. Presently, the Forest Service is analyzing the different small business areas 

around the country to determine the extent of the situation. The Forest Service intends to publish a proposed policy in the Federal Register late this year that will 

consider changes to the appraisal point. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR UDALL

Question 1. Colorado’s last large sawmill—Intermountain Resources in Montrose, 

Colorado—is in severe financial trouble and could close in the immediate future. 

Losing this mill would be a heavy blow to our forest products industry and our efforts to combat the bark beetle epidemic and implement fuels treatments across the 

state. Without Intermountain mill in Montrose as a processing location, the distance 

to the next closest mill with capacity to process any meaningful volumes of beetlekill timber is nearly 800 miles away in Montana. 

While there are a number of reasons that the mills are failing, one significant reason is that they hold legacy U.S. Forest Service (USFS) timber sales that are no 

longer financially viable and have become a financial liability. The good news is that 

the USFS can play a vital role in helping this mill survive. In October 2010, Undersecretary Sherman visited Montrose and committed the USFS to exploring every option to help save the critical timber industry. Unfortunately, since that time very 

little has been done: 

I understand that the USFS offered contract changes under the Market Related 

Contract Term Adjustment (MRCTA), but that only two of 51 contracts qualified because most of the legacy timber sales are classified ‘‘urgent removal,’’ and thus do 

not qualify under MRCTA (please note that almost all of the offering portfolio in 

Colorado in recent years has been classified as ‘‘urgent removal’’ because sales were 

targeted to beetle-kill and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas). 

a. Is that accurate? Beyond these contract changes, what else is the Forest 

Service doing to help resolve this issue? 

Answer. On August 2, 2011, Chief Tidwell signed a Decision Memo regarding high 

priced sales in Region 2 that were sold prior to July 2008 that will allow the Forest 

Service and a timber sale purchaser in Region 2 to agree to mutually cancel a timber sale. Prior to this date the Forest Service had allowed all the relief that was 

qualified under the timber sale contract. 
41 

Question 2. Regarding the bark beetle epidemic, I understand that the Forest 

Service is developing a Western Bark Beetle Strategy. Can you tell me about this 

strategy? When will it be completed? 

Answer. The Western Bark Beetle Strategy identifies how the Forest Service is 

responding to and will respond to the western bark beetle epidemic over the next 

five years. The extent of the epidemic requires prioritization of treatments, first providing for human safety in areas threatened by standing dead hazard trees, and second, addressing dead and down trees that create hazardous fuels conditions adjacent to high value areas. After the priority of safety, forested areas with severe mortality will be reforested with the appropriate species (Recovery). Forests will also 

be thinned to reduce the number of trees per acre and create more diverse stand 

structures to minimize extensive epidemic bark beetle areas (Resiliency). This is a 

modest strategy that reflects current budget realities, but focuses our resources in 

the most important places where we can make a big difference to the safety of the 

American public. This strategy covers Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 through 2016. The 

Strategy is completed and going through clearance. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Please have your researchers develop an estimate of what the total 

cost of the fires in 2002 and 2010 were. 

Answer. The impacts of wildland fires on local, regional and national economic 

well being are very complex and vary greatly depending on the characteristics of the 

event (fire extent, intensity, duration, proximity to human development, community 

resource dependency, ecological conditions and many others). 

The Western Forestry Leadership Council recently released a report summarizing 

the range of economic costs identified within the literature for a small number of 

the larger wildfire events of the past decade (see ‘‘The True Cost of Wildland Fire’’, 

2009). The fires considered within this summary report show total economic cost 

ranging from 2 to 30 times the total suppression costs. However, it should be recognized that each of the studies reviewed in this document required considerable resources to summarize the economic impacts of a single event and the study highlights the significant range of outcomes. Most of the fires evaluated in this report 

had significant suppression resources assigned and yet wildfire extent and economic 

losses were considerable. 

The application of the ‘‘total cost’’ evaluation process requires the acquisition of 

considerable event specific information from numerous data sources and substantial 

analyses which is impossible to complete for every fire in a given year due to the 

sheer volume of fires the agency manages. We do believe that an understanding of 

the total economic costs of these events is very relevant and improved information 

could yield improved policy. The agency will continue to support research to determine methods to evaluate total wildfire costs in a rapid and consistent method for 

large fires. 

A goal of wildfire management is to reduce the long term losses associated with 

wildland fires and the agency’s adoption of risk management principles emphasizes 

the balancing of fiscal cost and risk to firefighters and public interests. 

Question 2. During an active Alaska fire season, approximately how much is expended to transport and house the fire crews from the lower 48 to assist Alaska fire 

crews in suppressing fires? 

Answer. (Note to Reviewers: This was developed by DOI staff at NIFC in response 

to the same question, it should not be edited to ensure consistency). 

We have a transport jet on Federal contract for the express purpose of mobilizing 

crews when and where they are most needed across the nation. The total cost spent 

on moving crews to or from Alaska will vary per year depending on fire activity and 

need. However, for 2011, the federally contracted Boeing 737 can mobilize five 20- 

person crews, equaling 100 persons, from Boise to Alaska for approximately 

$26,000.00, or $260.00 per firefighter; or $520.00 round trip. 

The cost to transport, feed, and house the crews while in Alaska is the same perperson cost as Alaska Type 2 crews. 

Question 3. Would it cost more each year to transport the crews from the lower 

48 back and forth to Alaska, or to invest in the training to increase the qualifications of the Native Crews? 

Answer. The U.S. Forest Service does not sponsor any Emergency Fire Fighting 

crews in Alaska and is consequently not well suited to address this question. However, the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, which includes 

the Alaska Fire Service, is preparing a response to it. 

Question 4. For the last decade Australia, France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Canada, 

the States of Alaska, California, Washington, and Minnesota have all used the Ca-
42 

1Section 205 of Public Law 78–425 (16 U.S.C. 579a) 

nadian Bombardier CL-415 amphibious water-scooping aircraft to drop water and 

foam on fires. The aircraft has proven to be quite successful. Yet, the Forest Service 

has steadfastly refused to even test these airplanes on federal fires. 

At the same time the agency has been tangled up in court over the use of slurry 

and stands to lose the ability to use the retardant if the Judge in Montana rules 

against its use. 

a. Can you explain to me why the Forest Service refuses to use the water 

scooping fire fighting aircraft? 

Answer. The FS uses Scooper aircraft through its cooperator agencies when appropriate. 

b. Can you tell me what your agency’s plans are if Judge Malloy in Montana 

outlaws the use of slurry for wildland fire fighting? 

Answer. We will comply with the court decision. If retardant could no longer be 

used, we would rely more on water dropping aircraft. 

c. Is Congress going to have to put legislative language in an appropriations 

bill to require your agency to provide alternatives to the Lockheed C-130 J? 

Answer. No. The Forest Service is evaluating all available options. 

d. If we agree that you recently indicated to me there will be a variety of 

types and sizes of heavy retardant aircraft, will you instruct the employees in 

your fire and aviation group to reflect that commitment in their discussions 

with your heavy retardant vendors and the air craft manufacturing companies? 

Answer. Yes. 

e. If we cannot agree on the premise of Question 4(d), will you please inform 

the Secretary of Agriculture that he and I need to have a discussion on the future expenditures on aerial firefighting that your agency undertakes? 

Answer. The Forest Service agrees with the premise of Question 4(d). 

Question 5. Contractors have indicated that if offered the ability to enter into long 

term contracts—such as ten years—they could facilitate financing of re-winged or 

even new aircraft for the aerial firefighting fleet. 

f. Does the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have the authority to enter into longterm contracts with providers of aerial firefighting services? If so, please provide 

the statutory citations for this authority. 

Answer. We have the authority for 5 years, but not for 10 years1. 

g. If the Forest Service does not have the authority to enter into long-term 

contracts, would you welcome enactment of a statute providing you with that 

authority? 

Answer. Yes. Longer term contracts may provide an incentive for contractors to 

purchase or upgrade their aircraft. 

Question 6. Section 8118 of the House FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act 

(H.R. 1) called for a report that studies the purchase by the federal government of 

up to 24 new C-130J aircraft to be operated by the Air National Guard— effectively 

replacing the fleet of contractor-owned and contractor-operated aircraft now used as 

first responders to combat forest fires. 

h. How much do you anticipate it will cost the USFS to acquire the 24 new 

C-130J aircraft called for in the study? 

Answer. The 2010 Act had similar language and Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense on May 15, 2011, said that this mission was not viable. Therefore, 

the Forest Service has not prepared an estimate of the cost to acquire 24 new C130J aircraft to be operated by the Air National Guard. 

i. I understand that contractors position their airtankers at various locations 

throughout country during the fire season, and that depending on the fire conditions, the fleet is repositioned to provide effective coverage across the country. 

If the Air National Guard owns and operates our country’s aerial firefighting 

aircraft, where will these aircraft be positioned during the fire season? 

Answer. Not applicable per response above. 
43 

j. If the aircraft are located at National Guard airbases, how would you handle coverage of areas such as the state of Alaska that are far from these airbases? 

Answer. Not applicable per response above. 

k. Flying firefighting missions is a highly specialized task, which takes hours 

of training, and for which relatively few pilots are sufficiently trained. How will 

the USFS handle the training of Air National Guard pilots for such missions, 

and what retention strategies will be implemented to assure that these pilots 

continue to participate in firefighting missions after they have receive this specialized training? 

Answer. Not applicable per response above. 

l. What will be the cost to the taxpayer of training and retaining pilots for 

the mission of fighting forest fires? 

Answer. Not applicable per response above. 

m. What guarantee do we have that aircraft owned by the National Guard 

for the purposes of combating forest fires will not be diverted overseas for national security purposes? 

Answer. Not applicable per response above. 

n. Over the last ten years, how many drops of retardant on actual fires have 

been executed by the Air National Guard? Please do not include in this calculation any drops that were delivered by the Air National Guard during training 

exercises. 

Answer. Between 2000 and 2009 the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve 

flew 3635 sorties with a high of 851 in 2000 and a low of 0 in 2009. The actual 

number of sorties flown depends on the intensity of the fire season and availability 

of other contracted firefighting support, since this program is used when other contracted support is not available. 

Year Sorties Flown 

2000 851 

2001 200 

2002 637 

2003 62 

2004 260 

2005 368 

2006 613 

2007 74 

2008 570 

2009 0 

2010 4 

o. How many personnel will be dedicated by the Air National Guard for the 

operation and maintenance of each of the aircraft envisioned to be purchased 

for use in fighting forest fires? 

Answer. Not applicable per response above. 

Question 7. Does the Forest Service support replacing the current contractorowned, contractor-operated fleet of heavy air tankers with new C-130Js to be purchased by the taxpayer and operated by the Air National Guard? 

Answer. Assistant Secretary of Defense Stockton stated this is not viable. 

Question 8. Before developing a position regarding the long term replacement of 

the current heavy air tanker fleet, will the Forest Service study, and provide this 
44 

Subcommittee with an analysis of each of the following? (For each item listed below, 

please answer yes or no.) 

a. The cost of alternative aircraft, including Casa 235s, C-130Hs, re-winged 

P-3s, and other alternatives. 

Answer. Yes 

b. The effectiveness of various aircraft capable of use as heavy tankers and 

respective tanking systems. 

Answer. Yes 

c. The relative costs of having the aircraft owned by the government as opposed to financed and owned by the private sector. 

Answer. Yes 

d. The relative costs and effectiveness of having the aircraft operated by private companies as opposed to by the Air National Guard. 

Answer. Assistant Secretary of Defense Stockton stated this is not viable 

e. The potential for aircraft owned and operated by the Air National Guard 

being diverted for use for National Security needs, and the consequences of such 

diversion. 

Answer. Assistant Secretary of Defense Stockton stated this is not viable 

f. The concept of pre-positioning heavy tankers in the vicinity of high risk/ 

highly populated areas such as Southern California. 

Answer. Yes. 

g. The current systems in place for repositioning aircraft and ordering their 

use for combating specific fires, and whether such systems can be improved. 

Answer. Yes. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. At the public land subcommittee hearing held on May 25th, both 

Under Secretary Harris Sherman and Deputy Director Marcilynn Burke supported 

good neighbor authority. In Colorado alone, Mr. Sherman testified the authority has 

been used successfully on 37 projects covering 3,900 acres. These projects focused 

on fuel reduction within the wild land-urban interface. 

a. Had my Good Neighbor Forestry Bill been signed into law last year, as it 

was introduced, would it have aided the forest service in dealing with the terrible forest fuels problems that have been occurring? BLM? 

b. How many more acres might have been treated if Good Neighbor authority 

was available to the Forest Service? BLM? 

Answer. The Good Neighbor Authority for use in Colorado was enacted in the 

2000 Interior Appropriations Act and was extended most recently to September 30, 

20013. The similar Good Neighbor authority for use in Utah was enacted in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005 and was extended most recently to September 30, 2011. Both Good Neighbor Authorities authorize cooperative projects between USFS and the states of Utah and Colorado. Except as otherwise indicated, 

both Authorities include the following provisions with regard to projects being implemented under the umbrella of the Good Neighbor Authority: 

Any decision required to be made under NEPA may not be delegated to the State. 

• A cooperative agreement or contract to implement a project may authorize the 

State Forester to serves as the agent for the USFS. 

• In Colorado, projects on National Forest System lands may be implemented 

when similar or complimentary treatments are being implemented on adjacent 

State or private lands. 

a. The Good Neighbor Forestry Act (S. 1122) would have provided the US 

Forest Service with another tool to address hazardous fuels on National Forest 

System lands in states west of the 100th meridian. 

b. The Forest Service has good relationships with State Foresters. There 

are several tools at the agency’s disposal, such as State Fire Assistance grants 

and authority to spend some hazardous fuels money to treat non-Federal land. 

Additionally, since there is often a significant amount of time needed to plan, 
45 

coordinate, and document projects before they can be implemented, I do not 

know how many additional acres might have been treated. 

Question 2. There are now 3.6 million acres of mountain pine beetle infestation 

in Wyoming alone. Given the likelihood of high intensity fires associated with beetle 

kill, what policy or decision making changes does the Forest Service employ in high 

beetle kill areas when dealing with wildfire? 

Answer. The Forest Service has placed a high priority on treating the hazardous 

fuels in beetle kill areas, especially when also in the Wildland Urban Interface. The 

Rocky Mountain Region, which includes Colorado and Wyoming, has created a special task force to coordinate funding and activities between FS resource emphasis 

areas and administrative units to most effectively address the hazards posed by beetle killed trees. 

Question 3. The Forest Service has sought C-130 Fire Fighting Capabilities. In the 

‘‘Report on the Joint Use of Federal Forest Fire Fighting Assets/C-130 Fire Fighting 

Capabilities’’ dated February 9, 2011, the report states: 

The Department of Defense believes that the mission proposed in the explanatory statement is not viable. DoD has critical concerns regarding the 

additional manpower and financial resources that would be required for the 

Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard to accomplish this mission in 

other than a secondary role. 

Other options have proven effective at wild land fire suppression including the use 

of refurbished surplus military aircraft and the use of private sector capabilities. 

c. Given the DoD believes the use of C-130s is not viable, what is being done 

to retrofit and extend the life of existing P-3s? Answer—An extensive airworthiness oversight program is in place to monitor the status of the aircraft. The Forest Service has no plans to extend the life of the existing P-3s. 

d. What has the Forest Service done to find or encourage replacement aircraft 

and service crews from the private sector? 

Answer. We are working with the commercial airtanker industry as part of our 

strategy to ensure availability of safe and cost efficient aerial firefighting aircraft. 

Responses to our Request for Information (RFI) for the 2012 season have been received. We are in the process of developing a Request for Proposals (RFP). Draft 

technical specifications for the RFP have been developed and are currently under 

review. The proposed contract format would be an exclusive Firm Fixed Price Multiyear contract not to exceed five years. The RFP will target newer technology aircraft. 

Question 4. In 2010, Richard Lasko, Forest Service Assistant Director for Fire and 

Aviation Management, Fuels and Fire Ecology wrote: 

A Revision of the 2003 Interagency Strategy removes the distinction between wild land fire use and wildfire. This will enhance a fire manager’s 

ability to implement Federal Wild land Fire Management Policy by allowing consideration of the full range of positive and negative attributes of a 

fire’’ 

I appreciate every fire can be both beneficial and detrimental. However, with dry 

conditions in the Southwest, and beetle kill timber in many states including Wyoming, there are environmental and resource risks associated with allowing fires to 

burn. 

e. In Forests like the Medicine-Bow National Forest with its high beetle kill, 

is it prudent to allow any wild land fire use when in all likelihood they will 

be high intensity fires? 

f. If yes, how does the Forest Service make the determination? 

Answer. Decisions to use naturally ignited wildfires to accomplish fuel treatment 

objectives are based on local conditions. Prior to local fire seasons, fire management 

teams collaborating with other Federal, State, and local agency partners determine 

where naturally ignited wildfires may provide resource benefits and whether they 

would meet desired future conditions as stated in forest plans. 

Wildfire management decisions are made by on-the-ground fire managers in realtime. Every effort is made to provide them the best resources and a wide range of 

options so that they may safely and effectively manage wildfires. If conditions are 

not right (e.g. too dry, too much wind, resources are committed elsewhere, too close 

to valued resources, etc.), field managers will not attempt to accomplish broader resource objectives. All fire managers understand that the standing priorities for managing wildfires are protection of human lives and property. U.S. Forest Service In-
46 

terim Guidance For Wildfire Response (April 2011), issued to wildfire managers, 

stipulates the following: 

1. All wildfires will have a protection objective. Incorporate the potential for 

threat to life and property in initial and subsequent courses of action on every 

fire. 

2. A wildfire may be concurrently managed for more than one objective. 

3. Unplanned natural ignitions may be managed to achieve Land and Resource Management Plan objectives when risk is within acceptable limits. Risk 

is elevated and uncertain on longer duration incidents. 

4. Human caused fires and trespass fires will continue to be suppressed safely 

and cost effectively and will not be managed for resource benefits. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HELLER

Question 1. Chief Tidwell, thank you for your testimony. As a new member of this 

committee I want you to know that this issue is very important to me from my 

state’s perspective in fighting forest fires. One of the three contractors providing the 

Forest Service with heavy air tanker service is located in Minden, NV. 

I know Minden Air has been contracting with the Forest Service for many years 

and are using their experience, aviation background and own capital to develop a 

new platform based on the BAE-146 to help the Forest Service find a next generation platform for aerial firefighting needs. I hope that you will continue to work with 

them as they go through the process to certify this new aircraft and put a strong 

and viable option on the table for the Forest Service as it looks to the future of the 

heavy air tanker. Will you please keep me updated on your ongoing relationship 

with Minden Air and their role in future firefighting strategies? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 2. As I mentioned earlier, the results of pre-treatment in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin provide an important return on the investment. What plans do the Forest 

Service have to insure that the Lake Tahoe Basin has the resources it needs to protect the people, structures and ecosystem through preventative treatments? 

Answer. The Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire 

Prevention Strategy of 2007 Strategy identifies how the Forest Service in collaboration with other land agencies will reduce the probability of a catastrophic fire in the 

Basin the next 10 years. It was developed to comply with the White Pine County 

Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432 

[H.R.6111]). It comprehensively combines all existing plans that have been developed within the Basin, and provides a framework for participating agencies to identify priority areas and a strategy to work collaboratively on accomplishing those priorities. The plan recognizes that wildfire protection in the Basin requires three components: 

• Buildings and homes should be built of fire-resistant materials and have effective defensible space; 

• Accumulations of hazardous vegetative fuels must be reduced in the areas directly adjacent to communities; and 

• Accumulations of vegetative hazardous fuels surrounding the Community Defensible Space should be reduced in the general forest. Treatments include 

thinning, pruning, prescribed burning, mastication and chipping. 

Implementation of this plan is predicted to cost from $206,000,000 to 

$244,000,000 over 10 years. At the national level, the Forest Service uses a computer model to inform allocation of hazardous fuel funding to the regions. This 

model includes consideration of wildfire potential, resource values that are threatened by wildfire, program performance, and coordination with other programs. The 

Pacific Southwest Region, which includes the Lake Tahoe Basin, routinely gets the 

highest allocation of all the regions. The regions then distribute their allocation to 

the units (forests) using similar criteria. 

Question 3. The personal impacts of wildfire are a huge burden to my constituents. I have heard story after story of folks who have watched a fire burn on public 

lands, been prevented from putting the fire out, only to see it eventually destroy 

their property. 

As you know, if a private party starts a fire that spreads to public lands, they 

are held accountable. Whereas, if the federal government starts or fails to aggressively suppress a fire that destroys private property—there is vastly less accountability. In light of this, what are the trends in wildland use fires over the last 5 

years? And, what percentage of catastrophic wildfires were designated as wildland 

use fires instead of aggressively suppressed? 
47 

Answer. The following table displays the acres of hazardous fuels treated by wildfire for each of the last five years: 

Year Acres of hazardous fuels treated by wildfire 

2010 164,200 

2009 309,900 

2008 221,800 

2007 290,228 

2006 172,100 

From the figures in the table above, there is no discernable trend. The resulting 

trend may be flat or constant. For comparison, the following table shows the total 

number of acres burned by wildfires and the total number of acres burned by 

wildfires on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

Year Total Number of Acres 

burned by wildfire 

Number of Acres burned by 

wildfire on NFS lands 

2010 3,422,700 319,700 

2009 5,921,786 715,700 

2008 5,292,500 1,234,500 

2007 9,328,000 2,835,600 

2006 9,873,700 1,896,100 

The Forest Service stopped designating wildfires as ‘‘wildland use fires’’ and 

stopped using the term ‘‘Wildland fire use’’ in 2009. In the previous years, in 2008 

2.4 percent of all wildfires were declared wildland fire use, in 2007 that number was 

2.3 percent, and in 2006 it was 2.5 percent. 

The current wildfire policy provides field managers the widest possible flexibility 

to manage wildfires safely, effectively, and to use available resources efficiently. It 

is only after the wildfire is out that the impacts are compared to the desired conditions described in the applicable forest plan. If the wildfire effectively treated the 

hazardous fuels, helped meet the desired condition, and met the other criteria related to beneficial impacts from wildfire then the results are recorded as hazardous 

fuels treated by wildfire. 

RESPONSES OF KIM THORSEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Please have your researchers develop an estimate of what the total 

cost of the fires in 2002 and 2010 were. 

Answer. The total cost of fires is a difficult question to answer, especially for large 

fires that significantly impact structural and natural resources. The impacts of 

wildland fires on local, regional and national economic well being are very complex 

and vary greatly depending on the characteristics of the event (fire extent, intensity, 

duration, proximity to human development, community resource dependency, ecological conditions and many others). 

The Western Forestry Leadership Council recently released a report summarizing 

the range of economic costs identified within the literature for a small number of 

the larger wildfire events of the past decade (see ‘‘The True Cost of Wildland Fire’’, 

2009). The fires considered within this summary report show total economic cost 

ranging from 2 to 30 times the total suppression costs. However, it should be recognized that each of the studies reviewed in this document required considerable resources to summarize the economic impacts of a single event and the study highlights the significant range of outcomes. Most of the fires evaluated in this report 

had significant suppression resources assigned and yet wildfire extent and economic 

losses were considerable. 
48 

The application of the ‘‘total cost’’ evaluation process requires the acquisition of 

considerable event specific information from numerous data sources and substantial 

analyses which is impossible to complete for every fire in a given year due to the 

sheer volume of fires the agency manages. We do believe that an understanding of 

the total economic costs of these events is very relevant and improved information 

could yield improved policy. The agency will continue to support research to determine methods to evaluate total wildfire costs in a rapid and consistent method for 

large fires. 

A goal of wildfire management is to reduce the long term losses associated with 

wildland fires and the agency’s adoption of risk management principles emphasizes 

the balancing of fiscal cost and risk to firefighters and public interests. 

Question 2. During an active Alaska fire season, approximately how much is expended to transport and house the fire crews from the lower 48 to assist Alaska fire 

crews in suppressing fires? Answer. The Department of the Interior spends approximately $180,000 to transport crews annually to support Alaska fires. The costs to feed and house these crews 

are consistent with the cost of Alaska crews and mostly reflect fire line meals and 

camp rate. 

Fire crews are transported to Alaska during an active fire season to fill crew orders that cannot be filled within Alaska. These orders are typically for specialty 

crews like Type 1 or Type 2 IA crews that can be broken down into smaller groups 

for initial attack. The number is dependent on the availability of local crews and 

incident commander’s specific needs. 

The Alaska Fire Service transports, on an average, 16 crews per year to support 

fires in Alaska. The range is from 2 Type 1 crews in 2008 to 39 Type I and Type 

2 IA crews in 2004. We have a transport jet on federal contract for the express purpose of mobilizing crews when and where they are most needed across the nation. 

For 2011, the federally contracted Boeing 737 can mobilize five 20-person crews, 

equaling 100 persons, from Boise to Alaska for approximately $26,000.00, or $260.00 

per firefighter; or $520.00 round-trip. The total cost spent on moving crews to or 

from Alaska will vary per year depending on fire activity and need. Based on the 

annual average of 16 crews per year the cost would be approximately $180,000. 

The cost to feed, and house the crews while in Alaska is minimal because of fire 

assignments and is consistent with costs of mobilizing and supporting Alaska Native 

Crews. They are provided with fire line meals and camp out. 

Question 3. Would it cost more each year to transport the crews from the lower 

48 back and forth to Alaska, or to invest in the training to increase the qualifications of the Native Crews? 

Answer. It would cost considerably more to invest in training and outfitting Type 

1 crews in Alaska than simply using the national mobilization system to fill Alaska’s crew needs. Three type 1 crews are currently trained and maintained in the 

State of Alaska, including two managed by the Alaska Fire Service and one managed by the Alaska Department of Forestry. On average, 13 Type I crews per year 

are transported from the lower 48 to support fires in Alaska. A type 1 crew costs 

approximately $500,000 per year to train and outfit. The cost to train and outfit 13 

additional Type 1 crews in Alaska would be approximately $6.5 million. The cost 

of mobilizing 13 existing Type 1 crews from the lower 48 would be approximately 

$156,000. 

The Department is very supportive of cost effective crew development and utilization. The Alaska Fire Service (AFS) has an established program in place that is designed to train village crews as the primary firefighting force in Alaska. The AFS 

manages an Emergency Firefighter (EFF) program that consists of 73 Type 2 crews 

in 49 villages. This results in an average annual payroll of $8.3 million to local villages. Crews are managed under the Alaska Emergency Firefighter Type 2 Crew 

Management Guide, Revised March 2010 and available at http://fire.ak.blm.gov/ 

logdisp/crews.php. The guide is produced by the EFF Crew Management Board 

which is a subgroup of the Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group’s Operations 

Committee. 

In recent years, an average of 35 Type 2 crews per year were sent from Alaska 

to lower 48 assignments, as well as utilizing them on multiple in state assignments. 

Village crews within Alaska are a powerful and useful firefighting tool, and the AFS 

works very diligently to keep them trained and available for use throughout Alaska 

and the Continental US. 

During periods of high fire activity, Incident Commanders can and do order agency ‘‘hotshot’’ crews to fill critical assignments or protect high value resources. Moving firefighting resources to areas of highest priority is a common business practice 

throughout the country, and one that we believe ultimately saves money for the 

agencies and taxpayers. 
49 

The Alaska Fire Service is cognizant of the cost of-moving resources to the state, 

and works hard to use the practice only when necessary. The Alaska Fire Service 

is currently working with the State of Alaska, and Native Corporations within the 

Alaska Wildfire Coordinating Group (AWFCG), to provide greater opportunities for 

additional firefighter training. This additional training will be used to create a local 

pool of Type 2 IA crews that can supplement the traditional roster of Type 2 village 

crews. This will help to reduce the need to mobilize T2 IA crews from the lower 48. 

As noted, we have invested in expanding our training in Alaska in recent years 

to increase the qualifications of those crews. 

Question 4a. Over the last two decades, the Bureau of Land Management seems 

to have made the decision to focus its aerial fire fighting resources on the small single engine aircraft commonly called the SEATS aircraft. 

In making the decision to focus on the single-engine SEATS aircraft, the BLM 

opted not to use the heavy multi-engine aircraft the Forest Service has chosen; how 

did the Bureau of Land Management make its decision? 

Answer. The Bureau of Land Management, as well as the other bureaus within 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) with fire management responsibilities (Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service) and the Forest Service use Large Airtankers (LATS), Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS), water 

scoopers and helicopters to deliver water, water with foam or other water enhancers 

and water with retardant to extinguish fires or retard their growth. Fire Managers, 

regardless of agency, use the most appropriate aviation resource for the mission requirements. The perception that one agency prefers to use LATS and another 

SEATS is an unintended artifact of agreed to interagency business protocols for contracting efficiencies and does not reflect actual fire management operations. 

Factors that determine which aviation resources are utilized on a particular fire, 

regardless of agency responding, include: speed, range, capacity, suitability for the 

terrain, operating altitude and suitability for the mission. The diversity model allows DOI and Forest Service fire managers to apply the ‘‘right tool to the job’’ and 

all five federal agencies use all types of available aviation resources. 

—Large Airtankers (FATS) have the advantage of speed and capacity to the target. Their range allows for rapid deployment over long distances enabling 

them to reinforce operations across geographic boundaries. They also deliver 

large amounts of water/retardant in one mission, often in locations where 

other options are unavailable. 

—Single Engine Airtankers (SEATs) have the advantage of mobility and maneuverability. The infrastructure required to fuel and load SEATs is relatively minimal in terms of size and cost. This allows SEATs to operate close 

to the fire, shortening turn-around times and thereby increasing effectiveness. 

Due to their small size, SEATs are capable of great accuracy in rough terrain. 

SEATs also have the advantage of being ‘‘purpose-designed’’ to accurately dispense payload in the low altitude flight regime encountered during the 

wildland firefighting mission. 

—Water scoopers have the advantage of speed and capacity, when there are appropriate water sources close to the fire site. 

—Helicopters have the advantage of large and sustained capacity for personnel 

and cargo movement. Helicopter delivery of firefighters, either helitack or 

rappellers, and supplies has the advantage of speed and accuracy. Helicopters 

have the versatility for multiple missions including personnel and cargo 

movement, command and control and aerial ignition operations. And, helicopter delivery of water/retardant has the advantage of accuracy, speed, capacity, and increased water/retardant drop frequency if water resources are 

close to the fire site. 

The aviation resources available to support the federal agencies for wildfire management are a mix of government owned/government operated and vendor owned/ 

vendor operated aircraft There are relatively few government owned/government operated aircraft in the agencies’ fleet and these are most often special use aircraft 

such as smokejumper aircraft and lead planes. To further increase effectiveness of 

contracting aerial firefighting resources, the Forest Service agreed to contract for 

large air tankers for use by all federal agencies, and the Department of the Interior’s Aviation Management Directorate (AMD) has agreed to contract single engine 

air tankers for use by all agencies. The AMD also contracts for CL-215 larger waterscooping air tankers for use in Alaska (exclusive use contract) and the lower 48 

(call-when-needed contract). 

Question 4b. In that process, did the Bureau of Land Management hold a competition to learn which brand and model of aircraft best met the needs of the Bureau’s 

fire fighters? 
50 

Answer. To achieve the right mix of air assets necessary to meet the diverse requirements of the wildland firefighting mission, the Department of the Interior focuses our contract specifications on the qualities and capabilities that best meet our 

fire response needs. We focus on required performance, not aircraft brands or models. The effectiveness of aviation resources on a fire is directly proportional to the 

speed and frequency at which the resource(s) can initially engage the fire, and the 

effective water/retardant carrying capacity of the aircraft. These factors are magnified by flexibility in prioritization, mobility, positioning and utilization of the 

versatility of many types of aircraft. Allowing any single element of the aviation resource mix to be dominated by one make and model of aircraft puts that entire element at danger of shutdown when and if an airworthiness issue is raised with that 

particular make and model of aircraft. Reliance on one make/model aircraft also limits the leverage the government has in managing contract costs with vendors. 

The maintenance, parts supply and other efficiencies that private enterprise 

might gain from operating one make and model of aircraft are unlikely to be 

achieved in a fleet of the size and composition of the one that wildland agencies currently manage. Diversity of the fleet means a mix of types of aircraft with specific 

mission strengths that provide a toolbox for fire managers to use with specific fire 

situations. 

Aviation resources are available nationwide to the federal agencies as a mix of 

different aircraft that may include large fixed-wing air tankers (LATs), smaller single engine fixed wing air tankers (SEATs), large and small helicopters, smaller fixed 

wing aircraft, and smokejumper aircraft. The relative mix of these aircraft on any 

given fire is determined by several factors including the type, location, and duration 

of incidents. The infrastructure necessary to support any of the aviation elements 

must also be included in any decision as to the numbers, location and utilization 

of that particular resource. 

Aviation resources that require significant capital investment, software, analysis 

and training to be fully functional are by nature less flexible than those that require 

little or no upfront investment. Analysis of the optimum mix and number of aircraft 

includes these costs. 

Question 4c. Does the Bureau of Land Management restrict their contracts to a 

single model manufactured by a single aircraft manufacturer or does the agency 

allow multiple companies to bid as long as the aircraft offered meets the contract 

specifications? 

Answer. Contracts are not restricted to aircraft model or manufacturer, but rather 

to aircraft performance characteristics designed to achieve the most efficient, effective, and safe fire aviation program. The USFS manages flight services procurement 

of LATs and the DOI manages procurement of the SEATs. Flight services are procured using one of two forms of aircraft contracts; one is an ‘‘Exclusive Use’’ type 

contract in which the Government contracts for the aircraft, accompanying maintenance, and aircrew for a specified period of time with the exclusive use of the aircraft reserved for the Government. The other form of contract is termed a ‘‘Call 

When Needed’’ (CWN for the USES) or On-Call for DOI type contract that makes 

aircraft available to the Government at predetermined rates, if the aircraft is available for service (contingency basis). 

Large Type I and Type II fixed wing airtankers have played an increasingly important role in firefighting since the mid-1950s when aircraft were first used to deliver retardant. Today, privately owned airtankers are leased from private operators 

from February through November and pre-positioned throughout the country based 

on the fire threat. The number of airtankers currently available to the interagency 

fire management community is 19. 

Type 3 Air Tankers such as CL-215s and Air Tractor 802s will continue to be utilized where available and appropriate. Tactically the mix of CL-215s and the larger 

SEATs that currently exist are satisfying the requirements of fire operations personnel. Currently, most vendors are moving to larger capacity, turbine driven 

SEATs, and this is supported by the users in the field. The Type 1 and Type 2 helicopter programs are managed by all federal agencies to varying degrees. Each has 

the opportunity to contract for these services and does so as needed. The program 

was first developed to meet the demand for delivery of firefighters, equipment, retardant and suppressants to initial attack and escaped fires. Today, the program is 

characterized by a high level of competition for the helicopters and an increasing 

reliance on exclusive use services by some agencies. Many states also have robust 

helicopter programs supported by the Federal Excess Personal Property (FEPP) program aircraft administered by the U.S. Forest Service. 

Question 4d. For example, if a contractor put a bid in to use a Polish PZL-Mielec 

M-18 Dromader that would meet the contract specifications, would the BLM consider that contractor’s bid? 
51 

Answer. Any brand type or model of aircraft would be considered if it met the 

contract specifications for capability, speed, capacity, etc. Contracting of aviation resources from vendors by the USFS and DOT is generally accomplished through Exclusive Use or CWN/OnCall contracts. However, each agency implements its own 

contracting vehicles that vary in type, language, and format depending upon the 

type of aviation resource being procured. The diversity of vendors does allow for 

more flexibility in acquiring aircraft that are a better fit for the geography, fuels, 

fire behavior, topography and length of season. 

The current vendor fleet is provided by a variety of companies, ranging from a 

vendor with one aircraft to vendors that supply multiple aircraft that are widely distributed across the U.S. This situation makes contract administration, inspections, 

carding and monitoring of operations more labor and time intensive than contracting with one entity to provide all aircraft, however, when exercised within established doctrine, the use of a variety of aviation resources complements the actions of ground resources, multiplies the effect of those resources on the suppression 

action, provides a critical margin of safety and lowers total suppression costs. 

RESPONSE OF KIM THORSEN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1a. At the public land subcommittee hearing held on May 25111, both 

Under Secretary Harris Sherman and Deputy Director Marcilynn Burke supported 

good neighbor authority. In Colorado alone, Mr. Sherman testified the authority has 

been used successfully on 37 projects covering 3,900 acres. These projects focused 

on fuel reduction within the wild land-urban interface. 

Had my Good Neighbor Forestry Bill been signed into law last year, as it was introduced, would it have aided the forest service in dealing with the terrible forest 

fuels problems that have been occurring? BLM? 

Answer. As noted in our testimony, the Administration supports Good Neighbor 

Authority, but we believe further study and analysis are needed to better understand the interplay of state and federal contracting and labor law and regulation 

before expansion of the authority is authorized. We look forward to working with 

the committee, States, and federal agencies to develop a better understanding of the 

issues and to improve the bill in a manner that meets the needs of key stakeholders. 

We welcome opportunities to enhance our capability to manage our natural resources through a landscape-scale approach that crosses a diverse spectrum of land 

ownerships. 

Question 1b. How many more acres might have been treated if Good Neighbor authority was available to the Forest Service? BLM? 

Answer. Currently, the BLM has very limited experience with the Good Neighbor 

authority since the BLM’s authority to use it is only in the State of Colorado. BLM 

Colorado has only completed one project at this time. The number of acres that 

could have been treated under widespread Good Neighbor authority would depend 

on the individual state’s ability to perform fuels reduction projects and resources 

available in any given state. Because the BLM only has the authority in Colorado, 

we have not explored the capacity of other western states to perform fuels reduction 

treatments and are therefore unable to determine a number of acres that might 

have been treated. 

RESPONSE OF KIM THORSEN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR HELLER

Question 1. The personal impacts of wildfire are a huge burden to my constituents. I have heard story after story of folks who have watched a fire burn on public 

lands, been prevented from putting the fire out, only to see it eventually destroy 

their property. 

As you know, if a private party starts a fire that spreads to public lands, they 

are held accountable. Whereas, if the federal government starts or fails to aggressively suppress a fire that destroys private property—there is vastly less accountability. In light of this, what are the trends in wildland use fires over the last 5 

years? And, what percentage of catastrophic wildfires was designated as wildland 

use fires instead of aggressively suppressed? 

Answer. The term ‘‘wildland use fires’’ is no longer used by the federal agencies. 

With the change in fire policy implementation that occurred in 2009, these fires are 

now included in the description of fires being managed for ‘‘multiple objectives′′; 

which more accurately describes the strategies and tactics of this type of wildfire 

response. 

Wildfires that threaten people, communities or important natural, economic or 

cultural resources will always be managed for full suppression. The concept of multiple objectives allows fire managers to make decisions based on land and fire management plans. It allows fire to play its natural role where appropriate and focuses 
52 

suppression efforts in order to protect lives and property. This is in keeping with 

the principle of having the right response resources at the right place at the right 

time. 

All wildfires receive a response. In appropriate locations that response may be 

limited to confining a fire within designated boundaries. Where lives and homes are 

threatened, the response is always full suppression as quickly and efficiently as possible. In some instances, there may be a combination of tactics used on a single fire. 

Again, this is in line with having the right resources at the right place and right 

time. It is appropriate to note that when fires are deemed to require aggressive initial attack the overall percentage of success is calculated to be in the positive 95 

percentile. 

Additionally, there are no criteria for ‘‘catastrophic fire,’’ which is a generic description of wildfires that is not used or accepted by the U.S. wildland fire community. 

The National Interagency Coordination Center in Boise, Idaho, collects and tracks 

data from wildfires that are considered ‘‘large.’’ By definition, a large fire is one that 

burns a minimum of 100 acres of primarily forested land or at least 300 acres of 

rangeland. Given that guideline, in FY 2011, there have been 630 federal large fires, 

147 of which have, at one point been managed to achieve multiple objectives. 

It is important to note that, in the past, the acreage of multiple objective fires 

was tracked separately from full-suppression fires. In the last few years, these fire 

acreages have been lumped into full-suppression fires, as many of them have 

changed from being managed as full-suppression to multiple objectives and back 

again. Since management strategies can change, sometimes on a daily basis, it 

would be ineffective to track these acreages separately. 

Æ