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

53–001 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 111–128 

PREPAREDNESS FOR THE 2009 WILDFIRE SEASON 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE PREPAREDNESS OF FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT 

AGENCIES FOR THE 2009 WILDFIRE SEASON AND TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 561 AND H.R. 1404, THE FEDERAL LAND ASSISTANCE, 

MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT 

JULY 21, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Dalton, Patricia, Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 12 

Jensen, Jay, Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the Environment, Department of Agriculture ....................................................................... 10 

MacSwords, Leah, President, National Association of State Foresters, State 

Forester of Kentucky, Representing the Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Funding Solutions ........................................................................................ 35 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 2 

Peterson, R. Max, Retired Chief, Forest Service (1979-1987) .............................. 40 

Suh, Rhea, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 4 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Wyoming .................................................. 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 47 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 57 

(1) 

PREPAREDNESS FOR THE 2009 WILDFIRE 

SEASON 

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. The committee will come to order. Today the 

chairman of our full committee, Chairman Bingaman is unable to 

be here at this time. So he asked me to open this morning’s hearing. 

Today the committee looks at the preparedness of the Federal 

land management agencies for the current wildfire season. The 

heart of the problem it seems to me is pretty straightforward. We 

are having more large wildfires. 

They are more frequent. They are more extreme. Putting them 

out means spending more money on what is known as wildfire suppression. 

So what has happened is almost every year the Forest Service 

has to go out and spend more money on wildfire suppression than 

it has budgeted. Then it goes out and borrows billions of dollars. 

That’s been the case over a number of years from the programs 

that are set up to prevent the wildfires. These are programs like 

thinning and hazardous fuels reduction. 

Now the reality is that these quick cash schemes never solve the 

budget problem. They all but guarantee that future wildfires are 

going to be even more costly and more dangerous. In fact the Forest Service’s borrowing results in higher costs, not only to taxpayers, but also to the private businesses and organizations that 

work with the Forest Service. It has adversely affected virtually everything the Forest Service does and poses a significant threat to 

the Agency’s capacity to carry out its mission. 

It is very clear there needs to be a new approach to be able to 

get ahead of the problem of wildfire and keep the buildup of hazardous fuels in check. At past hearings before this committee the 

Forest Service Inspector General testified that hazardous fuels are 

estimated to be accumulating on forest lands three times as fast as 

they can be treated. With the current approach it is not a question 

of if, but when the next disaster will strike. 
2 

Today the committee is going to consider several important 

pieces of legislation to deal with this. The committee intends to 

consider S. 561, H.R. 1404, the FLAME Act. They have been sponsored by our chair, by my friend the ranking member, Senator 

Murkowski. I’m very pleased to be joining Chairman Bingaman 

and Senator Murkowski in co-sponsoring this important legislation. 

In addition I am also working on legislation to greatly step up 

the pace of desperately needed work to reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels and the risk of catastrophic fire. I want the Forest 

Service to have new tools to get out in front of the problem and 

prevent our forest lands and the taxpayers from getting burned. It 

is my hope to have that legislation ready for introduction shortly. 

Finally from the outset of his administration, the President, 

President Obama has called for a full and honest accounting of the 

money we plan to spend. Referring to the past practices of failing 

to adequately budget for fires is one example. Accordingly his fiscal 

year 2010 proposes for the first time a separate account to be held 

in reserve to fund wildfire suppression costs that exceed the standard budget during the next fiscal year. The FLAME Act complements the President’s proposal by providing the authorization 

and administrative direction along with future appropriations that 

are necessary for a long term solution. 

Today the committee will hear from several panels of witnesses. 

The first panel will be Jay Jensen, Deputy Undersecretary for 

Natural Resources in the Department of Agriculture. 

The Honorable Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget for the Department of the Interior. 

Patricia Dalton, Managing Director for Natural Resources and 

Environment at the Government Accountability Office. 

We will be going to your testimony for the three of you momentarily. But first I’d like to turn to the committee’s ranking member, 

Senator Murkowski. 

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

FROM ALASKA 

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

opportunity to be with you this morning. As I mentioned Alaska is 

on fire, we’re having actually a really nice summer up North. But 

with the good, dry weather brings the fires that we so often see. 

I understand Alaska is about 1.1 million acres that have been 

burned. This is out of the 2.8 million acres that have swept across 

the country. So once again, Alaska is in the news when it comes 

to our wildfires. 

Mr. Chairman, you’ve indicated some of the issues that arise 

when we look at the budget within the Forest Service. The fire programs now cost the Forest Service more than 50 percent of its overall budget. The combination of drought, suburban growth and the 

wild land interface and extremely poor forest health conditions all 

point to higher fire suppression costs. 

The result of these challenges, as you mentioned, is the FLAME 

Act that we have co-sponsored. The House of Representatives has 

made some changes to the FLAME Act that I think are unacceptable. The questions that I will pose this morning will help provide 

some clarity to that. I’m also concerned with the manner in which 
3 

the administration proposed funding fire suppression in the 

FY2010 budget. When the FLAME Act is signed into law it will not 

bear fruit unless the administration and the Appropriations Committees harmonize their fire budget request to the FLAME Act. 

I have looked at the 2009 quadrennial fire review report. It was 

put together by the fire staffs at the respective land management 

agencies, State foresters and others. For the past 100 years the 

Forest Service and BLM focused on land management. Fire fighting was only a small additional program that they carried out to 

help protect the investments that were made in land management. 

Today I think we have seen fire preparedness and suppression 

become the tail that literally wags the dog. Land management 

seems to be an afterthought. I sometimes fear that those within the 

Forest Service want to become the masters of disaster response. 

I’m not sure that this should be the task of our land management 

agencies. 

I see no reason that the Forest Service or BLM should be dealing 

with pandemics or other civil defense crisis as a core mission. But 

this appears to be becoming their role. I think that this can be 

taken too far. 

In some portions of California they’ve taken on the responsibility 

of being first responders for traffic accidents. In the report they envision being called on to deal with disease outbreaks and other disasters that have absolutely nothing to do with the lands that they 

have been entrusted to manage. This has implications to other nonfire resource management. This committee and this Congress needs 

to stop the mission creep or we’ll need to double the size in the 

budgets for these two agencies. 

Finally there is another issue looming that we need to focus on. 

In 2004 the Forest Service grounded 33 large fire fighting aircraft 

due to their age and their metal fatigue issues. We went from 44 

such aircraft to a fleet of less than 15. The Forest Service shifted 

to using only former Navy antisubmarine war aircraft flown by 

contract companies. This past year the Navy was forced to ground 

39 of its P–3 Orion aircraft due to metal fatigue issued in the 

wings. 

Since the majority of the Forest Service contract fire bombers are 

P–3s, we need to become better prepared to deal with this issue. 

It is approaching and I think we all recognize that it is going to 

be pretty expensive. 

All of the alternative fixes are costly. If we don’t put time into 

thinking about the issue and preparing for the day that the wings 

literally start falling off. We will find ourselves at the mercy of the 

Department of Agriculture as they attempt to provide a solution. 

Hastily thought out emergency responses are always more costly, 

certainly more disruptive. I think we need to be proactive in anticipating. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the comments from the witnesses and working with you on the FLAME Act and other good 

legislation. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. You’re absolutely right in 

terms of your diagnosis and the opportunity to move ahead. So I 

look forward to working closely with you. 
4 

Let’s go next to Ms. Suh. Welcome, and I appreciate your participation. I know you’ve been cooperating with the staff. We’ll make 

your prepared remarks a part of the record in their entirety. 

For all our witnesses I know that there is almost a physical compulsion to just put one’s head down and start reading. But if there 

is any way we can persuade you to summarize your views, we’ll 

make your prepared remarks a part of history for the ages. Ok? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Suh, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RHEA SUH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SUH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Senator 

Murkowski. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today on 

Federal wildland fire management and options for funding this activity. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of the 

Interior continue to work closely in wildfire management. 

My colleague, Deputy Under Secretary Jensen and I have coordinated our statement to provide a comprehensive presentation of the 

management challenges we share as well as our ongoing efforts to 

meet these challenges more effectively. We have submitted our 

joint, full written statement for the record. In order to be mindful 

of your time, I’ve condensed my oral comments to basically provide 

a brief context for the challenges associated with wildfire management today and a brief update on the 2009 fire season and our 

State of readiness. 

Wildland fire and wildland firefighting are influenced by a complex set of environmental and social factors. As you are aware fires 

in recent years have become larger and fire seasons have grown 

longer due to climate change, persistent drought and hazardous 

fuels accumulations. In addition development within the wildland 

urban interface has increased the complexity of fighting wildfires. 

We believe these factors are the primary drivers behind rising costs 

and are the leading variables driving the rapid increase in fire suppression expenditures. 

Both the Department of the Interior and Agriculture recognize 

this serious responsibility we bear in protecting people, property 

and natural resources from wildfire. While our initial attack success continues to be very good, roughly 97 percent in the last several years, our highest priority is the safety of our firefighters and 

our citizens. Reduced exposure to unnecessary risk during fire 

incidences will continue to guide fire management decisions and 

will anchor our actions. 

Additionally we will continue to actively work with communities 

to expand their capacity to mitigate risks from damaging fire. We 

will continue to make fuel treatment and wildland urban interface 

areas a priority, assist localities in building the response capability 

in wildfire prone areas, work collaboratively with local communities to understand the role of fire in these landscapes, and help 

foster individual responsibilities for private property protection. 

The 2009 wildfire season has been moderate to date. June was 

a relatively wet and cool month throughout most of the West. As 

the season progresses below normal significant fire potential is ex-
5 

pected across portions of the Great Basin, the Southwest and the 

Southeast. 

However there are areas of the country that we need to pay careful attention to: portions of Washington, California and the Appalachian Mountains have been drier than normal and significant fire 

potential is forecast to increase or persist across these areas. 

So far, as of July 15, over 51,000 fires have burned to an excess 

of 2.5 million acres. Over 85 percent of these incidents to date have 

been on State or other non-Federal lands with more than twothirds of the acres burned. 

To prepare for the conditions anticipated in the 2009 fire season, 

the Departments are working together to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of our firefighting resources. 

In terms of our firefighting forces in 2009, we have over 18,000 

firefighters available, including permanent and seasonal, Federal 

and State employees, crews from tribal and local governments, contract crews and emergency and temporary hires. This number is 

comparable to those from last year. 

In terms of our aviation, the wildland fire agencies continue to 

employ a mix of fixed and rotor wing aircraft. Interior, the lead 

contractor for Single Engine Air Tankers, will maintain a mix of 

aviation resources to include 21 Single Engine Air Tankers, 44 helicopters and 13 aerial supervision aircraft in 2009, which is again, 

similar to that of 2008. This resource readiness is comparable to 

the last several years and we believe an effective approach. We do 

acknowledge however, that we need to look at our long-term aviation needs and the Departments are doing that now. 

Before my colleague, Mr. Jensen completes our joint testimony. 

I want to express my appreciation to the members of this committee and to the full House for their efforts to address the current 

problems related to the way fire suppression costs are managed. 

The administration supports the FLAME Act if amended to provide 

for a contingency reserve as outlined by the President’s budget. We 

believe that the administration’s budget proposal can address the 

problem. 

The administration looks forward to working with Congress on 

safe, cost effective and accountable results in managing wildfire. 

This concludes my oral statement. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have later. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Suh and Mr. Jensen follows:] 

JOINT STATEMENT OF RHEA SUH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND JAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Murkowski, and members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today on Federal wildland fire management and options for 

funding this activity. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior continue to work closely together in wildfire management We have coordinated our statement to provide a well-rounded presentation of the management 

challenges we share, as well as our recent efforts to meet these challenges more effectively. 
6 

1 Joyce, L.A. et al (2008) Chapter 3 National Forests in US Climate Change Science Program: 

Preliminary review of adaptive options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report 

by the U.s. Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 

[Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, b.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer C.H. 

Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 

USA, 873 pp. 2Westerling. A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and Earlier 

Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science. 313 (5789): 940–943. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

The Departments take seriously the protection of people, property and valuable 

natural resources from wildfire. We are prepared for the 2009 wildland fire season 

and are staffed to provide safe, effective fire management. We have available fire 

fighting forces—firefighters, equipment, and aircraft—comparable to 2008 with more 

than 18,000 firefighters, and we will have equal or greater numbers of aviation, engines and other equipment assets on the ground. Further, the Departments have expanded strategic centralized management and pre-positioned aviation assets in 

order to constantly improve management effectiveness and increase cost efficiency 

which will lead to even greater safety and community and resource protection. 

We will continue our commitment to successful initial attack of wildland fire. For 

the last several years, the wildland fire agencies faced 18,000 or more wildfires a 

year with an average of 97% success on initial attack. This will be carried out, however, with full attention to firefighter safety as the foremost principle. Reduced exposure to unnecessary risk during fire incidents continues to guide fire management 

decisions and anchors our actions. Additionally, we continue to actively work with 

communities to expand their capacity to be safe from damaging fire. We continue 

to make fuels treatment in wildland urban interface areas a priority, assist localities 

to build their response capability, work collaboratively with local communities in 

wildfire prone areas to understand the role of fire in these landscapes and help find 

ways to take actions to mitigate risk, and help spread the knowledge of tools to foster individual responsibility to property protection. 

Wildland fire and wildland fire fighting are influenced by a complex set of environmental and social factors. Though there have been a decreasing number of 

wildfires on National Forest System lands over the past ten years, fires across jurisdictions in recent years have become larger, consuming more acres, and fire seasons 

have grown longer due to climate change1, persistent drought and hazardous fuels 

accumulations2 that reflect in part the results of previous fire management. In addition, the expansion of development has increased the complexity of fighting wildland 

fire. These trends are not expected to change. In fact, it is expected that climate 

change will continue to result in environmental responses that bring greater probability of longer fire seasons and bigger fire events in most regions of the country. 

Weather shifts and cumulative drought effects will further stress fuels accumulations and are predicted to result in more total fire on the landscape and potentially 

more large fires. Additionally, although current economic conditions have slowed, 

growth in wildland areas, regional shifts in population and demographic trends 

point to more seasonal recreational homes and full time residency in areas adjacent 

to forested public lands. We believe these factors, as well as the management framework and decisions during some fire incidents, are the primary drivers behind rising 

costs and are the leading variables driving annual fire suppression expenditures to 

have frequently exceeded the ten-year average. 

2009 WILDLAND FIRE SEASON OUTLOOK

The 2009 wildland fire season has been light to date in which we have seen the 

longest period at Preparedness Level 1 since 1990. June was a very wet and relatively cool month over much of the West. However, portions of Washington, northern Idaho and Montana were drier than normal and the Northwest and Southeast 

were persistently hot and dry. Although welcome short-term relief was provided in 

many locations, drought conditions in areas of the Northwest, California, Nevada, 

and Texas are expected to persist or worsen. 

As the season progresses, below normal significant fire potential is expected 

across portions of the Great Basin, the Southwest, and Southeast. Conversely, significant fire potential is forecast to increase or persist across portions of Washington, California and the Appalachian Mountains during the leaf drop period in October. 

As of July 15, 2009 over 51,000 fires have burned an excess of 2.5 million acres. 

Over 85 percent of the incidents to date have occurred on state and other non-federal lands and more than two thirds of the acres burned were non-federal lands. 
7 

WILDLAND FIRE PREPAREDNESS

To prepare for conditions anticipated in the 2009 fire season, the Departments are 

working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our fire fighting resources. 

Fire managers assign local, regional, and national fire fighting personnel and equipment based on anticipated fire starts, actual fire occurrence, fire spread, and severity with the help of information from the National Interagency Fire Center Predictive Services group. 

Firefighting Forces 

For the 2009 fire season, we have available firefighting forces—firefighters, equipment, and aircraft—comparable to those available in 2008. More than 18,000 firefighters are available, including permanent and seasonal Federal and State employees, crews from Tribal and local governments, contract crews, and emergency/temporary hires. This figure includes levels consistent with 2008 of highly-trained firefighting crews, smokejumpers, Type 1 national interagency incident management 

teams (the most experienced and skilled teams) available for complex fires or incidents, and Type 2 incident management teams available for geographical or national incidents. The Departments frequently work in unified command with State 

and local departments. They serve a critical role in our initial attack success and 

we could not be as effective as we have been without them. 

The Forest Service hosts four interagency National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) teams staffed for 2009. These are four seven-member full-time Type 

I Incident Management Teams ready to respond to wildland fire incidents. In addition, the NIMO teams have worked with selected National Forests that are historically at higher risk of large fire prior to the season to work collaboratively to build 

capacity through strategic pre-season planning and training in risk management 

protocol for decision making and critical incident operations. 

The National Interagency Coordination Center, located at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, coordinates fire fighting needs throughout the nation. 

In the event of multiple, simultaneous fires, resources are prioritized, allocated, and, 

if necessary, re-allocated by the National Multi-Agency Coordinating group, composed of representatives of major fire organizations headquartered at NIFC. 

Prioritization ensures firefighting forces are positioned where they are needed most. 

Fire managers dispatch and track personnel, equipment, aircraft, vehicles, and supplies and are all managed through an integrated national system. If conditions become extreme, assistance from the Department of Defense is available under standing agreements, as well as fire fighting forces from Canada, Mexico, Australia, and 

New Zealand, using established agreements and protocols. 

Aviation 

The wildland firefighting agencies continue to employ a mix of fixed and rotor 

wing aircraft. Key components of the Forest Service 2009 aviation assets include up 

to 20 civilian large air tankers on Federal contracts, along with up to 33 Type 1 

heavy helicopters and 36 Type 2 medium helicopters on national exclusive-use contracts; 53 Type 3 helicopters on local or regional exclusive-use contracts, and 8 Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System units that will be available for deployment. Additionally, there are nearly 300 call-when-needed Type 1, 2 and 3 helicopters available for fire management support as conditions and activity dictate. Likewise, Interior, the lead contractor for Single Engine Air Tankers, will maintain a mix of aviation resources to include 21 SEATS, 44 Helicopters, and 13 Aerial Supervision Aircraft in 2009 similar to that used in 2008. This resource readiness is comparable 

to the past several years and we believe an effective approach. We do acknowledge, 

however, that we need to look at our long-term aviation needs, and the Departments 

are doing that now. 

IMPACTS OF A CHANGING AND EXPANDING FIRE ENVIRONMENT

Currently, ecosystems across the country are out-of-balance with fire. The trends 

are for fire to expand across the landscape. A combination of mechanical treatment 

and managed fire can help return some fire adapted ecosystems to health and prevent heavy accumulations of highly flammable fuels. But, current conditions can 

mean more extreme fire that puts people and natural resources at risk. We must 

be prepared to cope with the potential for increasing acres burned over the next five 

years, more extreme fire behavior, and irregular fire patterns on the landscape. 

These factors could affect cost. For example, last year, although the wildland fire 

agencies successfully suppressed 97% of all wildfires on initial attack, forty wildfires 

grew to become ‘‘megafires’’ (.25 of 1%) representing more than half of the Forest 
8 

Service expenditures on wildland fire. The agencies are working together and providing resources to address these problem areas. 

This Administration makes the protection of communities, the environment, and 

firefighter safety a priority. The factors described above increase fire fighting complexity and have contributed to increased expenditures by the agency. The inflationadjusted ten-year average for wildland fire suppression for two Departments, $1.5 

billion, is more than twice the FY 2001 level. These increases in turn elevate the 

10-year average for wildland fire suppression used in the Budget formulation. 

Therefore, the Wildland Fire Management budget has grown significantly and now 

makes up over 48% of the Forest Service discretionary budget and Interior’s suppression budget is now 41 percent of the fire program. Because the budget reflects 

the Administration’s priorities within a constrained budget environment, escalating 

suppression and fuels treatment obligations-like all other resource management program obligations-have been absorbed within the wildland fire agencies’ discretionary 

totals. In recent years lower amounts have been available for other mission critical 

programs across the agencies. The President’s Fiscal year 2010 budget addresses 

this as discussed below. 

We have spent over $1.5 billion annually fighting wildfires in 5 out of the past 

7 years. In addition to the increasing size of the Wildland Fire portion of the overall 

Forest Service budget, approximately $1.9 billion has been transferred from non-fire 

agency programs to help cover fire suppression operations costs since FY 2002. Fire 

transfers have also impacted Interior as well, but to a relatively lesser degree. It 

should be noted that most, but not all, of these funds have been restored to the 

agencies through emergency supplemental appropriations. Interior has executed 

over $800 million in transfers. Responding to these emergencies with transfers that 

typically occur in the final months of the fiscal year, coupled with the shifting of 

personnel resources from program work to work associated with wildfire suppression response have resulted in considerable work disruption, delay, postponement, 

and even cancellation of projects. This transfer authority is an important tool to ensure that there will not be a lapse in emergency fire fighting activities due to a lack 

of funding. Responding to these emergencies have affected the wildland fire agencies’ ability to deliver their programs of work, and has reduced accomplishments and 

impaired partnerships, even when the transferred funds were repaid through supplemental appropriations. 

The Departments have adopted substantive management reforms to mitigate this 

cost trend. Along with us, our State and local partners have spent significant effort 

and resources over the past several years to coordinate capability, improve intergovernmental communication, and employ management controls to ensure effective 

response,. raise efficiency, and to manage operations within the amounts appropriated to manage wildland fire. We are expanding these efforts for the current fire 

season and beyond. For example, a number of Wildland Fire Decision Support Systems (such as FSPro, which models fire behavior, and RAVAR, which models values 

at risk from fire) provide real-time support to fire managers implementing Risk-Informed Management. These efforts are coupled with other program efforts such as 

strategic and operational protocols, improved oversight, and use of a risk management framework that ensure fire management resources are appropriately focused. 

However, we recognize that despite our best efforts, circumstances may occur that 

lead obligations to exceed these appropriated amounts. We are pleased that the Administration has included a proposal in the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget that provides 

for a $357 million Wildland Fire Management Contingency Reserve with the Departments’ budgets. This proposal reflects the President’s commitment to wildfire 

management and community protection by establishing a new contingent reserve 

funds dedicated to addressing catastrophic wildfires in addition to fully funding the 

ten year average of suppression costs adjusted for inflation at $1.5 billion. This 

nearly $1.9 billion in funding is coupled with program reforms that ensure fire management resources are focused where they will do the most good. Funds from the 

contingent reserve will be used only if needed and available upon issuance of a Presidential finding. By establishing a dedicated fund for catastrophic wildfires, fully 

funding the inflation-adjusted ten year average of suppression costs, and providing 

program reforms, the Budget reduces the need for agencies to transfer funds from 

non-fire programs to pay for fire fighting when agency appropriated suppression 

funds are exhausted. 

We must recognize that funding is only one part of the wildland fire management 

solution and we must re-double our efforts to manage the span of the wildfire problem by investing in not just suppression, but hazardous fuels reduction, restoration 

action, and community assistance. The President’s Budget also reflects the commitment of this Administration to implement program reforms to allow wildfire to re-
9 

assume its ecological function on the landscape and ensure fire management resources are focused where they will do the most good. 

The President’s Budget for FY 2010 provides funding at levels that equips the 

agencies to help restore and manage the Nation’s forests and rangelands. It also recognizes problems with how fire suppression has been funded and addresses the fire 

transfer problem by adding a contingent reserve of $282 million for the Forest Service and $75 million for Interior, and provides funding increases commensurate with 

the increase in the ten-year average suppression costs. The Administration appreciates the strong support of the House in providing requested funding amounts for 

wildfire suppression operations and the new Wildland Fire Suppression Contingency 

Reserve of the Forest Service and Department of the Interior, and encourages the 

Senate to do the same. We are also aware of S.561, the FLAME Act, introduced by 

this Committee, and H.R. 1404, introduced in the House, that aims to accomplish 

the separation between routine wildland fire management and large, catastrophic 

fire events. We appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of the FLAME Act to address 

the current problems related to the way firefighting costs are funded. The Administration supports the FLAME Act if amended to provide for a contingency reserve, 

as outlined in the President’s budget. We believe that the Administration’s budget 

proposal can address the problem. The Administration looks forward to working 

with the Congress on safe, cost-effective, and accountable results in managing wildfire. We imagine a day when we have the opportunity to effectively address catastrophic wildfires, restore fire adapted landscapes, and have adequate resources for 

hazardous fuels, fire science, assistance to others, and preparedness. This will assist 

in the creation of new wood-based industries to create jobs, such as through the expansion of wood-to-energy and alternative fuels goals through wood, ethanol, and 

other bio-fuels to support our nation’s independence from foreign oil. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT IS EVOLVING TO A NEW ERA

The wildland fire program in the two Departments is strong and moving in a positive direction. We are committed to continued improvement to increase our effectiveness and maximize our efficiency. The Departments continue to face challenges that 

make management of wildland fire complex, demanding and expensive. However, we 

have taken steps to manage costs and are adopting techniques to apply before and 

during fire incidents that work assertively to advance risk-informed fire management, operational efficiencies, utilization of research and technology, and targeted 

program implementation to reduce fire-related impacts. Specifically, these actions 

include: 

• We will continue to reduce hazardous fuels on priority lands. From 2001 

through 2008, together we have treated about 23 million acres on federal lands 

through hazardous fuels reduction and over 7 million acres through other land 

restoration activities; 

• We will continue our focus on hazardous fuels treatments in wildland-urban 

interface areas and in fire-adapted ecosystems that present the greatest opportunity for forest and rangeland restoration and to reduce the risk of severe fires 

in the future; 

• Continued implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

which provides $500 million for the Forest Service and $15 million for the Interior Department to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health on federal 

and other lands, through partnership, including up to $50 million to promote 

woody biomass as renewable energy. These funds will greatly expand the effort 

to reduce dangerous accumulations of fuels, create private sector jobs in hazardous fuels reduction and alternative energy, and help support local economies. 

Many projects have begun and most will be completed within 1-3 years; 

• We will continue to constantly improve decision-making on wildland fires starting this year. The wildland fire agencies have employed new decision support 

tools, through the Wildland Fire Decision Support System, to give managers 

better information to estimate risk and better ways to predict what may happen 

during a fire. The decision support process is intended to guide and document 

wildfire management decisions. The process provides situational assessment, 

analysis of hazards and risk, defining implementation actions, and documentation of decisions and rationale for those decisions. For fires that escape initial 

attack, we will incorporate these science-based computer models and couple 

them with improved risk management approaches as part of the agency continuing effort to safeguard lives, protect communities and important natural resource values and restore ecosystem health. These fire management reforms are 

aimed at improving fire management decisions, increasing firefighter and public 
10 

safety, and are anticipated to provide cost-effective and accountable outcomes 

from investments made in managing fire on the landscape. 

• We will continue to work on enhanced response and efficiency that comes from 

national shared resources, aviation resources management, pre-positioning of 

firefighting resources, and improvements in aviation risk management for safe 

engagement; 

• We are developing an Interagency Aviation Strategy that looks to address a current aviation fleet that is aging and costs of maintenance increasing; 

• We will continue after action review of fire incidents to apply lessons learned 

and best practices to policy and operations; and 

• Since the advent of the National Fire Plan in 2000, federal, state and non-governmental entities have collaborated operationally and strategically in an attempt to improve fire prevention and suppression, reduce hazardous fuels, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and promote community assistance. Ongoing 

planning with performance measures and implementation tasks will guide the 

agencies to build on previous successes with our partners. 

The Forest Service and Department of the Interior partner agencies have the best 

wildland firefighting organization in the world and together with our state, local, 

and tribal government partners work to maintain our operational excellence and 

continually improve the safety and effectiveness of the fire management program. 

CONCLUSION

This concludes our statement. We would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m going to go right to Mr. Jensen. But how 

much land do you think we’re talking about being susceptible to 

fire? You mentioned California. I think Appalachias, Washington? 

Any sense just of a ballpark how much land is susceptible to fire? 

Ms. SUH. The acres—— 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. 

Ms. SUH [continuing]. Within those 3 particular regions? 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. 

Ms. SUH. I’m not sure. 

Senator WYDEN. Can you get back to us? 

Ms. SUH. I will. 

Senator WYDEN. Because we’re clearly talking about millions of 

acres. 

Ms. SUH. Indeed. 

Senator WYDEN. Ok. Mr. Jensen. 

STATEMENT OF JAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. JENSEN. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 

Murkowski. Let me express my gratitude for holding this hearing 

today. This issue has been needing some daylight for quite some 

time and really welcome this chance to provide some honest dialog 

on where we’re going to be headed. 

I’ve been fortunate enough to experience wildfire from a number 

of different perspectives. I hope that it will enable me to shed some 

new light on this issue. Having once been a wild land firefighter 

and having worked for years on fire management issues in the 

Western states, I’ve had a chance to see the issues from the State, 

private landowner and now the Federal perspective. I’ve heard 

from partners and from the field about the effects of increasing fire 

seasons and the budgeting challenges they create. It is clear we 

need to fix our wildfire problems. 
11 

As Assistant Secretary Suh has shared, this fire season has been 

light to date. We have been fortunate. Yet we are now entering a 

critical period of the fire season. Currently we have 18 uncontained 

large fires across the country and we expect that to grow. 

This administration makes a protection of communities, the environment and firefighter safety a priority. The factors of climate 

change, increased fuel loadings on our forests and the expansion 

and development in the wild land urban interface increase fire 

fighting complexity and contribute to the increased expenditures by 

the agency. The trends are for more and larger fires to expand on 

landscape. 

These factors will drive cost and initial attack will be a key strategy to keep fires small and costs down. Last year it was just 40 

wildfires that escaped initial attack and grew to become the mega 

fires we know. That’s just 0.25 of 1 percent of the fires. Important 

to know this 0.25 represented approximately 60 percent of Forest 

Service expenditures on wild land fire. 

Further the inflation adjusted 10 year average for wild land fire 

suppression for our two departments has reached 1.5 billion, more 

than twice the fiscal year 2001 level. We have a few charts that 

I’ll ask my colleagues to put up that show some of these numbers 

here. But as I continue these increases in turn are felt dramatically 

in the formulation of the budget. The result is the wild land fire 

management budget under a constrained or capped budget now 

makes up over 48 percent of the Forest Service discretionary budget and it has cost over 1.5 billion annually fighting wildfires in five 

out of the last 7 years which is more than the appropriated 

amount. 

This has forced the agency to transfer dollars as you have both 

noted from other important programs and from the field to stay 

within our budget limits. It should be noted that most, but not all 

of these funds have been restored to the agency through emergency 

supplemental appropriations. Yet these fire transfers have resulted 

in considerable work disruption, delay, postponement and even 

cancelation of critical projects. We need to fix this situation. 

This fix must be paired with strong cost containment directives. 

Each year for the past 3 years the Forest Service has contracted 

for a study in evaluation of cost controls on wildfires costing over 

$10 million. The latest, soon to be released, an independent report 

found no fiscal malfeasance within the agencies actions. 

We must conduct our operations within the dollar amounts appropriated. These cost management efforts are working. Yet we 

still have a budgeting dilemma. To address this challenge the fiscal 

year 2010 budget establishes a $357 million contingent reserve 

fund dedicated to addressing wildfire suppression funding shortfalls. In addition to fully funding the 10 year wildfire suppression 

average, this reserve mechanism helps us to move away from the 

need to transfer dollars from other agency accounts. 

This committee has responded with the introduction of the 

FLAME Act. The FLAME Act accomplishes an important budgetary separation of routine wildfire suppression from large catastrophic fire events. We need to treat budget and our large catastrophic fires separately from normal fires. 
12 

The administration supports the FLAME Act if amended to provide for a contingency reserve as outlined in the President’s budget. 

We believe that the administration’s approach through a contingent reserve is the best budget mechanism to provide the needed 

funds. The administration is grateful for the introduction of the 

FLAME and looks forward to working with you all to iron out the 

differences. 

It is important to note here that often we only focus on one part 

of the wild land fire management solution, suppression. Rather we 

believe we must focus our efforts to manage the span of the wildfire problem by investing in not just suppression, but strategic hazardous fuels reduction, pre-fire restoration, post-fire rehabilitation 

and community assistance to build capacity. Our fire problem will 

only be solved when we enable communities and individual citizens 

to take responsibility for their own protection. 

In closing the wild land fire program in the two departments is 

strong and moving in a positive direction. We are committed to continued improvement to increase our effectiveness and maximize our 

efficiency. Reducing fuels will continue to be a priority in the wild 

land urban interface. Perhaps, we can get to a place 1 day where 

we could actually be doing what I like to call hazardous fuels recovery where we can actually use those fuels to create green jobs in 

the forestry and energy sectors. 

We’ll also continue our commitment to implement their Recovery 

Act which provided 500 million for the Forest Service to reduce 

fuels. We’re redoubling our efforts around fire fighter safety and 

public safety on our most fire prone forests. This year we’ll be 

prepositioning strike teams on those 0.25 mentioned earlier. 

We’re developing an interagency aviation strategy. Last, as Federal agencies we recognize we cannot fight fire alone. Without the 

states and our local fire departments, we cannot safely and effectively manage wildfire. We will foster cooperation and collaboration 

between Federal, State and local governments. 

Senator WYDEN. Let’s do this, Mr. Jensen. If you have any final 

points, we’ll take them and we’ll put the rest of your statement in 

the record. 

Mr. JENSEN. Already did. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. 

Ms. Dalton. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski. I’m 

pleased to be here today to discuss wild land fire management by 

Federal agencies. The Nation’s wild land fire problems have worsened dramatically over the past decade threatening communities as 

well as important natural and cultural resources. In recent years 

both average acres burned and Federal appropriations for wild land 

fire management activities have more than doubled with appropriations reaching over $3 billion. 

My testimony today will focus on first, the progress the Forest 

Service and Interior agencies have made in managing wild land 

fire. 
13 

Second, key actions we’ve previously recommended and believe 

are still necessary to improve the agencies’ management of wild 

land fire. 

The agencies’ efforts have better positioned themselves to respond to fire effectively. Federal agencies have improved their understanding of wild land fires role on the landscape and have taken 

important steps toward improving their ability to cost effectively 

protect communities and resources. 

Under current policy the agencies have abandoned their attempt 

to put out every wildfire, seeking instead to make communities and 

resources less susceptible to being damaged by wild land fire respond to fire so as to protect communities and important resources 

at risk while considering both cost and the long term effects of response. By emphasizing fire fighting strategies that focus on land 

management objectives rather than seeking to suppress all fires, 

the agencies are increasingly using less aggressive firefighting 

strategies, strategies that cannot only reduce costs, but also be 

safer for firefighters by reducing their exposure to unnecessary 

risk. 

In recent years the agencies have taken a number of steps and 

developed tools to better address the wild land fire threat. In allocating fuel reduction funds they are developing a process that considers risk, effectiveness of treatments and other factors. They are 

nearing completion of landfire, a geospatial data and modeling system that provides critical information to assess fire threats. A new 

analytical tool known as the wildland fire decision support system 

helps the line officers and fire managers analyze various factors 

such as the fire’s current location, adjacent fuel conditions, weather 

forecasts and nearby structures and other valued resources in determining the best strategy and tactics to adopt in fighting a fire. 

Despite the important steps that the agencies have taken much 

work remains. We have previously recommended four key actions 

that if completed would improve the agencies’ management of wild 

land fire. 

Specifically the agencies need to first, develop a comprehensive 

strategy. Essentially this is an investment strategy that lays out 

various approaches for reducing fuels and responding to wild land 

fires, the estimated costs associated with each approach and the 

tradeoffs involved. Such a cohesive strategy is essential for Congress and the agencies to make informed decisions about effective 

and affordable long term approaches for addressing the wild land 

fire problems. Agency officials have told us that they have begun 

planning on how to develop such a strategy. The FLAME Act would 

require the agencies to produce within 1 year of enactment, a cohesive strategy consistent with our recommendations. 

Second, the agencies need to establish a comprehensive cost containment strategy. The agencies have taken several steps intended 

to help contain wild land fire costs including establishing over 

arching goals and objectives. However the strategy needs further 

development and lacks clarity and specificity needed by land management and fire fighting officials in the field to better manage and 

contain wildfire land costs. 

Third, clearly defined financial responsibilities for fires across jurisdictions. Protecting the Nation’s communities is both one of the 
14 

key goals of wild land fire management and one of the leading factors contributing to rising fire costs. Without clarifying responsibilities the concerns that the existing framework insulates non-Federal entities from the cost of protecting the wild land urban interface and that the Federal Government therefore would continue to 

bear more of its share of that cost are unlikely to be addressed. 

Then finally mitigating effects of rising fire costs on other agency 

programs. The sharply rising costs of managing wild land fires 

have led agencies to transfer funds from other programs to pay for 

fire suppression. These transfers disrupt or delay activities in these 

other programs. 

Better methods of estimating the suppression funds the agencies 

request would reduce the likelihood that the agencies will need to 

transfer funds. Also Congress could consider, as we noted in our 

2004 report, establishing a reserve account to fund emergency wild 

land firefighting. The FLAME Act would provide for such a fund. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I’d be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE TAKEN IMPORTANT STEPS FORWARD, BUT ADDITIONAL ACTION

IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS REMAINING CHALLENGES

Why GAO Did This Study 

The nation’s wildland fire problems have worsened dramatically over the past decade, with more than a doubling of both the average annual acreage burned and federal appropriations for wildland fire management. The deteriorating fire situation 

has led the agencies responsible for managing wildland fires on federal lands-the 

Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service 

in the Department of the Interior-to reassess how they respond to wildland fire and 

to take steps to improve their fire management programs. This testimony discusses 

(1) progress the agencies have made in managing wildland fire and (2) key actions 

GAO believes are still necessary to improve their wildland fire management. This 

testimony is based on issued GAO reports and reviews of agency documents and 

interviews with agency officials on actions the agencies have taken in response to 

previous GAO findings and recommendations. 

What GAO Recommends 

GAO is making no new recommendations at this time. The agencies have generally agreed with GAO’s previous recommendations, but have yet to implement several key recommendations GAO believes could substantially assist them in capitalizing on the important progress they have made to date. 

What GAO Found 

The Forest Service and Interior agencies have improved their understanding of 

wildland fire’s ecological role on the landscape and have taken important steps toward enhancing their ability to cost-effectively protect communities and resources 

by seeking to (1) make communities and resources less susceptible to being damaged 

by wildland fire and (2) respond to fire so as to protect communities and important 

resources at risk while also considering both the cost and long-term effects of that 

response. To help them do so, the agencies have reduced potentially flammable vegetation in an effort to keep wildland fires from spreading into the wildland-urban 

interface and to help protect important resources by lessening a fire’s intensity; 

sponsored efforts to educate homeowners about steps they can take to protect their 

homes from wildland fire; and provided grants to help homeowners carry out these 

steps. The agencies have also made improvements that lay important groundwork 

for enhancing their response to wildland fire, including adopting new guidance on 

how managers in the field are to select firefighting strategies, improving the analyt-
15 

1The National Fire Plan is a joint interagency effort to respond to wildland fires. Its core comprises several strategic documents, including (1) a September 2000 report from the Secretaries 

of Agriculture and the Interior to the President in response to the wildland fires of 2000; (2) 

congressional direction accompanying substantial new appropriations for fire management for 

fiscal year 2001; and (3) several strategies and plans to implement all or parts of the plan. 2Our previous reports and ongoing work are performance audits being conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the eviContinued 

ical tools that assist managers in selecting a strategy, and improving how the agencies acquire and use expensive firefighting assets. 

Despite the agencies’ efforts, much work remains. GAO has previously recommended several key actions that, if completed, would substantially improve the 

agencies’ management of wildland fire. Specifically, the agencies should: 

• Develop a cohesive strategy laying out various potential approaches for addressing the growing wildland fire threat, including estimating costs associated with 

each approach and the trade-offs involved. Such information would help the 

agencies and Congress make fundamental decisions about an effective and affordable approach to responding to fires. 

• Establish a cost-containment strategy that clarifies the importance of containing costs relative to other, often-competing objectives. Without such clarification, GAO believes managers in the field lack a clear understanding of the 

relative importance that the agencies’ leadership places on containing costs and 

are therefore likely to continue to select fire fighting strategies without duly 

considering the costs of suppression. 

• Clarify financial responsibilities for fires that cross federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Unless the financial responsibilities for multijurisdictional fires are 

clarified, concerns that the existing framework insulates nonfederal entities 

from the cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface from fire-and that the 

federal government would thus continue to bear more than its share of the costare unlikely to be addressed. 

• Take action to mitigate the effects of rising fire costs on other agency programs. 

The sharply rising costs of managing wildland fires have led the agencies to 

transfer funds from other programs to help pay for fire suppression, disrupting 

or delaying activities in these other programs. Better methods of predicting 

needed suppression funding could reduce the need to transfer funds from other 

programs. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to 

discuss wildland fire management by the federal wildland fire agencies-the Forest 

Service within the Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior-including key actions that we believe the agencies should take 

to improve their management of wildland fires and help contain the rising costs of 

preparing for and responding to fires. The nation’s wildland fire problems have 

worsened dramatically over the past decade, threatening communities as well as important natural and cultural resources. Both the average acreage burned annually 

and federal appropriations for wildland fire management activities have more than 

doubled, with appropriations reaching more than $2.9 billion annually, on average, 

during fiscal years 2001 through 2007. A number of factors have contributed to 

these increases. Uncharacteristic accumulations of vegetation that can fuel wildland 

fires, due in part to past fire suppression policies and land management practices, 

and severe regional weather and drought have led to higher-intensity fires and 

longer fire seasons. At the same time, continued development in and near wildlands, 

an area often called the wildland-urban interface, has placed more homes at risk. 

A series of damaging wildland fires in the 1990s led the Forest Service and the Interior agencies to reassess their approach to managing fire. It also prompted a sustained effort, known as the National Fire Plan,1 on the part of federal agencies and 

Congress to improve fire suppression capabilities, reduce fuels, restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems, and help communities better withstand wildland fire. Growing recognition of the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation has also led Congress, the 

agencies, and others to focus on ensuring that federal wildland fire activities are appropriate and carried out in a cost-effective manner. 

My testimony today summarizes our previous findings and recommendations related to wildland fire, and also includes preliminary information from our ongoing 

work examining the extent to which the agencies have improved their wildland fire 

programs in response to our previous work.2 Specifically, I will focus on (1) the 
16 

dence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 3Other fire program components include prevention; science, research, and development; and 

assistance to nonfederal entities. 

progress the Forest Service and the Interior agencies have made in managing 

wildland fire and (2) key actions we previously recommended and believe are still 

necessary to improve the agencies’ management of wildland fire. To address these 

objectives, we reviewed previous GAO reports and agency documents and interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C.; at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho; and elsewhere. We expect to issue a report later this year that 

will address these objectives in more detail. 

Background 

Wildland fires triggered by lightning are both natural and inevitable and play an 

important ecological role on the nation’s landscapes. These fires shape the composition of forests and grasslands, periodically reduce vegetation densities, and stimulate seedling regeneration and growth in some species. Over the past century, however, various land use and management practices-including fire suppression, grazing, and timber harvesting-have reduced the normal frequency of fires in many forest and rangeland ecosystems and contributed to abnormally dense, continuous accumulations of vegetation. Such accumulations not only can fuel uncharacteristically 

large or severe wildland fires, but also-with more homes and communities built in 

or near areas at risk from wildland fires-threaten human lives, health, property, 

and infrastructure. 

The Forest Service and four Interior agencies-the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Serviceare responsible for wildland fire management. These five agencies manage about 

700 million acres of land in the United States, including national forests, national 

grasslands, Indian reservations, national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

The federal wildland fire management program has three major components: preparedness, suppression, and fuel reduction.3 To prepare for a wildland fire season, 

the agencies acquire firefighting assets-including firefighters, engines, aircraft, and 

other equipment-and station them either at individual federal land management 

units (such as national forests or national parks) or at centralized dispatch locations. The primary purpose of these assets is to respond to fires before they become 

large-a response referred to as initial attack-thus forestalling threats to communities and natural and cultural resources. The agencies fund the assets used for initial attack primarily from their wildland fire preparedness accounts. 

When a fire starts, current federal policy directs the agencies to consider land 

management objectives-identified by land and fire management plans developed by 

each local unit, such as a national forest or a Bureau of Land Management districtand the structures and resources at risk when determining whether or how to suppress it. A wide spectrum of fire response strategies is available to choose from, and 

the manager at the affected local unit-known as a line officer-is responsible for determining which strategy to use. In the relatively rare instances when fires escape 

initial attack and grow large, the agencies respond using an interagency system that 

mobilizes additional firefighting assets from federal, state, and local agencies, as 

well as private contractors, regardless of which agency or agencies have jurisdiction 

over the burning lands. Federal agencies typically fund the costs of these activities 

from their wildland fire suppression accounts. 

In addition to preparing for and suppressing fires, the agencies attempt to reduce 

the potential for severe wildland fires, lessen the damage caused by fires, limit the 

spread of flammable invasive species, and restore and maintain healthy ecosystems 

by reducing potentially hazardous vegetation that can fuel fires. The agencies generally remove or modify hazardous vegetation using prescribed fire (that is, fire deliberately set in order to restore or maintain desired vegetation conditions), mechanical thinning, herbicides, certain grazing methods, or combinations of these and 

other approaches. The agencies fund these activities from their fuel reduction accounts. 

Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, federal agency officials, and others have expressed concern about mounting federal wildland fire expenditures. Federal appropriations to the Forest Service and the Interior agencies to prepare for 

and respond to wildland fires, including appropriations for reducing fuels, have 

more than doubled, from an average of $1.2 billion from fiscal years 1996 through 

2000 to an average of $2.9 billion from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 (see table 

1). Adjusting for inflation, the average annual appropriations to the agencies for 

these Page 3 GAO-09-906T periods increased from $1.5 billion to $3.1 billion (in 
17 

4 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy and Program Review (Washington, D.C., December 1995). This policy was 

subsequently reaffirmed and updated in 2001. Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Association 

of State Foresters, Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 

(Washington, D.C., January 2001). 

2007 dollars). The Forest Service received about 70 percent and Interior about 30 

percent of the appropriated funds. 

AGENCIES’ EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT A NEW APPROACH TO MANAGING WILDLAND FIRE

HAVE BETTER POSITIONED THEM TO RESPOND TO FIRE EFFECTIVELY

The Forest Service and the Interior agencies have improved their understanding 

of wildland fire’s role on the landscape and have taken important steps toward improving their ability to cost-effectively protect communities and resources. Although 

the agencies have long recognized that fire could provide ecological benefits in some 

ecosystems, such as certain grassland and forest types, a number of damaging fires 

in the 1990s led them to develop the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.4

The policy formally recognizes not only that wildland fire can be beneficial in some 

areas, but also that fire is an inevitable part of the landscape and, moreover, that 

past attempts to suppress all fires have been in part responsible for making recent 

fires more severe. Under this policy, the agencies abandoned their attempt to put 

out every wildland fire, seeking instead to (1) make communities and resources less 

susceptible to being damaged by wildland fire and (2) respond to fires so as to protect communities and important resources at risk but also to consider both the cost 

and long-term effects of that response. By emphasizing firefighting strategies that 

focus on land management objectives, rather than seeking to suppress all fires, the 

agencies are increasingly using less aggressive fire fighting strategies-strategies 

that can not only reduce costs but also be safer for firefighters by reducing their 

exposure to unnecessary risks, according to agency fire officials. 

To help them better achieve the federal wildland fire management policy’s vision, 

the Forest Service and the Interior agencies in recent years have taken several 

steps to make communities and resources less susceptible to damage from wildland 

fire. These steps include reducing hazardous fuels, in an effort to keep wildland fires 

from spreading into the wildland-urban interface and to help protect important resources by lessening a fire’s intensity. As part of this effort, the agencies reported 

they have reduced fuels on more than 29 million acres from 2001 through 2008. The 

agencies have also nearly completed their geospatial data and modeling system, 
18 

5GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better Prioritize Lands 

Needing Fuels Reduction, GAO-03-805 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2003). 6 A fire regime generally classifies the role that wildland fire plays in a particular ecosystem 

on the basis of certain characteristics, such as the average number of years between fires and 

the typical severity of fire under historic conditions. 7GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic Process Could Improve Agencies’ Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction Funds and Selecting Projects, GAO-07- 

1168 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2007). 8The Firewise Communities program is the primary national effort to educate homeowners 

about wildland fire risks. The program is jointly sponsored by the International Association of 

Fire Chiefs, National Emergency Management Association, National Association of State Fire 

Marshals, National Association of State Foresters, National Fire Protection Association, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration, Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. 

Numerous state and local fire and forestry officials also participate in the program. See http:// 

www.firewise.org/ for more information. 

LANDFIRE, as we recommended in 2003.5 LANDFIRE is intended to produce consistent and comprehensive maps and data describing vegetation, wildland fuels, and 

fire regimes across the United States.6 Such data are critical to helping the agencies 

(1) identify the extent, severity, and location of wildland fire threats to the nation’s 

communities and resources; (2) predict fire intensity and rate of spread under particular weather conditions; and (3) evaluate the effect that reducing fuels may have 

on future fire behavior. LANDFIRE data are already complete for the contiguous 

United States, although some agency officials have questioned the accuracy of the 

data, and the agencies expect to complete the data for Alaska and Hawaii in 2009. 

The agencies have also begun to improve their processes for allocating fuel reduction funds to different areas of the country and for selecting fuel reduction projects, 

as we recommended in 2007.7 The agencies have started moving away from ‘‘allocation by tradition’’ toward a more consistent, systematic allocation process. That is, 

rather than relying on historical funding patterns and professional judgment, the 

agencies are developing a process that also considers risk, effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments, and other factors. Despite these improvements, further action 

is needed to ensure that the agencies’ efforts to reduce hazardous fuels are directed 

to areas at highest risk. The agencies, for example, still lack a measure of the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments and therefore lack information needed to ensure that fuel reduction funds are directed to the areas where they can best minimize risk to communities and resources. Forest Service and Interior officials told us 

that they recognize this shortcoming and that efforts are under way to address it; 

these efforts are likely to be long term involving considerable research investment, 

but they have the potential to improve the agencies’ ability to assess and compare 

the cost-effectiveness of potential treatments in deciding how to optimally allocate 

scarce funds. 

The agencies have also taken steps to foster fire-resistant communities. Increasing 

the use of protective measures to mitigate the risk to structures from wildland fire 

is a key goal of the National Fire Plan. The plan encourages, but does not mandate, 

state or local governments to adopt laws requiring homeowners and homebuilders 

to take measures-such as reducing vegetation and flammable objects within an area 

of 30 to 100 feet around a structure, often called creating defensible space, and 

using fire-resistant roofing materials and covering attic vents with mesh screens-to 

help protect structures from wildland fires. Because these measures rely on the actions of individual homeowners or homebuilders, or on laws and land-use planning 

affecting private lands, achieving this goal is primarily a state and local government 

responsibility. Nonetheless, the Forest Service and the Interior agencies have helped 

sponsor the Firewise Communities program, which works with community leaders 

and homeowners to increase the use of fire-resistant landscaping and building materials in areas of high risk.8 Federal and state agencies also provide grants to help 

pay for creating defensible space around private homes. 

In addition, the agencies have made improvements laying important groundwork 

for enhancing their response to wildland fire, including: 

• Implementing the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.—The Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy directs each agency to develop a fire management plan for all areas they manage with burnable vegetation. Without such 

plans, agency policy does not allow the use of the entire range of wildland fire 

response strategies, including less aggressive strategies, and therefore the agencies must attempt to suppress a fire regardless of any benefits that might come 

from allowing it to burn. We reported in 2006 that about 95 percent of the agencies’ 1,460 individual land management units had completed the required plans. 

The policy also states that the agencies’ responses to a wildland fire are to be 
19 

9GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires, GAO-07-655 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 

2007). 10GAO-07-655. 11GAO Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs Further Development to 

Fully Meet Key Objectives, GAO-09-68 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 24, 2008). 

based on the circumstances of a given fire and the likely consequences to 

human safety and natural and cultural resources. Interagency guidance on implementing the policy, adopted in 2009, clarifies that the full range of fire management strategies and tactics are to be considered when responding to every 

wildland fire, and that a single fire may be simultaneously managed for different objectives. Both we and the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General had criticized the previous guidance,9 which required each fire to be managed either for suppression objectives-that is, to put out the fire as quickly as 

possible-or to achieve resource benefits-that is, to allow the fire to burn to gain 

certain benefits such as reducing fuels or seed regeneration. By providing this 

flexibility, the new guidance should help the agencies better achieve management objectives and help contain the long-term costs of fire management. • Improving fire management decisions.—The agencies have recently undertaken 

several efforts to improve decisions about fire fighting strategies. In one such 

effort, the agencies in 2009 began to use a new analytical tool, known as the 

wildland fire decision support system. This new tool helps line officers and fire 

managers analyze various factors-such as the fire’s current location, adjacent 

fuel conditions, nearby structures and other highly valued resources, and 

weather forecasts-in determining the strategies and tactics to adopt. For example, the tool generates a map illustrating the probability that a particular 

wildland fire, barring any suppression actions, will burn a certain area within 

a specified time, and the structures or other resources that may therefore be 

threatened. Having such information can help line officers and fire managers 

understand the resources at risk and identify the most appropriate responsefor example, whether to devote substantial resources in attempting full and immediate suppression or to instead take a less intensive approach, which may 

reduce risks to firefighters and cost less. Other efforts include (1) establishing 

experience and training requirements for line officers to be certified to manage 

fires of different levels of complexity, and (2) forming four teams staffed with 

some of the most experienced fire managers to assist in managing wildland 

fires. The Forest Service has also experimented in recent years with several approaches for identifying ongoing fires where suppression actions are unlikely to 

be effective and for influencing strategic decisions made during those fires, in 

order to help contain costs and reduce risk to firefighters. Although these efforts 

are new, and we have not fully evaluated them, we believe they have the potential to help the agencies strengthen how they select fire fighting strategies. By 

themselves, however, these efforts do not address certain critical shortcomings. 

We reported in 2007, for example, that officials in the field have few incentives 

to consider cost containment in making critical decisions affecting suppression 

costs, and that previous studies had found that the lack of a clear measure to 

evaluate the benefits and costs of alternative fire fighting strategies fundamentally hindered the agencies’ ability to provide effective oversight.10

• Acquiring and using fire fighting assets effectively.—The agencies have continued to make improvements-including better systems for contracting with private vendors to provide fire fighting assets and for dispatching assets to individual fires-in how they determine the fire fighting assets they need and in how 

they acquire and use those assets, although further action is needed. For example, although the agencies in 2009 began deploying an interagency budget-planning system known as fire program analysis (FPA) to address congressional direction that they improve how they determine needed fire fighting assets, our 

2008 report on FPA’s development identified several shortcomings that limit 

FPA’s ability to meet certain key objectives.11 FPA was intended to help the 

agencies develop their wildland fire budget requests and allocate funds by, 

among other objectives, (1) providing a common budget framework to analyze 

firefighting assets without regard for agency jurisdictions; (2) examining the full 

scope of fire management activities; (3) modeling the effects over time of differing strategies for responding to wildland fires and treating lands to reduce 

hazardous fuels; and (4) using this information to identify the most cost-effective mix and location of federal wildland fire management assets. We reported 

in 2008 that FPA shows promise in achieving some of the key objectives originally established for it but that the approach the agencies have taken hampers 
20 

12 Although they have yet to complete a cohesive strategy, the agencies have nearly completed 

two projects-LANDFIRE and FPA-they have identified as being necessary to development of a 

cohesive strategy. However, the shortcomings we identified in FPA may limit its ability to contribute to the agencies’ development of a cohesive strategy. 13GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Lack Key Long-and Short-Term Management Strategies for Using Program Funds Effectively, GAO-08-433T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

12, 2008); Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a Cohesive 

Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats, GAO-06-671R (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2006); 

Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to 

Completing a Cohesive Strategy, GAO-05-147 (Washington, D.C: Jan. 14, 2005); Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, GAO/ 

RCED-99-65 (Washington, D.C: Apr. 2, 1999). 

FPA from meeting other key objectives, including the ability to project the effects of different levels of fuel reduction and fire fighting strategies over time. 

We therefore concluded that agency officials lack information that would help 

them analyze the extent to which increasing or decreasing funding for fuel reduction and responding more or less aggressively to fires in the short term 

could affect the expected cost of responding to wildland fires over the long term. 

Senior agency officials told us in 2008 that they were considering making 

changes to FPA that may improve its ability to examine the effects over time 

of different funding strategies. The exact nature of these changes, or how to 

fund them, has yet to be determined. Officials also told us the agencies are currently working to evaluate the model’s performance, identify and implement 

needed corrections, and improve data quality and consistency. The agencies intend to consider the early results of FPA in developing their budget requests 

for fiscal year 2011, although officials told us they will not rely substantially 

on FPA’s results until needed improvements are made. As we noted in 2008, 

the approach the agencies took in developing FPA provides considerable discretion to agency decision makers and, although providing the flexibility to consider various options is important, doing so makes it essential that the agencies 

ensure their processes are fully transparent. 

In addition, previous studies have found that agencies sometimes use more, or 

more-costly, fire fighting assets than necessary, often in response to political or 

social pressure to demonstrate they are taking all possible action to protect 

communities and resources. Consistent with these findings, fire officials told us 

they were pressured in 2008 to assign more fire fighting assets than could be 

effectively used to fight fires in California. More generally, previous studies 

have found that air tankers may be used to drop flame retardants when on-theground conditions may not warrant such drops. Aviation activities are expensive, accounting for about one-third of all fire fighting costs on a large fire. We 

believe that providing clarity about when different types of fire fighting assets 

can be used effectively could help the agencies resist political and social pressure to use more assets than they need. 

AGENCIES HAVE YET TO TAKE CERTAIN KEY ACTIONS THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY

IMPROVE THEIR MANAGEMENT OF WILDLAND FIRE

Despite the important steps the agencies have taken, much work remains. We 

have previously recommended several key actions that, if completed, would improve 

the agencies’ management of wildland fire. Specifically, the agencies need to: 

• Develop a cohesive strategy.—Completing an investment strategy that lays out 

various approaches for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fires and the 

estimated costs associated with each approach and the trade-offs involved-what 

we have termed a cohesive strategy-is essential for Congress and the agencies 

to make informed decisions about effective and affordable long-term approaches 

for addressing the nation’s wildland fire problems. The agencies have concurred 

with our recommendations to develop a cohesive strategy but have yet to develop a strategy that clearly formulates different approaches and associated 

costs,12 despite our 12Although the agencies issued a document titled Protecting 

People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy in 2006, 

this document did not identify long-term options or associated funding for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fires, elements we believe are critical 

to a cohesive strategy. Page 10 GAO-09-906T repeated calls to do so.13 In May 

2009, agency officials told us they had begun planning how to develop a cohesive strategy but were not far enough along in developing it to provide further 

information. 
21 

14S. 561, 111th Cong. (1st sess., 2009) H.R. 1404, 111th Cong. (1st sess., 2009). 15GAO-07-655. 16Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department 

of Defense, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and National Association of State Foresters, Review and Update of the 

1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Washington, D.C.: January 2001). Department 

of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and Western Governors’ Association, A Collaborative 

Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, 10-Year 

Strategy Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: December 2006). 17GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities, GAO-06-570 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006). 

Because of the critical importance of a cohesive strategy to improve the agencies’ overall management of wildland fire, we encourage the agencies to complete one and begin implementing it as quickly as possible. The Federal Land 

Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act, introduced in March 2009 and 

sponsored by the chairman of this committee, would require the agencies to 

produce, within 1 year of the act’s enactment, a cohesive strategy consistent 

with our previous recommendations.14 Although they have yet to complete a cohesive strategy, the agencies have nearly completed two projects—LANDFIRE 

and FPA—they have identified as being necessary to development of a cohesive 

strategy. However, the shortcomings we identified in FPA may limit its ability 

to contribute to the agencies’ development of a cohesive strategy. • Establish a cost-containment strategy.—We reported in 2007 that although the 

Forest Service and the Interior agencies had taken several steps intended to 

help contain wildland fire costs, they had not clearly defined their cost-containment goals or developed a strategy for achieving those goals-steps that are fundamental to sound program management.15 The agencies disagreed, citing several agency documents that they argued clearly define their goals and objectives 

and make up their strategy to contain costs.16 Although these documents do 

provide overarching goals and objectives, they lack the clarity and specificity 

needed by land management and fire fighting officials in the field to help manage and contain wildland fire costs. Interagency policy, for example, established 

an overarching goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost, considering 

firefighter and public safety and importance of resources being protected, but 

the agencies have established neither clear criteria for weighing the relative importance of the often-competing elements of this broad goal, nor measurable objectives for determining if the agencies are meeting the goal. As a result, despite 

the improvements the agencies are making to policy, decision support tools, and 

oversight, we believe that managers in the field lack a clear understanding of 

the relative importance that the agencies’ leadership places on containing costs 

and-as we concluded in our 2007 report-are therefore likely to continue to select 

fire fighting strategies without duly considering the costs of suppression. Forest 

Service officials told us in July 2009 that although they are concerned about fire 

management costs, they are emphasizing the need to select firefighting strategies that will achieve land management objectives and reduce unnecessary risks 

to firefighters, an emphasis they believe may, in the long run, also help them 

contain costs. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that our recommendations, if 

effectively implemented, would help the agencies better manage their cost-containment efforts and improve their ability to contain wildland fire costs. • Clearly define financial responsibilities for fires that cross jurisdictions.—Protecting the nation’s communities is both one of the key goals of wildland fire 

management and one of the leading factors contributing to rising fire costs. A 

number of relatively simple steps-such as using fire-resistant landscaping and 

building materials-can dramatically reduce the likelihood of damage to a structure from wildland fire. Although nonfederal entities-including state forestry entities and tribal, county, city, and rural fire departments-play an important role 

in protecting communities and resources and responding to fires, we reported 

in 2006 that federal officials were concerned that the existing framework for 

sharing suppression costs among federal and nonfederal entities insulated state 

and local governments from the cost of providing wildland fire protection in the 

wildland-urban interface.17 As a result, there was less incentive for state and 

local governments to adopt laws-such as building codes requiring fire-resistant 

building materials in areas at high risk of wildland fires-that, in the long run, 

could help reduce the cost of suppressing wildland fires. We therefore recommended that the federal agencies work with relevant state entities to clarify 

the financial responsibility for fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions and develop more specific guidance as to when particular costsharing methods should be used. The agencies have updated guidance on when 
22 

18GAO, Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and Delays, 

Strained Relationships, and Management Disruptions, GAO-04-612 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 

2004). 

particular cost-sharing methods should be used, although we have not evaluated 

the effect of the updated guidance; the agencies, however, have yet to clarify 

the financial responsibility for fires that threaten multiple jurisdictions. Without such clarification, the concerns that the existing framework insulates nonfederal entities from the cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface from 

fire-and that the federal government, therefore, would continue to bear more 

than its share of that cost-are unlikely to be addressed. • Mitigate effects of rising fire costs on other agency programs.—The sharply rising costs of managing wildland fires have led the Forest Service and the Interior agencies to transfer funds from other programs to help pay for fire suppression, disrupting or delaying activities in these other programs. Better methods 

of estimating the suppression funds the agencies request, as we recommended 

in 2004,18 could reduce the likelihood that the agencies would need to transfer 

funds from other accounts, yet the agencies continue to use an estimation method with known problems. A Forest Service official told us the agency had analyzed alternative methods for estimating needed suppression funds but determined that no better method was available. Because the agencies have had to 

transfer funds in each of the last 3 years, however, a more accurate method for 

estimating suppression costs may still be needed. To further reduce the likelihood of transferring funds from the agencies’ other programs to cover suppression costs, our 2004 report also noted, Congress could consider establishing a 

reserve account to fund emergency wildland fire fighting. Congress, for example, 

could provide either a specified amount (known as a definite appropriation) or 

as much funding as the agencies need to fund emergency suppression (known 

as an indefinite appropriation). Establishing a reserve account with a definite 

appropriation would provide the agencies with incentives to contain suppression 

costs within the amount in the reserve account, but depending on the size of 

the appropriation and the severity of a fire season, suppression costs could still 

exceed the funds reserved, and the agencies might still need to transfer funds 

from other programs. An account with an indefinite appropriation, in contrast, 

would eliminate the need for transferring funds from other programs but would 

offer no inherent incentives for the agencies to contain suppression costs. Furthermore, both definite and indefinite appropriations could raise the overall federal budget deficit, depending on whether funding levels for other agency or 

government programs are reduced. The Federal Land Assistance, Management, 

and Enhancement Act proposes establishing a wildland fire suppression reserve 

account; the administration’s budget overview for fiscal year 2010 also proposes 

a $282 million reserve account for the Forest Service and a $75 million reserve 

account for the Interior to provide funding for fire fighting when the appropriated suppression funds are exhausted. 

We are making no new recommendations at this time. Rather, we believe that 

our previous recommendations-which the agencies have generally agreed withcould, if implemented, substantially assist the agencies in capitalizing on the 

important progress they have made to date in responding to the nation’s growing wildland fire problem. We discussed the factual information in this statement with agency officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at 

this time. 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Dalton, thank you and thank you for being 

so brief as well. I’m going to have a couple questions now. Then I’m 

going to turn it over to the Ranking Member, Senator Murkowski 

and Senator Udall will chair. My apologies to the witnesses, this 

is also, health care week, and so there is a lot on the docket. 

First question for you, Mr. Jensen, if I might. The evidence indicates that something like 2 percent of the fires result in 85 percent 

of the suppression costs. Can you just outline for the committee 

what these fires are like, the 2 percent? Particularly why they are 

so expensive for the agency? 

Mr. JENSEN. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. 
23 

Those fires are essentially the large fires we see out there in the 

landscape. They tend to be very intense. They are generally referred to and known as these catastrophic wildfires that we’re seeing. 

They get that large because these are the ones that are escaping 

initial attack. It is key that we maintain the initial attack capability to keep these fires small. That’s a key cost containment strategy for the agencies going forward from here. 

Senator WYDEN. So Ms. Dalton, we have gone round and round 

over the years on this question of what the agencies are doing to 

reduce fuels. This incredibly powerful force on the forest floor that 

I think is largely responsible for these virtual infernos that we’re 

seeing around the country. We have gone round and round with 

the agencies over the last few years. 

This committee has had a lot of witnesses, including the General 

Accounting Office, timber companies, environmentalists, the Forest 

Service, land managers. It all suggests from the experts that the 

number of acres that are being treated to actually reduce this problem of tremendous fuels buildup is unreliable. It’s misleading. It’s 

counterproductive. 

In effect what we are told is that the current system creates this 

kind of bizarre incentive for the land managers to go out and treat 

the easiest and cheapest, you know, acres instead of focusing on 

treating the most important, you know, acres in the most cost effective way. There have been blue ribbon committees on this. This 

seems to have generated, you know, more paper than practically 

any issue imaginable. 

Now your testimony indicates that you all are making new efforts to address this. Now we have heard this as well before. What 

I’d like to have you set out on the record is what are you going to 

do differently on this question of acres being treated and why do 

you think that approach will allow some real progress to be made? 

Ms. DALTON. Senator, what we’ve recommended is that the agencies develop a comprehensive strategy that would look more at the 

long term—what are the long term threats of fire and as decisions 

are being made about fuel reduction, not to look at the number, 

trying to get the maximum number of acres treated. But identify 

those acres that pose the greatest threat of fire, not just now, but 

in the longer term. 

That’s why we feel it’s critical that the agencies take that longer 

term—develop that longer term cohesive strategy that will look at 

what’s going to be the cost to manage wild land fires, not just 

today, but next year and the following year. 

Senator WYDEN. I’ve heard that referred to often in the past. 

Again, specifically what’s going to be done differently? What is 

going to, are you going to identify acres that need it most differently? What can you tell us about the differences in the approach that you’re going to take? 

We couldn’t make a lot of headway in the last administration. So 

I’m really going to push hard to try to find out specifically what’s 

going to be done now. So you’ve said you’re going to look at the 

long term. Can you amplify with at least some specifics as to what 

that’s going to consist of? 
24 

Ms. DALTON. Senator, what we’ve done is made the recommendations to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. 

They have indicated that they are in fact, developing such a cohesive strategy, but it’s in the very early stages. We haven’t seen that 

strategy yet. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m sorry. I needed to ask you and Jay. I wanted 

to know from you what you were advocating specifically in terms 

of long term changes. Then I need to know what Mr. Jensen is 

going to do. 

So again, if you will tell us what you’re advocating specifically in 

terms of long term changes. Then Mr. Jensen, if you could tell me 

what you specifically are going to change. 

Ms. DALTON. Yes, what we would be advocating is, as I said, a 

cohesive strategy that looks at all of the options that are available 

to the fire fighting agencies. 

What the costs are and what are the tradeoffs? 

Trying to weigh those and have those as a total picture of what 

the fire problem is. 

What are the resources that we have available? 

What’s the best use of those resources? 

How do you effectively respond to the threats, both today and tomorrow in the most cost effective way? 

That when we talk fuel reduction it means you may not want to 

clear the easiest acres, but those that present the greatest fire 

threat. They may be those acres that are closest to, for example, 

an urban wild land interface where you’ve got communities that 

could potentially be threatened by a wildfire. Or, it’s a difficult task 

to clear that forest because of dense growth, as opposed to something that would use a more less expensive approach, where there 

isn’t as great a threat on these lands. 

Senator WYDEN. The more specifics you can give us, the better. 

Now let’s go to you, Mr. Jensen, for your crack at the specifics of 

what might be done differently on the acres treated question now. 

Mr. JENSEN. I’m glad you’re asking that. We’ve been batting this 

one around for quite some time. The Agency over the past year has 

instituted a new hazardous fuels prioritization allocation mechanism which basically takes into account wildfire potential, the values at risk, past performance of the units conducting those activities and any ongoing restoration efforts in the area. 

It’s an interesting notion that we need to be, and one that I 

would agree with that we need to be focusing on quality acres, not 

just quantity acres here. One good way to do that is to focus in on 

those community wildfire protection plans where communities have 

made statements of where those values are most at risk and where 

they’d like to see those treatments. 

Senator WYDEN. But that’s what the agency has done over the 

last few years. That’s what we continue to get testimony isn’t getting the job done. What I’m trying to figure out is what’s going to 

change? 

Mr. JENSEN. We’d like to think this administration is going to be 

looking at it in a different light. 

Senator WYDEN. What would that light be? 

Mr. JENSEN. I think taking this more seriously in terms of looking at wildfire potential, those values at risk and turning to those 
25 

community wildfire protection plans for helping make those decisions and priorities. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m going to hold the record open to see if you 

all amplify on that answer. Because what my understanding—your 

first response to my question is that the agency has been looking 

at these various approaches for the last, you know, few years. Then 

you said we intend to take them more seriously. 

I’m looking for some specifics because what we have heard in the 

past is largely just a recycling of the various approaches that we 

then hear from the industry, from environmental folks and others 

are unreliable. So the more specifics we can get. When could you 

get us, for the record, more specifics about what the administration 

is going to do differently? 

Could we have that within 30 days? 

Mr. JENSEN. Absolutely. 

Senator WYDEN. Ok. Then for you, Ms. Dalton, if you have at the 

GAO some additional suggestions for how we can go about this 

task to get some more specifics that would be very helpful as well. 

You can probably see the reason I’m drilling in on this questions 

is we have just gone round and round on this for more hearings 

and more hours than I can begin to imagine. Then we have the industry, environmental people, scientists and others still say that 

we have this perverse incentive out there. 

So we’ve got to get it right. That’s why we need more specific 

suggestions from folks at GAO. Why Mr. Jensen, I want to know 

what the administration is going to do differently. 

Senator Murkowski, your questions and Senator Udall we’ll hear 

shortly of the Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Wyden. The chairman 

has mentioned this ratio if you will of the percent of the fires that 

consume the vast amount of the suppression funding. I think he 

said that 2 percent of the fires consume 85 percent of the suppression funding. My notes say 3 percent of the fires consume 85 percent of the suppression funding. 

But whether it’s 2 percent or whether it’s 3 percent, I think we 

understand what we’re dealing with. In looking at the President’s 

proposed budget for FY10. That doesn’t line up with how we are— 

with the reality that you’ve got between two and 3 percent of the 

fires that consume 85 percent of the suppression funding. 

There’s over a billion dollars that is proposed for the fire preparedness and the suppression accounts. Yet a relatively small 

amount than what is proposed for the reserve account. Ms. Suh 

and Mr. Jensen, you have both indicated the administration’s support of the FLAME Act based on this contingency reserve here. 

But let me ask you Ms. Suh, if 85 percent of the suppression 

funding is consumed responding to 3 percent of the fires how do we 

reconcile what I perceive to be a mismatch between what the administration has recommended for fire suppression funding and the 

reality of where we know those dollars are spent? How do we resolve this? 

Ms. SUH. That’s an excellent question. I would say first off with 

respect to budgeting fires, I think the trick historically has always 

been that even though we have these catastrophic fires that account again for 85 percent of the total costs, predicting where those 
26 

fires will happen and when those fires will happen is kind of a 

guessing game every year. That’s why we collectively use these 10 

year averages to determine how much should be, essentially, budgeted for these potential contingencies. 

I think with the President’s budget in 2010 we believe that it is 

an excellent first start at establishing a baseline where we could 

potentially be looking at our segregation of funds differently. Now 

the FLAME Act proposes a slightly different approach in that with 

a slightly different baseline. I think ultimately the opportunity 

here is for us to collectively work together to determine what appropriate baselines make the most sense. 

But again, the intent I think of both the FLAME Act and the 

contingency fund are really to take the emergency funds, these 

kinds of catastrophic emergency funds that eat up a lot of our regular budgets aside and start thinking of them differently. But in 

terms of figuring out what the total amount that should go in those 

funds should be, that’s an ongoing conversation, very much look 

forward to having with you all. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I understand the fact that we don’t really 

know. It is difficult to guess. That’s why it makes sense to have 

this reserve fund that we build upon. 

Some years we’re going to get lucky and we’re not going to have 

the level of fires that we might see. We’re not going to have the 

high catastrophes. But you can’t count on that. That’s why this reserve fund is important. 

Mr. Jensen, I wanted to ask you about the chart that you have, 

which displays the last 10 years in fire suppression. What is the 

line that is going up? I can anticipate what the bars are, but what 

is the line? 

Mr. JENSEN. That’s the 10-year average for which the suppression line is proposed every year in the budget. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ok, so it is based off that line that you get 

the administration’s budget. Then, for instance, these past 3 years, 

you’ve had the huge spikes that if we were to have had a reserve 

fund in place we would be able to pull from that pool as opposed 

to cannibalizing from other parts of the budget? 

Mr. JENSEN. That’s correct. If I might add just a tad. Trying to 

figure out what the right number is is really this mix of art and 

science. Because we never quite know what the fire season is going 

to be like. 

So we continue to improve our decision support tools to get a better handle on it. Things like the fire program analysis and budgeting measures that we have are giving us a better handle and allowing us to get closer to it. But the 10-year average is one that 

we’ve worked from in the past. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In looking at that visual there in at least, 

6, or 7 of the past 10 years, we have not guessed right. Given what 

we’re seeing with the wildfires in this country and the push with 

the urban interface and the reality that we’ve got some issues that 

are driving up the cost. Don’t we just see us missing, missing. quite 

dramatically on this rolling average? 

Mr. JENSEN. I think your point is well taken. We can do better 

in this. That’s what I think this dialog here today is starting to get 

down. Talking about the contingent reserve account in the Presi-
27 

dent’s budget and what the FLAME has to offer and how they complement each other in trying to figure out the best path forward 

is how we’re going to get through this. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to 

all of our panelists for being here today. I’m from New Hampshire, 

one of the states that suffers less from large forest fires, but is affected by the budget constraints that happened when we have large 

fires in the West that we haven’t budgeted for. I wonder if any of 

you could talk to some of the challenges that the current system 

presents for states like New Hampshire where we have a lot of forests that don’t have fires, but are very much affected by what’s 

happening because of our current budget situation? 

I don’t know who wants to respond to that. 

Mr. JENSEN. I’ll be happy to jump in. Huge impacts. The ability 

of the agency to deliver upon the rest of its programs is severely 

impacted. When we get to those points in the fire season which 

typically tends to be anywhere from now through the end of the 

year, the rest of the Agency’s program of work has to be turned toward and looked to to try and fill those holes. 

When it comes to states in the Northeast, other programs like 

forest health, maybe urban forest tree, forest legacy programs, 

often if they still have money in their accounts, we’re forced to turn 

to those other programs to try to make up for the shortfalls on the 

fire side. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I think it’s important to point out. 

Most people think of our big forests all being out West, but actually 

the three most heavily forested states in the country are in the 

East. 

They’re Maine, No. 1. New Hampshire, No. 2 and West Virginia, 

No. 3. So we are very much affected even though we may not be 

affected by the wildfires. 

One of the things that I’ve been reading about the cause of so 

many of these dramatic fires that we’ve seen in recent years is that 

climate change has had an impact on what’s going on in rainfall 

and particularly in some of the states in the West. One of the concerns that has been expressed about legislation that we might be 

considering this year is the cost of addressing climate change in 

legislation. But as we’re talking about the tremendous costs for 

fighting fires it seems to me that there are tradeoffs as we’re talking about what the costs are. 

So as you all have looked at what’s happening with wildfires. To 

what extent do you attribute the causes to what is happening with 

climate change? 

Ms. SUH. It certainly depends on the area, Senator. Although it’s 

clear that the impact of climate change in many parts of the country, particularly in the interior west are profound. Just one example from Senator Udall’s State: the beetle kill in the pine die off 

is significant. The fuel source that now is representative of all 

those dead and dying trees is a significant concern for the catastrophic wildfires we’ve just been talking about. That can be directly attributed to the fact that those beetles live longer because 
28 

the winters are less cold. So there’s this explosion in the insect population. So how we begin to address those things, I think both by 

a much more robust strategy with respect to prioritizing hazardous 

fuels reduction as well as through an adaptation approach where 

the land management agencies are taking a much more aggressive, 

I think, and much more comprehensive view of what adaptation 

means and the fact that adaptation in many ways means the restoration, the long term restoration of many of these changing ecological systems. 

So it’s an excellent point. I think, again, the agencies, at least 

within the Department of the Interior are looking at it as a kind 

of multipronged type of potential solution. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Does anyone want to add to that? Anyone else 

on the panel? 

Mr. JENSEN. Wholeheartedly agree. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. As a former Governor normally I 

don’t like dedicated funds. But this is a case where I think it 

makes sense to have a fund that we can use because obviously this 

problem is not going to go away. We’ve got to do a better job of addressing it. 

So thank you all. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you 

clearly know in the West we are facing an unprecedented challenge 

to forest health, especially Wyoming and in Colorado due to bark 

beetle infestation. It’s spreading further and faster than ever before. 

In the Medicine Bow National Forest alone we have nearly 

500,000 acres of standing dead timber due to bark beetles. Beetle 

infested acres doubled between 2007, 2008 and every forest in Wyoming is affected. Without swift action by land managers those infested trees certainly will become fuel for wildfires. 

Yet the Forest Service did not spend a single dime of stimulus 

money to combat this problem in Wyoming. The Agency dedicated 

resources to States without any Forest Service land. The Agency 

dealt with forest health in every neighboring State surrounding 

Wyoming. I know the Forest Service has heard from our delegation 

as well as from our Governor. 

So, no money went to the severe forest health threats in Wyoming. This, to me, is not just a missed opportunity, but really a disrespect to the folks of Wyoming who live and work in these forests. 

You know, I’ve been critical of the stimulus package. 

Yesterday in the Washington Post, economist Robert Samuelson 

wrote a column called the Squandered Stimulus. He said, ‘‘The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn’t engineered to maximize its economic impact.’’ It was mostly, he said, 

‘‘a political exercise designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favorite constituency and signal support for fashionable causes.’’ 

I would like to have some real answers from the Department of 

Agriculture. I want to know exactly how the Agency is going to 

combat the effects of bark beetle infestation and how resources are 

going to be made available to do so. Mr. Jensen? 
29 

Mr. JENSEN. Senator, thank you. Before I get into that, if I 

might, wish you a happy birthday today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator UDALL. You sent him a card. So that’s good. That’s impressive. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JENSEN. We hope the opportunity of stimulus is not over yet. 

The Forest Service is not finished its disbursement of Recovery Act 

funds. We are keenly aware of the challenges that are occurring 

out there along the Rocky Mountain front extending up into Wyoming. The challenges around bark beetle in particular are immense. We do need to be redoubling our efforts which is going to 

include looking at new tools, other funds and opportunities to bring 

in the private sector to help solve some of these challenges. 

The Recovery Act itself, we believe that it is being and will continue to be and become more so a significant factor in helping rural 

communities, forested communities in particular get back onto 

their feet in large regard. We’ll be happy to follow up with you to 

discuss any of the details and specifics about how that’s unfolding. 

Senator BARRASSO. I’d like to do that. I visited with our Governor 

Friday night in Cheyenne Frontier Days. You know, we need to ask 

about how this is unfolding. Also we need to talk about new resources to reducing our risk for catastrophic fires. 

Another way of looking at it is the need for good neighbor authority, to all of the states. You know, in terms of putting boots on 

the ground. Right now we have heavily affected areas, and I was 

driving through those last weekend in a couple of counties, Wyoming. In terms of being able to thin or remove dead trees. There’s 

no permission for the states to do it. 

No permission for private folks to do it. Only the Federal Government can do it and right now you’re not doing it. So are there 

thoughts of extending good neighbor authority to allow states and 

others to participate in this? 

Mr. JENSEN. I think it is clear that we need to be looking at all 

the existing tools we have and perhaps any, some new tools that 

are out there. Things like stewardship contracting could be a very 

useful mechanism. With the recent new moneys that have come 

through with emergency supplemental appropriations and looking 

at the Recovery Act, we’re hoping that we can put that to good use 

there. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate that. We have a State forester 

who wants to get out and get some things done. Doesn’t have permission, even though he does have some resources, but much of the 

need is on Federal land. So, he is not able to do the work. 

So we look forward to working with you. Thank you. 

Mr. JENSEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I would note for 

the record that this is also the birthday of Congressman John Salazar. He would characterize himself as the wiser and of course, older 

member of the Salazar family. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. But we want to wish both Senator Barrasso and 

Congressman Salazar the best. 
30 

Let me turn back to Senator Murkowski. I know she has some 

additional questions for the panel. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jensen, I 

wanted to ask you a couple questions about the modifications that 

the House of Representatives have made to the proposed FLAME 

Act. One of them is an addition that would allow for a plan, developed in coordination with the National Guard Bureau to maximize 

the use of National Guard resources to fight the wildfires. 

What is the administration’s position on this particular addition 

to the FLAME Act? 

Mr. JENSEN. The air resources that the National Guard and the 

ground resources that National Guard can bring to bear are a part 

of the solution that need to be. But we need to be able to look strategically at where the best investment, kind of going back to this 

notion of investing in the most high priority areas and all. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you get concerned at all with the fact 

that, you can’t always rely on the National Guard when you need 

them? They might be off doing something else, responding to some 

other emergency which may be a higher priority. Yet you have 

counted them as among your assets to respond. 

Mr. JENSEN. Indeed that’s why it’s important to make sure that 

we have the resources within the Agency itself and its cooperators 

to get after these problems. The National Guard and other resources will be part of the solution, but it’s not one that we can rely 

on alone, nor should we focus too much of our efforts on. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In the 2005 Interior appropriations report 

the Forest Service was directed to provide a strategic plan. The 

plan was due by March 1, 2005, for procuring and managing critical assets, the aircraft and directing that the plan be developed 

with alternatives that include input provided by private industry. 

It’s my understanding that this report has not been submitted. Do 

you have any status on such a report? 

Mr. JENSEN. As we’ve arrived into Washington, DC, we’ve taken 

a look at that, what’s been developed to date. We’re currently reviewing that right now for such a release. We’ll be running through 

processes to get some more visibility on that issue. Getting the 

right mix of aviation resources and assets is going to be key. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. When do you figure you might be able to 

have that report? 

Mr. JENSEN. We’re in the process right now of looking at that report. I’m hoping and optimistic that by the end of the year we can 

get something out there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It would be helpful if it could be before the 

end of the year recognizing that once you get the report then you 

want to be prepared for the next budget. If you’re waiting until the 

end of the year, it would be my suggestion that you try to expedite 

that, if it could be done by September 30. It seems to me 2005 was 

a long time ago and I do appreciate the fact that you all have just 

come in, but it does seem to be a key priority to make sure that 

we have these assets that are out there. So if I could urge any expediency I would certainly do that. 

Then one final question. This is again a change that the House 

is proposing to the FLAME Act, regarding prescribed fires and notice of the fires. 
31 

It requires that as part of the strategy before any prescribed fire 

is used on national Forest Service land, the owners of adjacent private land are notified in writing of the date and the scope. Do you 

have any idea how long this might take? What the cost might be 

for the Forest Service to figure out who the specific land owners 

are on these adjacent lands? 

Mr. JENSEN. We haven’t scoped out the details specific to that. 

But it’s clear that it would be a significant investment and might 

even say a burden. The agency takes very seriously to the need to 

be a good neighbor. 

In that regard we currently have processes in effect that enable 

us to provide notice, contacts and we think that it seems to be 

working in certain ways. It seems to be working well. A strict requirement could potentially be overly restricting on the ability of 

the Agency to achieve the broader fire effort. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It’s also tough. I know that when we have 

had prescribed burns up North you’re really subject to a window 

of weather conditions, what is going on with the winds. If you had 

to provide for notification, to several of the folks that I represent, 

you know, they’re literally scattered to the winds in terms of providing adequate notification in a very timely manner. It could be 

very difficult. 

Mr. JENSEN. Alaska presents a very unique situation, but it’s not 

just unique to Alaska there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. JENSEN. I think the rest of the country sees some similar 

challenges. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would agree. So it sounds like you are 

withholding judgment or perhaps not certain, actually how this 

provision coming over from the House might be implemented in the 

FLAME Act. 

Mr. JENSEN. We think that the existing Agency forms and structures are more than adequate to be that good neighbor. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Alright. Good. I appreciate that. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I just have one final question that 

I hope you could respond to. The Energy Committee examined the 

role of biomass when we did, particularly biomass on public lands 

when we considered the Energy Bill. I think it’s clear that wise forest management practices are important not just to the health of 

the forest, but also can be very helpful as we’re looking at our future energy needs. 

So I wonder if you could talk about the role of biomass in managing forests to mitigate wildfires. 

Mr. JENSEN. Biomass is going to be an absolutely end utilization 

of that biomass is going to need to be a key part of where we approach the wildfire problem. Reduction of those fuels, recovery of 

those fuels and perhaps putting use into some sort of bio energy 

utilization, the creation of green jobs through those efforts. Done 

appropriately and sustainably—appropriately scaled and done in a 

sustainable fashion will be key to that. 
32 

We have a lot of experience out there with the communities 

knowing how to do that the right way. Working with existing industry as well to make sure that it’s done in a way that is not a 

hindrance to those that are already out there. But if we’re going 

to get ahead of—we’re going to have difficulty addressing all of our 

wildfire problems if we don’t find a way to involve the private sector in some of these solutions and utilization of that biomass is 

going to be key. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I’m going to wrap 

up this panel unless as I direct a few comments for the record and 

direct some questions to the panel that the other two senators have 

additional questions. But I want to thank the chairman for holding 

the hearing. I want to thank him for a chance to sit in on his stead. 

Senator Murkowski assures me that the Finance Committee and 

the HELP Committees are going to have a health care reform package shortly. That’s where Senator Bingaman is today, I believe. 

I’m a co-sponsor of this bill. I also co-sponsored the original 

House bill with Chairman Rahall and during the last Congress 

when I had the opportunity to serve in the House. I’m pleased the 

administration has taken this important step. 

It is no doubt easier to pretend each year that we’re not going 

to have to spend this money than to budget for it up front. It’s also 

important to emphasize that there’s a great need to reduce the severity of wildfires proactively in order to reduce the costs of suppressing and fighting those fires once they start raging. I remember being on the side of a fire, I’m sure Senator Murkowski has had 

this experience, perhaps Senator Shaheen as well. 

With Rick Cables, Director of the region, Mr. Jensen, you know, 

that Colorado is a member of and he used an analogy that this is 

like going to war when you fight a fire, although you’re warring 

with Mother Nature. When you hear the sound of the aircraft, you 

hear the sound of the vehicles, you watch the firefighters on the 

ground, you’re hearing the sound of money being spent. So this is 

obviously the 2, suppression and then proactively reducing fuel 

treatments interact. 

By putting this fund in place we go a long way to make sure 

those preventative fuels treatment projects are undertaken and 

completed. So we need to make sure that this fund is used for fire 

suppression costs so that there’s little to no future need to supplement the fire suppression funds by drawing down funds for other 

critical agency work such as fuels treatment. It’s not only about 

being honest about the cost of fighting wildfires, but about the impacts of failing to budget honestly, have had on other programs. 

Small businesses have had their contracts canceled. The important work on the ground gets canceled indefinitely each year when 

the money runs out. So again, I’m pleased that we’re moving. 

In that spirit let me direct a couple of questions to the panel. I’d 

like to direct these comments to Mr. Jensen, Secretary Suh. Your 

testimony refers to the proposal for contingent reserve account on 

the administration’s budget for fiscal year 2010. 

In a recent letter to the Director of OMB, Secretary Vilsack 

pointed out that the contingent reserve proposal, let me quote here, 
33 

‘‘Does not resolve the core issue confronting the Agency with respect to funding large, catastrophic wildfires differently. It also provides a 1-year solution for what may likely be a constant pressure 

added to the Agency’s budget for the foreseeable future. We believe 

that both the administration’s proposal and the FLAME Act are 

meritorious.’’ 

Mr. Jensen, does the Secretary stand by that assessment? 

Mr. JENSEN. The Secretary does stand by that assessment and 

clarifies and expands upon that in our testimony today. The simple 

fact I put forward is that the FLAME Act and the President’s budget complement one another. There’s going to be a need to find a 

way to make the two of them work to get ahead of this problem. 

Senator UDALL. Let me turn to Secretary Suh. Does Secretary 

Salazar share that view? 

Ms. SUH. He does. Secretary Salazar certainly supports the administration’s budget. I think we recognize that the FLAME Act, 

in particular, would provide a permanency in the statute that the 

budget does not. We fully agree with my colleagues at the Department of Agriculture that the two are very complementary. 

The contingency fund & FLAME Act Complement each other. we 

look forward to working with you all to determine how we get to 

some of the details with respect to the baselines. I think that’s just 

the type of approach that Secretary Salazar would be in support of. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that clarification. I don’t think I 

have to urge the Department of the Interior and the Department 

of Agriculture to work together as we face this important challenge. 

I would note that Senator Shaheen and I, in the early stages of the 

hearing were in the back room talking about the history of the Department of Agriculture, the history of the Department of the Interior, why the land agencies are assumed the portfolios that they 

now have. 

We were ably assisted by Stan Sloss who is sitting here behind 

me who many of you know from his long service in the House. He’s 

now over here on the Senate side. In sum, the point I’m trying to 

make is that this is too big a challenge to revert to sometimes the 

turf battles that have characterized the relationship between Ag 

and Interior. 

So I want to thank you in advance for stepping up to a higher 

standard here when it comes to working together. Sometimes we 

have major work. At seasons it could be, but I know they’re cool, 

calm and mature heads in both agencies. 

I also wanted to thank Senator Murkowski for mentioning the 

study on the aviation support that’s been so important in fighting 

fires. We had a tragic accident in Colorado. I remember working on 

an ongoing basis with Under Secretary Rey to see that the report, 

Mr. Jensen, was completed. 

I know Senator Murkowski and I would do anything possible to 

get that aviation strategy completed so that we know what future 

costs are going to be and the assets that we’ll have to fight fires 

in the future will be as well. So anything we can do to help move 

that along we’d like to do so. 

Let me turn finally to Colorado. Senator Murkowski and I were 

talking about her experience at skiing in Colorado. I think now I 
34 

have to go ski in Alaska next year as a way to support the Alaska 

ski industry. 

But she was astounded by the beetle kill in Colorado, particularly in the North central mountains. It’s just stunning, deeply dismaying. We do, with luck, look like we may because of the weather 

patterns we’ve had this spring and summer save us from a truly 

catastrophic fire this year. 

We need still, though, more resources to reduce hazardous fuels 

and suppress wildfires that do occur. Ms. Dalton mentioned that 

the Agencies are working to prove their allocations of hazardous 

fuels funding and fire fighting assets through land, fire, FPA and 

other methods. Can you tell me whether those models and methods 

take the bark beetle situation in Colorado into account? 

I’m looking at Ms. Dalton, but also Mr. Jensen. 

Ms. DALTON. Those methods do, it is my understanding, provide 

data on a nationwide basis that’s very consistent. So to that extent 

I would expect that they would. But I think Mr. Jensen probably 

can answer in more detail. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. JENSEN. Absolutely. We expanded a little bit earlier here on 

how some of the decisions are made within the Agency around fuel 

reduction. A notion here, particularly in the case for Colorado is 

looking at the values at risk and trying to figure out where the investment of the limited moneys we do have are going to make the 

most affect. That is very much around the infrastructure of communities and protection of watersheds and the drinking water that 

flows from that. 

So we’re going to need to be making the most of what limited resources we do have to hopefully head off the potential problem that 

we are looking at there in Colorado. 

Senator UDALL. Secretary Suh, any comment in that regard? 

Ms. SUH. It’s interesting that you raise Colorado in particular. 

We were just having conversations at Interior about doing an exercise so that a lot of the new folks to Interior could learn about the 

Office of WildLand Fire Coordination. Using catastrophic fire in 

Colorado is a potential opportunity for both of us to learn about the 

way our agencies and bureaus work together. As well as our state 

of preparedness with respect to some of the more pronounced problems, we have on the horizon. 

So we’ll be actually going through this exercise in a couple of 

weeks. If you’re interested in coming, we’d be happy to have you 

or any of your staff join us. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that. Yes, I think about for example, the Eastern boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park which 

is one of the areas where you see almost every tree, every lodge 

pole, pine that’s been killed. You then have Forest Service lands 

adjacent and then a checkerboard land ownership pattern of private ownership as well. There may even be some State forest lands 

and so that coordination looms all the more important in a setting 

like that. 

Then you put in the mix, of course, the statutes surrounding the 

parks and the way we’re working to manage the National Parks. 

I would note that with the latest public lands package we passed 

early in this Congress that we did reach a life, well almost a life-
35 

time goal for many of us which was to set aside Rocky as wilderness based on the Nixon administration recommendations. That 

new law though, does give us the flexibility to handle this situation 

in particular as appropriate. 

Mr. Jensen, you also view the Department of Agriculture and the 

ski industry concerns have been working I know with the ski industry to provide some additional flexibility particularly so the ski 

industry can protect within their boundaries trees that are particularly important, stands of trees that are particularly important in 

protecting the snow resources. Is that not correct? 

Mr. JENSEN. Absolutely correct. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. I want to commend you for that. We need to continue to work with the ski industry. Senator Murkowski was pointing out to me that in some cases the ski industry is actually working hard to save individual tress because they are so key holding 

snow pack, particularly at the timber line interface where the 

winds rule. 

If that snow gets blown away it not only sublimates back as a 

water vapor, but you don’t have ski runs that are usable. 

Mr. JENSEN. If I might add a little bit. The ski industry is a critical partner with/for the Forest Service and the Agency. Not only 

do they help us deliver our mission and provide those recreational 

opportunities out there for the public. But they also provide a great 

opportunity to help spread the message of what forests and forest 

management bring to the country. 

Wwe’re, with the numbers of people that come to the ski resorts, 

we hope that we can continue that partnership. 

Senator UDALL. I want to thank the panel. Senator Shaheen or 

Senator Murkowski, do you? 

Any panel member have a final comment or should we excuse 

you? 

Thank you for taking the time to come up to Capitol Hill. We’ll 

now prepare for the second panel as the first panel departs. 

Thanks again. 

Our second panel, like the first panel will be testifying on the 

FLAME Act. I want to welcome first Leah MacSwords, who is the 

President of the National Association of State Foresters. 

Second welcome, Max Peterson, Former Chief of the Forest Service. It’s not often we have icons that come to Capitol Hill, but Max 

Peterson is an icon. It’s wonderful to see you here, Mr. Peterson. 

Ms. MacSwords, would you like to share your testimony with us? 

STATEMENT OF LEAH MACSWORDS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS, STATE FORESTER OF 

KENTUCKY, REPRESENTING THE PARTNER CAUCUS ON 

FIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING SOLUTIONS 

Ms. MACSWORDS. I can. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. MACSWORDS. I want to thank the committee. I’m appearing 

today on behalf of the Partner Caucus on fire suppression funding 

solutions. This was assembled earlier this year by the National Association of State Foresters, the Wilderness Society and American 

Forests. 
36 

The Partner Caucus is made up of more than 100 organizations. 

We advocate for a new mechanism for funding emergency fire suppression activities for the United States Forest Service and Department of the Interior. The ongoing lack of a sustainable fire funding 

is a problem on the Agency’s balance sheets and puts the Nation’s 

forests at great risk. The Partner Caucus is committed to helping 

Congress find a solution and ensuring that the Forest Service and 

Interior can accomplish their critical land management goals. 

I will address our recommendations related to S. 561, the 

FLAME Act. My testimony reflects the support of more than 70 

members of the Partner Caucus. A full list of supporting organizations will be submitted to the committee along with my official 

statement and a document that captures our shared principles on 

this issue. 

The cost of suppressing wildfires has grown enormously in recent 

years. Projections indicate that this trend will only increase. The 

Forest Service in particular has spent over $1 billion per year in 

5 of the last 7 years fighting fires. 

The approach today used to fund the enormous wildfire suppression cost is referred to as the 10-year rolling average. Each year 

an average of the amount of fire suppression over the last decade 

is the figure that determines the suppression budget for the coming 

year. The overall Agency budget does not expand to accommodate 

this ballooning figure however. Instead fire suppression becomes a 

proportionally larger percentage of the overall Agency budget. 

In FY 1991 the suppression was 13 percent of the Forest Service 

budget. This year it was nearly half. With budgets that remain essentially flat or decline from year to year, the Forest Service and 

Interior have two options to find suppression costs that are over 

and above the appropriated level. 

One is to request supplemental funding from Congress. 

The other is to transfer limited dollars from other essential 

Agency programs. 

Such transfers disrupt or cancel projects that could actually 

serve to drive down the cost of fire suppression over time. We must 

not continue to jeopardize the on the ground work that is improving the health of our forests and helping to protect people and 

property from devastating fires. Within the fire suppression portion 

of the budget catastrophic emergency wildfires consume 85 percent 

of all suppression costs and account for over 95 percent of all acres 

burned. 

Catastrophic wildfires refer to those fires that unduly threaten 

people or property or are uncharacteristic in nature. These are not 

average fires and should be treated the same way as other natural 

disaster. Costs associated with these extraordinary fires diminish 

the ability of the Forest Service and Interior to meet their other 

land management responsibilities. 

Remarkably there is no Federal law that mandates the use of the 

10-year average to calculate yearly suppression costs. Instead it’s 

become an Agency tradition and one that is out of date and no 

longer the best way to predict future emergency suppression costs. 

The members of the Partner Caucus recommend creating a partitioned wildfire suppression account to fund emergency fires. 
37 

To this end we support the FLAME Act under consideration in 

the Senate which establishes the FLAME fund specifically for suppression of catastrophic emergency wild land fires. The FLAME 

fund will eliminate the depletion of other agency programs to pay 

for suppression by providing a sustainable funding source that is 

separate from the Agency’s program funding. The appropriation for 

this special account would be calculated using an average of past 

emergency suppression activities rather than an average of all fire 

suppression costs. 

Each year in the height of fire season, Congress appropriates 

emergency funds to meet the skyrocketing cost of fire suppression. 

The FLAME Act would give Congress the means to fund emergency 

suppression before agencies have to take the drastic measure of 

transferring funds from other programs. We also recommend replacing the 10-year average with the discretionary budgeting process that is more predictive and statistically modeling approach. 

By using current models for weather, drought and fuel loads, as 

well as fire history and other data, we can better predict how much 

funding the agencies will need for non-emergency fires. Separating 

the costs incurred by true emergencies from more predictable day 

to day agency fire responsibilities will ease a tremendous burden 

on the Forest Service and Interior. The FLAME Act will provide 

clear guidelines for funding emergency suppression by establishing 

specific accounting requirements on how the money can be spent 

and giving direction to the agencies for the budgeting of wildfire 

needs in the future. 

The contingency reserve fund proposed in the FY 2010 President’s budget and included in the House Interior Appropriations 

Package provides the money that is necessary for this new approach to funding emergency fire suppression activities. The 

FLAME Act can provide the framework on how the contingency reserve fund is spent. The FLAME Act as passed in the House last 

March was amended on the floor and several of the amendments 

significantly change the original intent of the bill which was to create a partitioned account to pay for only emergency fire costs. 

The Partner Caucus supports the FLAME Act as introduced in 

the Senate and advocates that the bill maintain its focus on creation of a partitioned account. The recommendations developed by 

the Partner Caucus on fire suppression funding are essential to 

solving this problem in a holistic manner. We believe the investment of funds into the range of agency programs that will have 

been impacted by increasing suppression costs is critical as well. 

In closing all members of the Partner Caucus have been impacted by the issue. Have a stake in assuring that the Forest Service and Interior can accomplish their critical land management 

goals. The agencies depend on a huge number of environmental organizations, State forestry agencies, the outdoor recreation industry, land owners, fire service, hunters and anglers, the timber industry, local governments and many others. 

We look forward to working with this committee to insure the 

passage of the FLAME Act in this Congress. I’d be happy to answer 

any questions or provide any further information as you see fit. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. MacSwords follows:] 
38 

* Document has been retained in committee files. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEAH MACSWORDS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

STATE FORESTERS, STATE FORESTER OF KENTUCKY, REPRESENTING THE PARTNER

CAUCUS ON FIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING SOLUTIONS

On behalf of the Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Funding Solutions, I thank 

Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski and the rest of the Committee members for the opportunity to appear before you today. My testimony is focused solely on the section of the FLAME Act that establishes the FLAME fund for 

emergency fire suppression. 

I am president of the National Association of State Foresters, representing the directors of state forestry agencies in all 50 states, eight U.S. territories and associated states, and the District of Columbia. I am proud to be representing the Partner 

Caucus—a unique and diverse group of organizations dedicated to finding a new 

mechanism for funding emergency fire suppression activities for the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior land management agencies. Assembled 

by NASF, The Wilderness Society and American Forests in early 2009, the Partner 

Caucus includes leading industry, environmental, outdoor recreation, and forestry 

organizations that all recognize the urgency of this problem. Attached to this testimony is the Partner Caucus’ principles and recommendations document that includes a complete list of supportive organizations.* The Partner Caucus was created 

to bring attention to the imperative need to release the stranglehold that emergency 

suppression costs are having on the agencies’ budget and programs, and the resulting negative economic and environmental impacts. 

THE CHALLENGE

All of the nation’s forests face numerous threats, including insects and disease, 

development pressures, changing climate, and catastrophic wildfire—meaning those 

wildfires that unduly jeopardize people and property or are uncharacteristic in nature. An ongoing lack of sustainable funding is yet another pressure on America’s 

forests prohibiting agencies from accomplishing their management goals. On behalf 

of the Partner Caucus, I will address the combined effect of these last two threats: 

the financial impact of catastrophic fire on the Forest Service and Interior and the 

need for a comprehensive solution to this escalating problem. 

A DIVERSE COALITION OF PARTNERS

One of the major factors behind the diverse nature of the Partner Caucus is how 

broadly the challenges of fire suppression funding impacts the agencies’ critical 

partners, including national and local environmental organizations, state forestry 

agencies, outdoor and recreation industry, land owners, hunters/anglers, timber industry, local governments, fire services and other groups interested in land management. 

We stand ready to assist Congress in identifying a new mechanism for funding 

emergency fire suppression activities. 

THE IMPACT OF WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS

The cost of suppressing fires has grown enormously in recent years and projections indicate that this trend will only increase as a result of hazardous fuels buildup, a changing climate (and thus, ecology), and increasingly populated wildlandurban interface areas. For example, the Forest Service has spent over $1 billion per 

year in five of the last seven years to extinguish fires. Fire suppression, the largest 

component of agency wildland fire management activities, rose from 13% of the 

agency’s budget in fiscal year 1991 to close to 50% in 2009. Extraordinary emergency wildland fire suppression activities account for over 95% of all burned acres 

and consume 85% of all suppression costs. These are not average wildfires; they 

should be treated the same way as other natural disasters to avoid severe depletion 

of the agency’s constrained budget. 

As the primary agencies responsible for wildland fire protection, these escalating 

fire suppression costs have had a detrimental effect on program implementation 

within the Forest Service and Department of the Interior. Due to their budgets remaining essentially flat or declining from year-to-year, core program budgets have 

been drained in order to sufficiently fund fires suppression at the required 10-year 

rolling average level. Although no federal law requires that the agencies budget for 

the 10-year average of fire suppression costs within their budget, it has become an 

unchallenged method of calculating yearly suppression costs. This is not a mandated 

practice; instead it is just a tradition, and one that is out of date and no longer the 
39 

best way to predict future suppression costs. Most other agency programs are not 

accounted for in this way. Even with the diversion of funds, agencies are regularly 

compelled to request supplemental funding from Congress and are forced to transfer 

already limited dollars from other essential agency programs. Such transfers further 

reduce program budgets, leading to program disruptions, project cancellations and 

strained relationships with partners. 

All Forest Service programs are subject to transfers including funds from State 

and Private Forestry, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, National Forest System, and Wildland Fire Management. In fact, the very programs that could reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic fires, ease the impact of fire suppression costs and more 

effectively protect people and property are also the ones that suffer two-fold; they 

are both reduced on the front end of the budgeting process as money is diverted to 

fund the 10-year average for suppression, and are subject to transfers of funds later 

in the fire season as fire suppression costs increase. 

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

The Partner Caucus has developed two recommendations towards a solution. The 

first recommendation is to create a partitioned wildfire suppression account to fund 

emergency fires. This is for those truly emergency fires that consume most suppression appropriations-fires that have significantly increased the cost of suppression 

over the last 10 years, led to decreases in appropriations for other agency programs, 

and on a yearly basis require Congress to supplement appropriations for increased 

suppression. 

Our second recommendation is to replace the 10-year rolling average with a more 

predictive and statistical modeling approach. One that utilizes current weather conditions, drought and fuel loads as well as fire history and other data in order to 

accurately estimate non-emergency fire suppression costs. This will project the extent of wildland fire on the landscape and use economic modeling to predict funding 

needs. The Senate FLAME Act (S. 561) addresses both of these recommendations 

and many of the Partner Caucus organizations support the FLAME Act (S. 561) as 

introduced. 

The Act will establish a new federal fund specifically for suppression of catastrophic emergency wildland fires, which will move the nation towards a more sustainable suppression funding mechanism. This FLAME Fund will reduce depletion 

of the other agency programs to pay for suppression and provide a more established 

funding source than the current emergency supplemental funding. The Act will institute clear guidelines for funding emergency fire suppression by establishing specific accounting requirements on how that money can be spent and for agencies to 

budget for emergency and nonemergency fire in future years. 

These two recommendations are essential to solving this problem in a holistic 

manner. The Partner Caucus also advocates for investment of funds into the range 

of agency programs that have been impacted by increasing suppression costs. This 

must occur in order for agencies to accomplish their overall missions. Second, we 

advocate for the continued development and implementation of a rigorous set of 

measures to achieve cost containment; thus linking fire management activities to resulting fire costs. We contend that these recommendations and principles will move 

us towards a more common-sense budgeting approach for both the Forest Service 

and Department of the Interior. 

The Partner Caucus is supportive of the establishment of the FLAME Fund as 

described in the FLAME Act as introduced in the Senate (S. 561). 

MAINTAINING THE FOCUS OF THE FLAME ACT

The FLAME Act as passed in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1404) was significantly amended on the floor. Eleven amendments were adopted into the Act and 

several of them change the intent of the bill. One amendment allows accessing the 

FLAME Fund for containment activities in response to crisis insect infestations to 

reduce the likelihood of wildfires. This means that the emergency partitioned account could be used for projects on insect-affected areas before the fire season even 

begins. The approved amendment also expands the definition of suppression to include activities such as hazardous fuel reduction, mechanical thinning, controlled 

burn, and a suite of non-suppression activities. While fire-risk reduction is critical, 

it is not the purpose of the FLAME Fund. This, and other amendments, will have 

significant ramifications not just on the FLAME Fund but also on other wildland 

fire management activities. The Partner Caucus supports the as introduced (S. 561) 

and advocates that the Senate bill move forward in a more streamlined fashion focusing on the need for the partitioned account. 
40 

CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND

In order to ensure a good government approach to funding emergency fire suppression activities we need rely on dedicated funding sources that will not limit or 

impact the funding or resources of other important agency programs. In the President’s FY10 Budget Proposal, a Contingency Reserve Fund for fire suppression activities is outlined that commits funding over and above the suppression funding included in the Forest Service and Department of the Interior budgets. The Contingency Reserve Fund is available for agency use once their suppression budgets have 

been spent and after notifying Congress of their need to use the fund. 

The President’s budget also includes annual suppression funding at the 10-year 

level for the Forest Service and Interior, noting that the annual funding and contingency fund should not impact other important agency programs. In order to fund 

suppression (which currently consists of initial attack and emergency suppression 

activities) at the 10-year average, the agencies must pull funds from other programs 

to meet the ever-increasing average. Requiring an agency to budget for emergency 

events within the discretionary appropriations process is a recipe for failure. No 

other federal agencies have to pull funding from their core programs in order to 

fund emergency events like floods and tornadoes. A more predictive modeling approach that balances actual conditions with average costs would better serve how 

much funding the agencies will need for nonemergency fires. 

The FLAME Fund would still use an average that calculates the amount of money 

needed for emergency fire suppression activities in any given year, but when dealing 

with true emergencies an average is probably the best approach. This is not new 

money. Every year, Congress appropriates emergency funds to address the sky-rocketing costs of fire suppression. FLAME would provide Congress the means to fund 

emergency suppression before agencies have to take the drastic measure of transferring funds from other programs. 

COMPLIMENTARY APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION

The Partner Caucus believes that the FLAME Fund and the Contingency Reserve 

Fund are complementary ideas. The FLAME Fund will provide the requirements for 

how the Contingency Reserve Fund monies are spent, allowing the public to see how 

much of the Forest Service and Interior budgets are actually being spent on emergency events. Congress can take action by providing funds via the annual appropriations process, the emergency supplemental process or use other funding sources to 

provide funding for the FLAME Fund. Both the administration and Congress have 

demonstrated their willingness to provide funds necessary for both initial attack and 

emergency fire suppression events. This is an efficient and fiscally responsible mechanism to the budgeting and authorization process. 

CLOSING REMARKS

I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about this important issue. 

Representing this group of unique organizations that have banded together in a 

groundbreaking way has been an honor. The National Association of State Foresters 

and all of the organizations represented by the Partner Caucus on Fire Spending 

Solutions look forward to working with this committee to ensure the passage of S. 

561 in this Congress. Your attention and action toward creating a change in the way 

we pay for catastrophic wildland fires and recognizing the effect this has on the 

agencies’ abilities to protect our natural resources and serve our public is greatly 

appreciated. I am happy to answer any questions and/or provide any further information you may request. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Ms. MacSwords. 

Chief Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, RETIRED CHIEF, 

FOREST SERVICE (1979-1987) 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. I know you don’t really need a mic. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. But it will be helpful for those taking the transcript. 

Mr. PETERSON. I believe it was suggested I don’t always need a 

mic. I better check, particularly with my kids. Anyway, good morn-
41 

ing, Senator Udall and Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen. 

I was sitting there I reflected back to another Senator Udall that 

I knew quite well that you’re related to and to a Senator Murkowski that I know Lisa is related to. Senator Shaheen when she 

was still a Governor. So it’s nice to be here with you. 

If you’ll accept my testimony for the record, I’ll brief it to you. 

I have great confidence in your ability to read. So I don’t feel I need 

to read it to you. So I’ll just brief it quickly. 

First, I appreciate your holding the hearing. I appreciate the fact 

that you’re co-sponsor of the FLAME Act. I think it’s a good solution to a problem that’s been around for a long time. 

I asked Jensen to leave this chart up here. If you look at the average there, you find that the average never really happens. 

There’s not a single year up there that’s average. If you notice I 

think there’s 7 years on that chart that are above average. 

So an average really is not a good way to handle fires. It gives 

you a sense that you must be doing something right because you’re 

using the average. I doubt that we’d use the average on a lot of 

other things. We’d probably not have lunch the day on the average 

that people would eat or we would not like to have to be restricted 

to the average height of people or the average weight of people. So 

averages for fire is kind of ridiculous. 

A few months ago the fire retired chiefs sent a letter in response 

to the introduction of the FLAME Act. I’m happy today to add that 

that could be a—we have 6 chiefs now. The recently retired chief 

said she’d like to be on record as favoring the FLAME Act, Gail 

Kimbell, had just retired. I told her though when she told me that, 

I said you must recognize that I do have a particular distinction. 

She said, what’s that? I said, I’m the oldest retired chief, so I’m the 

senior chief. So you’ve got to respect your seniors. 

It was 60 years ago next month that I went to work for the Forest Service in a little part of the Plumas National Forest in Reno, 

Nevada and spent 37 and a half years there. But let me just simply 

reiterate support for the FLAME Act. I think it’s a very good act. 

I have real problems with, that I’ve outlined in my testimony, 

with several of the Senate provisions. I’ll just pick out one for example. The provision says you should notify absentee landowners. 

Usually that’s Forest Service policy right now. 

But if you go to any place in the country and you say, who are 

the absentee landowners. You find out absentee landowners change 

weekly. So you really would have to figure out a way to figure out 

a weekly list of people to notify. 

We usually used radio and TV and other kinds of publicity to let 

people know that there’s going to be a prescribed burn. We do notify absentee land owners based on the list that we have. But that 

list may have changed 2 weeks ago. 

Providing that individual letters be sent to each one of those absentee landowners would be, I think, unnecessary and would slow 

down—many times when you do a prescribed burn you have an 

idea of when you plan to do it. But it may change from week to 

week because the weather may change, the predicted weather may 

change. You don’t do a prescribed burn if you’ve got a prediction 

of a major front coming through, for example. You may have a time 

that you plan to do something and it simply doesn’t work out. 
42 

I’ve outlined in my testimony some other problems with the 

House passed version. But again we do support the Senate version 

of the FLAME Act. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, RETIRED CHIEF, FOREST

SERVICE (1979-1987)

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate the efforts that you have made 

to resolve the issue of funding for emergency fire suppression. Resolution is vital 

to protecting the well-being of our Nation’s forest resources. 

The current system of funding fire suppression on the National Forests and other 

public lands clearly does not work. It does not provide enough money to cover the 

costs, necessitating disruptive borrowing from on-going programs. And funding the 

growing costs of emergency fire suppression within constrained budgets has seriously compromised the ability of the Forest Service to carryout its statutory responsibilities. I know that you and the members of this committee recognize the problem. It is time to fix it. 

A few months ago the five retired Chiefs of the Forest Service sent you a letter 

urging passage of S. 561. The National Association of Forest Service Retirees signed 

on to a similar letter. I am here today to once again reiterate our support for S. 

561, as introduced. 

Throughout my career with the Forest Service and until the late 1980’s, we had 

a simple procedure for funding fire suppression. Money needed for emergency fire 

suppression was borrowed from available trust funds. These trust funds contained 

money deposited by timber purchasers to cover the cost of reforestation, timber 

stand improvement, and slash disposal on cutover areas. At the end of the fire season the money borrowed was repaid through supplemental appropriations. It was 

a simple, straight forward approach. It worked well. 

When timber harvest levels fell in the late 1980’s, the money available in the 

trust funds was no longer adequate to allow borrowing for the full cost of fire suppression. A decision was made to include funding for emergency fire suppression 

within the agency’s annual appropriation. The amount to be appropriated was the 

10-year average cost of suppression. This decision created the problem we are facing 

today. By definition an average year seldom happens. Years tend to be either above 

or below average. When costs are above average it causes problems. With a rising 

cost trend, above average years tend to be the rule. 

We should strive to provide a simple, straight-forward resolution to the funding 

issue. This means that (1) funding for emergency fire suppression must not compete 

with funding for the regular agency programs in the annual appropriation process. 

(2) Funding provided must be adequate to avoid disruption of on-going agency programs. 

S. 561, as introduced, meets these two criteria. It provides for the creation of a 

fund (the FLAME Fund) separate from the regular agency budget and expresses the 

sense of the Congress that this fund will be considered emergency spending and 

would not count for the purposes of Title III and IV of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974. Frankly, I would have preferred the creation of a government-wide 

emergency fund rather than an agency specific fund, but if the partitioning provided 

in the Act is achieved, it will work. The provision for periodic estimates of anticipated suppression costs will allow the Congress to make timely additions to the 

FLAME Fund to reduce the need for transfers from on-going agency programs. 

I have serious concerns about the amendments in the House version of the 

FLAME Act, HR. 1404, which was identical to S. 561 when introduced. The principal concern relates to the amendment that removes the sense of Congress language that appropriations to the FLAME Fund are considered emergency appropriations that would not count for the purposes of Title III and IV of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. This change defeats the objective of the legislation. It will mean 

that funding for emergency fire suppression will continue to compete with the regular programs of the Forest Service and the agency’s capacity to carryout its statutory responsibilities will continue to erode. This amendment is unacceptable. 

Another amendment to the House Bill would expand authorized uses of the 

FLAME Fund to include hazardous fuel treatments and other activities. This legislation is intended to provide a means of funding emergency fire suppression while 

protecting other agency programs. Expanding the authorized uses of the Fund to 

cover other desirable, but not emergency, activities will take away from the rationale for designating appropriations to the fund as emergency spending. 
43 

A House amendment would require advance notice to adjacent landowners prior 

to a controlled burn. This has long been agency policy. Both public notice and individual letters are used. It needs to be recognized that there are many absentee land 

owners in and around our National Forests. Ownership changes frequently. Contacting every one in a timely manner may be impossible. I do not see the need for 

this redundant requirement in the funding legislation. 

The House amendments add many additional reporting requirements—revision of 

comprehensive wildland fire strategies, review of certain wildfires to identify what 

can be done to prevent or reduce severity, a review to assess the quantity of greenhouse gasses produced, to assess the impacts on climate change, to include the presence of insect-infested trees in determining whether a fire is eligible for funding 

under the Flame Act, to examine the effects of invasive species, to maximize use 

of National Guard resources, and to amend the definition of ‘‘fire ready communities’’. These are all interesting questions and ideas. It is not clear that the requirements for reporting or other changes represent the best way to address these issues. 

I suspect that many of the questions would be better addressed through well-designed research studies. 

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the reason we are concerned about the issue 

of funding fire suppression is that we want to ensure on the ground stewardship 

of our nation’s forest resources. It is easy to add requirements for additional reporting and studies. It does not come free. It takes away from the resources available 

for getting needed work done on the ground. I would urge the committee to be very 

cautious about adding additional requirements to this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, we support enactment of S. 561 as introduced. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chief. I wanted to also clarify for the 

record that all the other chiefs are icons as well, all six of you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. But you’re the senior icon. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. That’s kind. 

Senator UDALL. On that note, let me turn to Senator Murkowski 

for questions or comments. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony from 

both of you this morning. Chief, you spoke to your tenure, your history. You certainly remember a time when the timber program 

funded the trust funds. You could use those funds to pay for fire 

suppression then you were reimbursed by Congress. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, that worked quite well for a number of 

years. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That was a process that we had before and 

it worked. Now I want to ask about using the funds in the FLAME 

Act as we’re proposing, allowing hazardous fuels work to be done. 

Ms. MacSwords, you have argued against allowing the hazards 

fuels work to be funded through the FLAME fund. 

But I’m looking at this and recognizing that our costs are enormous when we’re dealing with these catastrophic fires. If the mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels is less expensive ultimately 

both monetarily and really environmentally, then paying for the 

suppression of these large catastrophic fires, why would we not 

want to use a portion of the FLAME fund to accomplish the work? 

Ms. MACSWORDS. The Partner Caucus is focused on keeping the 

FLAME fund for emergency fire suppression costs. That’s the position of the Caucus. In my role as State forester with the National 

Association of State Foresters, we do believe in the treatment of 

hazardous fuels. But for the purpose of the FLAME Act we’d like 

to see it remain cleanly focused on suppression funding and that 

there might be other means to deal with funding for the treatment 

of hazardous fuels. 
44 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Would you agree that we might ultimately 

need less in that FLAME fund or perhaps use less if in fact we 

were to do the prevention work? In other words make sure that we 

had the dollars in place to work to reduce the hazardous fuels 

again, this mechanical intervention. 

Ms. MACSWORDS. You are correct. If fuels treatment are performed it does reduce the cost of fire suppression which is the point 

of establishing the FLAME fund. So that the agencies are not borrowing from their other Forest Service and Interior programs that 

provide the funding for them to do the mechanicals and other fuels 

treatment. 

So again, the Caucus wants to keep the FLAME fund focused on 

the suppression cost so that there is no borrowing of other agency 

programs that would do the treatments. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. From your perspective, it is not an objection to provide for thinning of the forest. It’s not an objection to 

going in and actually doing the work. What you’re trying to fence 

off are the funds that are in the FLAME Act to be used for suppression? 

Ms. MACSWORDS. Exactly. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So how then do we make sure that we have 

done all that we should be doing again, to reduce the hazardous 

fuels if we’re not insuring that the dollars are available to do just 

that. Then if we don’t do that we invariably have to take more from 

the FLAME fund to pay for the catastrophic fires. 

Ms. MACSWORDS. I think that’s a question that the previous witnesses have testified that the Forest Service and Interior are looking into and providing you specific examples of what those two 

agencies do intend to do to address the fuels treatment on the Federal land. From a State forester perspective we work with those 

vast majority of private and local and State landowners to deal 

with the fuels treatment on our own lands to prevent fires from 

crossing over on to National Forest lands. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Chief Peterson, can I ask you your opinion 

on this? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. I’m very sympathetic to the whole idea of 

thinning and so on. I have told people that it’s like having your 

house full of newspapers. I mean, you put all your used newspapers in the garage and pretty soon your garage is full of newspapers, but you’ve got a rule that you can’t use any of your money 

to get rid of them. 

Having all this fuel build up in the forest is a critical problem. 

Maybe some kind of partitioning with the FLAME Act or something would handle that. But I think until we reach the point that 

we’re really going to do something about thinning the forest we’re 

going to be back again and again and again dealing with this catastrophic situation because there’s no solution of it short of dealing 

with the beetle problem in Colorado and some of the other major 

fuels build up that are there. 

All you’ve got to do fly over this country and look at it and know 

it’s there. So to say it’s not there and have bureaucratic rules or 

bureaucratic objections to not doing anything to me, that makes 

sense. I’m from Missouri and you’ve got to show it to me. I’ve seen 

it and I’m ready to do something about it. 
45 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We appreciate that. I think we recognize 

that when you have strong timber harvest programs that reduce 

the fuels, decrease the intensity of the fire and ultimately decrease 

the costs—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. For suppression, that it is a 

good thing. Again, not only good for the bottom line financially, but 

good environmentally. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think the biomass program would have some 

major potential benefits particularly if in removing biomass you 

could use some of the material for higher use, not just for biomass, 

but for actually some products. You might be able to make such 

thing as particle board or other things out of some other materials. 

So you could get more value out of removing the thinning. 

But I think we need a really robust thinning program if we’re 

ever going to get on top of the problem. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

To begin, Chief, I want to acknowledge, I think it’s extraordinary 

that as you arrived here I understood all five living retired chiefs 

supported this effort, now it’s all six retired living chiefs. Similarly 

Ms. MacSwords, your organization helped to bring together a hundred, I believe, or more diverse organizations. 

Can you just describe for the committee the key reasons that 

these important groups have come together to talk about, discuss 

and come up with a position on fire budgeting and the FLAME Act. 

Ms. MACSWORDS. All of the groups that came together to work 

on this issue have a stake in what happens in our forests across 

the Nation, not only what happens on federally owned forest, but 

on privately owned forest or State and locally owned forest. We recognize the benefits of those forest lands whether it be for a forest 

product, for recreation, for the esthetic beauty of those forest, for 

the environmental benefits that those forests provide. To see those 

forests damaged by catastrophic wildfire to the extent that the 

other programs of the Forest Service and Interior that deal with 

the non-fire issues related to our forests. 

But to see those programs reduced because of the funding mechanism for fire was unacceptable to the organizations that came together. Frankly we thought if we could bring 114 organizations together to focus on one issue, the FLAME Act, and the funding of 

wild land fire suppression, that that would hold a significant 

amount of weight to Members of Congress because a lot of these 

groups have some diverging viewpoints on other issues, but we 

came together on this one. Hopefully that would make an impression on you as to our willingness to work together because our forests are so important. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that explanation. It’s very, very 

helpful. It’s inspiring that you set aside those differences just like 

Alaska and Colorado set aside the few differences we have to work 

together when it’s appropriate. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Chief Peterson, do you have thoughts on the— 

the gang of 6, maybe we should call? 
46 

Mr. PETERSON. No, I didn’t intend to mention—I’m greatly impressed by the ability of all these partners to come together. I 

think that represents really the best in our country that these 

groups that frequently are at odds with each other, with the help 

of the State forester, did come together, put this statement together. So I think that’s a great help in this whole thing, I hope. 

Senator UDALL. My final question before I give you a chance to 

make any final comments or Senator Murkowski has another question would be to once again return, I think to comments that you 

both made about the best way forward. Ms. MacSwords, you talked 

about the House and the amendments. Chief Peterson, I think you 

alluded to the bill that was in the House and verses the Senate 

proposal. 

Would you prefer that the committee move forward with the Senate version of the bill or perhaps even something more streamlined 

than the Senate bill? Maybe I’ll start with you Chief, if you had 

thoughts. 

Mr. PETERSON. I would fully support the Senate version. I do not 

think the House version with all those amendments is the way to 

go. I think a streamline version, as the Senate bill is basically, is 

the way to go. 

Senator UDALL. Ms. MacSwords. 

Ms. MACSWORDS. The Partner Caucus would agree. We would 

like to see a bill that focuses on creating the FLAME Act and keeping it as clean and uncluttered as possible. 

Senator UDALL. I think with that I’ve exhausted all my questions, at least for today. Do either of you have another comment 

or any other thoughts you’d like to share with us before we conclude the hearing? 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you for the hearing. Thank you for cosponsoring legislation. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. I think the fact that your comments 

are streamlined and to the point will be very helpful as the committee moves forward. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(47) 

1See GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic Process Could 

Could Improve Agencies’ Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction Funds and Selecting Projects, 

GAO-07-1168 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2007). 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSE OF PATRICIA DALTON TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. GAO repeatedly has identified and discussed the shortcomings of the 

agencies using ‘‘acres treated’’ as a performance measure or target. In 2003, GAO 

reported that the agencies were developing results-oriented performance measures, 

but from what I hear, they still use acres-treated as a key measure of the performance of their land managers. Would you please provide the Committee with your 

Office’s latest assessment of the agencies’ use of this performance measure and your 

current recommendation for addressing remaining concerns? 

Answer. Acres treated remains one of the agencies’ primary performance measures for fuel reduction projects and, as we reported in 2007, this measure has led 

the agencies to sometimes implement lower-priority projects with low per-acre costs 

in order to help meet acreage targets.1 Better performance measures would assist 

the agencies in allocating fuel reduction funds and selecting projects in ways that 

reduce fire risk most efficiently and effectively. 

As we reported in 2007, the agencies’ methods for allocating fuel reduction funds 

and selecting fuel reduction projects suffer from several shortcomings. First, the 

agencies do not consistently use national, regional, and local-level risk assessments 

that systematically assess the likelihood of a fire occurring and the communities and 

resources at risk of damage. Second, the agencies lack a method for measuring the 

effectiveness of different fuel reduction treatments. And third, the agencies do not 

consider cost-effectiveness when allocating funds, primarily because they do not 

have data on the effectiveness of different types of treatments. Without developing 

and using such information, the agencies are unable to ensure that scarce funds are 

directed to areas where they can best minimize the risk to communities and important natural and cultural resources. As we stated in our testimony, the agencies recognize these shortcomings and have efforts under way intended to help them address them; these efforts, however, are likely to be long-term undertakings and 

therefore are unlikely to help the agencies improve their processes for allocating fuel 

reduction funds anytime soon. 

RESPONSE OF LEAH MACSWORDS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. You discussed some of your concerns regarding a provision that was 

added to H.R. 1404 that would authorize the Flame Fund to be used for activities 

such as hazardous fuels reduction. Can you explain in more detail why your coalition is concerned with that provision? 

Answer. The amendment adopted on the House floor expands the definition of 

suppression to include fire risk reduction activities, which can include hazardous 

fuels reduction. Fire risk reduction activities are performed when there are no fires 

on the ground. If these activities are allowed by the FLAME Act, the FLAME Fund 

would be at risk of being spent before the fire season ever begins. The Partner Caucus fears the bill would therefore be diverted from its original goal and would not 

solve the suppression funding crisis. Additionally, this amendment muddies the 
48 

lines across several agency programs and could create reporting challenges for the 

agencies. 

The Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Spending Solutions, comprised of more 

than 110 groups, rallied around easing the impacts of increasing fire suppression 

costs on all other aspects of the USDA Forest Service and DOI programs. Over the 

years, all Forest Service programs have been subject to transfers including funds 

from State and Private Forestry, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, National 

Forest System, and Wildland Fire Management. This includes the hazardous fuels 

reduction program and other fire risk reduction and non-fire programs, which are 

depleted on the front end of the budgeting process as money is diverted to fund the 

10-year average for suppression and are subject to transfers of funds later in the 

fire season as fire suppression costs increase. 

The Partner Caucus is focused on addressing the immediate crisis that the ongoing lack of sustainable funding for increasing suppression costs have created for the 

agencies’ and their budgets. Solving this challenge will allow them to meet their 

land management goals, including hazardous fuels reduction. 

Once again, The Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Funding Solutions would 

like to thank the Committee for providing us the opportunity to testify in support 

of S. 561, the Flame Bill. 

RESPONSE OF JAY JENSEN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. We discussed at the hearing the ongoing concern that I and many others have had with the Forest Service’s use of ‘‘acres treated’’ as a key measure of 

the performance of its land managers. At its heart, this may be a personnel management issue, but it has far-reaching consequences for taxpayers, businesses, National 

Forest users, and the health of our forests. I have provided below a small sample 

of statements on this issue that provides some indication not only of what a significant issue this is, but also of how long it has been an issue and how little progress 

has been made by the Forest Service’s leadership to address it. Will you specifically 

describe how you plan to address this problem and whether you will follow the recommendation that the agency stop using ‘‘acres-treated’’ targets and evaluations? 

‘‘Indeed, as the General Accounting Office determined, most of the agency’s so-called measures confuse quantity with quality. For example, the performance measure for the hazardous fuels program is the number of acres 

treated. This measure encourages the agency’s field offices to focus on the 

easiest and least costly areas to maximize the number of acres treated and, 

thus, show high performance. However, many of the top priority areas for 

fuels reduction are in the urban/wildland interface where the cost of treatment is the greatest. This example of a poorly developed performance measure is particularly troubling given the recent fires that have occurred in 

New Mexico and other parts of the Interior West. Funds for hazardous fuels 

reduction need to be focused on the highest priority areas where critical 

issues of human safety and property loss are the most serious. The agency 

must develop performance measures which show not only what the agency 

is doing but also whether it is doing it well. The Committee expects to be 

fully consulted during the development of performance measures that will 

be part of the agency’s budget for the coming year.’’ Senate Committee on 

Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2001, S. Rept. 106-312 at 62-63 (June 22, 2000). 

‘‘To measure progress under the fuels reduction program, the Forest Service and Interior are currently tracking and reporting the total number of 

acres treated nationwide. This practice, however, measures only the number of acres that receive fuels reduction treatments not necessarily whether 

progress is being made in reducing the overall risk of wildfire. Recognizing 

this shortcoming, the Forest Service and Interior are currently developing 

results-oriented performance measures that assess the effect of these treatments in reducing the risk of wildfires.’’ Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing 

Fuels Reduction at 5 (Aug. 2003; GAO-03-0805). 

‘‘The Panel also notes that a paradigm shift in thinking about hazardous 

fuels reduction effectiveness is required and can be started by ceasing to 

use acres treated as a results measurement for program accomplishments.’’ 

Large Fire Suppression Costs: Strategies for Cost Management, A Report to 

the Wildland Fire Leadership Council from the Strategic Issues Panel on 

Fire Suppression Costs at 26 (August 26, 2004). 
49 

‘‘Probably the most glaring disconnect within HFRA is the acres target 

issue. It’s the hard acres versus easy acres calculations, double counting of 

acres and not accounting for real value.’’ Implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, S. Hrg. 109-506 at 45 (July 19, 2006). 

‘‘The SAF encourages the adoption of performance measures that go beyond ‘‘acres treated’’ towards more outcome-based measures that focus on 

the reduced extent or severity of large, stand-replacing wildfires, protection 

of high-value resources, successful protection of communities at-risk, and 

appropriate management responses to specific incidents. . . . Measuring performance by acres of fuel reduction treatments has created inappropriate 

incentives for prioritizing activities to help reduce the occurrence of large 

stand-replacing wildfires. The SAF is concerned that pressures for managers to meet targets for fuels reduction treatments are likely to be directed 

to ‘‘easy’’ acres (i.e., lowest costs and most accessible areas) to meet ‘‘acres 

treated’’ targets and reduce unit costs, rather than ensuring that funding 

is focused and prioritized on the most at-risk acres, resources, and communities.’’ Wildland Fire Management: A Position of the Society of American 

Foresters at 2, 6 (June 7, 2008). 

Answer. We agree that a performance metric which tracks acres treated may not 

be the best way to measure outcomes and we welcome working with Congress to 

better define outcome-based measures of progress. The Forest Service is currently 

working to address these concerns through a number of tools and initiatives. 

The LANDFIRE project, which produces consistent and comprehensive maps and 

data on landscape conditions affecting wildland fires, will provide a baseline set of 

data to assess progress towards meeting wildland fire management goals. The completion of the LANDFIRE data set for the conterminous United States, Alaska, and 

Hawaii is expected this year. An ongoing effort scheduled to be completed in 2010 

will update the LANDFIRE data set to circa 2008 and provide data to allow assessment of landscape changes since 2000. 

The availability of improved analytical tools and updated social and biophysical 

information (e.g. LANDFIRE) is allowing the agency to develop a comprehensive 

strategy to address the wildland fire situation. The comprehensive strategy will provide a broader, more integrated analysis of the factors influencing the wildland fire 

situation than the existing Cohesive Strategy authored in 2006 by the US Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior. The strategy will provide critical information to the agency as it develops and implements the wildland fire management 

program and develops measures to assess program effectiveness. 

The agency is increasing its capability within the Forest Service Activity Tracking 

System (FACTS) to track the locations and extent of fuels treatments using Geographic Information Systems. This spatial capability will help the Forest Service 

characterize the arrangement of fuels treatments and provide an opportunity to assess potential effectiveness on a landscape basis. This is another critical step to understand potential effects of treatment activities. 

We have developed and are refining a fuels treatments effectiveness reporting program that assesses each interaction of a wildfire with a completed hazardous fuels 

treatment project. This program evaluates how fuels treatments affect a wildfire 

that starts in or burns into a fuels treatment. Information gained from this endeavor give us better information to assess the effectiveness of fuel hazard reduction 

techniques and allows us to modify future projects. 

Agency efforts, such as the Joint Fire Science Research Program, are helping us 

with the challenge of establishing quantitative hazard and risk metrics for planning 

and evaluating the potential effectiveness of hazardous fuels reduction treatments. 

These efforts will build the knowledge base for existing programs and tools as well 

as assist in development of an outcome-based management system. 

RESPONSES OF JAY JENSEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

In your testimony both you and Ms. Suh suggested that S. 561 and the Administration’s budget request for an emergency reserve fund are complementary. We are 

having some difficulty understanding that statement and would like you to answer 

the following questions and to provide the data we are requesting. 

Question 1. It is our understanding that large and expensive ‘‘catastrophic’’ fires 

can occur at any time of year; is that your experience? 

Answer. While fires can be large and expensive any time of the year, the chart 

below indicates the overwhelming majority of fires and suppression costs are incurred in the final four months of each fiscal year, in June through September. It 

indicates that 88% of spending and 77% of fires occurred during this timeframe. It 
50 

is also important to note that regularly appropriated suppression funds have never 

been exhausted prior to this timeframe. Using a threshold of fires greater than 300 

acres, in the period 2004 thru 2008, Forests have reported on their Individual Fire 

Reports fires exceeding that threshold through out the year. The following Table 

summarizes this data by month of the reported fire ignition date. 

Question 2a. For each of the last 5 years, please provide a list of the fires that 

transitioned from small (less than 300 acres) to large catastrophic fires. Include in 

that data the name of the fire, the agency or state that managed the land that 

burned, the agency that lead the fire fighting effort, and cost of the fire. 

Answer. Refer to the enclosed spreadsheet and please note: 

• the agency or state that managed the land that burned is represented by column labeled ‘‘Ownership at Origin’’; 

• the agency that led the fire fighting effort is represented by column labeled 

‘‘Protection Agency ’’; 

• Suppression cost is the estimated Fire Suppression Funds in whole dollars expended by the Forest Service. All dollars are nominal, i.e. they have not been 

adjusted for inflation. 

• The fires listed come from the Forest Service Individual Fire Report, FIRESTAT 

reporting system. 

Question 2b. If a reserve account is appropriated that requires either an emergency declaration or one that cannot be expended until all other suppression funds 

have been consumed, please help us understand how a ‘‘catastrophic’’ fire that occurs for example during May would be paid for? 

Answer. According to the FLAME Act, if this fire meets the criteria outlined in 

the Act, and was declared to be an emergency fire by the Secretary; it would be eligible to be funded through the FLAME fund. The agency would need to ensure 

FLAME fund monies are segregated from other suppression funds. At the time of 

the Secretary’s determination, all funds that had previously been obligated on that 

fire would need to be identified and deobligated in the agencies financial management system and then be made again available for future obligation. The agency 

would also have to administratively recode each prior obligation that had been incurred through regular suppression funds to a FLAME fund code. At the field level, 

each resource deployed on the fire would need to receive a new code that ties to 

the FLAME fund. If, however, the fire does not meet the criteria outlined in the 

bill, it would be paid for out of the Fire Operations - Suppression appropriation unless the cumulative suppression costs at that time are projected to exceed the 

amount appropriated in the non reserve fund. As the table above indicates, there 

is a five percent likelihood that a large fire will occur in May, and the likelihood 

of a ‘‘catastrophic’’ fire occurring in May is much rarer than this already low probability. Reflecting the seasonality of fire and the need for accounting during incident 

response, the President’s Contingency Reserve is available when it is most needed 

and requires no special parallel accounting process and structure. 

Question 3. Do you agree that under the concept of the FLAME Act that a fire 

that burns in May before all other appropriated suppression funds have been exhausted could not be paid for from the FLAME reserve account? 

Answer. According to the FLAME Act, the fire under the circumstances described 

could be funded from the FLAME fund, if the fire meets the criteria outlined and 

receives a declaration by the Secretary. Note that the administrative requirements 

listed in the previous response would necessarily apply. 
51 

Question 4. If not, please explain how under the President’s proposal such early 

catastrophic fires could be paid for out of the President’s proposed emergency reserve fire suppression account? 

Answer. As indicated in the response to the previous question and as the table 

above indicates, there is a five percent likelihood that a large fire will occur in May, 

and the likelihood of a ‘‘catastrophic’’ fire occurring in May is much lower than this 

low level. Access to the Contingency Reserve Fund in the President’s budget occurs 

only after normal suppression appropriations are exhausted and other conditions 

are met. Thus the few large fires occurring early in the year would be paid for out 

of the regular suppression account. As the season progressed and if the suppression 

appropriations were exhausted the Contingency Reserve Fund could be accessed to 

fund emergency fire suppression operations. 

Question 5. If 85% of suppression costs can be attributed to 2 or 3 percent of the 

fires; please explain why the Administration has requested a reserve account equal 

to only 23% of the suppression expenditure for the resource agencies, while requesting over $1.2 billion in normal suppression appropriations? 

Answer. The Forest Service has used the 10-year average of all suppression expenditures as the basis for predicting the need for the next appropriation cycle for 

Fire Operations - Suppression funding. The 10-year average for the appropriations 

of FY 2010 = $1,128,505. The Wildland Fire Suppression Contingency Reserve for 

FY 2010 was calculated at 25% of the 10-year average equal to $282,000. 

The written testimony submitted by both departments stated: ‘‘We are also aware 

of S. 561, the FLAME Act, introduced by this Committee, and H.R. 1404, introduced 

in the House, that aims to accomplish the separation between routine wildland fire 

management and large, intense fire events. We appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of the FLAME Act to address the current problems related to the way firefighting costs are funded. The Administration supports the FLAME Act if amended 

to provide for a contingency reserve, as outlined in the President’s budget. We believe that the Administration’s budget proposal can address the problem.’’ 

Question 6. Are you saying that you will not support the FLAME Act as introduced in the Senate unless the appropriators adopt the President’s budget proposal 

for a small reserve account and a large appropriated suppression account? 

Answer. We are saying the FLAME Act should be amended to reflect a contingency reserve for the reasons outlined in the response to Questions 1 and 2. For 

2010, $1,128,505 in suppression funding is requested in the President’s budget to 

fund the predicted wildland fire suppression activities or the 10 year average. It is 

unclear whether or not the FLAME Act will be authorized in its current form; however the Contingency Reserve fund identified in the President’s budget helps address the challenges of budgeting for fire suppression. 

Question 7. In answering questions at the hearing you indicated that the report 

on a strategy for dealing with fixed wing fire retardant planes had been completed 

some time ago and that the Administration would like to review it and release it 

by the end of the year. Were you referring to the calendar year or the fiscal year? 

Answer. The calendar year. For details, see answer to Question 8. 

Question 8. Given that OMB and the Department have had the draft plan for at 

least four years can you tell us why it would take until December to make any 

modifications that you believe need to be made and then transmit the report to the 

relevant committees? 

Answer. The Forest Service, in cooperation with our interagency partners, has 

completed an extensive Interagency Aviation Strategy to help define the need for 

replacement of these critical firefighting assets. The Department is currently using 

that document to frame a strategic discussion about the future of aviation resources. 

This issue is complex in scope and will require a substantial investment of federal 

resources. Careful coordination and planning with our partners in the interagency 

wildfire community will enhance the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of our future 

aviation fleet. The Forest Service and the Department anticipate working towards 

completing that discussion and review by the end of June 2010, which will be in 

accordance with our commitments made in response to the recent OIG audit ‘‘Forest 

Service’s Replacement Plan for Firefighting Aerial Resources.’’ 

Question 9. Both you and Ms. Suh indicated that cost containment of fire fighting 

is critical to an overall strategy of dealing with the escalating costs of fire. 

Please provide the Committee with a specific list of cost containment provisions 

that could be added to the FLAME Act (S. 561) that the Administration can support? 

Answer. The Forest Service has been implementing risk management protocols to 

help us address incident management strategies. We would be happy to discuss 

these efforts and the establishment of a Contingency Reserve as requested by the 

President with the Committee. 
52 

Question 10. Over the years, most of the fire borrowing that has occurred has 

been undertaken by the Forest Service. Fire borrowing is rarely needed at the Department of Interior because the BLM and other agencies are allowed to tap into 

other department funds when needed. In the case of the Forest Service fire borrowing was not a problem until the late 1990’s when the K-V and BD trust funds 

were no longer sufficient to cover the needed borrowing. 

Given the differing rules at the Department of the Interior and the Department 

of Agriculture please tell us why transferring the Forest Service to the Department 

of the Interior wouldn’t solve the fire borrowing problem faced by the Forest Service? 

Answer. Moving the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior raises cost 

and workload management opportunities and issues. The General Accountability office (GAO) reported in February of this year, if the Forest Service were moved into 

Interior, USDA and Interior would need to consider a number of cultural, organizational, and legal factors and related transition costs. The GAO report also indicated 

that a move would provide little efficiency in the short term and require resolution 

of complex legal issues, although long-term efficiencies may be gained. 

Combining the fire-related functions of the Forest Service and Interior agencies 

would not have a material effect on either the effectiveness or the cost of firefighting 

because the agencies already operate in a unified manner. Fire management operations and firefighting resources and crews are integrated. There are strengths in 

our current approach; on the fire line DOI and USDA employees work interchangeably. Another example is the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, there representatives of the five Federal agencies collaborate with State and local representatives on key strategies and decisions. 

Question 11. You indicated that the Forest Service is going to take a much more 

aggressive stance on the treatment of hazardous fuels. 

Could you provide the committee with the specific steps you will be directing to 

accomplish what you have committed to? 

Answer. We have incorporated updated information in the Hazardous Fuels 

Prioritization and Allocation System. This system allows us to prioritize and allocate 

funding to implement treatments in the wildland urban interface and in areas with 

high wildland fire potential. We have adjusted our national performance expectations to give our regions the ability to implement the complex and expensive 

projects that are required to mitigate fuel hazards in the wildland urban interface. 

We continue to develop methodologies to enable field units to locate and implement 

hazardous fuel mitigation projects that effectively change potential fire behavior 

within priority landscapes. We are increasing national monitoring efforts of field 

programs to ensure project level treatments are conducted in high priority landscapes. 

The availability of improved analytical tools and updated social and biophysical 

information (e.g. LANDFIRE) is allowing the agency to develop a comprehensive 

strategy to address the wildland fire situation. The comprehensive strategy will provide a broader, more integrated analysis of the factors influencing the wildland fire 

situation than the existing Cohesive Strategy authored in 2006 by the US Forest 

Service and the Department of Interior. The strategy will provide critical information to the agency as it develops and implements the wildland fire management program. 

Question 12. Senator Wyden suggested that there has been double counting in the 

reporting of forest health treatments and he further suggested that low priority 

acres that don’t need treatment get treated again and again. You did not reject the 

Senator’s accusation or rebut them. 

Do you admit to double or triple counting of prescribed burns? 

Answer. Acres that are treated by prescribed burning are counted only once for 

hazardous fuels reduction. In some cases, fuels treatments accomplish multiple objectives (such as wildlife habitat improvement and reduction of hazardous fuels). 

However, even in those cases, the fuels reduction from those treatments is counted 

only once. 

In some cases, more than one type of treatment must be implemented before wildfire potential is reduced to an acceptable level. For example a mechanical fuel treatment (e.g. thinning) might be conducted to create conditions which allow a prescribed burn to be implemented safely and effectively. We record accomplishments 

for each project activity that brings us closer to the final objective of mitigating 

wildfire hazard. It is important to track all of the treatments that we complete so 

that we have an objective account of how resources were used. 

Question 13. Do you agree that low priority acres are treated while higher priority 

acres do not get treated? 
53 

Answer. No. The agency strives to treat the highest priority acres that benefit not 

only the hazardous fuels program, but other agency programs, as well. Our best opportunity to protect communities and valuable resources from the damaging effects 

of fire is to foster restoration of fire-adapted landscapes, reduce hazardous fuels 

through active management, aligning agency programs, including wildlife and watershed protection, and leveraging resources to use the fullest capability of the agency and its partners. By aligning all objectives of the agency and its partners, we 

can achieve multiple benefits such as hazardous fuels reduction, landscape restoration, and community protection objectives, as well. 

The Hazardous Fuels Prioritization Allocation System (HFPAS) helps us allocate 

regional funding to implement programs that treat high priority acres benefiting the 

hazardous fuels program and also accomplish integrated resource objectives. HFPAS 

places priority on the wildland urban interface, wildfire potential, protection of various resources (such as commercial timber and municipal water sources), potential 

use of residual biomass, and opportunities to coordinate treatments with our land 

management partners. Selection of fuel hazard mitigation projects at the field level 

is affected by resource and collaboration efforts at the local level but is expected to 

remain consistent with national priorities. 

Question 14. What steps will you undertake end the double and triple counting 

and to ensure that the highest priority acres are treated first? 

Answer. The agency tracks multiple entries for hazardous fuels treatments and 

reports on the acreage accomplishments each time an area is treated because each 

of those multiple entries move landscapes toward a desired condition. Regional allocations and targets are based on the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation 

System (HFPAS). This system allows us to prioritize and allocate funding to implement treatments in the wildland urban interface and in areas with high wildland 

fire potential. We have adjusted our national performance expectations to give our 

regions the ability to implement the complex and expensive projects that are required to mitigate fuel hazards in the wildland urban interface. We continue to develop methodologies to enable field units to locate and implement hazardous fuel 

mitigation projects that effectively change potential fire behavior within priority 

landscapes. We are increasing national monitoring efforts of field programs to ensure project level treatments are conducted in high priority landscapes. 

RESPONSES OF JAY JENSEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. During the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing 

on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, you and I discussed the U.S. Forest Service allocation 

of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I asked how the agency 

intends to make up for refusing to fund a single project through the U.S. Forest 

Service in Wyoming. You indicated that the agency would make an effort to address 

forest health problems in Wyoming. Yet, you failed to mention that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was preparing to release additional ARRA funds that very day, 

none of which will be allocated to Wyoming. 

a. Were you unaware that the Department was preparing the release of ARRA 

funds at the very moment that you and I were discussing the issue? Please explain 

how this breach of the duties of your office came to pass. 

Answer. ARRA projects have been grouped based on the kind of work being accomplished and funding is being released for each category of work. In addition to 

the announcement on July 22, 2009, that $180,000 in funds was sent to Wyoming 

for restoration of an historic facility in Cody; we provided an additional $6.375 million to the State. Specifically, $950,000 in capital improvement and maintenance 

funds have been approved for facilities projects. In addition, $5.425 million in 

wildland fire management funds have been approved for hazardous fuels reduction 

projects - $3.525 million for work on Federal land, and $1.9 million for work on 

State and private lands. 

Question 2. After conclusion of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on fire preparedness, and following the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s release of $274 million in ARRA funds, none of which will be spent in Wyoming, the Department also released information increasing the index of fire danger 

on national forests in Wyoming. 

a. Were you unaware that national forests you hold oversight duty for and upon 

which you were commenting on that very day were suffering increased fire danger? 

Answer. ARRA funding, as delivered by Congress, has a primary focus on areas 

of economic distress, as measured by unemployment indicators. Taking into account 

Wyoming’s long-term unemployment, wildfire, and Forest health risks resulted in 

$5.425 million being allocated to the State to address hazardous fuels reduction and 

ecosystem restoration. 
54 

In addition to ARRA funds, annual program funds are allocated to address high 

priority wildland fire situations. These funds allow us, in coordination with our 

partners, to prepare for wildfire incidents and to reduce hazardous fuels on federal, 

state and private lands. For fiscal year (FY) 2009, the Rocky Mountain Region, including Wyoming, received $28 million for fire preparedness and $21 million for hazardous fuels reduction on federal lands. Nearly $5 million was also provided to the 

region for fire assistance grants on state and private lands. An additional $18 million of FY 2008 supplemental funding was provided to the region in 2009 for fuels 

reduction activities ($5 million on federal lands and $13 million on state and private 

lands). 

Question 3. Is the U.S. Department of Agriculture aware of the unprecedented forest health event occurring in Wyoming due to bark beetle infestation? 

Answer. Yes. The bark beetle outbreak that is occurring throughout the western 

states affected nearly 8 million acres in 2008. In Wyoming, more than 1.1 million 

acres of pine forests were impacted by the mountain pine beetle. Older, dense and 

homogeneous stands, combined with recent droughts and warmer temperatures, 

have favored bark beetle population increases. The extent of infestations precludes 

widespread treatments. The Forest Service and state partners are focusing on treatments in high priority areas such as recreational areas, water sources and ecologically significant areas. Forest Service has funded management actions to reduce 

forest susceptibility to beetle outbreaks (such as reducing stand density and managing for greater diversity of age-class, size and species), protect high value trees 

(by application of registered pesticides, attractants or anti-attractants), and promote 

safety along roads and power line rights-of-way. The Bark Beetle Incident Management Team, established in the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region, coordinates 

activities to reduce hazardous fuels, capture the commercial value of trees to the 

maximum extent possible (i.e., timber sales and stewardship contracts), spraying 

trees in campgrounds, and removal of hazardous trees in developed recreation areas, 

along roads and trails. 

Question 4. Is the U.S. Department of Agriculture aware of the increased danger 

of catastrophic fire, erosion and other ecological threats due unchecked to bark beetle infestation? 

Answer. Yes, see response to question 3. 

Question 5. Given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has not dedicated any 

ARRA funds, is it the position of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the fire 

threat in federal forests in Wyoming is not a priority for the Administration? 

Answer. See answer to question 2a. 

Question 6. Please provide details of where and when the people of Wyoming will 

see on-the-ground results of additional resources dedicated by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture to combat forest health threats? 

a. What additional resources will be provided? 

Answer. ARRA funding is being allocated to Forest Service field offices and partners, including State Foresters, within days of being released. Field office personnel 

and partners then prepare the necessary contracts, grants and agreements to get 

the work started. Based on the funding allocations discussed in questions 1 and 2a, 

Wyoming residents should see related work starting within the next few months 

and continuing for one to two years into the future. ARRA funds represent only a 

portion of the Forest Service budget. Through the Forest Service’s other programs, 

much more work is being conducted to combat forest health threats and wildfire. 

Our Rocky Mountain Region is working closely with Wyoming State Forester Bill 

Crapser to address forest health issues in the State. We will continue to work in 

partnership to aggressively manage these concerns. 

[Responses to the following questions were not received at the 

time the hearing went to press:] 

QUESTIONS FOR RHEA SUH FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. At the hearing you invited the Senators and their staff to attend a 

session to examine the development of budgets to address the forest health crisis 

in Colorado. 

Would you please provide me logistical details on the time and place for that exercise so I can ensure my staff has the opportunity to observe those meetings? And 

thank you for your kind offer. 

Question 2. In your testimony both you and Mr. Jensen suggested that S. 561 and 

the Administration’s budget request for an emergency reserve fund are complimen-
55 

tary. We are having some difficulty understanding that statement and would like 

you to answer the following questions and to provide the data we are requesting. 

It is our understanding that large and expensive ‘‘catastrophic’’ fires can occur at 

any time of year; is that your experience? 

Question 3. For each of the last 5 years, please provide a list of the fires that 

transitioned from small (less than 300 acres) to large catastrophic fires. Include in 

that data the name of the fire, the agency or state that managed the land that 

burned, the agency that lead the fire fighting effort, and cost of the fire. 

If a reserve account is appropriated that requires either an emergency declaration 

or one that cannot be expended until all other suppression funds have been consumed, please help us understand how a ‘‘catastrophic’’ fire that occurs for example 

during May would be paid for? 

Question 4. Do you agree that under the concept of the FLAME Act that a fire 

that burns in May before all other appropriated suppression funds have been exhausted could not be paid for from the FLAME reserve account? 

Question 5. If not, please explain how under the President’s proposal such early 

catastrophic fires could be paid for out of the President’s proposed emergency reserve fire suppression account? 

Question 6. If 85% of suppression costs can be attributed to 2 or 3 percent of the 

fires; please explain why the Administration has requested a reserve account equal 

to only 23% of the suppression expenditure for the resource agencies, while requesting over $1.2 billion in normal suppression appropriations? 

Question 7. The written testimony submitted by both departments stated: ‘‘We are 

also aware of S.561, the FLAME Act, introduced by this Committee, and H.R. 1404, 

introduced in the House, that aims to accomplish the separation between routine 

wildland fire management and large, catastrophic fire events. We appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of the FLAME Act to address the current problems related to 

the way firefighting costs are funded. The Administration supports the FLAME Act 

if amended to provide for a contingency reserve, as outlined in the President’s budget. We believe that the Administration’s budget proposal can address the problem.’’ 

Are you saying that you will not support the FLAME Act as introduced in the 

Senate unless the appropriators adopt the President’s budget proposal for a small 

reserve account and a large appropriated suppression account? 

Question 8. Both you and Mr. Jensen indicated that cost containment of fire fighting is critical to an overall strategy of dealing with the escalating costs of fire. 

Please provide the Committee with a specific list of cost containment provisions 

that could be added to the FLAME Act (S. 561) that the Administration can support? 

Question 9. Over the years, most of the fire borrowing that has occurred has been 

undertaken by the Forest Service. Fire borrowing is rarely needed at the Department of Interior because the BLM and other agencies are allowed to tap into other 

department funds when needed. In the case of the Forest Service fire borrowing was 

not a problem until the late 1990’s when the K-V and BD trust funds were no longer 

sufficient to cover the needed borrowing. 

Given the differing rules at the Department of the Interior and the Department 

of Agriculture please tell us why transferring the Forest Service to the Department 

of the Interior wouldn’t solve the fire borrowing problem faced by the Forest Service? 

(57) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter expresses our support for S. 561—the Federal 

Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act). 

The existing system for financing wildland fire suppression on the public lands 

simply does not work. It has resulted in intolerable reductions in the capacity of the 

U.S. Forest Service to carryout its important missions in the management of the 

National Forest System, Research, and State and Private Forestry. It is essential 

that funding for the rising cost of wildland fire suppression be separated from the 

regular budget of the agency. 

Fortunately, you and the other sponsors of the FLAME Act have recognized the 

problem. We believe this legislation, coupled with the funding outlined in the President’s 2010 budget will stop the decline. This will permit the process of rebuilding 

the capacity of the Forest Service to provide proper stewardship for our Nation’s forests and grasslands to begin. 

A key element in the implementation of the FLAME Act is the declaration that 

a wildland fire is eligible for funding from the FLAME Fund. It is essential that 

responsibility for this determination be delegated to line officers on-the-ground. 

Only they are in a position to observe fire behavior (intensity, rate of spread, predictability), evaluate fuels (type, loading, and moisture content) and predict likely 

outcomes. They are also in the best position to recognize and evaluate the threat 

to lives, property, and natural resource values. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the effort that you and the other sponsors of this 

legislation have devoted to this issue. It is important that this funding issue be resolved this year. We urge enactment of the FLAME Act. 

Sincerely, 

R. MAX PETERSON, 

Chief, Forest Service, 1979–1987. 

F. DALE ROBERTSON, 

Chief, Forest Service, 1987–1993. 

JACK WARD THOMAS, 

Chief, Forest Service, 1993–1996. 

MICHAEL P. DOMBECK, 

Chief, Forest Service, 1997–2001. 

DALE N. BOSWORTH, 

Chief, Forest Service, 2001–2007. 

INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC, July 21, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR SENATORS BINGAMAN AND MURKOWSKI: Thank you for convening the hearing today on wildland fire issues, to call attention to this critically important issue. 

While the issue of wildland fire should never be set aside, the timing is near perfect to again remind and ignite public and political interest in the matter. Billions 
58 

of dollars are being spent annually to protect the lives and infrastructure of the 

more than 100 million people, in 65,000 communities, living in wildfire prone areas 

(the wildland/urban interface, or WUI). 

The International Code Council (Code Council) is the proactive leader in promoting WUI fire community planning as well as wildfire/urban interface code adoption. The Code Council has a solid working relationship with over 50 national organizations that support working together ont his important issue. We publish the 

only code that deals directly with this issue, the 2009 International Wildland-Urban 

Interface Code (IWUIC). 

In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of current WUI efforts, the Code Council 

took the lead in establishing the National Blue Ribbon Panel on Wildland/Urban 

Interface to evaluate current fire prevention programs and education. The Panel 

found that very few homeowners and communities are equipped with appropriate 

knowledge or plans to handle a wildland fire crisis. Current efforts by government 

agencies, states and local jurisdictions, while beneficial, have not shown substantial 

reductions int he numbers of fires, homes destroyed or costs incurred. 

The Code Council promotes the adoption and enforcement of building and fire 

safety codes that will better equip WUI homeowners during a fire event. Currently, 

less than 10% of WUI communities have any kind of fire code. The Code Council 

wishes to promote code adoption, enforcement and better inter-agency relations between the private sector, local, state and federal agencies. 

The Code Council is available to the Committee and its staff at any time to provide information and resources to help deal with this issue. If the Committee staff 

would like complimentary copies of the 2009 International Wildland-Urban Interface 

Code, please contact me. 

Best Regards, 

SARA C. YERKES, 

Senior Vice President. 

STATEMENT OF CASEY JUDD, BUSINESS MANAGER, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONWIDE

MEMBERSHIP OF THE FEDERAL WILDLAND FIRE SERVICE ASSOCIATION, INKOM, ID 

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Murkowski, members of the Committee and interested parties, we are proud and honored to offer this written testimony on behalf of our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters employed by all five federal land management 

agencies. Further, we look forward to a renewed interest in wildland firefighter 

issues with the change in Administration, the selections of Secretary Vilsack and 

Secretary Salazar along with Deputy Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, USDA, Mr. Jay Jensen. 

Since 2006, the FWFSA has been afforded the honor and opportunity to provide 

both written and oral testimony before this committee and others from the perspective of the true experts in wildland firefighting.the firefighters. Our organization 

boasts a diverse membership inclusive of those occupying all fire positions in all five 

land management agencies from entry-level firefighter to Fire Management Officer 

(FMO) and all others in between. This diversity has afforded us the opportunity to 

educate Congress on the realities ‘‘in the field’’ of the land management agency fire 

programs. Not only have we previously identified issues facing our firefighters, we 

have also offered workable solutions to effect positive change and make the fire programs not only stronger but more efficient and cost effective for the American taxpayer. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Noting the new Administration and leadership at the Department of Interior and 

Department of Agriculture, the testimony provided jointly by DOI & the USDA 

reads eerily similar to testimony provided by previous Administration officials over 

many years. 

A reference to similar levels of resources as in 2008 should be cause for concern. 

Although 2009 has in fact been relatively mild so far, 2008 saw a staggering 1000+ 

fire starts over just a few days in Northern California alone. Despite ‘‘strategic centralized management’’ and the use of a variety of scientific models, many orders for 

federal wildland firefighting resources went unfilled. We have previously testified to 

the lack of resources in preparation of the fire season and have provided members 

of this committee with previous years’ (inclusive of 2008) ‘‘unable to fill lists’’ (UTFs) 

from Geographic Coordination Centers (GACC). During the initial years of the National Fire Plan and the ‘‘build up’’ to the Most Efficient Level (MEL) of resources, 
59 

even heavy fire years saw UTF lists only a few lines long. In recent years, inclusive 

of 2008, the lists were pages and pages long indicating a clear lack of resources 

needed to meet the wildfire challenge. 

This has not changed for 2009. In fact federal wildland firefighters continue to 

leave the federal system for other fire agencies for greater pay & benefits. The loss 

of these firefighters and the Agency(s) failure to address them were brought to the 

attention of Senator Feinstein and others in early 2006 and again in person in December of 2007 by the FWFSA, referring to the Forest Service fire program in California as ‘‘imploding.’’ As a result of the data and information provided to Congress 

by the FWFSA, Senator Feinstein and others not only demanded that the Forest 

Service address the firefighter retention issue, Congress also appropriated $25 million for retention programs. 

CLIMATE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE

Historically, Congress has relied on ‘‘experts’’ to explain the skyrocketing costs of 

wildfire suppression. Oddly enough, more often than not, these experts have not included those that actually perform the job of wildland firefighting. Experts providing 

insight have included many with PHDs, members of ‘‘Think Tanks’’ etc., who, by 

and large, suggest that climate and WUI are the main causes of wildfire suppression cost increases. 

With all due respect to these experts, firefighters disagree on the catalysts for increased suppression costs. While we agree that climate and WUI are factors, we believe that it is fire program policy and management that is the primary cause of 

needless suppression costs and the oft sought after Emergency Supplemental Appropriation. These fire program policies and the management thereof have caused suppression costs to spiral out of control to the point that the 10-year average for wildfire suppression used in the budget formulation has been artificially inflated and 

rendered useless as a tool for proper budgeting. We are unclear as to whether the 

reference to ‘‘management framework’’ in the testimony of the DOI and USDA as 

it relates to factors leading to rising costs is similar to what we are referencing. 

PROGRAM POLICY & MANAGEMENT

The Forest Service is the largest employer of federal wildland firefighters. As such 

we will utilize its fire program policies and management as a basis for our explanation for rising costs. 

The Forest Service is in the midst of an identity crisis. The agency has now had 

3 different Chiefs in the last three years. As a land management agency, the leadership instinctually holds close to its land management agency role. As a result, despite being well into the 21st century and employing the largest fire department in 

the world, the Agency leadership has held fast to archaic pay and personnel policies 

with respect to its firefighters and continues to try and manage the fire program 

as it did 30-40 years ago despite the increasing complexities. 

It is clear that the Western United States is home to the longest wildfire seasons 

(yearlong), the most ferocious, dangerous and deadly wildfires in history. As a result, Forest Service firefighters in these western states, especially California, have, 

with little help historically from the Agency leadership in Washington, done what 

was necessary of any fire organization, progress. This progress has been absolutely 

critical for dealing with today’s wildfires and multi-agency cooperation yet has been 

repeatedly criticized by Agency leadership. Rather than recognizing it for what it 

is, progress, Forest Service leadership has considered such actions an effort by FIRE 

to break away from the land management agency. As a result, most Forest Service 

firefighters see policy changes in the fire program as a way for the leadership to 

‘‘rein in’’ firefighters. 

CONSEQUENCES

The management of the Forest Service fire program has created a vicious cycle 

resulting in the wasting of hundreds of millions of tax dollars on suppression costs, 

namely expensive, un-necessary non-federal resources. 

First and foremost, fire program policies and the management thereof, inclusive 

of the control of the fire preparedness, suppression and hazardous fuels budgets, is 

the domain of Agency ‘‘Line Officers’’ most of whom have little to no wildfire experience or expertise. In today’s day and age with the complexities of wildfires, it is unconscionable for those with such limited experience or expertise to be managing 

such a significant program and making policies for firefighters. 

Such a situation would be tantamount to any major metropolitan city in the nation having its City fire department managed by the City’s Parks & Recreation Department. It simply makes no sense. 
60 

The consequences of these Line Officers having control over fire budgets is that 

many of the dollars appropriated by Congress for fire preparedness, fire suppression 

and hazardous fuels reduction do not end up being utilized for the purposes intended by Congress. 

The irony is that the same voices who complain about budget transfers to pay for 

FIRE, are the same voices who skim significant dollars off the top of these budgets 

to pay for many non-fire projects. 

THE EFFECTS ON THE FIRE SEASON & COSTS

Several significant issues have come to a confluence since 2006. Many firefighters 

have left the agency for better pay and benefits or retired early, exit interviews indicating they are fed up with the management of the fire program by those with little 

fire experience. 

In turn, the Agency has done nothing to address the archaic pay & personnel policies that have encumbered these firefighters for over two decades. More importantly, even after the FWFSA and the National federation of Federal Employees 

(NFFE) have brought these issues to the forefront, the Agency has done little to 

stem the tide of losses of firefighters. Thus for the past few years, at the beginning 

of the season there are fewer federal fire fighting resources available with no effort 

on the part of the Agency to rectify the situation. 

Add to that the use of FIRE funds for non-fire projects by Line Officers. The use 

of fire preparedness funds obviously reduces the federal wildland fire fighting resources in the field as envisioned by the National Fire Plan. The use of hazardous 

fuels dollars means less acres treated . . . a well documented issue with this and 

other committees. 

Consequently as the fire season progresses, the federal resources that should be 

available are not. The only alternative is the costly alternative... over-reliance 

on significantly more expensive non-federal resources. As a result of these more expensive resources being used, the fire suppression budget is exhausted by the end 

of summer with typically October & even November being heavy fire months in 

California. 

As a result, the Agency annually comes to Congress with its hand out for a supplemental emergency appropriation in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars, 

suggesting to Congress that it’s been a tough year. Although the costs and consequences of non-federal fire resources has been addressed by the FWFSA for several years, our position has recently been validated in the FISCAL YEAR 2008 

LARGE-COST FIRE INDEPENDENT REVIEW chartered by the U.S. Secretary of 

Agriculture and issued this month (July 2009). 

Losses of federal wildland firefighters on their own volition and diversion of fire 

funding by non-fire Line Officers has led to this over-reliance on non-federal resources. The FWFSA has been asked by several in Congress why the Agency(s) 

would do business this way. Our response is simple; little to no congressional oversight. With no oversight, there is little incentive for either the federal agencies or 

non-federal fire agencies to be cost-effective. In fact, not only does the federal government pick up the vast majority of costs associated with these wildfires, the Fire 

Management Assistance Grant Program (FMAGs) administered through FEMA provides non-federal fire agencies with a disincentive to be cost effective. The lack of 

incentives to be cost effective is also outlined in the aforementioned Large-Cost fire 

report. 

It has only been recently, within the past 3 years, that some in Congress have 

started to ask tougher questions about the fiscal management of the fire programs. 

Despite these tougher questions, firefighters see little change in Business as Usual. 

When agencies come before Congress in the Fall for an Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriation, few questions are asked. 

For several years the FWFSA has sought to engage the leadership of the Forest 

Service in an effort to work with the agency to make its fire program stronger yet 

more efficient and cost-effective. We have not only identified the issues, we have 

also offered simply solutions to many complex problems. 

We are hopeful that with Secretary Vilsack’s selection of Tom Tidwell to replace 

Chief Kimbell, the FWFSA and its firefighters will no longer be summarily ignored 

by the agency leadership. 

SOLUTIONS

The Agency must acknowledge it has the biggest and best fire organization in the 

world and recognize that it needs to be progressive and prepared for the wildfires 

of the future. In order to do this they must address long-standing fundamental 
61 

issues of pay, benefits and working conditions for its firefighters in order to retain 

those firefighters that the American taxpayer has a substantial investment in. 

Further, FIRE funding should be used specifically for its intended purpose. The 

10-year average should be abolished for budgetary purposes. Instead, changes to the 

organizational structure of the FIRE program must be made. The Agency Fire & 

Aviation Management Director (FAM) along with his/her Regional FAM and Forest 

FIRE Planners and FMOs should be tasked with not only making FIRE policy but 

allocating the FIRE budgets. We are convinced that unless FIRE personnel are in 

charge of developing and implementing FIRE policy and administering FIRE funding, we all will continue to see skyrocketing suppression costs. 

Non-federal fire suppression costs should be cut over a 3 year pilot period: 10% 

the first year; 25% the second year and 35% the third year. 

The idea is that as we retain federal wildland firefighters through the reform of 

pay & personnel policies, we make the federal response to wildfires stronger. Further, having well qualified FIRE personnel making FIRE policy and administering 

the FIRE budgets will no doubt lead to better fiscal management. Additionally, ensuring fire preparedness funding is used specifically for that purpose, the proper 

number of federal resources (proper spending and firefighter retention) as envisioned by the National Fire Plan will be in place to keep fires small. Having the 

proper number of less-expensive federal resources in place will allow the agencies 

to reduce their over reliance (we are not advocating the wholesale elimination of 

non-federal resources from the wildfire landscape) on higher-priced resources thus 

saving the American taxpayer significant sums in suppression spending. That in 

turn will reduce the need for an annual Emergency Supplemental Appropriation 

and save even more money. 

Such changes and reforms will no doubt be met with resistance by some in the 

Agency. However we remain convinced that Congress has an obligation to the American taxpayer to ensure its federal agencies and the management of huge sums of 

money are done in the most effective and efficient manner. The status quo will only 

continue to allow for higher suppression costs, more excuses and more promises that 

the Agency is adopting cost-cutting measures which never fully materialize. 

We remain hopeful that Congress and the new leadership at DOI, USDA and the 

Forest Service will provide the honor and opportunity for their Nation’s federal 

wildland firefighters to be an integral part of progressive change not only for firefighters but for those they risk their lives for so often. 

Submitted in Memory of Thomas Marovich-Wildland Firefighter lost on July 21, 

2009. 

Æ