Statement of
Casey Judd, Business Manager, on Behalf of the
Federal Wildland Fire Service Association
Provided to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Concerning Wildland Fire Suppression Cost Containment & P.L. 107-203
January 30, 2007

INTRODUCTION
The Federal Wildland Fire Service Association (FWFSA) is a nation-wide employee association whose membership is primarily comprised of federal wildland firefighters employed by all five land-management agencies. Our diverse membership includes firefighters occupying all positions within each Agency’s fire program from entry-level firefighters to Fire Management Officers (FMOs). This diverse membership provides the Association with experience and expertise within the wildland firefighting community unparalled in the country. It is because of this experience & expertise that the FWFSA believes it imperative for Congress to hear the voice of our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters as it relates to the ever-increasing costs of wildfire suppression.

CAUSATION OF SKYROCKETING FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS
With the utmost respect for those providing oral testimony before the Committee on January 30, 2007, the federal wildland firefighters in the field; those risking their lives, cutting the lines, ordering resources, commanding the incidents and protecting our Nation’s natural resources as well as its citizens’ lives & property believe the root causes of ever-increasing suppression costs have far more to do with Agency fire program policy than elements presented to the Committee by others such as weather, WUI, fuels, the number of fire starts etc.

While the FWFSA agrees that the aforementioned elements are just that, elements that affect such costs, their role is over-stated by the Agencies with respect to the common sense causes of increasing costs. The elements and solutions thereto offered by the Agency and others are complex. Their recommendations, having been suggested year after year are also complex and would necessitate an extraordinary level of commitment, communication and cooperation with a multitude of local, state & federal agencies. The fact that such elements and their solutions are offered year after year bears this opinion out. Such solutions/recommendations, if plausible, would take years to exhibit any effect on lowering costs. Rather, firefighters believe there are a number of far less complex solutions to the costs of wildfire suppression. The simple solutions offered in this testimony to the increasing fire suppression costs not only benefit our firefighters but our Nation’s taxpayers and could lead to annual savings of tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in wildfire suppression costs.

CAUSES & EFFECTS
Although we expect the Agencies and other bureaucratic “experts” to suggest our observations and solutions are too simplistic, we believe Congress is looking to find solutions that can be achieved promptly providing both short & long-term corrections to the wildfire suppression cost problem.

The causes & solutions offered by the firefighters doing the work; those that are in the field and who thus have a significantly better vantage point in identifying costs than those in Washington, are in fact simple, yet provide prompt, long-lasting relief to the problem(s) being addressed. However, the ideas presented in this testimony cannot work without the express intent & expectation of Congress for the Agencies to commit to a more cost-effective and cost-efficient way of doing business.

AGENCY POLICIES INCREASE COSTS NEEDLESSLY
Our testimony focuses on the policies of the Forest Service as it is the largest employer of federal wildland firefighters in the country. The following points illustrate some of the policies/actions of the Agency that adversely impact the cost of fire suppression and in fact, the overall management of the fire program.
? Historically, the Forest Service leadership fails to seek sufficient funding from the Administration & Congress to fund all of its projects leading to budget transfers.
? Maintaining archaic pay & personnel policies creating severe recruitment & retention problems
? Over-reliance on non-federal resources
? Diversion of fire preparedness funds to pay for non-fire projects
? Those making fire policy have little, if any, fire experience
? Failure to staff at 100% Most Efficient Level (MEL)
? Regional Offices taking the responsibility of hiring firefighters away from Forest Fire Management Officers causing significant & needless delays in recruitment & promotions.

BUDGET TRANSFERS
For years, Congress has chided the Chief of the Forest Service for borrowing from non-fire projects to pay for fire and now, borrowing from fire to pay for non-fire projects. The Agency has consistently accepted budget proposals from the Administration and suggested to Congress that it (the Agency) can accomplish its goals with such funds. The fact of the matter is the Agency leadership has simply failed to submit realistic funding requests to meet all of its needs. Most importantly however, the FWFSA firmly believes that the funding levels currently appropriated & provided by Congress to the Agency for fire suppression & preparedness are adequate and would not need to be supplemented if fiscal management was a priority.

ARCHAIC PAY & PERSONNEL POLICIES
The land management agencies, in concert with The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) continue to encumber our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters with archaic pay & personnel policies. A number of reports from a variety of sources illustrate the severe retention & recruitment problems resulting from antiquated pay and benefit policies. Recruitment & Retention (R&R) problems have led to the weakening of our Nation’s federal wildland firefighting force infrastructure and has resulted in the over-reliance by the land-management agencies on significantly higher-priced non-federal firefighting resources.

DIVERSION OF FIRE PREPAREDNESS FUNDS
Perhaps the most egregious action on the part of the Forest Service as it relates to the increasing costs of suppression has been the systematic diversion of fire preparedness funds to non-fire projects. Over the last several years, amounts in excessive of several hundred million dollars have been siphoned off by the Forest Service Headquarters (WO), Regional Offices, Forest Supervisors, District Rangers and other “line officers” from funds appropriated by Congress for fire preparedness. Whether such funds have been used to help finance the creation of the “white elephant” centralized human resources center in New Mexico, or gone to pay administrative costs, cost pools etc., the fact of the matter is, preparedness funds that we believe Congress has intended to be used for fire preparedness are not getting to those responsible for ensuring preparedness resources are in place…our forest fire management officers.

Funds from the fire preparedness budget are designed to provide for the resources necessary to be properly prepared for any given fire season. Such resources include temporary firefighters which often amount to approximately 46% of fire season staffing; dozers, dispatchers etc.

When Congress approved the National Fire Plan (NFP) several years ago, part of its spirit & intent was to focus on preparedness so as to reduce suppression costs. It is sound reasoning. Having sufficient fire preparedness resources in place during the fire season naturally promotes the ability of firefighters to keep fires small and subsequently, less costly. Having proper preparedness resources in place also reduces the risks to the health & safety of our firefighters and those they protect. Those attending the hearings on January 30 viewed “pie charts” clearly showing that suppression expenditures far exceeded preparedness expenditures. This is simply upside down.

Mr. Mark Rey, USDA Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment has testified to Congress that “while preparedness allocations have been reduced, suppression funding is up.” This is a direct contradiction to the intent of the National Fire Plan and is tantamount to spending considerable sums to search for the proverbial horse after it has left the barn, rather than spending less to ensure the barn door was closed and locked in the first place.

In fact, the Agency continues to tout its “98% initial attack rate” in its congressional testimony. Despite this testimony, no data can be found to support their claim. Quite candidly, a 98% IA rate is likely unattainable if proper preparedness resources are not in place. The best our firefighters can conclude from the data available is that the IA rate is closer to 88% or lower.

The result of the diversion of fire preparedness funding was felt all over the West during the ’06 season and had an enormous impact on the Agency’s expenditure of $1.5 billion on suppression this past season.

On many forests, engine companies were available for response only 5 out of 7 days and with 3 instead of 5 personnel because preparedness resources were not funded and thus unavailable. In fact, early in the season, some engines were completely unmanned and several Hotshot crews were unavailable due to staffing. Fuels funding was also diverted resulting in less fuel reduction capability. As the season progressed, small fires that would have been kept small had preparedness resources been available needlessly grew in size, intensity and obviously cost.

Another victim of the diversion of funds is the failure of the Agency to staff at 100% of the Most Efficient Level (MEL) developed as a result of the National Fire Plan. Given the inherent cost-effectiveness of our federal wildland firefighters, it makes no fiscal sense not to be properly prepared by staffing at the Most Efficient Level. The failure of the Agency to fund preparedness resources because of the diversion of such funds has forests now staffing at “a percentage of MEL.” Obviously, anything less than 100% is not the most efficient level of staffing and thus provides less preparedness protection and increases the risk to the health & safety of firefighters and others.

Often throughout the season, orders for federal resources went unfilled. In fact, traditional “unable to fill” lists received from various Geographic Coordination Centers (GACCs) which usually are several lines long, were now several pages long. Individual forests, recognizing the fact that federal resources were not available as they should have been, remained in their home forest knowing that if they left to help out in other areas, there would be no resources to cover their forest.

Two options existed. Either wait out the arrival of federal resources from considerable distances away, (again allowing the fire to grow in size, intensity & cost) or implement what has come to be a far too familiar practice of calling in non-fire resources (municipal & State fire agencies along with contractors) which obviously significantly increased the cost of any given fire.

It is our opinion that if preparedness funds had not been diverted and such funds had gotten to the FMOs who needed them as we believe Congress intended, then the number of acres burned as well as suppression costs would have been significantly reduced as fires would have been kept small and federal resources would have been available so as not to have to “over” rely on significantly higher-priced non-federal resources.

POLICY MAKERS WITH LITTLE TO NO FIRE EXPERIENCE
Congress should be keenly aware that those in the hierarchy of the Agency such as Undersecretary Rey, the Forest Service Chief, Regional Foresters, District Rangers and Forest Supervisors, and who have the power of developing and implementing fire program policies that affect our firefighters are woefully inexperienced in fire and possess few fire qualifications which would allow them to develop and implement fire program policies with firefighting and firefighters in mind. We firmly believe that Congress needs to look at the make up of those in the bureaucracy making such policy and seek to ensure those in policy-making positions have sufficient fire background.

RECOMMENDATIONS & SOLUTIONS
The recommendations & solutions the federal wildland firefighting community offers will help correct the out-of-control suppression costs of wildfires by amending Agency policy, strengthening our Nation’s wildland firefighting infrastructure and ultimately saving our Nation’s taxpayers considerable sums each year. They are simple, fundamental solutions to complex problems requiring a change in mind-set by the Agencies with regards to how they manage their fire programs.

1. Ensure Fire Preparedness funds get to the field and are not diverted or used for any other purpose.
Common sense dictates that providing our Nation’s inherently less costly federal wildland firefighters with the resources necessary to be proactive rather than reactive will provide them the best opportunity to keep fires small, more manageable and less costly. Given that Congress adopted the National Fire Plan that comes to the same conclusions should provide Congress with the incentive to ensure that such preparedness funding be spent on preparedness resources, not vague and nebulous peripheral sources that preclude our firefighters from being properly prepared.

2. Ensure the Agency’s budget request outlines all financial needs to fund all of its various projects.
To avoid future pitfalls of fund transfers, the Chief of the Forest Service should be compelled to provide the Administration and Congress with the full cost of funding all projects required by Congress. Should such funds not be authorized and appropriated by Congress, it should be Congress itself who decides which programs are “underfunded.”
3. Replace archaic pay & personnel policies with “21st Century” policies that will significantly reduce if not entirely eliminate recruitment & retention problems & ultimately save taxpayers significant sums.
A number of legislative proposals have been introduced recently in Congress to help strengthen the ever-weakening infrastructure of our Nation’s federal wildland fire fighting forces. These federal firefighters are inherently less expensive than their municipal & state counterparts as well as most contract firefighting resources.

Each year, significant taxpayer dollars are spent hiring & training federal wildland firefighters only to see them leave for better pay & benefits. If retention replaced recruitment as a priority, millions could be saved in training & hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff hours for recruitment & hiring. Additionally, making such employment attractive in the first place would allow recruitment to take care of itself.

As an example, if the Forest Service continues to hire & train 496 apprentices in Region 5 @ $14,000 per student just to retain 198 employees, the Forest Service would continue to lose $4,200,000 each year. We believe it more cost efficient and effective to invest those sums in salary and other retention tools rather than to continue to train 3-4 people to permanently fill one vacancy.

Such tools include but are not limited to:
? Provide portal to portal compensation for firefighters while on emergency incidents exceeding 24 hours (refer to HR 408, The Federal Wildland Firefighter Emergency Response Compensation Act from the 109th Congress), the cost of which would likely be less than $10 million annually…less if preparedness resources are fully funded.
? Proper wildland firefighter classification (refer to HR 5697, The Federal Wildland Firefighter Classification Act, also from the 109th Congress and passed by the House of Representatives.
? Provide for hazard duty pay for prescribed wildfire burns.
? Provide eligibility to the Federal Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) for our Nation’s temporary wildland firefighters.
? Provide basic health coverage to Temporary wildland firefighters.
? Permit time served as a temporary firefighter to be creditable towards retirement.
? Return the hiring process of firefighters back to the Forests.

Although these recommendations may sound expensive, they are far less costly than maintaining the ineffective and inefficient “status quo” and actually represent a fraction of the average annual fire suppression budget. Adopting these recommendations strengthens the infrastructure of our land-management agency fire forces and thereby reduces the need to continue to be reliant on higher-priced non-federal resources. Such recommendations will stem the tide of losses and ensure the investment our taxpayers make in hiring and training these firefighters is not wasted.

These recommendations can be paid for with existing fire program funding at current levels without compromising the program itself. It simply will literally take an act of Congress to get the land-management agencies to change the way they do business in.

CONCLUSION
We understand that our opinions and recommendations are a departure from what Congress normally hears from the bureaucracy. It should be clear to Congress however that our federal wildland firefighters have a vested interest in proper management, fiscal and otherwise, of the fire programs of our land management agencies. Clearly, we believe our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters to be the true experts in this field and ask Congress for its consideration.

COMMENTS ON PL 107-203
We were pleased and honored to have Senator Domenici raise the issue of firefighter liability as it relates to PL 107-203. With current criminal prosecution of a fire crew boss continuing in Washington State and genuine concerns among federal wildland and other firefighters in taking such assignments or retaining certain qualifications, it is imperative that the law be revisited to better understand Congress’ intent in passing the legislation and to clearly define the parameters of any USDA OIG investigation and ultimately, to remove this cloud of potential criminal liability that has become an unfair advantage to our federal wildland firefighters.

Additionally, if the Federal Government insists on carrying such a law on the books that places an unfair burden and disadvantage upon federal wildland firefighters as compared to other federal, state & local firefighters, it, the federal Government, should pay for the entire cost of Personal Liability Insurance (PLI).

Furthermore, we believe the use of laws passed subsequently to 9/11 with respect to charges & prosecution of those responsible for the death of “federal officials” is, in the context of their use by the US Attorney in Spokane Washington against a fire crew boss, to be a gross abuse of the intent and application of such law(s). In the interest of judicial fairness, we believe it should be incumbent upon the US Attorney General to instruct U.S. Attorney James McDevitt that the application of this law in the matter being played out in Washington State is at the very least, a stretch within the meaning and intent of the law and more likely an abuse of the use of said law.

The seriousness of this issue and its national repercussions deserve a separate and distinct hearing on this matter. It should also be noted that while we are pleased by the concerns raised by Mr. Rey and the recommendations he suggested the Administration would support on the issue, the FWFSA offered those same concerns and recommendations to the Agency over 2 ½ years ago which, at the time, fell on deaf ears. The Agency’s new position on this issue is clearly in response to the overwhelming voice of its firefighters on this issue.

On behalf of our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. We would be happy to assist the Committee and the agencies with any efforts to rectify the current problems facing our firefighters and the fire programs of the land management agencies.

Federal Wildland Fire Service Association
P.O. Box 517
Inkom, ID 83245
(208) 775-4577

~JOIN ONLINE~

USFS · BLM · NPS · FWS · BIA