April 2006

News & Legislation Update:  4-7-06

QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC LANDS & FORESTS SUBCOMMITTEE

Chief Bosworth/Undersecretary Rey:

I’d like to preface several questions by acknowledging the growing voice of our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters over the last year or two with respect to their concerns as they relate to pay & personnel policies, and now more recently budgetary matters.

We’ve heard of recruitment & retention problems in some areas, the facts of which are often veiled as a result of OPM not including “temporary firefighters” in its loss data. Concerns continue to mount about the steady tide of losses of our federal wildland firefighters to municipal & state fire agencies for better pay and benefits…negating the investment our taxpayers have made in their training.

I trust you are aware of these growing voices and concerns from our constituents, primarily from across the West and the organizations that represent them. I believe it important to recognize their concerns so that we can ensure that our Nation’s natural resources are properly protected as well as the lives & property of our citizens.

In addition to the concerns voiced by those that are actually on the ground performing the heroic & arduous duties of wildland firefighting comes the news from the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise Idaho that as of February 3, 2006, 340,589 acres had burned nationally which was significantly greater than the 10-year average of approximately 49,000 acres for that time of year.

Needless to say, this was prior to the conflagrations that have recently ravaged the state of Texas scorching nearly one million acres and leaving at least a dozen fatalities in their wake. This despite the considerable time & money spent on hazardous fuels reduction.

Even more recently, Senators from the Southwest have raised grave concerns over the outlook for the ’06 fire season. Concerns have been raised about budget proposals that seek a reduction of preparedness funds while increasing suppression funds given the fact that the intent of the National Fire Plan was to spend less money on suppression and more on preparedness.

Lastly, before my specific questions, I would like to note, and assume you would agree with the fact that many professionals in wildland fire, more specifically within the Forest Service from firefighters to Regional Fire & Aviations Directors to Regional Foresters have voiced their opposition to the direction the Forest Service is headed with respect to budgetary issues and classification issues as they relate to fire. These concerns have revealed an increasingly significant and serious “disconnect” between the regions and the Washington office. We trust that you will do what you can to reduce the size of this chasm and re-connect with the regions and your employees with respect to their needs.

With that said:

1) On February 28th of this year you appeared before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. It was your testimony that one of your successes was the Albuquerque Service Center becoming operational in 2005. It has been widely reported however that in order to bring that centralized service center to fruition, the Forest Service, and we’ve heard a variety of terms used to describe the process, “utilized” nearly $100 million dollars of preparedness funds to facilitate the move.

The FY ’05 fire season was relatively mild yet it has been reported that this mis-direction of funds required many forests to operate with preparedness budget deficits, caused staffing shortages and the inability to hire or fill positions thus increasing the overall risk to firefighters and those they are sworn to protect.

Can you explain the decision to utilize dollars appropriated by Congress for preparedness for the purposes of making an administrative move of your human resources department?

2) On that same day you were providing testimony to the full committee along with Under Secretary Mark Rey indicating that with respect to the FY 2006 budget, DOI & the Forest Service would maintain sufficient readiness resources approximate to those of the last several years.

However at the same time across the country in California, Forest Service Chief Officers were assembled for a conference and were told by Forest Service Officials that significant cuts throughout the Western United States were possible this season (currently underway) as a result of a number of preparedness resources being unfunded which included: 48 engines; 7 Type 1 Hand Crews; 1 Type 2 Hand Crew, 12 Water Tenders; misc. resources such as prevention personnel, dozers, dispatch etc) and approximately 515 firefighter positions not being staffed.

How do you reconcile the two apparently contradictory assessments?

3) As a follow up question, we fast forward to just a week ago when Senators from the Southwest raised questions about the proposed reductions in preparedness spending for FY ’07 approaching $10 million; Undersecretary Mark Rey stating for the record that southwestern lawmakers are right to be worried about the upcoming season given the NIFC outlook but also indicated that the agency believes that what it has allocated to fire will be appropriate and adequate for the task.

On that very same day, 3-30-06, a memo from a Forest Supervisor in California to all forest employees stated categorically:

• We are having great difficulties financing our current organization as structured with our current funding level and possibility of facing a RIF if we continue on this path (deficit spending).
• Unable to fill critical positions currently vacant due to funding limits.
• Centralization of many administration functions (HR move to New Mexico) has left us unable to meet the additional residual workload in these areas.
• Further analysis shows that the number of employees on this Forest exceeds the amount of money we receive (from the Washington Office) to fund our organization
• Anytime an effort such as this is announced, there will be stress. Employees become concerned about whether or not they will have a job in the end.

Again, how do you reconcile the assurances you and Undersecretary Rey gave us with respect to the adequacy of the Agency’s preparedness for what could be a disastrous season with what our nation’s firefighters and fire managers are hearing from their superiors to be the realities in the field i.e. staffing cuts; “parking” of engines; staffing engines 5 out of 7 days rather than 7 out of, the inability to hire temporary firefighters etc., all related to the preparedness budget ?

4) How will further reductions in preparedness funding affect firefighting production capability?

5) How will further reductions meet the congressional intent of the # 1 item in the National Fire Plan “Assuring that necessary firefighting resources and personnel are available to respond to wildland fires that threaten lives & property”?

6) Referring to Undersecretary Rey’s statement appearing in the Associated Press that “But while the money for preparedness has been cut, the Agency has increased funding for fighting fires once they have started. It is fully prepared for this season.”

Given that it is the intent of the National Fire Plan to spend less money on suppressing fires and more on preparedness and given the NIFC outlook for this season can you explain the decision to cut preparedness & increase suppression knowing full well that our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters are funded out of preparedness funds and thus would not be available for suppression without having to come before congress for yet another supplemental appropriation ?

7) We’ve heard from a number of folks about the negative effect policies & actions of both the Agency & the Administration, namely OPM have had on our wildland firefighting workforce.

As I mentioned, there are recruitment & retention issues now coupled with advisories from Forest Supervisors and others about potential cuts and job losses.

As you know, last summer Congressman Jon Porter conducted field hearings on federal wildland firefighter issues, one of which was classification and categorically denounced the moniker of “Forestry Technician” and “Range Technician” to classify the brave men & women who have long been considered to be all-risk firefighters. He stated directly to the Forest Service & OPM that these men & women were “firefighters & heroes, not a bunch of technicians.”

Despite this, as the fire season is well upon us, the Nation’s wildland firefighters, many of whom have already spent considerable assignments in the Gulf states and more recently fighting devastating fires across Texas are being subjected to decisions by the Forest Service to spend considerable tax dollars to add fire positions to its list of A-76 studies and again audit engine captain positions which, just a few years ago, were validated at the GS-8 level…an audit that could lead to significant downgrades for our firefighters.

With what our firefighters are hearings about budgetary matters, A-76 studies, potential RIFs and potential downgrades, what kind of message is being sent to these firefighters, the best wildland firefighters in the world as the potential for a disastrous season approaches?

How do you think these policies and decisions are affecting the workforce?

Is there any wonder why there continues to be a steady stream of wildland firefighters taking early retirement or leaving the federal system for state and municipal agencies?

What do you, as the Chief of the Forest Service plan to do about restoring the federal wildland firefighting corps to what the American taxpayer expects of it?

Can you assure this committee and congress that no further preparedness dollars will be expended for any thing other than fire preparedness?

~JOIN ONLINE~

USFS · BLM · NPS · FWS · BIA