|
Testimony for the Record
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
James B. Hull
President
National Association of State Foresters
February 15, 2006
Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the National Association
State of Foresters (NASF), I am pleased to offer the following statement
for the hearing record. NASF is a non-profit organization that
represents the directors of the fifty state forestry agencies, eight
U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. State Foresters manage
and protect state and private forests across the U.S.
Aerial firefighting
resources are essential to the fire protection programs of most states
and territories represented by NASF. Over two-thirds of the forests in
the United States are in state and private ownerships. State Foresters
are not only responsible for protecting these vast forests, but in most
states we are also responsible for wildfire protection on all rural
lands and, in some states, considerable federal land as well.
Fire protection in
America is neither uniquely a western states’ event nor is it confined
predominately to federal lands. More than 80,000 wildfires occur
annually across our nation. Well over 60% of those occur in non-western
states and over 75% occur on non-federal lands. The key point, however,
is that no single entity, including federal, state, or local government,
has the capacity to handle all responses to wildfires within their
jurisdictional area of responsibility. All fire protection programs are
thus, by necessity, strategically integrated to most effectively and
economically serve all rural lands of the nation. Aerial firefighting
resources are utilized in exactly the same way; in other words, we are
all in this together. Therefore, at this time it is critical that we
all work together, federal and state, in developing an interagency,
long-term strategy for our nation’s aerial firefighting resources. We
need a strategy that will provide a diverse fleet of helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft that will meet the needs of our wildfire suppression
mission, and do so in a safe and airworthy and sustainable manner over
the long-term.
In this context,
you asked me to address three specific topics this afternoon. First,
you asked me to address the effectiveness of using additional
single-engine air tankers (SEATs) and heavy lift (Type 1) helicopters to
compensate for the loss of approximately 50% of the nation’s large,
multi-engine air tanker fleet. In 2004 and 2005 the combination of
additional SEATs and Type 1 helicopters along with the remaining 17
heavy air tankers allowed federal and state wildland fire agencies to
achieve an initial attack success rate similar to that of previous
years. However, I must caution that statement by reminding you that in
both 2004 and 2005 we experienced relatively moderate fire seasons when
viewed at a national level. We have yet to test this new mix of
aviation resources in a long, severe fire season. In other words, we
don’t really know if we can continue to be effective with only 16-17
large, multi-engine air tankers, regardless of how many SEATs and Type 1
helicopters we have available. The capabilities of each of these
aircraft types are not entirely interchangeable. Each has specific
strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is essential that we develop a
long-term strategy that includes a sufficient number and variety of safe
and effective firefighting aircraft in order to protect this nation’s
forests and communities.
This leads me to
your second question regarding progress on a long-term strategy. The
Fire Directors of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the
US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the National Association of State Foresters, acting
together as the National Fire & Aviation Executive Board, have recently
chartered a group of agency aviation experts to develop this desperately
needed, long-term aviation strategy for the interagency fire program.
This strategy, tentatively scheduled for completion by the end of this
fiscal year, will continue work the Forest Service has already initiated
by evaluating all realistic alternatives and making recommendations on:
(1) the mix or diversity of aircraft that are needed; (2) the specific
make and model of aircraft that meet the identified specifications; (3)
the quantity of each needed; and (4) the appropriate business model for
acquisition and management.
Although this
strategy will address all types of aircraft and all aviation missions in
support of fire suppression, it will focus heavily on the large air
tanker program. As the Subcommittee is well aware, in response to three
tragic air tanker crashes (one in 1994 and two in 2002), the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) chartered a Blue Ribbon
Panel to evaluate aviation safety issues. In its 2002 report the Panel,
which I co-chaired, called into question the airworthiness of the
fixed-wing heavy air tanker fleet. Subsequently on April 23, 2004, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the report of its
investigation and sent its findings and recommendations in a letter to
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. Because the two
Departments did not have the personnel, expertise, or funding to comply
with the NTSB recommendations, they terminated the contracts for the
entire fleet of 33 large air tankers in May of 2004. Since then,
through a program of independent analysis and increased inspections, the
Forest Service has been able to gradually return some of the less
ancient former military aircraft to service. At the current time, 16
large air tankers are approved and available for contract – all of which
are aging, former military aircraft.
Lastly, you asked
me to comment on the Forest Service’s recent acquisition of three former
U.S. Navy P-3 Orion aircraft for conversion as air tankers and my
thoughts regarding certification of air worthiness. In regard to the
P-3 acquisition, even though the long-term strategy has not yet been
completed, we need to make operational decisions in the short-term in
order to continue to provide the best aerial response to wildfire that
we can. In this context, the P-3 may serve us well as a bridge aircraft
to the next generation of large, multi-engine air tankers. However,
until the strategy has been completed, we won’t know whether or not the
P-3 aircraft will have a role over the long term. This is yet another
reason why it is critical that we complete the long-term strategy as
quickly as possible.
In regard to
certifying airworthiness, it is time, in fact far past time, for a
better answer. NASF strongly believes that our nation needs a safe,
modern, and effective aerial firefighting program. As was clearly
stated in the 2002 Blue Ribbon Panel report on “Federal Aerial
Firefighting”, the current program of relying on aging, former military
and surplus commercial aircraft is not sustainable. Continued reliance
on older aircraft adapted for firefighting use will merely perpetuate
the problem over the long term. Ideally, this would mean funding and
support for aircraft that are designed and engineered specifically for
delivering fire retardant products. However, we do understand that we
are currently in a time where fiscal constraint is necessary, and it is
therefore only prudent to thoroughly examine all available sources of
aircraft to ensure a cost-effective strategy. But, we must not
arbitrarily rule out purpose-built aircraft as too expensive. We
believe that the free enterprise system in this country is capable and
poised to provide such aircraft if appropriate contractual assurances
are provided.
Further, we believe
that the missing link in this entire issue is the role of the Federal
Aviation Administration. Whether limited by law or merely a perceived
lack of responsibility or funding, the FAA, as the world’s premier
aviation agency, must provide the leadership essential to assuring
complete airworthiness of public use aircraft, including air tankers, to
the same standards that have brought such resounding success to the
overall airline industry around the world. The federal land management
agencies cannot, and should not, attempt to duplicate the expertise of
the FAA when it comes to assuring sustained airworthiness of
firefighting aircraft that are such a vital part of protecting our
nation. Therefore, we further encourage Congress to specifically charge
the FAA with the responsibility for certifying the airworthiness of
public use aircraft, including air tankers.
In closing, I want to
reiterate that it is absolutely essential that we use an interagency
process to develop this national aviation strategy; one that includes
the Forest Service, the Department of the Interior Bureaus, and the
National Association of State Foresters. To accomplish this, NASF
pledges our support to work together with the federal agencies in
developing an interagency long-term strategy for our nation’s aerial
firefighting resources; a strategy that will cost-effectively provide a
diverse fleet of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft that will meet the
needs of our wildfire suppression mission in a safe and airworthy and
sustainable manner over the long term. Therefore, we urge the
Subcommittee to support sufficient funding for the federal wildland fire
programs to ensure our collective ability, state and federal, to quickly
and safely respond to wildfires across our country, and to provide for
the safety of our communities, our firefighters, and the pilots and crew
of our aircraft.
We appreciate the
opportunity to offer our testimony and look forward to the opportunity
to work with Congress and the Administration to address this critical
issue.
James B. Hull
President, National Association of State Foresters
State Forester and Director, Texas Forest Service
Co-Chair, Blue Ribbon Panel on Federal Aerial Firefighting |
