On November 5 the Senate Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources held a hearing titled, “Shortchanging Our Forests: How Tight Budgets and Management Decisions Can Increase the Risk of Wildfire”. A video recording of the hearing can be viewed at the subcommittee’s website.
Tom Harbour (left) the U.S. Forest Service National Director of Fire and Aviation Management (who did not testify), and David Pitcher (right) President and CEO of the Wolf Creek Ski Area at Pagosa Creek, Colorado.
It was held in a small room where the five witnesses outnumbered the four Senators. Generally, the attendees recommended that the government must invest more in forest thinning, prescribed fire, and hazard reduction projects.
Below are some excerpts from the written testimony of a few witnesses. Their statements can be downloaded at the website.
From Jim Hubbard, USFS Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry:
When a wildfire starts within or burns into a fuel treatment area, an assessment is conducted to evaluate the resulting impacts on fire behavior and fire suppression actions. Of over 1,400 assessments conducted to date, over 90 percent of the fuel treatments were effective in changing fire behavior and/or helping with control of the wildfire (USFS, Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Database).
Jim Hubbard, USFS Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry
From Sallie Clark, El Paso County Commissioner, Colorado:
A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study indicates that every dollar invested in healthy forest and wildfire mitigation will save more than five dollars in future disaster losses.
Sallie Clark
From Christopher Topik, Director, Restoring America’s Forests, The Nature Conservancy:
Our current approach to wildland fire and forest management creates a false choice, pitting the viability of one against the other. In reality, we cannot afford to short-change either. The potential costs are too great.
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Budgetary
1. Increase federal funding for hazardous fuels reduction, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration and associated proactive federal land management operations and science
2. Create and fund a new federal fire suppression funding mechanism to free up resources for proactive management referenced above
4. Increase capacity of states and communities to become fire adapted
5. Increase research on economic, social and ecological impacts of forest investment
II. Management Decisions
6. Seek policy adjustments that foster innovation and improvement in NEPA implementation, thereby increasing the scale and quality of resulting projects and plans
7. Increase shared commitment and support for forest restoration by states and local governments
8. Enhance participation of additional sectors of society, such as water and power utilities, recreation and tourism, public health, and industrial users of clean water
9. Increase the safe and effective use of wildland fire
Chris Topik, Director, Restoring America’s Forests, The Nature Conservancy
The memorial service for the Granite Mountain 19 was conducted with dignity and professionalism today. It was very well organized and gave the firefighters the honor they deserved.
The arena a few minutes before the service started. Some of the VIPs in the front rows had not yet entered Alumni of Granite Mountain Hotshots entering arena The crowd gathers outside the arena
The wildland firefigher statue that was in the Boise Airport was given to the city of Prescott just before the memorial service. It attracted a lot of attention and was photographed hundreds of times. Some typical firefighter gear was on display at the front of the arena.
Today we have the 12th article of our series in which we ask current and retired leaders in the wildland fire service to answer 12 questions.
We appreciate everyone who is cooperating with this project. Some of their responses may add to the knowledge base of our new firefighters coming up through the ranks. If you would like to nominate someone who would be a good candidate for these questions, drop us a line through our Contact Us page. And their contact information would be appreciated.
Below we hear from Tom Harbour, the U.S. Forest Service National Director of Fire and Aviation Management. After beginning as as GS-2 firefighter, Mr. Harbour worked his way up to District Ranger, Forest Fire Management Officer on the Angeles National Forest, Deputy Regional Fire Director in the Northern Rockies, Regional Fire Director in the Intermountain Region, and National Fire and Aviation Management Deputy Director before assuming his current position. He has been qualified as a Type 1 Prescribed Fire Burn Boss, Type 1 Incident Commander, and Area Commander.
****
What is one piece of advice you would give to someone before their first assignment as an Incident Commander?
You are a leader and a servant. You are accountable and responsible. Remember what you have been taught and learned. Think, and by the way, don’t expect to get much rest.
Tom Harbour at the Little Bear Fire, Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico, June, 2012. USFS photo.
If someone is planning a prescribed fire, what is one thing that you hope they will pay particular attention to?
People – the folks executing the fire and the folks who live near the fire.
One of the more common errors in judgment you have seen on fires?
Not engaging the brain prior to action.
One thing that you know now that you wish you had known early in your career?
Some of the folks higher in the food chain were actually concerned for me.
The stupidest mistake you have seen on a fire?
Igniting a prescribed fire when the test fire results indicated we were going to have trouble.
Your most memorable fire?
Mortar Creek (1979, Challis National Forest in Idaho), because I got over the fire when it had just escaped the campfire ring. In 1979, Mortar Creek was a giant we hadn’t seen in the area for decades. The Ship Island Fire happened that same day, I was working the Mortar Creek fire when I heard the radio traffic. I then spent most of the rest of the summer on the Mortar Creek fire.
The funniest thing you have seen on a fire?
A group of folks gathered around Bill Paddock listening to him tell stories about his earlier time in the USFS.
The first very large fire you were on?
A couple of days after I was hired in 1970, I headed with a hand crew to a fire in the Toulumne River Canyon. I cannot remember the name of the fire, but I remember the experience — I was hooked on a career.
Your favorite book about fire or firefighting? Blink by Malcom Gladwell helps us understand about how we think under pressure.
The first job you had within the fire service?
GS-2 “shovel operator”
What gadgets, electronic or otherwise, can’t you live without?
Hate to say it, but the constant buzz on my belt is an indication the Blackberry is seeking attention.
Today we have the second article of our series in which we ask current and retired leaders in the wildland fire service to answer 12 questions.
We appreciate everyone who is cooperating with this project. Some of their responses to the first three questions may add to the knowledge base of our new firefighters coming up through the ranks.
Today we hear from Greg Greenhoe, who retired from the U.S. Forest Service as the Deputy Director of Fire and Aviation Management for the Northern Region, working out of Missoula. Presently he is working as an Emergency Management Consultant and Instructor.
***
Greg Greenhoe
When you think of an excellent leader in the fire service, who comes to mind first?
There are so many but the ones that touched my life are Lynn Biddison, Steve Gallegos, Tom Harbour, Chuck Mills and Jerry Williams. They were all great leaders and mentors and made a big difference in my career.
What is one piece of advice you would give to someone before their first assignment as an Incident Commander?
Make sure you have qualified, competent people filling the positions on your team and you can’t go wrong. I was blessed with the best bunch of team members when I was an IC. Made the job easy.
If someone is planning a prescribed fire, what is one thing that you hope they will pay particular attention to?
Have a good plan and follow the plan!
What was the first very large fire you were on?
The Wild Bill Fire on the Coconino National Forest, October of 1973. 7,150 acres, not sure we would call that a large fire today! I was a brand new crew boss with an Inmate Crew out of the Federal Prison in Safford, Arizona. It was a pretty miserable crew! A month later I took a Papago (Tohono O’odham) Crew to the Burnt Fire on the other side of the San Francisco Peaks; now that was a great crew!
What color should fire trucks be?
You mean Engines? I really don’t care, as long as they have a good crew and can put “wet stuff on the red stuff!”
What was the first job you ever had?
Timber Stand Improvement Crew on the Tonto NF. It was a youth crew made up of Boy Scouts from Camp Geronimo just below the Mogollon Rim. That was 1965. Our crew boss was Bob Wagenfer who was also a big influence on my starting a career with the Forest Service. He took me on my first fire in 1966.
What was the first job you had within the fire service?
Smoke Chaser on the Coronado NF, Santa Catalina Ranger District, 1972.
What cell phone do you have for personal use?
HTC Android
What kind of computer do you have at home?
HP desktop, HP Netbook and a Kindle Fire HD
What gadgets can’t you live without?
My smart phone and netbook
What was the first vehicle that you bought?
Well I had a hand-me-down 1955 Ford Victoria, but the first vehicle I ever bought with my own money was a 1973 Chevy step-side pickup. Brand new from the dealership!
What was your most memorable vacation?
Well that’s hard but I would have to say Antarctica in 2000. Just an amazing place. Isn’t that funny though… The one continent that doesn’t have a fire problem!
A P2V over the Whoopup Fire, July 18, 2011. Photo by Bill Gabbert.
We were recently interviewed by Steve Wilent who wrote an article about what we are calling the air tanker crisis for The Forestry Source, a publication of the Society of American Foresters. The article is reprinted here with their permission.
Forest Service Bolsters Airtanker Fleet After Two Crashes
By Steve Wilent, Editor, The Forestry Source
As massive wildfires burning in the Southwest made for an ominous beginning to the 2012 fire season, two airtankers crashed in June, leaving two crew members dead and underscoring warnings about the safety of the US Forest Service’s aging and depleted fleet. Both aircraft were 50-year-old Lockheed P2Vs originally designed for US military anti-submarine patrols. With the crashes, the agency had just 9 large airtankers under contract, down from a fleet of 44 in 2002.
The two firefighters died in the same June 3 crash in western Utah when their P2V veered off course and slammed into mountainous terrain, according to a preliminary National Transportation Safety Board report. The second accident occurred on the same day near Reno, Nevada, when another P2V crash-landed after its landing gear failed to deploy.
“The pilots of Tanker 11 lost their lives protecting public safety and natural resources,” said Tom Harbour, Director of Fire and Aviation Management for the U.S. Forest Service. “As the entire fire and aviation community grieves their loss, we must ensure that we maintain our capability to fulfill our responsibilities to be prepared to respond vigorously to wildfires threatening people, communities, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources.”
On June 11, the agency announced the addition of eight aircraft to the fleet, including one DC-10, and said it would arrange for 5 additional large helicopters to be activated earlier than scheduled. On June 13, President Obama signed a bill, rushed through Congress after the two crashes, that waives certain Forest Service airtanker contracting requirements, allowing the agency to speed up issuing contracts for “next generation” aircraft.
Even before the crashes, critics called for strengthening of the agency’s weakened airtanker fleet.
“With an aging fleet that has dwindled from 44 airtankers in 2002 to 11 this year, and will continue to decline in the years to come, I am unconvinced the USFS’s current airtanker fleet is prepared to adequately address an immense wildfire or even what is sure to be a long fire season,” wrote Colorado Sen. Mark Udall in an April 12 letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.
Such concerns are not new. Following the crashes of two airtankers in 2002—one of which was filmed by a television news crew as its wings broke off in mid-air—the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management commissioned a Blue Ribbon Panel to assess the federal wildfire aviation program. Among its eight major findings, the panel determined that “The safety record of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters used in wildland fire management is unacceptable.” The report is available on the Source Extras page, www.safnet.org/members/archive/source_extras.cfm.
Since then, more-stringent safety requirements and inspections have led to many aircraft being deemed less than airworthy, a key factor in the reduction in the fleet’s numbers.
In February, the Forest Service released a “Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy” (www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/) that recommended contracting for 18 to 28 “next generation” large airtankers that are more reliable, faster, and can carry more retardant than the “legacy” airtankers.
2002 Report Still Valid
Former Texas state forester Jim Hull, now retired, was co-chair of the Blue Ribbon Panel.
“The report that we did nearly a decade ago is just as valid today as it was back then,” Hull said in a June interview. “There has been a continuous cycle of trying to use the old, worn-out military planes, and we’ve been doing this now for over 50 years. At some point, somebody’s got to wake up and realize that we’ve got to do something different.”
However, Hull cautions against assuming that the age of the aircraft had anything to do with the two crashes in June, pending a final report by the National Transportation Safety Board.
“It seems to me that one of our findings seems to be continually overlooked,” Hull said. “And that is the fact that no one in Congress or the administrations since then, whichever party has been in power, has seemed inclined to wake up to the fact that this is a national issue. It’s not a Forest Service or BLM issue, it’s a national issue—it’s going to take national leadership to provide adequate aerial firefighting capability for the nation. You can’t blame the agencies. I think they’re probably doing the best that they can possibly do with the funds that they have. Until the leadership of the nation is willing to mandate [the establishment of a modern airtanker fleet] and the funding to go with it, I don’t see any way that were going to resolve this problem.”
Bill Gabbert, former executive director of the International Association of Wildland Fire and editor of the Wildfire Today web site (wildfiretoday.com), said the Forest Service bears the responsibility for the state of the airtanker fleet.
“Since the fatal crashes in 2002, the Forest Service just hasn’t stepped up to the plate to make any decisions,” Gabbert said. “They have not shown any leadership on how to rebuild the fleet. They have managed the problem strictly in a negative sense, by banning certain types of aircraft from the fleet, but they haven’t done anything to encourage or make it easier for the private contractors to add to their fleets. It’s extremely difficult under the current procedures for a private vendor to buy an aircraft and pay to have it retrofitted as an airtanker.”
A key factor, Gabbert said, is that a contractor seeking a loan to buy and retrofit an aircraft can’t show a bank that it will receive enough income to justify the loan.
“There’s no guarantee that a contractor will receive a certain amount of income, even if they do get a contract for an aircraft. They don’t know how much they will fly or how much they will make. They don’t know if the aircraft will pass tests by the Inter-Agency Airtanker Board. There are just too many unknowns. There are just too many unknowns,” said Gabbert.
The solution, said Gabbert, is for the agency to purchase its own airtankers.
“I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that about the only way to ensure that we rebuild the fleet with safe aircraft is for the Forest Service to come up with a specific proposal, not one full of generalities like they did a few months ago [with the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy],” he said. “They need to submit a specific, detailed proposal to Congress to ask for money to buy brand-new aircraft, including funding to retrofit them as airtankers. Brand-new, state-of-the-art, safe aircraft. And then they should issue contracts to private contractors to fly and maintain those airtankers. If we don’t do that, then we are just going to get more old, discarded aircraft.”
Court rules company must pay $18 million for 2002 Copper fire
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a company must pay $18 million for “Intangible environmental damages” caused by the Copper fire that burned 20,000 acres in 2002, most of it within the Angeles National Forest in southern California. The company had not contested a previous jury award of $7.6 million for fire suppression costs, but they balked at the “intangible” damage.
USFS Director of Fire has an opinion about resource orders placed by Incident Commanders
The authors of an Associated Press article interviewed Tom Harbour, the U.S. Forest Service’s Director of Fire and Aviation Management, who talked about Incident Commanders not always receiving the type of resources they say they need. Here is an excerpt from the article:
…Despite some criticism, Harbour said the U.S. Forest Service has been working to position resources where they’re needed most.
There’s a difference between what incident commanders want and what they need to fight a fire effectively, he said. For example, a commander’s order for 10 hot shot crews — among the most elite firefighters — might be filled instead with a mix of hot shots and initial attack crews, which can be just as formidable but with less experience.
This is insulting to Incident Commanders who are out on the ground in the heat, smoke, and dust after having qualified for their position through 15 to 20 years of wildland fire experience. For someone in Washington or Boise who stares at a computer screen all day to decide what Incident Commanders out in the field REALLY need, is absurd.
Report: U.S. company buys 10 Russian air tankers
There is a flurry of chatter that a company in the United States has purchased 10 Russian-built air tankers. This is not exactly true. David Baskett, President of TTE International Inc., has said for years his plan is to purchase 10 BE-200 amphibious air tankers and then lease them to operators in the United States.
Mr. Baskett told Wildfire Today Friday that he “signed a contract to buy 10 planes to be delivered over a few years”. He did not specify if any money has actually changed hands, but until the FAA approves the aircraft to be used in this country, which may or may not happen any time soon, and until he has a contract from the U.S. Forest Service or another agency, which may or may not happen at all, it would be foolish to spend $300 to $400 million on Russian-built air tankers.
BE-200 air tanker at Santa Maria, California, April, 2010. Photo courtesy of Michael Lynn.
But we have to give Mr. Baskett credit for pursuing his dream with vigor. He arranged for the expenses to be paid for two USFS employees to travel to Taganro, Russia the home base of the Beriev company, the manufacturer of the aircraft, to conduct the first phase of an air tanker evaluation using specs of the Interagency Air Tanker Board. Reportedly the result of that evaluation was mostly positive in relation to performing as a scooper air tanker, but not as a conventional retardant-carrying air tanker. The IATB requirements are very different for the two types. In the future it may also be qualified for retardant.
Mr. Baskett is in discussions with the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management about using the aircraft in this country, and is attempting to set up a test of the air tanker in the U.S. to compare its performance to other aircraft, including the military MAFFS C-130.
In April, 2010, Mr. Baskett brought a BE-200 to the United States to attempt to drum up some interest in the aircraft. It was on display at Santa Maria, California for a couple of days and made some demonstration drops.
The BE-200 can carry 3,000 gallons of retardant loaded at an airport, or water it scoops from a lake.
A question from a reader: can wildfires cause higher temperatures down stream?
Susan sent us this question:
Wow–great website. Very impressive!
That there’s a causal connection between hot, dry weather and wildfires is clear to me. What I am wondering about right now, though, is whether or not the reverse can be true. Colorado has several large fires going at once, right now, and coincidentally we have also had several days of record-breaking, 100+ degree days, including two in a row of 105 degrees in the Denver area. Is it possible that 800 degrees, spread out over a large area, could raise the ambient temperature by a degree or more?
I could not say either way, definitively, so I asked someone who is actually smart (unlike myself) — Janice Coen, Ph.D., a Project Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who conducts wildfire-related weather studies, among other topics. Here is her answer:
No, the fires are just too small compared to all that air. However, a big fire may affect the air temperature by the plume shading the ground from sun for hundreds of miles downstream. And affecting the cloud particles to reflect more sun.
A crew of retired and current aviation professionals has been assembled to conduct the sixth in an unending series of air tanker and helicopter studies. We wrote about this latest study on June 7 after it was awarded by the U.S. Forest Service to AVID LLC, a company in Virginia. While I could not find any mention of air tankers or wildfire on AVID’s web site except in mentioning one possible function of an unmanned aerial vehicle, the effect of that apparent lack of experience may be minimized by their shrewd hiring of a staff of experts for this $380,000 contract.
Tanker 45 dropping in the smoky Ferguson Canyon on the Whoopup Fire July 18, 2011, protecting structures. Photo by Bill Gabbert.
Dennis Hulbert, who retired from the U.S. Forest Service after serving as the Aviation Officer for the California Region, told Wildfire Today that he is a part of an assembled a group of professionals that will conduct the study with AVID. The team includes a retired National Assistant Director (Aviation), a Fire Planner/Forest Fire Management Officer/Incident Commander, several retired NASA employees, and some “Industry Professionals PHD- types”. In addition, AVID has some unique aircraft synthesis and analytical tools that can be used to assist these folks.
The AVID/Hulbert group will be guided by an in-house collection of federal employees who are subject matter specialists.
Mr. Hulbert believes that his group needs to define performance measures for firefighting aircraft that would be acceptable to the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General, both of which have been critical of the USFS’s earlier air tanker proposals for procuring expensive Lockheed C-130J aircraft costing $80-90 million each. Tom Harbour, National Director for Fire and Aviation for the Forest Service, and Mark Rey, former Undersecretary of Agriculture (a position that oversees the USFS) who is now a lobbyist for Lockheed, have both recommended the purchase of C-130Js, but Mr. Harbour may be moving away from that position.
In addition to defining air tanker performance measures, the group should also define them for the U.S. Forest Service, such as an implementation schedule, with dates and names of responsible officials, for moving forward. Accountability can be an effective tool.
The Forest Service should have made decisions about the long-term composition of the fire aviation fleet 10 or 20 years ago. But since they continued to kick the can down the road year after year, and crash after fatal crash, this approach, wielding the expertise of actual wildfire aviation professionals, might be what it will take to move the process forward. Aviation professionals were used in the first four of the earlier studies (and there may have been some on the secret RAND study), but little followup occurred.
The Missoulian has a good article about the present state and the future of the air tanker program. The author, Rob Chaney, interviewed U.S. Forest Service Fire and Aviation Management Director Tom Harbour, and here are a couple of quotes from the article:
More than half a billion dollars worth of new firefighting airplane contracts should come through later this month, as the U.S. Forest Service heads into one of the hottest summers on record.
Although the names of contract winners won’t be announced before June 25, the news can’t come soon enough for Missoula-based Neptune Aviation. The company hopes to boost its new BAe-146 jet fleet from one plane to three, just weeks after a fatal crash in Utah reduced its Korean War-era P2V tanker fleet from eight to seven.
The five-year contracts to four vendors would bring on seven modern retardant bombers to the national firefighting air force. Three companies would provide two new planes apiece at a cost between $125.7 million and $178 million over five years. The fourth vendor would add one plane for $66.8 million.
[…]
“There’s been a lot of talk going around how there used to be over 40 large air tankers and now we have less than 10,” Snyder said. “But we know the aircraft we have today compared to the aircraft of yesteryear are a night-and-day difference. It’s just a guess, but I think you won’t need to see the number of aircraft you used to see in yesteryear.“
P2 air tanker on Whoopup fire near Newcastle, WY, July 18, 2011. Photo by Bill Gabbert
The 2011 wildfire season was relatively slow in the United States with the exception of Texas and two very large fires in Arizona and New Mexico. During most of the season there were only 11 large air tankers on exclusive use contracts and this year we are starting with 12. Ten years ago there were 44.
The request for proposal that the U.S. Forest Service issued on November 30 could result in as many as seven additional air tankers on contract over the next two years — up to three this year and four in 2013. However, these additional “next generation” air tankers that can hold 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of retardant and cruise at 300 knots do not exist. Potential vendors will have to be given contracts and then they will begin converting recycled airliners into air tankers, a lengthy and very expensive endeavor. After that, the aircraft will be required to undergo extensive testing which could lead to approval by the Interagency Air Tanker Board (IATB).
Minden’s BAe-146 during the conversion process. Photo: Minden, used with permission
One next-gen air tanker has partially completed this process. Late last year Tronos and Neptune received interim approval for a converted BAe-146 airliner which is being leased and operated by Neptune. At the end of 2012 the IATB will consider it for full approval, based on its performance on fires and how it functions at air tanker bases. Minden Air Corp. is also converting a BAe-146 and hopes to have it flying over fires this year.
The Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, told a congressional committee on March 6 that this year the USFS will contract for two scooper air tankers (presumably CL-215s or CL-415′s) for the first time. We have a call in to the agency to find out if they will be on exclusive use or call when needed contracts. If they are exclusive use, this would bring the total up to 14 (counting the interim approval of the Neptune/Tronos BAe-146), still less than one-third of the size of the air tanker fleet 10 years ago.
In a letter dated March 7 that Ken Pimlott, the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) wrote to Mr. Tidwell, he expressed concern about the decline of the USFS air tanker fleet, which has put pressure on CAL FIRE to bail out the USFS when there are fires on federal lands within the state. Mr. Pimlott also said that the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy developed in January is not sufficient “to meet the needs of the combined federal, state and local wildland firefighting missions” and that it does not consider the potential of very large air tankers (VLAT), such as the DC-10s and the 747.
The USFS has no interest in awarding exclusive use contracts for the VLATs, and has only offered call when needed contracts with no assurance that a company will receive any income. Evergreen said their business model for their 747 air tanker can’t be sustained with occasional use and did not sign a CWN contract. 10 Tanker Air Carrier is struggling to maintain one of their two DC-10s and a crew on a CWN contract.
An article by Ben Goad in the Press-Enterprise also addresses these issues. Here is an excerpt:
…Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has been critical of the Forest Service’s handling of the situation, said she agreed with Pimlott that the Forest Service’s plan falls short.
“Millions of Californians work and live in high-fire threat areas, and a failure to address this issue jeopardizes lives and property,” said Feinstein, D-Calif. “Chief Tidwell admits the Forest Service lacks aviation assets to meet the wildfire response need, yet he has not requested sufficient funds to make the acquisitions, nor has he provided Congress with a timetable.”
Harbour maintained that the Forest Service is actively pursuing new contracts with tanker vendors and said he hoped to bring as many as eight into operation over the next two years, with two or three going into service this year. He acknowledged that the shortage could strain resources in the coming fire season.
“I worry about it, but that’s why 900 engines and 11 air tankers and 120 helicopters and eight (Defense Department) aircraft make me sleep a little bit better at night,” he said. “I worry about it, but we plan and prepare to deal with it.”
The Washington Post has an article about the U.S. Forest Service’s new strategy for replacing aging air tankers, a topic that we covered on February 10. Here is an excerpt:
…“Trying to figure out the right attributes . . . the right specifications, and . . . working across the variety of land and . . . just coordinating with people takes a bunch of time,” [Tom] Harbour, [national fire director for the Forest Service] said. “We’re happy it’s out. It’s a part of the discussion we have to have with Congress.”
Money also played a role in the agency’s struggle to draft a proposal to modernize. Its pricey shopping list of planes was not acceptable to the Office of Management and Budget.
The agency sought state-of-the-art C-130Js, at $80 million each, a price it cannot afford, according to congressional staffers and aviation experts. The head-turning cargo plane flies at nearly 400 mph and can deliver an optimal load of 4,000 gallons of fire suppressant.
Harbour called the C-130J “an aircraft . . . designed for the kinds of stresses and strains of this work.” As a 20-year investment, he said, it “might be the best thing we could do.”
On November 5 the Senate Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources held a hearing titled, “Shortchanging Our Forests: How Tight Budgets and Management Decisions Can Increase the Risk of Wildfire”. A video recording of the hearing can be viewed at the subcommittee’s website.
