[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 120 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32485-32503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15304]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[WO-1550-00-7111-24 1A]
National Park Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
National Biological Service
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review
AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and National Biological Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of draft report; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The interagency Steering Group chartered to review Federal
wildfire policy and program management has prepared a draft report
suggesting possible changes. Public comment is invited and will be
considered by the Steering Group in preparing its final report and
recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing by July 24, 1995.
[[Page 32486]] ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to:
Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review, Department of the
Interior, 18th and C Streets NW., Mail Stop 7355, Washington, DC 20240,
or sent via FAX to (202) 208-5078.
National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 South Development Avenue, Boise,
ID 83705.
See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for telephone requests for
additional copies of the draft report.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tim Hartzell, Bureau of Land Management, (202) 208-5472, or Dave
Morton, USDA-Forest Service, (208) 387-5633. Additional copies of the
draft report may be obtained by calling Pat Moore, BLM's National
Office of Fire and Aviation, (208) 387-5150, or Janelle Smith, National
Interagency Fire Center, (208) 387-5457.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 30, 1994, following one of the
worst wildland fire seasons since the early 1900's, the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior chartered an interagency Steering Group to
conduct a review of Federal wildland fire policy and programs. Composed
of representatives of the Forest Service, USDA, and the Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and National Biological Service, USDI, the
Steering Group was directed to assess four specific themes: the role of
fire in resource management; use of prescribed fire to reduce unhealthy
fuel build up; preparedness and suppression; and the wildland/urban
interface. The Steering Group has prepared a draft report addressing
these issues as well as interagency coordinated policy and program
management. The full text of the draft report is printed at the end of
this notice, except for the Glossary (Appendix I) and References
(Appendix II). While the draft report reinforces public and firefighter
safety as the foundation for wildland fire management, it also breaks
with the past on crucial points:
The draft report would recognize fire's natural role in
maintaining healthy ecosystems.
The draft report would recommend an increased use of fire
as one of many resource management tools to reduce fuel build up and to
improve forest health.
Existing plans to use fire for resource benefits stop at
abstract administrative borders; the draft report would promote a
mosaic of fire regimes along natural ecosystems.
The draft report would clarify and emphasize the agency
administrator's accountability for fire management.
Current policy encourages interagency cooperation; the
draft report would require that suppression, prescribed burning,
planning, and research be conducted on an interagency basis across
agency jurisdictions.
Where wildlands and developed communities interface,
federal fire protection practices are not consistent. The draft report
would clarify federal roles in wildland fire protection as cooperating
partners through agreements with responsible tribal, State, or local
jurisdictions.
Public comment on the draft report is requested and will be
considered by the Steering Group in developing a final report and
recommendations for transmittal to and consideration by the two
Secretaries.
For the Department for the Department of Agriculture.
Dated: June 13, 1995.
David G. Unger,
Associate Chief.
For the Department of the Interior.
Dated: June 14, 1995.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Acting Assistant Secretary.
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review; Draft
Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Guiding Principles
Current and Proposed Federal Fire Policies
Topic Area Discussions:
Coordinated Policy and Program Management
Role of Fire in Resource Management
Use of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management
Preparedness and Suppression
Wildland/Urban Interface Protection
Appendix I: Glossary
Appendix II: References
Appendix III: Steering Group
Executive Summary
The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture,
together with Tribes, States, and other jurisdictions, are responsible
for the suppression and use of wildland fire in the management and
protection of natural resources. Although these organizations have
traditionally cooperated in carrying out their fire management
responsibilities, it is more important than ever, as resources become
increasingly scarce, to explore ways in which cooperation can be
improved and made more effective. Because fire respects no boundaries,
uniform Federal policies and programs must lead to more productive
cooperation and efficient operations.
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was
chartered by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to examine
the need for modification of and addition to Federal fire policy. The
review recommends a set of consistent policies for all Federal wildland
fire management agencies. The resulting analysis/report is organized
around five major fire management program components: (1) Coordinated
Policy and Program Management, (2) Role of Fire in Resource Management,
(3) Use of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management, (4) Preparedness and
Suppression, and (5) Wildland/Urban Interface Protection.
Two very fundamental principles are recognized as being basic to
all other findings and recommendations in this report: (1) Safety is
paramount; and (2) wildland fire is a natural occurrence that plays a
fundamental role in natural resource management. We must recognize that
wildfire has historically been a major force in the evolution of our
wildlands, and it must be allowed to continue to play its natural role
wherever possible.
The report recommends thirteen new or revised fire management
policies consistent across all Federal wildland firefighting agencies.
The first policy recommendation says that public and firefighter safety
is the first priority. Other policies deal with integrating fire
considerations into resource planning, the use of prescribed fire,
capability to suppress fires, economic efficiency, protection priority,
interagency actions, consistent standards, and the Federal role in the
wildland/urban interface.
A set of fire management principles have been identified that
address interagency collaboration in the fire management business. We
recommend adoption of these principles by the Federal resource
agencies. They include guidance on safety, planning, standardization,
coordination, use of science, risk management, and economic efficiency.
The report recommends that some very critical processes continue to
explore what role States, local governments, and insurance companies
should take in addressing the growing fire problems in the wildland/
urban interface. We will recommend that the Secretaries require all
agencies to develop an implementation plan describing the actions and
time frame required to implement the recommendations of this report.
[[Page 32487]]
In addition to the specific analysis that was done for this effort,
the review team also relied heavily on previous fire management reviews
and the work completed by the Interagency Management Review Team that
was chartered following the 1994 fatalities on the South Canyon fire.
Many organizations and individuals participated in the development
of this report. Special emphasis was given to communication with key
national stakeholders, representatives of public and private resource
interests, and employees. Public review was facilitated by publishing a
scoping notice in the Federal Register and analyzing the resulting
feedback. It is our hope that the other Federal agencies who have
joined us in this review can give their support and concurrence to the
final policies that evolve from this and future public involvement.
Introduction
The Federal fire management community has, for many years, been a
leader in interagency communication and cooperation to achieve mutual
objectives. While many policies and procedures are similar among the
agencies, some significant differences may hinder efficient interagency
cooperation. Because it is prudent to manage consistently across agency
boundaries, uniform cooperative programs are critical to efficient and
effective fire management. Policies and programs must incorporate the
wisdom and experience of the past, reflect today's values, and be able
to adapt to the challenges of the future. They must be based on science
and sound ecological and economic principles and, above all, must form
the basis for fighting and using fire safely.
While continual improvements are inherent in the fire program, the
events of the 1994 wildfire season created a renewed awareness and
concern among the Federal land management agencies and our constituents
about the impacts of wildfire. As a result of those concerns and in
response to specific recommendations in the report of the South Canyon
Fire Interagency Management Review Team (IMRT), the Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy and Program Review was chartered to examine the
possible need for new Federal fire policy. The review was directed by
an interagency Steering Group whose members represented the Departments
of Agriculture and the Interior, the U.S. Fire Administration, the
National Weather Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
the Environmental Protection Agency (see Appendix III). The Steering
Group received staff support from a core team representing the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior.
The five Federal fire/land management agencies referenced
throughout this report are the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park
Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior. The term ``Federal
wildland'' as used in this report recognizes that Indian trust lands
are private lands held in trust by the government and that Tribes
possess a Nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-
government. Indian trust resource protection will be provided in a
knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful of Tribal sovereignty.
Early in this review process, internal and external ideas were
sought and broad program management issues were identified. The review
was announced and input was requested in the Federal Register on
January 3, 1995. At the same time, letters were sent to approximately
300 individuals and organizations across the nation and employee input
was sought through internal communications within the Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture. Since that time, Steering Group members
have met with national stakeholders, the Western Governors'
Association, and employees to get additional, more focused input; they
have received and incorporated input resulting from the Environmental
Regulation and Prescribed Fire conference held in Tampa, Florida, in
March 1995; and they have individually continued to network with their
constituents. The results of that process are reflected in this draft
report.
Throughout the report, the term ``fire'' refers to wildland fire
unless otherwise specified. Other terms that may not be clear to all
readers are defined for the purposes of this report in Appendix I.
A number of related reviews and studies form a broad foundation of
technical, professional, and scientific assessment upon which the
recommended goals, actions, and policies contained in this report are
founded, including:
Final Report on Fire Management Policy--May 1989.
Rural Fire Protection in America: A Challenge for the
Future; National Association of State Foresters--1991.
Oversight Hearing; Fire Suppression, Fire Prevention, and
Forest Health Issues and Programs; Committee on Agriculture and the
Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives--October 4,
1994.
National Commission on Wildfire Disasters; Sampson,
Chair--1994.
Western Forest Health Initiative Report, USDA-Forest
Service--1994.
Fire Management Strategic Assessment Report, USDA-Forest
Service--1994.
Report of the Interagency Management Review Team, South
Canyon Fire--October 1994.
Bureau of Land Management Fire and Aviation Programwide
Management Review Report--April 1995.
These reviews and studies include extensive input from affected
interests, agency employees, and the general public. The
recommendations that have resulted from these efforts shall, as part of
this review, be implemented if they are consistent with this report and
have demonstrated interagency consensus.
Guiding Principles
Guiding principles represent those broad, overarching procedural
tenets that apply to all fire management activities. They have their
basis in current manuals, handbooks, and written program instruction.
The following guiding principles are fundamental to the success of the
Federal wildland fire management program and will be inherent in all
Federal agency programs:
Public and firefighter safety is the first priority in
every fire management activity.
The role of fire as an essential ecological process and
natural change agent will be incorporated into the planning process.
Fire management activities support the achievement of those plans.
Fire management plans, programs, and activities are
integral components of land and resource management plans and their
implementation. Federal agency land and resource management plans set
the objectives for the use and desired future condition of the various
public lands.
Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire
management activities. Risks and uncertainties relating to fire
management activities must be understood, analyzed, communicated, and
managed as they relate to the cost of either doing or not doing the
activity. Net gains to the public benefit will be an important
component of decisions.
Fire management programs and activities are economically
viable, based upon values at risk, costs, and land and resource
management objectives. Federal agency administrators are adjusting and
reorganizing programs to [[Page 32488]] reduce costs and increase
efficiencies. As part of this process, investments in fire management
activities must be evaluated against all agency programs in order to
effectively accomplish the overall mission, set short- and long-term
priorities, and clarify management accountability.
Fire management plans and activities are based upon the
best available science. Knowledge and experience are developed among
all wildland fire management agencies. An active fire research program
combined with interagency collaboration provides the means to make this
available to all fire managers.
Federal, State, Tribal, and local interagency coordination
and cooperation is essential. Increasing costs and smaller work forces
require that public agencies pool their human resources to successfully
deal with the ever-increasing and more complex fire management tasks.
Full collaboration among Federal agencies and between the Federal
agencies and State, local, and private entities results in a mobile
fire management workforce available to the full range of public needs.
Standardization of policies and procedures among Federal
agencies is an ongoing objective. Consistency of plans and operations
provides the fundamental platform upon which Federal agencies can
cooperate and integrate fire activities across agency boundaries and
provide leadership for cooperation with State and local fire management
organizations.
Current and Proposed Federal Fire Policies
Following the initial comments by employees and the public in
January 1995, subject-matter experts from the Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and the private sector reviewed the issues that
were raised and the policies that relate to those issues. These working
groups focused on policies needing change. They are displayed as
``current'' policies in the following table. The groups then developed
proposals for revised or new policies. The results of that effort,
refined by the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program
Review Steering Group, are displayed in the table as ``proposed''
policies.
Federal Wildland Fire Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Department of the
Interior \1\ Current Forest Service \2\ Proposed Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety................... No wildfire situation, with Conduct fire suppression in Public and firefighter
the possible exception of a timely, effective, and safety is the first
threat to human survival, efficient manner with a priority. No resource or
requires the exposure of high regard for public and property values are worth
firefighters to life- firefighter safety. Forest endangering people. All
threatening situations. officers responsible for suppression actions and
planning and implementing prescribed fire plans must
suppression action shall reflect this commitment.
not knowingly or
carelessly subordinate
human lives to other
values.
Planning................. Fire will be used to Integrate consideration of Fire, as a critical natural
achieve responsible and fire protection and use process, will be
definable land-use into the formulation and integrated into land and
benefits through the evaluation of land and resource management plans
integration of fire resource management and activities on a
suppression and prescribed objectives, prescriptions, landscape scale, across
fire as a management tool. and practices. agency boundaries, and
will be based upon best
available science.
Prescribed Fire.......... Prescribed fire may be Use prescribed fires, from Prescribed fire will be
utilized to accomplish either management used to protect, maintain,
land-use or resource- ignitions or natural and enhance resources, and
management objectives only ignitions, in a safe, prescribed natural fire
when defined in prescribed carefully controlled, cost- will be allowed to
fire plans. effective manner as a function, as nearly as
means of achieving possible, in its natural
management objectives ecological role. All
defined in Forest Plans. prescribed fire must be
Prepare a burn plan for consistent with land and
all prescribed fire resource management plans,
projects. public health
considerations, and
approved prescribed burn
plans.
Prescribed Natural Fire.. Prescribed fire, designed Allow lightning-caused (See above.)
to accomplish the fires to play, as nearly
management objective of as possible, their natural
allowing naturally ecological role in
occurring fire to play its Wilderness.
role in the ecosystem,
will be allowed to burn if
provided for in a fire
management plan, a valid
prescription exists, and
the fire is monitored.
Wildfire................. Fires are classified as Wildland fires are defined Wildland fire is defined as
either wildfire or as either a wildfire or a either a wildfire or a
prescribed fire. All prescribed fire. Respond prescribed fire.
wildfires will be to a fire burning on Management actions taken
suppressed. Wildfire may National Forest System will be consistent with
not be used to accomplish land based on whether it firefighter and public
land-use and resource- is a wildfire or a safety, land-use plan
management objectives. prescribed fire; implement objectives, resource
Only prescribed fire may an appropriate suppression benefits, and values at
be used for this purpose. response to a wildfire. risk. Wildfire that does
not meet land-use plan
objectives will be
suppressed.
[[Page 32489]]
Preparedness............. Bureaus will maintain an Plan, train, equip, and Agencies will ensure their
adequate state of make available an capability to provide
preparedness and adequate organization that ensures safe, cost-effective fire
resources for wildland cost-efficient wildfire protection in accordance
fire suppression. protection in support of with land management plans
Preparedness plans will land and resource through appropriate
include considerations for management direction as planning, staffing,
cost-effective training stated in Fire Management training, and equipment.
and equipping of Action Plans. Base
suppression forces, presuppression planning on
maintenance of facilities the National Fire
and equipment, positioning Management Analysis System.
of resources, and criteria
for analyzing,
prioritizing, and
responding to various
levels of fire situations.
Suppression.............. Wildfire losses will be Conduct fire suppression in Fires are suppressed at
held to the minimum a timely, effective, and minimum costs, considering
possible through timely efficient manner with a benefits and values at
and effective suppression high regard for public and risk and consistent with
action consistent with firefighter safety. resource objectives.
values at risk and within
the framework of land-use
objectives and plans.
Administrator & Employee Wildfires are considered Every Forest Service Employees who are trained
Responsibility. emergencies, and their employee has the and certified will
suppression will be given responsibility to support participate in the
priority over normal and participate in wildland fire program as
Departmental programs. wildfire suppression the situation demands;
activities as the noncertified employees
situation demands. with operational,
administrative, or other
skills will support the
wildland fire program as
needed; and administrators
will be responsible,
accountable, and make
employees available.
Protection Priorities.... The standard criterion to The standard criterion to Protection priorities are
be used in establishing be used in establishing (1) life and (2) property
protection priorities is protection priorities is or natural resources,
the potential to destroy: the potential to destroy: based on relative values
(1) Human Life, (2) (1) Human Life, (2) at risk, commensurate with
Property, and (3) Resource Property, and (3) Resource suppression costs.
Values. (National Values. (National
Interagency Mobilization Interagency Mobilization
Guide, March 1995, NFES Guide, March 1995, NFES
2092.). 2092.).
Interagency Cooperation.. Bureaus will coordinate and Develop and implement Fire planning,
cooperate with each other mutually beneficial fire prescription,
and with other protection management agreements with preparedness, suppression,
agencies for greater other Federal agencies and monitoring, and research
efficiency and countries. Cooperate, will be conducted on an
effectiveness. participate, and consult interagency basis with the
with the States on fire involvement of all
protection for non-Federal partners.
wildlands.
Standardization.......... The National Wildfire The National Wildfire Agencies will use
Coordinating Group (NWCG) Coordinating Group (NWCG) consistent planning
provides a formalized provides a formalized processes, funding
system to agree upon system to agree upon mechanisms, training and
standards of training, standards of training, qualification
equipment, aircraft, equipment, aircraft, requirements, operational
suppression priorities, suppression priorities, procedures, values-at-risk
and other operational and other operational methodologies, and public
areas. (Memorandum of areas. (Memorandum of education programs for all
Understanding, NWCG; II, Understanding, NWCG; II, fire management
Function and Purpose.). Function and Purpose.). activities.
Wildland/Urban Interface. Emergency assistance may be Structural fire The operational role of
provided to properties in suppression, which Federal agencies, as a
the vicinity of public and includes exterior and partner in the wildland/
Indian lands so long as interior actions on urban interface, is
Departmental lands or the burning structures, is the wildland firefighting,
public's interest is not responsibility of State hazard fuels reduction,
jeopardized. Bureaus will and local government. cooperative prevention and
develop and participate in Structural fire protection education, and technical
interagency fire from advancing wildfire assistance. Structural
prevention cooperatives. within the National Forest fire protection is the
protection boundary is the responsibility of State
responsibility of State and local governments.
and local fire departments Federal agencies may
and the Forest Service. assist with exterior
structural suppression
activities under formal
agreements that state the
mutual responsibilities of
the partners, including
funding. (The National
Park Service and Bureau of
Indian Affairs have full
structural protection
authority for their
facilities on their land
and may also enter into
formal agreements to
assist State and local
governments with full
structural protection.)
[[Page 32490]]
Economic Efficiency...... Bureaus will ensure that Provide a cost-efficient Fire management and fire
all fire management level of wildfire program activities will be
activities are planned and protection on National based on economic
based upon sound Forest lands commensurate efficiencies developed by
considerations, including with the threat to life using sound economic
economic concerns. Bureaus and property and analysis methodologies
will coordinate and commensurate with the that incorporate
cooperate with each other potential for resource and commodity, non-commodity,
and with other protection environmental damage based and social values.
agencies for greater on hazard, risk values,
efficiency and and management objectives.
effectiveness. Wildfire
damage will be held to the
minimum possible, giving
full consideration to
minimizing expenditure of
public funds for effective
suppression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From current Department of the Interior Manual.
\2\ From current USDA-Forest Service Manual.
Coordinated Policy and Program Management
Situation
In analyzing fire policy and programs, several broad components of
fire management were identified as needing improvement. These issues
are grouped in this section to show the need for consistency across all
aspects of fire management. They include accountability, measurement of
program efficiency, organization, fire management data, weather
support, and legal review and policy analysis of programs, authorities,
responsibilities, and liabilities.
The five Federal wildland fire management agencies have worked
together for many years to improve many aspects of the fire management
program. However, in order to accomplish a more unified approach to
fire management, provide the maximum opportunity for reinvention of
processes, and improve results, they must take this approach even
further.
Program Accountability
Current mechanisms to ensure management accountability in the fire
program are ineffective. Policy and guidance are unclear about agency
administrators' and fire program managers' responsibilities, and their
position descriptions and performance standards are vague in that
regard. As a result, there is little incentive for managers to adhere
to established policy and direction or to provide oversight to the
program. In addition, this lack of performance criteria does not
portray expectations to inexperienced administrators or fire program
managers.
Most employees and many fire managers don't believe that fire
accomplishments or failures, especially in suppression activities, can
be measured. There is a widely held view that line officers are not
held accountable for failures or rewarded for accomplishments. This
aggravates the perception that line officers can give fire activities a
low priority without being held responsible for the consequences.
Furthermore, there is a perception by employees that only political or
public pressure affects the line officer's dealings with fire.
This perception of a lack of accountability is increased by
managers not speaking out in support of the fire program, not
motivating employees to become certified and be available for fire
suppression duties, limiting forces available for regional or national
mobilization, or de-emphasizing fire priorities. This perception is
also exacerbated by line officers' broad interpretations and varying
levels of implementation of policies requiring support of fire
suppression activities.
Goal
Achieve an appropriate recognition of fire management program
requirements and successfully fulfill managerial and technical
responsibilities.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Develop and utilize consistent fire management
qualification standards and specific selection criteria for fire
program managers.
Establish job performance standards for agency
administrators and fire managers that clearly reflect the complexity
and scope of the fire management responsibilities.
Provide consistent and adequate training for agency
administrators commensurate with their role and responsibility in fire
management.
Ensure that agency administrators and fire program
managers are held accountable for conducting the fire program in
accordance with established policies, procedures, standards, and
direction.
Ensure that employees who are trained and certified
participate in the wildland fire program as the situation demands;
noncertified employees with operational, administrative, or other
skills support the wildland fire program as needed; and administrators
are responsible, accountable, and make employees available.
Program Efficiency
Services provided by Federal agencies are being critically
scrutinized, both internally and externally, to determine the relative
priority of every program and its contribution to the agency mission
and the public good. As part of that scrutiny, the returns on
investments in the fire program must be compared with the returns in
other programs. Subsequently, every activity within the fire management
program must be analyzed according to its economic efficiency. For
example, presuppression activities such as prevention and preparedness
must be able to display their contribution to reduced suppression
costs, and prescribed fire programs must show a return in improved or
restored ecosystems or reduced suppression costs.
Agency managers must be able to analyze program economic efficiency
in order to establish the priority and scope of the fire management
program. Current information on fire program benefits and costs are
neither reliable nor consistent, and present program analysis
methodologies are inadequate and inconsistent among Federal agencies.
One dilemma is the question of what values should be included in such
an analysis of diverse Federal wildlands; however, commodity, non-
commodity, and social values all must be considered.
A growing concern shared by Members of Congress, agency
[[Page 32491]] administrators, and the public is focused on the cost of
fighting large wildfires. Recently, the General Accounting Office has
been directed to review 1994 fire suppression expenditures in some
agencies.
Some critics believe expenditures are excessive and that the crisis
nature of wildfire has led to imprudent use of personnel, equipment,
and supplies. Others believe that firefighting practices are not as
effective as some natural forces in bringing wildfires under control
and that fire suppression efforts should take better advantage of
weather, terrain, fuel, and other natural conditions. In the future
there is likely to be less tolerance for excessive expenditures on
large-fire suppression. This type of fire activity must be analyzed for
costs versus benefits. Present analysis methods have not resulted in
improved practices or reinforced confidence in current suppression
strategies.
Goal
A means is developed with which to demonstrate overall fire
management economic efficiency as well as to analyze the relative
efficiency of specific activities within the fire management program.
Action
Federal agencies will:
Jointly develop a standard methodology for measuring and
reporting fire management economic efficiency that includes commodity,
non-commodity, and social values. This methodology should specifically
address, among other considerations, the cost of large-fire
suppression.
Base fire management and fire program activities on
economic efficiencies developed by using sound economic analysis
methodologies.
Organizational Alternatives
The current focus on reinvention of the Federal government is
stimulating new approaches to accomplishing agency missions. As part of
this effort, Federal agencies must evaluate their fire management
organizations and methods of accomplishing their total fire management
program. These analyses must consider the movement to reduce the
Federal role in public service, the implications of a continued
reduction in work force and skills, and the effectiveness and
efficiency of fire management organizations and methods, while at the
same time retaining strong principles of public service. Any change in
organizations or responsibilities must bring the same or better fire
management service to the public and meet the goals and objectives of
the agencies' land use plans.
Each Federal agency currently maintains its own separate fire
management organization, with qualified employees from other programs
available as the fire situation dictates. This is commonly termed the
fire militia. Federal agencies and cooperators also share resources
nationally, and in some cases local interagency fire organizations
exist, contract services are used, or other innovative approaches, such
as the National Interagency Fire Center, the National Wildfire
Coordinating Group, and the Alaska Fire Service, are being developed or
used to accomplish the fire management mission. The Federal fire work
force is currently decreasing at an uncomfortable rate, particularly in
key specialized skills. An anticipated increase in retirements of fire
managers and specialists over the next five years raises a serious
question about how agencies will conduct their fire management
missions. More aggressive examination and implementation of
organizational alternatives are hampered by the inability to measure
relative efficiencies among these alternatives as well as by strong
traditions that create a resistance to change.
Goal
The most efficient and effective fire management program for
Federal resources is developed, using an appropriate analysis
procedure.
Actions
Federal agencies will conduct a comprehensive, cooperative analysis
of their fire management programs and consider a broad range of
alternatives, including non-Federal fire management services provided
by Tribes, State or local governments, or private interests. The
agencies will focus on developing a consistent analytical approach and
evaluate alternatives against well-founded criteria. This analysis will
be directed toward achieving the same or improved level of service, and
at a minimum each alternative will explore funding mechanisms, specific
wildfire suppression activities, and fire management in the wildland/
urban interface. Each alternative will include the variables of funding
the total program and funding by the benefitting party.
Data Management
Accurate, organized, and accessible information about natural
resources and fire activities is the basis for coordinated agency
program decisions and is critical to effective and efficient program
management.
There is currently no consistency among agencies in compiling,
managing, and accessing fire data, which prevents a reliable, holistic
view of the Federal fire program. Although some data, such as
historical fire patterns, response to past management actions, resource
values, prescribed fire statistics, and hazard mapping, have been
collected, it is incomplete and is not managed and portrayed
consistently. In some cases, e.g., the wildland/urban interface, the
need for data is only now being identified.
Goal Federal agencies adhere to sound data management principles
and achieve a coordinated Federal fire statistical database.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Standardize fire statistics and develop an easily
accessible common database.
Jointly identify, develop, and use tools needed for
ecosystem-based fire management programs with mechanisms to integrate
fire-related databases with other systems. These tools will include:
--The collection of ecosystem-related data such as disturbance regimes,
historical fire patterns, response to management actions, and others.
--Consistent methods to track and access fire information, e.g., fire-
use statistics and administrative costs.
--Mechanisms to transfer and exchange information such as fire effects
databases (e.g., Fire Effects Information System), expert systems
(e.g., Fire Monitoring Navigator), Internet access, National Biological
Information Infrastructure, National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)
Publications Management System documents, multimedia training and
educational material, and public/private partnership information.
Direct the collection of a common set of prescribed fire
data for use in risk assessment.
Cooperate with the Tribes, States, and local governments to
establish a data-collection mechanism, which includes involvement by
the insurance industry, National Fire Protection Association, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and other Federal agencies, to better
assess the nature and scope of the wildland/urban interface fire
problem.
Play a lead role in the adoption of the National Fire
Incident Reporting System standards for all fire agencies that operate
in the wildland/urban interface and modify existing fire
[[Page 32492]] reports (Interior's DI-1202 and Forest Service's 5100-
29) to reflect wildland/urban interface data.
Weather Support
Fire-weather forecasting is a sophisticated and long-standing tool
used by fire managers. As fire behavior prediction techniques have
improved and become paramount in fire suppression, weather support has
become a critical factor. In addition, longer-term fires are demanding
forecasts beyond the six- to ten-day reliable range.
Currently, fire weather services are provided, on request, by the
National Weather Service as a special program in that agency; however,
demands for weather support have begun to exceed the existing
capability. In recent severe fire years, requests for on-the-fire units
could not always be filled.
The need for nontraditional weather support is dramatically
increasing. Pre-fire-season predictions are being demanded by managers
in order to prioritize work loads. Long-range fire severity forecasts
are commonly needed for pre-positioning suppression forces, but they
are either not available or unreliable. Finally, current and future
demands for prescribed-fire weather forecasts, both long-range and on-
site, are far exceeding present weather-support capability. To date,
evaluation of alternatives for providing weather support to the fire
management program have not resulted in substantive change in the
methods available to fire managers.
Goal
Appropriate options are implemented for fulfilling fire managers'
current and future needs for weather services.
Actions
The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, together
with the Secretary of Commerce, will evaluate alternative methods,
including non-Federal sources, to provide weather service to the
agencies' fire management programs.
The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will seek
commitment from the Secretary of Commerce to research and develop
technology to provide accurate, long-range weather forecasts.
Legal Review and Policy Analysis
New and innovative fire program activities and the increasing
interconnection between fire activities and existing environmental,
public health, and tort laws require legal review and policy analysis
to ensure coordination and compliance. Consequences of prescribed fire
activities, where fire is allowed to play a natural role or is
introduced into the wildlands, may conflict with some interpretations
of existing laws or regulations. Currently, these differences are
identified independently by each agency and resolved on a case-by-case
basis.
Many of these issues are emerging in the wildland/urban interface
zone (see Wildland/Urban Interface Protection section). In order to
make the best possible decisions, agencies must have sound, consistent
legal interpretation of laws and regulations and/or in-depth systematic
analysis of policy. Furthermore, wildland fire management agencies
must, early in the process, involve public-health and environmental
regulators in developing the most workable application of policies and
regulations.
Goal
Agencies have a consistent interpretation of laws and resulting
policies to eliminate inconsistencies in agency fire management
programs and decisions.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
--Identify the legal context for reintroducing fire into wildlands and
develop options for accomplishment, including modifying regulations to
address ecological processes where appropriate, exercising broader
interpretations of policy, using the waiver process, or resolving
obstacles at regional and local levels.
--Jointly obtain legal interpretation of current policy and law
regarding interagency implementation activities related to fire
management, including those on non-Federal lands. Based on this
interpretation, agencies can develop standardized agreements or new
agreements that permit these activities.
--Clarify and differentiate between agency liability and personal
liability resulting from prescribed fire, based on legal review and
interpretation of tort law.
The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will
direct the Office of the Solicitor and the Office of the General
Counsel, in coordination with the Department of Justice, to conduct and
publish, by January 1, 1996, a comprehensive legal review on wildland/
urban interface fire protection to provide the legal foundation for
Federal actions. This review will address:
--Current authority under Federal laws such as the Organic Act,
National Forest Management Act, Stafford Act, and the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act.
--The subjects of tort liability, budget authorities, cooperative
agreements, mitigation activities, and natural resource protection/
environmental laws.
Role of Fire in Resource Management
Situation
Long before humans arrived in North America, there was fire. It
came with the first lightning strike and will remain forever. Wildfire
is inherently neither good nor bad. As an inevitable natural force, it
is simply unpredictable and potentially destructive and, along with
human activities, has altered ecosystems throughout time.
Early ecologists recognized the presence of disturbance but focused
on the principle that the land continued to move toward a stable or
equilibrium condition. Through the years, however, scientists have
acknowledged that equilibrium conditions are largely the exception and
disturbance is generally the rule. Natural forces have affected and
defined landscapes throughout time. Inasmuch as humans cannot
completely control or eliminate these disturbances, ecosystems will
continue to change.
Human activities have also influenced ecosystem change. American
Indian Tribes actively used fire in prehistoric and historic times to
alter vegetation patterns. In short, people and fire and ecosystems
evolved together. This human influence shifted after European
settlement in North America, when it was believed that fire, unlike
other natural disturbance phenomena, could and should be controlled.
For many years fire was aggressively excluded to prevent what was
considered the destruction of forests and other vegetation. While the
destructive, potentially deadly side of fire was obvious and immediate,
changes and risks resulting from these fire exclusion efforts were
difficult to recognize and mounted slowly and inconspicuously over many
decades.
Recently, however, there has been a growing recognition that past
land-use practices such as logging and grazing, combined with the
effects of fire exclusion, have resulted in heavy accumulations of dead
vegetation, altered fuel arrangement, and changes in vegetative
structure and composition. As dead fallen material (including tree
boles, tree and shrub branches, leaves, and decaying organic matter)
accumulates on the ground, it increases fuel quantity and creates a
continuous [[Page 32493]] arrangement of fuel. These conditions allow
surface fires to ignite more quickly, burn with greater intensity, and
spread more rapidly and extensively than in the past.
The arrangement of live vegetation also affects the way fires burn.
For example, an increase in the density of small trees creates a multi-
storied forest structure with a continuous vertical fuel arrangement.
This arrangement may allow a fire normally restricted to the ground to
spread into the trees and become a crown fire. In addition to
structural changes, vegetation modification resulting from fire
exclusion causes a shift toward species that are not adapted to fire
(some of which are not native) and are therefore more susceptible to
damage from fire. Fire exclusion also favors non-native species in some
fire-dependent areas, while in other areas fires may encourage non-
native species. Fires in areas of altered vegetation and fuels affect
other important forces within the ecosystem, such as insects and
diseases, wildlife populations, hydrologic processes, and nutrient
cycling, which influence the long-term sustainability of the land.
Paradoxically, rather than eliminating fire, exclusion efforts have
instead dramatically altered fire regimes so that today's fires tend to
be larger and more severe. No longer a matter of slow accumulation of
fuels, today's conditions confront us with the likelihood of more
rapid, extensive ecological changes beyond any we have experienced in
the past. To address these changes and the challenge they present, we
must first understand and accept the role of fire and adopt land
management practices that integrate fire as an essential ecosystem
process.
Although ecological knowledge and theories have changed relatively
quickly, the scope and process of land management have had difficulty
keeping pace. Ecological processes, including fire and other
disturbance, and changing landscape conditions are often not integrated
into land management planning and decisions. With few exceptions,
existing land management planning is confined to individual agency
boundaries and single-function goals that are driven by differing
agency missions and policies. This type of planning results in an
inefficient, fragmented, short-term approach to management that tends
to ignore interdisciplinary-based, long-term, broad-scale resource
issues that cross agency boundaries. Land management agencies now
recognize the need to break down these barriers and seek cooperative,
ecologically sound approaches to land management.
The process used in land management planning also hinders the
broad-scale approach. One way to break down this barrier is to involve
all interests, including the public, scientists, resource specialists,
and regulators, throughout the planning process. Another is to
establish a clear link for communication and information transfer
between scientists and managers. These measures will help to ensure
that management needs are met and that current science is used in land
management planning at all levels.
Planning must also consider the risks, probabilities, and
consequences of various management strategies, e.g., wildfire versus
prescribed fire versus fire exclusion. For a responsive planning
process, management decisions must be monitored, integrated and
supported at each step. And to carry out critical and effective
``adaptive management'' (a feedback approach to management that uses
monitoring results to plan future actions), planners and managers need
a nationwide baseline measure of ecological condition and a
standardized method of assessing long-term ecological health.
Not only must we understand and accept the need to integrate fire
into land management, but this integration must be reconciled with
other societal goals (e.g., maintaining species habitat, maximizing
commodity production, and protecting air quality, water quality, and
human health). Laws and regulations must consistently address long-term
ecosystem processes and must guide agencies toward a common goal.
Information about the consequences of various management strategies is
not currently available to assist in working toward simultaneous goals.
Land management and regulatory agencies must interact and collaborate
to achieve a balance of ecosystem and other societal goals.
A major obstacle is that many people do not understand the
ecological and scientific concepts behind fire. For many, fire remains
a fearsome, destructive force that can and should be controlled at all
costs. Smokey Bear's simple, time-honored ``only you'' fire prevention
message has been so successful that any complex talk about the healthy,
natural role of fire gets lost, ignored or denied by broad internal and
external audiences.
The ecological and societal risks of using and excluding fire have
not been adequately clarified and quantified to allow open and thorough
discussions among managers and the public. Few understand that
integrating fire into land management is not a one-time, immediate fix
but a continual, long-term process. It is not an end in itself but
rather a means to a healthy end. Full agency commitment to internal and
external information and education regarding fire and other ecological
processes is needed. When agency employees as well as the public
misunderstand or remain skeptical about the role of fire, it severely
limits adaptive and innovative fire and land management. Conversely,
informed constituents and well-educated employees are essential to
honestly address the concerns of society.
Several roadblocks keep us from reintroducing fire on an
ecologically significant scale. Even now it sometimes takes years to
reach agreement about appropriate treatments and to take action. Land
managers often feel the need to wait for scientific certainty before
acting. This favors the status quo, impedes progress, and deters
investigation of new techniques. In many ecosystems, there is little or
no information about disturbance regimes, historical fire patterns,
inventory data, response to past management actions, and likely future
responses. This calls for a consistent, well-planned, and large-scale
scientific assessment of current ecosystem conditions and consequences
of various management strategies. Also, increasing human settlement
near wildlands divides and fragments resource lands, making it
difficult to apply new ecosystem-based management strategies. This
increases the risk of escaped fires and generates more complaints about
smoke and altered scenic values. A further roadblock is the current
policy that calls for the suppression of all wildfires. This precludes
the use of wildfire as a cost-effective means of accomplishing the
objectives contained in agency land-use plans.
Fire is the most powerful natural force that mankind has learned to
use. Unlike an earthquake, it can be harnessed; unlike a tornado, it
can be channeled; unlike wind, it depends on complex chemical and
biological relationships. And, unlike water and ice, fire is not an
element; it is an event, a catalyst, and therefore a unique tool that
land managers everywhere can use.
But in order to successfully integrate fire into natural resource
management, informed managers, partners, and the public must build upon
sound scientific principles and social values. Research programs must
be developed to create this foundation of sound scientific principles.
All parties must work together in the land management planning and
implementation process according to agreed-upon goals for
[[Page 32494]] public welfare and the health of the land.
The task before us--reintroducing fire--is both urgent and
enormous. We have created conditions on millions of acres of wildlands
that increase the probability of large, intense wildfires beyond any
scale we have witnessed. These severe fires will in turn increase the
risk to humans, to property, and to the land upon which our social and
economic well-being is so intimately intertwined.
In the first decade of this century, a new policy was established
that systematically excluded the natural flame across the entire
nation. In recent years we have begun to understand the full extent of
the risks that policy has wrought. Now, in the last decade of this
century, it is our responsibility, for the health of the land and for
our citizens, to carefully, systematically, and collectively bring fire
back to its rightful place.
Goals--Planning
Ecological processes, including fire, are actively
incorporated into land management planning to restore and maintain
sustainable ecosystems. Planning is a collaborative effort, with all
interested partners working together to develop and implement
management objectives that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
The use of fire to sustain ecosystem health is based on
sound scientific principles and is balanced with other societal
concerns.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Jointly develop consistent, compatible, ecosystem-based
interagency land management planning processes that facilitate adaptive
management, including effective implementation, continual monitoring,
and appropriate feedback to management. This process will:
--Fully integrate ecological concepts that consider the long-term view
and cross agency boundaries.
--Involve all internal parties, including managers, scientists,
resource specialists, regulators, Tribes, State and local governments,
and the public. (The ongoing interagency Columbia River Basin
Assessment Project may provide a model.)
--Quickly and effectively incorporate current information, including
scientific knowledge, risk assessment, social and economic concerns,
and public-health considerations.
--Include multiple scales of planning, assessment, and monitoring to
address specific actions such as fire management prescriptions for
resource management on a local scale and ecosystem health on a broader
scale.
--Set performance requirements and provide rewards for
interdisciplinary planning and successful implementation so that team
members are responsible for ecosystem health rather than single,
specific targets.
--Require consistent and integrated ecosystem monitoring across agency
boundaries.
--Include a mechanism to revise existing land management plans to
address the above actions.
Develop research programs that provide a sound scientific
basis for the integration of fire as a positive force in resource
management.
Use a consistent fire management planning system that
ensures adequate fire suppression capabilities to support fire
reintroduction efforts and recognizes fire management (both fire use
and fire protection) as an inherent part of natural resource
management.
Create a system for coordination and cooperation among
land managers and regulators to allow for the use of fire to achieve
goals of ecosystem health while at the same time protecting individual
components of the environment and human health and safety. This system
will:
--Allow for early collaboration during the process of developing new
land management plans.
--Provide a mechanism for achieving balanced goals in existing land
management plans.
--Encourage land management agencies to proactively incorporate the
intent of environmental laws and regulations into their management
practices to achieve a balance among societal goals (e.g., adopt
consistent, state-of-the-art smoke management techniques, including
smoke modeling).
Goals--Reintroduction of Fire
Based upon sound scientific information and management
objectives, fire is used to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems and
to minimize undesirable fire effects, including effects on humans.
Clearly defined management goals and objectives that
include the role of prescribed fire and wildfire are developed.
Resulting fire management practices and terminology are consistent for
areas with similar management objectives, regardless of jurisdiction.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Expedite the decision-making process by developing a
uniform set of criteria for evaluating ecosystem condition and
prioritizing areas for the reintroduction of fire to meet resource
objectives and reduce hazards. This process will identify those
ecosystems:
--That will function without fire (fire is not a significant natural
component or the fire regime has not been altered).
--Where fire is unlikely to succeed (fire would be adverse, such as
areas significantly altered by fuel accumulations and species changes).
--Where treatment is essential or potentially effective (fire is needed
to improve resource conditions or reduce risk and hazard).
Jointly conduct research, expand fire management
demonstration areas, and coordinate and implement ecosystem-based fire
management programs. These programs will:
--Address today's more fragmented landscapes.
--Address the highest-priority needs in ecosystem assessment,
monitoring, and management.
--Use existing tools and develop new ones to assist in understanding
and managing for prescribed fires of greater size and intensity
consistent with historic fire regimes.
--Determine the appropriate scope of prescribed fire use, including
urgency, extent, timing, and risks and consequences.
--Be an integral part of the long-term, comprehensive land management
program.
Revise policy to allow wildfire to be used to accomplish
resource or landscape management goals when consistent with land-use
plan objectives.
Goal--Education
Clear and consistent information is provided to internal and
external audiences about existing conditions, management goals and
objectives, the role of fire in achieving these objectives, and
alternatives and consequences of various fire management strategies.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Establish an interdisciplinary team that includes all agencies and
regulators to design a consistent fire-role and -use message for
decision makers and the public. This message will:
--Describe and clearly explain issues such as ecosystem condition,
risks, consequences (including public health impacts), and costs in
open dialogue with internal and external constituents through media
[[Page 32495]] campaigns, public meetings, employee training, etc.
--Be designed to maximize open communications and reduce polarization
among conflicting interests regarding prescribed fire.
Build on existing efforts of the Interior Interagency Wildland Fire
Education Initiative to develop and implement a strategic plan that
includes education of the general public and agency personnel about the
role of fire. As part of this effort, agencies will:
--Develop and transmit a clear message about the role of fire and the
consequences of its use and exclusion.
--Integrate this message into existing agency communication systems.
--Tie the role-of-fire message to other agency initiatives such as
forest health, ecosystem management, etc.
--Broaden the Initiative to include all interests.
--Incorporate risk assessments into the Initiative.
--Encourage, create, and coordinate partnerships to achieve consistency
in messages, build public trust, and obtain public opinion.
--Recognize and use educable moments (where the attention of the public
is focused on fire, e.g., fire emergencies and visible prescribed fire
operations) to facilitate high-impact information and education.
--Develop mandatory national and regional interagency training programs
to instill in all employees an understanding of the role of fire in
natural systems.
--Commit funding and support to public information.
Use of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management
Situation
Since the early 1900's, our national fire policy of aggressively
limiting and excluding fire has unwittingly turned many wildlands into
altered, high-risk fire zones. As stated in the preceding chapter, this
exclusion policy has modified the living landscape, changing plant
species composition as well as diversity. In many cases it has
transformed a landscape of diffuse, native, fire-adapted plant species
into a dense, solid, and often vulnerable fuel load of standing
vegetation and ground litter. When lightning inevitably strikes, fires
ignite faster, burn hotter, and spread faster and farther. These high-
intensity fires are more likely to result in unacceptable environmental
conditions such as sterilized or water-repellent soils, accelerated
erosion, and displacement of native vegetation by less desirable
species.
Recent fire tragedies in the West have helped focus that
understanding and, along with it, a consideration of how risk might be
mitigated. Some areas will need immediate management intervention to
prevent high-intensity fire and to maintain their sustainability as
healthy ecosystems.
Prescribed fire or burning is often mentioned by land managers,
fire practitioners, and scientists as a potential tool to mitigate
fuels and hazards. Prescribed burning is the deliberate application of
fire to wildlands to achieve specific resource management objectives.
Prescribed fires may be ignited either by resource managers or by
natural events such as lightning. They may be used for a number of
resource management purposes, from simple fuel reduction to achieving
specific responses from fire-dependent species, such as the
regeneration of aspen.
When the purpose of a prescribed fire is simply to reduce the
amount of fuel, alternative treatments are available. Physical removal
or substantial alteration of both dead and living vegetation may be
accomplished by mechanical means in areas where heavy equipment can
operate. Fuel loads can also be treated by hand but at a relatively
high cost. Other land management activities, such as grazing and
logging, may also serve to accomplish fuel reduction. But when a land
management objective is more complex, the number of acceptable
treatment alternatives becomes limited. For instance, there is no
alternative to the use of fire as a natural process in Wilderness.
Prescribed burning is a well-established practice utilized by most
Federal, Tribal and State land management agencies as well as some
private individuals and organizations. In order to use prescribed fire,
land managers must prepare burn plans. Each plan specifies desired
effects, weather conditions that will result in acceptable fire
behavior, and the forces needed to ignite, hold, monitor, and
eventually extinguish the fire. In the past, the practice of prescribed
burning has been used on a relatively small scale and confined to
single land ownerships or jurisdictions. Success has been built around
qualified and experienced people, their understanding of vegetative
types and terrain conducive to fire, adequate funding, a supportive
public, and a willingness on the part of agency administrators to
assume a reasonable amount of risk to achieve desired results.
Because of its potential for undesirable results, prescribed fire
is one of the highest-risk activities Federal land management agencies
engage in. Escaped prescribed fires can result from poorly designed or
poorly executed projects, but they can also result from events beyond
the control of those conducting the project, such as unpredicted winds
or equipment failure. Currently, the stigma associated with an escaped
prescribed fire does not distinguish between poor performance and bad
luck.
Although prescribed fire is used in many areas of the United
States, it is rarely used enough to significantly improve ecosystem
health or reduce hazards. One reason for this is lack of commitment to
the concept. While land management agencies as a whole generally
recognize the role of fire as a natural process, not all individual
disciplines and managers fully understand or support this role. Some
managers are unwilling to accept the potential negative consequences
associated with prescribed fire. Differences of opinion concerning the
effect of fire on specific resources, such as cultural values, water
quality, air quality, and certain flora and fauna, can also impede the
process.
Another shortcoming is lack of access to qualified people. In the
current atmosphere of downsizing and reduced budgets, agencies may not
be able to maintain sufficient skills to accomplish broad-scale
prescribed fire programs. Many of the employees who are most
experienced in the application of prescribed fire are the same ones who
are responsible for wildfire suppression. This can lead to potential
competition for their time during the fire season. Administrative
procedures also inhibit temporary hiring of personnel needed to conduct
on-the-ground prescribed burning.
The direction in the Interagency Fire Business Management Handbook
on hazard-duty pay also tends to limit the number of prescribed fire
professionals. This guidance restricts fire-related hazard pay to
activity within or adjacent to the perimeter of an uncontrolled
wildfire, even though prescribed fire practitioners are exposed to as
much risk if not more than firefighters engaged in suppressing
wildfire.
Retirement benefits have also been a factor in career choices
involving prescribed fire. However, the BLM has now recognized that,
based on 5 CFR 831.900 and 842.800, prescribed fire activity qualifies
for primary coverage under special firefighter retirement. In some
agencies, however, it is still [[Page 32496]] considered to qualify
only for secondary coverage.
To provide optimal biological benefit to forests and rangelands,
the timing and intensity of prescribed fire should resemble natural
occurrence. Historically, fires were often very large; however, current
land-ownership patterns and the process of funding prescribed fire are
not conducive to replicating this process. For example, it is difficult
to have a landscape-size project without involving lands of another
ownership, and there are barriers to spending agency funds on non-
agency lands. And the system does not encourage managers to plan large
projects with multiple benefits located entirely on agency lands,
because participation is generally limited to those program areas that
will provide support and funding.
Currently, there is no consistent method to determine the potential
for a prescribed fire to escape, nor is there a mechanism to compare
the values at risk from an escaped fire versus those at risk by
continuing to exclude fire. When a prescribed fire does escape, the
only way a private property owner can be compensated more than $2,500
is to pursue a tort claim against the Federal government. To prevail,
the damaged party must prove negligence on the part of the agency. This
cumbersome process leads to ill will between the managing agency and
neighboring landowners and adversely affects cooperation.
Managing for landscape health requires expansion of interagency
prescribed fire programs. Agencies must make a commitment with highly
qualified people, from leader to practitioner, and provide funding
mechanisms to conduct the program. Federal agencies must foster a work
force that understands the role of fire and, at the same time, raise
the level of public understanding. Public opinion and perception may
limit increases in interagency prescribed fire programs. Therefore,
continued Federal efforts to work collaboratively with and educate
private landowners, interest groups, and the media is paramount.
Education efforts should focus on exposing the public to accurate
information on the social and economic benefits that result when
prescribed fire is used, how natural resources may be maintained, and
the risks involved, including those associated with not taking any
action. Total implementation may require that the public tolerate some
smoke and accept a certain amount of fire in their environment as an
investment in the long-term health of the land.
Goal--Implementation
Fire is accepted as a critical process in a fully integrated
program to improve forest and rangeland health. Long-term public safety
and healthy ecosystems are maintained through the use of fire on all
ownerships. Through funding and staffing, agencies support a
significant increase in the use of fire as a resource management tool
where consistent with integrated land management plans and maintenance
of public health.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Jointly develop programs to fund and implement an expanded
program of prescribed fire in fire-dependent ecosystems.
Facilitate the planning and implementation of landscape-
scale prescribed burns across agency boundaries and seek opportunities
to enter into partnerships with Tribal, State and private land managers
where appropriate.
Conduct all prescribed fire projects consistent with land
and resource management plans, public health considerations, and
approved prescribed burn plans.
Implement the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)
interagency prescribed fire qualification and certification system.
Aggressively pursue the development of employee attitudes
that support long-range, multi-resource management viewpoints through
the use of training, performance elements, and experience.
Seek authority to eliminate internal barriers to the
transfer and use of funds for prescribed fire on non-Federal lands and
among Federal agencies.
Seek authority or provide administrative direction to
eliminate barriers to carrying over from one year to the next all funds
designated for prescribed fire.
Goal--Capability
Agencies collectively and cooperatively maintain an organization
that can effectively plan and implement prescribed fire to meet
resource management objectives.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Train and maintain a qualified and adequate work force to
implement interagency prescribed fire projects and make them available
when needed.
Jointly develop simple, consistent hiring and contracting
procedures for prescribed fire activities.
Work with the Office of Personnel Management to acquire
authority for hazard-differential pay to compensate employees exposed
to hazards while engaged in large-scale or complex prescribed fire
activities.
Clarify that prescribed fire positions qualify for primary
coverage under special firefighter retirement and issue appropriate
guidance to field offices.
Make optimum use of available skills to ensure adequate
focus, oversight, and safety for the prescribed fire program. Methods
may include:
--Sharing personnel among agencies.
--Organizationally consolidating key fire skills within and among
agencies.
--Minimizing collateral-duty assignments that compromise focus,
oversight, and safety in the prescribed fire program.
Jointly manage prescribed fire and suppression resources
to ensure accomplishment of both activities concurrently.
Explore old and new technologies that may reduce the
labor-intensive nature of fire activities.
Goal--Risk Management/Support
Agencies within the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
support employees when properly planned and conducted prescribed fire
projects have unfavorable outcomes.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
--Jointly develop an assessment process that estimates the probability
of success and/or failure associated with the use of prescribed fire
and evaluates the potential positive and negative consequences. As a
part of this process, the effects of not conducting the project will
also be evaluated. Research will support this effort.
--Jointly establish partnerships and develop tools to assess, disclose,
and mitigate risk from prescribed fires.
--Create an organizational climate that supports employees who
implement a properly planned prescribed fire program.
--Relax current cumbersome, nonproductive requirements such as daily
written management certification that a prescribed fire is burning
within its prescription.
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will seek
legislation allowing rapid reimbursement for non-Federal losses
resulting from prescribed fires.
Preparedness and Suppression
Situation
The business of fighting wildfires is costly, time-consuming, and
often [[Page 32497]] dangerous to firefighters and the public.
Wildfires occur unexpectedly and create an emergency in which
firefighters race to minimize harm to valuable resources or property.
Firefighters can contain and limit the spread of wildfires only by
preparing well ahead of time, thoroughly examining various
possibilities of fire numbers and sizes, and developing contingency
plans to cope with them. And only by having adequate, thoroughly
trained, well-equipped firefighters can fire suppression be carried out
safely. For the past ten years, an average of 67,043 fires have started
each year on Federally protected wildlands, burning an average of
2,749,029 acres, an area slightly smaller than the State of
Connecticut. When an exceptionally severe fire year occurs, the
combined fire protection forces of Federal, Tribal, State, and local
governments are challenged. In the past ten years, 1988, 1990, and 1994
were considered extreme in the number of acres burned.
In 1994, the Federal agencies with wildfire responsibilities
estimate that 95 percent of wildfires were suppressed during initial
attack action. Nevertheless, nearly $1 billion was spent on the fires
that escaped initial attack, and the nation experienced an enormous
loss of natural resources, private property. With the loss of 34
firefighters, it was a tragic year for wildland fire; and even more
sobering is that without the commitment to safety demonstrated by
firefighting personnel throughout the nation, our losses could have
been even greater. Important lessons were learned, including an
affirmation that agency personnel at all levels, and not just those
directly involved in fire suppression, must be committed to safety.
It is estimated that presently in the 11 western states there are
20 to 30 million acres of Federal lands where conditions are ripe for
extremely intense, destructive wildfires. This high risk brings with it
the potential for danger to human health and safety and for enormous
costs and economic loss as well as severe damage to soils, watersheds,
wildlife, and flora. Federal wildland fire protection agencies must
continue to provide resources and new technology for early detection
and quick suppression of fires. To not do so would be to put
significant public and private values, as well as human lives, at
unacceptable risk.
The purpose of wildfire suppression is to minimize damage to
resources, property, and the environment; to minimize expenditures of
public funds for effective suppression, based on values at risk; and to
provide for the safety of firefighters and the public.
Following the tragic loss of lives in the past fire season, the
USDA-Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management chartered an
Interagency Management Review Team (IMRT) that focused on three key
areas:
Creating a ``passion for safety'' within all wildland fire
suppression organizations that goes beyond traditional implementation.
Emphasizing the importance of agency administrator duties
and responsibilities in the implementation of safe fire management
policies, programs, and practices.
Monitoring performance and accountability of all personnel
involved in fire and aviation management activities. This includes
ensuring appropriate skills and training are acquired by
administrators, program managers and staff, and all firefighting
personnel.
The IMRT report includes 35 recommendations for follow-up. Many
have been completed; several are more complex and are ongoing. The IMRT
will complete its work June 30, 1995, but individual work groups will
continue with ongoing projects until they are completed. A significant
outcome of this focus on firefighting safety was a joint statement by
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in May of 1995:
We are committed to ``Zero Tolerance'' of carelessness and
unsafe actions. The commitment to and accountability for safety is a
joint responsibility of firefighters, managers, and administrators.
No resource or property values are worth endangering people. All
land management plans and all suppression plans and actions must
reflect this commitment. Individuals must be personally committed
and responsible for their own performance and accountability.
The task of preparing for and suppressing fires has been
accomplished through the excellent cooperation of all fire suppression
organizations. With shrinking budgets and work forces and more
challenging fire situations, this cooperation and coordination among
Federal and non-Federal fire protection organizations becomes even more
essential to provide the fire protection capability the public expects.
The Interagency Management Review Team's findings included the
following:
The five Federal wildland fire agencies have each adopted
separate fire management planning systems. These systems fall into
two basic categories: (1) Optimization models (used by FS, BLM, and
BIA) and (2) allocation models (used by NPS and FWS). Each approach
has strengths and weaknesses. Three major weaknesses shared by both
approaches are the focus on single-agency initial attack, the
inability to adequately assess the role of non-market or non-
commodity values at risk, and the inability to adequately address
``non-normal'' conditions. Nevertheless, the systems currently
provide the principal source of information for budget planning and
for organizational configurations in each agency.
The single-agency focus and contrasting approaches of the
various systems have precluded effective interagency planning, for
both initial- and extended-attack situations and for geographic-area
and national-level resources. The lack of capability to address non-
market values has hampered the ability of the fire management
programs to provide an organization that accounts for all resources
and inhibits cross-agency comparisons.
While each agency has been making modifications and improvements
to their own systems over the years, discussion has begun within the
interagency fire community to commission a new-generation system
that can be used by all agencies (including States) and that
addresses the full range of fire management planning issues. In
November 1993 the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)
initiated an exploratory study of developing such a system.
A next-generation fire management planning system, usable by all
agencies and States, would greatly enhance the ability to analyze
the full range of planning issues and provide a more efficient and
effective interagency fire protection organization. Fire management
planning systems must address the role that fuels management and
protection of adjacent lands and structures plan in fire protection
planning. Efforts to develop such a system should move forward as a
priority effort in the interagency community through the NWCG.
--Taken from the report of the Interagency Management Review Team,
October 1994.
This action will facilitate the interchange of forces for
suppression and create a totally mobile Federal fire force.
In addition to the need for standardization, there are a number of
existing policies and procedures that hinder all agencies' efforts to
become more effective in preparedness and suppression. Some of those
are operational and some, such as budgeting and personnel practices,
are administrative. In some cases, agencies are individually attempting
to solve these problems or at least temporarily fix them season to
season. However, it is critical that Federal wildland fire management
agencies work together to arrive at common solutions.
Some minor differences in budget processes among agencies inhibit
full cooperation. Perhaps the most important issue is the separate
funding requests for seasonal severity funding, where coordinated
planning and [[Page 32498]] funding for pre-positioning resources on a
local basis is a critical part of preparedness. Differences in the use
of emergency firefighting appropriations among agencies also inhibit
cooperation on prescribed fire actions. In addition, a budget problem
common among Federal agencies and a barrier to full effectiveness in
fire suppression is that fire organizations are often funded at less
than the Most Efficient Level (MEL) for preparedness. This requires
shifting funds from emergency suppression to pre-positioning resources.
Standardization of budget processes and solution of some of these
budget barriers would help to incrementally improve fire suppression.
A few current personnel policies have an adverse effect on Federal
employees' pay while on a fire. As a result, employees are not always
interested in supporting the fire suppression mission of the agencies.
In some geographic areas, primarily California, the annual wage of
entry-level Federal firefighters is lower than State and local
firefighter salaries. Federal agencies are training firefighters only
to lose qualified people to other fire-service agencies. And the Fair
Labor Standards Act creates disparity in pay between exempt and
nonexempt employees. In addition, the policy for hiring temporary
employees is cumbersome and time consuming; these short-term employees
have a restricted work year and in many geographic areas are not on the
rolls long enough for the agencies to provide necessary training prior
to the fire season.
Preparedness planning is critical to ensure that imminent fire
situations are recognized, an appropriate level of fire protection is
provided in support of land and resource management goals and
objectives, and that appropriate priorities are established and actions
taken. The absence of carefully developed and specific preparedness
plans frequently results in poor decisions that lead to costly
operational mistakes or unsafe practices during emergency situations.
In contrast, well-prepared fire suppression plans generally result in
smaller fires that are less costly to suppress and cause minimal damage
to property and natural resources.
Reorganization and downsizing efforts are compelling Federal
agencies to look at new ways to accomplish their programs, including
firefighting. Retirements and organizational changes have changed the
demographics and experience levels within the fire program. In some
cases, agency administrators and fire management officers do not have
the same level of experience in fire management oversight as did their
predecessors. Managers are often not rewarded for success or given
incentives to improve. Further, the demands created by more complex
natural resource issues and multiple program priorities have diverted
administrators' attention away from the fire management program. Lack
of oversight and attention to preparedness can result in crisis
decision making. When fires become emergencies, public and political
pressures may take precedence over suppression plans that are based on
values at risk.
Values-at-risk estimates have been commonly used to determine
strategies for large-fire suppression. Only losses in values have been
considered in these calculations, because in the suppression
operations, the objective as predetermined in land use plans is to put
the fire out at the least total cost, which is the value of the
resources (values at risk) plus suppression costs. While fire benefits
have been considered in planning the fire forces for budget
allocations, positive benefits of fires have not been factored into the
formulation, or choice, of suppression strategies.
Use of values at risk in fire suppression has not been consistent
across agencies, and the definition is too narrow without considering
fire benefits as well. As mentioned above, in some cases it has been
disregarded entirely. These practices contribute, sometimes
significantly, to inflated fire suppression costs. The values at risk
concept needs to be revised to reflect present recognition of the
positive benefits of fire as compatible with agency land use
objectives, as well as the need for a broader range of strategic
suppression alternatives for large fires to hold costs in check and
recognize limits of firefighting resources.
Standard criteria have been established to guide fire suppression
priorities. These are based on the potential for the fire to destroy:
(1) Human life, (2) property, and (3) resource values. Human life
remains the first priority; however, a rigid second priority of
property over natural resource values is being questioned by fire
managers. It does not allow for flexibility to consider low-value
properties relative to higher-valued natural resources. And property
protection as a rigid priority is a significant contributor to inflated
suppression costs as well as increased size of wildfires when limited
suppression resources are concentrated to protect property. More
flexibility is needed to assess the relative values between property
and natural resources in order to achieve economic efficiency.
The need for better advance preparation and more effective
suppression has never been greater. The overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the Federal wildland fire protection effort can be
improved through consistency and better coordination. Policies and
practices that have been tested and found to be inadequate can be
improved through some very specific actions.
Goal--Safety
Federal employees are committed to ``Zero Tolerance'' of
carelessness and unsafe actions.
Actions
Federal agencies will support and enforce direction by the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture that:
--Safety comes first on every fire, every time.
--The Ten Standard Fire Orders are firm. We don't break them; we don't
bend them.
--All firefighters have the right to a safe assignment.
--Every firefighter, every fireline supervisor, every fire manager, and
every agency administrator has the responsibility to ensure compliance
with established safe firefighting practices.
Federal agencies will adopt a policy that is consistent
with the Secretaries' direction for fire management safety.
Goal--Values At Risk
Federal agencies maintain preparedness planning and suppression
programs that prevent unacceptable loss from fire by implementing
consistent strategies based on estimates of suppression costs and
damages together with benefits that may result from wildfire.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Jointly redefine values at risk and clarify measures of
damage and benefits that may result from fire. This will be
incorporated into mobilization guides and action plans and inserted
into all national training.
Include risk assessment in preparedness planning, with
firefighter safety as a primary component.
Complete fire preparedness plans utilizing an interagency
approach that incorporates values at risk and benefits to resources,
consistent with land and resource management plans.
Consider a full range of suppression strategies that
incorporates estimated damage and benefits to resources,
[[Page 32499]] consistent with land and resource management plans.
Document values at risk and benefits to resources in the
Escaped Fire Situation Analysis to determine the most appropriate
suppression strategy, based on the availability of suppression forces.
Renegotiate State and local cooperative fire agreements in
the wildland/urban interface to clarify protection responsibilities.
Establish protection priorities that allow an evaluation
of relative values at risk for property and natural resources.
Goal--Preparedness
Federal agencies maintain preparedness and suppression programs
that ensure appropriate protection from fire. Agencies take special
preparedness actions on a case-by-case basis in local geographic areas
that have unusually severe fire danger.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Emphasize case-by-case special preparedness actions to
ensure timely, safe, and cost-effective response to unusually severe
fire potential.
Clearly establish the organization's mission and clarify
managerial and employee responsibilities in fire suppression and
support activities.
Pre-position resources on an interagency basis as needed.
Develop interagency preparedness plans that specifically
include:
--Systems for gathering information necessary to make timely fire
management decisions, including fuel conditions and weather.
--Analysis and decision-making processes that consider, on an
interagency basis, existing and potential fire severity; suppression
resource commitment and availability; prescribed fire activity;
environmental, social and political concerns; and other pertinent
factors.
--Actions to be taken at each level of preparedness.
--Actions to provide increased suppression capability as the fire
season develops, including accessing additional resources, pre-
positioning resources, and training emergency firefighters.
--A process for delineating actions to be taken when increased
suppression capability is not an option.
--A process for identifying the appropriate level of prescribed fire
activity, taking into account the potential impact on suppression
resources.
--A process for coordinating actions among cooperating agencies and
promptly transmitting decisions to all affected parties, including
adjacent units and cooperators.
--A process for preparedness reviews and follow-up evaluation of
decisions and results.
Goal--Protection Capability
Federal agencies maintain sufficient capability for suppression
through interagency staffing and by removing administrative barriers to
hiring and retaining qualified personnel.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
--Examine and ensure, on an interagency basis, employee availability at
each organizational level, based on fire qualifications and other
skills necessary for incident management.
--Develop and utilize to the maximum extent possible the concept of
closest initial attack forces and interagency staffing for fire
suppression to optimize the use of the Federal and non-Federal work
force.
Federal agencies will collaborate with the Office of
Personnel Management and Congress to effect changes to:
--The Fair Labor Standards Act to remove exempt/nonexempt status of
Federal employees during emergency incident management assignments.
--The hiring practices for temporary employees, which currently limit
opportunities to hire and retain a highly qualified seasonal work
force.
Goal--Standardization
Federal agencies improve upon existing preparedness and suppression
programs by further integration of firefighting operations and by
standardizing budget planning processes, budget management, and fire
training.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Develop a standard interagency budget and staffing process
which will result in the most economically efficient organization (Most
Efficient Level).
Implement adequate wildland fire suppression qualification
standards, criteria, and certification procedures, utilizing the
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) to facilitate acceptance
and adherence to the standards by all incident management personnel in
the fire service.
Staff existing and future fire management vacancies with
people who possess the requisite knowledge, skill, ability, and
commitment to accomplish the total fire management mission.
Recognize and reward success in interagency preparedness.
Wildland/Urban Interface Protection
Situation
Each time someone moves a mobile home into the forest or builds a
house with a cedar-shingle roof in the foothills, a wildland/urban
interface is created and a potentially dangerous situation grows even
larger. That seemingly simple interface puts complex demands on Federal
fire resources unlike anywhere else on the American landscape.
Wildland/urban interface protection is important to the Federal
government because Federally managed lands are often located adjacent
to private lands. In these areas, Federal wildland firefighters are
often called upon to assist local agencies. In some cases, Federal
agencies are the only source of fire protection. If Federal fire
resources were unlimited, this would not be a problem. But with limited
amounts of money, time, equipment and people, a fire burning in the
interface demands that America protect its scattered structures at the
huge sacrifice of natural resources elsewhere. Ultimately, the Federal
government pays the bills when fire events exceed local capability,
either as disaster assistance or relief through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). This represents a significant fiscal
liability to the Federal treasury and to State and local coffers as
well. In addition, Federal response in the interface ``spreads Federal
firefighters thin'' and places them in situations for which they may
not be adequately trained or equipped.
Recent fires such as the 1994 Tyee fire in Washington, the 1994
Chicken and Blackwell complexes in Idaho, the southern California fire
siege of 1993, and the 1991 Oakland Hills fire are clear examples of
the complexity of protecting the wildland/urban interface. Although
recent events occurred in the West, nearly every State has experienced
wildland/urban interface fire losses.
The interface has become a major fire problem that will escalate as
the nation moves into the 21st century. People continue to move from
urban areas to rural areas. These new wildland/urban immigrants give
little thought to the wildfire hazard and bring with them their
expectations for continuation of urban emergency services. The National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that since 1985 more than
[[Page 32500]] 9,000 homes have been destroyed by wildfire and many
people have died. In 1994 it is estimated that 30-50% of all Federal
wildland fire suppression dollars were spent in protecting the
wildland/urban interface.
Reports such as the National Commission on Wildfire Disasters
Report (1993) and Fire In Rural America (1992) document the changing
demographics from urban areas to rural areas. There is limited data to
quantify the extent of the current or projected growth in the wildland/
urban interface; however, it is clear from recent episodes that losses
will continue to increase in the future.
The fire protection problems in the wildland/urban interface are
very complex, and many barriers must be overcome to address them. These
barriers include legal mandates, zoning regulations, building codes,
basic fire protection infrastructure, insurance/fire protection rating
systems, and offset or local mutual-aid agreements. Political, social
and psychological factors further complicate the problems. Obviously,
there is no one simple solution.
The autonomy of Federal agencies contributes to inconsistent and
sometimes conflicting policies and practices. Federal, Tribal, State,
and local agencies, as well as the private sector, are all attempting
to tackle the wildland/urban interface protection issue. They have
created numerous reports, reviews, and mitigation plans. So far these
have only revealed how fragmented and sometimes inconsistent the
various approaches are, and few have had the corporate and political
will to carry out solutions.
The ability of the Federal agencies to provide centralized
leadership for solving the interface problem is complicated because
responsibilities extend beyond the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S.
Fire Administration (USFA) are also directly responsible for post-
disaster assistance and training, respectively, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has regulatory responsibility concerning air
quality, smoke management and other environmental issues.
But there is no central coordination, and there is no single policy
that clearly defines the Federal land manager's role or requires
agencies to take consistent actions in the wildland/urban interface.
Only the National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs have
specific structure protection responsibility, and only for their
facilities on their lands. Current Federal agency mission statements
and operational policies vary and generally restrict activity within
these areas. As a result, Federal land managers and fire personnel are
confused about their role and are inadequately trained and equipped,
but in practice they are expected to provide assistance.
Confusion and debate over the role of Federal land management
agencies in the wildland/urban interface is a barrier to effective fire
protection and hampers solution. This was validated by public comments
received during the public scoping process for this policy review and
is apparent in current policies of the Federal land management
agencies. Agency administrators' views on this issue cover the entire
spectrum from ``the Federal government has no business in the urban
interface'' to ``Federal involvement is essential in the interface.''
While the debate is rhetorical, this causes confusion and operational
inconsistency both before and during suppression efforts.
The current Federal wildland/urban interface policy is unclear and
is limited to providing emergency assistance and cooperating in
prevention efforts. But the public, homeowners, and elected officials
generally have a broader perception of Federal responsibility and would
oppose Federal government withdrawal from the wildland/urban interface.
Federal policy that protection priorities are (1) life, (2)
property, and (3) resources limits flexibility in decision making when
a wildfire occurs. Federal agencies' capability to address their
resource-protection responsibilities outside of the interface is
weakened by commitment of firefighting resources before and during
wildland/urban interface fires. Firefighter safety is threatened as
training and equipment capabilities are exceeded. In addition, after-
action reports and post-incident debriefings indicate fire suppression
resources assigned to wildland/urban interface fires are often ``over-
mobilized'' and underutilized.
The Federal land management agencies consider themselves to be the
premier fire suppression organization in the world (Forest Service
Strategic Assessment, 1994). This is demonstrated through development
of training material and public fire prevention activities related to
the wildland/urban interface and results in delivery of a conflicting
message about Federal protection responsibilities as compared with the
responsibilities of State and local governments. Federal fire forces in
the wildland/urban interface often operate beyond the role of wildfire
perimeter control. Also, operations in the wildland/urban interface are
not always well organized and safe due to inconsistent qualifications,
performance standards, and experience among local, State, and Federal
agencies and Tribes.
Concerns over home rule and States' rights dictate that the primary
responsibility for wildland/urban interface fire prevention and
protection must lie with homeowners and State and local governments.
This primary responsibility would be carried out in partnership with
the Federal government and private sector. However, there are few State
and local incentives to address the mounting risks and increasing
hazards in the interface. And providing incentives, such as tax credits
for mitigating fire hazards, to those who choose to live in the
wildland/urban interface sends a mixed message to the public. This
double-edged message is that while we discourage development in the
wildland/urban interface we are willing, through mitigation tax
credits, to pay homeowners to take care of their problem.
Local incentives to property owners, State and local organizations,
and the private sector do appear to be an effective way to reduce the
overall exposure of the Federal government in the wildland/urban
interface. But the Federal government has few mechanisms to encourage
incentives to resolve the problems in these areas. Current Federal
grants are effective as far as they go. For example, approximately $10
million is provided annually, primarily through the Forest Service
State and Private Forestry Programs to State and local fire
organizations to improve basic services, equip engines, and enhance
communication systems. However, the amount is too small to address the
magnitude of the problem, and Federal funding is not consistently
distributed to State and local agencies with operational
responsibilities in the wildland/urban interface.
While the Federal agencies have authority to seek reimbursement for
fire suppression services in the wildland/urban interface, the
probability of successful collection is extremely low because of a
myriad of broad tort laws related to responsibility and negligence,
existing State fire laws regarding point of fire origin and
determination of suppression responsibility, and other legal issues
such as what constitutes reasonable action and appropriate hazard
mitigation.
In general, the public does not perceive a risk from fire in the
wildland/urban interface. Property [[Page 32501]] owners believe that
insurance companies or disaster assistance will always be there to
cover losses. When people believe the government will protect them from
natural hazards, the damage potential of a catastrophic event
increases. Fire prevention efforts, official pronouncements, and media
depictions of imminent risk have been shown to have little effect on
those in danger. The effects of public education efforts have not been
significant when compared to the need. Unless a catastrophic event
occurs, wildland/urban interface protection issues generate little
interest. There is a widespread misconception by elected officials,
agency managers, and the public that wildland/urban interface
protection is solely a fire-service concern.
Insurance companies may be in a position to provide the largest
economic incentive to address issues locally through a change in the
existing rating criteria and by supporting prevention or hazard
mitigation activities. The follow-up evaluation and report on the 1991
Oakland Hills Fire suggested that a combination of fire protection
infrastructure and insurance rating criteria contributed to the
disaster.
There is poor communication within and between the insurance
industry and fire service organizations. The insurance industry does
not fully understand wildland/urban interface problems, and the public
and the fire service do not understand the role of the insurance
industry in the interface. Insurance Service Offices/Commercial Risk
Services (ISO/CRS) rating criteria do not reflect wildland/urban
interface hazards or protection needs at specific risk locations.
However, there is simply no reason for structural fire departments to
change protection standards from small-scale, single-incident fires to
large-scale, area-based fires.
The current fire protection infrastructure, such as roads and
water-delivery systems, is inadequate to protect property and resources
during fast-moving wildfires, but the cost of changing the existing
infrastructure would be staggering. State and local fire protection
organizations are not adequately funded to provide the level of
protection necessary on private lands. Most structure loss occurs in
the first few hours of an incident, attributable to a lack of
mitigation such as the use of combustible building materials and having
trees and grass growing right up to buildings.
Because fire risk constitutes only a portion of the homeowner's
insurance cost, premium reductions are not necessarily the answer.
Insurance companies can, however, help with education, improvements in
building-code rating systems, and revised protection criteria in the
wildland/urban interface. Antitrust laws prohibit insurance companies
from working together to establish minimum insurance requirements, and
in some States, laws such as the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements
Plan (FAIR) give homeowners access to insurance coverage generally
without regard to the wildland/urban interface.
Current organized data (including hazard mapping) does not reflect
wildland/urban interface loss exposure. Without a consistent process
that assesses wildland/urban interface hazard and risk, it is difficult
to identify appropriate mitigation measures. State and local
communities perceive determination of risk as a local issue. Because
lost homes/structures are replaced by national insurance companies and
Federal Disaster Assistance comes regardless of whether appropriate
mitigation measures were taken to offset risk, there is no incentive to
improve protection in the wildland/urban interface. What's more,
developers, builders, and property owners generally oppose standards
because they fear potential building restrictions and higher costs.
Current protection programs and policies do not include all urban
and wildland fire protection entities with statutory responsibility,
which has led to inefficiencies in training and operations. Wildland
suppression resources are often diverted to protect property with less
value than adjacent or intermixed natural resources, and the safety of
wildland fire personnel is compromised. Performance qualifications in
the wildland/urban interface are divided between the structural and
wildland certification systems, resulting in inconsistencies.
Partially because of fire prevention campaigns like Smokey Bear,
the public generally views all fire as bad. Structural fire prevention
activities do not reflect the beneficial role of fire in the ecosystem
and send conflicting messages to the public. However, there are
excellent examples of successful programs, such as the Sierra Front
Cooperative, which demonstrate the value of prevention efforts when
combined with property-owner support to mitigate hazards within the
wildland/urban interface.
Current Federal wildland/urban interface fire policy does not lay
out a clear, consistent, and unified role for the Federal land managing
agencies. Consequently, some Federal agencies perceive they bear the
heaviest burden in mutual-aid relationships. Some administrators enter
into agreements committing Federal firefighters, equipment, and money
without understanding the implications of their actions. Still others
are confused about the difference between Federal mutual-aid
assistance, offset-protection agreements, and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) financial assistance to States on declared
major fire disasters.
The key to solving the total wildland/urban interface problem rests
with development of a unified, collaborative partnership among Federal
agencies, Tribes, States, local governments, and private industry. This
fire protection and prevention issue cannot be solved by any one entity
acting independently. This partnership should identify and map hazards
and fuels, conduct a national fire insurance feasibility review, and
establish mitigation grant mechanisms for local communities. Meanwhile,
these long-term issues do not preclude Federal agencies from developing
a consistent policy for wildland/urban protection on the lands that
they administer.
Goals--Responsibility
Wildland/urban interface policies are consistent among
Federal agencies.
Federal agencies address wildland/urban interface
protection needs occurring on Federal lands through interagency
planning and analysis across agency boundaries.
Uniform Federal wildland/urban interface fire protection
policy promotes partnerships with Tribes, State and local agencies, and
the private sector.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Adopt a policy that establishes the operational role of
Federal agencies in the wildland/urban interface.
Identify and fund fuels management and prescribed fire
programs on Federal lands adjacent to wildland/urban interface areas.
Reassess the proper forum for addressing wildland/urban
interface issues upon completion of the Stakeholder Input, Consensus,
and Action Process. This may include:
--Expanding representation on the current wildland/urban task group
that reports to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG).
--Revising membership in NWCG itself to include a representative of
entities involved with wildland/urban interface issues (e.g.,
professional organizations such as the International Association of
Fire Chiefs, International Association of [[Page 32502]] Fire Fighters,
International Society of Fire Service Instructors, National Volunteer
Fire Council, Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction, et al.).
Goal--Preparedness
Agreements (mutual-aid, reciprocal, offset, etc.) are
developed and promoted to provide for pre-fire mitigation activities as
well as appropriate suppression operations.
Structural and wildland fire agency roles in the wildland/
urban interface are clarified for both day-to-day mutual aid and large-
fire scenarios.
Federal agencies properly train and equip personnel to
ensure firefighter safety during wildland/urban interface operations.
Cooperative partnerships are established with Tribes and
State and local agencies for emergency preparedness and operations in
the wildland/urban interface.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Inform agency administrators of mutual-aid and FEMA
disaster-assistance programs.
Complete a review of existing protection agreements for
wildland/urban interface areas and renegotiate as needed to ensure that
Federal responsibility is consistent with policy and that State and
local responsibility is apportioned appropriately.
Acknowledge their role in the wildland/urban interface,
consistent with policy, and incorporate the appropriate role into
agreements, operating plans, land management plans, and agency fire
plans.
Charge the National Wildfire Coordinating Group with:
--Developing operational curricula, in cooperation with the National
Fire Academy, for protection in the wildland/urban interface;
--Identifying specialized skills and training that are needed by both
wildland and structural fire agencies;
--Implementing training through interagency systems and joint training
activities; and
--Working with the National Fire Academy to augment and enhance fire
training not available at the State and local levels.
Incorporate into the Wildland Fire Qualification System
the skills and training requirements necessary to operate safely and
efficiently in the wildland/urban interface.
Increase emphasis on cost-share grant funding through the
Forest Service State and Private Cooperative Fire Program and
strengthen that program's emphasis on wildland/urban interface issues,
including training and equipping of State and local agencies. Assess
and revise, as needed, other mechanisms to ensure funding is directed
to agencies with wildland/urban interface responsibilities. Emphasize
funding and grants to the United States Fire Administration for similar
purposes.
Support research and development activities through the
National Fire Protection Association for effective management of the
wildland/urban interface.
Goal--Education
Identify and initiate programs to communicate the role of fire in
natural systems, with special focus on risk in wildland/urban interface
areas.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
Continue to cooperate with wildland/urban interface
property owners through education and awareness messages about the role
of fire in natural ecosystems and inherent risks in wildland/urban
interface areas.
Develop programs, curricula, and distribution systems, in
cooperation with structural protection agencies, for wildland/urban
interface educational material.
Promote Federally funded education efforts via a
consortium of the United States Fire Administration and the insurance
industry.
Work with the United States Fire Administration to update
and distribute to the fire service their primer on the insurance
industry.
Involve the Congressional Fire Services Institute in
distributing information regarding wildland/urban interface issues and
actions.
Goals--Stakeholder Input, Consensus, and Action Process
Future policy/program requirements for public fire
protection within the wildland/urban interface are identified through a
partnership among Federal, Tribal, State, local, and private entities.
Infrastructure protection is based on characteristics of
structural and wildland fuels within the wildland setting.
Responsibility is focused on individual property owners
and State and local governments to reduce losses within the wildland
urban interface.
Actions
Federal agencies will:
--Form a partnership with the Western Governors--Association (WGA) to
conduct a consensus-building and action process that involves the
western governors as a catalyst and other appropriate States, as well
as local and private stakeholders, in establishing recommendations and
an action plan to achieve a uniform, integrated approach to fire
protection in the wildland/urban interface.
--Recharter the current interagency wildland/urban interface project
among the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and
U.S. Fire Administration to focus on issues surfaced through this
policy review.
--The objective of the partnership with the WGA is to:
--Identify and involve all stakeholders within the wildland/urban
interface.
--Define appropriate State and local roles.
--Clarify and synthesize issues; build consensus.
--Develop implementing actions and monitoring processes.
The issues/areas to be addressed by the WGA include but are
not limited to:
--The need for coordinated leadership among Federal, Tribal, State, and
local entities concerning the wildland/urban interface.
--Development of a consistent wildland/urban interface hazard and risk
assessment model that, as a minimum, includes common terminology,
rating criteria, and a classification system.
--Model zoning and building code standards within identified fire
hazard areas.
--The need for State, local, insurance-industry, and Federal data to
analyze and manage the wildland/urban interface, which includes:
All fires in the wildland/urban interface.
The National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) as an
information collection point for fire incidents in the wildland/urban
interface.
Establishment of incentives to individuals and local
governments to mitigate hazards.
Recommendations relating to the role and membership of the
National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Consider all entities involved
with wildland/urban interface issues, including professional
organizations such as the International Association of Fire Chiefs,
International Association of Fire Fighters, International Society of
Fire Service Instructors, National Volunteer Fire Council, Insurance
Institute for Property Loss Reduction, et al.
Involvement with the insurance industry through the
Insurance Institute [[Page 32503]] for Property Loss Reduction (IIPLR)
and other insurance trade associations to cooperatively address the
wildland/urban interface issue. Attention should be given to:
Recommendations for including hazards and risks associated
with the wildland/urban interface into the fire protection grading
system of the Insurance Service Office (ISO).
Recommendations on a strategy to promote an awareness of
wildland/urban interface issues, highlighting insurance industry/
policyholder/homeowner success stories.
Proposals to strengthen Southern Standard Building Code,
Uniform Building Code, and National Building Code provisions for
structures built in the wildland/urban interface.
--Development of model mutual-aid agreements among Federal fire
agencies, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, National
Association of State Foresters, and local/regional agencies, addressing
local and regional mitigation and suppression requirements in the
wildland/urban interface.
--Establishment of a monitoring plan that includes yearly reporting
requirements for the Federal agencies and States and establishment of
pilot areas as a tool to test and model policy and program changes
within the wildland/urban interface.
The WGA report will independently develop recommendations
and an action plan, based on input and consensus, proposing resolution
of problems within the wildland/urban interface.
While the WGA will conduct the assessment in cooperation
with the Federal government, WGA will remain an independent contributor
to the broader Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review. This
will ensure that the various State, local and private interests can
fully express their views and not feel compromised through a Federal
process.
Appendix III
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review Steering
Group
Dr. Charles Philpot, Co-Chair--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Claudia Schechter, Co-Chair--DOI/Office of the Secretary
Dale Bosworth--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Dr. Mary Jo Lavin--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Mike Edrington--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Dr. Ann Bartuska--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Les Rosenkrance--DOI/Bureau of Land Management
Rick Gale--DOI/National Park Service
Dr. Robert Streeter--DOI/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Keith Beartusk--DOI/Bureau of Indian Affairs
Stan Coloff--DOI/National Biological Service
Jim Douglas--DOI/Office of the Secretary
Carrye B. Brown--U.S. Fire Administration
James Travers--NOAA/National Weather Service
Richard Krimm--Federal Emergency Management Administration
Sally Shaver--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[FR Doc. 95-15304 Filed 6-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P