Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review

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