[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 120 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32485-32503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15304]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WO-1550-00-7111-24 1A]
National Park Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
National Biological Service


Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review

AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; Bureau of Land Management, 
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, and National Biological Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of draft report; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The interagency Steering Group chartered to review Federal 
wildfire policy and program management has prepared a draft report 
suggesting possible changes. Public comment is invited and will be 
considered by the Steering Group in preparing its final report and 
recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing by July 24, 1995.

[[Page 32486]] ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to:

Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review, Department of the 
Interior, 18th and C Streets NW., Mail Stop 7355, Washington, DC 20240, 
or sent via FAX to (202) 208-5078.
National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 South Development Avenue, Boise, 
ID 83705.
    See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for telephone requests for 
additional copies of the draft report.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tim Hartzell, Bureau of Land Management, (202) 208-5472, or Dave 
Morton, USDA-Forest Service, (208) 387-5633. Additional copies of the 
draft report may be obtained by calling Pat Moore, BLM's National 
Office of Fire and Aviation, (208) 387-5150, or Janelle Smith, National 
Interagency Fire Center, (208) 387-5457.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 30, 1994, following one of the 
worst wildland fire seasons since the early 1900's, the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and the Interior chartered an interagency Steering Group to 
conduct a review of Federal wildland fire policy and programs. Composed 
of representatives of the Forest Service, USDA, and the Bureau of Land 
Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and National Biological Service, USDI, the 
Steering Group was directed to assess four specific themes: the role of 
fire in resource management; use of prescribed fire to reduce unhealthy 
fuel build up; preparedness and suppression; and the wildland/urban 
interface. The Steering Group has prepared a draft report addressing 
these issues as well as interagency coordinated policy and program 
management. The full text of the draft report is printed at the end of 
this notice, except for the Glossary (Appendix I) and References 
(Appendix II). While the draft report reinforces public and firefighter 
safety as the foundation for wildland fire management, it also breaks 
with the past on crucial points:
     The draft report would recognize fire's natural role in 
maintaining healthy ecosystems.
     The draft report would recommend an increased use of fire 
as one of many resource management tools to reduce fuel build up and to 
improve forest health.
     Existing plans to use fire for resource benefits stop at 
abstract administrative borders; the draft report would promote a 
mosaic of fire regimes along natural ecosystems.
     The draft report would clarify and emphasize the agency 
administrator's accountability for fire management.
     Current policy encourages interagency cooperation; the 
draft report would require that suppression, prescribed burning, 
planning, and research be conducted on an interagency basis across 
agency jurisdictions.
     Where wildlands and developed communities interface, 
federal fire protection practices are not consistent. The draft report 
would clarify federal roles in wildland fire protection as cooperating 
partners through agreements with responsible tribal, State, or local 
jurisdictions.
    Public comment on the draft report is requested and will be 
considered by the Steering Group in developing a final report and 
recommendations for transmittal to and consideration by the two 
Secretaries.

    For the Department for the Department of Agriculture.

    Dated: June 13, 1995.
David G. Unger,
Associate Chief.
    For the Department of the Interior.

    Dated: June 14, 1995.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Acting Assistant Secretary.

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review; Draft 
Report

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Guiding Principles
Current and Proposed Federal Fire Policies
Topic Area Discussions:
    Coordinated Policy and Program Management
    Role of Fire in Resource Management
    Use of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management
    Preparedness and Suppression
    Wildland/Urban Interface Protection
Appendix I: Glossary
Appendix II: References
Appendix III: Steering Group
Executive Summary

    The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, 
together with Tribes, States, and other jurisdictions, are responsible 
for the suppression and use of wildland fire in the management and 
protection of natural resources. Although these organizations have 
traditionally cooperated in carrying out their fire management 
responsibilities, it is more important than ever, as resources become 
increasingly scarce, to explore ways in which cooperation can be 
improved and made more effective. Because fire respects no boundaries, 
uniform Federal policies and programs must lead to more productive 
cooperation and efficient operations.
    The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was 
chartered by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to examine 
the need for modification of and addition to Federal fire policy. The 
review recommends a set of consistent policies for all Federal wildland 
fire management agencies. The resulting analysis/report is organized 
around five major fire management program components: (1) Coordinated 
Policy and Program Management, (2) Role of Fire in Resource Management, 
(3) Use of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management, (4) Preparedness and 
Suppression, and (5) Wildland/Urban Interface Protection.
    Two very fundamental principles are recognized as being basic to 
all other findings and recommendations in this report: (1) Safety is 
paramount; and (2) wildland fire is a natural occurrence that plays a 
fundamental role in natural resource management. We must recognize that 
wildfire has historically been a major force in the evolution of our 
wildlands, and it must be allowed to continue to play its natural role 
wherever possible.
    The report recommends thirteen new or revised fire management 
policies consistent across all Federal wildland firefighting agencies. 
The first policy recommendation says that public and firefighter safety 
is the first priority. Other policies deal with integrating fire 
considerations into resource planning, the use of prescribed fire, 
capability to suppress fires, economic efficiency, protection priority, 
interagency actions, consistent standards, and the Federal role in the 
wildland/urban interface.
    A set of fire management principles have been identified that 
address interagency collaboration in the fire management business. We 
recommend adoption of these principles by the Federal resource 
agencies. They include guidance on safety, planning, standardization, 
coordination, use of science, risk management, and economic efficiency.
    The report recommends that some very critical processes continue to 
explore what role States, local governments, and insurance companies 
should take in addressing the growing fire problems in the wildland/
urban interface. We will recommend that the Secretaries require all 
agencies to develop an implementation plan describing the actions and 
time frame required to implement the recommendations of this report. 
[[Page 32487]] 
    In addition to the specific analysis that was done for this effort, 
the review team also relied heavily on previous fire management reviews 
and the work completed by the Interagency Management Review Team that 
was chartered following the 1994 fatalities on the South Canyon fire.
    Many organizations and individuals participated in the development 
of this report. Special emphasis was given to communication with key 
national stakeholders, representatives of public and private resource 
interests, and employees. Public review was facilitated by publishing a 
scoping notice in the Federal Register and analyzing the resulting 
feedback. It is our hope that the other Federal agencies who have 
joined us in this review can give their support and concurrence to the 
final policies that evolve from this and future public involvement.

Introduction

    The Federal fire management community has, for many years, been a 
leader in interagency communication and cooperation to achieve mutual 
objectives. While many policies and procedures are similar among the 
agencies, some significant differences may hinder efficient interagency 
cooperation. Because it is prudent to manage consistently across agency 
boundaries, uniform cooperative programs are critical to efficient and 
effective fire management. Policies and programs must incorporate the 
wisdom and experience of the past, reflect today's values, and be able 
to adapt to the challenges of the future. They must be based on science 
and sound ecological and economic principles and, above all, must form 
the basis for fighting and using fire safely.
    While continual improvements are inherent in the fire program, the 
events of the 1994 wildfire season created a renewed awareness and 
concern among the Federal land management agencies and our constituents 
about the impacts of wildfire. As a result of those concerns and in 
response to specific recommendations in the report of the South Canyon 
Fire Interagency Management Review Team (IMRT), the Federal Wildland 
Fire Management Policy and Program Review was chartered to examine the 
possible need for new Federal fire policy. The review was directed by 
an interagency Steering Group whose members represented the Departments 
of Agriculture and the Interior, the U.S. Fire Administration, the 
National Weather Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and 
the Environmental Protection Agency (see Appendix III). The Steering 
Group received staff support from a core team representing the 
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior.
    The five Federal fire/land management agencies referenced 
throughout this report are the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of 
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park 
Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior. The term ``Federal 
wildland'' as used in this report recognizes that Indian trust lands 
are private lands held in trust by the government and that Tribes 
possess a Nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-
government. Indian trust resource protection will be provided in a 
knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful of Tribal sovereignty.
    Early in this review process, internal and external ideas were 
sought and broad program management issues were identified. The review 
was announced and input was requested in the Federal Register on 
January 3, 1995. At the same time, letters were sent to approximately 
300 individuals and organizations across the nation and employee input 
was sought through internal communications within the Departments of 
the Interior and Agriculture. Since that time, Steering Group members 
have met with national stakeholders, the Western Governors' 
Association, and employees to get additional, more focused input; they 
have received and incorporated input resulting from the Environmental 
Regulation and Prescribed Fire conference held in Tampa, Florida, in 
March 1995; and they have individually continued to network with their 
constituents. The results of that process are reflected in this draft 
report.
    Throughout the report, the term ``fire'' refers to wildland fire 
unless otherwise specified. Other terms that may not be clear to all 
readers are defined for the purposes of this report in Appendix I.
    A number of related reviews and studies form a broad foundation of 
technical, professional, and scientific assessment upon which the 
recommended goals, actions, and policies contained in this report are 
founded, including:
     Final Report on Fire Management Policy--May 1989.
     Rural Fire Protection in America: A Challenge for the 
Future; National Association of State Foresters--1991.
     Oversight Hearing; Fire Suppression, Fire Prevention, and 
Forest Health Issues and Programs; Committee on Agriculture and the 
Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives--October 4, 
1994.
     National Commission on Wildfire Disasters; Sampson, 
Chair--1994.
     Western Forest Health Initiative Report, USDA-Forest 
Service--1994.
     Fire Management Strategic Assessment Report, USDA-Forest 
Service--1994.
     Report of the Interagency Management Review Team, South 
Canyon Fire--October 1994.
     Bureau of Land Management Fire and Aviation Programwide 
Management Review Report--April 1995.
    These reviews and studies include extensive input from affected 
interests, agency employees, and the general public. The 
recommendations that have resulted from these efforts shall, as part of 
this review, be implemented if they are consistent with this report and 
have demonstrated interagency consensus.

Guiding Principles

    Guiding principles represent those broad, overarching procedural 
tenets that apply to all fire management activities. They have their 
basis in current manuals, handbooks, and written program instruction. 
The following guiding principles are fundamental to the success of the 
Federal wildland fire management program and will be inherent in all 
Federal agency programs:
     Public and firefighter safety is the first priority in 
every fire management activity.
     The role of fire as an essential ecological process and 
natural change agent will be incorporated into the planning process. 
Fire management activities support the achievement of those plans.
     Fire management plans, programs, and activities are 
integral components of land and resource management plans and their 
implementation. Federal agency land and resource management plans set 
the objectives for the use and desired future condition of the various 
public lands.
     Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire 
management activities. Risks and uncertainties relating to fire 
management activities must be understood, analyzed, communicated, and 
managed as they relate to the cost of either doing or not doing the 
activity. Net gains to the public benefit will be an important 
component of decisions.
     Fire management programs and activities are economically 
viable, based upon values at risk, costs, and land and resource 
management objectives. Federal agency administrators are adjusting and 
reorganizing programs to [[Page 32488]] reduce costs and increase 
efficiencies. As part of this process, investments in fire management 
activities must be evaluated against all agency programs in order to 
effectively accomplish the overall mission, set short- and long-term 
priorities, and clarify management accountability.
     Fire management plans and activities are based upon the 
best available science. Knowledge and experience are developed among 
all wildland fire management agencies. An active fire research program 
combined with interagency collaboration provides the means to make this 
available to all fire managers.
     Federal, State, Tribal, and local interagency coordination 
and cooperation is essential. Increasing costs and smaller work forces 
require that public agencies pool their human resources to successfully 
deal with the ever-increasing and more complex fire management tasks. 
Full collaboration among Federal agencies and between the Federal 
agencies and State, local, and private entities results in a mobile 
fire management workforce available to the full range of public needs.
     Standardization of policies and procedures among Federal 
agencies is an ongoing objective. Consistency of plans and operations 
provides the fundamental platform upon which Federal agencies can 
cooperate and integrate fire activities across agency boundaries and 
provide leadership for cooperation with State and local fire management 
organizations.

Current and Proposed Federal Fire Policies

    Following the initial comments by employees and the public in 
January 1995, subject-matter experts from the Federal agencies, State 
and local governments, and the private sector reviewed the issues that 
were raised and the policies that relate to those issues. These working 
groups focused on policies needing change. They are displayed as 
``current'' policies in the following table. The groups then developed 
proposals for revised or new policies. The results of that effort, 
refined by the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program 
Review Steering Group, are displayed in the table as ``proposed'' 
policies.

                                         Federal Wildland Fire Policies                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Current Department of the                                                           
                                   Interior \1\          Current Forest Service \2\        Proposed Federal     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety...................  No wildfire situation, with  Conduct fire suppression in  Public and firefighter     
                            the possible exception of    a timely, effective, and     safety is the first       
                            threat to human survival,    efficient manner with a      priority. No resource or  
                            requires the exposure of     high regard for public and   property values are worth 
                            firefighters to life-        firefighter safety. Forest   endangering people. All   
                            threatening situations.      officers responsible for     suppression actions and   
                                                         planning and implementing    prescribed fire plans must
                                                         suppression action shall     reflect this commitment.  
                                                         not knowingly or                                       
                                                         carelessly subordinate                                 
                                                         human lives to other                                   
                                                         values.                                                
Planning.................  Fire will be used to         Integrate consideration of   Fire, as a critical natural
                            achieve responsible and      fire protection and use      process, will be          
                            definable land-use           into the formulation and     integrated into land and  
                            benefits through the         evaluation of land and       resource management plans 
                            integration of fire          resource management          and activities on a       
                            suppression and prescribed   objectives, prescriptions,   landscape scale, across   
                            fire as a management tool.   and practices.               agency boundaries, and    
                                                                                      will be based upon best   
                                                                                      available science.        
Prescribed Fire..........  Prescribed fire may be       Use prescribed fires, from   Prescribed fire will be    
                            utilized to accomplish       either management            used to protect, maintain,
                            land-use or resource-        ignitions or natural         and enhance resources, and
                            management objectives only   ignitions, in a safe,        prescribed natural fire   
                            when defined in prescribed   carefully controlled, cost-  will be allowed to        
                            fire plans.                  effective manner as a        function, as nearly as    
                                                         means of achieving           possible, in its natural  
                                                         management objectives        ecological role. All      
                                                         defined in Forest Plans.     prescribed fire must be   
                                                         Prepare a burn plan for      consistent with land and  
                                                         all prescribed fire          resource management plans,
                                                         projects.                    public health             
                                                                                      considerations, and       
                                                                                      approved prescribed burn  
                                                                                      plans.                    
Prescribed Natural Fire..  Prescribed fire, designed    Allow lightning-caused       (See above.)               
                            to accomplish the            fires to play, as nearly                               
                            management objective of      as possible, their natural                             
                            allowing naturally           ecological role in                                     
                            occurring fire to play its   Wilderness.                                            
                            role in the ecosystem,                                                              
                            will be allowed to burn if                                                          
                            provided for in a fire                                                              
                            management plan, a valid                                                            
                            prescription exists, and                                                            
                            the fire is monitored.                                                              
Wildfire.................  Fires are classified as      Wildland fires are defined   Wildland fire is defined as
                            either wildfire or           as either a wildfire or a    either a wildfire or a    
                            prescribed fire. All         prescribed fire. Respond     prescribed fire.          
                            wildfires will be            to a fire burning on         Management actions taken  
                            suppressed. Wildfire may     National Forest System       will be consistent with   
                            not be used to accomplish    land based on whether it     firefighter and public    
                            land-use and resource-       is a wildfire or a           safety, land-use plan     
                            management objectives.       prescribed fire; implement   objectives, resource      
                            Only prescribed fire may     an appropriate suppression   benefits, and values at   
                            be used for this purpose.    response to a wildfire.      risk. Wildfire that does  
                                                                                      not meet land-use plan    
                                                                                      objectives will be        
                                                                                      suppressed.               
[[Page 32489]]
                                                                                                                
Preparedness.............  Bureaus will maintain an     Plan, train, equip, and      Agencies will ensure their 
                            adequate state of            make available an            capability to provide     
                            preparedness and adequate    organization that ensures    safe, cost-effective fire 
                            resources for wildland       cost-efficient wildfire      protection in accordance  
                            fire suppression.            protection in support of     with land management plans
                            Preparedness plans will      land and resource            through appropriate       
                            include considerations for   management direction as      planning, staffing,       
                            cost-effective training      stated in Fire Management    training, and equipment.  
                            and equipping of             Action Plans. Base                                     
                            suppression forces,          presuppression planning on                             
                            maintenance of facilities    the National Fire                                      
                            and equipment, positioning   Management Analysis System.                            
                            of resources, and criteria                                                          
                            for analyzing,                                                                      
                            prioritizing, and                                                                   
                            responding to various                                                               
                            levels of fire situations.                                                          
Suppression..............  Wildfire losses will be      Conduct fire suppression in  Fires are suppressed at    
                            held to the minimum          a timely, effective, and     minimum costs, considering
                            possible through timely      efficient manner with a      benefits and values at    
                            and effective suppression    high regard for public and   risk and consistent with  
                            action consistent with       firefighter safety.          resource objectives.      
                            values at risk and within                                                           
                            the framework of land-use                                                           
                            objectives and plans.                                                               
Administrator & Employee   Wildfires are considered     Every Forest Service         Employees who are trained  
 Responsibility.            emergencies, and their       employee has the             and certified will        
                            suppression will be given    responsibility to support    participate in the        
                            priority over normal         and participate in           wildland fire program as  
                            Departmental programs.       wildfire suppression         the situation demands;    
                                                         activities as the            noncertified employees    
                                                         situation demands.           with operational,         
                                                                                      administrative, or other  
                                                                                      skills will support the   
                                                                                      wildland fire program as  
                                                                                      needed; and administrators
                                                                                      will be responsible,      
                                                                                      accountable, and make     
                                                                                      employees available.      
Protection Priorities....  The standard criterion to    The standard criterion to    Protection priorities are  
                            be used in establishing      be used in establishing      (1) life and (2) property 
                            protection priorities is     protection priorities is     or natural resources,     
                            the potential to destroy:    the potential to destroy:    based on relative values  
                            (1) Human Life, (2)          (1) Human Life, (2)          at risk, commensurate with
                            Property, and (3) Resource   Property, and (3) Resource   suppression costs.        
                            Values. (National            Values. (National                                      
                            Interagency Mobilization     Interagency Mobilization                               
                            Guide, March 1995, NFES      Guide, March 1995, NFES                                
                            2092.).                      2092.).                                                
Interagency Cooperation..  Bureaus will coordinate and  Develop and implement        Fire planning,             
                            cooperate with each other    mutually beneficial fire     prescription,             
                            and with other protection    management agreements with   preparedness, suppression,
                            agencies for greater         other Federal agencies and   monitoring, and research  
                            efficiency and               countries. Cooperate,        will be conducted on an   
                            effectiveness.               participate, and consult     interagency basis with the
                                                         with the States on fire      involvement of all        
                                                         protection for non-Federal   partners.                 
                                                         wildlands.                                             
Standardization..........  The National Wildfire        The National Wildfire        Agencies will use          
                            Coordinating Group (NWCG)    Coordinating Group (NWCG)    consistent planning       
                            provides a formalized        provides a formalized        processes, funding        
                            system to agree upon         system to agree upon         mechanisms, training and  
                            standards of training,       standards of training,       qualification             
                            equipment, aircraft,         equipment, aircraft,         requirements, operational 
                            suppression priorities,      suppression priorities,      procedures, values-at-risk
                            and other operational        and other operational        methodologies, and public 
                            areas. (Memorandum of        areas. (Memorandum of        education programs for all
                            Understanding, NWCG; II,     Understanding, NWCG; II,     fire management           
                            Function and Purpose.).      Function and Purpose.).      activities.               
Wildland/Urban Interface.  Emergency assistance may be  Structural fire              The operational role of    
                            provided to properties in    suppression, which           Federal agencies, as a    
                            the vicinity of public and   includes exterior and        partner in the wildland/  
                            Indian lands so long as      interior actions on          urban interface, is       
                            Departmental lands or the    burning structures, is the   wildland firefighting,    
                            public's interest is not     responsibility of State      hazard fuels reduction,   
                            jeopardized. Bureaus will    and local government.        cooperative prevention and
                            develop and participate in   Structural fire protection   education, and technical  
                            interagency fire             from advancing wildfire      assistance. Structural    
                            prevention cooperatives.     within the National Forest   fire protection is the    
                                                         protection boundary is the   responsibility of State   
                                                         responsibility of State      and local governments.    
                                                         and local fire departments   Federal agencies may      
                                                         and the Forest Service.      assist with exterior      
                                                                                      structural suppression    
                                                                                      activities under formal   
                                                                                      agreements that state the 
                                                                                      mutual responsibilities of
                                                                                      the partners, including   
                                                                                      funding. (The National    
                                                                                      Park Service and Bureau of
                                                                                      Indian Affairs have full  
                                                                                      structural protection     
                                                                                      authority for their       
                                                                                      facilities on their land  
                                                                                      and may also enter into   
                                                                                      formal agreements to      
                                                                                      assist State and local    
                                                                                      governments with full     
                                                                                      structural protection.)   
[[Page 32490]]
                                                                                                                
Economic Efficiency......  Bureaus will ensure that     Provide a cost-efficient     Fire management and fire   
                            all fire management          level of wildfire            program activities will be
                            activities are planned and   protection on National       based on economic         
                            based upon sound             Forest lands commensurate    efficiencies developed by 
                            considerations, including    with the threat to life      using sound economic      
                            economic concerns. Bureaus   and property and             analysis methodologies    
                            will coordinate and          commensurate with the        that incorporate          
                            cooperate with each other    potential for resource and   commodity, non-commodity, 
                            and with other protection    environmental damage based   and social values.        
                            agencies for greater         on hazard, risk values,                                
                            efficiency and               and management objectives.                             
                            effectiveness. Wildfire                                                             
                            damage will be held to the                                                          
                            minimum possible, giving                                                            
                            full consideration to                                                               
                            minimizing expenditure of                                                           
                            public funds for effective                                                          
                            suppression.                                                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From current Department of the Interior Manual.                                                             
\2\ From current USDA-Forest Service Manual.                                                                    

Coordinated Policy and Program Management

Situation

    In analyzing fire policy and programs, several broad components of 
fire management were identified as needing improvement. These issues 
are grouped in this section to show the need for consistency across all 
aspects of fire management. They include accountability, measurement of 
program efficiency, organization, fire management data, weather 
support, and legal review and policy analysis of programs, authorities, 
responsibilities, and liabilities.
    The five Federal wildland fire management agencies have worked 
together for many years to improve many aspects of the fire management 
program. However, in order to accomplish a more unified approach to 
fire management, provide the maximum opportunity for reinvention of 
processes, and improve results, they must take this approach even 
further.

Program Accountability

    Current mechanisms to ensure management accountability in the fire 
program are ineffective. Policy and guidance are unclear about agency 
administrators' and fire program managers' responsibilities, and their 
position descriptions and performance standards are vague in that 
regard. As a result, there is little incentive for managers to adhere 
to established policy and direction or to provide oversight to the 
program. In addition, this lack of performance criteria does not 
portray expectations to inexperienced administrators or fire program 
managers.
    Most employees and many fire managers don't believe that fire 
accomplishments or failures, especially in suppression activities, can 
be measured. There is a widely held view that line officers are not 
held accountable for failures or rewarded for accomplishments. This 
aggravates the perception that line officers can give fire activities a 
low priority without being held responsible for the consequences. 
Furthermore, there is a perception by employees that only political or 
public pressure affects the line officer's dealings with fire.
    This perception of a lack of accountability is increased by 
managers not speaking out in support of the fire program, not 
motivating employees to become certified and be available for fire 
suppression duties, limiting forces available for regional or national 
mobilization, or de-emphasizing fire priorities. This perception is 
also exacerbated by line officers' broad interpretations and varying 
levels of implementation of policies requiring support of fire 
suppression activities.

Goal

    Achieve an appropriate recognition of fire management program 
requirements and successfully fulfill managerial and technical 
responsibilities.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
      Develop and utilize consistent fire management 
qualification standards and specific selection criteria for fire 
program managers.
      Establish job performance standards for agency 
administrators and fire managers that clearly reflect the complexity 
and scope of the fire management responsibilities.
      Provide consistent and adequate training for agency 
administrators commensurate with their role and responsibility in fire 
management.
      Ensure that agency administrators and fire program 
managers are held accountable for conducting the fire program in 
accordance with established policies, procedures, standards, and 
direction.
      Ensure that employees who are trained and certified 
participate in the wildland fire program as the situation demands; 
noncertified employees with operational, administrative, or other 
skills support the wildland fire program as needed; and administrators 
are responsible, accountable, and make employees available.

Program Efficiency

    Services provided by Federal agencies are being critically 
scrutinized, both internally and externally, to determine the relative 
priority of every program and its contribution to the agency mission 
and the public good. As part of that scrutiny, the returns on 
investments in the fire program must be compared with the returns in 
other programs. Subsequently, every activity within the fire management 
program must be analyzed according to its economic efficiency. For 
example, presuppression activities such as prevention and preparedness 
must be able to display their contribution to reduced suppression 
costs, and prescribed fire programs must show a return in improved or 
restored ecosystems or reduced suppression costs.
    Agency managers must be able to analyze program economic efficiency 
in order to establish the priority and scope of the fire management 
program. Current information on fire program benefits and costs are 
neither reliable nor consistent, and present program analysis 
methodologies are inadequate and inconsistent among Federal agencies. 
One dilemma is the question of what values should be included in such 
an analysis of diverse Federal wildlands; however, commodity, non-
commodity, and social values all must be considered.
    A growing concern shared by Members of Congress, agency 
[[Page 32491]] administrators, and the public is focused on the cost of 
fighting large wildfires. Recently, the General Accounting Office has 
been directed to review 1994 fire suppression expenditures in some 
agencies.
    Some critics believe expenditures are excessive and that the crisis 
nature of wildfire has led to imprudent use of personnel, equipment, 
and supplies. Others believe that firefighting practices are not as 
effective as some natural forces in bringing wildfires under control 
and that fire suppression efforts should take better advantage of 
weather, terrain, fuel, and other natural conditions. In the future 
there is likely to be less tolerance for excessive expenditures on 
large-fire suppression. This type of fire activity must be analyzed for 
costs versus benefits. Present analysis methods have not resulted in 
improved practices or reinforced confidence in current suppression 
strategies.

Goal

    A means is developed with which to demonstrate overall fire 
management economic efficiency as well as to analyze the relative 
efficiency of specific activities within the fire management program.

Action

    Federal agencies will:
     Jointly develop a standard methodology for measuring and 
reporting fire management economic efficiency that includes commodity, 
non-commodity, and social values. This methodology should specifically 
address, among other considerations, the cost of large-fire 
suppression.
     Base fire management and fire program activities on 
economic efficiencies developed by using sound economic analysis 
methodologies.

Organizational Alternatives

    The current focus on reinvention of the Federal government is 
stimulating new approaches to accomplishing agency missions. As part of 
this effort, Federal agencies must evaluate their fire management 
organizations and methods of accomplishing their total fire management 
program. These analyses must consider the movement to reduce the 
Federal role in public service, the implications of a continued 
reduction in work force and skills, and the effectiveness and 
efficiency of fire management organizations and methods, while at the 
same time retaining strong principles of public service. Any change in 
organizations or responsibilities must bring the same or better fire 
management service to the public and meet the goals and objectives of 
the agencies' land use plans.
    Each Federal agency currently maintains its own separate fire 
management organization, with qualified employees from other programs 
available as the fire situation dictates. This is commonly termed the 
fire militia. Federal agencies and cooperators also share resources 
nationally, and in some cases local interagency fire organizations 
exist, contract services are used, or other innovative approaches, such 
as the National Interagency Fire Center, the National Wildfire 
Coordinating Group, and the Alaska Fire Service, are being developed or 
used to accomplish the fire management mission. The Federal fire work 
force is currently decreasing at an uncomfortable rate, particularly in 
key specialized skills. An anticipated increase in retirements of fire 
managers and specialists over the next five years raises a serious 
question about how agencies will conduct their fire management 
missions. More aggressive examination and implementation of 
organizational alternatives are hampered by the inability to measure 
relative efficiencies among these alternatives as well as by strong 
traditions that create a resistance to change.

Goal

    The most efficient and effective fire management program for 
Federal resources is developed, using an appropriate analysis 
procedure.

Actions

    Federal agencies will conduct a comprehensive, cooperative analysis 
of their fire management programs and consider a broad range of 
alternatives, including non-Federal fire management services provided 
by Tribes, State or local governments, or private interests. The 
agencies will focus on developing a consistent analytical approach and 
evaluate alternatives against well-founded criteria. This analysis will 
be directed toward achieving the same or improved level of service, and 
at a minimum each alternative will explore funding mechanisms, specific 
wildfire suppression activities, and fire management in the wildland/
urban interface. Each alternative will include the variables of funding 
the total program and funding by the benefitting party.

Data Management

    Accurate, organized, and accessible information about natural 
resources and fire activities is the basis for coordinated agency 
program decisions and is critical to effective and efficient program 
management.
    There is currently no consistency among agencies in compiling, 
managing, and accessing fire data, which prevents a reliable, holistic 
view of the Federal fire program. Although some data, such as 
historical fire patterns, response to past management actions, resource 
values, prescribed fire statistics, and hazard mapping, have been 
collected, it is incomplete and is not managed and portrayed 
consistently. In some cases, e.g., the wildland/urban interface, the 
need for data is only now being identified.
    Goal Federal agencies adhere to sound data management principles 
and achieve a coordinated Federal fire statistical database.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Standardize fire statistics and develop an easily 
accessible common database.
     Jointly identify, develop, and use tools needed for 
ecosystem-based fire management programs with mechanisms to integrate 
fire-related databases with other systems. These tools will include:

--The collection of ecosystem-related data such as disturbance regimes, 
historical fire patterns, response to management actions, and others.
--Consistent methods to track and access fire information, e.g., fire-
use statistics and administrative costs.
--Mechanisms to transfer and exchange information such as fire effects 
databases (e.g., Fire Effects Information System), expert systems 
(e.g., Fire Monitoring Navigator), Internet access, National Biological 
Information Infrastructure, National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) 
Publications Management System documents, multimedia training and 
educational material, and public/private partnership information.

     Direct the collection of a common set of prescribed fire 
data for use in risk assessment.
    Cooperate with the Tribes, States, and local governments to 
establish a data-collection mechanism, which includes involvement by 
the insurance industry, National Fire Protection Association, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, and other Federal agencies, to better 
assess the nature and scope of the wildland/urban interface fire 
problem.
     Play a lead role in the adoption of the National Fire 
Incident Reporting System standards for all fire agencies that operate 
in the wildland/urban interface and modify existing fire 
[[Page 32492]] reports (Interior's DI-1202 and Forest Service's 5100-
29) to reflect wildland/urban interface data.
Weather Support

    Fire-weather forecasting is a sophisticated and long-standing tool 
used by fire managers. As fire behavior prediction techniques have 
improved and become paramount in fire suppression, weather support has 
become a critical factor. In addition, longer-term fires are demanding 
forecasts beyond the six- to ten-day reliable range.
    Currently, fire weather services are provided, on request, by the 
National Weather Service as a special program in that agency; however, 
demands for weather support have begun to exceed the existing 
capability. In recent severe fire years, requests for on-the-fire units 
could not always be filled.
    The need for nontraditional weather support is dramatically 
increasing. Pre-fire-season predictions are being demanded by managers 
in order to prioritize work loads. Long-range fire severity forecasts 
are commonly needed for pre-positioning suppression forces, but they 
are either not available or unreliable. Finally, current and future 
demands for prescribed-fire weather forecasts, both long-range and on-
site, are far exceeding present weather-support capability. To date, 
evaluation of alternatives for providing weather support to the fire 
management program have not resulted in substantive change in the 
methods available to fire managers.

Goal

    Appropriate options are implemented for fulfilling fire managers' 
current and future needs for weather services.

Actions

     The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, together 
with the Secretary of Commerce, will evaluate alternative methods, 
including non-Federal sources, to provide weather service to the 
agencies' fire management programs.
     The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will seek 
commitment from the Secretary of Commerce to research and develop 
technology to provide accurate, long-range weather forecasts.

Legal Review and Policy Analysis

    New and innovative fire program activities and the increasing 
interconnection between fire activities and existing environmental, 
public health, and tort laws require legal review and policy analysis 
to ensure coordination and compliance. Consequences of prescribed fire 
activities, where fire is allowed to play a natural role or is 
introduced into the wildlands, may conflict with some interpretations 
of existing laws or regulations. Currently, these differences are 
identified independently by each agency and resolved on a case-by-case 
basis.
    Many of these issues are emerging in the wildland/urban interface 
zone (see Wildland/Urban Interface Protection section). In order to 
make the best possible decisions, agencies must have sound, consistent 
legal interpretation of laws and regulations and/or in-depth systematic 
analysis of policy. Furthermore, wildland fire management agencies 
must, early in the process, involve public-health and environmental 
regulators in developing the most workable application of policies and 
regulations.

Goal

    Agencies have a consistent interpretation of laws and resulting 
policies to eliminate inconsistencies in agency fire management 
programs and decisions.

Actions

     Federal agencies will:

--Identify the legal context for reintroducing fire into wildlands and 
develop options for accomplishment, including modifying regulations to 
address ecological processes where appropriate, exercising broader 
interpretations of policy, using the waiver process, or resolving 
obstacles at regional and local levels.
--Jointly obtain legal interpretation of current policy and law 
regarding interagency implementation activities related to fire 
management, including those on non-Federal lands. Based on this 
interpretation, agencies can develop standardized agreements or new 
agreements that permit these activities.
--Clarify and differentiate between agency liability and personal 
liability resulting from prescribed fire, based on legal review and 
interpretation of tort law.
     The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will 
direct the Office of the Solicitor and the Office of the General 
Counsel, in coordination with the Department of Justice, to conduct and 
publish, by January 1, 1996, a comprehensive legal review on wildland/
urban interface fire protection to provide the legal foundation for 
Federal actions. This review will address:

--Current authority under Federal laws such as the Organic Act, 
National Forest Management Act, Stafford Act, and the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act.
--The subjects of tort liability, budget authorities, cooperative 
agreements, mitigation activities, and natural resource protection/
environmental laws.

Role of Fire in Resource Management
Situation

    Long before humans arrived in North America, there was fire. It 
came with the first lightning strike and will remain forever. Wildfire 
is inherently neither good nor bad. As an inevitable natural force, it 
is simply unpredictable and potentially destructive and, along with 
human activities, has altered ecosystems throughout time.
    Early ecologists recognized the presence of disturbance but focused 
on the principle that the land continued to move toward a stable or 
equilibrium condition. Through the years, however, scientists have 
acknowledged that equilibrium conditions are largely the exception and 
disturbance is generally the rule. Natural forces have affected and 
defined landscapes throughout time. Inasmuch as humans cannot 
completely control or eliminate these disturbances, ecosystems will 
continue to change.
    Human activities have also influenced ecosystem change. American 
Indian Tribes actively used fire in prehistoric and historic times to 
alter vegetation patterns. In short, people and fire and ecosystems 
evolved together. This human influence shifted after European 
settlement in North America, when it was believed that fire, unlike 
other natural disturbance phenomena, could and should be controlled. 
For many years fire was aggressively excluded to prevent what was 
considered the destruction of forests and other vegetation. While the 
destructive, potentially deadly side of fire was obvious and immediate, 
changes and risks resulting from these fire exclusion efforts were 
difficult to recognize and mounted slowly and inconspicuously over many 
decades.
    Recently, however, there has been a growing recognition that past 
land-use practices such as logging and grazing, combined with the 
effects of fire exclusion, have resulted in heavy accumulations of dead 
vegetation, altered fuel arrangement, and changes in vegetative 
structure and composition. As dead fallen material (including tree 
boles, tree and shrub branches, leaves, and decaying organic matter) 
accumulates on the ground, it increases fuel quantity and creates a 
continuous [[Page 32493]] arrangement of fuel. These conditions allow 
surface fires to ignite more quickly, burn with greater intensity, and 
spread more rapidly and extensively than in the past.
    The arrangement of live vegetation also affects the way fires burn. 
For example, an increase in the density of small trees creates a multi-
storied forest structure with a continuous vertical fuel arrangement. 
This arrangement may allow a fire normally restricted to the ground to 
spread into the trees and become a crown fire. In addition to 
structural changes, vegetation modification resulting from fire 
exclusion causes a shift toward species that are not adapted to fire 
(some of which are not native) and are therefore more susceptible to 
damage from fire. Fire exclusion also favors non-native species in some 
fire-dependent areas, while in other areas fires may encourage non-
native species. Fires in areas of altered vegetation and fuels affect 
other important forces within the ecosystem, such as insects and 
diseases, wildlife populations, hydrologic processes, and nutrient 
cycling, which influence the long-term sustainability of the land.
    Paradoxically, rather than eliminating fire, exclusion efforts have 
instead dramatically altered fire regimes so that today's fires tend to 
be larger and more severe. No longer a matter of slow accumulation of 
fuels, today's conditions confront us with the likelihood of more 
rapid, extensive ecological changes beyond any we have experienced in 
the past. To address these changes and the challenge they present, we 
must first understand and accept the role of fire and adopt land 
management practices that integrate fire as an essential ecosystem 
process.
    Although ecological knowledge and theories have changed relatively 
quickly, the scope and process of land management have had difficulty 
keeping pace. Ecological processes, including fire and other 
disturbance, and changing landscape conditions are often not integrated 
into land management planning and decisions. With few exceptions, 
existing land management planning is confined to individual agency 
boundaries and single-function goals that are driven by differing 
agency missions and policies. This type of planning results in an 
inefficient, fragmented, short-term approach to management that tends 
to ignore interdisciplinary-based, long-term, broad-scale resource 
issues that cross agency boundaries. Land management agencies now 
recognize the need to break down these barriers and seek cooperative, 
ecologically sound approaches to land management.
    The process used in land management planning also hinders the 
broad-scale approach. One way to break down this barrier is to involve 
all interests, including the public, scientists, resource specialists, 
and regulators, throughout the planning process. Another is to 
establish a clear link for communication and information transfer 
between scientists and managers. These measures will help to ensure 
that management needs are met and that current science is used in land 
management planning at all levels.
    Planning must also consider the risks, probabilities, and 
consequences of various management strategies, e.g., wildfire versus 
prescribed fire versus fire exclusion. For a responsive planning 
process, management decisions must be monitored, integrated and 
supported at each step. And to carry out critical and effective 
``adaptive management'' (a feedback approach to management that uses 
monitoring results to plan future actions), planners and managers need 
a nationwide baseline measure of ecological condition and a 
standardized method of assessing long-term ecological health.
    Not only must we understand and accept the need to integrate fire 
into land management, but this integration must be reconciled with 
other societal goals (e.g., maintaining species habitat, maximizing 
commodity production, and protecting air quality, water quality, and 
human health). Laws and regulations must consistently address long-term 
ecosystem processes and must guide agencies toward a common goal. 
Information about the consequences of various management strategies is 
not currently available to assist in working toward simultaneous goals. 
Land management and regulatory agencies must interact and collaborate 
to achieve a balance of ecosystem and other societal goals.
    A major obstacle is that many people do not understand the 
ecological and scientific concepts behind fire. For many, fire remains 
a fearsome, destructive force that can and should be controlled at all 
costs. Smokey Bear's simple, time-honored ``only you'' fire prevention 
message has been so successful that any complex talk about the healthy, 
natural role of fire gets lost, ignored or denied by broad internal and 
external audiences.
    The ecological and societal risks of using and excluding fire have 
not been adequately clarified and quantified to allow open and thorough 
discussions among managers and the public. Few understand that 
integrating fire into land management is not a one-time, immediate fix 
but a continual, long-term process. It is not an end in itself but 
rather a means to a healthy end. Full agency commitment to internal and 
external information and education regarding fire and other ecological 
processes is needed. When agency employees as well as the public 
misunderstand or remain skeptical about the role of fire, it severely 
limits adaptive and innovative fire and land management. Conversely, 
informed constituents and well-educated employees are essential to 
honestly address the concerns of society.
    Several roadblocks keep us from reintroducing fire on an 
ecologically significant scale. Even now it sometimes takes years to 
reach agreement about appropriate treatments and to take action. Land 
managers often feel the need to wait for scientific certainty before 
acting. This favors the status quo, impedes progress, and deters 
investigation of new techniques. In many ecosystems, there is little or 
no information about disturbance regimes, historical fire patterns, 
inventory data, response to past management actions, and likely future 
responses. This calls for a consistent, well-planned, and large-scale 
scientific assessment of current ecosystem conditions and consequences 
of various management strategies. Also, increasing human settlement 
near wildlands divides and fragments resource lands, making it 
difficult to apply new ecosystem-based management strategies. This 
increases the risk of escaped fires and generates more complaints about 
smoke and altered scenic values. A further roadblock is the current 
policy that calls for the suppression of all wildfires. This precludes 
the use of wildfire as a cost-effective means of accomplishing the 
objectives contained in agency land-use plans.
    Fire is the most powerful natural force that mankind has learned to 
use. Unlike an earthquake, it can be harnessed; unlike a tornado, it 
can be channeled; unlike wind, it depends on complex chemical and 
biological relationships. And, unlike water and ice, fire is not an 
element; it is an event, a catalyst, and therefore a unique tool that 
land managers everywhere can use.
    But in order to successfully integrate fire into natural resource 
management, informed managers, partners, and the public must build upon 
sound scientific principles and social values. Research programs must 
be developed to create this foundation of sound scientific principles. 
All parties must work together in the land management planning and 
implementation process according to agreed-upon goals for 
[[Page 32494]] public welfare and the health of the land.
    The task before us--reintroducing fire--is both urgent and 
enormous. We have created conditions on millions of acres of wildlands 
that increase the probability of large, intense wildfires beyond any 
scale we have witnessed. These severe fires will in turn increase the 
risk to humans, to property, and to the land upon which our social and 
economic well-being is so intimately intertwined.
    In the first decade of this century, a new policy was established 
that systematically excluded the natural flame across the entire 
nation. In recent years we have begun to understand the full extent of 
the risks that policy has wrought. Now, in the last decade of this 
century, it is our responsibility, for the health of the land and for 
our citizens, to carefully, systematically, and collectively bring fire 
back to its rightful place.

Goals--Planning

     Ecological processes, including fire, are actively 
incorporated into land management planning to restore and maintain 
sustainable ecosystems. Planning is a collaborative effort, with all 
interested partners working together to develop and implement 
management objectives that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
     The use of fire to sustain ecosystem health is based on 
sound scientific principles and is balanced with other societal 
concerns.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Jointly develop consistent, compatible, ecosystem-based 
interagency land management planning processes that facilitate adaptive 
management, including effective implementation, continual monitoring, 
and appropriate feedback to management. This process will:

--Fully integrate ecological concepts that consider the long-term view 
and cross agency boundaries.
--Involve all internal parties, including managers, scientists, 
resource specialists, regulators, Tribes, State and local governments, 
and the public. (The ongoing interagency Columbia River Basin 
Assessment Project may provide a model.)
--Quickly and effectively incorporate current information, including 
scientific knowledge, risk assessment, social and economic concerns, 
and public-health considerations.
--Include multiple scales of planning, assessment, and monitoring to 
address specific actions such as fire management prescriptions for 
resource management on a local scale and ecosystem health on a broader 
scale.
--Set performance requirements and provide rewards for 
interdisciplinary planning and successful implementation so that team 
members are responsible for ecosystem health rather than single, 
specific targets.
--Require consistent and integrated ecosystem monitoring across agency 
boundaries.
--Include a mechanism to revise existing land management plans to 
address the above actions.

     Develop research programs that provide a sound scientific 
basis for the integration of fire as a positive force in resource 
management.
    Use a consistent fire management planning system that 
ensures adequate fire suppression capabilities to support fire 
reintroduction efforts and recognizes fire management (both fire use 
and fire protection) as an inherent part of natural resource 
management.
     Create a system for coordination and cooperation among 
land managers and regulators to allow for the use of fire to achieve 
goals of ecosystem health while at the same time protecting individual 
components of the environment and human health and safety. This system 
will:

--Allow for early collaboration during the process of developing new 
land management plans.
--Provide a mechanism for achieving balanced goals in existing land 
management plans.
--Encourage land management agencies to proactively incorporate the 
intent of environmental laws and regulations into their management 
practices to achieve a balance among societal goals (e.g., adopt 
consistent, state-of-the-art smoke management techniques, including 
smoke modeling).

Goals--Reintroduction of Fire

     Based upon sound scientific information and management 
objectives, fire is used to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems and 
to minimize undesirable fire effects, including effects on humans.
     Clearly defined management goals and objectives that 
include the role of prescribed fire and wildfire are developed. 
Resulting fire management practices and terminology are consistent for 
areas with similar management objectives, regardless of jurisdiction.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Expedite the decision-making process by developing a 
uniform set of criteria for evaluating ecosystem condition and 
prioritizing areas for the reintroduction of fire to meet resource 
objectives and reduce hazards. This process will identify those 
ecosystems:

--That will function without fire (fire is not a significant natural 
component or the fire regime has not been altered).
--Where fire is unlikely to succeed (fire would be adverse, such as 
areas significantly altered by fuel accumulations and species changes).
--Where treatment is essential or potentially effective (fire is needed 
to improve resource conditions or reduce risk and hazard).

     Jointly conduct research, expand fire management 
demonstration areas, and coordinate and implement ecosystem-based fire 
management programs. These programs will:

--Address today's more fragmented landscapes.
--Address the highest-priority needs in ecosystem assessment, 
monitoring, and management.
--Use existing tools and develop new ones to assist in understanding 
and managing for prescribed fires of greater size and intensity 
consistent with historic fire regimes.
--Determine the appropriate scope of prescribed fire use, including 
urgency, extent, timing, and risks and consequences.
--Be an integral part of the long-term, comprehensive land management 
program.

     Revise policy to allow wildfire to be used to accomplish 
resource or landscape management goals when consistent with land-use 
plan objectives.

Goal--Education
    Clear and consistent information is provided to internal and 
external audiences about existing conditions, management goals and 
objectives, the role of fire in achieving these objectives, and 
alternatives and consequences of various fire management strategies.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Establish an interdisciplinary team that includes all agencies and 
regulators to design a consistent fire-role and -use message for 
decision makers and the public. This message will:

--Describe and clearly explain issues such as ecosystem condition, 
risks, consequences (including public health impacts), and costs in 
open dialogue with internal and external constituents through media 
[[Page 32495]] campaigns, public meetings, employee training, etc.
--Be designed to maximize open communications and reduce polarization 
among conflicting interests regarding prescribed fire.

    Build on existing efforts of the Interior Interagency Wildland Fire 
Education Initiative to develop and implement a strategic plan that 
includes education of the general public and agency personnel about the 
role of fire. As part of this effort, agencies will:

--Develop and transmit a clear message about the role of fire and the 
consequences of its use and exclusion.
--Integrate this message into existing agency communication systems.
--Tie the role-of-fire message to other agency initiatives such as 
forest health, ecosystem management, etc.
--Broaden the Initiative to include all interests.
--Incorporate risk assessments into the Initiative.
--Encourage, create, and coordinate partnerships to achieve consistency 
in messages, build public trust, and obtain public opinion.
--Recognize and use educable moments (where the attention of the public 
is focused on fire, e.g., fire emergencies and visible prescribed fire 
operations) to facilitate high-impact information and education.
--Develop mandatory national and regional interagency training programs 
to instill in all employees an understanding of the role of fire in 
natural systems.
--Commit funding and support to public information.

Use of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management

Situation

    Since the early 1900's, our national fire policy of aggressively 
limiting and excluding fire has unwittingly turned many wildlands into 
altered, high-risk fire zones. As stated in the preceding chapter, this 
exclusion policy has modified the living landscape, changing plant 
species composition as well as diversity. In many cases it has 
transformed a landscape of diffuse, native, fire-adapted plant species 
into a dense, solid, and often vulnerable fuel load of standing 
vegetation and ground litter. When lightning inevitably strikes, fires 
ignite faster, burn hotter, and spread faster and farther. These high-
intensity fires are more likely to result in unacceptable environmental 
conditions such as sterilized or water-repellent soils, accelerated 
erosion, and displacement of native vegetation by less desirable 
species.
    Recent fire tragedies in the West have helped focus that 
understanding and, along with it, a consideration of how risk might be 
mitigated. Some areas will need immediate management intervention to 
prevent high-intensity fire and to maintain their sustainability as 
healthy ecosystems.
    Prescribed fire or burning is often mentioned by land managers, 
fire practitioners, and scientists as a potential tool to mitigate 
fuels and hazards. Prescribed burning is the deliberate application of 
fire to wildlands to achieve specific resource management objectives. 
Prescribed fires may be ignited either by resource managers or by 
natural events such as lightning. They may be used for a number of 
resource management purposes, from simple fuel reduction to achieving 
specific responses from fire-dependent species, such as the 
regeneration of aspen.
    When the purpose of a prescribed fire is simply to reduce the 
amount of fuel, alternative treatments are available. Physical removal 
or substantial alteration of both dead and living vegetation may be 
accomplished by mechanical means in areas where heavy equipment can 
operate. Fuel loads can also be treated by hand but at a relatively 
high cost. Other land management activities, such as grazing and 
logging, may also serve to accomplish fuel reduction. But when a land 
management objective is more complex, the number of acceptable 
treatment alternatives becomes limited. For instance, there is no 
alternative to the use of fire as a natural process in Wilderness.
    Prescribed burning is a well-established practice utilized by most 
Federal, Tribal and State land management agencies as well as some 
private individuals and organizations. In order to use prescribed fire, 
land managers must prepare burn plans. Each plan specifies desired 
effects, weather conditions that will result in acceptable fire 
behavior, and the forces needed to ignite, hold, monitor, and 
eventually extinguish the fire. In the past, the practice of prescribed 
burning has been used on a relatively small scale and confined to 
single land ownerships or jurisdictions. Success has been built around 
qualified and experienced people, their understanding of vegetative 
types and terrain conducive to fire, adequate funding, a supportive 
public, and a willingness on the part of agency administrators to 
assume a reasonable amount of risk to achieve desired results.
    Because of its potential for undesirable results, prescribed fire 
is one of the highest-risk activities Federal land management agencies 
engage in. Escaped prescribed fires can result from poorly designed or 
poorly executed projects, but they can also result from events beyond 
the control of those conducting the project, such as unpredicted winds 
or equipment failure. Currently, the stigma associated with an escaped 
prescribed fire does not distinguish between poor performance and bad 
luck.
    Although prescribed fire is used in many areas of the United 
States, it is rarely used enough to significantly improve ecosystem 
health or reduce hazards. One reason for this is lack of commitment to 
the concept. While land management agencies as a whole generally 
recognize the role of fire as a natural process, not all individual 
disciplines and managers fully understand or support this role. Some 
managers are unwilling to accept the potential negative consequences 
associated with prescribed fire. Differences of opinion concerning the 
effect of fire on specific resources, such as cultural values, water 
quality, air quality, and certain flora and fauna, can also impede the 
process.
    Another shortcoming is lack of access to qualified people. In the 
current atmosphere of downsizing and reduced budgets, agencies may not 
be able to maintain sufficient skills to accomplish broad-scale 
prescribed fire programs. Many of the employees who are most 
experienced in the application of prescribed fire are the same ones who 
are responsible for wildfire suppression. This can lead to potential 
competition for their time during the fire season. Administrative 
procedures also inhibit temporary hiring of personnel needed to conduct 
on-the-ground prescribed burning.
    The direction in the Interagency Fire Business Management Handbook 
on hazard-duty pay also tends to limit the number of prescribed fire 
professionals. This guidance restricts fire-related hazard pay to 
activity within or adjacent to the perimeter of an uncontrolled 
wildfire, even though prescribed fire practitioners are exposed to as 
much risk if not more than firefighters engaged in suppressing 
wildfire.
    Retirement benefits have also been a factor in career choices 
involving prescribed fire. However, the BLM has now recognized that, 
based on 5 CFR 831.900 and 842.800, prescribed fire activity qualifies 
for primary coverage under special firefighter retirement. In some 
agencies, however, it is still [[Page 32496]] considered to qualify 
only for secondary coverage.
    To provide optimal biological benefit to forests and rangelands, 
the timing and intensity of prescribed fire should resemble natural 
occurrence. Historically, fires were often very large; however, current 
land-ownership patterns and the process of funding prescribed fire are 
not conducive to replicating this process. For example, it is difficult 
to have a landscape-size project without involving lands of another 
ownership, and there are barriers to spending agency funds on non-
agency lands. And the system does not encourage managers to plan large 
projects with multiple benefits located entirely on agency lands, 
because participation is generally limited to those program areas that 
will provide support and funding.
    Currently, there is no consistent method to determine the potential 
for a prescribed fire to escape, nor is there a mechanism to compare 
the values at risk from an escaped fire versus those at risk by 
continuing to exclude fire. When a prescribed fire does escape, the 
only way a private property owner can be compensated more than $2,500 
is to pursue a tort claim against the Federal government. To prevail, 
the damaged party must prove negligence on the part of the agency. This 
cumbersome process leads to ill will between the managing agency and 
neighboring landowners and adversely affects cooperation.
    Managing for landscape health requires expansion of interagency 
prescribed fire programs. Agencies must make a commitment with highly 
qualified people, from leader to practitioner, and provide funding 
mechanisms to conduct the program. Federal agencies must foster a work 
force that understands the role of fire and, at the same time, raise 
the level of public understanding. Public opinion and perception may 
limit increases in interagency prescribed fire programs. Therefore, 
continued Federal efforts to work collaboratively with and educate 
private landowners, interest groups, and the media is paramount. 
Education efforts should focus on exposing the public to accurate 
information on the social and economic benefits that result when 
prescribed fire is used, how natural resources may be maintained, and 
the risks involved, including those associated with not taking any 
action. Total implementation may require that the public tolerate some 
smoke and accept a certain amount of fire in their environment as an 
investment in the long-term health of the land.

Goal--Implementation

    Fire is accepted as a critical process in a fully integrated 
program to improve forest and rangeland health. Long-term public safety 
and healthy ecosystems are maintained through the use of fire on all 
ownerships. Through funding and staffing, agencies support a 
significant increase in the use of fire as a resource management tool 
where consistent with integrated land management plans and maintenance 
of public health.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Jointly develop programs to fund and implement an expanded 
program of prescribed fire in fire-dependent ecosystems.
     Facilitate the planning and implementation of landscape-
scale prescribed burns across agency boundaries and seek opportunities 
to enter into partnerships with Tribal, State and private land managers 
where appropriate.
     Conduct all prescribed fire projects consistent with land 
and resource management plans, public health considerations, and 
approved prescribed burn plans.
     Implement the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) 
interagency prescribed fire qualification and certification system.
     Aggressively pursue the development of employee attitudes 
that support long-range, multi-resource management viewpoints through 
the use of training, performance elements, and experience.
     Seek authority to eliminate internal barriers to the 
transfer and use of funds for prescribed fire on non-Federal lands and 
among Federal agencies.
     Seek authority or provide administrative direction to 
eliminate barriers to carrying over from one year to the next all funds 
designated for prescribed fire.

Goal--Capability

    Agencies collectively and cooperatively maintain an organization 
that can effectively plan and implement prescribed fire to meet 
resource management objectives.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Train and maintain a qualified and adequate work force to 
implement interagency prescribed fire projects and make them available 
when needed.
     Jointly develop simple, consistent hiring and contracting 
procedures for prescribed fire activities.
     Work with the Office of Personnel Management to acquire 
authority for hazard-differential pay to compensate employees exposed 
to hazards while engaged in large-scale or complex prescribed fire 
activities.
     Clarify that prescribed fire positions qualify for primary 
coverage under special firefighter retirement and issue appropriate 
guidance to field offices.
     Make optimum use of available skills to ensure adequate 
focus, oversight, and safety for the prescribed fire program. Methods 
may include:

--Sharing personnel among agencies.
--Organizationally consolidating key fire skills within and among 
agencies.
--Minimizing collateral-duty assignments that compromise focus, 
oversight, and safety in the prescribed fire program.

     Jointly manage prescribed fire and suppression resources 
to ensure accomplishment of both activities concurrently.
     Explore old and new technologies that may reduce the 
labor-intensive nature of fire activities.

Goal--Risk Management/Support

    Agencies within the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior 
support employees when properly planned and conducted prescribed fire 
projects have unfavorable outcomes.

Actions

     Federal agencies will:

--Jointly develop an assessment process that estimates the probability 
of success and/or failure associated with the use of prescribed fire 
and evaluates the potential positive and negative consequences. As a 
part of this process, the effects of not conducting the project will 
also be evaluated. Research will support this effort.
--Jointly establish partnerships and develop tools to assess, disclose, 
and mitigate risk from prescribed fires.
--Create an organizational climate that supports employees who 
implement a properly planned prescribed fire program.
--Relax current cumbersome, nonproductive requirements such as daily 
written management certification that a prescribed fire is burning 
within its prescription.

     Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will seek 
legislation allowing rapid reimbursement for non-Federal losses 
resulting from prescribed fires.

Preparedness and Suppression

Situation

    The business of fighting wildfires is costly, time-consuming, and 
often [[Page 32497]] dangerous to firefighters and the public. 
Wildfires occur unexpectedly and create an emergency in which 
firefighters race to minimize harm to valuable resources or property. 
Firefighters can contain and limit the spread of wildfires only by 
preparing well ahead of time, thoroughly examining various 
possibilities of fire numbers and sizes, and developing contingency 
plans to cope with them. And only by having adequate, thoroughly 
trained, well-equipped firefighters can fire suppression be carried out 
safely. For the past ten years, an average of 67,043 fires have started 
each year on Federally protected wildlands, burning an average of 
2,749,029 acres, an area slightly smaller than the State of 
Connecticut. When an exceptionally severe fire year occurs, the 
combined fire protection forces of Federal, Tribal, State, and local 
governments are challenged. In the past ten years, 1988, 1990, and 1994 
were considered extreme in the number of acres burned.
    In 1994, the Federal agencies with wildfire responsibilities 
estimate that 95 percent of wildfires were suppressed during initial 
attack action. Nevertheless, nearly $1 billion was spent on the fires 
that escaped initial attack, and the nation experienced an enormous 
loss of natural resources, private property. With the loss of 34 
firefighters, it was a tragic year for wildland fire; and even more 
sobering is that without the commitment to safety demonstrated by 
firefighting personnel throughout the nation, our losses could have 
been even greater. Important lessons were learned, including an 
affirmation that agency personnel at all levels, and not just those 
directly involved in fire suppression, must be committed to safety.
    It is estimated that presently in the 11 western states there are 
20 to 30 million acres of Federal lands where conditions are ripe for 
extremely intense, destructive wildfires. This high risk brings with it 
the potential for danger to human health and safety and for enormous 
costs and economic loss as well as severe damage to soils, watersheds, 
wildlife, and flora. Federal wildland fire protection agencies must 
continue to provide resources and new technology for early detection 
and quick suppression of fires. To not do so would be to put 
significant public and private values, as well as human lives, at 
unacceptable risk.
    The purpose of wildfire suppression is to minimize damage to 
resources, property, and the environment; to minimize expenditures of 
public funds for effective suppression, based on values at risk; and to 
provide for the safety of firefighters and the public.
    Following the tragic loss of lives in the past fire season, the 
USDA-Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management chartered an 
Interagency Management Review Team (IMRT) that focused on three key 
areas:
     Creating a ``passion for safety'' within all wildland fire 
suppression organizations that goes beyond traditional implementation.
     Emphasizing the importance of agency administrator duties 
and responsibilities in the implementation of safe fire management 
policies, programs, and practices.
     Monitoring performance and accountability of all personnel 
involved in fire and aviation management activities. This includes 
ensuring appropriate skills and training are acquired by 
administrators, program managers and staff, and all firefighting 
personnel.
    The IMRT report includes 35 recommendations for follow-up. Many 
have been completed; several are more complex and are ongoing. The IMRT 
will complete its work June 30, 1995, but individual work groups will 
continue with ongoing projects until they are completed. A significant 
outcome of this focus on firefighting safety was a joint statement by 
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in May of 1995:

    We are committed to ``Zero Tolerance'' of carelessness and 
unsafe actions. The commitment to and accountability for safety is a 
joint responsibility of firefighters, managers, and administrators. 
No resource or property values are worth endangering people. All 
land management plans and all suppression plans and actions must 
reflect this commitment. Individuals must be personally committed 
and responsible for their own performance and accountability.

    The task of preparing for and suppressing fires has been 
accomplished through the excellent cooperation of all fire suppression 
organizations. With shrinking budgets and work forces and more 
challenging fire situations, this cooperation and coordination among 
Federal and non-Federal fire protection organizations becomes even more 
essential to provide the fire protection capability the public expects.
    The Interagency Management Review Team's findings included the 
following:

    The five Federal wildland fire agencies have each adopted 
separate fire management planning systems. These systems fall into 
two basic categories: (1) Optimization models (used by FS, BLM, and 
BIA) and (2) allocation models (used by NPS and FWS). Each approach 
has strengths and weaknesses. Three major weaknesses shared by both 
approaches are the focus on single-agency initial attack, the 
inability to adequately assess the role of non-market or non-
commodity values at risk, and the inability to adequately address 
``non-normal'' conditions. Nevertheless, the systems currently 
provide the principal source of information for budget planning and 
for organizational configurations in each agency.
    The single-agency focus and contrasting approaches of the 
various systems have precluded effective interagency planning, for 
both initial- and extended-attack situations and for geographic-area 
and national-level resources. The lack of capability to address non-
market values has hampered the ability of the fire management 
programs to provide an organization that accounts for all resources 
and inhibits cross-agency comparisons.
    While each agency has been making modifications and improvements 
to their own systems over the years, discussion has begun within the 
interagency fire community to commission a new-generation system 
that can be used by all agencies (including States) and that 
addresses the full range of fire management planning issues. In 
November 1993 the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) 
initiated an exploratory study of developing such a system.
    A next-generation fire management planning system, usable by all 
agencies and States, would greatly enhance the ability to analyze 
the full range of planning issues and provide a more efficient and 
effective interagency fire protection organization. Fire management 
planning systems must address the role that fuels management and 
protection of adjacent lands and structures plan in fire protection 
planning. Efforts to develop such a system should move forward as a 
priority effort in the interagency community through the NWCG.

--Taken from the report of the Interagency Management Review Team, 
October 1994.

    This action will facilitate the interchange of forces for 
suppression and create a totally mobile Federal fire force.
    In addition to the need for standardization, there are a number of 
existing policies and procedures that hinder all agencies' efforts to 
become more effective in preparedness and suppression. Some of those 
are operational and some, such as budgeting and personnel practices, 
are administrative. In some cases, agencies are individually attempting 
to solve these problems or at least temporarily fix them season to 
season. However, it is critical that Federal wildland fire management 
agencies work together to arrive at common solutions.
    Some minor differences in budget processes among agencies inhibit 
full cooperation. Perhaps the most important issue is the separate 
funding requests for seasonal severity funding, where coordinated 
planning and [[Page 32498]] funding for pre-positioning resources on a 
local basis is a critical part of preparedness. Differences in the use 
of emergency firefighting appropriations among agencies also inhibit 
cooperation on prescribed fire actions. In addition, a budget problem 
common among Federal agencies and a barrier to full effectiveness in 
fire suppression is that fire organizations are often funded at less 
than the Most Efficient Level (MEL) for preparedness. This requires 
shifting funds from emergency suppression to pre-positioning resources. 
Standardization of budget processes and solution of some of these 
budget barriers would help to incrementally improve fire suppression.
    A few current personnel policies have an adverse effect on Federal 
employees' pay while on a fire. As a result, employees are not always 
interested in supporting the fire suppression mission of the agencies. 
In some geographic areas, primarily California, the annual wage of 
entry-level Federal firefighters is lower than State and local 
firefighter salaries. Federal agencies are training firefighters only 
to lose qualified people to other fire-service agencies. And the Fair 
Labor Standards Act creates disparity in pay between exempt and 
nonexempt employees. In addition, the policy for hiring temporary 
employees is cumbersome and time consuming; these short-term employees 
have a restricted work year and in many geographic areas are not on the 
rolls long enough for the agencies to provide necessary training prior 
to the fire season.
    Preparedness planning is critical to ensure that imminent fire 
situations are recognized, an appropriate level of fire protection is 
provided in support of land and resource management goals and 
objectives, and that appropriate priorities are established and actions 
taken. The absence of carefully developed and specific preparedness 
plans frequently results in poor decisions that lead to costly 
operational mistakes or unsafe practices during emergency situations. 
In contrast, well-prepared fire suppression plans generally result in 
smaller fires that are less costly to suppress and cause minimal damage 
to property and natural resources.
    Reorganization and downsizing efforts are compelling Federal 
agencies to look at new ways to accomplish their programs, including 
firefighting. Retirements and organizational changes have changed the 
demographics and experience levels within the fire program. In some 
cases, agency administrators and fire management officers do not have 
the same level of experience in fire management oversight as did their 
predecessors. Managers are often not rewarded for success or given 
incentives to improve. Further, the demands created by more complex 
natural resource issues and multiple program priorities have diverted 
administrators' attention away from the fire management program. Lack 
of oversight and attention to preparedness can result in crisis 
decision making. When fires become emergencies, public and political 
pressures may take precedence over suppression plans that are based on 
values at risk.
    Values-at-risk estimates have been commonly used to determine 
strategies for large-fire suppression. Only losses in values have been 
considered in these calculations, because in the suppression 
operations, the objective as predetermined in land use plans is to put 
the fire out at the least total cost, which is the value of the 
resources (values at risk) plus suppression costs. While fire benefits 
have been considered in planning the fire forces for budget 
allocations, positive benefits of fires have not been factored into the 
formulation, or choice, of suppression strategies.
    Use of values at risk in fire suppression has not been consistent 
across agencies, and the definition is too narrow without considering 
fire benefits as well. As mentioned above, in some cases it has been 
disregarded entirely. These practices contribute, sometimes 
significantly, to inflated fire suppression costs. The values at risk 
concept needs to be revised to reflect present recognition of the 
positive benefits of fire as compatible with agency land use 
objectives, as well as the need for a broader range of strategic 
suppression alternatives for large fires to hold costs in check and 
recognize limits of firefighting resources.
    Standard criteria have been established to guide fire suppression 
priorities. These are based on the potential for the fire to destroy: 
(1) Human life, (2) property, and (3) resource values. Human life 
remains the first priority; however, a rigid second priority of 
property over natural resource values is being questioned by fire 
managers. It does not allow for flexibility to consider low-value 
properties relative to higher-valued natural resources. And property 
protection as a rigid priority is a significant contributor to inflated 
suppression costs as well as increased size of wildfires when limited 
suppression resources are concentrated to protect property. More 
flexibility is needed to assess the relative values between property 
and natural resources in order to achieve economic efficiency.
    The need for better advance preparation and more effective 
suppression has never been greater. The overall efficiency and 
effectiveness of the Federal wildland fire protection effort can be 
improved through consistency and better coordination. Policies and 
practices that have been tested and found to be inadequate can be 
improved through some very specific actions.

Goal--Safety

    Federal employees are committed to ``Zero Tolerance'' of 
carelessness and unsafe actions.

Actions

     Federal agencies will support and enforce direction by the 
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture that:

--Safety comes first on every fire, every time.
--The Ten Standard Fire Orders are firm. We don't break them; we don't 
bend them.
--All firefighters have the right to a safe assignment.
--Every firefighter, every fireline supervisor, every fire manager, and 
every agency administrator has the responsibility to ensure compliance 
with established safe firefighting practices.

     Federal agencies will adopt a policy that is consistent 
with the Secretaries' direction for fire management safety.

Goal--Values At Risk

    Federal agencies maintain preparedness planning and suppression 
programs that prevent unacceptable loss from fire by implementing 
consistent strategies based on estimates of suppression costs and 
damages together with benefits that may result from wildfire.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Jointly redefine values at risk and clarify measures of 
damage and benefits that may result from fire. This will be 
incorporated into mobilization guides and action plans and inserted 
into all national training.
     Include risk assessment in preparedness planning, with 
firefighter safety as a primary component.
     Complete fire preparedness plans utilizing an interagency 
approach that incorporates values at risk and benefits to resources, 
consistent with land and resource management plans.
     Consider a full range of suppression strategies that 
incorporates estimated damage and benefits to resources, 
[[Page 32499]] consistent with land and resource management plans.
     Document values at risk and benefits to resources in the 
Escaped Fire Situation Analysis to determine the most appropriate 
suppression strategy, based on the availability of suppression forces.
     Renegotiate State and local cooperative fire agreements in 
the wildland/urban interface to clarify protection responsibilities.
     Establish protection priorities that allow an evaluation 
of relative values at risk for property and natural resources.
Goal--Preparedness

    Federal agencies maintain preparedness and suppression programs 
that ensure appropriate protection from fire. Agencies take special 
preparedness actions on a case-by-case basis in local geographic areas 
that have unusually severe fire danger.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Emphasize case-by-case special preparedness actions to 
ensure timely, safe, and cost-effective response to unusually severe 
fire potential.
     Clearly establish the organization's mission and clarify 
managerial and employee responsibilities in fire suppression and 
support activities.
     Pre-position resources on an interagency basis as needed.
     Develop interagency preparedness plans that specifically 
include:

--Systems for gathering information necessary to make timely fire 
management decisions, including fuel conditions and weather.
--Analysis and decision-making processes that consider, on an 
interagency basis, existing and potential fire severity; suppression 
resource commitment and availability; prescribed fire activity; 
environmental, social and political concerns; and other pertinent 
factors.
--Actions to be taken at each level of preparedness.
--Actions to provide increased suppression capability as the fire 
season develops, including accessing additional resources, pre-
positioning resources, and training emergency firefighters.
--A process for delineating actions to be taken when increased 
suppression capability is not an option.
--A process for identifying the appropriate level of prescribed fire 
activity, taking into account the potential impact on suppression 
resources.
--A process for coordinating actions among cooperating agencies and 
promptly transmitting decisions to all affected parties, including 
adjacent units and cooperators.
--A process for preparedness reviews and follow-up evaluation of 
decisions and results.

Goal--Protection Capability

    Federal agencies maintain sufficient capability for suppression 
through interagency staffing and by removing administrative barriers to 
hiring and retaining qualified personnel.

Actions

     Federal agencies will:
--Examine and ensure, on an interagency basis, employee availability at 
each organizational level, based on fire qualifications and other 
skills necessary for incident management.
--Develop and utilize to the maximum extent possible the concept of 
closest initial attack forces and interagency staffing for fire 
suppression to optimize the use of the Federal and non-Federal work 
force.

     Federal agencies will collaborate with the Office of 
Personnel Management and Congress to effect changes to:

--The Fair Labor Standards Act to remove exempt/nonexempt status of 
Federal employees during emergency incident management assignments.
--The hiring practices for temporary employees, which currently limit 
opportunities to hire and retain a highly qualified seasonal work 
force.

Goal--Standardization

    Federal agencies improve upon existing preparedness and suppression 
programs by further integration of firefighting operations and by 
standardizing budget planning processes, budget management, and fire 
training.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Develop a standard interagency budget and staffing process 
which will result in the most economically efficient organization (Most 
Efficient Level).
     Implement adequate wildland fire suppression qualification 
standards, criteria, and certification procedures, utilizing the 
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) to facilitate acceptance 
and adherence to the standards by all incident management personnel in 
the fire service.
     Staff existing and future fire management vacancies with 
people who possess the requisite knowledge, skill, ability, and 
commitment to accomplish the total fire management mission.
     Recognize and reward success in interagency preparedness.

Wildland/Urban Interface Protection

Situation

    Each time someone moves a mobile home into the forest or builds a 
house with a cedar-shingle roof in the foothills, a wildland/urban 
interface is created and a potentially dangerous situation grows even 
larger. That seemingly simple interface puts complex demands on Federal 
fire resources unlike anywhere else on the American landscape.
    Wildland/urban interface protection is important to the Federal 
government because Federally managed lands are often located adjacent 
to private lands. In these areas, Federal wildland firefighters are 
often called upon to assist local agencies. In some cases, Federal 
agencies are the only source of fire protection. If Federal fire 
resources were unlimited, this would not be a problem. But with limited 
amounts of money, time, equipment and people, a fire burning in the 
interface demands that America protect its scattered structures at the 
huge sacrifice of natural resources elsewhere. Ultimately, the Federal 
government pays the bills when fire events exceed local capability, 
either as disaster assistance or relief through the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA). This represents a significant fiscal 
liability to the Federal treasury and to State and local coffers as 
well. In addition, Federal response in the interface ``spreads Federal 
firefighters thin'' and places them in situations for which they may 
not be adequately trained or equipped.
    Recent fires such as the 1994 Tyee fire in Washington, the 1994 
Chicken and Blackwell complexes in Idaho, the southern California fire 
siege of 1993, and the 1991 Oakland Hills fire are clear examples of 
the complexity of protecting the wildland/urban interface. Although 
recent events occurred in the West, nearly every State has experienced 
wildland/urban interface fire losses.
    The interface has become a major fire problem that will escalate as 
the nation moves into the 21st century. People continue to move from 
urban areas to rural areas. These new wildland/urban immigrants give 
little thought to the wildfire hazard and bring with them their 
expectations for continuation of urban emergency services. The National 
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that since 1985 more than 
[[Page 32500]] 9,000 homes have been destroyed by wildfire and many 
people have died. In 1994 it is estimated that 30-50% of all Federal 
wildland fire suppression dollars were spent in protecting the 
wildland/urban interface.
    Reports such as the National Commission on Wildfire Disasters 
Report (1993) and Fire In Rural America (1992) document the changing 
demographics from urban areas to rural areas. There is limited data to 
quantify the extent of the current or projected growth in the wildland/
urban interface; however, it is clear from recent episodes that losses 
will continue to increase in the future.
    The fire protection problems in the wildland/urban interface are 
very complex, and many barriers must be overcome to address them. These 
barriers include legal mandates, zoning regulations, building codes, 
basic fire protection infrastructure, insurance/fire protection rating 
systems, and offset or local mutual-aid agreements. Political, social 
and psychological factors further complicate the problems. Obviously, 
there is no one simple solution.
    The autonomy of Federal agencies contributes to inconsistent and 
sometimes conflicting policies and practices. Federal, Tribal, State, 
and local agencies, as well as the private sector, are all attempting 
to tackle the wildland/urban interface protection issue. They have 
created numerous reports, reviews, and mitigation plans. So far these 
have only revealed how fragmented and sometimes inconsistent the 
various approaches are, and few have had the corporate and political 
will to carry out solutions.
    The ability of the Federal agencies to provide centralized 
leadership for solving the interface problem is complicated because 
responsibilities extend beyond the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. 
Fire Administration (USFA) are also directly responsible for post-
disaster assistance and training, respectively, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has regulatory responsibility concerning air 
quality, smoke management and other environmental issues.
    But there is no central coordination, and there is no single policy 
that clearly defines the Federal land manager's role or requires 
agencies to take consistent actions in the wildland/urban interface. 
Only the National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs have 
specific structure protection responsibility, and only for their 
facilities on their lands. Current Federal agency mission statements 
and operational policies vary and generally restrict activity within 
these areas. As a result, Federal land managers and fire personnel are 
confused about their role and are inadequately trained and equipped, 
but in practice they are expected to provide assistance.
    Confusion and debate over the role of Federal land management 
agencies in the wildland/urban interface is a barrier to effective fire 
protection and hampers solution. This was validated by public comments 
received during the public scoping process for this policy review and 
is apparent in current policies of the Federal land management 
agencies. Agency administrators' views on this issue cover the entire 
spectrum from ``the Federal government has no business in the urban 
interface'' to ``Federal involvement is essential in the interface.'' 
While the debate is rhetorical, this causes confusion and operational 
inconsistency both before and during suppression efforts.
    The current Federal wildland/urban interface policy is unclear and 
is limited to providing emergency assistance and cooperating in 
prevention efforts. But the public, homeowners, and elected officials 
generally have a broader perception of Federal responsibility and would 
oppose Federal government withdrawal from the wildland/urban interface.
    Federal policy that protection priorities are (1) life, (2) 
property, and (3) resources limits flexibility in decision making when 
a wildfire occurs. Federal agencies' capability to address their 
resource-protection responsibilities outside of the interface is 
weakened by commitment of firefighting resources before and during 
wildland/urban interface fires. Firefighter safety is threatened as 
training and equipment capabilities are exceeded. In addition, after-
action reports and post-incident debriefings indicate fire suppression 
resources assigned to wildland/urban interface fires are often ``over-
mobilized'' and underutilized.
    The Federal land management agencies consider themselves to be the 
premier fire suppression organization in the world (Forest Service 
Strategic Assessment, 1994). This is demonstrated through development 
of training material and public fire prevention activities related to 
the wildland/urban interface and results in delivery of a conflicting 
message about Federal protection responsibilities as compared with the 
responsibilities of State and local governments. Federal fire forces in 
the wildland/urban interface often operate beyond the role of wildfire 
perimeter control. Also, operations in the wildland/urban interface are 
not always well organized and safe due to inconsistent qualifications, 
performance standards, and experience among local, State, and Federal 
agencies and Tribes.
    Concerns over home rule and States' rights dictate that the primary 
responsibility for wildland/urban interface fire prevention and 
protection must lie with homeowners and State and local governments. 
This primary responsibility would be carried out in partnership with 
the Federal government and private sector. However, there are few State 
and local incentives to address the mounting risks and increasing 
hazards in the interface. And providing incentives, such as tax credits 
for mitigating fire hazards, to those who choose to live in the 
wildland/urban interface sends a mixed message to the public. This 
double-edged message is that while we discourage development in the 
wildland/urban interface we are willing, through mitigation tax 
credits, to pay homeowners to take care of their problem.
    Local incentives to property owners, State and local organizations, 
and the private sector do appear to be an effective way to reduce the 
overall exposure of the Federal government in the wildland/urban 
interface. But the Federal government has few mechanisms to encourage 
incentives to resolve the problems in these areas. Current Federal 
grants are effective as far as they go. For example, approximately $10 
million is provided annually, primarily through the Forest Service 
State and Private Forestry Programs to State and local fire 
organizations to improve basic services, equip engines, and enhance 
communication systems. However, the amount is too small to address the 
magnitude of the problem, and Federal funding is not consistently 
distributed to State and local agencies with operational 
responsibilities in the wildland/urban interface.
    While the Federal agencies have authority to seek reimbursement for 
fire suppression services in the wildland/urban interface, the 
probability of successful collection is extremely low because of a 
myriad of broad tort laws related to responsibility and negligence, 
existing State fire laws regarding point of fire origin and 
determination of suppression responsibility, and other legal issues 
such as what constitutes reasonable action and appropriate hazard 
mitigation.
    In general, the public does not perceive a risk from fire in the 
wildland/urban interface. Property [[Page 32501]] owners believe that 
insurance companies or disaster assistance will always be there to 
cover losses. When people believe the government will protect them from 
natural hazards, the damage potential of a catastrophic event 
increases. Fire prevention efforts, official pronouncements, and media 
depictions of imminent risk have been shown to have little effect on 
those in danger. The effects of public education efforts have not been 
significant when compared to the need. Unless a catastrophic event 
occurs, wildland/urban interface protection issues generate little 
interest. There is a widespread misconception by elected officials, 
agency managers, and the public that wildland/urban interface 
protection is solely a fire-service concern.
    Insurance companies may be in a position to provide the largest 
economic incentive to address issues locally through a change in the 
existing rating criteria and by supporting prevention or hazard 
mitigation activities. The follow-up evaluation and report on the 1991 
Oakland Hills Fire suggested that a combination of fire protection 
infrastructure and insurance rating criteria contributed to the 
disaster.
    There is poor communication within and between the insurance 
industry and fire service organizations. The insurance industry does 
not fully understand wildland/urban interface problems, and the public 
and the fire service do not understand the role of the insurance 
industry in the interface. Insurance Service Offices/Commercial Risk 
Services (ISO/CRS) rating criteria do not reflect wildland/urban 
interface hazards or protection needs at specific risk locations. 
However, there is simply no reason for structural fire departments to 
change protection standards from small-scale, single-incident fires to 
large-scale, area-based fires.
    The current fire protection infrastructure, such as roads and 
water-delivery systems, is inadequate to protect property and resources 
during fast-moving wildfires, but the cost of changing the existing 
infrastructure would be staggering. State and local fire protection 
organizations are not adequately funded to provide the level of 
protection necessary on private lands. Most structure loss occurs in 
the first few hours of an incident, attributable to a lack of 
mitigation such as the use of combustible building materials and having 
trees and grass growing right up to buildings.
    Because fire risk constitutes only a portion of the homeowner's 
insurance cost, premium reductions are not necessarily the answer. 
Insurance companies can, however, help with education, improvements in 
building-code rating systems, and revised protection criteria in the 
wildland/urban interface. Antitrust laws prohibit insurance companies 
from working together to establish minimum insurance requirements, and 
in some States, laws such as the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements 
Plan (FAIR) give homeowners access to insurance coverage generally 
without regard to the wildland/urban interface.
    Current organized data (including hazard mapping) does not reflect 
wildland/urban interface loss exposure. Without a consistent process 
that assesses wildland/urban interface hazard and risk, it is difficult 
to identify appropriate mitigation measures. State and local 
communities perceive determination of risk as a local issue. Because 
lost homes/structures are replaced by national insurance companies and 
Federal Disaster Assistance comes regardless of whether appropriate 
mitigation measures were taken to offset risk, there is no incentive to 
improve protection in the wildland/urban interface. What's more, 
developers, builders, and property owners generally oppose standards 
because they fear potential building restrictions and higher costs.
    Current protection programs and policies do not include all urban 
and wildland fire protection entities with statutory responsibility, 
which has led to inefficiencies in training and operations. Wildland 
suppression resources are often diverted to protect property with less 
value than adjacent or intermixed natural resources, and the safety of 
wildland fire personnel is compromised. Performance qualifications in 
the wildland/urban interface are divided between the structural and 
wildland certification systems, resulting in inconsistencies.
    Partially because of fire prevention campaigns like Smokey Bear, 
the public generally views all fire as bad. Structural fire prevention 
activities do not reflect the beneficial role of fire in the ecosystem 
and send conflicting messages to the public. However, there are 
excellent examples of successful programs, such as the Sierra Front 
Cooperative, which demonstrate the value of prevention efforts when 
combined with property-owner support to mitigate hazards within the 
wildland/urban interface.
    Current Federal wildland/urban interface fire policy does not lay 
out a clear, consistent, and unified role for the Federal land managing 
agencies. Consequently, some Federal agencies perceive they bear the 
heaviest burden in mutual-aid relationships. Some administrators enter 
into agreements committing Federal firefighters, equipment, and money 
without understanding the implications of their actions. Still others 
are confused about the difference between Federal mutual-aid 
assistance, offset-protection agreements, and Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) financial assistance to States on declared 
major fire disasters.
    The key to solving the total wildland/urban interface problem rests 
with development of a unified, collaborative partnership among Federal 
agencies, Tribes, States, local governments, and private industry. This 
fire protection and prevention issue cannot be solved by any one entity 
acting independently. This partnership should identify and map hazards 
and fuels, conduct a national fire insurance feasibility review, and 
establish mitigation grant mechanisms for local communities. Meanwhile, 
these long-term issues do not preclude Federal agencies from developing 
a consistent policy for wildland/urban protection on the lands that 
they administer.

Goals--Responsibility

     Wildland/urban interface policies are consistent among 
Federal agencies.
     Federal agencies address wildland/urban interface 
protection needs occurring on Federal lands through interagency 
planning and analysis across agency boundaries.
     Uniform Federal wildland/urban interface fire protection 
policy promotes partnerships with Tribes, State and local agencies, and 
the private sector.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Adopt a policy that establishes the operational role of 
Federal agencies in the wildland/urban interface.
     Identify and fund fuels management and prescribed fire 
programs on Federal lands adjacent to wildland/urban interface areas.
     Reassess the proper forum for addressing wildland/urban 
interface issues upon completion of the Stakeholder Input, Consensus, 
and Action Process. This may include:

--Expanding representation on the current wildland/urban task group 
that reports to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG).
--Revising membership in NWCG itself to include a representative of 
entities involved with wildland/urban interface issues (e.g., 
professional organizations such as the International Association of 
Fire Chiefs, International Association of [[Page 32502]] Fire Fighters, 
International Society of Fire Service Instructors, National Volunteer 
Fire Council, Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction, et al.).

Goal--Preparedness

     Agreements (mutual-aid, reciprocal, offset, etc.) are 
developed and promoted to provide for pre-fire mitigation activities as 
well as appropriate suppression operations.
     Structural and wildland fire agency roles in the wildland/
urban interface are clarified for both day-to-day mutual aid and large-
fire scenarios.
     Federal agencies properly train and equip personnel to 
ensure firefighter safety during wildland/urban interface operations.
     Cooperative partnerships are established with Tribes and 
State and local agencies for emergency preparedness and operations in 
the wildland/urban interface.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Inform agency administrators of mutual-aid and FEMA 
disaster-assistance programs.
     Complete a review of existing protection agreements for 
wildland/urban interface areas and renegotiate as needed to ensure that 
Federal responsibility is consistent with policy and that State and 
local responsibility is apportioned appropriately.
     Acknowledge their role in the wildland/urban interface, 
consistent with policy, and incorporate the appropriate role into 
agreements, operating plans, land management plans, and agency fire 
plans.
     Charge the National Wildfire Coordinating Group with:

--Developing operational curricula, in cooperation with the National 
Fire Academy, for protection in the wildland/urban interface;
--Identifying specialized skills and training that are needed by both 
wildland and structural fire agencies;
--Implementing training through interagency systems and joint training 
activities; and
--Working with the National Fire Academy to augment and enhance fire 
training not available at the State and local levels.

     Incorporate into the Wildland Fire Qualification System 
the skills and training requirements necessary to operate safely and 
efficiently in the wildland/urban interface.
     Increase emphasis on cost-share grant funding through the 
Forest Service State and Private Cooperative Fire Program and 
strengthen that program's emphasis on wildland/urban interface issues, 
including training and equipping of State and local agencies. Assess 
and revise, as needed, other mechanisms to ensure funding is directed 
to agencies with wildland/urban interface responsibilities. Emphasize 
funding and grants to the United States Fire Administration for similar 
purposes.
     Support research and development activities through the 
National Fire Protection Association for effective management of the 
wildland/urban interface.

Goal--Education

    Identify and initiate programs to communicate the role of fire in 
natural systems, with special focus on risk in wildland/urban interface 
areas.

Actions

    Federal agencies will:
     Continue to cooperate with wildland/urban interface 
property owners through education and awareness messages about the role 
of fire in natural ecosystems and inherent risks in wildland/urban 
interface areas.
     Develop programs, curricula, and distribution systems, in 
cooperation with structural protection agencies, for wildland/urban 
interface educational material.
     Promote Federally funded education efforts via a 
consortium of the United States Fire Administration and the insurance 
industry.
     Work with the United States Fire Administration to update 
and distribute to the fire service their primer on the insurance 
industry.
     Involve the Congressional Fire Services Institute in 
distributing information regarding wildland/urban interface issues and 
actions.

Goals--Stakeholder Input, Consensus, and Action Process

     Future policy/program requirements for public fire 
protection within the wildland/urban interface are identified through a 
partnership among Federal, Tribal, State, local, and private entities.
     Infrastructure protection is based on characteristics of 
structural and wildland fuels within the wildland setting.
     Responsibility is focused on individual property owners 
and State and local governments to reduce losses within the wildland 
urban interface.

Actions

     Federal agencies will:

--Form a partnership with the Western Governors--Association (WGA) to 
conduct a consensus-building and action process that involves the 
western governors as a catalyst and other appropriate States, as well 
as local and private stakeholders, in establishing recommendations and 
an action plan to achieve a uniform, integrated approach to fire 
protection in the wildland/urban interface.
--Recharter the current interagency wildland/urban interface project 
among the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and 
U.S. Fire Administration to focus on issues surfaced through this 
policy review.

    --The objective of the partnership with the WGA is to:

--Identify and involve all stakeholders within the wildland/urban 
interface.
--Define appropriate State and local roles.
--Clarify and synthesize issues; build consensus.
--Develop implementing actions and monitoring processes.

 The issues/areas to be addressed by the WGA include but are 
not limited to:

--The need for coordinated leadership among Federal, Tribal, State, and 
local entities concerning the wildland/urban interface.
--Development of a consistent wildland/urban interface hazard and risk 
assessment model that, as a minimum, includes common terminology, 
rating criteria, and a classification system.
--Model zoning and building code standards within identified fire 
hazard areas.
--The need for State, local, insurance-industry, and Federal data to 
analyze and manage the wildland/urban interface, which includes:

     All fires in the wildland/urban interface.
     The National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) as an 
information collection point for fire incidents in the wildland/urban 
interface.
     Establishment of incentives to individuals and local 
governments to mitigate hazards.
     Recommendations relating to the role and membership of the 
National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Consider all entities involved 
with wildland/urban interface issues, including professional 
organizations such as the International Association of Fire Chiefs, 
International Association of Fire Fighters, International Society of 
Fire Service Instructors, National Volunteer Fire Council, Insurance 
Institute for Property Loss Reduction, et al.
     Involvement with the insurance industry through the 
Insurance Institute [[Page 32503]] for Property Loss Reduction (IIPLR) 
and other insurance trade associations to cooperatively address the 
wildland/urban interface issue. Attention should be given to:

     Recommendations for including hazards and risks associated 
with the wildland/urban interface into the fire protection grading 
system of the Insurance Service Office (ISO).
     Recommendations on a strategy to promote an awareness of 
wildland/urban interface issues, highlighting insurance industry/
policyholder/homeowner success stories.
     Proposals to strengthen Southern Standard Building Code, 
Uniform Building Code, and National Building Code provisions for 
structures built in the wildland/urban interface.

--Development of model mutual-aid agreements among Federal fire 
agencies, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, National 
Association of State Foresters, and local/regional agencies, addressing 
local and regional mitigation and suppression requirements in the 
wildland/urban interface.
--Establishment of a monitoring plan that includes yearly reporting 
requirements for the Federal agencies and States and establishment of 
pilot areas as a tool to test and model policy and program changes 
within the wildland/urban interface.

     The WGA report will independently develop recommendations 
and an action plan, based on input and consensus, proposing resolution 
of problems within the wildland/urban interface.
     While the WGA will conduct the assessment in cooperation 
with the Federal government, WGA will remain an independent contributor 
to the broader Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review. This 
will ensure that the various State, local and private interests can 
fully express their views and not feel compromised through a Federal 
process.
Appendix III

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review Steering 
Group

Dr. Charles Philpot, Co-Chair--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Claudia Schechter, Co-Chair--DOI/Office of the Secretary
Dale Bosworth--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Dr. Mary Jo Lavin--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Mike Edrington--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Dr. Ann Bartuska--USDA/U.S. Forest Service
Les Rosenkrance--DOI/Bureau of Land Management
Rick Gale--DOI/National Park Service
Dr. Robert Streeter--DOI/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Keith Beartusk--DOI/Bureau of Indian Affairs
Stan Coloff--DOI/National Biological Service
Jim Douglas--DOI/Office of the Secretary
Carrye B. Brown--U.S. Fire Administration
James Travers--NOAA/National Weather Service
Richard Krimm--Federal Emergency Management Administration
Sally Shaver--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

[FR Doc. 95-15304 Filed 6-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P