WILDLAND FIRE COSTS:
|Team Composition||Formal||Formal||Formal/as needed|
|Number of Team Members||27 +/-||21 +/-||3-10|
|Dispatch Level||National||Geographic Area||Local|
|Fire Complexity||Most Complex||Moderately Complex||Fires that Escape Initial Attack|
|Number of Firefighting Personnel on Assignment||500-2,500||100-500||20-100|
IMTs are comprised primarily of state and federal employees along with an occasional local fire department member. These employees have regular jobs—as senior administrators, fire managers, engineers, and the like—with their respective agencies. As a result, they are often unable to complete much of their regular work during heavy wildfire years.
LESSONS FROM LARGE WILDFIRES
The Panel based its 2002 recommendations on case studies of six large wildfires in western states in 2001: (1) the Arthur Fire in Wyoming; (2) Green Knoll Fire in Wyoming; (3) Moose Fire in Montana; (4) Sheep Fire in Nevada; (5) Star Fire in California; (6) Virginia Lake Fire Complex in Washington. Three were USDA Forest Service forests, and three were Interior Department fires. The principal cost-related findings from these cases follow.
The Arthur Fire was started by lightning on July 28, 2001, near the top of a ridge at 9,000 feet in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. The fire took two weeks to contain. It burned 2,800 acres of mostly forested land and cost an estimated $6.3 million to suppress, or $2,142 an acre. From this fire, we learned that:
The Green Knoll Fire started when a campfire escaped on July 22, 2001. The fire took 17 days to contain. It burned 4,470 acres of forest within the Bridger-Teton National Forest and adjacent private lands near Jackson, Wyoming. It cost $13.3 million to suppress, or approximately $2,975 an acre. From this fire, we learned that:
The Moose Fire was started by a lightning storm in northwestern Montana’s Flathead National Forest on August 14, 2001. It later spread into Glacier National Park, a state forest, and private lands. The fire took over seven weeks to control and $20 million to suppress—approximately $275 an acre. From this fire, we learned that:
Opportunities to contain the fire during the initial attack and early development may have been lost due to delays in air support and use of inexperienced personnel.
The Sheep Fire started on August 9, 2001, 20 miles north of Battle Mountain, Nevada. The fire took five days to control. It burned 83,673 acres, mostly rangeland, and cost $2.2 million to suppress—approximately $26 an acre. From this fire, we learned that:
The Star Fire started on August 25, 2001 on private lands within the Eldorado National Forest east of Sacramento. Although never confirmed, it was assumed to be human-caused. The fire burned almost 17,500 acres of public and private land on two national forests (Eldorado and Tahoe). It cost $28.2 million to suppress—approximately $1,611 per acre. From this fire, we learned that:
The Virginia Lake Complex Fire was produced when two lightning strike fires on the Colville Indian Reservation escaped initial attack and joined together. Four more fires later merged into the complex. All told, the six fires burned over 74,000 acres in eastern Washington and cost $25.2 million to suppress—approximately $339 per acre. From this fire, we learned that:
As these case studies were being conducted, a large fire started in
the Denver area. Two Academy staff were nearby, and they prepared a mini-case
study on it as well. This fire, the Hayman Fire, ignited on June 8, 2002
on the Pike National Forest, about 40 miles south of Denver. It became
the largest fire in Colorado history, burning over 137,000 acres. The
fire burned 133 residences, one commercial building, and 466 outbuildings.
In addition to numerous communities, it threatened significant infrastructure
(including a major watershed for Denver) and recreation areas.
This fire was considerably larger, more expensive, and more complex than any of the six 2001 case study fires. Still, it also showed how difficult it is to control costs and to provide a smooth transition between IMTs. The Hayman Fire faced several of the same issues found on the six case study fires:
LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE CRITICAL RESOURCES
With over one million active firefighters nationwide, local fire departments
 are important resources in wildland firefighting, both for initial
and extended attack. Nationally, there are over 24,000 rural fire departments
and 658,000 volunteer firefighters. Only 16,000 full-time and seasonal
firefighters are employed by the federal agencies. Although local fire
departments are often perceived as only providing structural fire protection,
the Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service, prepared jointly by the
U.S. Fire Administration and the National Fire Protection Association,
found that some level of wildland fire protection is provided by 84 percent
of local fire departments. 
In recognition of the importance of local fire departments, the Department of the Interior recently signed an agreement with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), as shown in Box 1.
Box 1. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
On September 25, 2003, Interior and the International
Association of Fire Chiefs signed a cooperative agreement that recognized
the critical role played by local fire departments as first responders
and the need for them to work with the federal agencies in firefighting,
fire preparation, and mitigation activities.
Despite the importance of these local resources, the Academy’s case studies indicate that they often are not integrated into wildland firefighting as fully and effectively as they could be. Two examples illustrate this best:
Another major barrier to coordination between federal, state, and local
fire departments is communications capability for initial attack and emergencies.
The Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service found that, although approximately
50 percent of the emergency responders assigned to incidents from rural
fire departments had radios, fewer than 50 percent of these departments
are able to communicate with most of their interagency partners. This
problem occurs because emergency responders use a variety of different
frequency types and strengths, and they have had problems with frequency
interference and interoperability. Frequency interference results when
disturbances within the system cause additional, unwanted signals. The
lack of interoperability results when emergency responders are unable
to communicate with one another because they are using different technologies.
Although converting all volunteer and rural fire departments to narrow
band radios would be a major financial and technical undertaking, it may
be possible to meet this need through a coordinated effort by federal,
state, and local governments. This effort could be supported by the Department
of Homeland Security’s funds for upgrading the communications technologies
of first responders
Ultimately, the Panel envisions a system of seamless wildland firefighting where all qualified resources are used appropriately in initial and extended attack, mop-up, and rehabilitation. When fighting a wildland fire, a smooth and effective transition from one type of team to another—and back again—can reduce hazards to firefighters, improve the effectiveness of suppression activities, and reduce the costs of large wildfires. This year, the Panel proposes additional steps to implement its 2002 recommendation. These would encourage the following:
The Panel recognizes that, because IMTs must be used on a regular basis in order to maintain their qualifications and effective levels of preparedness, the “community areas” would have to be sufficiently large and wildfire-prone to satisfy this requirement. Out-of-area training assignments should be considered, as appropriate, to accelerate the experience needed to become qualified. In addition, these teams could be used in out-of-area firefighting assignments within their state, consistent with the State Mutual Aid Plan, when they are not needed in their local geographic area.
Figure 1 presents the Panel’s vision for how local firefighting forces should be integrated into the Incident Command System (ICS).
Figure 1. USE OF LOCAL FIREFIGHTING FORCES
|• Local forces federally trained/qualified for use on wildfires||• Not federally qualified or recognized|
|• Equipped for fighting wildfires||• Rejected for use by Type 1 and Type 2 IMTs|
|• Willing and able to operate within unified commands||• Local dispatch centers not linked to state and federal dispatch centers|
|• Effectively led by local Type 3 IMTs for initial and extended attack, mop-up and rehabilitation||• Communications not interoperable|
|• Local forces not willing to participate in unified commands
To receive feedback on this proposal, the Academy held day-and-a-half
workshops in the spring and summer of 2003 in four communities: (1) Flagstaff,
Arizona; (2) Boulder, Colorado; (3) Bend, Oregon; and (4) Palm Coast,
Florida. Each workshop included a firefighting breakout session to receive
feedback on the proposal and to discuss barriers to implementing it. The
results of the breakout sessions are summarized in the next section.
As breakout participants discussed ways to enhance local interagency firefighting capabilities by making greater use of local resources during initial attack, one common theme was that this would not only reduce the costs of wildfire suppression, but would also improve firefighter safety and effectiveness. The communities represented have been working to make more use of local firefighting forces. Even these communities, however, recognize that they could make significant improvements in wildland firefighter training, participation of local firefighters on interagency teams, and mutual-aid agreements. In many other states and communities, coordination between the federal agencies and local departments is not as common.
Furthermore, some fire departments with a wildland interface seem to
believe that wildland fires are just brush and grass, so training standards
and certification are not needed. Chief officers of many departments are
not familiar with basic wildland firefighting principles, or how unified
command works on a multi-jurisdictional incident.
Based on the breakout sessions and other background research, the Panel concludes that the nation still has a long way to go in improving local wildland firefighting capacity. Local fire departments represent a huge pool of potential firefighters that can be a vital resource when properly trained and integrated.
ADVICE FROM WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Participants in the firefighting breakouts discussed several key issues
and had many reactions to the current state of suppression-related efforts
and the Academy’s proposed additional steps. Their discussions centered
on four themes: (1) Type 3 IMTs, (2) fire training, (3) the adequacy of
agreements and authorizations, and (4) federal grants.
Developing Type 3 Incident Management Teams
Many local firefighters are not qualified to fight wildfires under current national standards. This is a major barrier to the development of local crews and Type 3 Incident Management Teams. By way of background, it is necessary to understand that two sets of standards have been developed for wildland fire:
Although both sets of standards are performance-based and designed to
provide for firefighter safety and increase firefighting effectiveness,
some differences exist between them. NWCG relies on a prescribed curriculum
of wildland fire courses, requires completion of a task book under field
conditions, and mandates physical fitness levels that each government
agency then determines how their personnel will meet (through, for example,
a fitness test or medical exam or the like). NFPA, by contrast, does not
rely on a prescribed curriculum. It uses performance evaluations—similar
to the task book process, but not conducted under field conditions—and
physical performance requirements developed by the local jurisdiction.
The differences between these two standards are compared in Table 2.
Table 2. COMPARISON OF NWCG AND NFPA WILDLAND
|Physical Fitness||National and Agency Standards*||Local Standards|
|Certification Documentation||ICS Qualification Card||Local Documentation|
* Federal wildland fire agencies have adopted the NWCG Work Capacity Tests (WCT) as the approved method of assessing wildland firefighter fitness levels.
** During fire assignments, NWCG requires that trainees seeking advancement to the next level carry a task book. The trainee must successfully complete each task in the book, receiving the signature of his or her fire-line supervisor. NFPA relies on the local jurisdiction to certify that job performance objectives have been met.
The NFPA 1051 Standards for Wildland Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications
was developed by the NFPA Technical Committee on Wildland Suppression
Professional Qualifications. Chaired by a federal wildland fire manager,
the committee consisted of six federal fire experts as well as NWCG and
State Forester representatives. The NFPA standards are recommendations
that are intended to apply to all agencies that respond to wildland fire.
Academy workshop participants agreed with the need for a Type 3 Team or equivalent resident in areas that have a significant amount of wildfire activity and committed to staying in that area. Many participants expressed concerns, however, that requiring firefighters to meet NWCG standards would exclude valuable local resources from both firefighting and fire leadership positions where they could contribute vital knowledge of the terrain and vegetation. These participants also believed that each community’s firefighters should be required to meet at least their local standards, and Florida’s wildfire committee is drafting a state requirement that firefighters working beyond a mutual-aid agreement would have to meet certain wildland fire standards (which are expected to be somewhat different from NWCG’s). Other workshop participants, though, believed that requiring firefighters to meet NWCG requirements was necessary to protect their lives and their safety. Not mandating NWCG standards, they also said, could cause governments to be held legally liable for firefighter deaths or injuries.
This issue is also addressed in a June 2003, The Changing Role and Needs of Local, Rural, and Volunteer Fire Departments in the Wildland-Urban Interface, published by the National Association of State Foresters Steering Group:
Confusion continues to exist over who is responsible for protecting structures in the Wildland-Urban Interface and how and when to use local personnel for extended attack on a fire under state or federal jurisdiction. This uncertainty over authorities and jurisdiction can impede the initial response to a wildfire, lead to the inefficient use of all available suppression resources and, ultimately, place firefighter and public lives at risk. Much of this dangerous ambiguity is driven by concerns over qualifications, standards, and even personal liability.
Because the Red Card system was developed initially to serve federal needs, it does not effectively account for the equivalent training and experience of local firefighters. This creates tension during wildfire response. In general, it is the policy of federal wildland fire agencies—and some state agencies—to require that rural fire cooperators meet these standards if they wish to participate in fires under federal (or state) jurisdiction. As a result, federal or state fire managers may believe they are unable to use trained, local fire personnel. They therefore believe they must order ‘qualified’ firefighters from other—often distant—locations.
In Wildland-Urban Interface situations, a decision not to use local forces because of their lack of a Red Card is often erroneous. Furthermore, it can result in delayed action and considerable additional expense. Rural fire departments typically have the jurisdictional authority for structure protection. Thus, they have the legal right to be engaged in the surrounding wildfire suppression actions—regardless of whether or not their personnel meet federal or state qualifications.
In court, the federal agencies have been held legally liable for the
deaths or injuries of firefighters without red cards. For example, in
Buttram v. United States of America (1999), the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) was found partially liable for the deaths of two firefighters
in the Point Fire. Specifically, the U.S. District Court in Idaho found
that BLM bore 35% of the liability, while Kuna Rural Fire Department (for
whom the firefighters worked) was responsible for the remainder. According
to the Court, BLM did not ensure that the firefighters were given duties
commensurate with their capabilities and qualifications; did not fully
instruct the volunteers about the nature of the fire, fuel conditions,
weather information, safety reminders, command structure and radio use;
did not ensure that all firefighters heard a red flag warning, and failed
to brief the firefighters on safety issues related to it. Kuna Rural Fire
Department did not provide the firefighters with the proper equipment;
did not ensure that they were qualified to fight this fire; did not obtain
weather forecasts; did not ensure that the firefighters received a briefing
about the nature of the fire, fuel conditions, weather information, safety
reminders, command structure, and radio use; and did not adequately train
its volunteer firefighters to fight wildand fires in a safe and effective
Because of questions about legal liability, Incident Commanders tend not to use otherwise qualified local resources, even though the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations provides them with some discretion to use local firefighters without red cards.  As a result of this legal confusion, the NASF Steering Group recommended that federal and state agencies “establish a clear and consistent policy based on a nationally-recognized wildland fire standard for local agencies (such as NFPA 1051).” In addition, it urged national wildland fire agencies to clarify that “all wildland fire responders [must] accept each other’s qualifications” during initial attack, and added that employees of an organization with legal jurisdiction “have the legal right to remain on a fire—as long as they meet their own organization’s qualifications.” 
Since the NFPA standards were developed with significant federal fire input and are intended for use by all fire agencies, NWCG could easily recognize the NFPA equivalent positions identified in Table 3.
Table 3. OVERLAP IN NWCG AND NFPA POSITIONS
|Firefighter II||Wildland Firefighter I|
|Firefighter I||Wildland Firefighter II|
|Single Resource Boss||Wildland Firefighter III|
|Incident Commander, Type 3||Wildland Firefighter IV|
Box 2 outlines the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) plan to develop all-hazard Type 3 IMTs.
Box 2. FEMA’S PLAN TO DEVELOP TYPE 3 ALL-HAZARD
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAMS
FEMA’s US Fire Administration recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the National Fire Protection Association. They have established a project to begin developing all-hazard Type 3 IMTs across the country for regional or state-level deployment. The strategic objectives of the project are to:
Barriers to Developing Type 3 Teams
The workshop participants identified lack of both staff and funding as barriers to the development of Type 3 Teams. Many firefighters have multiple levels of certification (Type 1, 2, and 3) and often find themselves being dispatched as part of Type 1 and 2 teams. In many cases, then, Type 3 teams will not have the firefighters they need during peak fire season. Participants also noted that some firefighters—especially volunteers—have difficulty getting certified because they are only available for training on the weekends.
A new trend of using Type 1 and Type 2 teams frequently to manage non-fire
incidents makes development of Type 3 teams more urgent. For example,
Type 1 teams were deployed to New York and Washington, DC, after the September
11th terrorist attacks; Type 1 and 2 teams were deployed to the Space
Shuttle Columbia disaster and to several agricultural disease outbreaks
in addition to hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. This expanding mission
is beginning to conflict with IMT members’ regular jobs. Type 3
teams could alleviate some of these problems by lowering the wildfire
demand for Type 1 and 2 teams, and helping to provide a larger supply
of personnel with the experience to assume Type 1 and 2 leadership responsibilities.
Even as the total number of teams has been reduced significantly over the past several years, agencies are still having trouble staffing Type 1 and 2 teams. The reduction in teams, combined with year-long multiple-risk response assignments, has placed a growing burden on the land management agencies and individual team members. In some areas, retirements are also having a significant impact on IMTs.
Academy workshop participants worried that foreseeable human resource drains will be a major barrier to staffing all types of IMTs, including the goal of establishing local Type 3 teams. These trends, they said, make it increasingly necessary to take proactive steps to develop future leaders and to create local IMTs that remain in place during periods of heavy commitment to out-of-area fires.
Personnel issues can complicate the task of developing a coordinated firefighting process. For example, the Oregon State Mobilization Plan requires that local departments be reimbursed at administratively determined rates when a fire goes beyond mutual aid. Although these rates are tied to local labor scales and determined on a Geographic Area Coordinating Committee basis, they are a barrier to the development of Type 3 Teams for several reasons: (1) they rarely cover the full salary costs of paid firefighters; (2) they do not pay overtime at time-and-a-half; and (3) paid fire departments must replace the personnel assigned to a wildfire with off-duty firefighters at overtime rates.
The Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service not only identified
training as one of the biggest problems facing local fire departments,
but also identified it as one of their top priorities for any federal
funding received. Under NWCG standards, an introductory-level wildland
firefighter is expected to understand basic wildland fire behavior, fuels,
and fire weather; be familiar with strategies for attack and control of
wildfires; be able to safely and effectively use firefighting hand tools
and hoses; recognize life-threatening situations and know safety procedures;
be able to communicate with others on the crew or in the immediate vicinity.
But an estimated 41 percent of local fire department personnel involved
in wildland firefighting lack formal training in these areas. 
The 2001 Academy Panel report addressed some of the problems with the current training structure by conducting an informal survey of federal wildland fire personnel at all levels. The Panel observed that class size and funding fluctuations from year to year limited the availability of training. Moreover, the physical separation of the nine training sites—operated through the eleven Geographic Area Coordination Groups—has produced inconsistent levels of instructor quality and course delivery. Regarding the quality of courses, fire managers reported that the courses offered solid technical content, but that the way the information was delivered should be improved. 
According to workshop participants, the state wildfire academies and local training opportunities meet a crucial need, but neither meets all the needs. In Colorado, for example, hundreds of people were turned away from local training programs in 2002. Lack of funding for training is a major barrier. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to get instructors because state fire agencies are generally understaffed and federal agencies may be committed to other priorities such as prescribed burning. Moreover, volunteer fire departments are often unable to participate in training because doing so requires too much time.
In general, lower-level courses are offered locally, and these are accessible to local firefighters. The intermediate level courses are more difficult to obtain, as they are often only offered at state or regional levels. Some courses are rarely offered because no one is available to teach them. Workshop participants believed that the teaching requirements could be eased to allow more individuals to qualify as instructors without diminishing the quality of courses and that many NWCG courses could be shortened. They could also be made more widely available through the use, where appropriate, of Internet- and video-based distance learning, again without diminishing quality. Workshop participants supported the multi-agency cadre of instructors currently used by NWCG as an important way to ensure that students are exposed to the different terminologies, technologies, and policies of the various agencies involved in wildland firefighting.
Many workshop participants believed that NWCG and NFPA should recognize collateral courses because some of the training, such as ICS and leadership courses, is duplicative and frustrating to firefighters who must take both. It was also noted in Oregon and elsewhere that many local departments spend more time fighting wildfires than structural fires, yet their training is largely for structural fire rather than wildland fire. As one local fire chief stated, “my department is actually a wildland fire department thinly disguised as a structure fire department.” The Central Oregon Community College now teaches wildland firefighting to help improve the quality of contract crews, which have become a growing industry in the state.
In addition to recognizing crossover positions, as discussed in the section on qualifications above, it was believed that NWCG could also recognize National Fire Academy classes that correlate closely with National Interagency Incident Management System courses, particularly ICS and certain skill courses.
Many participants also said that NWCG should adopt performance-based training similar to NFPA’s. Although many experienced structural firefighters are not red-carded, they have management skills that could be very useful to Type 3 teams. Workshop participants thought it should not be so difficult for firefighters to qualify—they could be given credit for their experience, for example. Several workshop participants observed that it takes longer to become an Incident Commander than a brain surgeon, and, in their minds, this indicates that some streamlining of NWCG training could be achieved.
Many participants also supported increased federal funding for both wildfire and prescribed fire training because it is so expensive to provide. Currently, the state pays to organize the training sessions; the localities pay for firefighter replacements; and the firefighters pay a training fee. Some also felt it would be helpful to have funding to hire full-time instructors. As it stands now, most of the instructors are front-line supervisors who teach part-time; they must be compensated for serving as an instructor, and their positions must be back-filled.
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) Steering Group’s report to Congress, The Changing Role of Local, Rural, and Volunteer Fire Departments in the Wildland-Urban Interface: Recommended Actions for Implementing the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, also examined the barriers to wildland fire training. It is consistent with the Academy’s workshop participants, concluding that “most local firefighters—particularly volunteer personnel—still find it difficult to accommodate the costs and time commitment associated with the current range of [training] programs.” As a way to overcome the financial barriers, the NASF Steering Group report recommended that state and federal agencies: (1) consider paying a fair stipend to local government trainers to assist in delivering training packages; (2) consider compensating volunteer firefighters who agree to participate in wildland firefighting for the time they spend in training.
Box 3 discusses an innovative training project in Utah to enhance the safety and efficiency of local fire departments.
Box 3. UTAH WILDLAND ENGINE PROJECT
The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands is in the third year of a pilot program—financed by National Fire Plan funds—designed to enhance wildland firefighter safety and efficiency in local fire departments. Seventeen departments, with nearly 500 trained wildland firefighters, are in the program. All fire departments in Utah are eligible to receive wildland training, but departments selected for this program have agreed to:
Adequacy of Agreements and Authorizations
Firefighting assistance among agencies is governed by various local,
state, and federal statutes; master agreements; annual operating plans;
mutual-aid agreements; and, in some cases, by a “gentlemen’s
agreement” or a handshake.
In many states, states have master agreements with the federal fire agencies that cover issues such as authorities, pay, and reimbursements. These agreements are often supported by local operating plans that contain details on such issues as response maps, availability of forces, and contact lists. Concerns were expressed that many agreements and annual operating plans are unnecessarily restrictive and fail to cover all relevant issues thoroughly. Even when the agreements themselves are adequate, misunderstandings about authorities, jurisdictions, and pay issues continue.
Whether local fire departments are able to make agreements with federal agencies, and vice versa, depends on state laws—and these vary widely. States have taken two different approaches to mutual aid on wildfires. In states with master agreements, local fire departments are prohibited from making direct agreements with federal agencies or individual federal land units. Instead, the state foresters reach a mutual-aid agreement with the federal agencies, and the local fire departments are covered by this agreement. This arrangement is cumbersome, many participants said, because it makes it more difficult for local departments to coordinate effectively with federal officials on individual land units. Some other states allow local departments to make mutual-aid agreements directly with federal agencies, and most participants thought that this approach worked better.
Many mutual-aid agreements between local governments are informal, which can cause disagreements during and after a fire. Without formal agreements, it is unclear whether mutual aid is in effect; it is unclear for how long; and it is unclear whether reimbursement is required. Colorado participants said that their state has developed an effective system of cooperation between the federal and local governments because these issues are covered in each county’s mobilization plan. However, in both Arizona and Colorado, we were told that the state forestry agencies have difficulty coordinating the cooperative agreements because they are understaffed. Workshop participants urged additional funding and staff for this purpose.
Workshop participants in Colorado said they had not had a problem with the state’s all-hazards authorizations, but they believed other western states may have had difficulties getting wildfire into the broader all-hazards framework. FEMA, working through the emergency managers, requires joint planning and operations procedures for mitigation and responding to all hazards in the state. Wildfire is just one among several hazards that include floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and others. States generally work through counties to operationalize these plans locally.
Florida participants reported that they have had problems with nationally assigned Type 1 and 2 teams not collaborating effectively with local agencies. This is troubling, they said, because Florida has very little federal land, so the Type 1 and 2 Teams are usually unfamiliar with Florida’s special conditions and practices. To deal with this issue, the Florida Division of Forestry adopted a policy after the 1998 wildfires that requires federal teams working on state or private lands to use local officers in deputy IMT positions for operations, finance and incident command roles.
Federal aid is important to many local fire departments, so we asked the Academy’s workshop participants to comment on their experiences with federal-aid programs. They may receive assistance through four major programs, identified in Table 4 and discussed in more detail below.
Table 4. FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANTS
|Assistance to Firefighters (FEMA)||Direct assistance to fire departments of a State or Tribe for protecting the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards.||Local or tribal communities serviced by the fire department (including local businesses, homeowners and property owners)||
Population of 50,000 or less —not less than 10%
Population in excess of 50,000—not less than 30%
|Federal Excess Personal Property (USDA Forest Service)||To provide equipment for wildland and rural fire community fire protection||State forestry programs and local volunteer fire service through the State Foresters.||None|
|Rural Fire Assistance (Interior)||Provide rural fire departments with wildland fire equipment, training, and/or prevention materials||Rural fire departments serving 10,000 people or less, adjacent to Interior lands or that assist Interior agency in fighting wildland fires.||10% in additional wildland equipment, $ contribution, OR “in kind” services such as wildland urban interface education|
|Volunteer Fire Assistance (USDA Forest Service)||Funding and technical assistance to local and volunteer departments for organizing, training and equipment to enable them to effectively meet their structure and wildland protection responsibilities.||Through State Foresters, funds pass to rural and local fire service in communities with populations of 10,000 or less||50% in additional equipment, money, or in-kind contribution|
Overall, the participants believed that federal aid has been very useful in providing support to state and local firefighters. However, they have had some difficulties dealing with the administrative aspects of these programs, both those that are direct federal aid and those administered through the state foresters. Based on their experience, the participants expressed the following concerns about federal grants:
Additional research reveals that the USDA Forest Service, Interior, and
FEMA have been working to improve administration of their grant programs.
FEMA’s online process for Assistance to Firefighters supplements
the computer scoring of applications with review by a panel of peers (who
evaluate the description of the program, cost-benefit, and financial need).
The federal land management agencies are administering Volunteer Fire
Assistance (FS) and Rural Fire Assistance (DOI) jointly in some states:
Alaska, California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Each
of these states except Colorado have established a one-stop website with
information about the two grants and a single application.
|©2004-2005 Colorado Firecamp, Inc. Report re-printed by permission.||home schedule blog ENGB facility about us FAQ's|