FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT STATE OFFICE/REGIONAL OFFICE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES
Doubletree Inn – Columbia River
November 14, 2000
Item from yesterday’s meeting:
Establish a task group to develop a draft future workforce strategy, to be brought back to BOD for approval, which will include alternatives and costs for alternatives.
The smaller group met after the meeting. The group included Mike Edrington, Terry Hueth, Al Garr, Mike Matarrese, and Gayle Donahue, and was facilitated by Carla Schamber. They felt they could get the number of potential retirements from data bases existing currently, and by the end of January or the first of February; there should be a fairly concise list of the potential positions to be filled. SORO will provide this list. Mike, Terry and SORO will look at these lists, and do the workforce planning. Do we want to be involved as a BOD group, or does the BOD want to select some members to be on this group? There was a concern that clear direction be provided, what information would be needed, and what would be done with the information provided. Mike Edrington verified that this would be done. A decision on the group size would be made on Wednesday, at the end of the meeting.
The BOD spent the morning with the “Lessons Learned” exercise. Mike Edrington explained that the “Lessons Learned” process is a military process of using the “ah-ha” experiences and documenting them, and then sharing the learning experiences, whether or not they have a solution, through a network. Rich Wands is heading up the process, and will distribute the lessons, both positive and not so positive, through the wildland fire community.
The group from Eastern Oregon felt the top success lesson learned was the use of the severity task force, and the money that came down to support this resource. They felt it was a good investment.
The down side was it put a “crimp” in the ability to manage the task force, because of the shortage of some resources to supervise the forces.
Another lesson learned was the ability to use contractors. They felt it was a big opportunity to be able to use contractor resources. The Engine/Tender Contract and the Crew Contract for Region 6 were used nationwide this past year. The failure was in the administration of the contract and the congressionals, and the time involved in dealing with the contract and contractors.
The new opportunity will be to plan a preparedness contract to be able to use the contractors to bring the forces to MEL. The group discussed using the contract to get some project work done, and work with the contractors, contracting officers, and fire personnel to prepare a template for a “preparedness contract.”
The third lesson learned was referencing how to ‘tighten’ up the compliance on the contract. There is a need for more Contract Representatives (CR). There is a discrepancy between what the contractor thought they were getting paid, and what the actual payment was.
The group from Western Oregon reported their lessons learned. Their top lesson was the use of trainees on incidents, the need for training specialists.
The use of FAST (Fire/Aviation Safety Teams) teams used in other regions was discussed.
The third issue was 310-1 and 5109.17, and the difference in qualifications for some of the resources, i.e., helicopter manager. Mike said that in Washington this was real apparent. There is a difference in the standards for some of these positions between the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
The third group from Washington reported that their top lesson learned was the need for some kind of advance planning for resources needed for a drawdown plan and management drawdown plan. There was some planning in Washington this last year, but the group would like to see a little more structure in a plan for both equipment and people.
There also needs to be something done for a commonality on where the people are to go, who they are to report to, and the need for a common frequency so they can communicate on the radios.
The third lesson was the use of local MAC groups. They felt they were a success, and there may be an opportunity for additional use.
One item that generated discussion was the difference between the 310-1 and 5109.17. There is also a difference on the difficulty to maintain qualifications on some of the positions. If you go out as an Ops Chief, you can stay qualified as a Strike Team Leader, but not as a Division Sup.
Also, if someone has started a task book under old requirements, and now there are new requirements, do they have take to additional training to meet the new qualifications? This issue needs additional work.
The way to work this would be to identify the problem, formalize the issue, and direct it to the Washington Office. The group felt that it is the Forest Service standards that need amending. Mike Spencer and Leo Sidebotham will prepare the formal issue, obtain the signature of the Regional Forester, and forward it to the Chief. This will be completed by December 1, 2000. Documents to be added to the letter will be the 310-1, the 5109-17, and the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (I-HOG).
A Lesson Learned form will be forwarded to Rich Wands, so the BOD is on record.
There is an issue with Contractors. Roy Montgomery is working on a committee, which will scope the wording on the contract for fire resources so they can be used for preparedness activity. Work on existing contract will be started on December 14, and signed shortly thereafter. This contract is for the suppression work. The problem is there is a need for a contract so contractors can be used for preparedness work. Leo said there is a need for one contract to cover both needs. This may not be possible for this year.
The companion issue is the administration of the contract for suppression work. Paul Rose is working on this issue. Paul would like one or two representatives to work on this also. Roy Montgomery will assist, as well as Dave Lukens and Nancy Ashlock. They will work with the contracting personnel to finalize the contract. There is a need for more contract reps. There is also a need for a contract rep to be involved, and Leo said that Terry Brown is involved.
Dave Johnson said there is a need to find a solution for the communications issue. There is a need for every response unit to know how to communicate with IMT. Mike Edrington said that Interior and Agriculture are trying to agree on and purchase compatible radio systems. The use of the frequencies by the Fire Services may never be solved nationally, but has been solved in some local areas. This issue should be forwarded to the Geographic Board. Elton Thomas will serve as the BOD’s representative to deliver this concern. Another avenue is PNWCG. The obstacle in this is money. As radios are being replaced, systems can be put in place that are multiple units. As an FMO group, a letter can be addressed to the State Director and Regional Forester requesting that a radio plan be prepared to request agreement on the system. George will spearhead this, and prepare a letter tonight for all signatures.
The issue has been addressed nationally. There has been a request put in for money to help local fire districts, and at least part of the money will go for communications issues.
Steve Lent presented the National Fire Plan. After the power-point presentation, there was discussion on how the communities would get direction for the money they can receive. Steve said his understanding was that State Forestry would direct the communities where they are located; governors would assist in the direction. This would be a coordinated effort.
Steve will provide copies of the power point presentation, if there is a need from some of the units. (Copy incorporated.)
Planning dollars – there is more planning dollars allocated to the BLM, but they are not all fire dollars. There is $19 million fire planning dollars in the BLM. Forest Service Region 6 will get $2 million planning dollars, but they will be a little bit more. There has been a concern that the Forest Service will spend lots of dollars on planning, and not get anything done on the ground.
Mike Edrington discussed the National Fire Plan. He said that Laurie Perrett is the “point of contact” for the BLM and the Forest Service in this Region. The term “communities at risk” has been changed to “wildland urban interface communities.” He reviewed the participants in the plan, besides the FS and BLM, i.e., BIA, NPS, DE, FWS, NWCG, ODF, DNR, interested citizens, homeowners, local fire districts, other fire districts, NMFS, and FFW, to strive for healthy communities and watersheds.
Laurie Perrett reviewed a meeting she attended in Denver where politics meets the National Fire Plan. She said the WGA (Western Governors Association) was very involved in writing the National Fire Plan, and they put a requirement for a number of reports in the appropriation bill. There will be a National Federal Ecosystem Health Strategy and a report is required.
DNR in Washington is not involved in WGA, but they associate National Association of State Foresters.
There is a report due December 11 to Congress identifying where there are wildland urban interface communities. By Friday of this week, each state will send to WGA the criteria for identifying wildland urban interface communities. WGA will then work with the federal agencies to develop a single set of criteria.
Reimbursement – South Dakota and Montana believed they would be reimbursed for extraordinary costs as a result of the fires; however, there was no language in the appropriations bill to cover these costs.
Cohesive strategy – The cohesive strategy for Ecosystem Health Strategy was developed by the Forest Service and is followed by the FS; however, it did not include Interior lands or State lands. Therefore, there will be a comprehensive strategy developed with assistance from the WGA.
The states believe there is money in the bill for them too; therefore, they want to be very involved in the planning and implementation of the National Fire Plan.
National Fire Plan Timeline:
Dec 1 – Criteria for revised and restoration projects
Dec 11 – Identify Wildland Urban Interface Communities
End of Dec – Plan for additional Stakeholders in the National Fire Sciences Organization to select projects
Early January – Detailed financial plan for how to spend Title 4 money
May, 2001 – Identify Wildland Urban Interface Communities with no treatment and why
End of Calendar Year – Report on performance and map of all treated acres
Ten-year plan for Ecosystem Health will be developed by November 30.
Mid-December – States will meet with federal agencies to discussed projects planned for FY2002.
At a meeting in Boise last week, Regions 1, 4, and 6 recommended developing a team to look at how we can streamline “streamlined consultation” into a simpler process.
Questions from small group discussion:
Are all projects to be recorded in FASTRACS? It is planned to use FASTRACS.
Comment: The Wallow-Whitman NF is having problems with this program.
Are there conflicts that have to be resolved, such as National Fire Plan and roads and roadless issue? Mike said there is language in the bill that says some of the projects can be done, as long as roads do not have to be built.
Is there any talk about the long-term funding for the 500 positions? Laurie said that the funding is sustained, but she is not sure how.
Are there any changes in the policy that transfers-of-station money is not included in the money? There has not been a change.
Of the 500 positions, are these positions permanent, 1039’s, terms? The shot crews will pick up the temporary positions.
Do they have to be full time, or can they be PSE? Either one.
Working relationships, how is agency involved in their planning process and how will it be funded? The money is either Preparedness or Fuels.
There was not any money included in the planning process dealing with grants, etc. to the counties and communities on the Colville. Laurie said that this should not be much more than dealing with existing participation on watershed councils, etc.
Have there been any adjustments to the 1039 authority – some latitude in the tours? The answer is no. There will not be anything done to change 1039’s, so the agencies will not be caught with short season. The money has been given to fill these new positions with PSEs.
Will they be using the demo process? We are waiting to find out if the authority will be held at the Washington Office level to do the hiring for MEL.
Where are the agencies on the hiring process? The vacancy announcement is supposed to be out by the 15th of November; BLM’s is expected December 1, and the Park Service’s by mid-December.
It was pointed out the BLM is implementing a process called “quick hiring,” for seasonal positions.
Oregon has been designated as the lead on the hiring process, but not for fire. They have the ability to go forward with the same process the Forest Service has for centralized recruiting process.
What is being done at the RO level and higher to deal with overhead tap and the inability to staff at MEL? This is being looked at a higher level.
Questions as to where the revised numbers to figure out the cost allocation pools? The 500 positions were allocated to the regions, and the RO proportioned them to the forests. It was based on the staffing levels submitted to the RO.
Why is overhead increasing to be based on the new allocation of direct labor hours for FY2001 personnel? Erik said this is the concern, because Congress has said that 80% of the dollars has to be used for project.
Mike said if the figures drive us not to meet MEL, this would have to be reported to Congress. If it is money taken out preparedness or fuels to pay for other things, all the FMO can do is report to their supervisor, and the supervisor will have to work it out with the Regional Forester and State Director.
Steve Lent said this was the specific concern with the Department of Agriculture’s record on not getting the money to the ground level. They specifically said they wanted 80% to get to the ground level. Steve said this is a real concern. He said that if we do not meet the Congressional intention, the funds might not continue to be allocated.
How are the counties all going to get the same word on the funding available to them? Laurie said that the Forest Service fire co-op program is well functioning. The program is in place on the FS, but not on the Interior side.
Spokespersons reported on breakout group discussions on the National Fire Plan.
Western Oregon Group:
Questions:
Are there going to be preparedness and hazardous fuels programs in Western Oregon and Western Washington?
Am I going to be able to revise my hiring plan?
Am I going to be able to revise my fuels targets?
Am I going to be able to revise my overhead cost in NFMAS?
How much effort should we be putting into planning and requesting hazardous fuels and ecosystem dollars specifically with Western Washington and Northwest Oregon?
Issue of Land Management plans relating to definition of wildland urban interface communities.
How are we going to tie in with rural community grants and targets?
How will the Master Agreement with state and federal agencies in Oregon and Washington tie in with National Fire Plan?
How will we specifically address training plans?
Opportunities:
Share training and resources in sub-geographic areas
Leveraging other dollars to accomplish fuels and ecosystem management
Availability of contractors to meet MEL numbers
Utilize contractor-trained employees in hiring
To provide resources to other geographic areas
Utilize community college for training
To position ourselves to be able to obligate contract dollars
Washington Group:
Questions:
- Personnel:
- How long will the ads be open?
- How long are the certs good?
- Where are selections made?
- Can targets be adjusted (# of days of season)?
- Contracted Resources are more dollars
- Can we purchase Hardware in Year 1 and staff it in Year 2?
- Start-up costs
- Can we detail equipment and staff (R-3)?
- Who will write these contracts and when?
- Request for contract action
- Will there be flexibility in contract for unit tailoring?
- Anticipate Personnel movement – How is TOS going to be absorbed?
- FASTRACS goes from District to RO
- Leaves out SO/DO
- Can this be changed?
- Is increased training being addressed?
- Is cadre strong/deep enough?
- Timing – evenings/weekends?
- Where is Pack Test going? (before we hire folks)
- What is approach for support needs? Fleet, computers, etc.
Opportunities: