December 11-12, 2000
OPENING
REMARKS -- Don Artley, Montana State Forester
What
worked well:
1.
Safety
was outstanding
2.
Prevention
teams were well received and did a lot of good work
3.
Incident
command system
What
didn’t work well:
1.
Closures
and restrictions: Is NRCG and its
members going to follow guidelines or not?
How do we resolve differences in opinion?
2.
Signing
up and dispatching of local equipment.
How do we identify needs, train people, inspect them, and get them into
the system? How do we communicate
realistic expectations to people who have equipment that they may get work?
3.
Use
of military (National Guard) aviation resources. NWCG is going to be working on this through a task force.
Patrick
Heffernan (Montana Logging
Association-MLA) asked if NRCG dealt
with suppression tactics. There seems
to be a real knowledge gap on what equipment could do and how it could buy
fireline. Jerry Williams stated the MAC
group became familiar over the summer with several heavy equipment issues also
– such as helicopter bucket work in critical fish spawning areas. The best place for us to reconcile some of
these things is through agency administrators (WFSA) or through the Operations
Committee. Patrick and Jack Kirkendall
need to talk to each other.
OPENING
REMARKS --Ron Larsen, Deputy Regional Forester (FS)
At
the national level there are some things that need to be looked at, such as:
1.
Payments
2.
Public
Affairs Operations/use of web sites
3.
Technology
advances
One
of the biggest challenges we face is the workforce. We must work to make sure we have the qualified people available
to replace those that will be retiring.
Residual
effects of the fires – in the Forest Service we are looking at our plans for
working in the black and in the green for the future (National Fire Plan).
OPENING
REMARKS -- Jerry Williams (FS)
We
will be talking about a lot of operational things we need to strengthen next
summer – there are soft spots, but keep in mind that this Geographic Area has
received a lot of compliments for handling the largest mobilization in
history. A lot of issues converged on
us this year. Workforce became a real
problem. Forest practices became a big
issue (industry versus environmentalists).
The interface—why are we spending all this money and effort protecting
people who choose to build their houses in those areas. Forest health—what has happened after 70 to
100 years of fire exclusion.
We
have a difficult time in decentralized organizations as we move between
preparedness levels where management is consensus oriented – we have a
difficult time making that transition.
Coordination and communication underpins everything we are about.
Russ
Davis will be retiring in March 2001.
He was presented with a knife in appreciation of his many years of
service to NRCG.
Northern
Idaho –
Byron Bonney
Tried
to stick really hard to the drawdown plan in North Idaho Zone. Tried to keep as many people on board and in
place to manage the situation as they could.
Keeping
initial attack as top priority by the NR MAC was more than lip service. The Zone was able to get initial resources
during the summer. Did not get all they
wanted, but got a substantial amount.
Communications
worked well within the Zone. Had
conference calls daily and talked about resources, etc. One area that fell down a bit was the SALMAC
which was the MAC group between the Forests in Region 1 and 4 along the Salmon
River Corridor. It was hard to bring
that group together because of the shear amount of activity occurring in the
Salmon River Corridor. Will be thinking
about setting it up earlier and establishing better working relationship.
Northwest
Montana –
Ted Mead
NW
Montana Zone met November 29. (The
notes of this meeting are posted on the NRCG web page). Continue to struggle with representation
from counties.
Flathead
County has significant concerns about a clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities of country commissioners and area commands. (A lot of this might be education
problems).
Within
Flathead County there is a move whereby they are building a system independent
of the rest of the wildland community to address areas not within a fire
district and fire training needs. They
are working with the Fire Service training school to develop training based on
NFPA 1051. What are we going to honor
as equivalencies (question for NRCG training committee)?
Trying
to solve some of the questions relative to paying for initial attack for
individual actions.
Early
on DNRC, Flathead, and Kootenai NF’s worked together to request severity
dollars for various resources. The
process worked well.
The
Zone MAC group worked very well. The
number one success within the MAC group was the coordination and communication
surrounding closures and restrictions.
Again, some concern on county participation.
Communication
within the Zone – Ted gave it a B.
Would like better participation from the counties. Were able to include large private
landowners such as Plum Creek.
Communications
with NR MAC was strong and effective.
Communications
between surrounding zones were probably not as effective, but through the day
it was only possible to do so much.
Glacier
Park is still working with Flathead Forest on a joint Fire Management Plan.
Kootenai
NF was the busiest part of the Zone.
They felt the MAC group was much more effective this year than in the
past. Dropped almost 250,000 gallons of
retardant from SEAT.
Concerns
about NR MAC information getting to dispatch organizations.
Central
Montana Zone
– Greg Morris
The
handout prepared for the NRCG meeting has notes and issues papers from the Area
Command.
Good
things:
Priority setting – was loud and
clear and helpful.
Jim Greene and FEMA were wonderful. DES and FEMA thing went very well.
Had
a difficult time with aviation and priority setting. Pumped around three loads shy of a million gallons. Sharing of aviation resources between zones
and area command got very confusing.
Communication
between zones was good and bad. Once
area command was in place, there was not a lot of communication between zones.
Central
Montana Zone is probably too large or too complex or has too many members for
when it gets busy.
Forest
Service representative within the Zone was pretty nonexistent. Involved on teams or in suppression
responsibilities.
County
and how they play in the Zone is confusing when the area command came into
place. Recommend the team have a person
to do this.
Did
not have the best coordination and communication with the NR MAC – too many
independent decisions being made. When
NR MAC made the decision to put the area command in place the NR group should
have sent representatives over to the briefing meeting.
Had
a problem not knowing what the Zone MAC group was to do once the area command
got in place.
Continues
to be a problem with closures and restrictions. Three additional counties were thrown into the zone for closures
and restrictions.
Southwest
Montana –
Scott Waldron
Zone
MAC met regularly and often and did a lot of good work. Decided safety would not be compromised at
any cost. It paid off.
Real
pleased about the fire prevention team.
Goal was to attach local representatives to the team to create qualified
individuals for future use for local, state and federal agencies and to be able
to activate a team locally without having to go to the national level. The Tribe was especially happy about the
prevention work that occurred on Tribal lands.
Zone
information was up and running early on.
Established
a staging area that worked early on that prevented a number of fires from going
project.
Local
initial attack forces were activated – task forces were scattered throughout
the area. Had contractor participation
also.
Concerns
that communications with NR MAC and the Zone MAC were challenged at times. Ended the year on a down note with staging
area issue.
Concerns
about zone changing training standards
Struggled
at times with resources that were ordered by the MAC and sent to the zones –
like the wind task forces.
Lacking
clear direction on the authority and roles of Zone MAC’s and area commands.
Restrictions
were challenging.
At
the county level, we did fairly well.
Scott took on the role to call the counties and see what they had for
resources and see what they needed.
Eastern
Zone – Tom Boatner
The
Zone is large. Most of the problems
were the result of being a large zone, being far away and not having a lot of
people. There is a feeling they are at
the end of the food chain. Quite often
the values at risk in eastern Montana are lessor.
Saw
a disconnect between the official dispatch system and the “unofficial” dispatch
system.
Protection
agreement issues – in places where BLM protects ground for the FS, there are
always issues. Rewriting the 6-party
agreement may help in this.
Coordination
is sometimes difficult in Eastern Montana because there are three agencies that
have units that are split between the Central Zone and Eastern Montana
Zone. Creates problems with closures
and restrictions and in the dispatch arena.
Beartooth
District of the Custer is supported on extended attack fires out of
Bozeman. Need to iron out who deals
with large fire support.
South
Central Montana – Rick Seidlizc
Communications
seem to be working pretty well. Private
contractor issues – lots of complaints about not getting calls.
Extensive
training calendar.
Big
Sky fire plan.
Poor
coordination with out-of-Region teams.
NORTH
DAKOTA –
Mike Santucci
Completed
first year as a zone dispatch center.
Had many successes and some failures.
Truly working toward interagency cooperation.
The
big sucking sound they heard to the west of them was four times the amount of
dispatches than they have ever had in their history. Felt they were able to answer the call, but it showed a huge void
in the capabilities. Have a huge
contingent of volunteer fire departments that are not red carded. This is a big issue. Zone will be working on making these
resources more available.
Having
an upward trend in fire starts and number of acres burned. Will be watching this.
Bitterroot – Jack Kirkendall
Functioned
as an independent dispatch center during the 2000 fire season. Transitioned in first team July 14 and transitioned
out last team on October 22.
Good
attention from the NR MAC and NRCC.
Without NR MAC’s support of initial attack as number one priority, feels
the Bitterroot would have been in considerably worse shape. Some of the non-traditional resources were
recognized, obtained, and helpful.
Right
after the first of August found they had a difficult time trying to share
resources across Regional boundaries (Salmon NF). There are financial issues that are also wrapped up in all of
this.
Wind
event task force – really well thought out process, but maybe a little slow in
happening. Perhaps Operations
Committee needs to take a look at expanding this idea.
Coordinated
very close with their county. Developed
a county-wide initial attack agreement through the Area Command.
Coordination
with Area Command was excellent and they coordinated well with NR MAC.
Fire
Prevention Team worked out real well.
Summary – Jerry Williams
It
is important to reiterate this Geographic Area did exceptionally well with the
challenge/threat that no one in their wildest dreams every thought of. Everyone went home and in a relative sense
there was minimal damage to property.
I
appreciate the constructive criticisms we have heard. I am anxious to reconcile the differences between us. We have a lot of moving parts at Planning
Level 5. Things are changing almost
exponentially—into a more command mode.
Regardless of right or wrong, the thing to think about is developing
something of a matrix that talks about how roles and responsibilities change as
we move through all the different preparedness levels. Much of what we did this summer was writing
this book, but we still have to write
the book. Specifically – what
are the roles and responsibilities of the national MAC/regional MAC/zone
MAC? What is the role of the
counties? Area Commands?
Where
does the National Guard fit in?
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Operations
Committee –
Jack Kirkendall
Eastern Area Coordinating Group is asking the Northern Rockies if we are interested in co-staffing a type II team. It might be as simple as telling them to have people apply for our teams. The decision before the NRCG board is to extend a hand and invite them to apply for positions on our teams.
Team
Configuration: The Operations Committee
recommends NRCG adopt four trainees as the operating standard for long
teams.
Aviation
Positions (Paul Linse) (see NRCG web
page for details): The Operations Group
proposes to NRCG that a system similar to identifying people to go to S-520 be
established to recruit, train, mentor, track and certify personnel in the AOBD,
ASGS, ATGS, and HEB1/2 positions. For
years the Geographic Area has been chronically short in aviation
positions. The proposal formalizes an
Incident Aviation Advisory Group and outlines ways to help bring individuals
into the aviation positions.
Discussion:
· DECISION: The Northern Rockies Coordinating Group accepts the proposal of the Operations Committee to help bring more individuals into the various aviation programs. The Advisory Committee needs to include State and eastern Montana representation. Ensure Human Resources is tied into screening efforts.
BUSINESS
COMMITTEE –
Emmy Ibison
Incident
service and supply plan – Fire business management handbook states all units
should have one. Not sure we have met
this requirement within the Geographic Area.
We
need to simplify and look at new ways to do Incident Business Management.
Equipment
Rates: proposing to take more of the
rates we currently have and make them daily rates. The details of how to calculate this have not been worked out
yet. Brian Shiplett asked the Business
Committee to make it very, very clear as to what a “day” is. It has to be visible to the contractors.
The
Program of Work for the Business Committee for 2001 was approved.
Direct
ordering – incidents to the Northern Rockies Cache. The Business Committee will develop the plan and bring back to
NRCG.
Scott
Waldron has some water tender issues that he will be working with the
Operations Committee on.
PREVENTION
COMMITTEE -- DC Haas
Handout: announcement for Prevention workshop that
will be held in Whitefish in 2001.
Committee would like the NRCG Board to make some comments on Tuesday
morning, April 24.
Prevention
Training: The Prevention and Education
Committee feels fire prevention is a job that everyone should do, and with
training, many not involved in suppression can help with. This will require developing training
packages to educate those people who are not primaries in fire prevention
programs. The Prevention and Education
Committee recommends NRCG endorse the following:
1.
An
introductory fire prevention unit be added to basic guard school. This would involve a 30-to 60-minute
addition to the 130/190 curriculum.
2.
The
creation of a curriculum in prevention to bring the level of training above the
basic level. This would involve the
creation of 200-300 level training at the national level.
Restrictions
and closures: On January 22, the
Prevention Committee plans to discuss the problems encountered. Agency administrators want to play a role. How should the committee proceed?
Discussion:
Tim Murphy – NRCG needs to make a commitment as to whether or not we are
going to have a closure/restriction process?
Are all agencies in or out? With
that said, and assuming we agree to have one, then the Prevention Committee
would have a role.
FIRE
USE COMMITTEE
– Randy Doman
Did
put together a FMUT that was dispatched this summer. The FMUT was also converted to a type II team and managed a
couple of different fires this summer.
The team was successful this year.
There is a recruitment out right now for some positions on the
FMUT. Desperately needing an IC to take
over this team.
The
intent of the task force was to take a look at the perennial problem of contractor issues—training, qualifications
and certification for non-NRCG member entities.
Patrick
Heffernan – would like a quick snapshot of what the current training situation
is. How are other contractors doing
it? Mike Kopitzke stated Northwest
Contracting Association is able to train and certify individuals. There are not very many other avenues in our
area. The University of Montana also
does some training.
The
task force proposed that Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) be established
with qualified public and private trainers, which clearly outline
responsibilities and requirements for training and oversight.
Discussion:
There
is still a lot of confusion from buying teams and even incident management
teams regarding required training for contract loggers.
Contractors
experienced a lot of frustration when their equipment was signed up and then
split up a bunch of different ways.
The
a/b/c faller categories are confusing for MLA
Patrick
had some specific questions regarding the National Fire Plan. If there is a need to hire additional
suppression resources, is there a source of funding to make this happen?
The
National Fire Plan encompasses three major themes:
Anything
above that has been handled by emergency fire monies and that is not a part of
the National Fire Plan. At this point
we are not sure if any of this part will be changed.
Scott
Kuehn handed out a table that outlined the physical fitness test, training
requirements and PPE requirements for contractors. Scott indicated he found this table particularly helpful.
At
the end of the year, Byron Bonney (North Idaho Zone Coordinator) will be
retiring. NRCG wants to thank Byron for
all of his contributions over the years.
Byron’s professionalism, his
demeanor and his willingness to work through issues is a model for us all .
Phil
Street has tentative approval to add a full time equivalent (FTE) within the
F&WL (to be stationed Missoula) for a ground safety position. The FS also has a position tentatively
identified under the new National Fire Plan.
Paul
Chamberlin has filled the position for a year.
Paul gave a rough estimate of the potential interagency budget
breakdown.
The area that probably caused the most confusion last fire season was the roles and responsibilities between the various entities such as National/Regional/Zone MACs, area commands, county commissioners, etc. There was general consensus this is an item which definitely needs attention.
· ACTION ITEM 2000-15.—A task group will be assembled to prepare a matrix that outlines how all the various entities work together and what changes occur at what preparedness level. Tim Murphy and Jerry Williams will co-chair the task group. Members will include: Charlie Hanson (DES), Paul Mock (FS), a line officer (Jack Kirkendall will ask Rodd Richardson), an agency representative from Central Montana (Greg Morris will try to find someone), a representative from Southwest Montana Zone (Scott Waldron will find someone), and atribal representative (Cory Winnie will check on availability of Dennis DuPuis). Mike Plattes and Rick Hafenfeld will serve as technical specialists.
SUGGESTION: At next years’ country fire wardens meeting,
NRCG needs to be prepared to talk about some of the issues we are dealing with
. It is a good place for us to ask what
they think.
There
has been talk that there is going to be a national standard that says there
will be two meteorologists at each Geographic Area. Due to the unique relationship we have with the National Weather
Service, this may not be applicable to this Geographic Area. This is an area we should keep our eye
on. Before we take the step, we need to
have a clear picture of what the consequences are across the whole area. In doing the right thing over here, we may
do the wrong thing over there. One of
the concerns is where these new meteorologists would come from. Would we be impacting the Weather Service?
14-DAY ASSIGNMENTS
NWCG
has asked the ISOWT working team for recommendations. No new direction has been issued at this time.
5
COMPONENTS
1.
firefighting
– Congress is giving us the money to field 100 percent of mel (most efficient
level)
2.
rehab
and restoration for burned over area
3.
hazardous
fuels reduction – starting to get serious about getting more proactive about
thinning and prescribed burning
4.
community
assistance – providing the funds necessary to boost capabilities with local
fire departments
5.
accountability
There is a lot of anxiety across the country. The thing that will be coming our way will be our commitment to strengthen zone capabilities, geographic area capabilities and the role of the agency administrators.
Tribes
are an integral part of this and must be incorporated and made an integral part
of all of this.
Some areas that come to mind are:
We
are pretty fortunate in our GA because we have been working on a lot of these
areas. The NRCG board can play a real
role in helping to facilitate a lot of these areas. It is going to be crucial for Zones to be the ones to help
facilitate those zone issues and translating down to local levels. NRCG working committees are already working
on a lot of these issues.
What
role does or should NRCG play in this and what are the opportunities to work
together?
Is
the protection issue in the 6-party agreement for 2005 on the back burner or
off the stove? Cathy Scofield said at
this time there has been no agreements to make any changes to what has been
previously agreed to. There will be
time for everyone to review the new agreement.
Jerry Williams said there was an effort to modify the Federal Wildland Fire Policy and one of the issues is the role of the protection agencies. Not sure what that change will be yet.
Tim
Murphy stated they have a concern they will loose a bunch of their fire forces to
the feds. Going into the legislature to
try to get equitable pay for State employees.
Concern
about relations with states—timeframes for completing grants, time to do the
work, people to do the work, relationships with locals.
SUGGESTION: Tom Boatner suggested that maybe after the
new Governor is in place, would it be realistic to ask Don Artley to schedule a
meeting with her to talk about this National Fire Plan and what the impacts and
implications are for the State, counties, etc.
Tim Murphy said it might be worth thinking about.
Closures
and Restrictions: The “in or out” issue is:
a.
do we need restrictions and closures
b. are they
mandatory or just suggested
Eastern
Great Basin Coordination: There was concern about
coordination between the Eastern Great Basin Coordination Group and the
Northern Rockies last year. How do we
want to resolve the issues?
Options
to consider might be:
·
Establish
a liaison between the two GAC’s to maintain open communications.
·
In
the roles and responsibilities matrix, establish a trigger point to coordinate
with other GAC’s
·
ACTION ITEM 2000-19: Brian Shiplett will be
attending the Eastern Great Basin GAC meeting soon. We will ask for their input on how to resolve some of our
issues. Brian will also approach them
on meeting in Whitefish in April.
Beartooth
District Issue: When there is a large fire,
there is and has been major confusion as to which dispatch center should
provide large fire support – Gallatin or Billings. Tom Boatner will monitor the situation. If large fire support for fires on the Beartooth were put into
the Billings Dispatch Center, it would clean up some things for the State of
Montana.
This
will be an agenda item for the April NRCG meeting if not resolved before then.
National
Guard: The Montana National Guard
would like to come up with a general goal that they could be generally self
sufficient if they are requested for fire.
They would like to train 5 crews (100 firefighters), about six
helicopter managers and some agency reps.
The National Guard has also expressed interest in red carding these
individuals.
Team
Jackets: Last year NRCG agreed to
look into purchasing jackets for type I and II team members. Polarfleece vests were given to all type I
and II team members at the end of this fire season to recognize their
contributions to an outstanding safe season.