National Forest Wildfire Capacity Report: Fall 2013

National Forest Wildfire Capacity

Report: Fall 2013

This report summarizes findings from a pre-fire season survey of 134 forest districts on 31 National Forests in Regions 1, 4, and 6 at risk for wildfire. Patterns and trends are presented that relate to district and forest activities about inter-agency communication, assessing and documenting values at risk, and compiling information for in-briefing external teams.

Prepared by: A.J. Faas, B. Nowell, and T.

Steelman

North Carolina State University School of Public and International Affairs Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources

Correct citation for this report: Faas, A.J., B. Nowell, and T. Steelman. 2013. National Forest Wildfire Capacity Report: Fall 2013. Fire Chasers Improving Community Response to Wildfire Study. October 9. http://goo.gl/GBFQ1u. 21 pp.

Copyright 2013 North Carolina State University Fire Chasers: Improving Community Response to Wildfire Project firechasers.ncsu.edu 20 Enterprise St., Suite 6 Raleigh, NC 27607 Phone: (919) 576-0843 Fax: 919-797-9926 [email protected]

This research is part of a larger initiative funded by the National Science Foundation, Joint Fire Science Program and the USFS Northern Research Station. All views and conclusions in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or politics of the US Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the US Government.

Acknowledgements: The Fire Chasers would like to acknowledge and thank all the emergency and fire management personnel who contributed to this report. This research would not have been possible without the combined efforts of our research team: Deena Bayoumi, Candice Bodkin, Lori Bradford, Jason Briefel, Joy Davis, Jillian Cain, John Diaz, Clare Fitzgerald, Casey Fleming, Mary Hano, Annie Izod, Anne-Lise Knox Velez, Emily McCartha, Veronica Quintanilla, Holli Starr, Corinne Wilder, and Zheng Yang. Thanks to James Moody for consulting on methodology and to Brian Miedlar for web design and survey administration. We would also like to thank our research partner Sarah McCaffrey and the USFS Northern Research Station for their support of this project.

Research Funding Provided By:

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE THE JOINT FIRE SCIENCE USDA FOREST SERVICE: NORTHERN FOUNDATION PROGRAM RESEARCH STATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The increasing severity and impact of wildfires to communities located in the wildland urban interface (WUI) is an area of growing concern. It therefore is important to understand community readiness for responding to such events. This report presents findings concerning National Forest and regional actions taken in the areas of, inter-agency communication, assessing and documenting values at risk, including attention to cultural and ecological resources, and compiling information for in-briefing external teams across Regions 1, 4 and 6. Our goal with this report is to provide a baseline understanding of the variation across National Forests and regions in some of the key areas of wildfire and incident response readiness. The findings presented in this report are primarily drawn from interviews conducted in 2012-2013 with fire staff on 134 US National Forest Districts and 31 National Forests identified as at risk for a wildland urban interface fire event (see Appendix A for a list of National Forests and districts). This report is part of a larger Improving Community Response to Wildfire Study conducted by the North Carolina State University Fire Chasers research team. A companion publication, County Wildfire Incident Readiness Report, is also part of this project. Below are some highlights from this report, which are detailed in the body of the report: Preparedness in Interagency Communications Good interagency communication is one of the most important elements of a coordinated incident response. Districts were asked about their participation in a range of activities intended to build relationships and prepare for effective inter-agency communications in the event of a large scale wildfire event. Key findings include:  Most Districts report having established significant networks that they can draw upon during a wildfire event. While no Forest obtained a score of 100 percent on our composite score for inter-agency communication preparedness, there is clearly a great deal of work being done in this area. Almost all Districts in our sample have established mutual aid agreements with other agencies in their area. Nine out of every ten Districts reported that they had developed a framework for cost share with other agency administrators as well as reported that they hosted or participated in opportunities during pre-fire season for cooperating agencies to come together. Eighty eight percent of districts reported collaborating with other agencies on fuels reduction projects.  While inter-agency relationships are being established, there is more work to be done to plan for good inter-agency communications during an incident. Nearly half of all Districts are not prepared to maintain communications with other agencies in the event of power and phone outages. Further, one out of every four Districts does not have plans in place for how to manage inter-agency communications during an incident. Assessing and Documenting Values at Risk (VAR) Risk management principals teach us that appropriate management of wildfire requires a clear understanding of the values that are threatened and the ability to communicate these values at risk to incident responders. Key findings about the current state of District efforts to assess and document VARs include:  Overall attention to assessing VARs across Forests is high but not all Districts are equally prepared. Every Forest across the three regions had completed VAR assessments in at least some of their Districts. Regions 1 and 6 reported greater variation among their forests than Region 4. All forests in Region 4 reported above 80 percent in their composites. Region 6 reported a lower percentage of activities (80%) compared to Regions 1 and 4 (85% each). Forests in Oregon appear to be driving this trend as they reported 77% of VAR activities have been completed within Districts compared to 88% in Washington Forests. 1

 Basic identification and mapping of VAR is a widespread practice, but higher order analysis and documentation is less common. When looking at the different activities involved in assessing and documenting VARs, most Districts across all regions were likely to have created some maps of values at risk (93%), completed an initial assessment of VARs (90%) and considered the resources they would be willing to commit to protect VARs (86%). Districts were more variable in whether they reported having done systematic analysis of VARs in relation to risk to responders to defend those values (74%) or whether they had actuals lists detailing VAR on their Districts that could be referenced in the event of a fire (73%). These higher order types of analysis and documentation have been identified as important preparation in advance of fire season to enable Forests to adopt a risk management approach to wildfire response. Findings also suggest that one of out of every four Districts may experience challenges clearly communicating with incident management teams about VARs. Assembling Local Information for In-Briefing IMTs When working with incident management teams from outside the area, incident response can be greatly aided by having information prepared to brief IMTs about the local community. Districts were asked about both the presence and content of in-brief packets for IMTs. Key findings include:  Approximately 1 out of 5 Districts reported they did not have a packet of local information prepared to in-brief an incoming IMT. While the vast majority of Districts (82%) reported having an in-brief packet prepared for an incoming IMT, there are still a sizable number of districts who do not. This is an area of opportunity for improving readiness of USFS Districts to help out of area IMTs get up to speed quickly about the local area and key players.  Most existing in-brief packets contain media and cooperator contact information. Of those Districts who reporting having in-brief packets, 95 percent of those packets were described as including contact information for local cooperators and 88 percent contain media contacts. This is important information for IMTs.  Districts are less well-prepared to provide IMTs information about trapline locations and key local constituents. Other important information such as trapline locations and identification of key local constituents such county commissioners, mayor, ranchers, politicians, business interests was reported absent in approximately 1 out of every 5 in-brief packets. This type of information can assist IMTs to be more effective stewards of the relationships between the local Forest and its surrounding communities during a large scale wildfire event.

ABOUT THE FIRE CHASERS IMPROVING COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO WILDFIRE PROJECT

The Fire Chasers are an action research team based at North Carolina State University (NCSU). Our current work focuses on advancing the science of adaptive capacity and incident response networks and improving preparedness for and responses to wildfires in the urban interface. The increased severity and impact of wildfires on communities has heightened public concern with wildfire management. While risk assessment and management concepts are usually understood with regards to biophysical attributes in the wildfire context, these concepts can be extended to understanding risk for problematic communication and coordination embedded within social and organizational relationships. Failures in effective communication and coordination among responding organizations and agencies can lead to undesired outcomes. In response to these growing concerns, the Fire Chasers—an interdisciplinary research team co-led by Dr. Branda Nowell (NCSU) and Dr. Toddi Steelman (NCSU/University of Saskatchewan), collaborating researcher Dr. Sarah McCaffrey (United States Forest Service) and post-doctoral scholar and project manager Dr. A.J. Faas (NCSU) — have been working since 2008 with communities and incident management teams to better understand and strengthen community response to wildfire. With funding from the National Science Foundation, Joint Fire Science Program and USFS Northern Research Station, Fire Chasers aims to assess and strengthen inter-agency capacity for responding to significant wildfire events. The Improving Community Response to Wildfire Project will produce a series of findings, tools and training materials to help local communities and incident management teams better manage wildfire. This report is the first in a series we aim to share with the public. More information on our team and our projects can be found on our website firechasers.ncsu.edu.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 – Inter-Agency Communication 5

Section 2 – Assessing and Documenting Values at Risk 10

Section 3 – Assembling Local Information for In-Briefing IMTs 14

Methodology 18

Appendix A – Forests and Districts Included in the Sample 19

INTER-AGENCY COMMUNICATION Inter-agency communication is one of the most important elements of effective incident response. Establishing effective working relationships and planning for how agencies will communicate during a large wildfire incident is critical. Districts were asked about several activities in this area including whether they had: 1) Developed an interagency communications plan in anticipation of a wildfire event; 2) Developed an MOU with other agency administrators outlining a framework for cost share in the event of a multi-jurisdictional wildfire; 3) Developed mutual aid agreements between their agency and other agencies in their county; 4) Developed a plan for how to maintain communication with other agencies should power and phone service be disrupted; 5) Hosted pre-season opportunities for incident response agencies in their area to come together and learn about one anothers’ agencies, and; 6) Collaborated with other agencies on fuels reduction projects. The scores for each forest are based on how many of these activities were reported complete for all districts surveyed on that forest. These were then aggregated to show differences across Regions (see Figures 3, 4, and 5). Findings  Most Districts report having established significant networks that they can draw upon during a wildfire event. While no Forest obtained a score of 100 percent on our composite score for inter-agency communication preparedness, there is clearly a great deal of work being done in this area (see Figure 1). Almost all Districts in our sample have established mutual aid agreements with other agencies in their area. Twenty five percent of Districts report having mutual aid agreements with five or more agencies. Nine out of every ten Districts reported that they had developed a framework for cost share with other agency administrators as well as reported that they hosted or participated in regular opportunities during pre-fire season for cooperating agencies to come together. Forty-six percent of these Districts have cost share MOUs with at least three agencies, and 26 percent have MOUs with five or more agencies. Eighty-eight percent of Districts reported collaborating with other agencies on fuels reduction projects.  While inter-agency relationships are being established, there’s more work to be done to plan for good inter-agency communications during an incident. Nearly half of all Districts are not prepared to maintain communications with other agencies in the event of power and phone outages. Further, one out of every four Districts reported not having a plan in place for how to manage inter-agency communications during an incident.  While many Districts report hosting or participating in meetings with cooperators, the frequency of these events varies across forests and regions. Among those districts that host or participate in cooperator meetings in pre-fire season (see Figure 2), 46 percent say they do so at least once a year, 35 percent say they do so multiple times per year, and 17 percent say they host or participate in these events monthly or more frequently. We also see that about 3 percent say they participate in these activities less than once a year.

Figure 1. Inter-Agency Communication Activities: Frequency by District Across All Regions 100 97% 93% 89% 90 88%

80 74%

60 55%

0 Mutual Aid Host/Participate in Cost Share MOU Fuels Reduction Interagency Plan for Utility Agreement Cooperator Collaboration Communications Outage Meetings Plan

Figure 2. Reported Prevalence of District Meetings with Cooperators Pre-Fire Season 100

80 Less than once a year 70 63% 60 Once a year 51% 50 43% 41% Multiple times per year 40 31% 30 25% Monthly or More Frequently 20 14% 11% 13% 10 7% 2% 0% 0 Region 1 Region 4 (S. Idaho) Region 6

Figure 3. Region 1 Forests – Composite Inter-Agency Communication Preparedness Score

Region 1 Interagency Communication Activities: Frequency across Districts 100 96% 95% 90 85% 85%

80 74% 70 58% 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mutual Aid Host/Participate in Fuels Reduction Cost Share MOU Interagency Plan for Utility Agreement Cooperator Collaboration Communications Outage Meetings Plan

Figure 4. Region 4 (S. Idaho) – Inter-Agency Communication Preparedness Score

Region 4 (S. Idaho) Interagency Communication Activities: Frequency across Districts 100% 97% 100 95% 93% 90 80% 80 70 60 49% 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mutual Aid Host/Participate in Fuels Reduction Cost Share MOU Interagency Plan for Utility Agreement Cooperator Collaboration Communications Outage Meetings Plan

Figure 5. Region 6 – Inter-Agency Communication Preparedness Score

Region 6 Interagency Communication Activities: Frequency across Districts 100 95% 89% 88% 90 83% 80 68% 70 60% 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mutual Aid Cost Share MOU Host/Participate in Fuels Reduction Interagency Plan for Utility Agreement Cooperator Collaboration Communications Outage Meetings Plan

Assessing and Documenting Values at Risk A critical component to appropriate management of wildfires is a clear assessment and documentation of values at risk (VAR) done in advance of the fire season. Districts were asked about a number of activities related to values at risk including: 1) whether they had completed an assessment of VARs on their Districts [Assess VAR]; 2) created maps identifying the locations of VARs [VAR Map]; 3) conducted an analysis of the VAR in relation to costs to defend [Resource Invest] and risks to firefighter safety [Responder Risk], and; 4) compilation of a list of VAR on the District that could be handed to an incident management team [VAR List]. The scores for each Forest are based on how many of these activities were reported for all Districts surveyed on that forest. These were then aggregated to show differences across Regions (see Figures 7, 8, and 9). Key Findings  Overall attention to assessing VARs across Forests is high but not all Districts are equally prepared. Every Forest across the three regions had completed VAR assessments in at least some of their Districts. The average percentage of activities completed by each District across all regions is 83 percent. Regions 1 and 6 have greater variation among their forests than Region 4. All forests in Region 4 score above 80 percent in their composites. Region 6 completed a lower percentage of activities 80 percent compared to Regions 1 and 4 (85% each). Forests in Oregon appear to be driving this trend as 77 percent of VAR activities have been completed compared to 88 percent in Washington Forests.  Basic identification and mapping of VAR is a widespread practice but higher order analysis and documentation is less common. When looking at the different activities involved in assessing and documenting VARs, most Districts across all regions were likely to have created some maps of values at risk (93%), completed an initial assessment of VARs (90%) and considered the resources they would be willing to commit to protect VARs (86%). Districts were more variable in whether they reported having done systematic analysis of VARs in relation to risk to responders to defend those values (74%) or whether they had actuals lists detailing VAR on their districts that could be referenced in the event of a fire (73%). Region 6 Forests were the least active in completing these types of analysis, particularly in Oregon. These higher order types of analysis and documentation have been identified as important preparation in advance of fire season in order to enable Forests to adopt a risk management approach to wildfire response. Figure 6. Items in Composite Values at Risk Score Across all Regions

100 91% 88% 90 83% 80 76% 75% 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 VAR Map Assess VAR Resource Invest Responder Risk VAR List

Figure 7. Region 1 Forests – Composite Values at Risk Assessment Score

Region 1 VAR Assessment & Documentation: Frequency across Districts

100 93% 89% 90 85% 84% 80 75% 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 VAR Map Resource Invest Responder Risk Assess VAR VAR List

Figure 8. Region 4 (S. Idaho) Forests – Composite Values at Risk Assessment Score

Region 4 (S. Idaho) VAR Assessment & Documentation: Frequency across Districts 100% 100 97% 95%

80 68% 70 65%

0 Assess VAR Resource Invest VAR Map VAR List Responder Risk

Figure 9. Region 6 Forests – Composite Values at Risk Assessment Score

Region 6 VAR Assessment & Documentation: Frequency across Districts 100 88% 90 87% 77% 80 73% 73% 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 VAR Map Assess VAR VAR List Resource Invest Responder Risk

ASSEMBLING LOCAL INFORMATION FOR IN-BRIEFING IMTS Incident Management Teams (IMTs) need to be able to get up to speed quickly about the local area and key players that they need to tie in with to ensure effective coordination. Up-to-date local information that is assembled and ready to hand off to an incoming IMT helps to ensure information flows smoothly. Each District was asked whether they had an in brief packet of local information prepared for an IMT. If the District had an in brief packet, they were then asked about its contents in four specific areas: 1) a summary of important trapline locations in surrounding communities; 2) a list of media contacts; 3) a list of cooperator agency contacts, and; 4) information about key constituents (e.g., elected officials) in the local areas to which the team should be sensitive. Regional maps depict the percentage of districts which reported having in brief packets and charts report on the contents of those in-brief packets (see Figures 11, 12, and 13). Findings  Approximately 1 out of 5 Districts reported they did not have a packet of information prepared to in- brief an incoming IMT. While the vast majority of districts (82%) reported having an in-brief packet prepared for an incoming IMT, there are still a sizable number of districts who do not (see Figure 10). This is an area of opportunity for improving readiness of USFS Districts to help out of area IMTs get up to speed quickly about the local area and key players.  Most existing in-brief packets contain media and cooperator contact information. Of those districts who reporting having in-brief packets, 95 percent of those packets were described as including contact information for local cooperators and 88 percent contain media contacts. This is important information for IMTs.  Districts are less well-prepared to provide IMTs information about trapline locations and key local constituents. Other important information such as trapline locations and identification of key local constituents such county commissioners, mayor, ranchers, politicians, business interests was reported absent in approximately 1 out of every 5 in brief packets. This type of information can assist IMTs to be more effective stewards of the relationships between the local Forest and its surrounding communities during a large scale wildfire event. Figure 10. Percent Districts with In-Brief Packets Prepared Across All Regions 100 88% 86% 90 83% 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Region 1 Region 4 Region 6

Figure 11. Region 1 Forests – Percent Districts Reporting In-Brief Packet Prepared

Region 1 In Brief Packet Contents: Frequency across Districts 100 91% 90 83% 82% 77% 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Includes Cooperator Contacts Includes Sensitive Political Includes Media Contacts Includes Trapline Locations Issues

Figure 12. Region 4 (S. Idaho) Forests – Percent Districts Reporting In-Brief Packet Prepared

Region 4 (S. Idaho) In Brief Packet Contents: Frequency across Districts 100% 100 96% 90 87% 84% 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Includes Cooperator Contacts Includes Media Contacts Includes Trapline Locations Includes Sensitive Political Issues

Figure 13. Region 6 Forests – Percent Districts Reporting In-Brief Packet Prepared

Region 6 In Brief Packet Contents: Frequency across Districts 100% 100 93% 90 84% 83% 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Includes Cooperator Contacts Includes Media Contacts Includes Trapline Locations Includes Sensitive Political Issues

METHODOLOGY The findings presented in this report are the result of interviews conducted with fire staff on 134 US National Forest Districts that are adjacent to significant populations and at risk for a wildland urban interface fire. A total of 137 forest districts in Regions 1, 4, and 3 were selected for inclusion in the study (see Appendix A). Forest districts were selected for inclusion if they had significant population centers (municipality or census designated place [CDP]) within twelve miles of any of their district boundaries that could be at risk of a wildland-urban interface (WUI) fire. A total of 134 respondents participated in these interviews for a response rate of 98 percent. These interviews were conducted between November, 2012, and May, 2013.

APPENDIX A FORESTS AND DISTRICTS INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE

Region 1, USDA Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Idaho Panhandle National Forests Butte Ranger District Bonners Ferry Ranger District

Dillon Ranger District Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District Jefferson Ranger District Priest Lake Ranger District Madison Ranger District Sandpoint Ranger District Pintler Ranger District St. Joe Ranger District Wisdom Ranger District Kootenai National Forest Wise River Ranger District Cabinet Ranger District Bitterroot National Forest Fortine Ranger District Darby Ranger District Libby Ranger District Stevensville Ranger District Rexford Ranger District

Sula Ranger District Three Rivers Ranger District West Fork Ranger District Lewis & Clark National Forest Custer National Forest Belt Creek Ranger District Ashland Ranger District Judith Ranger District Beartooth Ranger District Musselshell Ranger District Sioux Ranger District White Sulphur Springs Ranger District Flathead National Forest Lolo National Forest Hungry Horse/Glacier View Ranger District Missoula Ranger District Spotted Bear Ranger District Ninemile Ranger District Swan Lake Ranger District Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District Tally Lake Ranger District Seeley Lake Ranger District Gallatin National Forest Superior Ranger District Bozeman Ranger District Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest Gardiner Ranger District Lochsa/Pierce Ranger District Hebgen Lake Ranger District Moose Creek Ranger District Yellowstone Ranger District North Fork Ranger District Helena National Forest Palouse Ranger District

Helena Ranger District Powell Ranger District Lincoln Ranger District Townsend Ranger District

Region 4 (S. Idaho) - USDA Forest Service

Boise National Forest Salmon-Challis National Forest Cascade Ranger District Lost River Ranger District Emmett Ranger District Middle Fork Ranger District Idaho City Ranger District North Fork Ranger District Lowman Ranger District Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District Mountain Home Ranger District Sawtooth National Forest Caribou-Targhee National Forest Fairfield Ranger District Ashton/Island Park Ranger District Ketchum Ranger District Dubois Ranger District Minidoka Ranger District Montpelier Ranger District Sawtooth National Recreation Area Palisades Ranger District Soda Springs Ranger District Teton Basin Ranger District Westside Ranger District Payette National Forest Council Ranger District Krassel Ranger District McCall Ranger District New Meadows Ranger District Weiser Ranger District

Region 6 - USDA Forest Service Colville National Forest Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger District Chelan Ranger District Republic Ranger District Cle Elum Ranger District Three Rivers Ranger District Entiat Ranger District Deschutes National Forest Methow Valley Ranger District Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District Naches Ranger District Crescent Ranger District Tonasket Ranger District Sisters Ranger District Wenatchee River Ranger District Fremont-Winema National Forest Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Bly Ranger District Gold Beach Ranger District Chemult Ranger District High Cascades Ranger District Chiloquin Ranger District Powers Ranger District Klamath Ranger District Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District Lakeview Field Office Wild Rivers Ranger District Winter Rim Zone Siuslaw National Forest Central Coast Ranger District /Oregon Dunes National Gifford Pinchot National Forest Recreation Area Cowlitz Ranger District Hebo Ranger District Mount St. Helens Ranger District Umatilla National Forest Mount Adams Ranger District Heppner Ranger District Malheur National Forest North Fork John Day Ranger District Blue Mountain Ranger District Pomeroy Ranger District Emigrant Creek Ranger District Walla Walla Ranger District Prairie City Ranger District Umpqua National Forest Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Cottage Grove Ranger District Darrington Ranger District Diamond Lake Ranger District Mount Baker Ranger District North Umpqua Ranger District Skykomish Ranger District Tiller Ranger District Snoqualmie Ranger District Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Mount Hood National Forest LaGrande Ranger District Wallowa Mountain Ranger Districts—Eagle Cap, Barlow Ranger District Wallowa Valley, & Hells Canyon Clackamas River Ranger District Whitman Ranger District Hood River Ranger District Willamette National Forest Zigzag Ranger District Detroit Ranger District Ochoco National Forest McKenzie River Ranger District Crooked River National Grassland Middle Fork Ranger District Lookout Mountain Ranger District Sweet Home Ranger District Paulina Ranger District