Diving Deeper: How Will USWFS Work With the Bureaus?

Many of my retiree colleagues from BLM  are worried about the linkage between the new wildfire organization and the bureaus. So let’s look deeper into what the transition document says about how it will work.

If someone would be willing to write a post to describe the authorization process for prescribed fire (ignition authorization? approve implementation?) it would be great.  How many steps are there, and is it the same for the FS as for BLM?

My view is not that the FS fire folks will be ultimately moved to USWFS, but that WFS will figure out a “way to do things” and the FS will sign on to those things that are important (procurement, hiring, monitoring protocols, etc.). Even back in my time, I recall wildfire folks saying “the FS doesn’t decide what I do, fire is interagency.and they say…”

The possibly great thing to my mind is that the FS can wait to adopt these changes until WFS has worked through implementation and will miss the dead ends.  Of course, I am an optimist.

These tables are copied directly from this THW post.

Not another risk map! Wouldn’t it be great if an NGO would fund a “wildfire risk map” database, so we could keep track of who is doing what, for what reason, with what sources of funding?

Bureaus will lead the development of fuels projects.  For BLM that sounds like “within the context of RMP’s” which the BLM (sometimes with input of political appointees).  And they need to work with fuels specialists and risk maps “to aid in selection”. Conceivably when the fuels specialists worked for the bureaus, the also “aided in selection” or at least I would hope so! So the new thing is these USWFS maps.. perhaps there is more info on those out there somewhere.

Bureaus will do all the NEPA, ESA, NHPA, public involvement, Tribal consultation and all that and USFWS personnel can serve on ID teams.  Interesting, though , that the USWFS “may” fund fuels work.  There’s probably more to dig into here.. like when? What will be their criteria for funding fuels work?

So it sounds like USWFS will be the keeper of the Fuels POW funded by USWFS dollars.  Bureaus will submit POWs and negotiate for targets.  USWFS will also implement with some Bureau support.  So it seems like USWFS has three roles with regard to fuels projects:

1. Providing expertise to bureaus via fuels practitioners.

2. Developing an Interior-wide POW for fuels, funding and tracking accomplishments.

3. Implementing projects (working closely with Bureaus).

This seems to transfer approval and oversight for prescribed fires to the USWFS. It’s also interesting that Bureaus can do PF for non-hazardous fuel projects and ask the USWFS to assist, but the Bureaus must fund it themselves.

I don’t know what “post-fire” means in this context, hopefully someone can help.

Sounds like they will do FTEM.  It does make me wonder because Congress gave universities chunks of change to do something that sounds similar. It makes more sense to me to have one national approach for recording information.. like the ever-popular FIA.  I’m sure the FS could enter their own data using the same template, and perhaps States, Tribes and private folks could also enter their data?

So RMPs need to include wildfire stuff, and USFWS will provide it, but Bureaus are still responsible for RMP’s.  Bureaus will continue to update their Fire Management Plans.  I wonder how different BLM’s Fire Management Plans are from the Forest Service’s?

That’s all I found of interest in the document, what do you think? Did you find anything else of interest?