NIFC Public Affairs has put out a 23-page Talking Points document. What
caught our eye was the first two sections devoted to the AD pay plan issues.

But there are other items of interest addressed, including preparedness.

Needless to say, we don't feel the 2 Talking Points on the AD issue address
the core problems, but they sure do put the government's efforts in a
positive light!! Not a surprise though. ADFA plans to respond with a
logical analysis. We will undoubtedly utilize legislative assistance on the
matter (unfortunately this seems to be the only way to get a response).

We've got a link to the Talking Points document on our web page at
www.adfirefighter.org or perhaps Ab you could place a link to the
attached here: Wildland Fire Talking Points (pdf file)

Comments welcome as usual (click name below)

Hugh Carson
Chair, AD Firefighters Association

<cracking up> <rolling on floor> Are you mocking Mellie???

You said... "You guys rock. Mellie too. <batting her eyes, blushing, shucks, gawrsh>"

Correction, if it was really Mellie you were characterizing, it woulda been <batting eyes> <blushing> (Note the closed carrots between attributes. Mellie's grammar queen and analytical coding characteristics carry over even to the fire internet...

Mellie has never assumed a <gawrsh> attitude that I know of. After all, under that Mellie facade there is a hotshot's ego (of the best sort). By that, I mean Mellie is a can-do perfectionist but doesn't need to take the personal credit -- so long as the job gets done impeccably...

Now Mellie has been known to throw in a <little madonna smile> from time to time, among other things...

Mellie

I think that some people have hit the issue right on the head. There is a huge amount of acreage being burned but there is no real knowledge in the media of the budget being cut out. I think that if the public were able to see what is going on, I think that they may have something to say. The federal agencies that are fighting all these fires, and see a need for more funding, should be putting it out to the media with facts.

We should not be bumping the numbers up in order to receive EXCESS funding the way that the higher ups are playing down the money issue by saying that we are doing fine, though. We should hold up our integrity and respect towards the public and present an honest appraisal.

That is all I can say right now.

6thyrrookie

If you can get the data, I can crunch it and display it any which way you want.

Still Out There as an AD

Cramer Fire. Ab.

HAW HAW... Ab.

Thanks for putting some numbers on my speculations. I
had kind of an image in my head, and I'm not sure how
to go about putting numbers to it, but it might be
enlightening (and you did say you'd never met a
statistic you didn't like...). Okay, picture a bar
chart, like they use for rainfall. Put the months on
the horizontal axis, with December in the middle, and
then put total firefighter hours on assignment,
nationwide or for a given region, on the vertical
axis. For Most years, there's going to be dip in the
center of the graph; not to zero, but not far from it.
Anecdotally, I think that this year the dip was not
nearly as low as usual, meaning that the off season
was less off than it's been in quite a while. So I'm
thinking not so much of year-to-date as 'typical
end-of-season' to 'typical beginning-of-season'. The
year-to-date numbers are scary, though.

Nerd on the Fireline

"Senators fear cuts will harm ability to fight Southwest wildfires"
www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060329-1311-wst-southwestwildfirebudget.html

Condolences... Could you please let us know about services? Ab.

Just to let ya know I do love my job and I like working where I work. The problem I have is we should be getting better pay and benefits, if the old blood ideas were to realize that yeah back in 1972 when they started $1.89 and hour was an ok wage. At that wage you could make with overtime at say 400 hours a year $5063 before taxes. Its 34 years later and $5063 would not buy a cheap car! Ok I might have blown off course here a bit, but I get rattled about our pay!

The thing I do want to say is this. It is 2006: 20 years ago a CDF FC made what I make now hourly, but they made more 'cause the 72 hour shift. So why do you think they have got their big pay raises? I will tell ya, alot of there folks got tired of being broke, retention problems, a higher tax base due to more people and business, which creates a higher call volume, and I figure most of all they got fed up with the gas station attendant wages, and fought the state!

I am a member of the FWFSA Ab, just so your comment is answered! I am trying to help out by getting others to join! My problem is this I talk to folks and hear them say yeah right its not ever going to happen, a pay raise huh!!! Even R5 fire and aviation officer Ray Q said its not going to happen anywhere in the near future, maybe 20 or 30 years long after I retire he said. So with attitudes like that how do you ask them to help us fight for what's right?

So next time when you have the urge to tell folks what they should do, THINK before you speak. I have done all the CDF stuff, I have joined FWFSA, and most of all I have cared what is going to happen to my future. No matter what the agencies say about retention or OPM says about it, it does have a major impact on the USFS, BLM, USFWS, BIA, and the PARK SERVICE. They want me to tell my employees how beautiful it is to work here and they pay you to look at the trees and smell the fresh air, AGHH its all cr*p. Just ask a seasonal FF here in CA if they would like to make more money and have a better schedule plus benefits and retirement as a temp, what are they going to say no I like the fresh air? NOT!!!

Have a great day guys and remember your 2 cents might just be your next pay raise.

NORCAL CAPT

HAW HAW. Excellent closing one liner!!! Ab.

Graveside services will be held for Joe Ely on Saturday, April 8, at 11
a.m. at the Glen Oaks Memorial Park, in Chico, (corner of Hegan Lane and
Midway). There will be a reception afterwards (I don't know the location).

Denny Bungarz (retired MNF FMO & Glenn County Supervisor) has set up the
"Joe Ely Memorial Fund" to relocate and maintain the Air Tanker Plaque at
the Willows Airport. Contributions in Joe's memory can be sent to

The Joe Ely Memorial Fund
Glenn County Department of Finance
516 W. Sycamore Street,
Willows, CA 95988.

A couple pics attached

TC

Joe Ely at Rattlesnake Memorial Dedication
Plaque he was reading

Thanks,
Karen

Thanks, Karen.
Readers, you may contribute to the fund by sending a tax-deductible donation made out to the Paul Gleason Wildland Fire Scholarship Fund to:

CSU Foundation
P.O. Box 1870
Fort Collins, CO 80522

Ab note: Here's the info on the scholarship available via dropdown menu (Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship) on the bottom of this page: http://taurus.cnr.colostate.edu/apps/scholarship/index.cfm
Let's make this an ongoing tribute to Paul.

The Paul Gleason Wildland Fire Scholarship

Description of Scholarship:
The Paul Gleason Wildland Fire Scholarship was established in memory of Paul. Paul was a highly skilled and respected wildland firefighter who dedicated his 38 year field career to improving firefighting safety for his many colleagues. An expert in firefighting operations, fire behavior, and fire ecology, he worked on over 500 wildland and prescribed fires throughout the United States. In doing so, Paul supervised hotshot crews for over 20 years, co-pioneered sawyer safety training for firefighters and developed the Lookouts, Communications, Escape Routes and Safety Zones (LCES) safety concept now taught to all wild land firefighters. He was renowned for his engaging style as an instructor. After mandatory firefighter retirement at age 55 in 2001, Paul served at Colorado State University as a well-loved adjunct Professor of Fire Science until his untimely death in 2003. A true leader and mentor to thousands of people, Paul always identified first with the "ground-pounder" and taught that every firefighter on the line has a personal responsibility for his or her own safety by becoming a "student of fire".

Criteria of Scholarship:
Recipient must be an undergraduate student in the Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship. Recipient must maintain a GPA of at least 2.5. Recipient must demonstrate an interest and background in fire science, with special consideration given to an applicant who is currently a wildland firefighter or holds a firefighting qualification.

Number of Scholarships Awarded: 1
Dollar Amount of Scholarship: $1000

JE

I thought I would take this opportunity to bring folks up to date regarding the AD Firefighter Association, the progress of our initiatives, as well as offer my own take on where we need to go (a view that is hopefully pretty much aligned with the ADFA Board's vision)

The title of this e-mail message: "ADFA: A glass half empty or a glass half full?" says it all.

Depending upon the way you look at the world, ADFA has either accomplished "something" (i.e., "a glass half full") or "very little" (i.e., "a glass half empty"). Personally I've always been a "half full glass" type (though some might offer I've always been pretty full of something else!!).

So let's recount what we as an organization have done in the 3 years since we started ADFA. And we'll cover what we haven't done, since that's of great importance in what I consider a turning point in the life of this organization.

Three years. March of this year is the anniversary date of when I came back from teaching in Missoula so incensed by the 2003 rates that I threw together a web page that weekend and we had 75+ members by the next Wednesday. Lots of water under the bridge since then. A few successes, but many large challenges that remain.

OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• We have an organization of 295 members, of which 56 are non-retired ADs, and 239 are ADs who are retired from the fire service (federal, state, local).
• We have many "sympathetic" non-members, including ADs that do not join for whatever reason (fear of retribution, "non-joiners," do not agree with ADFA's approach, etc.). Of equal importance are the many fire management and fire operations folks throughout the country who recognize the value of the AD firefighter and support ADFA's goals.
• We have a set of Bylaws, are incorporated in the State of Idaho, are a recognized non-profit organization under IRS Code 501(c)(5), and have a legal firm that handles our (infrequent) corporate issues.
• ADFA initiated a Legislative Outreach program early last Spring in order to counter-act the 2005 AD Rate Proposal in which most positions were cut $2-$7 an hour. We feel that ADFA, along with agency folks who saw the folly of these cuts, were instrumental in the agencies' rescinding the 2005 Proposal and using the 2004 rates for 2005. ADFA has a comprehensive Legislative Web Page with copies of our correspondence as well as the names, addresses, and phone/fax numbers of the 535 US Legislators in the House and Senate and 50 State Governors.
• We have established a good relationship with Senator Larry Craig's Office in Idaho and Greg Walden's Office in Oregon, as well as the Governors' staffs in NM, PA, and MT. This is a DIRECT RESULT of the Spring 2005 Legislative Outreach Program ADFA implemented by faxing 535 US legislative Members and 50 State Governors, along with your individual, personal letters to your elected representatives. These staffs are aware of the issues, including pay inequality and non-standard treatment of ADs. ADFA has been waiting for the release of the 2006 rates to determine our course of action with the legislative representatives. Senator Craig's staff person was particularly interested in the OPM Review the agencies had requested of the AD process. To our knowledge, the OPM review was cursory at best: rather than looking at the process by which AD rates are established, OPM apparently merely reaffirmed the applicability of the 1951 AD Pay Authority, with which we strongly disagree.
• The 2006 AD Rate Schedule has modest increases for many positions, will not cut but will freeze hourly rates for others (Unit Leaders and ST Leaders), and has outrageous cuts for a few (e.g., Support Dispatcher). We feel that ADFA, in emphasizing the experience base of ADs, was responsible for grading ADs at the mid-step level 5 rather than at Level 1, which resulted in these small increases. However, a $2.50 increase is pretty slim pickings for (1) 3 years of hard work and (2) no hourly increases for several years now (the increases do not even keep up with inflation over the number of years since any type of increase was authorized).
• ADFA is pursuing access to the rating/ranking work for each AD position that was performed by the NWCG AD Position Leveling Committee and which resulted in the 2006 AD Pay Bands A-L. Through examination of this work, ADFA may be able to offer the agencies assistance in resolving positions that appear to be severely undergraded.
• For two years, ADFA has been stressing that contracting of personal services would provide a vehicle that (1) would allow the market to determine the rates, thus immediately and effectively ridding us collectively of the major item of disagreement, i.e., pay, and (2) would eliminate most if not all the various bones of contention and unequal treatment (use of cell phones, rental cars, laptops, etc - the list is endless) that create further conflict between the fire and AD communities. Region 8 of the USFS was a test bed for non-fire contracting to replace agency Katrina logistics/planning teams, and several companies currently have contracts.
• ADFA joined the National Wildfire Suppression Association (NWSA), envisioning that we and this body could be useful to one another and mutually supportive.

OUR CHALLENGES

• The agencies continue to utilize an outdated, outmoded vehicle, the 1951 AD Pay Authority, to hire supplementary emergency personnel in the 21st century. With no overtime included for ADs under this Authority, the rates are highly unequal compared to GS employees who receive true overtime. Differences in 2-week paychecks between a GS employee and an AD employee range from the several hundreds to the several thousands of dollars (a comprehensive analysis of Pay Inequality is on our web site). We have yet to meet our goal of "Fair Pay For Work Performed."
• Certain elements within the agencies are highly resistant to contracting of personal services. We believe several fire management groups including Geographic Area Coordinating Groups would like to go to this mechanism for fire, but the administrative side of the house is not buying in.
• Assisting the agencies in solving the numerous non-pay issues that each and every AD firefighter appears to encounter each and every fire season
• Maintaining a Board of Directors in a volunteer organization. Despite two e-mails to the membership about three vacant positions coming up for re-election (Vice-Chair/Chief Operating Officer, Secretary, and National Membership Coordinator), only one nomination has been received by the 3/28 due date.
• Maintaining a membership that does not get discouraged by actual or perceived lack of progress.

Alternatively, he could become active, even more active in the FWFSA. Ab.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Land Management Agency Housing Improvement Act of 1992 (aka the Ranger Fair Housing Act.)

A BILL

To improve the administration and management of public lands, National Forests, units of the National Park System, and related areas by improving the availability of adequate, appropriate, affordable, and cost effective housing for employees needed to effectively manage the public lands.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Land Management Agency Housing Improvement Act of 1992'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act, the term--

(1) `public lands' means Federal lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture; and

(2) `Secretaries' means the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.

SEC. 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

(a)(1) To promote the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel necessary for the effective management of public lands, the Secretaries are authorized to--

(A) make employee housing available, subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (2), on or off public lands, and

(B) rent or lease such housing to employees of the respective Department at a reasonable value.

(2)(A) Housing made available on public lands shall be limited to those areas designated for administrative use.

(B) No private lands or interests therein outside of the boundaries of Federally administered areas may be acquired for the purposes of this Act except with the consent of the owner thereof.

(b) The Secretaries shall provide such housing in accordance with this Act and section 5911 of title 5, United States Code, except that for the purposes of this Act, the term--

(1) `availability of quarters' (as used in this Act and subsection (b) of section 5911) means the existence, within thirty miles of the employee's duty station, of well-constructed and maintained housing suitable to the individual and family needs of the employee, for which the rental rate as a percentage of the employee's annual gross income does not exceed the most recent Census Bureau American Housing Survey median monthly housing cost for renters inclusive of utilities, as a percentage of current income, whether paid as part of rent or paid directly to a third party;

(2) `contract' (as used in this Act and subsection (b) of section 5911) includes, but is not limited to, `Build-to-Lease', `Rental Guarantee', `Joint Development' or other lease agreements entered into by the Secretary, on or off public lands, for the purposes of sub-leasing to Departmental employees; and

(3) `reasonable value' (as used in this Act and subsection (c) of section 5911) means the base rental rate comparable to private rental rates for comparable housing facilities and associated amenities: Provided, That the base rental rate as a percentage of the employee's annual gross income shall not exceed the most recent American Housing Survey median monthly housing cost for renters inclusive of utilities, as a percentage of current income whether paid as part of rent or paid directly to a third party.

(c) Subject to appropriation, the Secretaries may enter into contracts and agreements with public and private entities to provide employee housing on or off public lands.

(d) The Secretaries may enter into cooperative agreements or joint ventures with local governmental and private entities, either on or off public lands, to provide appropriate and necessary utility and other infrastructure facilities in support of employee housing facilities provided under this Act.

SEC. 4. SURVEY OF RENTAL QUARTERS.

The Secretaries shall conduct a survey of the availability of quarters at field units under each Secretary's jurisdiction at least every five years. If such survey indicates that Government owned or suitable privately owned quarters are not available as defined in section 3(b)(1) of this Act for the personnel assigned to a specific duty station, the Secretaries are authorized to provide suitable quarters in accordance with the provisions of this Act. For the purposes of this section, the term `suitable quarters' means well-constructed, maintained housing suitable to the individual and family needs of the employee.

SEC. 5. SECONDARY QUARTERS.

(a) The Secretaries may determine that secondary quarters for employees who are permanently duty stationed at remote locations and are regularly required to relocate for temporary periods are necessary for the effective administration of an area under the jurisdiction of the respective agency. Such secondary quarters are authorized to be made available to employees, either on or off public lands, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(b) Rental rates for such secondary facilities shall be established so that the aggregate rental rate paid by an employee for both primary and secondary quarters as a percentage of the employee's annual gross income shall not exceed the Census Bureau American Housing Survey median monthly housing cost for renters inclusive of utilities, as a percentage of current income, whether paid as part of rent or paid directly to a third party.

SEC. 6. SURVEY OF EXISTING FACILITIES.

(a) Within two years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall survey all existing government owned employee housing facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to assess the physical condition of such housing and the suitability of such housing for the effective prosecution of the agency mission. The Secretaries shall develop an agencywide priority listing, by structure, identifying those units in greatest need for repair, rehabilitation, replacement or initial construction, as appropriate. The survey and priority listing study shall be transmitted to the Committees on Appropriations and Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States House of Representatives.

(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, expenditure of any funds appropriated for construction, repair or rehabilitation shall follow, in sequential order, the priority listing established by each agency. Funding available from other sources for employee housing repair may be distributed as determined by the Secretaries

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date: March 27, 2006
To: Mark Rey, Undersecretary of Agriculture
From: Bill Dougan, President NFFE

Subject: Competitive Sourcing Study Proposed For Fire and Aviation Management

As I am sure you are well aware, through several conversations and electronic communications we have had on the subject, the Union is very concerned over the fact that the Forest Service continues to move forward on proposing to study, and ultimately compete, some or all of the work functions within Fire and Aviation Management. While we obviously have major concerns over the competitive sourcing initiative as a whole, which I am sure you are aware of, we are particularly concerned over this move to compete work functions in fire and aviation management.

One major area of concern is the fact that this competitive sourcing study is proposed to be done in an interagency fashion, with the study looking at the fire functions within all five federal agencies with wildland firefighting responsibilities. This presents huge problems with consistency and accuracy of data related to defining the work to be studied, as well as ultimately designing an MEO for purposes of bidding on the work to be performed. There continues to be differences in the definition of inherently governmental vs. commercial work between USDA and DOI, resulting in different categorization of positions (and the work they perform) for purposes of determining what work is appropriate or not appropriate to include in the competitive sourcing study. In addition, there are differences in requirements between USDA and DOI with respect to conducting feasibility studies prior to launching a competitive sourcing competition; again, these differences create the potential for differences in what work should, or could, be competed. And finally, it seems that there is a huge problem of trying to coordinate any such interagency effort between two Departments and 5 agencies/bureaus; the bureaucratic layers and differences between Departments and agencies/bureaus threatens to complicate the communication and coordination needed to the point of making it impossible to reach agreements and make decisions during the A-76 process.

There is also the unresolved issue of how to handle collateral fire duties, and the militia, which has not been successfully dealt with during any of the previous competitive sourcing competitions conducted by the Forest Service. Early on, the Union raised the issue of the need to figure out how to deal with the collateral fire duty work many of our employees perform, as members of the militia. This is work that is outside of the work performed by employees assigned to the fire organization, but is work that is crucial to the successful accomplishment of the fire organization and agency’s mission with respect to fire suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, and other fire-related work functions. About three years ago, the Union sat down with agency and Department managers in an attempt to address this issue, but the work was never completed; subsequent inquiries by the Union have either gone unanswered or have failed to respond with a plan and approach to deal with this problem. Repeated contacts with Tom Fitzpatrick, Program Manager for the Competitive Sourcing Office in the agency, has resulted in nothing more than an acknowledgement that the issue is still unresolved and “that is something we need to work on.”

I would submit that the agency cannot continue to ignore or side-step this issue any longer, given the decision to move forward with looking at competing fire functions under A-76. A significant amount of the work fire accomplishes is accomplished with the militia through employees with collateral duties. It is crucial to look at the work and determine what the work is, and how it will continue to be done, in light of potentially significant changes being proposed to the fire organization as a result of having to compete under A-76; indeed, if a contractor was to be successful in taking work currently done by our fire organization employees, what effect would that have on identical or similar work being performed by the militia?

The agency has invested a tremendous amount of resources (money, time and people) in training the militia workforce and ensuring they are made available to answer the call when the fire bell rings. The level of skill and amount of time required for these employees to obtain the necessary training and experience to hold many of the ICS positions is significant. It is unthinkable that the agency would be willing to risk losing that expertise and skill as well as the monetary investment in both the fire organization and militia. If work is outsourced, contractors will have difficulty in maintaining a workforce with the adequate skill sets needed to perform this work year after year.

Contractors providing fire-related services to the agency have had a less-than-satisfactory safety record. The long string of accidents, fatalities, injuries, and media coverage with the contract workforce in fire portrays a disaster waiting to happen. The recent USDA OIG audit report on Forest Service contract fire crews cites “serious control weaknesses with respect to the firefighting contract crews.” These weaknesses range from safety violations to lack of documentation for qualifications for fire positions. Is this the workforce that we want to hand the responsibility to for fire suppression and other fire work functions in the federal government? How will such actions be viewed by the public who lives and works on federal lands and in the wildland/urban interface? It seems to me we are risking public safety and failing to redeem our mission as stewards of the land by contemplating such changes.

Finally, I am also distressed that the recent March 21 letter to field managers announcing the data call for work activities performed by fire and aviation management employees, and which forms the basis for determining “what” work functions will be looked at during the feasibility study, gave only a 10 day response time for the data to be gathered and sent in. This timeframe seems woefully inadequate if an accurate accounting of the work currently being done is being asked for. Once again, in the rush to move forward, the agency is going to likely be doing so with incomplete and inaccurate data that forms the basis for choosing which functions will ultimately be competed under A-76.

I would be happy to meet or speak with you more about these concerns should you need more information or want to discuss the issues raised.

Cc: Hank Kashdan, Deputy Chief Business Operations

Here's the Influenza Workforce Protection Plan the Bosworth mentioned:
www.wildlandfire.com/docs/2006/fs_influenza_protection.doc (doc file; clicking will download it)

Silk

Thanks, Silk. Good info here. Ab.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

March 16, 2006

Dale Bosworth, Chief
U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20250

Dear Chief Bosworth:

On behalf of the members and the Board of Directors of the Federal Wildland Fire Service Association, I want to clarify who we are and the source of information we obtain and often pass along to Congress in order to improve the pay, benefits and working conditions of our Nation’s federal wildland firefighters.

The FWFSA is an employee association whose origins date back to 1991. As an employee association, our greatest asset is our diverse membership ranging from entry-level firefighters to chief officers. As a result of that membership, we are fortunate to receive significant information from our members about staffing, budgets, the concerns about criminal prosecution post Cramer & Thirty Mile etc.

For several years now we have communicated with the Forest Service & other land management agencies informing them of our efforts to improve pay, benefits & working conditions for our firefighters. I spoke with you personally at Lake Arrowhead during hearings held by the Resources Committee. I received nothing but a blank stare.

We have been straightforward with our goals and objectives, not to mention our strategies. We have invited & encouraged the Forest Service to work with us on issues such as proper firefighter classification; portal to portal pay; inclusion of hazard pay for prescribed burns; basic health care for temporary firefighters and other issues only to be summarily ignored as a non-entity.

Fortunately, over the last few years, one body has begun to listen to us…Congress. This has resulted in the elimination of the overtime pay cap for federal wildland firefighters in 2000 and the increasing interest in HR 408, The Federal Wildland Firefighter Emergency Response Compensation Act currently drawing bipartisan support in Congress.

Quite candidly, we believe if the Forest Service is going to oppose or object to legislation which we believe to not only benefit federal wildland firefighters but America’s taxpayers, we have a duty to educate Congress on issues of concern, specifically fiscal management of fire suppression/preparedness budgets.

Each day I receive phone calls and emails about staffing cuts, engines being manned 5 days a week instead of 7 etc., all in a year in which the FY ’06 outlook has identified the fact that nationally, we have already burned nearly 10 times the 10 year average in acreage as of February 3rd. We are already seeing devastating fatal fires in Texas. Engines are being parked, forests can’t hire and recruitment & retention remains a very serious issue.

We are also extremely disappointed in what appears to be your decision to audit engine captain positions and attempt to downgrade GS-8 engine captains to GS-7s. What kind of message does this send to your firefighters?

We are also disappointed in learning that the Forest Service apparently is looking for someone to “blame” for the information we have recently submitted to congress. Such information is no secret…especially when you represent hundreds upon hundreds of firefighters occupying all positions within the fire service. We don’t rely on regional foresters or forest supervisors or anyone else other than our members to provide information to us.

All we seek is what we believe Congress & the American public also seek. Money appropriated by Congress for suppression & preparedness budgets should go to suppression & preparedness budgets. If you need more, you ask for more, not worry about political rear-ends. It would be a welcome change to have the leadership of the Forest Service stand up and actually work to improve things for its firefighters.

Its time for the Forest Service leadership to stand up for its firefighters and help stem the tide of firefighters leaving the federal service for more lucrative careers with state and municipal agencies or retiring early because they are fed up with the system. The brave men & women who serve you and the citizens of this country deserve your support and your steadfast commitment to seeing that they get what they deserve in pay, benefits & working conditions.

If the Forest Service leadership is unwilling to make that commitment for its employees who risk their lives so often, and lose them as well, then might I suggest it give us the ball, get out of the way and let us run with it.

Sincerely,

Casey Judd
Business Manager

"I have spent most of my career as a hotshot, including 12 years as a Supt. I am now on the other side of the radio as an FMO. Early on I became convinced that, as a fireline supervisor, I was responsible for the safety of my crew. There was no way anyone 75 miles away could compromise the safety of my crew. No way, no how."

That may very well be true for shots and jumpers who have such a high caliber of crew leadership, cohesion, training and experience. For others, including some recent entrapment fatalities, it's not quite the case.

vfd cap'n

Thanks for the contact info.

6thyrrookie

I want to say "Thank You" to John Maclean. for his apology regarding the
rumor spread about Heath and Allen. I hope their folks are still observing
this site.

All of us say things at one time or another that we soon regret. I felt
the apology was genuine and it took guts for him to express it. I know
I've been in situations where I've opened my mouth and out jumped a
havoc-wreaking gremlin that could not be retrieved. - leaves you squirming
until time brushes it away. (Luckily you screen our e-mails so we're not
squirming when we read our emotional responses the day after...thanks for
that last one.)

I hope the Heaths and Allens know how much they are thought about by
thousands of people in this community that they don't know. I can't
imagine the agony of losing a child, let alone having to endure it in
public.

-kj

“If I am a FFT2 I do not want some unknown FMO to keep me safe, I want my Crewboss, Engine Captain, etc. to do the job. I challenge you to find one IHC Supt or smokejumper sqaudleader who would admit that the safety of the tactics they employ could be compromised by management far removed from the scene.”

Here's how my mind interpreted the two sentences:

I trust my safety to my immediate supervisor. When fighting fire, hotshot and smokejumper supervisors do not allow safety to be compromised, especially by someone not on the fire.

Maybe Tim and I just have a similar background, mental slides, or see through the same lenses, cause I thought I knew exactly what he meant. I'm not sure how it could be twisted to mean that fmos or line officers cannot compromise safety. Weird how two such differing conclusions can be drawn from the same words isn't it?

SteveM

That email from Bosworth is also posted below. Ab.

gh

Though I was away from home when the posts about me and my work first hit TheySaid, I've been reading them. I wanted to reply immediately to the Heaths and Allens, who have been unnecessarily hurt by what was said in Reno and by the inevitable misunderstandings that followed -- in fact, I wrote a response the first day this started, but the computer at the hotel where I was staying wouldn't send it. The unfortunate tone of some subsequent posts, however, has made me wary about replying at all. After talking to Mellie, however, and receiving her assurance that she also would like to see a conclusion to the current exchanges, I am making the following reply, beginning with my view of what happened at the Reno conference.

Debra Roth, as I understand it, was invited to the Reno conference to give a defense lawyer’s point of view on the question of criminal liability for firefighters because a prosecutor, Mike Johns, had spoken on the same issue at a previous conference. The issue is important, and the organizers did a service by inviting both speakers; they aren’t responsible for how things turned out.

I sat in on Ms. Roth’s session after giving a presentation of my own, which Ms. Roth attended. She referred to me several times during her talk and was very much aware that I was in the audience. She repeatedly corrected me about Tom Craven’s age – she said 32, I had said 30 in my presentation. (He was born in January, 1971, which means he was 30 at the time of the Thirtymile Fire, in which he perished.)

While describing how her law firm had represented some fire managers involved with the Cramer Fire, Roth solicited from the audience “rumors” about why the two firefighters lost on that fire, Jeff Allen and Shane Heath, had spent so many hours on the ridgeline before they were burned over. It was an odd thing to request – a lawyer soliciting rumors? For a while nobody answered. She became insistent, however, repeating her question until a member of the audience (not me) replied, “sport falling.” That didn’t satisfy her. She asked several more times for other rumors.

Rightly or wrongly, I felt drawn out by her questions. She had been using my name freely and challenging me on points of fact where I was sure I was right. And so, very foolishly, I reported the rumor that drugs had been involved.

I immediately regretted making the remark, and have come to regret it even more since then. It has caused the Heaths and Allens a hurt that is the opposite of what I and any other sensible person wish for them. I should have kept my mouth shut.
I and others expected Ms. Roth to discuss the credibility of the rumors. I tried a couple of times to break in and say something about their credibility – no one knows exactly what happened on the ridgeline except the two young men who were there. Instead, Ms. Roth used the rumors she had solicited to discuss what her law firm had done to pressure authorities not to proceed further against their clients; at least that’s my understanding of what she was doing; her presentation confused me and others. The rumors, as I understood it, would have been raised in defense if the authorities had persisted with charges. I feel sucker punched. But I said what I said.

The only good that has come of all this has been the opportunity for the Heath and Allen families to answer the rumors, though from the anguish that is clear in their posting any benefit came at a very high price for them. I’m sorry I had a role in the business. I offer my apology to the Heaths and Allens, and also to those of goodwill who have expressed concern.
A couple of points about the posts regarding me and my work.

First, an author’s best defense is his writing. I sign my work. Fire on the Mountain and Fire and Ashes have stood up factually and in other ways to years of intense public, media, and agency scrutiny.

Second, I thank those writers – even the critical ones -- who have put forward thoughtful positions, taken a civil tone, and put their names on their posts.

Sincerely, John Norman Maclean

Let me share "my take" on the defense lawyer's presentation in Reno including the possible human factors considerations leading up to John Maclean's involvement. I'd also like to correct or clarify a few more points made by the lawyer. (For those who like spatial orientation... I was sitting in the back left of the wide conference room. John Maclean says he was in the right center-ish section. Ray Q was in the front-right center. It was a huge room.)

For organizational purposes, this presentation will utilize phases found in some fire investigations. My emphasis is on human factors. I do not seek to blame, but to facilitate lessons learned.

Pre-entrapment Phase:

I came to Ms. Roth's talk interested in what a legal defense professional had to say about professional liability. I expected

• the presentation would shed additional light on the kinds of investigations and procedures that follow a burnover or near miss.
• we'd learn the parameters of the legal playing field so we could all have a mental map of how the legal system works, including what a firefighter should or shouldn't say without a lawyer being present.
• the presentation would follow the logical "rules":
  • introduction where the audience is told what will be covered;
  • content is clearly and logically presented;
  • summary and reiteration of the few most important points, aka "the take home message".

Context of my interest: We all know the legal quandary professional firefighter managers are faced with these days given all the rules that have grown out of fatality fires. During the Southern California 2003 conflagrations, firefighters had to fight fire under some extreme interface fire conditions in which it's impossible to fight fire safely and simultaneously document ALL the many rules and checklists the way a Grand Jury and court of law seems to want these days. So firefighters now live in a certain, sometimes confusing legal reality. How do they do the best job possible given the new legal parameters?

OK, so I expected some answers and this is what I thought the event organizers were looking for in her presentation too -- some clarity from a legal professional crafted for present and future Incident Managers and others at legal risk fighting fire in a complex organization in a very high risk environment...

1. Specifically, if the worst happens on your watch,
   • how to avoid indictment,
   • what are the legal liabilities,
   • how to avoid them,
   • differences between criminal, civil and administrative liabilities;
   • types of investigations, their order and how they relate to the next step of legal quagmire
   • agency accident investigation,
   • OSHA safety investigation,
   • accountability investigation that can result in disciplinary action;
   • USDA / OIG criminal investigation,
   • etc.
2. Possibly also the reasons why fire managers should consider getting professional liability insurance or at least enough information so they could decide.

Entrapment Phase:

In my opinion, Ms. Roth had a good powerpoint, a plan, and her talk started quite well. It was the last guest presentation of the excellent conference. The audience seemed relaxed, open and interested. She said she'd take questions as she went along. I don't think I was alone in feeling we would learn some very good, valuable things, maybe even gain some insights or understand some details available only to someone close to recent worrying legal processes. It seemed she'd made it clear that she'd entertain questions that might arise if anything needed clarifying.

She said she and her partner had been the defense lawyers for several people on the 30mile Fire and also for several people on the Cramer Fire, as a result of them having professional liability insurance. She presented her first few slides. The legal info was clear. She engaged the audience. At some point she began interjecting comments relating to the 30-mile and Cramer fires and referred to a vehicle accident that led to firefighter deaths. She solicited information . . . and then rumors from the audience.

She spoke and it seemed she was verifying a good number of her comments about the 30mile Fire with a person in the audience who I assumed was her legal partner. "As John knows..." "John will even agree with me on this." (I found out later she was addressing John Maclean whom she had only met a brief time before.)

As her talk progressed, I was shocked that some of her comments were incorrect. It seemed to me that the only follow-up questions she allowed were ones she liked. Some other comments she solicited left incorrect impressions. It was confusing, and became more and more unclear to me what she was really trying to convey.

Here are some of her statements that I feel were in error or misled the audience:

• Tom Craven was 32. I don't know why she harped on 32. He was 30 when he died. His age was inconsequential to any point of interest in her talk. Regardless of his age he died way too young. (Aside: I was lucky enough to have known Tom. He'd been a student at a local college where I'd taught some night classes. He was a special person. Great guy, star athlete. He could get it done. I really liked his empathic reassuring style. He had a knack for working with people and putting them at ease.)
• The drug use rumor she elicited from John Maclean regarding Shane and Jeff on the Cramer Fire. She did not correct or clarify it except to say that the Forest Service allowed no autopsy. Not true. That she did not know or did not choose to clarify was confusing and upsetting.
• The brief, off-the-cuff comment she made about the driver of the van of young people who'd been drinking before going 90 mph and killing everyone in a head-on crash. If she was referring to the young people on the firefighting contract crew from Oregon, she was just wrong. I did some of the research to obtain contact info on a forensic specialist in TX who's studied alcohol breakdown products in bodies of people who have died in crashes. High alcohol level in such crash victims is attributable to biochemical breakdown products. Charges were never brought if I recall correctly. Why even bring that one up? Or if you do, have the facts straight.
• On the 30mile fire, claiming that the escaped campfire with half-eaten hotdog and the inoperable pumps caused the deaths. Ray Quintanar got her to correct herself on that one.
• The heartless fire investigators that interviewed her client firefighters way too soon after the 30mile burnover, never mind that it's the correct thing for investigators to do from a stress and memory perspective.

Burnover Phase:

So there's the context of John Maclean's comment. Should he have repeated a rumor? No. He shouldn't have said it. But in my opinion, she went fishing and she chummed him in. When she first asked for rumors, a number of people in the audience, myself included, were thinking or saying too much cutting, sport falling, joy logging. That was one rumor. -- UNTRUE --

But she didn't want that one. She kept casting out the rumor line more and more insistently, and lo and behold, a river ran through it and John Maclean bit. (Sorry John, I couldn't resist…) If I'd known that rumor would I have bit? maybe, I've said some unthinking stupid things in my time with the best of intentions... but <snip> was sitting next to me and I sure hope he woulda wacked me - HARD- as I opened my mouth <fishlike>!)

After Action Review and Lessons Learned:

John shouldn't have said it; he regrets it greatly for the pain it's caused; he'd take it back if he could and I feel for him. (In my estimation, he jumped in to provide an answer, expecting dialog and clarification. Confusion. Heck, I was confused too!!!)

I think the much greater responsibility for rumor and misinformation lies with the lawyer who consciously or unconsciously (lawyer habit?) involved the jury, er, audience. Putting on my human factors hat again... from her perspective there might be a human factors explanation as well. I just can't put myself inside a lawyer's head to figure out what it would be.

I don't know if anyone else found it ironic that Gordon Graham, the risk management man, speaker extraordinaire, and also a lawyer told the conference the day before

America was founded as a nation of laws. The good news is that the US operates under a rule of law. The bad news is that between 1776 and 2006, someplace in the mid-'60, we became a nation of lawyers ...

I can see him in my mind's eye as I share my disillusionment with him...
<big low very deep raspy ahh-haaaahh accompanied by his slow nod of assent> <the gleam in his eye>

He might say as well,

There are 3 rules of Risk Management:

1. There are no new ways to get in trouble
2. There's always a better way to stay out of trouble
3. Things that go wrong in life are predictable, predictable is preventable.

This is my offering to all reading. It's "my take" on the defense lawyer's presentation and John's involvement, another slide for the slide tray... Gordon is right on. Others who were there no doubt have their truth. Mine is not definitive. If anyone has good notes on Ms. Roth's main points, would you please send them in? Somehow my thoughts and note-taking got sidetracked.

Mellie

PS Anyone needs to, feel free to contact me through Ab. I'm happy to talk. (I'd rather not have personal contact info on the web.) Also ...I believe John's writing stands on its own. It's understood that any writing always comes from the perspective of the writer and different human beings view the world through different "lenses", so to speak. Mine are rose colored, I've been told.

We got word at the Wildland Firefighter Foundation that Destry Horton, the volunteer firefighter from Oklahoma has died from his burns. We're checking into sending the family a WFF statue from the wildland fire community. I talked with the Union rep and he said there should be no problem with Destry's family receiving PSOB. That, at least is a relief.

Burk Minor
Wildland Firefighter Foundation

Burk, next time you talk with any of those folks, please offer our condolences. Thank you for being there and keeping tabs on the help and support firefighters around the country need. Those Oklahoma, Texas, Southwestern folks are some of the nicest, helping-est  people out there. Ab.

KD

Please send my thanks to everyone who has answered with contacts in
the other regions. I really appreciate their rapid replies and help.

Lobotomy

I write because I have the dubious honor of being the last CDF fire lookout staff that manned a tower in 2005. Possibly the last CDF full time lookout ever. I am trying and keep CDF's fixed detection system operable and funded and am looking for others to help by writing their state government representatives, or anyone else they can think of that may apply, indicating support for funding/staffing all CDF fire lookouts. Any takers? An email to the Governor could help to. Contact info can be found on the ca.gov home page.

Thanks, hope to be watching over some of you during the 2006 season.

wojlookout

This Ab will write in...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News coverage has been full of information and predictions about avian influenza and the potential for a world-wide incident similar to the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918. I’d like to give you my take on this.

While I think it is good business to do some organizational and personal contingency planning, I don’t want people to panic and assume the worst case scenario. The Forest Service is the best organization I know of at planning for and managing emergencies. We need to bring that expertise to this potential in a calm and professional manner.

Attached is a copy of Avian Influenza Bulletin #1. This is the first of our periodic information updates on the avian influenza and potential pandemic. We will send status reports and new information as it becomes available in the future.

We also recently distributed an Influenza Workforce Protection Plan. This document provides direction for field units on developing local plans. Bulletin #1 describes several other actions underway for communicating up-to-date, factual information on this emerging issue.

There are many unknowns at this point. While experts think avian influenza will probably get to the United States sometime in the next year by migrating wild birds, no one knows if it will mutate which would set the stage for a potential pandemic influenza outbreak. It would be wise to be prepared and I know we will be.

That’s my take.

Dale Bosworth,
Chief, USDA Forest Service

USDA Forest Service Avian Influenza Bulletin #1

Does anyone have a copy of the Influenza Workforce Protection Plan he mentions? Ab.

HAW HAW  Ab.

Did you look on the FAQ page. There's a list there. Ab.

"On the HR Director's conference call we were informed that the Chief has
asked the WO HR office to pull together a team to review the classification
decision regarding the grade level of these positions. As you know, the
outcome of the review conducted in 2002 was that the positions are GS-7
based on the General Schedule Supervisory Guide. The review was initially
conducted in Region 3. Given the broad impact if the decision were
implemented agencywide, the team will be looking at this one more time to
ensure that all options are considered."

My observations....

1) Chief Bosworth wasn't the Chief at the time the original 1997 classification for position description N8017 was made or the 2001 UPHELD classification audit was held. BUT HE REFUSES TO LISTEN TO HIS EXPERTS or HISTORICAL fact from the people who were there...... his original classifiers and his wildland firefighters.

2) The 2002 Review was directed by the Chiefs office..... It directed that some Engine Captains would be GS-7's and the majority would be GS-6's.

3) The GSSG (General Schedule Supervisory Guide) was incorrectly applied and did not account for recent classification decisons or changes to the job as reflected by duty changes and supervisor statements. The Region 3 Audit even incorrectly evaluated factors 1, 4, and 5 at the contest of fire managers who said they were not adequately evaluating the duties of the position.

4) Broad Impact.... duh.... If a downgrade occurs, it will be the downfall of the agency.

For those of you not in the loop... the BS thing we are dealing with is that the base level of work in wildland firefighting is now described as the GS-4 level by the WO....... Engine Captains now rate out as GS-6's....... If the agency is kind enough to call them "Supervisors"..... then they rate out as GS-7's IF they (the Agebcy) include the agency interpretation of the GSSG. \The Region 5 Review had a completely different take on the issue.

A seperate classification group worked for hundreds of hours making these positions bomb proof. A completely professional group of classifiers classified position description N8017.

PD N8017 was challenged to OPM by a Region 3 classification appeal as to why it did not apply in Region 3. It caused a wide spread desk audit in Region 5 in 2001.

After the Region 5 desk audit, the position of GS -8 Engine Captina was upheld by internal FS classifiers. In fact, it was only 85 points from being upgraded to GS-9.

With all of the "Doctrinal Change" and the requirements for "All Risk" response (and no changes to the PD's), any educated classification specialist would see that the PD's are properly classified. If not, they open up a bag of worms they may not be prepared to deal with. Upgrade of Engine Captains to GS-9's.

Lobotomy

After the smoke had cleared I found out that we had almost driven into a
ditch, which would have gotten us in front of the fire.

Better safe then sorry.
Cris

Okla. Firefighter Burned In Wildfire Dies
Volunteer Was Badly Injured In Early March Fire

Condolences to family and friends... Ab.

Thanks, Marty. 1980 was before fire data- and record-keeping was done on the web. That didn't really start until about 1998 or '99. How far things have come in a very few years. Look at the 209 database. Rich. Now there was an inspiration! Of course if we have a worst case scenario pandemic with 60% of workers staying home, and the web goes down due to people working from home, we could be in deep trouble in the fire world. Ah well, we'll let the WO people who make the big bucks plan for that. Ab.

Ray/Ed:

On the HR Director's conference call we were informed that the Chief has
asked the WO HR office to pull together a team to review the classification
decision regarding the grade level of these positions. As you know, the
outcome of the review conducted in 2002 was that the positions are GS-7
based on the General Schedule Supervisory Guide. The review was initially
conducted in Region 3. Given the broad impact if the decision were
implemented agencywide, the team will be looking at this one more time to
ensure that all options are considered.

The team is tentatively scheduled to meet April 4 and 5 in Portland. The
team will consist of a WO Classifier, a R5 Classifier (Sheila Turbinton), a
BLM Classifier, an R5 Fire Engine Captain (designated by FAM) and Ed
Hollenshead in his new capacity as Dep Director, FAM. You should be
hearing from a WO contact on this as they work to set the meeting up.

We were also informed that the WO will issue a letter soon to all R/S/A's
informing us that we can not establish any new GS-462-8 Engine Captains and
that we should not fill any vacancies at the GS-8 level until this issue is
resolved. I know from the HR staff that there are numerous certs out for
Engine Captains, many of which selections were expected to be made within
the week. I asked the HR staff to proceed to fill the positions at the 7
if they were advertised that way and if we make any job offers at the GS-8
level prior to the WO direction coming out, we need to let the selectee
know what is going on and the possibility that the positions can be no
higher than the GS-7 level.

Also on yesterday, Dan Dufrene sent a message out to a host of folks
stating that the Region has cancelled all vacancy announcement and outreach
notices for the GS-462-8 Engine Captains. This is not the case. No
announcements have been cancelled and outreach has not been halted. I
clarified this yesterday in conversation with Dan. At this point I am
trying to do some rumor control regarding this piece of misinformation.
Please get the word out that we have not cancelled announcements nor have
we stopped outreach.

If you have questions, please call.

Marcia K. Staten
Director, Human Resources
Pacific Southwest Region

Sign me, Wondering

It's my understanding that the new R5 Forester also has supported wildland firefighters in R5. The details may come to me. If anyone knows, please spout off. This site should be about thanking good people as well as pointing out limitations. Any other endorsements? Ab.

I tell all my people that they should read as many books about fire and by fire fighters as possible. Then I want them to ask questions. I start conversations about what they have read. A few times I have been able to introduce them to people who were actually at South Canyon and on the forest(s) of 30 Mile.

I was lucky enough to have several talks with Paul Gleason about the fatality fires he had been on and experiences he had had. I learned a lot, and try to pass it on.

The one thing I try to bring forward in every firefighters mind, at all levels, is this. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. If something doesn't seem right, ask questions. If you have a concern, and no one else seems to, bring it up. I have pulled out of fires to regroup on the basis of questions asked by people on their first I.A.  Everyone on the fireline has the responsibility to watch out for themselves and the people around them. This looking to blame someone, that isn't what firefighters are about. From my experience most of us are looking to help someone.

Kind of a ramble but I am sitting here getting a sick feeling inside reading all this. We have bigger problems. By 2010 how many of us will still have jobs? The fire year is looking to be a busy one. All predictions for hurricanes are that there are going to be more 'canes and stronger ones this year.

KD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> From HARV FORSGREN, Regional Forester, Southwest Region in a letter to the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth.

"I respectfully disagree with this decision and request reconsideration based upon what I believe to be incorrect assumptions presented in the evaluation statement."

"I have requested and received support from all other Regional Foresters to act on their behalf in my request."

"With the concurrence of Line Officers and Unit Fire Management Officers and Region Fire Management, it was determined that many locations in Region 3 met the criteria of the GS-8 because of changed management and fire environment conditions since 1997."

"A regional classification field review in 2002 of the Prescott National Forest resulted in the approved use of the GS-8 position description in the Region where the criteria was met. Forests proceeded with the GS-8 positions where applicable."

"As per your letter of March 13, 2001 which stated “the Appropriateness of the GS-8 Fire Engine Captain and Fire Engine Operator would need to be determined by classification specialists at the regional level and most likely verified by desk audit.”

"In March 2005 additional guidance was issued without field input that arbitrarily included the addition that the GS-462-8 position was again for R-5 forests only."

"In 2004 the Chief directed implementation of the Interagency Fire Program Management Qualifications Standards (IFPM)."

"The guide assigned the grade level to be GS-7/8 for the Engine Module Supervisor."

"We understand that the GS-8 Standard Position Description was based on supervising at least seven crew members to provide five-person staffing for seven days per week through the field season and crediting of physical dispersion as a special situation. We strongly disagree that the use of the Standard Position Description is only appropriate in California and we submit that the Southwestern Region has comparable complexities. We also disagree on segments of the decision where our regional evaluation was downgraded for program scope and effect and base level determination affecting supervisory duties and responsibilities."

"The decision only credits our Engine Captain with supervising work that is routine in nature and states that the majority of the work is at the GS-4 level."

"The configuration of the crew, engine, and training standards are nationally set and identical to Region 5."

"The decision also fails to give credit for the complexity of the work. This work typically ranges from operating a large, complex fire engine while supervising the crew, to becoming an incident commander responsible for supervising multiple interagency resources. Supervision of operation of the engine is not routine and varies from incident to incident depending upon the location of the incident, forest or wildland urban interface. The engine supports the work of the crew, which must be trained to operate in hazardous environments, extreme weather conditions, to build hand lines or deploy hose packs for long periods. The Engine Captain under time critical decision situations, is constantly evaluating, identifying, and analyzing strategy and tactics for a variety of forest, range, and interface mix, often in a unified command with other agencies and municipal fire districts. The challenges that face our Engine Captains in the wildland urban interface have increased in the last decade due to the encroachment of residential, commercial and human activities within and adjacent to our National Forest boundaries. They are dealing today with directing suppression actions on incidents with resource and structure values measured in the millions and not uncommonly billions of dollars."

"In addition the decision goes on to say “This factor is a critical difference in the GS-8 national SPD because the GS-8 position was designed for a fire program with the complexities found in southern California. The fire program in southern California is the most complex program in the agency. The fire seasons are longer than other parts of the country. The GS-8 position description is appropriate for use for positions supervising Type III engines with a crew comprised of at least seven individuals, the intent being to provide five person staffing seven days per week throughout the field season.”

"The critical difference in classification centers around the concept that only southern California, Region 5, has the fire complexities that justified the GS-8 grade in 1997. This concept appears to remain locked in time and fails to recognize the fire management, social, and environmental changes that have occurred service-wide across the nation since 1997."

"Much as the southern California complexities are considered applicable across all of California the same complexities now exist nation-wide."

"Given credit for the above factors, we feel that our position is properly classified at the GS-8 level. Based on potential negative ramifications to all Forest Service Regions, I request that this decision be reexamined and that it be reviewed openly and fairly."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ab and All-- To sum it all up:

The Regional Forester said, with concurrence from the other Regions Foresters -

"I have requested and received support from all other Regional Foresters to act on their behalf in my request."

"Much as the southern California complexities are considered applicable across all of California the same complexities now exist nation-wide."

R3er